things are looking up. Now Dems. need to get their shit togther, NOW, to be ready to take control. Somebody needs to send Tom Delay a memo who has been all over the talking head shows proclaiming the Dems. don't stand a chance this November., and the GOP will stay in power. Tom, what ARE you smoking???? I want some! wink
[ July 14, 2006, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: hockeyTom ]
Full Version: GOP Vulnerable in November:new poll shows
Oh no, Tom has some reason to crow. The GOP came to power on "The Contract with America" and its laudable principles. However, they have fallen short and should be reminded of it. They used it to come to power, and now it can be used as an albatross around their necks, like a hangman's noose.
Actually, the soundest strategy for the Democrats to win is to nationalize this election. The GOP had their "Contract with America" and the Democrats could use something like "The Principles of Patriots". State maybe 5 achievable goals that will rally the troops and show to America exactly what the Democratic party stands for. Saying that having anyone in office other than Bush's coven isn't enough to win voters and their valuable votes. Giving us something to want to vote for is what will do the trick.
Actually, the soundest strategy for the Democrats to win is to nationalize this election. The GOP had their "Contract with America" and the Democrats could use something like "The Principles of Patriots". State maybe 5 achievable goals that will rally the troops and show to America exactly what the Democratic party stands for. Saying that having anyone in office other than Bush's coven isn't enough to win voters and their valuable votes. Giving us something to want to vote for is what will do the trick.
QUOTE
UCLAfan:
...Actually, the soundest strategy for the Democrats to win is to nationalize this election.
The Demos just tried that in CA's 50th C.D., where they threw tons of money into defeating gay-friendly GOPer Brian Bilbray, but he won....Actually, the soundest strategy for the Democrats to win is to nationalize this election.
Giving us something to want to vote for is what will do the trick.
The left wing of the Democratic Party, which maintains its stranglehold on the Party as a whole, is simply incapable of doing that because they do not understand what the majority of Americans want.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
The left wing of the Democratic Party, which maintains its stranglehold on the Party as a whole, is simply incapable of doing that because they do not understand what the majority of Americans want.
I disagree. I believe the Democrats aren't adroit enough in TELLING Americans what they want the way the Republicans do. They need to get better at forcing their ideas down the throats of the poorer, clueless Americans.The left wing of the Democratic Party, which maintains its stranglehold on the Party as a whole, is simply incapable of doing that because they do not understand what the majority of Americans want.
[ July 14, 2006, 11:19 AM: Message edited by: Maddog ]
Now, Maddog, you start off by making sense, but then get all frothy at the mouth, you big ole hydrophobe, you! SOME Democrats, like Lieberman, DO know what the majority of Americans can relate to, but their message gets mangled every time it gets transmitted by Radio Howard et al. No one forced the majority of Americans to twice elect President Bush; don't sell the intelligence of Americans short, which is part of the Demos' problem.
Irrespective, we have about 3 months to get our shit togther. Thats time enough to come up with a winning strategy. I am always the optimist here. After 6 years of this mess, you have to be. wink
Well, hockeyTom, I'm more a realist. This is true that Democrats (as a whole) do not know how to strategize and get ahead of the curve. Joe Lieberman is the exception to the rule and I wish more Dems were as keen to this as he is. Sadly, they're not.
Quote from the MSNBC article: "It comes down to a fairly simply question: Can Democrats nationalize all the elections? If Republicans prevent that, they have a shot. If they don't, they lose," said Doug Gross, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Iowa in 2002 and the state finance director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Thus after all this, Tom DeLay has good reason to be self-satisfied and smug.
[ July 14, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
Quote from the MSNBC article: "It comes down to a fairly simply question: Can Democrats nationalize all the elections? If Republicans prevent that, they have a shot. If they don't, they lose," said Doug Gross, the GOP gubernatorial candidate in Iowa in 2002 and the state finance director for the 2004 Bush-Cheney campaign.
Thus after all this, Tom DeLay has good reason to be self-satisfied and smug.
[ July 14, 2006, 12:00 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
...don't sell the intelligence of Americans short, which is part of the Demos' problem.
Sorry, gonna have to until they start thinking like me.
...don't sell the intelligence of Americans short, which is part of the Demos' problem.
QUOTE
Maddog:
They need to get better at forcing their ideas down the throats of the poorer, clueless Americans.
They need to get better at forcing their ideas down the throats of the poorer, clueless Americans.
