Chambliss (R) Projected to Win Georgia Senate Runoff

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

feralkid

Lifer
Jan 28, 2002
16,938
5,037
136
Originally posted by: Dari
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The Republicans are on the march now!!!!!

First Georgia, next Minnesota!!!

(Actually the Democrats should be at the peak of their power. Presidents almost always lose seats in mid term elections so it should be down hill from here.)

shut up.

Now, now...Puffy needed to break out his pom poms before his mom cleaned out the basement.
 

CitizenKain

Diamond Member
Jul 6, 2000
4,480
14
76
Originally posted by: winnar111
Originally posted by: Lemon law
There is indeed some irony in the dmcowen674 comments of "Once again Georgia is responsible for the downfall of the country along side with Texas." Not only does ole DM forget a California that brought us a Nixon and a Reagan, in terms of contrasts, Carter is no Chambliss, and Chambliss is no Carter. But do not hold your breath, I can safely predict that Chambliss will never win any Nobel peace prizes.

But still my beating heart, maybe there should be a ignobel sleaze prize for what Chambliss did to Max Cleleland.

Not being a Jimmy Carter is about the best thing you can say about a man.

Do tell, I'm curious what evil things Carter did.

In comparison Saxby once called a Vietnam vet a traitor to his country, that takes class.
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Yeah, too bad. It was a long shot, but fun to dream for a little while. Even without the unstoppable block of 60, you still have a pretty damn powerful majority in the senate with 57 democrats. It will not be easy to muster all 40 Republican votes for filibuster every time, they will need to make some serious concessions.

Resident Republicans will still lie and say that Democrats have full control.

Sok the average Obama voter still thinks republicans are in control.

please ignore awful music wait til 48 seconds
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
I think this whole "60 needed for a supermajority" thingy has been too hyped and over-simplified.

Look, you've got Repubs that are practically indistinguishable from Dems (e.g., Olympia Snow & Susan Collins) and could vote with the Dems anyway. OTOH, we've also got Blue Dog Dems who could just as easily vote with the Repubs.

IMO, it's too simplistic to assume that just because there's a "Dem" next to their name that 60 Senators are always gonna toe the party (leaders') line, likewise for the Repubs.

Fern
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
SNL had this right. No way GA elects a guy named Jim over Saxby. Saxby Chambliss, Bongo Fluffernutter, Zell Stutzbutter. Southerners like funky names.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Yeah, too bad. It was a long shot, but fun to dream for a little while. Even without the unstoppable block of 60, you still have a pretty damn powerful majority in the senate with 57 democrats. It will not be easy to muster all 40 Republican votes for filibuster every time, they will need to make some serious concessions.

Resident Republicans will still lie and say that Democrats have full control.
Hi Dave! Would you please reconcile your position now to the one you took in 2006 where you stated the Republicans had full control?


11/12/2006 10:37 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.
 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
The Republicans are on the march now!!!!!

First Georgia, next Minnesota!!!

(Actually the Democrats should be at the peak of their power. Presidents almost always lose seats in mid term elections so it should be down hill from here.)

Considering all the seats your party has lost over the course of the last 24 months, I have to say I am somewhat surprised to see you gloating about ANYTHING political.
 

Jaskalas

Lifer
Jun 23, 2004
36,056
10,386
136
Originally posted by: bamx2
I live in GA . This may sound odd but I voted for Obama and Chambliss ! . Why ? Obama was by far the better candidate for President . I voted for Chambliss for balance in the Senate and he is an ardent supporter of the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org ) .

I like the sound of that. :thumbsup: to you.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,149
55,682
136
Originally posted by: Fern
I think this whole "60 needed for a supermajority" thingy has been too hyped and over-simplified.

Look, you've got Repubs that are practically indistinguishable from Dems (e.g., Olympia Snow & Susan Collins) and could vote with the Dems anyway. OTOH, we've also got Blue Dog Dems who could just as easily vote with the Repubs.

IMO, it's too simplistic to assume that just because there's a "Dem" next to their name that 60 Senators are always gonna toe the party (leaders') line, likewise for the Repubs.

