Printable View
[QUOTE=Esten; 413526]Let's see, first Walleye makes up an imaginary argument I never made (that McConnell's statement was somehow 'invalidated'. And then states the imaginary argument he invented is weak.
Then Stan jumps in in agreement.
ROTFLMAO! [/QUOTE]Don't hurt yourself rolling on the floor. Although, considering that you would be rolling around in a make believe world, I don't know that you could actually hurt yourself.
Rock on, Esten
To quote Thomas Friedman of the New York Times, October 28,2010.
[quote]A dsyfunctional politcal system is one that knows the right answers but can't discuss them even rationally, let alone act on them, and one that devotes vastly more attention to cable tv preachers than to recommendations by its best scientists and engineers.[/quote]He was referring to the study done by the National Academies culminating in the America Competes Act in 2007. It was called "Rising Above the Gathering Storm" Energizing and Employing America for a Brighter Economic Future.
2010, is it time to laugh or cry. On this board, there are many who claim to be Independents. As yet, the dialogue here prove otherwise.
One question, can a Joe Lieberman make a difference or is he another politcal animal. And how come nobody try to make a political Survivor series?
One explanation for why Republicans are doing so well is found in a new CBS poll:
[i]"The president has been traveling the country to stump for candidates ahead of the midterms, but it may not be much help: a majority of likely voters (56 percent) say Mr. Obama's support for a candidate has no impact on their vote. And while 14 percent say Mr. Obama's support makes them more likely to back a candidate, 29 percent say it makes then less likely to do so. "[/i]
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020976-503544.html
So, Obama's help gives you a 2-1 disadvantage among those who are moved. That's astounding, but it does explain why Republicans are faring so well in the polls. The more Obama gets out there and opens his yap, the worse his pet candidates do.
Another tidbit. This is two months old but, if anything, the numbers have gone further against Obama since then. In August, Ohio voters (key swing state) were polled as to whether they'd prefer to have Obama or Bush in the White House right now. Bush won by 50% to 42.
http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/08/previewing-ohio.html
That's a slap in the face to the White House. Politics are relative. BHO has done more to rehab George Bush's image than anyone else could have. After just two years, [u]that's[/u] Incredible.
[QUOTE=Toymann;413529]I am a little confused. More GOP than Dems would mean control. YES? I also asked long ago that a 50-50 tie went to me as your team WAS IN CONTROL.59-41. Please clarify for all to see.[/QUOTE]If the independents truly stayed independent, you would be correct. But the 2 current which Stan mentioned are in the Democratic caucus. So you have 59 total (57+2), the number you cited. What matters is what that 59 gets reduced to. As long as the Dem number stays at 50 or higher, Democrats control the Senate, meaning if they (their caucus) all vote as one bloc, and Republicans (their caucus) do the same, the Dem vote wins (Biden decides any ties).
BTW similarly on the Republican side, if Murkowski wins as an independent in Alaska, she will caucus with Republicans and her seat will count as Republican.
That McConnell quote was covered by every major news network I checked out. CNN, Yahoo, NY Times, MSNBC, HuffPost, Washington Post.
He is right on the money. For folks like him. He said it, he meant it, and there are others who agree that the top priority for Repubs is to defeat Obama.
Thing is, most Americans don't think that's the top priority for Washington. It may be honest, but it was a very stupid thing to say to the media. But he's a bitter man and couldn't hold back. Staunch conservatives may be proud of McConnell echoing their views, but statements like that will perpetuate the broad negative perception of the Republican party. GUARANTEED you will hear the White House remind Americans of statements like this next year if / when Repubs are seen as more politically motivated than working for real solutions (almost certain to be when not if, though I hope I am wrong.
For reference:
Latest AP-GfK poll has a 69% disapproval rating for how Republicans in Congress are handling their jobs.
Latest NY Times / CBS poll has 78% saying they believe Republicans in Congress should compromise some of their positions to get things done and 15 percent said they should stick to their positions even if it means getting less done.