That's exacly the kind of "limousine liberal", elitist message that has kept the Dems in the minority.
"If only they'd just listen to us, the poor, dumb bastards."
Oh my, let's not keep using Joe Lieberman, who was a drag on the 2000 Democratic ticket, as any barometer of what Democrats or anyone else wants. He's steadily losing ground in his home state, and can't run as a Republican because the real thing has that slot. As he showed during his debate with Ned Lamont, he is SOOOOO out of touch it's sad. Lieberman actually proclaimed just a month ago that Iraq was looking great! Hello??? Perhaps pick a moderate Democrat who isn't in the pocket of lobbyists or trading kisses with George Bush, like, oh, Mark Pryor, Evan Bayh or Brian Schweitzer. They have more of a clue as to what most Americans want than W's and the RNC's "favorite Democrat." If he's returned to the Senate, he can follow the Jeffords route, which he plans to do anyway.
The American people elected George Bush once, in 2004; in the last year's state and local elections, Democrats actually made a number of gains, and all is not lost. If the war in Iraq keeps raging, oil prices keep surging, the Israel-Palestinian Authority-Lebanon crises expand or stretch on, and people's incomes keep failing to increase, the Democrats will take power in spite of themselves. Then maybe we can have a Congress that does its job, rather than that of K Street lobbyists; there's no question that the Democrats will at the very least assume the oversight role the GOPers have tossed aside in favor of misguided votes on anti-gay marriage amendments, penalizing free speech, online video gambling, etc.
Correction: added "anti" so that the amendment statement was clear.
[ July 14, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
The American people elected George Bush once, in 2004; in the last year's state and local elections, Democrats actually made a number of gains, and all is not lost. If the war in Iraq keeps raging, oil prices keep surging, the Israel-Palestinian Authority-Lebanon crises expand or stretch on, and people's incomes keep failing to increase, the Democrats will take power in spite of themselves. Then maybe we can have a Congress that does its job, rather than that of K Street lobbyists; there's no question that the Democrats will at the very least assume the oversight role the GOPers have tossed aside in favor of misguided votes on anti-gay marriage amendments, penalizing free speech, online video gambling, etc.
Correction: added "anti" so that the amendment statement was clear.
[ July 14, 2006, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: fantomas ]
QUOTE
PennState4Ever:
That's exacly the kind of \"limousine liberal\", elitist message that has kept the Dems in the minority.
\"If only they'd just listen to us, the poor, dumb bastards.\"
What I said wasn't past tense. QUOTE
Maddog:
They need to get better at forcing their ideas down the throats of the poorer, clueless Americans.
They need to get better at forcing their ideas down the throats of the poorer, clueless Americans.
That's exacly the kind of \"limousine liberal\", elitist message that has kept the Dems in the minority.
\"If only they'd just listen to us, the poor, dumb bastards.\"
And when do I get my limo? I want to go pick up a bunch of homeless downtown and take them out to Muir Woods to hug trees.
Dennis Hastert, the Speaker of the House is also on record to say things are going well in iraq. Again, I want what he is smoking. 
If this isn't out of touch, I know not what is.
If this isn't out of touch, I know not what is.
The Democrats were posed for a takeover in 2002 and 2004, too. But the GOP didn't have much trouble exposing the Democrats as the paper tiger they were (and are).
The GOP appears to have chosen their platform for 2006 - them illegal Mexicans who are out to suck the country dry. Rather silly, I think - nobody seemed to think this was much of an issue in 2004, when it was the gays getting married that was about to destroy the fabric of America - but it will have the desired effect. It will get both their core base and some fence-sitters into polling places to pull levers for the GOP candidates. The Democrats have decided to stick with the same message that worked oh-so-well in '02 and '04 - that the GOP has mucked everything up and now it's "their" turn.
I'm no prognasticator, but Lex's Magic 8-Ball says GOP increases their hold on both houses unless the Democrats get their frickin' butts in gear and finds something to run on other than "I'm not him".
LXN
The GOP appears to have chosen their platform for 2006 - them illegal Mexicans who are out to suck the country dry. Rather silly, I think - nobody seemed to think this was much of an issue in 2004, when it was the gays getting married that was about to destroy the fabric of America - but it will have the desired effect. It will get both their core base and some fence-sitters into polling places to pull levers for the GOP candidates. The Democrats have decided to stick with the same message that worked oh-so-well in '02 and '04 - that the GOP has mucked everything up and now it's "their" turn.
