Democrats unable to wrestle away house seat from repubs

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: daniel49

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: daniel49
Text

LOS ANGELES - A former Republican congressman narrowly beat his Democratic rival early Wednesday for the right to fill the House seat once held by imprisoned Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a race closely watched as a possible early barometer of next fall's vote.

Republican Brian Bilbray emerged victorious after a costly and contentious race against Democrat Francine Busby, a local school board member who ran against Cunningham in 2004.

With 90 percent of precincts reporting, Bilbray had 56,016 votes or 49.5 percent. Busby trailed with 51,202 votes or 45 percent.

....more on link.....


Looks like the dems are going to have to do better then play the blame game. They may have to aactually come up with some ideas to win back congress??
Could be a lot of close races as people are not real happy with either party.

LMAO. Yes, this one race especially in this district, is the litmus test for November. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

considering the repub predecessor is in prison, yes I would say its significant?
It says to me even in the scandel dems couldn't win it.
Why, too many similarities. voters don't trust either party.

A Democrat winning in that district would be like a White Person winning the Mayoral race is Washington DC.

Yep, white rich people living close to the border scared of them immigrants coming over moving into their neighborhood.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, white rich people living close to the border scared of them immigrants coming over moving into their neighborhood.

And they have good reason to be afraid. Without legal entry, undocumented immigrants are just that, undocumented, with no way to ascertain which of them are career criminals, drug lords or other drug smugglers carrying loads of narcotics, or terrorists heading north to unknown destinations, or anyone else with intentions beyond being underpaid for a day's work on someone backyard or construction project.

That's the problem. Without controls and documentation, we have no way of knowing who's here for what purpose. All we do know is, some of them aren't that friendly.

Paranoia is unreasonable fear. This isn't unreasonable because it's already happened many times.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yep, white rich people living close to the border scared of them immigrants coming over moving into their neighborhood.

And they have good reason to be afraid. Without legal entry, undocumented immigrants are just that, undocumented, with no way to ascertain which of them are career criminals, drug lords or other drug smugglers carrying loads of narcotics, or terrorists heading north to unknown destinations, or anyone else with intentions beyond being underpaid for a day's work on someone backyard or construction project.

That's the problem. Without controls and documentation, we have no way of knowing who's here for what purpose. All we do know is, some of them aren't that friendly.

Paranoia is unreasonable fear. This isn't unreasonable because it's already happened many times.

Yes, I am sure Escondido is on top of the list of terrorists coming to the US. The 9/11 hijackers were here legally.
I bet most of them have no problem with hiring illegals to do housework and construction for them, all the while b!tching and moaning about illegal immigration.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

My understanding is the Democratic candidate misspoke at a campaign event and the right-wing radio tools rallied to accuse her of advocating voting by illegal aliens.

 

[Aisengard]

Man, gotta hate that librul media.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
My understanding is the Democratic candidate misspoke at a campaign event and the right-wing radio tools rallied to accuse her of advocating voting by illegal aliens.

yeah, but she got the roughly the same % of votes as she did in the special election 45% vs. 43%. That is the ceiling for Democrats until the demographics change in the district. She hit the ceiling in that district by maxing out her Democrats and Independents and not getting enough cross-over Republicans. That remark was played up a lot but she was polling 45% before the remarks and that is what she got in the end. Bilbray ran to the right of McCain and Bush on immigration so hopefully, Republicans and Bush gets the message.

Stil, I hope this vicotry makes the Republicans complacent for November.

 

[Polish3d]

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Engineer
A 4.5% victory by a GOP player in an area that saw Bush and Cunningham win by 20 plus % points. Not a victory but a big change in sentiment.

Exactly how I looked at it. To get 45% of the vote in a major Republican stronghold is probably a very good sign for Democrats. But this shows that Democrats cannot simply walk right over Republicans to an easy victory either.

Not really, the guy who vacated the seat is now in prison, its not like this is your average house race

 

[Krakn3Dfx]

Originally posted by: zendari

Originally posted by: aidanjm
I wonder how you could even trust the results? How do people know the result wasn't rigged as with the 2004 presidential election?