[QUOTE=Esten;413440]And memo to DNC: Get a commercial with this quote on the air ASAP! [/QUOTE]Here is the video I requested from the DNC a few days ago. McConnell's image and quote appear near the end of this 47 second commercial. Nice ending.
"Single Thing"
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_38qVk_g5B4[/url]
Just as I predicted a few days ago, Democrats are starting their sneak attacks. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote-2010-elections-democratic-closing-argument-personal-attacks/story?id=11996410
The party that claims to have the moral high ground has to get down in the gutter in a dirty, last-ditch effort to pull some elections out of the fire. As the ABC news article notes, there is a stark difference between Republican campaign ads and those run by Democrats. The writer notes: "As you watch this year's ads (and I've been watching all too many lately) you'll notice a striking difference between Democratic and Republican attack ads: Democrats are attacking over personal issues, Republicans are attacking over policy. "
So very typical of the Left. They claim Republicans are evil and then stoop to this. Just like Esten, you go with what you got. If you've got loser arguments on policy, you try to dig up dirt from 30 years ago. Throw it against the wall and see what happens. It's the you-can-fool-some-of-the-voters-some-of-the-time strategy, also known as Desperation.
Who's next to bail on this failed Presidency? Rumor has it, none other than Nancy Pelosi. This according to Time Magazine (I know, not a credible source, but here it is) :
"As Nancy Pelosi goes, so might a generation of her colleagues.
If Democrats lose control of the House of Representatives next week, as most political observers expect, there is a good chance that the House Speaker will opt to spend time with her eight grandchildren rather than toil in the relative obscurity of the minority. Even if she wanted to stay on, it's not at all clear that she would win the position of minority leader: seven Democratic incumbents and several candidates oppose her leadership — on Wednesday, North Carolina Representative Heath Shuler suggested he might challenge Pelosi for the spot — and another 20 have refused to say one way or another. Pelosi is more likely to leave gracefully, trading the red-eye slog for the pleasant commute between her San Francisco and Napa homes, and leaving the caucus in the hands of majority leader Steny Hoyer, who has been chafing in her shadow for decades. "
[url]http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,2028212,00.Html[/url]
So, that begs the question: What's she waiting for? The Democrats are sure to lose the House. So, if she's planning to retire, do it now. Rather than force voters to elect someone who will not serve, let them choose a candidate who will.
But, this too is consistent. It's a bit like the late Nestor Kirchner running for a seat last term even though he had no intention of serving if he won. He lost; unfortunately, she'll win. But, at least we won't be stuck with her next year, or so we can hope.
Still of fan of this administration 2 years in. Hoping to have control of the Senate and maybe even the House. Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs are expecting it.
Barack Obama is still in control of the House and the Senate. Here's to 6 more years.
[QUOTE=Stan Da Man;413566] Rather than force voters to elect someone who will not serve, let them choose a candidate who will.[/QUOTE]That would require that Nancy Pelosi to actually care about the will of the voters. As we have seen through her own actions, time and time again, she has no interest in what people want. She is only interested in what further enriches and empowers herself and her cronies.
The way the Dems do it is to cheat (e.g. Frank Lautenberg in NJ.) There are no rules that apply to Dems. If the rules applied to them Rahm would already be DQ'd from running for Mayor of the place that released the Obama-plague on the nation.
[QUOTE=House Music; 413608]Still of fan of this administration 2 years in. Hoping to have control of the Senate and maybe even the House. Nancy Pelosi and Robert Gibbs are expecting it.
Barack Obama is still in control of the House and the Senate. Here's to 6 more years. [/QUOTE]You are only supposed to use one identity to post on AP.
In about 24 hours or so, we'll start to get results on who won the bet, whatever the bet is at this point. If it's sheer numbers, I think Toyman wins. If it depends on who the Independents caucus with, we may have to wait a bit for the final results. Lieberman could be a wild card, but it's unlikely he'll caucus with Republicans given what the results of the Connecticut Senate race will be.
I still maintain that the Senate races in Washington and West Virginia hold the key for any Republican shot at the Senate, and it's still a long shot. California is going to go Boxer, I believe. The state is still crazy after all these years.