I'm no prognasticator, but Lex's Magic 8-Ball says GOP increases their hold on both houses unless the Democrats get their frickin' butts in gear and finds something to run on other than "I'm not him".
LXN
I totally agree Lex. What's next? What should we do? What's a good platform? Anyone, anyone?
I really want to start getting involved now so that in 2008 the nightmare can end. I'm even thinking about moving back to Ohio for the next 2 years and see if I can make that state a little bluer. I think California will be okay without me.
I really want to start getting involved now so that in 2008 the nightmare can end. I'm even thinking about moving back to Ohio for the next 2 years and see if I can make that state a little bluer. I think California will be okay without me.
QUOTE
Maddog:
I totally agree Lex. What's next? What should we do? think California will be okay without me.
Shoot 'em all. I say screw 'em. All of them. Both parties.
I totally agree Lex. What's next? What should we do? think California will be okay without me.
QUOTE
MIB:
For once, you're making sense to me. QUOTE
Maddog:
I totally agree Lex. What's next? What should we do? think California will be okay without me.
Shoot 'em all. I say screw 'em. All of them. Both parties. I totally agree Lex. What's next? What should we do? think California will be okay without me.
eek!
QUOTE
MIB:
Shoot 'em all. I say screw 'em. All of them. Both parties.
Uh, MIB, has someone else gotten access to your computer or are you finally coming to our senses? Now that you've said it, I'm scared now. You are beginning to see my rationale for avoiding politics like I do.Shoot 'em all. I say screw 'em. All of them. Both parties.
A politician by any other name still stinks the same.
>>>What should we do? What's a good platform? Anyone, anyone?
I don't necessarily think any of these are the answer, or any of them will "work", but I feel any of them are better than none at all.
* An alternate take on the war on Iraq/war on terror. "US out now" doesn't look like a doable situation - like most war areas, it's a tar baby. But can the Dems come up with a plan to try to get the US troops out of there quicker? Can they come up with a plan that gets more countries on board with us, and less like we're bullying everybody else into complying with our demands?
* An alternate take on "gay marriage". Choose whether it's supposed to be a national or a state issue, and if it's the former, will they push to at least make "civil unions" legal and recognized?
* The immigration issue. If the GOP's take is alarmist and undoable (as I think it is), what would the Dems suggest instead?
LXN
I don't necessarily think any of these are the answer, or any of them will "work", but I feel any of them are better than none at all.
* An alternate take on the war on Iraq/war on terror. "US out now" doesn't look like a doable situation - like most war areas, it's a tar baby. But can the Dems come up with a plan to try to get the US troops out of there quicker? Can they come up with a plan that gets more countries on board with us, and less like we're bullying everybody else into complying with our demands?
* An alternate take on "gay marriage". Choose whether it's supposed to be a national or a state issue, and if it's the former, will they push to at least make "civil unions" legal and recognized?
* The immigration issue. If the GOP's take is alarmist and undoable (as I think it is), what would the Dems suggest instead?
LXN
QUOTE
hockeyTom:
Irrespective, we have about 3 months to get our shit togther. Thats time enough to come up with a winning strategy. I am always the optimist here. After 6 years of this mess, you have to be. wink
Hmmmm... what we need is a good hacker like the Republicans had in 2000 and 2004. Irrespective, we have about 3 months to get our shit togther. Thats time enough to come up with a winning strategy. I am always the optimist here. After 6 years of this mess, you have to be. wink
eek!
As for a platform, if I were a Dem strategist, these would be my five items to nationalize the election:
1. A plan to withdraw from Iraq, setting a timetable or, in what my former military officer BF says-- measurable, achievable, specific goals. This way, Americans will know that we have a good measure for getting out of Iraq.
2. Send the gay marriage issue to each individual state to decide. Yes, I know this doesn't work in everyone's favor, but it would demonstrate to the middle America that a federal, fit-all plan isn't the best plan for each state.
3. Set a spending plan to beef up America's ports and harbors, which are vulnerable. This hammers the Bush Regime on their weak spot while sending a message to America that the Dems are NOT so soft on national security as the GOP would have everyone believe.
4. Set a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq while shoring up our borders, using the military to achieve this goal. No fence is necessary if we can use the military to shore up our borders and turn away all illegal comers.
5. As much as it pains everyone to do so, increase military spending. This would hammer the point home that the Dems are serious about national security and not just a bunch of whiny cry-babies who despise our men & women in uniform. It would also send a message that Bush hates our troops by sending them into harm's way, as he has.
