Democrats win big on House. Senate... a toss-up

[Holden McGroin]

[1K3]

Just as expected

DEMs win the HOUSE?!?!?!

[Black Sheep]

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/ap_ford_061107_sp.jpg

This is absurd - but so very typical of a Demo-Repub

[DREDIOCK]

Well  as predicted in the original post.
As of this time.
Dems have indeed wont he house. And the senate is close.

Personally I think this is good for the country as a whole.
Im not sure I would like to see the Dems in control of both though.

As they stands now this is going to force by neccessity a move to the middle which is right where I like it

[Holden McGroin]

To not anyone in particular....



Because:

Politicians Sweep Midterm Elections
Resounding Victories In All States, Counties, Cities, Towns
November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45

WASHINGTON, DC—After months of aggressive campaigning and with nearly 99 percent of ballots counted, politicians were the big winners in Tuesday's midterm election, taking all 435 seats in the House of Representatives, retaining a majority with 100 out of 100 seats in the Senate, and pushing political candidates to victory in each of the 36 gubernatorial races up for grabs.

"It's a good night to be a politician," said Todd Akin, an officeholder from Missouri. "The American people have spoken, and they have unanimously declared: 'We want elected officials to lead this nation.'"

Already confident they would have an easy time in the Midwest, a region long known for electing politicians, as well as with poll-going Americans in the deep South, politicians also picked up seats in each additional area of the country.


"We expected politicians to take Washington, Indiana, Oregon, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Michigan, North Carolina, Maryland, South Carolina, Georgia, North Dakota, Mississippi, Montana, Vermont, Maine, Kentucky, California, Iowa, Alaska, Connecticut, Florida, Idaho, Louisiana, Alabama, Virginia, Delaware, Wisconsin, and Arkansas," said Georgetown University political science professor Barbara Steward. "But the fact that voters in the urban areas of Rhode Island and the farmlands of West Virginia, along with every other state, all put politicians into office is quite extraordinary."

"Even in the most hotly contested local races that went down to the wire, politicians still came out on top every time," she added.

This year's results are the most unanimous since the last election two years ago, in which politicians enjoyed widespread victories unrivaled since the election before that, and the one in 2000.

Politicians managed to appeal to all economic and ethnic backgrounds, genders, and age groups, enjoying equal success among both liberal voters and conservatives.

Issues advanced by politicians dominated not only the Senate and House races, but also all state, district council, county, and town-board elections.

"It looks like politicians are poised to dominate the political discourse of the country for years to come," said analyst Maria Lawson of the Free Enterprise Institute, who as long ago as December of 2004 had picked congressmen to once again take over the House of Representatives. "This should allow them to pursue their own political agendas almost unimpeded, sign even more bills into law, and appoint fellow politicians to committee chairmanships, special interest commissions, and other posts of power."

Added Lawson: "While it's still too early to tell, after the success of this election, it might not be too long before we see another politician in the White House."

Despite fears that the dozens of campaign-finance violations, soft-money misappropriations, infidelity charges, hidden drunk-driving records, and protracted congressional cover-ups leaked just days before the election would hurt their chances, politicians were still elected over non-politicians in every single race.

"The fact that not a single non-politician even ran for office is just further proof that the American people tend to vote for politicians during times of war," Steward said. "Past data also suggests that the American people tend to vote for politicians during times of peace, as well as, generally speaking, every two years."

Some voters, however, such as Arkansas native Patrick Bunter, who first voted for a politician—Harry Truman—in 1944, are calling this latest victory "politics as usual."

"Over the years, I grew disappointed with the job the politicians were doing, yet I kept on voting for them out of loyalty," Bunter said. "This time around, I swore I'd go with someone else, but frankly, looking at the ballot, I didn't see any other choice."
   

[mosgood]

The Dems didn't win it... the repubs lost it

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
I'm not yet convinced that the election is going to go the way the Democrats want and expect it to.  

Convinced yet?

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Convinced yet?

No. The Democrats expected to easily gain at least three more seats in the Senate, and they didn't. They expected to easily gain about 10 more seats in the House, and they didn't. They didn't come close to making up their deficit in comparison to the historical averages either. The sitting President normally loses a lot more mid terms, and a two term President usually does even worse. Figuring a scandal like Foley and a war like Iraq, with low approval ratings, the Democrats should have done far better. Given all the factors in their favor, the Democrats should have gotten the sweep they expected. They've failed to come close in all three "mid term" elections. The Democrats didn't do well as much as the Republicans did poorly. It remains to be seen if the Republicans learned the lesson. Sadly, the Democrats will think they won, and will continue to do what they have been doing. It will come back to bite them.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by mosgood
The Dems didn't win it... the repubs lost it

To be more precise.
Bush lost it

[sgt203]

Those who feel that the United States needed a change in leadership may have had a point...

Unfortunately these days it actually seems when casting your ballots you are not actually voting for the best person for the job you are voting for the "lessor of two evils"...