That said, there's little polling data to go on in West Virginia. Nevertheless, the polling that exists shows Democrat Manchin with a comfortable but not insurmountable lead. Washington is still neck and neck, with a slight edge to Democrat Murray. Of course, there also are very close races that are leaning Republican, particularly Nevada and Illinois, but also Colorado.
WW's and Toyman's best bets are if the following prediction from an anonymous Democrat media consultant comes true:
[i]Still, among those in the Democratic consulting class, there's a gloomy acknowledgment that many of the incumbents the DCCC has spent millions of dollars to protect won't be coming back to Congress.
'Everybody that is tied will lose, and everyone that is ahead by a few points will lose because of the GOP wave, ' said one party media consultant who is involved in a wide array of House races. 'There are going to be some surprises. '[/i]
[url]http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44448.html[/url]
I stand by my prediction that Republicans have 49 Senate seats when the dust settles. We shall soon see.
[QUOTE=Stan the Man; 413633WW's and Toyman's best bets are if the following prediction from an anonymous Democrat media consultant comes true:
[i]Still, among those in the Democratic consulting class, there's a gloomy acknowledgment that many of the incumbents the DCCC has spent millions of dollars to protect won't be coming back to Congress.
'Everybody that is tied will lose, and everyone that is ahead by a few points will lose because of the GOP wave, ' said one party media consultant who is involved in a wide array of House races. 'There are going to be some surprises. '[/i][/QUOTE]That is germane to the the "under counting" that I believe is taking place. I believe that any dem in a poll with less than a 4% lead is going to lose.
There will be, as there has already been in this election, fraud perpetrated by the left (Nevada, SC, etc. I expect that any race that has a republican winning by less than 3% will be contested and like the Al Franken debacle, stolen. On the other side, I do not expect Republicans to contest any losses with a margin greater than.5.
The slumbering giant has been awoken and (I believe) will vanquish many of America's foes, tomorrow. Yes, I believe that much of the left is America's foe, not merely loyal opposition.
I won't be able to sleep tonight, I am so excited to vote. Ok, that probably isn't true but it is pretty exciting. The fact that the possibility exists that America is heeding the call to REFORM (not remake, recast or whatever other BS the left pedals to obfuscate destroying the Constitution) the nation around its founding principles is truly exciting to me.
"Change for the sake of change" is a slogan for assholes. Why not play Russian roulette? The reason why many people, who might otherwise seem intelligent, vote for such hollow slogans is because they have become separated form their equity ownership in America and all for which she stands. Nobody would risk something they know to be priceless on some bumper sticker slogan. Yet, they do. They do it because they have lost touch with the irreplaceable value of that which they hold.
Well tomorrow, I believe that many Americans who have not fully participated in the past will become involved. Further, I believe that through their involvement and with the electoral results that I expect will materialize, they will become reunited with their equity ownership in America. Together, we, the American people, have the ability to return to the principles that founded this great nation (from which we started to diverge in a bad way during FDR) for the benefit of all Americans. The byproduct of this reform will also benefit the rest of the freeloading-nations around the world. So be it.
I believe that this is the greatest nation in the history of mankind, and history seems to back me up on this. Note that I didn't say America is perfect, it isn't. No man nor anything created by man is perfect. But man has never created anything its equal. Nothing created by man has provided more freedom, more liberty, more advancement or more good for the benefit of mankind that the USA.
[key the music]
God Bless America
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye; 413636]That is germane to the the "under counting" that I believe is taking place. I believe that any dem in a poll with less than a 4% lead is going to lose.
I won't be able to sleep tonight, I am so excited to vote. [/QUOTE]I feel much the same way. I rarely vote. My reasons are more practical than lazy: I've served on three juries and been called for jury duty five times in the past 10 years. I just don't have time for it any more. I show up for jury duty like anyone else when called, but I just can't afford to take a week or two off every three years. So, if I don't vote, I stay out of the federal jury pool. I'm still in the state juror pool, because they go off DMV records, which is why I still get summoned every other year. But, at least it's not double duty. I know how to get off jury duty by lying when asked questions, but I won't do that. So, I try to legitimately avoid the obligation by sacrificing my vote, which doesn't count for much in the grand scheme of things.