[ July 16, 2006, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
1. A plan to withdraw from Iraq, setting a timetable or, in what my former military officer BF says-- measurable, achievable, specific goals. This way, Americans will know that we have a good measure for getting out of Iraq.
2. Send the gay marriage issue to each individual state to decide. Yes, I know this doesn't work in everyone's favor, but it would demonstrate to the middle America that a federal, fit-all plan isn't the best plan for each state.
3. Set a spending plan to beef up America's ports and harbors, which are vulnerable. This hammers the Bush Regime on their weak spot while sending a message to America that the Dems are NOT so soft on national security as the GOP would have everyone believe.
4. Set a plan to withdraw troops from Iraq while shoring up our borders, using the military to achieve this goal. No fence is necessary if we can use the military to shore up our borders and turn away all illegal comers.
5. As much as it pains everyone to do so, increase military spending. This would hammer the point home that the Dems are serious about national security and not just a bunch of whiny cry-babies who despise our men & women in uniform. It would also send a message that Bush hates our troops by sending them into harm's way, as he has.
[ July 16, 2006, 11:20 PM: Message edited by: UCLAfan ]
Might I add another key to the having the Democrats be successful? I know in most cases, the youth in this country are incredibly apathetic. They also feel disenfranchised, because they don't feel they have the voice to make a difference. The GOP is banking on this, and doesn't include this demographic when pandering to their constituents.
I know that MTV likes to go out and "Rock The Vote", and that's all very well and good. But, the Dems need to make a concentrated effort in showing the 18-24 set they do indeed have a voice. They also need to show them that their voices are taken seriously. Otherwise, the GOP will continue their reign of Faux-Puritanism and hypocrisy.
I know that MTV likes to go out and "Rock The Vote", and that's all very well and good. But, the Dems need to make a concentrated effort in showing the 18-24 set they do indeed have a voice. They also need to show them that their voices are taken seriously. Otherwise, the GOP will continue their reign of Faux-Puritanism and hypocrisy.
QUOTE
Falconpride:
Might I add another key to the having the Democrats be successful? I know in most cases, the youth in this country are incredibly apathetic.
That apathy may be caused in great part by the deliberate and systematic attempts to suppress their votes. We haven't seen an equivalent to the Civil Rights Voting Act for under 21's. The debacle in Ohio could have changed the outcome of the 2002 presidential race. Voting technology is the key.
Might I add another key to the having the Democrats be successful? I know in most cases, the youth in this country are incredibly apathetic.
I should expect there will rounds of debates from the college campuses acorss the country just as there was in '04. I recall seeing many a shows/debates that Chris Matthews did on "Hardball", and the way the world is going there will be no loss for issues this time around either.
QUOTE
gmginsfo:
No one forced the majority of Americans to twice elect President Bush...
Speaking of "out of touch."No one forced the majority of Americans to twice elect President Bush...
Edited to add: gmg has no interest in reality, in his mind Bush probably won huge majorites both times.
[ July 17, 2006, 06:45 AM: Message edited by: RazorbackTX ]
With sinking poll numbers and with nothing else they can think of apparently, to try to rally their base, the GOP once again will play this card:
how pathetic.
how pathetic.
From link:
"Undeterred by a decisive defeat in the Senate, House Republicans are moving ahead with a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to take a stand just months before the election.
The vote, scheduled for Tuesday, will occur in a week devoted to several priorities of social conservatives _ what House GOP leaders call their "American values agenda." Also on tap are a pledge protection bill and several Republican-backed stem cell bills."
Maybe our GOP apologists friends could tell us how the "working within" "strategy" is working out.
Oh, it'll never pass so it doesnt matter!
The glass is half full!!
Former Senator John Danforth is against this!
Inclusion wins!
Stay tunded!
"Undeterred by a decisive defeat in the Senate, House Republicans are moving ahead with a vote on a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, forcing lawmakers to take a stand just months before the election.
The vote, scheduled for Tuesday, will occur in a week devoted to several priorities of social conservatives _ what House GOP leaders call their "American values agenda." Also on tap are a pledge protection bill and several Republican-backed stem cell bills."
Maybe our GOP apologists friends could tell us how the "working within" "strategy" is working out.
Oh, it'll never pass so it doesnt matter!
The glass is half full!!
Former Senator John Danforth is against this!
Inclusion wins!
Stay tunded!
