Go Back   I-Mockery Forum > I-Mockery Discussion Forums > Philosophy, Politics, and News
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 09:17 PM        A Democratic Congressional Majority in 2006
Six months ago I would not have thought it possible, the idea of Democrats taking back the Senate or the House. Now, it seems, that idea is not out of the realm of possibility. Republicans have fumbled over the past year, and things aren't looking much better for them as they head into the months that count. Democrats hold fundraising leads, and host competitive candidates in previously solid-Republican seats. Take a look at the Senate:


Tennessee: Unknown vs Harold Ford, Jr. (D) - The race to succeed Majority Leader Bill Frist has a torn Republican field against popular moderate Democrat Harold Ford. This one's going to be a tossup, but it's much better than in 2000.

Pennsylvania: Rick Santorum (R) vs Bob Casey, Jr. (D) - Santorum, previously the darling of religious conservatives, is trailing moderate Casey by at least two dozen points, in what is widely seen as a gift to the Democrats in November.

Ohio: Mike DeWine (R) vs Sherrod Brown (D) - Ethical scandals in Ohio have been dragging down the incumbent DeWine, who now trails Sherrod Brown by three to four points. If Brown runs a tight race, he has the potential to pick up the seat for the Democrats.

Montana: Conrad Burns (R) vs Jon Tester (D) - In the heart of Republican territory, incumbent Burns is running five to seven points behind populist Jon Tester, who bested a better-funded Democrat in the primary and has garnered national support.

Rhode Island: Lincoln Chafee (R) vs Sheldon Whitehouse (D) - Chafee is a liberal Republican, but his floppiness and lack of spirit are holding him down. Whitehouse, previously a relative unknown, is ahead of Chafee by three to four points, and has been gaining in every poll. Whitehouse is also outrasing Chafee and garning the endorsements of organizations previously pro-Chafee.

Missouri: Jim Talent (R) vs Claire McCaskill (D) - McCaskill nearly won the governorship of Missouri in 2004, but her loss now seems like a blessing. McCaskill and her moderate positions are besting incumbent Talent by two to three points, depending on the polling service. Even mainline Republican pollsters SurveyUSA have McCaskill ahead.

Virginia: George Allen (R) vs Jim Webb (D) - A relatively unknown former Secretary of the Navy under Ronald Reagan is giving George Allen, the darling of arch-conservatives, a run for his money. Webb, despite being less funded than the hugely wealthy Republican challenger, is within five points in every poll released.


Winning these seven seats will give Democrats a majority. Winning six will allow for a working majority, since the Independent from Vermont caucuses with the Democrats. Things look good for Democratic control of the Senate. The stem-cell veto only adds to the feeling that Republicans are increasingly out of touch, with their top man standing against his own party.

Good news keeps on rolling in.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #2  
ziggytrix ziggytrix is offline
Mocker
ziggytrix's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: i come from the water
ziggytrix is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 09:25 PM       
Meh, same shit, different party.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 09:55 PM       
Hardly - the lock-step fundamentalism of the right is what is leading to their downfall towards more independent candidates.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #4  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 11:07 PM       
These types of threads don't get much traction here, jmhx.

I like your analysis, however I think the Webb race is overrated. I think when push comes to shove, Allen will take it (it could however drain his resources a bit, hurt his presidential bid.....which is probably Schumer's hope).

I like Harold Ford.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 11:19 PM       
You guys are fun
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 11:20 PM       
Sorry, I forgot:

__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #7  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 19th, 2006, 11:44 PM       
Don't be jealous.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jul 20th, 2006, 12:40 PM       
I'd like to see it happen, if only becaue I'd like to see at least the possability of congressional inestigation of any on of a number of things on the table.

However, I'm not holding my breath.

The last two presientials were... too close to call, and there's been very little action towards voting reform. I think we'd need something WAY beyond a slight lead to make anybody afraid of fucking around a little. I don't mean big conspiracies, just little shit, like rejecting registrations because the paper is the wrong kind, or jamming phone lines, or sending only a few voting machines to Democrat strongholds so people have to wait six hours to vote. That kind of thing.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 20th, 2006, 07:22 PM       
Yes. Voting Reform. That's what the Democrats need to win. The only reason Republicans have power is because they cheat the elections. Uh-huh. Right there with you on that one. They've done everything right, and everybody likes them and wants them in office, but those damn Rs keep rigging elections in order to keep the Ds out of their rightful places in the government.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #10  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 20th, 2006, 09:07 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
They've done everything right, and everybody likes them and wants them in office,.
Eh, not any longer.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 20th, 2006, 11:18 PM       
Pow!
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #12  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 11:46 AM       
Not what I'm saying, Preech. Don't get them panties in a bunch yet. But do look back at exit polls. What I'm saying is the split has been close enough to fifty fifty the last couple of times around for low level dirty tricks and scumbag chicanery to make the difference.

