I dont think this election is about voting FOR democrats personally. I just want the Republicans GONE. I will judge how the Democrats do once they get a term in control of congress. It's about voting against Republicans and Democrats for the most part fit their role of not messing up.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Official NeoGAF US Mid-term Elections 2006 Thread
- Thread starter Amir0x
- Start date
- Status
Father_Brain
Banned
Mandark said:
Exactly.
Amir0x said:
I guess if you like falling real wages, war in Iraq and further destabilization of the Mideast, increasing pollution, and healthcare that more and more people can't afford then you should vote for republicans. Sure, it's not ignorant, but it doesn't appear to be a sign of intelligence.
The battle for Congress rolled into a climactic final weekend with Republican Party leaders saying the best outcome they could foresee was losing 12 seats in the House. But they were increasingly steeling themselves to the loss of at least 15 and therefore control of the House for the first time in 12 years.
Democrats and Republicans said the battle over the Senate had grown fluid going into the final hours before the elections Tuesday. Democrats said they thought they were almost certain to gain four or five seats and still had a shot at the six they need to take control. Republicans were pouring money into Senate races in Michigan and Maryland this weekend to take advantage of what they described as last-minute opportunities, however slight, in states currently held by Democrats.
Party strategists on both sides, speaking in interviews after they had finished conducting their last polls and making their final purchases of television time, said they were running advertisements in more than 50 Congressional districts this weekend, far more than anyone thought would be in play at this stage.
Nearly all of those seats are held by Republicans, underscoring the degree to which President Bush and his party have been forced onto the defensive two years after he claimed that his re-election had given him the political capital to carry out an ambitious domestic and foreign agenda.
As the final weekend began, the parties made their final tactical moves as candidates sparred over the war, the economy, corruption and competence and as elaborate get-out-the-vote campaigns were rolled out. At stake was not just control of the House and the Senate, but also potentially the course of the Bush presidency in its last two years and the debate over how to proceed in Iraq.
Democrats bought advertising time in yet another House race that had long been considered safe for Republicans, that of Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. Mr. Bush appeared at a rally in Ms. Musgraves district on Saturday morning, part of a late flurry of campaigning by the president aimed at shoring up struggling Republicans in some of the reddest states in the country, including Nebraska and Kansas. In another bit of news that sent a chill through many Republicans, a University of New Hampshire poll showed Representative Charles Bass, a popular moderate Republican who had not been seen as vulnerable this year, trailing his opponent.
Its the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate, said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster working in many of the top races this year.
Joe Gaylord, who was the political lieutenant to Newt Gingrich when he led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, said that based on polling he had seen in recent weeks, he expected his party to lose 25 seats to 30 seats on Tuesday. That general assessment was repeatedly echoed in interviews with Republicans close to the White House and the Republican National Committee.
Its very grim, Mr. Gaylord said. Things are dreadful out there.
Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a Virginia Republican and veteran party strategist, pointed out that a significant number of races remained very close, adding: Theres no question were going to take a hit. The only question is how hard it would be.
Still, some Republicans, and some Democrats, said Republicans could be bolstered by structural advantages that could, at the very least, minimize the partys losses. Aides to both parties said at least 20 races were close enough that struggling Republican incumbents could be pulled to victory by the partys sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Karl Rove, Mr. Bushs chief political adviser, has assured nervous associates that the Republican turnout operation would help save the party from electoral disaster.
There are a lot of seats on the bubble, and that is why turnout makes such a difference, said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the deputy Republican whip.
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, the New York Republican heading his partys effort to hold the House, said: Turnout will be key to us in these three dozen races that are close across the country. In a sign of how unexpectedly challenging the climate is for Republicans, Mr. Reynolds has had to devote much of his time to his own tough re-election battle.
For all the deep unhappiness that polls show with Congress, Mr. Bush, his party and the Iraq war, only about 10 percent of House races could be considered even remotely competitive. That figure stands as a reminder of the enduring power of incumbency, and of how a dominant party can protect itself by drawing Congressional districts that serve as bulwarks during stormy seasons. There are 34 incumbent House members and one senator running for re-election unopposed.