Fern

I disagree. For some good info you can check out this analysis on polarization. Simply put, even 'moderate' Republicans like Snowe and Susan Collins are nowhere close to indistinguishable from Democrats. They are still much, much more conservative. There was a time in which the parties experienced significant ideological overlap, but that time has long since passed. A (D) seat and an (R) seat are two very different things.

The ideological heresy displayed by people like Lieberman, the Blue Dogs, etc. is VASTLY overhyped. They disagree with their parties on a few small wedge issues, they still vote overwhelmingly with their party.

The 60 vote thing is overhyped, but that's because party discipline was never enough to begin with anyway.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Yeah, too bad. It was a long shot, but fun to dream for a little while. Even without the unstoppable block of 60, you still have a pretty damn powerful majority in the senate with 57 democrats. It will not be easy to muster all 40 Republican votes for filibuster every time, they will need to make some serious concessions.

Resident Republicans will still lie and say that Democrats have full control.
Hi Dave! Would you please reconcile your position now to the one you took in 2006 where you stated the Republicans had full control?


11/12/2006 10:37 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.
Dave?
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
Originally posted by: bamx2
I live in GA . This may sound odd but I voted for Obama and Chambliss ! . Why ? Obama was by far the better candidate for President . I voted for Chambliss for balance in the Senate and he is an ardent supporter of the Fair Tax (www.fairtax.org ) .
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In all due respects bamx2, you evidently were not alone in your thinking. As Chambliss seeming made the 60 seat super majority into a cornerstone of his campaign.

But I very much wonder, even if Martin and Franken would have won, if the democrats would have had the party discipline to keep all of their members voting in lockstep.

And now we will see if the GOP will be able to keep their members all in the same lockstep they achieved in the last congress, a congress in which the GOP set new world records for the use of the filibuster. Which prevented the democrats from delivering the change the American people wanted when they voted in 11/2006.

But its not too hard to connect the dots and read the tea leaves from both the elections of November of 2006 and 2008. The GOP reward for gridlock has netted the GOP some negative 50 house seats and negative 13 or 14 Senate seats from those two elections. Or an 11.5% gain in the house and a 13 or 14% gain in the Senate.

And that gridlock basically only benefited GWB, who, as a lame duck in 2006, could not be a lasting investment come the election of 11/2008.


Well what is it? Gridlock of Rubberstamping that hurt the republicans? Make up your mind.
 

PokerGuy

Lifer
Jul 2, 2005
13,650
201
101
Originally posted by: eskimospy
Originally posted by: Fern
I think this whole "60 needed for a supermajority" thingy has been too hyped and over-simplified.

Look, you've got Repubs that are practically indistinguishable from Dems (e.g., Olympia Snow & Susan Collins) and could vote with the Dems anyway. OTOH, we've also got Blue Dog Dems who could just as easily vote with the Repubs.

IMO, it's too simplistic to assume that just because there's a "Dem" next to their name that 60 Senators are always gonna toe the party (leaders') line, likewise for the Repubs.

Fern

I disagree. For some good info you can check out this analysis on polarization. Simply put, even 'moderate' Republicans like Snowe and Susan Collins are nowhere close to indistinguishable from Democrats. They are still much, much more conservative. There was a time in which the parties experienced significant ideological overlap, but that time has long since passed. A (D) seat and an (R) seat are two very different things.

The ideological heresy displayed by people like Lieberman, the Blue Dogs, etc. is VASTLY overhyped. They disagree with their parties on a few small wedge issues, they still vote overwhelmingly with their party.

The polarization has become so strong, that even if someone (lets say a moderate R or a moderate D) wants to vote with the other party on an issue, they risk getting hammered by their own party for falling out of line, and then get hung out to dry when it comes time to get support for reelection in their district. I think votes are going to continue to get much much more "along party lines" than ever. The repubs since 2000 have contributed a LOT to this problem, they were extremely effective in keeping everyone on the R side voting lockstep, forcing the other side to do the same.
 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
To GenX

Its was the rubber stamping of bad public policy that hurt the GOP in the time frame 2000-2006. It was the grid locking of better public policy that hurt the GOP in the last two years. Its not a matter of making up my mind or choosing which is worse, both are poison, and the GOP managed to commit both sins. And committing a new sin does not absolve the GOP of its previous different sin.