Now maybe both parties get caught, but it seems to me the big stories that came out, and the ONLY conviction so far where on the R side. Not to say it's beneath the D's, but the R's have a jump on them currently in organization and a better track reeocrd at playing hardball and lowball.

It's like those stupid roll playing card games, where one chracters special ability is "Wins all ties".

As long as we are a neck and neck country, or even close, I think the R's will hold onto power. All this talk about a Democratic retaking of either house relies on an awful lot of slim victories. I think only when folks are disgusted enough for polls to reveal significant margins do D's have a chance of getting back in the rivers seat and immediately seeing if they can be as or more corrupt than the R's have been.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 01:00 PM       
Sorry, my panties are still all bunched up.

What I was saying was that the Democrat demise really has nothing at all to do with vote rigging in the big picture. Sure it exists, and as you said, each side does it to the point that it works out to somewhere close to a zero sum. I just don't buy that it's happening on such a large scale as to be a major factor for the most part.

The problem with the Democrats is the Democrats. They have allowed themselves to become the not-Republican Party, leaving all of the responsibilities for shaping any debates to their rivals. The leadership is just a gaggle of shrill, impotent whiners with no answers, just complaints. They discarded liberal ideologies in favor of regressive, socialistic micro-management back when they started to call themselves "progressives." They fell so in love with the methodology of socialism that they lost sight of where their former ideologies wanted them to go.

Most Americans truly care for the indigent, ancient and disabled, yet they reject (or maybe endure regretfully) the Democrats insistence that the only way to help some is to hurt everyone else. Most Americans view our welfare state as incredibly inefficient, which it is, and so full of ridiculous priority systems, waste, grift and scams as to be unsalvageable, which is also is.

It would be very easy for the Democrats to capitalize on this, yet they refuse to do so. "Liberals" should be leading the fight to connect the last remaining third of the world to modern political, financial and social systems rather than supporting theocrats, despots and dictators. "Liberals" should be fighting for reforms of the decrepit social programs introduced in the 40's and 50's and then run into the ground since, yet they insist upon applying modern tactics to age-old problems, allowing themselves to further the issues they once sought to address. Well, in fact, the only remaining true liberals are fighting these fights, and the "progressives" call them Neo-Cons.

Neo-Cons are former Democrats that were "mugged by reality." they came to realize that the social programs they introduced to solve hunger and poverty only led to institutionalized hunger and poverty on a larger scale. They had to leave the party in order to apply the new knowledge, just as Joe Lieberman is facing excommunication because he's not following lock-step with the party's unfathomable opinion that whatever Bush does is inherently the most evil thing ever.

The Democrat Party has become the party of self-destruction, but that does not automatically make the Republican Party the opposite of that. The Republicans are screwing up almost as bad, but unlike the Ds, the Rs actually get a few things right every once and a while... probably mostly due to the former liberals in their midst. Both parties have become primarily authoritarian entities bent on removing the rights of anyone and everyone they can, whether it be gays, immigrants, husbands of human vegtables, or whomever else they can attain leverage upon during an election cycle, whenever they can get away with it.

As you said before, it's all just a power game now. There used to be a point to all this voting. For most Americans, politics is now just a sport useful only for entertainment purposes.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
mburbank mburbank is offline
The Moxie Nerve Food Tonic
mburbank's Avatar
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: right behind you
mburbank has disabled reputation
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 01:16 PM       
I agree with everything youb are saying until you get to the Neo Con part. Whatever the roots of their ideology, the most notable feature of the most prominent neocons is that they are totally batshit crazy and refuse to reality test in much the same way an end of the worlder doesn't care when he predicts a date and time for the end of the world and nothing happens.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 01:28 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by mburbank
I think only when folks are disgusted enough for polls to reveal significant margins do D's have a chance of getting back in the rivers seat and immediately seeing if they can be as or more corrupt than the R's have been.
Yeah, but you're forgetting that these are very popular, very rich incumbents in previously very safe districts, where they won by 15-20 percentage points. Now they're running even with unknowns. Think of it like this, in terms of the CA-50 race.