If the Democrats end up with 53 percent of the national vote and still dont get a majority in the House, which is conceivable, its a clear sign that this Republican structural advantage has really kicked in, said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, said in an interview that the race for the House remains very close, and I believe we will keep our majority.
And I think the Senate, in the last week, he said, has been very good for Republicans and very difficult for Democrats.
His Democratic counterpart, Howard Dean, offered a different reading of the electoral environment. I dont think you can take anything for granted, but Im extremely excited about how well well do, Mr. Dean said.
The president is spending the last Sunday of the campaign in Nebraska! he exclaimed, alluding to that states largely Republican status. Who would have ever thought that?
Appropriately enough for a campaign that has been marked by searing negative advertisements and personal attacks, the campaign-closing round of advertising which in more typical years has consisted largely of soft and gauzy 30-second spots in which the candidate makes an earnest and final plea for support was this weekend led by another round of dark charges on topics including coddling terrorists, raising taxes and episodes of personal indiscretion.
Drunk Driving. Arrests. Federal investigations, an announcer says in a new advertisement aimed at Representative John E. Sweeney, Republican of New York, by his opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand. A campaign of lies.
Across the country, but particularly in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana, the massive voter turnout operations began rolling into their final 72-hour plans, with one more round of telephone calls and personal visits to voters who had long ago been identified and whose names had been stored in voter vaults along with their demographic information and political history.
In the Senate, Republicans girded themselves for what strategists from both parties described as the almost certain defeat of Senators Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. They said that Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was also probably headed for a loss. Democratic hopes of winning a seat in Tennessee seem to have faded in recent days, while their chances of unseating Senator George Allen of Virginia appear to be on the rise, leaders in both parties said.
Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, a Republican who has been struggling all year in the face of a tough challenge by Jon Tester, was said by aides in both parties to have grown stronger in recent days. Officials from both parties said they were watching to see if Mr. Bushs visit to Montana on Thursday would help Mr. Burns hold on to a seat that many Republicans had long ago written off.
Republicans said they were still hopeful of unseating Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, after pouring $5 million into his state over the past 10 days. But some analysts said the onslaught might prove to have been too late to make a difference.
In the final days, in what some senior Republican strategists said was something between a long-shot and a Hail Mary pass, Republicans were spending money in an effort to win an open seat in Maryland, hoping that African-Americans in the state would desert the Democratic Party and vote for Michael Steele, a black Republican. In Michigan, the Republican Party invested money to defeat Debbie Stabenow, the Democratic incumbent.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat leading the partys effort to win the Senate, said that things are looking better for us, but that Democrats still faced a challenge in taking the Senate.
I would not predict it at this point, Mr. Schumer said. I would say its going to be very close one way or the other. The odds of it being four, five or six seats are higher than it being three or seven.
In the House, Democrats seem all but assured of picking up open Republican seats in Arizona, Iowa and Colorado, along with the Ohio seat of Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges and stepped down on Friday. Party leaders said the Republicans who seemed headed for defeat on Tuesday included Representatives Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Chris Chocola and John Hostettler of Indiana. Other likely Democratic pickups include the Florida seat being vacated by Katherine Harris, who is running for Senate, and the upstate New York seat being vacated by Sherwood Boehlert.
Officials in both parties said more than 20 House contests remained very tight, which is why Democrats could end up capturing at least 30 seats or falling short of the 15-seat gain they need to take control, depending on turnout and last-minute shifts. A number of respected independent analysts, including Stuart Rothenberg and Charles Cook, have predicted that Democrats could gain 35 seats or more.
It is possible that no Democratic incumbent will be knocked out of office, though Republicans have made a concerted effort to unseat two Democrats in Georgia.
Faced with diminishing opportunities, Republicans have continued through the final weekend to spend money to hold on to two other seats vacated by Republicans who left under clouds: Mark Foley of Florida and Tom DeLay of Texas. The fact that the party had to pour resources into those two races, along with others in which incumbents had been hurt by their own scandal or tainted by the fallout from the Foley Congressional page scandal, was said by Republican strategists to be one of the biggest problems they faced.
The scandal seats have clearly hurt us and put us at a disadvantage, said Carl Forti, a senior strategist with the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Officials in both parties said that in the end, this election has become a test of whether the institutional protections that Republicans had built to carry them to victory, including redistricting and a powerful turnout machine, could protect them during the stormiest of election seasons.
