Posted on 11/07/2005 11:46:41 PM PST by BillyBoy
My Fellow FReepers,
As it now past midnight (well at least for those of us in Central Standard Time) and I did a general search and couldn't find a single thread dedicated to election 2005, I have taken the liberty of creating one.
THIS is the place to post all your updates and discussions on '05 races around the country. From the Boston Mayoral Race to the fight for Virginia Attorney General, keep the adrenaline flowing here.
Will the GOP make a midterm gubernatorial comeback after suffering through the 2001 "mistakes" of McGreeley and Mark Warner? Will Ahnuld, the CA Dummycrats, or independent minded conservatives emerge triumph in California's latest (but not greatest!) "special election"? Will the liberal incumbent crush his equally liberal challenger in New York? And do conservatives even care?
Let's get the discussion rolling folks. You heard it here first!
Absolutely untrue. I predicted a Bush win from the very beginning. As I said, I was surprised that Kerry made it that close. If it wasn't for the SBVFT (I contributed three different times and attended their Washington rally), Bush would have lost. I think Karl Rove is not as smart as some think he is. Bush failed to go after Kerry for his anti-war activities. As a Vietnam veteran myself, I couldn't understand why Kerry was not exposed for being a traitor, i.e., meeting twice with the Vietnamese Communists twice while still being a member of the USNR, and belonging to a group, the VVAW, which plotted the assassination of the USG officials.
Since the democrats held the seat already, it's not a loss. The only possible gain would have been if it went Republican. VA is trending more and more conservative anyway, so the dems better enjoy a democrat seat, they won't hold it much longer. And NJ should be NO CONTEST. Instead, they had to do everyting they could to hold it. That's how it was last November. The States Bush won he won by a LOT, the states kerry won he won by smaller margins. Several of the States kerry got shouldn't have even been in play, and they were. That says a lot. He talked about if he'd only had 100,000 more votes in Ohio he'd be President. Well heck, if Bush would have hade another 100,000 votes spread in FIVE STATES, Bush would have won another 35 electoral votes and not even needed Ohio. Libs are so good at twisting things around instead of just being straight.
Dang right!
Let's get a stack of maps of California, and start passing them out in Austin!
Newt had the better analysis tonight.
Exactly, especially when Kaine said he is personally against it but will carry out the law. That seems like the fatal error to me right now.
Yeah and Kerry didn't do so hot did he now? 8)
Hitlery won't pick Warner as VP, she'll pick Osama Obama. Guaranteed.
Hit the streets. The truth is out there.
The thing some say about how Kerry lost the election by 100,000 votes (Ohio) might be true but President Bush lost 6 states by a combined total of around 98,000 votes.
What???????
That's nuts.
You've completely missed the point. It doesn't matter what people identify themselves as. The pollsters are adjusting the numbers to suit their own estimates of reality.
I understand now why you think these polls are valid. You simply don't understand them.
I will totally admit that I didn't follow the race in Virginia enough to know whether Kilgore was any good or not...but I did get the impression that Kaine is a very lib candidate...
TAKE A DEEP BREATH . . . SLOWLY EXHALE . . . NOW RELAX!
Both the VA and NJ gubernatorial races were perfectly predictable: NJ because its a BLUE state and VA because it has a unique gubernatorial system/history:
HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE:
The governorship of Virginia has gone to the party NOT occupying the White House every year since 1973!!
Yep, Reagan campaigned vigorously for his party's candidate BOTH times and the Democrat still won. Clinton did the same for his party's candidate and the Republicans still won!! In 2001, GWB's JA rating was in the 80s and yes, you guessed it, the Democrat still won!
Bottomline 1: The VA race is NOT an indicator of anything other than the often bizarre nature of Virginia politics!
Bottomline 2: Both VA and NJ were Democrat seats that remained Democrat -- the Republicans still retain their gubernatorial majority.
Actually, the big loser tonight: HILLARY CLINTON. The VA win will only embolden Warner -- the Clintons are going to have a tougher fight on their hands for the RAT nomination in 08!!
Sabato is in part responsible for Kaine victory. He moderated the debate and made big deal of Kilgore running "negative" ads. He is a partisan Demorat...
Clinton/Obama '08?
Might make people think that's an upcoming terrorist attack! lol Dems are that stupid.
She must mean 80% for Prop 2. 8) That's pretty emphatic. 8) "We said NO damnit!" NO means NO! 8) Heh heh.
LOL!!!
Dems have no ability to understand the results tonight are based less on factors that they can control. Balls in the GOP's court.
Hey folks, here this should cheer us up! NOW THIS IS A HOOT...
Poll results of West Wing Viewers under age 30 - A big swing to the right.
Posted by Stillwillin
On 11/08/2005 4:16:11 PM PST · 35 replies · 1,244+ views
The Washington Post ^ | Tuesday, November 8, 2005 | Lisa de Moraes
...pollster Zogby yesterday, showing how much ground Smits's Santos lost to Alda's Vinick in the debate, despite obvious efforts to make Santos look heroic. Before the episode, viewers between 18 and 29 preferred Santos over Vinick, 54 percent to 37 percent. But after the debate, in which veteran Alda gutted pretty-boy Smits without him even knowing it, Vinick now leads among viewers under age 30, 56 percent to 42 percent.
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.