>>>With sinking poll numbers and with nothing else they can think of apparently, to try to rally their base, the GOP once again will play this card: how pathetic.
Hell, it worked once.
>>>The debacle in Ohio could have changed the outcome of the 2002 presidential race. Voting technology is the key.
Actually, knowing when they hold presidential elections is key. Hope you didn't work too hard "getting out the vote" for the 2002 presidential election.
LXN
Hell, it worked once.
>>>The debacle in Ohio could have changed the outcome of the 2002 presidential race. Voting technology is the key.
Actually, knowing when they hold presidential elections is key. Hope you didn't work too hard "getting out the vote" for the 2002 presidential election.
LXN
You have to have time to vote no matter when that is. You also need enough machines to accommodate the number of voters.
Each person should be responsible for getting out the one vote that counts most: their own. But the above must be better facilitated.
Technology is the key because that is what young people are accustomed to dealing with on a daily basis. This should be supported by paper trails.
Each person should be responsible for getting out the one vote that counts most: their own. But the above must be better facilitated.
Technology is the key because that is what young people are accustomed to dealing with on a daily basis. This should be supported by paper trails.
QUOTE
sportinlife:
Technology is the key because that is what young people are accustomed to dealing with on a daily basis. This should be supported by paper trails.
I really like to think that my generation can figure out something so analog as a ballot. Technology is the key because that is what young people are accustomed to dealing with on a daily basis. This should be supported by paper trails.
wink But maybe a technology upgrade would somehow up the votes in the 18-24 age group. I guess it's worth a shot.
QUOTE
Illini_fan:
I really like to think that my generation can figure out something so analog as a ballot.
wink But maybe a technology upgrade would somehow up the votes in the 18-24 age group. I guess it's worth a shot.
It isn't so much a tech upgrade that is necessary, as the appeal of voting itself. People who spend hours a day on a cell phone or blackberry won't go to a polling place. Why not bring the polling place to them - a unique printable record needed.
I really like to think that my generation can figure out something so analog as a ballot.
wink But maybe a technology upgrade would somehow up the votes in the 18-24 age group. I guess it's worth a shot.
QUOTE
sportinlife:
I really don't like that idea. If you can't take half an hour out of your day to vote, then you don't deserve to vote. If you can't vote that day, that's what absentee voting is there for in the weeks leading up to the election.
QUOTE
Illini_fan:
I really like to think that my generation can figure out something so analog as a ballot.
wink But maybe a technology upgrade would somehow up the votes in the 18-24 age group. I guess it's worth a shot.
It isn't so much a tech upgrade that is necessary, as the appeal of voting itself. People who spend hours a day on a cell phone or blackberry won't go to a polling place. Why not bring the polling place to them - a unique printable record needed. I really like to think that my generation can figure out something so analog as a ballot.
wink But maybe a technology upgrade would somehow up the votes in the 18-24 age group. I guess it's worth a shot.
illini, I agree completely. When Iraqis recently had their vote, they braved bombs, threats of death, and intimidation like never before, just to exercise their right to vote. If some lazy do-nothings can't show up to vote, that's their loss. Boo hoo, boo hoo! Cry me a river.
The right to vote is absolute. The choice to do so is not. Use it or lose out.
The right to vote is absolute. The choice to do so is not. Use it or lose out.
I'm one of those "lazy do-nothings" who has a load of things to do on election day which, like most people, I don't have off from work.
I vote anyhow, but understand why many working people don't. There is little motivation to participate in a process whose outcome seems predetermined in many districts.
Voting should not be any more difficult than dropping off the mail, or logging on to websites.
I vote anyhow, but understand why many working people don't. There is little motivation to participate in a process whose outcome seems predetermined in many districts.
Voting should not be any more difficult than dropping off the mail, or logging on to websites.
For me, it usually has been pretty easy. Voting absentee has allowed it to be as easy as going to the mail box every time and leaving it there to be picked up. It's not as difficult as everyone makes it out to be. I should know since I have done exactly that several times.
One idea about getting out the vote would be to change election day from Tuesday to Saturday, where it's less of an inconvenience than a day in the middle of the usual work week.
One idea about getting out the vote would be to change election day from Tuesday to Saturday, where it's less of an inconvenience than a day in the middle of the usual work week.
What if they had a nationwide lotto for voting. All the people that voted get entered into a lotto to win a million dollars, tax free of course. I bet we would have people voting in droves. 