In the times we find ourselves in I personally am not so sure the American People actually knew WHAT, not nescessarily who, they were voting for...

The thing that concerns me about this election is WHERE are these people going to take this country and what is their agenda... I dont know, as most of this election was about mudslinging and not issues, and the platform they provided was the "we all hate George Bush" mantra..

Just to give anyone who cares to read a bit ive provided you with the following information:

Look Up "House Progressive Caucus" they are the "progressive people" among the members of the house. Find their party affiliation... Pay attention to who is notably absent from the list... Such as Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton... The interresting thing is they were not always absent as they were members of this organization prior to the information being obtained as to what the "House Porgressive Caucus" really was...

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=29612

Read this article and if that is not enough information go here:

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html

of course you would not hear any of this information from ABC CBS or NBC because they have their own transparent political agendas and have obtained the results they wanted..

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
No. The Democrats expected to easily gain at least three more seats in the Senate, and they didn't. They expected to easily gain about 10 more seats in the House, and they didn't. They didn't come close to making up their deficit in comparison to the historical averages either. The sitting President normally loses a lot more mid terms, and a two term President usually does even worse. Figuring a scandal like Foley and a war like Iraq, with low approval ratings, the Democrats should have done far better. Given all the factors in their favor, the Democrats should have gotten the sweep they expected. They've failed to come close in all three "mid term" elections. The Democrats didn't do well as much as the Republicans did poorly. It remains to be seen if the Republicans learned the lesson. Sadly, the Democrats will think they won, and will continue to do what they have been doing. It will come back to bite them.

I remember a time when Bush thought his few % point margin win gave him a "mandate"

Looks like Dems aren't the only ones that need to learn this lesson

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by DREDIOCK
To be more precise.
Bush lost it

In all fairness, it's not JUST Bush. The Senate and House for example spent the money, or more to the point, wasted it. Bush failed to veto it. The Senate and Bush both screwed the pooch on immigration, an the House actually paid the price. Bush had nothing to do with Foley. The sagging approval ratings for Bush didn't help much though.

The truth is, it's as much about pure partisan politics as it is anything. The economy is doing pretty well, and has been. There have been no more successful attempts at terrorism here (probably hurt as much as helped). The war is not going that badly, it's just not going as well and as easy as people would like. It's a well known fact the general public has little tolerance for war in general, and no patience for lack of quick progress. The fact that any note of progress rarely makes the front page, and if it does it falls quickly, but any setback of any sort is front page news for months does not help.

The bitterness of the left over the two previous elections feeds enough hatred that there is little if any chance of true bi-partisan co-operation. Eventually, pure hatred is bound to cause the general public to question even progress, much less the lack of it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Vudak
I remember a time when Bush thought his few % point margin win gave him a "mandate"

Looks like Dems aren't the only ones that need to learn this lesson

If you remember, Bush beat the Vice President of a popular incumbent with high approval ratings. There's a big difference there. Gore should have won that race handily, and he didn't. As popular as Gore and Clinton were supposed to be, and as much as the media fronted for them, Bush should never have had a chance.

There's no doubt, the Republicans need to learn several lessons. The question is, will they. The next question is the Democrats did not win on the issues, they won on a platform of "we're not them". So what are they going to do? A large number of the Democrats who won are actually far more moderate than Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, and Kennedy. So how far will they go towards the left? It will be interesting to see how far the ACTUAL shift to the left is.

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
If you remember, Bush beat the Vice President of a popular incumbent with high approval ratings. There's a big difference there. Gore should have won that race handily, and he didn't. As popular as Gore and Clinton were supposed to be, and as much as the media fronted for them, Bush should never have had a chance.

There's no doubt, the Republicans need to learn several lessons. The question is, will they. The next question is the Democrats did not win on the issues, they won on a platform of "we're not them". So what are they going to do? A large number of the Democrats who won are actually far more moderate than Pelosi, Murtha, Reid, Kerry, and Kennedy. So how far will they go towards the left? It will be interesting to see how far the ACTUAL shift to the left is.

I was talking about when he beat Kerry...  I don't remember him claiming a mandate after his first election, although he might have.

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not rooting for a major swing to the left.  If more moderates got in, that's great news to me.

[Holden McGroin]

One more article I thought was interesting:

Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats[/b]
November 7, 2006 | Issue 42•45  ONION
WASHINGTON, DC—Republican officials are blaming tonight's GOP losses on Democrats, who they claim have engaged in a wide variety of "aggressive, premeditated, anti-Republican campaigns" over the past six-to-18 months. "We have evidence of a well-organized, well-funded series of operations designed specifically to undermine our message, depict our past performance in a negative light, and drive Republicans out of office," said Republican National Committee chairman Ken Mehlman, who accused an organization called the Democratic National Committee of spearheading the nationwide effort. "There are reports of television spots, print ads, even volunteers going door-to-door encouraging citizens to vote against us." Acknowledging that the "damage has already been done," Mehlman is seeking a promise from Democrats to never again engage in similar practices.