Kerry lost, get over it.

This is my favorite, instead of admitting that there's a problem with electronic voting in general, which the GAO, a non-partisan govt office, has found to be true, you just say, "You're guy lost, so you must be bitter". Give me a break.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes, I am sure Escondido is on top of the list of terrorists coming to the US. The 9/11 hijackers were here legally.
I bet most of them have no problem with hiring illegals to do housework and construction for them, all the while b!tching and moaning about illegal immigration.

Ahh... the memory of those willing to forget is so short. From The Nation, July 24 2003:

The 9/11 Investigation

David Corn

The committees' report covers many missed--and botched--opportunities. It shows that warnings and hints were either ignored or neglected. Some of this has been covered in interim reports released last year and in media accounts. But the final report does contain new information and new details that only confirm an ugly conclusion: A more effective and more vigilant bureaucracy would have had a good chance of detecting portions of the 9/11 plot. "The message is not to tell the intelligence community," said the source familiar with the report, "that you didn't have the final announcement of the details of the September 11 attacks and therefore you could not prevent it. We have to have an intelligence community that is able to connect dots and put the pieces together and investigate it aggressively."

The committees' report covers many missed--and botched--opportunities. It shows that warnings and hints were either ignored or neglected. Some of this has been covered in interim reports released last year and in media accounts. But the final report does contain new information and new details that only confirm an ugly conclusion: A more effective and more vigilant bureaucracy would have had a good chance of detecting portions of the 9/11 plot. "The message is not to tell the intelligence community," said the source familiar with the report, "that you didn't have the final announcement of the details of the September 11 attacks and therefore you could not prevent it. We have to have an intelligence community that is able to connect dots and put the pieces together and investigate it aggressively."

The final report is an indictment of the intelligence agencies--and, in part--of the administrations (Clinton and Bush II) that oversaw them. It notes, "The intelligence community failed to capitalize on both the individual and collective significance of available information.... As a result, the community missed opportunities to disrupt the September 11 plot by denying entry to or detaining would-be hijackers; to at least try to unravel the plot through surveillance and other investigative work within the United States; and, finally, to generate a heightened state of alert and thus harden the homeland against attack. No one will ever know what might have happened had more connections been drawn between these disparate pieces of information.... The important point is that the intelligence community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Osama bin Laden's plan to attack the United States on September 11, 2001."

An example: The FBI had an active informant in San Diego who had numerous contacts on 2000 with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. And he may also have had more limited contact with a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour. In 2000, the CIA had information that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar--who had already been linked to terrorism--were or might be in the United States. Yet it had not placed them on a watch list for suspected terrorists or shared this information with the FBI. The FBI agent who handled the San Diego informant told the committees that had he had access to the intelligence information on al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, "it would have made a huge difference." He would have "immediately opened" an investigation and subjected them to a variety of surveillance. It can never be known whether such an effort would have uncovered their 9/11 plans. "What is clear, however," the report says, "is that the informant's contacts with the hijackers, had they been capitalized on, would have given the San Diego FBI field office perhaps the intelligence community's best chance to unravel the September 11 plot. Given the CIA's failure to disseminate, in a timely manner, the intelligence information on...al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, that chance, unfortunately, never materialized." (The FBI's informant--who is not named in the report--has denied any advance knowledge of 9/11, according to the report, but the committees raise questions about his credibility on this point, and the Bush Administration objected to the joint inquiry's efforts to interview the informant.)

The CIA was not the only agency to screw up. So did the FBI. In August 2001, the bureau did become aware that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in the United States and tried to locate them. But the San Diego field office never learned of the search. The FBI agent who was handling the informant in San Diego told the committees, "I'm sure we could have located them and we could have done it within a few days." And the chiefs of the financial crime units at the FBI and the Treasury Department told the committees that if their outfits had been asked to search for these two terrorists they would have been able to find them through credit card and bank records. But no one made such a request.
.
.
.
(article continues)

Escondido is about 30 some odd miles north of San Diego, which is less than 20 miles north of the border.