This is one of those major national elections, more powerful on its force than all of the gerrymandering, said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat leading his partys effort capture the House. History says that every decade there is a major nationalized midterm election. And this is it. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/u...&en=2053acbcb6f551e1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
Democrats and Republicans said the battle over the Senate had grown fluid going into the final hours before the elections Tuesday. Democrats said they thought they were almost certain to gain four or five seats and still had a shot at the six they need to take control. Republicans were pouring money into Senate races in Michigan and Maryland this weekend to take advantage of what they described as last-minute opportunities, however slight, in states currently held by Democrats.
Party strategists on both sides, speaking in interviews after they had finished conducting their last polls and making their final purchases of television time, said they were running advertisements in more than 50 Congressional districts this weekend, far more than anyone thought would be in play at this stage.
Nearly all of those seats are held by Republicans, underscoring the degree to which President Bush and his party have been forced onto the defensive two years after he claimed that his re-election had given him the political capital to carry out an ambitious domestic and foreign agenda.
As the final weekend began, the parties made their final tactical moves as candidates sparred over the war, the economy, corruption and competence and as elaborate get-out-the-vote campaigns were rolled out. At stake was not just control of the House and the Senate, but also potentially the course of the Bush presidency in its last two years and the debate over how to proceed in Iraq.
Democrats bought advertising time in yet another House race that had long been considered safe for Republicans, that of Representative Marilyn Musgrave of Colorado. Mr. Bush appeared at a rally in Ms. Musgraves district on Saturday morning, part of a late flurry of campaigning by the president aimed at shoring up struggling Republicans in some of the reddest states in the country, including Nebraska and Kansas. In another bit of news that sent a chill through many Republicans, a University of New Hampshire poll showed Representative Charles Bass, a popular moderate Republican who had not been seen as vulnerable this year, trailing his opponent.
Its the worst political environment for Republican candidates since Watergate, said Glen Bolger, a Republican pollster working in many of the top races this year.
Joe Gaylord, who was the political lieutenant to Newt Gingrich when he led the Republican takeover of the House in 1994, said that based on polling he had seen in recent weeks, he expected his party to lose 25 seats to 30 seats on Tuesday. That general assessment was repeatedly echoed in interviews with Republicans close to the White House and the Republican National Committee.
Its very grim, Mr. Gaylord said. Things are dreadful out there.
Representative Thomas M. Davis III, a Virginia Republican and veteran party strategist, pointed out that a significant number of races remained very close, adding: Theres no question were going to take a hit. The only question is how hard it would be.
Still, some Republicans, and some Democrats, said Republicans could be bolstered by structural advantages that could, at the very least, minimize the partys losses. Aides to both parties said at least 20 races were close enough that struggling Republican incumbents could be pulled to victory by the partys sophisticated get-out-the-vote operation. Karl Rove, Mr. Bushs chief political adviser, has assured nervous associates that the Republican turnout operation would help save the party from electoral disaster.
There are a lot of seats on the bubble, and that is why turnout makes such a difference, said Representative Eric Cantor of Virginia, the deputy Republican whip.
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds, the New York Republican heading his partys effort to hold the House, said: Turnout will be key to us in these three dozen races that are close across the country. In a sign of how unexpectedly challenging the climate is for Republicans, Mr. Reynolds has had to devote much of his time to his own tough re-election battle.
For all the deep unhappiness that polls show with Congress, Mr. Bush, his party and the Iraq war, only about 10 percent of House races could be considered even remotely competitive. That figure stands as a reminder of the enduring power of incumbency, and of how a dominant party can protect itself by drawing Congressional districts that serve as bulwarks during stormy seasons. There are 34 incumbent House members and one senator running for re-election unopposed.
If the Democrats end up with 53 percent of the national vote and still dont get a majority in the House, which is conceivable, its a clear sign that this Republican structural advantage has really kicked in, said Gary C. Jacobson, a political scientist at the University of California, San Diego.
Ken Mehlman, the Republican national chairman, said in an interview that the race for the House remains very close, and I believe we will keep our majority.