CA-50 is an incredibly conservative district. Duke Cunningham won it by 22% in 2004. Now, a new Republican is running for the seat against Democrat Francine Busby.

Republicans have spent close to 7 million dollars on this seat, and are still only running about 4% ahead of Busby. That's down from 20% with an expenditure of $1.1 million. By comparison, the Democrats have only spent about $3.5 million. If $7 million gets you that slim a margin in that safe a district, imagine how much you'd need to spend in districts with Republican Congresspersons where the population leans Democratic!

The bottom line is, Republicans do not have $7 million to give to each race that is close. They've only raised about $8 million in the past two months, compared to $16.1 million for Democrats. They will not have the funds to keep these seats as competitive as they are now.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 01:57 PM       
So YOU are the person that convinced Kevin that all candidates are equal and the only thing that wins races is funding and baby kisses!
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #17  
KevinTheOmnivore KevinTheOmnivore is offline
Mocker
KevinTheOmnivore's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Brooklyn, NY
KevinTheOmnivore is probably a spambot
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 02:21 PM       
Preechr's reality has been crushed. Apparently "the party" doesn't ultimately make the final decision on all matters.

jmhx, you are right about the funding in CA-50, however that whole argument was sort of a glass half empty/half full sort of thing. Yeah, it took the GOP that much to keep a tiny lead, but if a conservative seat didn't swing Democrat after a Republican commited a CRIME, what will make conservatives go Democratic...?

The problem sort of comes back to what Preechr had mentioned. No matter how down on the GOP people might be now, the Democrats haven't managed to properly capitalize on it and win support.

In November, if Dems take the Senate and/or the House, it won't be because voters were really impressed by the national agenda they've put forward.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 02:21 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
So YOU are the person that convinced Kevin that all candidates are equal and the only thing that wins races is funding and baby kisses!
If all candidates are equal, why the HELL would Dems choose John Kerry.

Like warmed over asparagus, I swear.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 21st, 2006, 08:23 PM       
Have you read anything that John Kerry published before he ran for President?
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #20  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 22nd, 2006, 12:55 AM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
Have you read anything that John Kerry published before he ran for President?
I've read a decent amount of his DLC essays, but admittedly not much from before he became a prominent national figure.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #21  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 22nd, 2006, 02:08 AM       
What did he write about? I like alot of what he said in the debates, if it's anything like that.
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 22nd, 2006, 11:32 PM       
His earlier stuff is nothing like what he said in the debates or the rest of his speeches while a candidate. Much better. John Kerry did not show up for his presidential run. Not that I like him any more or less, but it's amazing that he did so badly.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #23  
JMHX JMHX is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Washington, D.C.
JMHX is probably a spambot
Old Jul 22nd, 2006, 11:38 PM       
Quote:
Originally Posted by Preechr
His earlier stuff is nothing like what he said in the debates or the rest of his speeches while a candidate. Much better. John Kerry did not show up for his presidential run. Not that I like him any more or less, but it's amazing that he did so badly.
He had a lot of bad handlers early on, but a lot of the blame rests on him for becoming such a warmed-over candidate.
__________________
"Pow!" - JMHX
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Preechr Preechr is offline
=======
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: NA
Preechr is probably a spambot
Old Jul 22nd, 2006, 11:39 PM       
I still wonder what the hell happened with that.
__________________
mburbank~ Yes, okay, fine, I do know what you meant, but why is it not possible for you to get through a paragraph without making all the words cry?

How can someone who obviously thinks so much of their ideas have so little respect for expressing them? How can someone who so yearns to be taken seriously make so little effort?!
Reply With Quote
  #25  
kahljorn kahljorn is offline
BANNED
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: NO
kahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contestkahljorn won the popularity contest
Old Jul 23rd, 2006, 05:30 PM       
"His earlier stuff is nothing like what he said in the debates or the rest of his speeches while a candidate. Much better. John Kerry did not show up for his presidential run. Not that I like him any more or less, but it's amazing that he did so badly."

What did he write about?
__________________
NEVER
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

   


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 11:38 PM.


© 2008 I-Mockery.com
Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.