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

[Eagler]

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

nope, it was more than that ...
the terrorist in Iraq got the results they were gunning for with the increase in violence from sept on with the media showing in full graphic color (Iraq sniper videos) every ounce of it they could. and with the medias help, the dems blew out of porportion every scandal they could find or create to put a republican in a negative light.
gotta give the dumbacrats credit as they know what buttons to push to get the brain dead masses to vote their way ... while the republicans look like deaf and dumb mutes in comparision.

should be an interesting 2 years and if they win out in 08, more likely than ever now, a frightening 4 years after that ...

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Vudak
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.

The Republicans probably DID have a mandate after Bush beat Kerry. They did pretty well in the rest of the elections as well. The problem is they squandered that mandate. They have left their base. And it was pretty stupid too. They failed to carry out the wishes of those who elected them. In their greed to solidify their hold, they actually catered to the "centrists" on the left that they were courting. All that did was upset their conservative base. They failed to remember that all important piece of advice, "dance with the one that brung you". So they got sent home from the dance alone.

There were boatloads of conservatives who either stayed home, or voted Democrat or Independent, just to punish the Republicans that left their base and courted another group.

The Democrats simply didn't have a real platform. It was nothing but "we're not Republicans" and "we're going to change the direction in Iraq". That's pretty much all that was necessary. Like I said before, they should have actually done even better with it.

[WhiteHawk]

Originally posted by cav58d
So as long as the democrats remain the party of "reward the mediocre, and sub par performance, and penalize the average-above average workers", they will never get a vote for me...

If all these at the mininum, 200 grand a year dems support the poor so much, and are so anti wealth, why arnt they giving all their money to charity?  hypocrits

HAHAHAHA!!!  Yes O master Rush.  I hear you and believe.  I will work to spread your gospel.

[DREDIOCK]

Originally posted by Vudak
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.

Thats pretty much how I feel as well.

Interesting to note.
While Dems basically swept.
7 states voted for state constitutional ammendments to ban gay marriage.

And Arizona  voted in favor of making English its offical language

[Vudak]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
The Republicans probably DID have a mandate after Bush beat Kerry. They did pretty well in the rest of the elections as well. The problem is they squandered that mandate. They have left their base. And it was pretty stupid too. They failed to carry out the wishes of those who elected them. In their greed to solidify their hold, they actually catered to the "centrists" on the left that they were courting. All that did was upset their conservative base. They failed to remember that all important piece of advice, "dance with the one that brung you". So they got sent home from the dance alone.

There were boatloads of conservatives who either stayed home, or voted Democrat or Independent, just to punish the Republicans that left their base and courted another group.

The Democrats simply didn't have a real platform. It was nothing but "we're not Republicans" and "we're going to change the direction in Iraq". That's pretty much all that was necessary. Like I said before, they should have actually done even better with it.

I disagree with you on Bush having a mandate - that election wasn't exactly a landslide.  

I'm not really sure who you mean by their base though?

I think they were in kind of a rough spot - either win in Iraq or lose.  Because if you mean by the base, the far right (which generally includes the religious types), I think they would have found that by siding with them, they would really, really angered the moderates from both parties...  It's just that the extremes of both sides generally come off as scary to us in the center

[Sixpence]

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.

Take your head out of the sand

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Holden McGroin
One more article I thought was interesting:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Republicans Blame Election Losses On Democrats
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.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Put The Onion down McGroin

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Eagler
nope, it was more than that ...
the terrorist in Iraq got the results they were gunning for with the increase in violence from sept on with the media showing in full graphic color (Iraq sniper videos) every ounce of it they could. and with the medias help, the dems blew out of porportion every scandal they could find or create to put a republican in a negative light.

lol  If you don't support the King of the USA and the Repubs you then teh terrorist wins!!!

And why are the insurgents in the position to sustain and even increase violence?  I thought after years the occupation had turned the corner.  Violence didn't just go up in Sept, it's been constantly and consistantly getting worse.  It's not the Democrats or media's faulth that Iraq isn't being prosecuted properply.  It's the Bush administation, he is after all(as people like you like to say) CinC.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

Originally posted by Sixpence
Take your head out of the sand

You don't understand. I fully expected the Democrats to do much better than they did, and so did they. And they should have. I was expecting a better margin than they got, but they felt they'd gain even more.

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You don't understand. I fully expected the Democrats to do much better than they did, and so did they. And they should have. I was expecting a better margin than they got, but they felt they'd gain even more.

I guess polls might be more accurate than your instincts then.  

[eagl]

Bush and his policies never entered the equation for me during this election.

My decision point was very simple.  If the incumbent didn't show up for work, was a primarily negative/blocking factor in important legislation (like immigration), and pretty much contributed to the overall do-nothing congress we've had for the last several years, I voted for "anyone but the incumbent".

It had nothing at all to do with the President.  If the guy in office showed up to work and either voted for or against the president's policies, it doesn't matter to me.  If he didn't show or consistently voted against, regardless of which party sponsored the bill, then I voted against him.

For everything else on the ballot, if it cost money or took responsibility away from locals or individuals and placed it in the hands of the govt, then I voted against.  Again, it had nothing to do with Bush.

This election and the next, I'm on the "toss the bastards out" ticket because they're mostly worthless.  Time magazine spent a dozen pages pretty much proving that Pelosi spent the entire last 6 years doing NOTHING but blocking any legislation sponsored by the republicans, even if that legislation was an exact duplicate of policies she campaigned for.  In my opinion, she is just about the worst kind of politician there is anywhere.  She's willing to put partisian politics ahead of the good of the nation in every single situation, and she strong-armed everyone around her into following her obstructionist lead.

Don't believe me, check out the Time magazine article and judge for yourself.  It has nothing to do with Bush, but everything to do with the bastards in congress needing to get put on the unemployment roster because they're utterly worthless.  This was probably the worst congressional session in history, yet people still try to blame the upheaval on the president...  Total BS.  Congress did it themselves and they're so focused on their own partisian politics and re-election, they can't imagine why people are so pissed off.

[Gunthr]

I'm worried about "the new direction" Democrats want to take in Iraq.   If we withdraw, we will have been defeated, we will have provided not a "safe house" but a whole safe country for terrorists to take over as a base of operations.  and that is a very bad thing for not only our country, but for the whole world.

[Sixpence]

Originally posted by Captain Virgil Hilts
You don't understand. I fully expected the Democrats to do much better than they did, and so did they. And they should have. I was expecting a better margin than they got, but they felt they'd gain even more.

What are you talking about? I don't remember reading anywhere they expected to win the senate, the fact that they almost took the senate was shocking. Early in the evening they were thrilled at their gains in the house, then watched as the senate was almost icing on the cake. Look, you were way off, admit it.

[Captain Virgil Hilts]

The problem the Democrats will soon have is that they think THEY have a mandate, and they really don't.

Their position on Iraq will not be what people want. What the Democrats have in mind is a hasty exit. What the people seem to want is a more aggressive prosecution of the war, which Bush isn't doing either. People want al Sadr dead, and they want more progress on the insurgency in general.

Their position on the domestic issues won't be well liked either. Amnesty and increased illegal immigration isn't what the people are looking for, that's why Bush is in trouble there, and so was the Senate. If the Democrats are able to bring about tax increases and increased spending on social programs, along with their proposed $2 an hour increase in the minimum wage the result will be a stunted economy.

The most probable outcome is that the Democrats, if they are successful in achieving their goals, will be their own worst enemy. Just like the Republicans have been for the past few years.

[Max]

Dems, Repubs...who cares. Joe Middle Class is still standing at the edge of the cliff.