And I think the Senate, in the last week, he said, has been very good for Republicans and very difficult for Democrats.
His Democratic counterpart, Howard Dean, offered a different reading of the electoral environment. I dont think you can take anything for granted, but Im extremely excited about how well well do, Mr. Dean said.
The president is spending the last Sunday of the campaign in Nebraska! he exclaimed, alluding to that states largely Republican status. Who would have ever thought that?
Appropriately enough for a campaign that has been marked by searing negative advertisements and personal attacks, the campaign-closing round of advertising which in more typical years has consisted largely of soft and gauzy 30-second spots in which the candidate makes an earnest and final plea for support was this weekend led by another round of dark charges on topics including coddling terrorists, raising taxes and episodes of personal indiscretion.
Drunk Driving. Arrests. Federal investigations, an announcer says in a new advertisement aimed at Representative John E. Sweeney, Republican of New York, by his opponent, Kirsten Gillibrand. A campaign of lies.
Across the country, but particularly in Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania and Montana, the massive voter turnout operations began rolling into their final 72-hour plans, with one more round of telephone calls and personal visits to voters who had long ago been identified and whose names had been stored in voter vaults along with their demographic information and political history.
In the Senate, Republicans girded themselves for what strategists from both parties described as the almost certain defeat of Senators Mike DeWine of Ohio and Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania. They said that Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island was also probably headed for a loss. Democratic hopes of winning a seat in Tennessee seem to have faded in recent days, while their chances of unseating Senator George Allen of Virginia appear to be on the rise, leaders in both parties said.
Senator Conrad Burns of Montana, a Republican who has been struggling all year in the face of a tough challenge by Jon Tester, was said by aides in both parties to have grown stronger in recent days. Officials from both parties said they were watching to see if Mr. Bushs visit to Montana on Thursday would help Mr. Burns hold on to a seat that many Republicans had long ago written off.
Republicans said they were still hopeful of unseating Senator Robert Menendez, Democrat of New Jersey, after pouring $5 million into his state over the past 10 days. But some analysts said the onslaught might prove to have been too late to make a difference.
In the final days, in what some senior Republican strategists said was something between a long-shot and a Hail Mary pass, Republicans were spending money in an effort to win an open seat in Maryland, hoping that African-Americans in the state would desert the Democratic Party and vote for Michael Steele, a black Republican. In Michigan, the Republican Party invested money to defeat Debbie Stabenow, the Democratic incumbent.
Senator Charles E. Schumer, the New York Democrat leading the partys effort to win the Senate, said that things are looking better for us, but that Democrats still faced a challenge in taking the Senate.
I would not predict it at this point, Mr. Schumer said. I would say its going to be very close one way or the other. The odds of it being four, five or six seats are higher than it being three or seven.
In the House, Democrats seem all but assured of picking up open Republican seats in Arizona, Iowa and Colorado, along with the Ohio seat of Bob Ney, who pleaded guilty to corruption charges and stepped down on Friday. Party leaders said the Republicans who seemed headed for defeat on Tuesday included Representatives Curt Weldon of Pennsylvania, and Chris Chocola and John Hostettler of Indiana. Other likely Democratic pickups include the Florida seat being vacated by Katherine Harris, who is running for Senate, and the upstate New York seat being vacated by Sherwood Boehlert.
Officials in both parties said more than 20 House contests remained very tight, which is why Democrats could end up capturing at least 30 seats or falling short of the 15-seat gain they need to take control, depending on turnout and last-minute shifts. A number of respected independent analysts, including Stuart Rothenberg and Charles Cook, have predicted that Democrats could gain 35 seats or more.
It is possible that no Democratic incumbent will be knocked out of office, though Republicans have made a concerted effort to unseat two Democrats in Georgia.
Faced with diminishing opportunities, Republicans have continued through the final weekend to spend money to hold on to two other seats vacated by Republicans who left under clouds: Mark Foley of Florida and Tom DeLay of Texas. The fact that the party had to pour resources into those two races, along with others in which incumbents had been hurt by their own scandal or tainted by the fallout from the Foley Congressional page scandal, was said by Republican strategists to be one of the biggest problems they faced.