Getting back onto the topic, as things stand now, I won't doubt that the GOP has a good chance to maintain control. So long as the Democrat leadership refuses to give us, the voters, something to believe in and vote for, Republicans will keep control of both houses of Congress. I hope the Dems' leadership realizes this soon!
Some Republican incumbents running for the US Senate are entering dangerous territory as November nears.
Mike DeWine is either tied or falling behind Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
Lincoln Chafee is behind his Democratic opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, and is facing a tough primary race against Laffey.
Gordon Burns is behind his Democratic opponent Jon Tester, a farmer, in Montana.
Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum is behind his Democratic opponent Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania.
Jim Talent, the youngest-looking 50-year-old in national politics, is running behind his Democratic opponent Claire McCaskill in Missouri.
Also, in open seats, Amy Klobuchar is running well ahead of Mark Kennedy in Minnesota.
In Maryland, if Cardin wins the primary he defeats Steele; if it's Mfume, it could be down to the wire. I hope it's Cardin.
New Jersey and Connecticut are dicey for the Democrats, the former because Menendez is now paying for the state government shutdown, while the Lieberman-Lamont drama could result in a splitting of the Democratic and independent votes. Arizona isn't looking so great for the GOP anymore, since Pederson keeps trending up. Webb is making up ground in Virginia, though Allen is still the strong favorite.
The GOP's safest seats are in Utah, Indiana (Lugar has no opponent as of today!), Texas, Mississippi, Maine (which has the most popular Republican senators), and Wyoming. Nevada also looks pretty good, unless Jack Carter gets going.
The Democrats' safest seats are in New York, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Delaware, North Dakota, and Washington State. Michigan also looks pretty good, though Stabenow's numbers aren't great.
The Independent-Socialist candidate in Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who will caucus with the Democrats, is racing to victory.
If the debacle in Iraq keeps worsening (and it is now considered by some in the GOP to be a lost cause), the Democrats, in spite of themselves, could retake the Senate.
Mike DeWine is either tied or falling behind Sherrod Brown in Ohio.
Lincoln Chafee is behind his Democratic opponent, Sheldon Whitehouse, and is facing a tough primary race against Laffey.
Gordon Burns is behind his Democratic opponent Jon Tester, a farmer, in Montana.
Rick "Man-on-Dog" Santorum is behind his Democratic opponent Bob Casey Jr. in Pennsylvania.
Jim Talent, the youngest-looking 50-year-old in national politics, is running behind his Democratic opponent Claire McCaskill in Missouri.
Also, in open seats, Amy Klobuchar is running well ahead of Mark Kennedy in Minnesota.
In Maryland, if Cardin wins the primary he defeats Steele; if it's Mfume, it could be down to the wire. I hope it's Cardin.
New Jersey and Connecticut are dicey for the Democrats, the former because Menendez is now paying for the state government shutdown, while the Lieberman-Lamont drama could result in a splitting of the Democratic and independent votes. Arizona isn't looking so great for the GOP anymore, since Pederson keeps trending up. Webb is making up ground in Virginia, though Allen is still the strong favorite.
The GOP's safest seats are in Utah, Indiana (Lugar has no opponent as of today!), Texas, Mississippi, Maine (which has the most popular Republican senators), and Wyoming. Nevada also looks pretty good, unless Jack Carter gets going.
The Democrats' safest seats are in New York, California, Massachusetts, Florida, Delaware, North Dakota, and Washington State. Michigan also looks pretty good, though Stabenow's numbers aren't great.
The Independent-Socialist candidate in Vermont, Bernie Sanders, who will caucus with the Democrats, is racing to victory.
If the debacle in Iraq keeps worsening (and it is now considered by some in the GOP to be a lost cause), the Democrats, in spite of themselves, could retake the Senate.
Then there's Nebraska, where the Republican-lite Democrat Ben Nelson has 70% popularity and will likely win. He has ruled out switching parties.
New Mexico also looks good for the Democrats.
That may not be all the states, but I think it's most of them.
New Mexico also looks good for the Democrats.
That may not be all the states, but I think it's most of them.
Indeed Fan. Lots to watch, and lots goin on and it look slike lots going on between now and November, but I also have heard comments from some Congressman in the GOP that sound really bad, what with the way things are deteriorating even worse now than they were before...the comments from the party on the right are very telling at the moment.
I found this very interesting given the current state of affairs. This is one GOP member who sure is talking and sounding like a Democrat!