But if it makes GenX feel any better, we can combine them into the same sin. Under captain Clinton, the democrats left GWB and the GOP with a ship of State safely floating on a sea of black ink. And as soon as GWB had the watch, he steered the good ship USA straight towards a distant reef, after six years, when it became clear we were nearly upon that reef, the crew mutinied and elected a new oversight. And as a result, the dems were able to slightly alter course away from the reef, but because the GOP jammed the steering gear, that 2 year course correction was not enough to safely steer us away from the reef. So we now need an 850 billion bail out of our banking system, we are in a bad recession, and no one is sure if we will manage to avoid hitting the reef and ripping huge holes in the hull.
 

fskimospy

Elite Member
Mar 10, 2006
88,149
55,682
136
Originally posted by: PokerGuy

The polarization has become so strong, that even if someone (lets say a moderate R or a moderate D) wants to vote with the other party on an issue, they risk getting hammered by their own party for falling out of line, and then get hung out to dry when it comes time to get support for reelection in their district. I think votes are going to continue to get much much more "along party lines" than ever. The repubs since 2000 have contributed a LOT to this problem, they were extremely effective in keeping everyone on the R side voting lockstep, forcing the other side to do the same.

I don't know. I think it's deeper than that. Slate has been running some articles recently called 'the big sort' which has a lot of interesting info. I don't think it's the fault of the R's or the D's so much as it is a shift in how Americans associate based upon higher personal mobility. (my somewhat tenuously supported opinion)

The political parties seem to be symptoms of this instead of causes as far as I can tell.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
To GenX

Its was the rubber stamping of bad public policy that hurt the GOP in the time frame 2000-2006. It was the grid locking of better public policy that hurt the GOP in the last two years. Its not a matter of making up my mind or choosing which is worse, both are poison, and the GOP managed to commit both sins. And committing a new sin does not absolve the GOP of its previous different sin.

Oh I get it so you want your cake and to eat it too? Before democrats controlled the congress rubberstamping was bad, filibuster good. Once Democrats control the congress filibuster is bad, rubberstamping good.

But if it makes GenX feel any better, we can combine them into the same sin. Under captain Clinton, the democrats left GWB and the GOP with a ship of State safely floating on a sea of black ink. And as soon as GWB had the watch, he steered the good ship USA straight towards a distant reef, after six years, when it became clear we were nearly upon that reef, the crew mutinied and elected a new oversight. And as a result, the dems were able to slightly alter course away from the reef, but because the GOP jammed the steering gear, that 2 year course correction was not enough to safely steer us away from the reef. So we now need an 850 billion bail out of our banking system, we are in a bad recession, and no one is sure if we will manage to avoid hitting the reef and ripping huge holes in the hull.

What an absolutely simplistic view of the world you have. I hope the bliss is wonderful in your sea of ignorance.

 

Lemon law

Lifer
Nov 6, 2005
20,984
3
0
What GenX has in saying, " What an absolutely simplistic view of the world you have. I hope the bliss is wonderful in your sea of ignorance." , is simply his own denial. Bad public policy does have consequences,
and the spend and borrow policy of GWB and the GOP always fails after a short time. Add in two stupid quagmires, and the merry go round stops even faster.

Even when poll after poll showed the American people thought the country was moving in the wrong direction, the GOP refused to alter course. As a result that GOP got fired yet again in the election of 11/2008.
Call it simplistic if you want GenX, but its really simple to understand. So you can invent some complex reason of why the GOP really succeeded if you care to, but it still does not change the fact that the American people collectively fired the GOP for simple incompetence.


 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: Lemon law
What GenX has in saying, " What an absolutely simplistic view of the world you have. I hope the bliss is wonderful in your sea of ignorance." , is simply his own denial. Bad public policy does have consequences,
and the spend and borrow policy of GWB and the GOP always fails after a short time. Add in two stupid quagmires, and the merry go round stops even faster.

Even when poll after poll showed the American people thought the country was moving in the wrong direction, the GOP refused to alter course. As a result that GOP got fired yet again in the election of 11/2008.
Call it simplistic if you want GenX, but its really simple to understand. So you can invent some complex reason of why the GOP really succeeded if you care to, but it still does not change the fact that the American people collectively fired the GOP for simple incompetence.