The scandal seats have clearly hurt us and put us at a disadvantage, said Carl Forti, a senior strategist with the National Republican Congressional Committee.
Officials in both parties said that in the end, this election has become a test of whether the institutional protections that Republicans had built to carry them to victory, including redistricting and a powerful turnout machine, could protect them during the stormiest of election seasons.
This is one of those major national elections, more powerful on its force than all of the gerrymandering, said Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Illinois Democrat leading his partys effort capture the House. History says that every decade there is a major nationalized midterm election. And this is it. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/05/u...&en=2053acbcb6f551e1&ei=5094&partner=homepage
WASHINGTON (AP) -- A series of secret U.S. war games in 1999 showed that an invasion and post-war administration of Iraq would require 400,000 troops, nearly three times the number there now.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html
---
Wow.
And even then, the games showed, the country still had a chance of dissolving into chaos.
In the simulation, called Desert Crossing, 70 military, diplomatic and intelligence participants concluded the high troop levels would be needed to keep order, seal borders and take care of other security needs.
The documents came to light Saturday through a Freedom of Information Act request by George Washington University's National Security Archive, an independent research institute and library.
"The conventional wisdom is the U.S. mistake in Iraq was not enough troops," said Thomas Blanton, the archive's director. "But the Desert Crossing war game in 1999 suggests we would have ended up with a failed state even with 400,000 troops on the ground."
There are about 144,000 U.S. troops in Iraq, down from a peak in January of about 160,000.
A week after the invasion, in March 2003, the Pentagon said there were 250,000 U.S. ground force troops inside Iraq, along with 40,000 coalition force troops.
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Central Command, which sponsored the seminar and declassified the secret report in 2004, declined to comment Saturday because she was not familiar with the documents.
News of the war games results comes a day before judges are expected to deliver a verdict in Saddam Hussein war crimes trial.
The war games looked at "worst case" and "most likely" scenarios after a war that removed then-Iraqi President Saddam Hussein from power. Some of the conclusions are similar to what actually occurred after the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003:
"A change in regimes does not guarantee stability," the 1999 seminar briefings said. "A number of factors including aggressive neighbors, fragmentation along religious and/or ethnic lines, and chaos created by rival forces bidding for power could adversely affect regional stability."
"Even when civil order is restored and borders are secured, the replacement regime could be problematic -- especially if perceived as weak, a puppet, or out-of-step with prevailing regional governments."
"Iran's anti-Americanism could be enflamed by a U.S.-led intervention in Iraq," the briefings read. "The influx of U.S. and other western forces into Iraq would exacerbate worries in Tehran, as would the installation of a pro-western government in Baghdad."
"The debate on post-Saddam Iraq also reveals the paucity of information about the potential and capabilities of the external Iraqi opposition groups. The lack of intelligence concerning their roles hampers U.S. policy development."
"Also, some participants believe that no Arab government will welcome the kind of lengthy U.S. presence that would be required to install and sustain a democratic government."
"A long-term, large-scale military intervention may be at odds with many coalition partners." http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/11/04/war.games.ap/index.html
---
Wow.
BigJonsson
Member
I'm gonna be planted in front of the TV Tuesday night with my laptop...
This better not disappoint
This better not disappoint
max_cool said:
I'm not sure that most of this proves that a vote for the Democrats is somehow less ignorant. Are you telling me post-9/11, you think that if Kerry won everything would be nice and dandy right now and they wouldn't have screwed up or Katrina mess wouldn't have happened? What if Gore had won, and 9/11 happened... you think he would have taken the country on a road that was a bit better than Bush? Well, maybe he would have... but I have a sinking suspicion that most of our major candidates would have ****ed up in their own unique way.
Basically what I am saying is I'm not sure how one gauges exactly how it is more ignorant to vote one way or the other. Maybe... voting Democratic is a little less ignorant at the moment? But still ignorant! And Republicans are a 9 on the "vote ignorant" scale or something... but, I don't think it's really fair to say that people who vote for Republicans are ignorant.
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
I feel sorry for the poor republican Joe Negron in the 16th district of Florida who essentially has to get the electorate to vote for Mark Foley on the ballot to vote for him.
anyway, I am thinking a 25 seat swing to the dems in the House but only 4 in the senate, giving the dems the house and the republicans narrowly holding the senate.