You may want to check Hot Deals to see if someone has a special on RAM that'll work in your skull. 😛

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Frackal

Originally posted by: dullard

Originally posted by: Engineer
A 4.5% victory by a GOP player in an area that saw Bush and Cunningham win by 20 plus % points. Not a victory but a big change in sentiment.

Exactly how I looked at it. To get 45% of the vote in a major Republican stronghold is probably a very good sign for Democrats. But this shows that Democrats cannot simply walk right over Republicans to an easy victory either.

Not really, the guy who vacated the seat is now in prison, its not like this is your average house race

You're right, it's NOT your average house race...because there is no such thing. Trying to spin this one way or the other is just that, spin. I see NO objective reasons to suggest that this race is representative of all the 2006 races, or even any of them. You can't form a trend from one data point without first showing how a large number of the data points share common traits. Nobody really has done that here, it's all just spin for whatever side each person really wants to win.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: senseamp
Yes, I am sure Escondido is on top of the list of terrorists coming to the US. The 9/11 hijackers were here legally.
I bet most of them have no problem with hiring illegals to do housework and construction for them, all the while b!tching and moaning about illegal immigration.

Ahh... the memory of those willing to forget is so short. From The Nation, July 24 2003:

The 9/11 Investigation

David Corn

The committees' report covers many missed--and botched--opportunities. It shows that warnings and hints were either ignored or neglected. Some of this has been covered in interim reports released last year and in media accounts. But the final report does contain new information and new details that only confirm an ugly conclusion: A more effective and more vigilant bureaucracy would have had a good chance of detecting portions of the 9/11 plot. "The message is not to tell the intelligence community," said the source familiar with the report, "that you didn't have the final announcement of the details of the September 11 attacks and therefore you could not prevent it. We have to have an intelligence community that is able to connect dots and put the pieces together and investigate it aggressively."

The committees' report covers many missed--and botched--opportunities. It shows that warnings and hints were either ignored or neglected. Some of this has been covered in interim reports released last year and in media accounts. But the final report does contain new information and new details that only confirm an ugly conclusion: A more effective and more vigilant bureaucracy would have had a good chance of detecting portions of the 9/11 plot. "The message is not to tell the intelligence community," said the source familiar with the report, "that you didn't have the final announcement of the details of the September 11 attacks and therefore you could not prevent it. We have to have an intelligence community that is able to connect dots and put the pieces together and investigate it aggressively."

The final report is an indictment of the intelligence agencies--and, in part--of the administrations (Clinton and Bush II) that oversaw them. It notes, "The intelligence community failed to capitalize on both the individual and collective significance of available information.... As a result, the community missed opportunities to disrupt the September 11 plot by denying entry to or detaining would-be hijackers; to at least try to unravel the plot through surveillance and other investigative work within the United States; and, finally, to generate a heightened state of alert and thus harden the homeland against attack. No one will ever know what might have happened had more connections been drawn between these disparate pieces of information.... The important point is that the intelligence community, for a variety of reasons, did not bring together and fully appreciate a range of information that could have greatly enhanced its chances of uncovering and preventing Osama bin Laden's plan to attack the United States on September 11, 2001."

An example: The FBI had an active informant in San Diego who had numerous contacts on 2000 with two of the 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf al-Hazmi and Khalid al-Mihdhar. And he may also have had more limited contact with a third hijacker, Hani Hanjour. In 2000, the CIA had information that al-Hazmi and al-Mihdhar--who had already been linked to terrorism--were or might be in the United States. Yet it had not placed them on a watch list for suspected terrorists or shared this information with the FBI. The FBI agent who handled the San Diego informant told the committees that had he had access to the intelligence information on al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, "it would have made a huge difference." He would have "immediately opened" an investigation and subjected them to a variety of surveillance. It can never be known whether such an effort would have uncovered their 9/11 plans. "What is clear, however," the report says, "is that the informant's contacts with the hijackers, had they been capitalized on, would have given the San Diego FBI field office perhaps the intelligence community's best chance to unravel the September 11 plot. Given the CIA's failure to disseminate, in a timely manner, the intelligence information on...al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi, that chance, unfortunately, never materialized." (The FBI's informant--who is not named in the report--has denied any advance knowledge of 9/11, according to the report, but the committees raise questions about his credibility on this point, and the Bush Administration objected to the joint inquiry's efforts to interview the informant.)