Maddog's point earlier in this thread about Bilbray and Busby seems to be backed up by this piece in the LA City Beat (not a foreign paper, sorry GMG). It makes really thoughtful points about Busby's failure to attract independent voters, who pretty much sat out the election, and why. But it also confirms what some of the diarists on some of the left-leaning blogs were saying leading up to the race, which was that Busby was running a risk-averse campaign, almost Dukakis-style, that refused to directly criticize Bush or link Bilbray to him.
QUOTE
Busby’s campaign turns out to have been far less effective than the media suggested. While she certainly galvanized Democrats in the 50th Congressional District, and while Republican turnout was markedly lower than usual because of disenchantment with the status quo, she failed to capture the one constituency she desperately needed to put her over the top, which was independent voters. Her promise to push for better ethics in Washington fell utterly flat with them, because they were almost as suspicious about the integrity of the Democratic Party as they were of the Republicans. Things might have been differenBt if Busby had been running against Duke Cunningham himself, but the man was in prison, not on the ballot. Independents, according to the survey, either stayed home or voted for a third-party candidate.
What might have induced those independents to vote for Busby? According to Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign’s chair, all it would have taken was a simple promise to hold the administration’s feet to the fire. “Voters want a candidate to say, ‘I will hold George Bush accountable,’” Jacobs told me. “They think the country’s heading in the wrong direction, they disapprove of George Bush, and therefore they want to know: who is going to be most likely to call him to account and put the country on a better path? I don’t think Busby did any of that.”
[...]
Busby herself appears to have taken some of these lessons on board as she gears up for a rematch against Bilbray in November. Curiously, it might actually be easier for her to win this time – if she can use Bilbray’s few months’ tenure on Capitol Hill as ammunition to suggest that a Republican representative will do nothing to force the Bush administration to change course. According to Rick Jacobs, the party as a whole would do well to approach the midterms in a similar spirit. “This is how the party can define itself, nationally,” he said. “Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction, and Iraq is exhibit number one. Vote for us, and we are going to force the president to come up with a plan to get us out of the there. A Republican congress won’t do anything. That’s the message.”
That was certainly Ned Lamont’s message, and it worked. Now the Democrats need to stop fighting among themselves, and take the message to a broader national audience. They might not have had the courage to stand up against a popular Republican administration. Now all they need is the courage to oppose an unpopular Republican administration. Really, how hard can that be?
What might have induced those independents to vote for Busby? According to Rick Jacobs, the Courage Campaign’s chair, all it would have taken was a simple promise to hold the administration’s feet to the fire. “Voters want a candidate to say, ‘I will hold George Bush accountable,’” Jacobs told me. “They think the country’s heading in the wrong direction, they disapprove of George Bush, and therefore they want to know: who is going to be most likely to call him to account and put the country on a better path? I don’t think Busby did any of that.”
[...]
Busby herself appears to have taken some of these lessons on board as she gears up for a rematch against Bilbray in November. Curiously, it might actually be easier for her to win this time – if she can use Bilbray’s few months’ tenure on Capitol Hill as ammunition to suggest that a Republican representative will do nothing to force the Bush administration to change course. According to Rick Jacobs, the party as a whole would do well to approach the midterms in a similar spirit. “This is how the party can define itself, nationally,” he said. “Bush is taking the country in the wrong direction, and Iraq is exhibit number one. Vote for us, and we are going to force the president to come up with a plan to get us out of the there. A Republican congress won’t do anything. That’s the message.”
That was certainly Ned Lamont’s message, and it worked. Now the Democrats need to stop fighting among themselves, and take the message to a broader national audience. They might not have had the courage to stand up against a popular Republican administration. Now all they need is the courage to oppose an unpopular Republican administration. Really, how hard can that be?
Yes, LA City Beat is akin to the various "Readers" that are published in some American cities, although it's more like the avowedly leftist "SF Bay Guardian" than, say, The Chicago "Reader."
WHATEVER Busby did wrong, may she keep on doing it!
WHATEVER Busby did wrong, may she keep on doing it!
Anyone who heard the Idiot-in-Chief yesterday would clearly choose to vote Democrat this fall. He has no clue what to do, and won't listen to anyone who does. The only way to force the issue is to vote Democrat in November. That about sums it up!
QUOTE
UCLAfan:
Anyone who heard the Idiot-in-Chief yesterday would clearly choose to vote Democrat this fall.
I'm almost starting to feel sorry for him, he's lost it, totally.
Anyone who heard the Idiot-in-Chief yesterday would clearly choose to vote Democrat this fall.
