Jack Bauer was still in China. A roundhouse kick of just one Diebold machine would have changed everything. I asked Jack about that and he assured me it all gets straightened out in Season 8!
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.
Actually 5040 votes shorts (Needs half + 1 of 7231 [3616] + half + 1 of 2847 [1424]).
Wonder if the Lord really spoke to Ff-150, or he was full of caca???
You nailed it over two years ago my FRiend.
I was thinking that the loss of the Senate resulted from the unfortunate use of one word in anger--macaca--by Senator Allen.
No, Republicans are not that dumb, but the President and the Senate wanted an amnesty/guest worker/path to citizenship bill really bad. Only the Republican House stood in the way and now that is gone. Bush has made it very clear that he thinks he can work this issue better with a Democrat House than a Republican one. He wants this over party and country IMO and it will bring in many more Democrat voters than Republican ones.
I live in NJ but our township went totally republican. All of the Republicans won who were running here with the exception of the senate race.
Yep....You have it right.
To put a round perspective on my politics, I am the guy who only agrees with Rush about 95% of the time, rather than 97.5%. I really asked for all the hate with that 2.5%!:-)
The bottom line is that incumbent Reps lost to the Dem challengers and no incumbent Dem lost.
Many House seats were in Conservative districts like Foley's and Delays and will go back to being Republican.
No, many were in either Dem areas or split districts and will never be coming back. We have a good shot at recapturing the Delay and Foley districts, but we will be hard pressed to hang on to what is remaining in places like CT and NY. It took us 40 years to get control of the House and 12 years for the Dems to regain it. You just don't flip the results again in the following election. It could be decades before we get back the House. We need to find worthy challengers to the Dem incumbents.
The Democrats had to run as Republicans to win, and we need to be more Republican then they pretend to be./i>
Agree. Next time they will have voting records, which they will have to defend. Still, being an incumbent gives you a distinct advantage.
It has taken us 40 years because the nation has gradually become more conservative as a whole.
That is why the Democrats had to run to our right.
During those 40 years we were far away from retaking the House, but now we are much closer, maybe just 15-20 seats.
Yes, we need better candidates, but this election was not pro-Democrat, it was anti-Republican incumbent.
The Democrats had to run as Republicans to win, and we need to be more Republican then they pretend to be./i> Agree. Next time they will have voting records, which they will have to defend. Still, being an incumbent gives you a distinct advantage.
Yes, it does, but sometimes it can work against you as well.
Many of those Democrats elected were elected as moderate Republicans and are going to have vote as such.
If they start voting for tax hikes, gun control and anti-military, their majority status will be shortlived.
Big loss or little loss, there is still now a two-year window for Stevens and Bader-Ginsberg to retire.
The only thing left is if a Democrat from a Republican-governed state dies or is forced out from scandal. Forget the second part, Democrats don't resign from scandal.
-PJ
My take is that the dims did a great job of getting out their vote and republicans simply weren't very motivated. While the WoT is certainly a huge issue that's really the only messages the republicans put out.
In addition I don't know a single person that worked for the party either in 2000, 2002 or 2004 that did so this cycle. Again, while the WoT was a big one it's tough to call up people or walk neighborhoods and get whacked over big government, entitlements and border control. I got killed over the latter in 2004 and while getting bitched at wasn't the only reason I didn't work for the party for the first time in nearly five decades it was a factor. Grass roots get out the vote efforts are huge. The passion wasn't there this time around.
While us political junkies are always going to vote for at least some chunk of voters the vote has to be earned. In my opinion republicans simply didn't earn it this time around.
The nation was always more conservative than the Dem Party as a whole. The Democrat Party moved more to the Left in the 1960s with the disaffection of the Southern Democrats who comprised the conservative wing of the party. Many became Reps.
That is why the Democrats had to run to our right.
The Dems did not run to our right, they just mirrored many of the Rep positions on value issues. The Dems also recruited many candidates with military backgrounds to change their image.
During those 40 years we were far away from retaking the House, but now we are much closer, maybe just 15-20 seats.
LOL. We had the House for 12 years. We are not much closer to taking it over now. Who is to say that we will not fall even further behind in 2008? We not only must hold on to the seats we have, but also, try to gain new ones. We need to come up with some stong candidates to challenge the Dems district by district. The Dems did not lose one incumbent.
Many of those Democrats elected were elected as moderate Republicans and are going to have vote as such. If they start voting for tax hikes, gun control and anti-military, their majority status will be shortlived.
For the next two years, the Dems will control the agenda in Congress. They will make sure that tax hikes, gun control, and anti-military issues are not on the agenda. One of the big issues they say they will now tackle is AMT, which will mean less taxes. They will increase the minimum wage. I see the Dems trying to consolidate their gains while at the same time detailing the "corruption" and missteps of the Administation using investigations and press leaks. The Dems are used to weilding power and not bashful about using it.
And that is where they are going to run into problems with their own base.
They are not going to waste time on investigations.
They have two years to prove they can lead and they must bring out some substantive legislation.
If not, many of their own base will become disenchanted with them.
Yes, they did not lose an incumbent, but we can do the same thing in 08 and regain about 20 seats which will give us the Majority.
It is just as bad to underestimate your enemy as it is to overestimate him.
We underestimated him this election cycle, lets not overestimate him on the next one.
I read somewhere that in Southern California in Orange county, the heart of the republican belt, only 40% of normal republicans voted.
No, it is not meaningless.
Yes, it is a loss.
But, a narrow loss shows the Dems do not have a wide mandate.
This was not a vote for them, but for trying something new.
Ping!
I'd believe that. Most of us here are broken glass republicans, even if we have serious disagrements and no way are we going to sit on our hands much less vote for a rat but there's also a large population out there where politics aren't that big of a deal and, experiencing mild to moderate disgust said to heck with it.
WOW.
Thanks.
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.