The CIA was not the only agency to screw up. So did the FBI. In August 2001, the bureau did become aware that al-Mihdhar and al-Hazmi were in the United States and tried to locate them. But the San Diego field office never learned of the search. The FBI agent who was handling the informant in San Diego told the committees, "I'm sure we could have located them and we could have done it within a few days." And the chiefs of the financial crime units at the FBI and the Treasury Department told the committees that if their outfits had been asked to search for these two terrorists they would have been able to find them through credit card and bank records. But no one made such a request.
.
.
.
(article continues)

Escondido is about 30 some odd miles north of San Diego, which is less than 20 miles north of the border.

You may want to check Hot Deals to see if someone has a special on RAM that'll work in your skull. 😛

So what, these terrorists aren't coming here from overseas through Mexico to target someone's house in the suburbs of San Diego. I know they may like to imagine themselves on the frontlines of the war on terror, but they just aren't. They need to get over it. There are going to be areas that aren't going to vote for Democrat. I mean this area went for Dole in 1996. Democrats don't need to win these areas to regain the House. It would be nice, but not necessary.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
So what, these terrorists aren't coming here from overseas through Mexico to target someone's house in the suburbs of San Diego. I know they may like to imagine themselves on the frontlines of the war on terror, but they just aren't.

You can't really be that brain dead and still remember to inhale after exhaling. :roll:

Those were some of the 9-11 hijackers, and San Diego was where they were living while they were setting up thier plot. That puts San Diego right on "the frontline of the war on terror."

That's not even the point of this thread, and I posted my issues with the op's title, but your comment about "white rich people living close to the border scared of them immigrants" is just so much racist distraction. :|

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: senseamp
So what, these terrorists aren't coming here from overseas through Mexico to target someone's house in the suburbs of San Diego. I know they may like to imagine themselves on the frontlines of the war on terror, but they just aren't.

You can't really be that brain dead and still remember to inhale after exhaling. :roll:

Those were some of the 9-11 hijackers, and San Diego was where they were living while they were setting up thier plot. That puts San Diego right on "the frontline of the war on terror."

That's not even the point of this thread, and I posted my issues with the op's title, but your comment about "white rich people living close to the border scared of them immigrants" is just so much racist distraction. :|

I don't care where they were living, they weren't here to strike at rich suburbs of San Diego, but big government and financial landmarks on the East Coast. If Escondido residents are seriously scared of terrorists coming to get them from Mexico, they should go see a shrink. As far as the demographic, it is what it is.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't care where they were living, they weren't here to strike at rich suburbs of San Diego, but big government and financial landmarks on the East Coast. If Escondido residents are seriously scared of terrorists coming to get them from Mexico, they should go see a shrink.

< sarcasm >

Ah... It's all so clear, now. You've convinced me that Mexico, itself, is so secure that terrrorists would never think of trying to enter the U.S. through Mexico. And of course, there are no Mexican crime gangs, and other Central and South American drug/crime cartels would never think of moving their stuff or smuggling their people into the U.S. through Mexico because we all know no other countries south of Mexico can even speak Spanish.

< /sarcasm >

Great thinking, there!. Don't quit your day job, especially for another one that may require good reasoning powers. 😛

 

[daniel49]

follow up story from another guy.
pretty much says same thing... (short version for those who hate reading) culture of corruption tactics is not going to work fellas....voters think both sides are crooks.
Now whats your ideas and how will you implement them?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13171460/

 

[Jhhnn]

Heh. Figure the same % shift in more competitive districts to understand the Repubs' desperation...

