You mean you will stubbornly keep posting your delusions?I predict no real change in the status quo.
See BS's post above, the GOP has an army of stupid old people.This should have been a slam-dunk for them
It the much touted "Blue Tidal Wave" merely a weak stream of pee-pee..?See BS's post above, the GOP has an army of stupid old people.
we need to distance ourselves from this phraseThis should have been a slam-dunk for them
More like a Blue Haired Tidal Wave of people who can't hold their pee-pee.It the much touted "Blue Tidal Wave" merely a weak stream of pee-pee..?
So that's how Bush beat Gore in 2000.....I've already voted 12 times. Last time I made it to 19 before they caught on, I'm hoping for a personal best this time.
So that's how Bush beat Gore in 2000.....
this shouldn't matter squat if the dem's message is what the voters want....Let's not forget all the gerrymandering done by incumbents to ensure that incumbents continue to get elected. Even if people are dissatisfied, challengers always face a rather large, uphill battle.
I wonder why they even bothered to make it illegal then :huh:this shouldn't matter squat if the dem's message is what the voters want....
And what did we get? How much better could GWB have been to only win by a margin that required a recount in Florida. At this point, I'm surprised a Giant Douche didn't win... oh wait.sorry, but no... algore actually sucked that bad.
Originally posted: November 6, 2006
Experts: Senate will go Democratic
Posted by Frank James at 9:10 pm CST
In their final, pre-election forecast in what is called Larry J. Sabato's Crystal Ball, Sabato and David Wasserman of the University of Virginia's Center for Politics predict Democrats will win control of both the Senate and House, with Democrats picking up six Senate seats and 29 House seats.
Their analyses of the races makes worthwhile reading, especially their take on the race they have probably followed the closest, the freakish Virginia Senate race between Sen. George Allen, the Republican, and Democrat James Webb, the former Reagan Administration Navy Secretary who was a Republican until he switched parties to make the Senate race.
Here's what they say about the Allen-Webb race:
Jim Webb (D) will unseat Sen. George Allen (R). Of course we're not counting him out altogether, and no one remembers better than us that Virginia was the grand exception to the GOP wave of 1994 (is this Senate seat jinxed?). Nonetheless, Allen's slow self-destruction has been nothing short of breathtaking, and we at the Crystal Ball are still somewhat shocked to find ourselves at the epicenter of the fight for the Senate.
Let's get one thing out of the way: the evolution of this race's closeness has had little to do with Jim Webb or his campaign's efforts and almost everything to do with Allen's self-inflicted wounds, which have made voters' memories of his leadership of a "silicon Dominion" in the 1990's as governor less accessible and have recast him as more of a strictly "Red America" politician. A coordinated attack on Webb's fiction writing may have been the last straw, as the move was roundly criticized by editorial writers. All the alarm bells for Allen are now ringing: he is stuck at about 45 percent in most surveys, the Webb side (an entourage of Governors Wilder, Warner, and Kaine) is clearly being met with more enthusiastic receptions on the stump, and most sources tell us the GOP is headed for major carnage in the Commonwealth's largest vote trove, Northern Virginia. Much as the toppling of Democratic Sen. Tom Daschle came to symbolize the GOP's Senate triumph in 2004, the once-unthinkable defeat of Allen would put an exclamation point on Democrats' wins this year.
They have Democrat Claire McCaskill beating Republican Sen. Jim Talent in Missouri and Democrat Jon Tester defeating Sen. Conrad Burns, the Republican, in Montana.
Even if Democrat Rep. Harold Ford loses his Senate race in Tennessee to Republican Bob Corker, so long as the Democrats hold all their contested seats, which Sabato and Wasserman believe they will, the Senate would go Democratic by a slim margin.