The simplistic view is you thinking the days of surplus were feasible past Clintons term when it clearly was not. The economy was faltering in 2000 and came to a complete crash in 01. Gore, Bush, or even Clinton it wouldnt have mattered who was running the show in 01. We were back to deficit spending.

As for bank, the democrats have been running the banking committees for two years and utterly failed to see this coming as well.

08 was a changing of the guard. An unpopular president that lampooned his own party.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Yeah, too bad. It was a long shot, but fun to dream for a little while. Even without the unstoppable block of 60, you still have a pretty damn powerful majority in the senate with 57 democrats. It will not be easy to muster all 40 Republican votes for filibuster every time, they will need to make some serious concessions.

Resident Republicans will still lie and say that Democrats have full control.
Hi Dave! Would you please reconcile your position now to the one you took in 2006 where you stated the Republicans had full control?


11/12/2006 10:37 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.
Dave?

 

FuzzyBee

Diamond Member
Jan 22, 2000
5,172
1
81
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Yeah, too bad. It was a long shot, but fun to dream for a little while. Even without the unstoppable block of 60, you still have a pretty damn powerful majority in the senate with 57 democrats. It will not be easy to muster all 40 Republican votes for filibuster every time, they will need to make some serious concessions.

Resident Republicans will still lie and say that Democrats have full control.
Hi Dave! Would you please reconcile your position now to the one you took in 2006 where you stated the Republicans had full control?


11/12/2006 10:37 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.
Dave?

<crickets>
 

palehorse

Lifer
Dec 21, 2005
11,521
0
76
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Blackjack200
Yeah, too bad. It was a long shot, but fun to dream for a little while. Even without the unstoppable block of 60, you still have a pretty damn powerful majority in the senate with 57 democrats. It will not be easy to muster all 40 Republican votes for filibuster every time, they will need to make some serious concessions.

Resident Republicans will still lie and say that Democrats have full control.
Hi Dave! Would you please reconcile your position now to the one you took in 2006 where you stated the Republicans had full control?


11/12/2006 10:37 PM
Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Bahahahahahaha

never heard you complaining of radical right extremism when your heroes had full control.
owned.
 

daveymark

Lifer
Sep 15, 2003
10,573
1
0
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
He was ahead the first time... is this unexpected?

not really, but it would haven been major for the dems. they brought out some of the big guns to campaign in Georgia (Clinton, Gore, and I think maybe Biden?)


pales in comparison to the other big guns brought in to campaign for the dems: Ludacris, Young Jeezy, and T.I. :laugh:
 

Corbett

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2005
3,074
0
76
Originally posted by: daveymark
Originally posted by: loki8481
Originally posted by: Jack Flash
He was ahead the first time... is this unexpected?

not really, but it would haven been major for the dems. they brought out some of the big guns to campaign in Georgia (Clinton, Gore, and I think maybe Biden?)


pales in comparison to the other big guns brought in to campaign for the dems: Ludacris, Young Jeezy, and T.I. :laugh:

Rumor has it, T.I. gave a speech entitled "You can have whatever you like".

Oh wait, that was what certain blacks were screaming in the streets on Obama's election night :p
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: Genx87

Before democrats controlled the congress rubberstamping was bad, filibuster good.

Once Democrats control the congress filibuster is bad, rubberstamping good.

Stop lying.

Democrats don't control congress and never have unlike your Republicans had full control from 2001 to 2006.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87

Before democrats controlled the congress rubberstamping was bad, filibuster good.

Once Democrats control the congress filibuster is bad, rubberstamping good.

Stop lying.

Democrats don't control congress and never have unlike your Republicans had full control from 2001 to 2006.

You have already been owned on this dumbass line of thinking.
 

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: Genx87

Before democrats controlled the congress rubberstamping was bad, filibuster good.

Once Democrats control the congress filibuster is bad, rubberstamping good.

Stop lying.

Democrats don't control congress and never have unlike your Republicans had full control from 2001 to 2006.
I'm slow, help me out here Dave. Can you please explain how the republicans had full control when they had lower numbers than the Dems will at the start of 2009? :confused:

Or can we say that Dems have full control come 2009? I need your help here :)