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Harvey

Originally posted by: senseamp
I don't care where they were living, they weren't here to strike at rich suburbs of San Diego, but big government and financial landmarks on the East Coast. If Escondido residents are seriously scared of terrorists coming to get them from Mexico, they should go see a shrink.

< sarcasm >

Ah... It's all so clear, now. You've convinced me that Mexico, itself, is so secure that terrrorists would never think of trying to enter the U.S. through Mexico. And of course, there are no Mexican crime gangs, and other Central and South American drug/crime cartels would never think of moving their stuff or smuggling their people into the U.S. through Mexico because we all know no other countries south of Mexico can even speak Spanish.

< /sarcasm >

Great thinking, there!. Don't quit your day job, especially for another one that may require good reasoning powers. 😛

<sarcasm>
So why do you hate Mexicans?
</sarcasm>
Do you think drug cartels are smuggling their people in to take over rich San Diego suburbs?

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: daniel49
follow up story from another guy.
pretty much says same thing... (short version for those who hate reading) culture of corruption tactics is not going to work fellas....voters think both sides are crooks.
Now whats your ideas and how will you implement them?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13171460/

I think the "culture of corruption" is a GREAT campaign tactic, but only if you combine it with demonstrating why you aren't corrupt. Democrats would do very well if they could portray Republicans as a bunch of rich, corrupt jackasses while suggesting that they (the Dems) are a lot more ethical. That second part is what's missing from the argument, the perception is that BOTH parties are filled with corrupt jackasses, so it's kind of a neutral issue for the Dems.

I think there is a good argument to be made for why the Dems are less corrupt than the Republicans, but the Democrats aren't making it. They are telling voters "The Republicans are corrupt". And while that may be true, the voters are replying with "Yeah? Well so are you!". And the Dems aren't doing a very good job arguing that last point.

 

[Harvey]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Do you think drug cartels are smuggling their people in to take over rich San Diego suburbs?

What does that have to do with either the OP's topic or the numerous threats posed by unchcked illegal immigration across the California-Mexico border?

Got another duh-version? :roll:

 

[Jadow]

she lost the election when she encouraged illegals to vote for her.

 

[daniel49]

Originally posted by: Jadow
she lost the election when she encouraged illegals to vote for her.

yes, I heard that statement on the radio something about they didn't have to be legal or have papers to vote.

If thats true lets just have an international write in vote and let the rest of the world pick our govt.:disgust: (warning: extreme sarcasm)

 

[Jhhnn]

As usual, there are a lot of gullible people falling for and then promoting the current Repub battle-cry wrt corruption-

"They're just as bad!"

Horsepuckey. Repubs have created a web of interlocking nonprofits, committees, thinktanks and institutions, including the RNC, dedicated to the laundering of funds in ways unimaginable to Dems in general. They elevated corruption to an artform, and the only way for most repub officials to stay in power is to play along. Why do you think the called Tom DeLay "The Hammer"? Because if you don't play along, fundie freaks suddenly come up with a lot of money to challenge you in the primary, even as your own sources are scared off... If you're not flying in formation, you're shot down by your former friends...

Yeh, the simple idea that Dems really aren't as corrupt is an inconvenient concept for may voters, even if it is true... and that's because Repubs have been telling people what they want to hear for 30 years, even if they've been demonstrably lying all along... They can't be that bad, right? They're not only "that bad", they're worse than most people can even imagine...

 

[Lemon law]

The point being that Cunningham won the district really really big in 2004--and the Repubs ran a person who used to be a lobbyist--who may have won but won really small in a predominently Republican district.

The issues is not the binary win or lose for either side---the issue is the change from 2004 to 2006.--and all of us may have some personal opinions on why.

But both parties may take some distress in the fact that the convention wisdom of prior elections may no longer apply---and that the natives are restless.--and are likely to get more restless by 11/06.

And looking at other primary elections in some other states---it does show the voters are now angry enough to throw the rascals out.--as a few high profile politicans have already found out.

But in this rare case where a prison rather than an election gobbled up the then sitting rascal, we can note that someone tainted by the label of a business as usual lobbyist goes over like a lead balloon
even in a primarily Republican district.