Unfortunately elections have never been about the issues. Since TV I think something like 95% of all presidential elections have gone the way of the taller better looking candidate. Hell we are voting on a constitutional amendment in VA that outlaws gay marriage, it is already illegal here. A law would never pass in this state allowing it, it is just a way of stirring up the "family" values votes. If people had to vote on things like the deficit they would have to make hard decisions like cutting spending or raising taxes.I just want to give my stance on this whole thing:
I really could care less about party affiliation, what bugs me are the current issues. The ones that the republicans are pushing the forefront (gay marriage, terror, abortions, church and state) could really be dealt with any time. What concerns me are the immediate issues (Iraq, deficit, oil, immigration, CORRUPTION) and the republicans just seem to be ignoring them or saying "We're making progress" but I just dont see it. Im for whichever candidate is looking at the pertinant, immediate issues and has a plan for dealing with them. That's it. The "family values" card is so tired, and after the Clinton/Lewinski mishap, it was a great move I suppose to get votes from old folks and the religious right. But there are simply much more pressing issues than that right now.
Where is Bin Laden?
Why is Iraq getting WORSE and why are MORE soldiers dying?
Where is the PLAN to make it better?
Why are govt. grants and scholarships being CUT when its obvious this country needs EVERYONE IT CAN AFFORD to be educated to keep up in this world?
Why sell off the natl. forests? Why?
I just want the right issues addressed. It has nothing to do with picking sides. I feel like alot of people see it the same way.
Then you have to explain single issue voters and all those people who vote straight R or D tickets, no matter the candidate? "Yeah, Hitler's bad, but he's a Republican! The Democrats want to ban the Bible...gotta vote Republican!" or "Sure, Mao is a bit of a dick, but Republicans want to cut spending on Womyn's Action Coalition Diversity Councils! Gotta vote Mao, at least he's a Democrat!"I just want the right issues adressed. It has nothing to do with picking sides. I feel like alot of people see it the same way.
now that's SOLID GOLD, jerry.More like a Blue Haired Tidal Wave of people who can't hold their pee-pee.
If you don't know what the referendum is saying, don't vote on it . . . try to be at least a little bit knowledgeable about your decisions.There was a really annoying number of referendums to read. Most of them made no sense whatsoever and I just hope I didn't vote to give my first born to the government or something else stupid.
Why are things like that not said more often?Unfortunately elections have never been about the issues. Since TV I think something like 95% of all presidential elections have gone the way of the taller better looking candidate.
Why are things like that not said more often?
They are simply true.
Good looks and also likability.
When Bush got elected the first time, I kept hearing people say things like, "Bush just seems like the kind of guy I liked to hang out with and share a beer with."
While that may be true, the kind of guy I like to share a beer normally ended up passed out in the front yard with his shirt off, but hey if thats who you want leading the country.
Kerry never stood a chance, with his cartoon Icabod Crane bobble head. That election was over before issue one. Ugly and unlikable.
Bad combo.
I want to know how they keep the hedges trimmed.I always have and always will vote for nice hair.
I want to start my own intifada....I'm not really sure what that means...but it sounds cool. :biggrin:I only saw infadels where I voted... mostly old infadels.
For being a Bears fan, you're alright! Unfortunately, common sense like that just doesn't work in the most uncommon of places....(i.e. DC) I'm with ya though.BS said:Buncha stuff
You know, I would have agreed with you last week. But a friend of mine is in Colorado working for Angie Paccione. I was making fun of Angie until I read more about the incumbent, Marilyn Musgrave, who declared this year that gay marriage is the "number one issue" we face.I just want to give my stance on this whole thing:
I really could care less about party affiliation, what bugs me are the current issues. The ones that the republicans are pushing the forefront (gay marriage, terror, abortions, church and state) could really be dealt with any time. What concerns me are the immediate issues (Iraq, deficit, oil, immigration, CORRUPTION) and the republicans just seem to be ignoring them or saying "We're making progress" but I just dont see it. Im for whichever candidate is looking at the pertinant, immediate issues and has a plan for dealing with them. That's it. The "family values" card is so tired, and after the Clinton/Lewinski mishap, it was a great move I suppose to get votes from old folks and the religious right. But there are simply much more pressing issues than that right now.
Where is Bin Laden?
Why is Iraq getting WORSE and why are MORE soldiers dying?
Where is the PLAN to make it better?
Why are govt. grants and scholarships being CUT when its obvious this country needs EVERYONE IT CAN AFFORD to be educated to keep up in this world?
Why sell off the natl. forests? Why?
I just want the right issues adressed. It has nothing to do with picking sides. I feel like alot of people see it the same way.