To get me riled up enough to risk that, I. E, getting called for a federal jury, is my litmus test. If I'm this pissed off, there are plenty of others who are too. And, I'll be at the voting booth bright and early tomorrow. My lame state failed to mail my absentee ballot despite two separate requests. Fortunately, I'll be in town so it won't matter.
The reason I give Toymann a chance on his bet, and you a chance on your prediction of 51 GOP Senators, is that all the rules from past elections don't really apply to this election. The pollsters are saying that they have never seen anything like the "enthusiasm gap" that exists this election. As a consequence, they don't know how to model "likely voter" very well.
If turnout is as they predict, it will be very difficult for Republicans to get control of the Senate. But, when even the pollsters are saying that their predictions may be way off, well, it will be interesting to see what pans out.
Most interesting for me is which direction they are off. Democrats have been trying to rouse their base for months with both exhortations and scare tactics. The former didn't work, so we've been hearing the drumbeat of 'if you don't vote, the neanderthals will be back; help us punish our enemies; Republicans want to take us backwards; etc, etc. ' Will that work? I doubt it. But Democrats have spent the past few decades buying votes through extended unemployment benefits, liberal illegal immigrant policies, welfare incentives that reward avoiding work, generous government-paid union giveaways, free* cash for cars and houses, loans to those who couldn't afford them, and now free* health care for all. The asterisk is next to "free" for obvious reasons. At some level, buying votes pays off. Obviously, there are some who can see through this pandering. Will it be enough? If so, then it will be a very long night for Democrats.
First off. The "Rally To Restore Sanity And / Or Fear" was excellent. Who would have guessed we'd see Ozzy singing Crazy Train? Great signs people had as well. Here is my favorite:
[ATTACH=CONFIG]27659[/ATTACH]
Glad to see you guys in a good mood. I will celebrate with you if Repubs win the House. I have said before, I am not averse to that. Of course I am aware that the current make up of Congress does not reflect the more centered make up of the country. With Dems in control with large numbers, the Great Recession, and a concerted right-wing effort to paint the last 2 years as a failure, it is no surprise Repubs will do well this election.
My prediction is still 51-49 Senate for Dems. Several tight races, we may not have a definate verdict on Wednesday. Nevada will be exciting. Reid needs turnout to win. Colorado, Washington, West Virginia, Illinois, Pennsylvania are all within a few points. I'm hoping for Sestak in PA though he is behind. Alaska will be fun to watch as well though that will be Repub.
As a "liberal" I am generally content with what we accomplished the past two years. Landmark healthcare reform was #1 and financial reform #2. The majorities Dems had in Congress are rare and Dems would not have been pleased if we had squandered the mandate and the opportunities while the window was open. The #3 on my list is the tax issue and while I'm not keen on extending tax cuts for the rich, if it goes that way for another 1-2 years, I'm OK with it as long as it gets decoupled from the middle class tax cuts. Down the road it will be a hard sell to just give a cut to the rich, and Dems will have achieved a permanent widening of the tax rate gap between rich and middle class.
I maintain that Wall Street and big business are responsible for much of our problems. Wall Street played a central role in causing the financial crisis, and both had central roles in locking up credit and / or laying off millions to increase their profits. It is too bad we don't have elections for big business CEO's, or the directors of organizations such as the USCoC.
Gridlock / sharing power with Repubs has certain advantages for Obama. Will weigh in on those and what I hope to see him do in the next two years later.
[QUOTE=Wild Walleye;413636]"Change for the sake of change" is a slogan for assholes. [/QUOTE]I agree. That reminds me of something this weekend in Nevada, apparently the GOP hired a plane to fly around with a banner saying "Anybody But Reid". There is a small but significant component to the Republican vote this election that just wants change, period. It is probably "assholes" like them (your word) that will give Repubs the House.