QUOTE
UCLAfan:
Anyone who heard the Idiot-in-Chief yesterday would clearly choose to vote Democrat this fall. He has no clue what to do, and won't listen to anyone who does. The only way to force the issue is to vote Democrat in November. That about sums it up!
Perhaps some people heard a man who was emphatically standing by his beliefs, notwithstanding the difficulty of the tasks facing him, or however strongly others might disagree with him. Perhaps those same people heard a man who demonstrated a dogged determination that, however un- or misinformed, at least represents a choice better than that offered by those who didn't learn a thing from our experience in Vietnam and simplistically want nothing more than to "bring the troops home now," despite the troops' assessment of their own situation. Perhaps those people won't choose to vote "Democrat[ic]" in November at all. We won't know until after election day and perhaps anyone who'd presume to predict how millions of others would vote based on one speech "has no clue" of what he's talking about.
Anyone who heard the Idiot-in-Chief yesterday would clearly choose to vote Democrat this fall. He has no clue what to do, and won't listen to anyone who does. The only way to force the issue is to vote Democrat in November. That about sums it up!
Come on, gmginsfo, even you have to admit that nothing is going right for this administration. It took Bush years just to stand by his beliefs? That is unacceptable. There was no plan when we went into Iraq, and there certainly is no plan to get us out. That's called non-planning, an attribute very unbecoming to the leader of the most powerful nation on the planet. Bush has been a failure that has exceeded all before him, and hopefully, all after him. Bush and his ilk have forever changed my opinion of the Republican party, and it has not been a positive change. Never before have I seen such division in our nation. Bush seems to have forgotten that united we stand, divided we fall. If the Republican party doesn't learn this lesson, it is curtains for them this fall. I can hardly wait.
I'll stick with my original assertion. The GOP is not doomed or destined for failure unless the Democratic party can take advantage of the GOP's current position. "They f--ked it up, so it's our turn to drive" is not a position statement.
LXN
LXN
Lexington, I'm completely in agreement with your position. The Dems can't simply jump on the "Bush failed, so let us do better". They have to give us all something to vote FOR, not just to merely vote AGAINST the mandate of the Bush Regime. Something tells me that won't happen, but one can always hope.
Funny, wasn't it the Rethugs who were voting AGAINST Clinton? What were the Rethugs voting for? 9/11 occured AFTER the 2000 election. They have done rather well in this culture of hate.
[ August 23, 2006, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]
[ August 23, 2006, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: millerbeach ]
QUOTE
Lexington:
I'll stick with my original assertion. The GOP is not doomed or destined for failure unless the Democratic party can take advantage of the GOP's current position. \"They f--ked it up, so it's our turn to drive\" is not a position statement.
LXN
You are correct. Even a "thrown the bums out" mentality can do so much. A look at a recent Gallup poll shows some dramatic shifts over the last few months.I'll stick with my original assertion. The GOP is not doomed or destined for failure unless the Democratic party can take advantage of the GOP's current position. \"They f--ked it up, so it's our turn to drive\" is not a position statement.
LXN
Republicans appear to be narrowing the Democratic lead in Congressional preference. In new Gallup poll, Democrats hold a two percentage-point lead--the smallest in a year. In answer to the question, "If the elections for Congress were being held today, which party's candidate would you vote for in your Congressional district?" 47 percent of said the Democratic candidate, while 45 percent said the Republican candidate. That two-point gap is far smaller than 51-40 Democratic advantage just three weeks ago. In June, the Democratic advantage was 54-38; in April, it was 54-39; in March, it was 55-39; in February, it was 50-43; in January, it was 49-43; in October 2005, it was 50-43; and in August 2005, it was 53-41.
All those numbers are drawn from registered voters. Among people described as "regular voters" — according to Gallup, "registered voters who say they 'always vote' and who say they voted in the last mid-term election," in the new poll, Democrats and Republicans are tied, 48-48.
I have always believed that if the Republicans lose control of either or both houses of Congress, it will NOT be because of the Iraq war or any single overriding issue; rather, it will be because Republicans, particularly conservatives, will either vote against a GOP candidate or will sit on their hands--probably the latter. This, of course, will instantly but incorrectly interpreted by the Left and the media that America has become liberal, or that America has tired of GOP rule. Neither would be an accurate statement.
"Firing" someone politically is quite different than "hiring" someone politically; however, Republicans lack the intelligence to understand this.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.