For those looking for a good issues guide for the Election the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations think tank has an in-depth look at the issues.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11890/issue_guide.html
anyway, I am thinking a 25 seat swing to the dems in the House but only 4 in the senate, giving the dems the house and the republicans narrowly holding the senate.
For those looking for a good issues guide for the Election the prestigious Council on Foreign Relations think tank has an in-depth look at the issues.
http://www.cfr.org/publication/11890/issue_guide.html
Do The Mario
Unconfirmed Member
I am going with NPR, because I am in Australia and streaming radio FTW!
Plus I love NPR.
Plus I love NPR.
Father_Brain
Banned
Charles Krauthammer and Ann Coulter demonstrate the GOP's latest desperate rhetorical tactic: claim that a loss of 20+ seats in the House for the GOP is no big deal. Needless to say, they're both full of shit.
billymcnilly
Member
Question: Can you vote online? I'm registered to vote and everything but I'd really like to do it from home.
whytemyke said:
The colleges will go crazy, but everyone else will shrug.
Well, some will cheer.
Also, apparently my house has become a swing state. Calls from Republicans from every state in the union (well..continental) telling me what a horrible baby-eater Granholm is. On the hour, every hour.
I guess the Democrats don't love me enough to call
I'll be watching PBS on Tuesday...any suggestions as to whats going to be one of the better places to follow online?
WedgeX said:Also, apparently my house has become a swing state. Calls from Republicans from every state in the union (well..continental) telling me what a horrible baby-eater Granholm is. On the hour, every hour.
I guess the Democrats don't love me enough to call
Granholm is 14% ahead in the polls, they do not need to call.
Also Chafee in Rhode Island is now ahead.Diablos said:Very unfortunate indeed. He has so much going for him.
wtf. Republicans are pulling ahead now. The congress party ticket different has shrunk from a double digit lead for Democrats to a 6% lead for Democrats.
What the **** is going on?
Cheebs said:
Fear tactics, and the Democrats just don't seem like viable alternatives to many voters. They still can't seem to form a cohesive, strong message (other than: "we're not Bush", now joined with "LOL Iraq War sucks") that harkens to the Democrat hayday where they weren't pigeonholed as a bunch of pussies and evangelical haters.
Until this happens, Americans are always gonna be this closely split regardless of how many shitups one party has.
Cheebs said:
Amir0x put it in a good way, that liberals can't seem to come up with anything besides "We aren't Bush" and "Iraq War sucks". Let's see them come up with something on their own, then I will change my stance.
P.S. you should all become politics talk show regulars. The amount of gifts I have "won" are amazing. I got an autographed book from the Prez himself for calling into Rush Limbaugh about drugs/alcohol in high schools when I was a senior last year. eBay anyone?
The Chosen One
Member
Harold Ford is now down 12 percentage points? The floor just fell out from beneath him this past week.
I guess the Playboy attack ad really did its job because I can't really point to anything else that would explain why his numbers would plunge so much in such a short period of time without him making a huge blunder.
A shame really because I really liked Harold Ford. I've always liked him in interviews and he's run a fairly positive campaign (though I don't know about this final week).
I guess the Playboy attack ad really did its job because I can't really point to anything else that would explain why his numbers would plunge so much in such a short period of time without him making a huge blunder.
A shame really because I really liked Harold Ford. I've always liked him in interviews and he's run a fairly positive campaign (though I don't know about this final week).
jamesinclair
Banned
So Im in Mass and I have no idea if there are any important races to vote for. If I have no idea about a race, I can leave it blank right?
I will be voting for Governor (Deval FTW) and Yes on 1 (wine in supermarkets).
Ive forgotten what issue 2 and 3 are about....
Edit: Found them
Massachusetts Prop 1. Permits sale of wine in food stores.
Massachusetts Prop 2. Allows fusion voting (cross-party endorsements).
Massachusetts Prop 3. Allows child care providers in private homes to bargain collectively with state.
I will vote yes, no (I have no idea how this works) and no.
I will be voting for Governor (Deval FTW) and Yes on 1 (wine in supermarkets).
