Posted on 11/10/2006 9:04:52 AM PST by screw boll
I know the Republicans lost; it is time for sole searching, etc. etc. The fact is, however, if 3,615 votes in Virginia and 1,423 votes in Montana had gone the other way, the Dems would have no Majority. My point? The Dems will not be the “Permanent Majority” for too long.
Here is the math: Web in Virginia won with a 7,231-vote margin – Half of it is 3,615. In Montana, Jon Tester won with a 2,847 margin – half of it is 1,423.
3,615 + 1,423 = 5,038.
First, it is the State legislature that redistricts, which in CA means Dem control. Second, the CAGOP in CA cooperated fully in the gerrymandering, because they made a deal to carve out a few "safe seats" for Rep. incumbants. Third, to give Arnold his due, an anti-gerrymander initiative was one of the measures that died in his "special election" last year. Not that he emphasised it, prefering to spend his time butting heads with the three most powerful public employee unions in the US. The redistricting was killed in the crossfire.
"I don't see why we need to factor in Senator Allen's loss."
Do you remember Jim Jeffords...
>So it was a lack of conservative votes or libertarians voting L instead of R?>
MR. PRESIDENT, IT WAS THE BORDERS, S! (S. for Sir, of course. :oD)
Thats also assuming that number would switch thier votes from the D to the R. In reality, we lost it by 10,000+ votes, because we needed that many more R's to vote. But it really doesnt matter. An L is an L.
Wherever the Democrats take control of state and local governments, that gives them far more opportunities to cheat. They are already probably stealing millions of votes, and now it will get worse. We saw what happened when the clintons and Janet Reno were in charge. They were absolutely shameless. Now they have another opportunity to ensure that elections will be corrupted as much as necessary to keep them in power.
Back in 2000 I had a friend from Norway make his first visit out here to California. We were talking about politics and he was utterly flabbergasted when I explained to him that there was no requirement to show any photo I.D. when you first registered to vote and conversely no I.D. requirement at all when you went to the polls for the election. He said that in Norway all voters are required by law to show up with two separate pieces of personal identification. If you don't show up with both sets of photo I.D., you don't get to vote, -PERIOD.
He couldn't fathom how we were able to run our elections. Then I explained to him that there were some counties in this country were they actually allowed same day voter registration coupled with no actual photo I.D. requirements and he damn near keeled over...(the expression on his face was priceless). ;>P
Bush and Rove have blown and absolutely historic opportunity by not pushing hard for Voter I.D. while the GOP controlled both Houses of Congress and the W.H.. I don't think I can ever forgive them for that. It's the type of thing the would have paid huge dividends for the GOP throughout the country.
This probably happened this year in Virginia. Allen was ahead until very late when a few inner city precincts came in overwhelmingly for Webb. It is mannening.
FIrst, they promised to increase defense spending. At least the ones I followed closely did, the ones running as conservatives.
I would feel much better if Allen had won so we still had nominal control of the Senate, but in some ways having a new batch of supposedly fiscal conservative democrats could be a good thing.
Anyway, the exit polls showed the independents still called themselves independent, not democrats, which suggests that while they pulled the lever for democrats, they didn't want to be CALLED democrats.
OK...your reply clarifies things a bit.
There were a couple of ways your first post could be read....one would be faulting conservatives for being conservative, the other would be faulting conservatives for having a destructive "all or nothing" attitude.
I'm assuming now the latter is correct.
This was not a 'blow out'.
We lost in most cases to candidates running to the 'right' of the incumbent.
We need to regroup for 08 and this time we will have Democratic voting records to show the public, not just their promises.
Yes, and in 1980 we got Reagan!
Yes, but we get another crack at it in two years.
The Democrats lost three elections in a row and now are sky high.
We need to have the same resilance they had and believe we have the right message to regain power.
We will rebound from this loss and learn from it.
Many House seats were in Conservative districts like Foley's and Delays and will go back to being Republican.
The Democrats had to run as Republicans to win, and we need to be more Republican then they pretend to be.
I agree that is how it looks now.
But we do not know how this new Congress will operate and they are going to have to run on a record, not just against ours.
We can regain both Houses if we run as Republicans.
They don't have to wait for the Census to redistrict any more.
No way a Democrat stays in power in CD22.
Gibbs would have beaten Lampson had everyone who voted for her in the special election took the extra time to write her in as well.
In a Presidential election year, this district goes Republican.
Nothing but because of the self-serving punisher and cut-N-run "conservative" (???) voters to show their power to the GOP!
Thereby punishing the country severely for decades to come!!
How can they sleep at nights???
Hmmmm!!!
Some mandate, eh?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.