Ive forgotten what issue 2 and 3 are about....
Edit: Found them
Massachusetts Prop 1. Permits sale of wine in food stores.
Massachusetts Prop 2. Allows fusion voting (cross-party endorsements).
Massachusetts Prop 3. Allows child care providers in private homes to bargain collectively with state.
I will vote yes, no (I have no idea how this works) and no.
Anyway, here are some new poll results:
ABC/Washington Post, 11/1/06 to 11/4/04
51% Democrats, 45% Republicans, 4% other or unsure
Pew, same date
47% D, 43% R, 10% other or unsure
www.pollingreport.com
jamesinclair: of course.
ABC/Washington Post, 11/1/06 to 11/4/04
51% Democrats, 45% Republicans, 4% other or unsure
Pew, same date
47% D, 43% R, 10% other or unsure
www.pollingreport.com
jamesinclair: of course.
jamesinclair
Banned
Lo-Volt said:
Good, I have no idea what local reps or whatever theyre called do and feel no need to vote for them.
Fragamemnon
Member
Time's new poll has Dems up 55-40 over the Nov. 1-3 period, the same time frame as the other two polls above. I think there is some tightening in some races-especially in the Senate races with GOP incumbents-but the overall map hasn't changed much outside the realization that some of the crazy-red House districts aren't going to flip, no matter how batshit insane the people running in them are (think CO-05).
Dems still probably take control of the House in a walk and get 20-35 seats.
Missouri still decides the Senate.
People, especially partisan Democrats are looking for a last-minute way for Dems to fail. It's just not in the cards this year-maybe if the President was more popular and could do more to produce a coherent GOP message like in 2002 and 2004, I could see it.
Dems still probably take control of the House in a walk and get 20-35 seats.
Missouri still decides the Senate.
People, especially partisan Democrats are looking for a last-minute way for Dems to fail. It's just not in the cards this year-maybe if the President was more popular and could do more to produce a coherent GOP message like in 2002 and 2004, I could see it.
Amir0x and I take great pride in contributing to what will likely be the end of Rick Santorum's career.Amir0x said:
But things always tighten up towards the end. So this really shouldn't be all that surprising. Everyone and their mother has been saying the Democrats probably won't take the Senate. But should they still gain a lot of the seats they were supposed to, hopefully this will suggest a trend that carries on into 2008, which would then eventually give them a majority (as well as the White House... but I'm getting too excited for right now.)
Diablos said:I wanted to vote for Gore so bad in '00. I was too young.
I was able to vote for him, my younger brother was old enough to vote too . . but he voted for Bush. Needless to say he regrets his decision now, is a staunch Democrat and wears any T-shirt he can find that makes fun of Bush on it.
The Chosen One said:
While I don't know what all went down to cause the bottom to fall out he has not run a positive campaign (neither of them have). There have been a lot of debates recently I don't know how he did in them as that might have made a difference. Also there is always the chance that someone in his family might have opened their mouths.
Fragamemnon
Member
The "Call Me" ad really had resonance on those voters whose decision were affected by it. That, and a lot of attacks on his family's political misdoings-and Ford's reaction to those misdoings-had the effect of "bringing the base home" for Corker.
Tennessee is a very bizzare state when it comes to voter demographics and distribution, so the polls have been a little wild over the last couple of weeks or so. I think right now it is safe to say that among people likely to vote, Ford is down about four or five points. The key will be for the GOP to convert likely voters into actual votes. They had a good operation in Tennessee in 2004 (which they did not have in MO or VA, so Dems have some hope) and outperformed expectations, so I think Corker should be breathing easy right now.
Tennessee is a very bizzare state when it comes to voter demographics and distribution, so the polls have been a little wild over the last couple of weeks or so. I think right now it is safe to say that among people likely to vote, Ford is down about four or five points. The key will be for the GOP to convert likely voters into actual votes. They had a good operation in Tennessee in 2004 (which they did not have in MO or VA, so Dems have some hope) and outperformed expectations, so I think Corker should be breathing easy right now.
Father_Brain
Banned
Fragamemnon said:
The Ford campaign has been sending out some interesting calls:
I'd still bet on a Corker win, but I wouldn't write this race off just yet.
- Status