Gingrich: Public Mood Helps Democrats

[umbrella39]

Gingrich said the public mood heading into next year's midterm election seems to be hurting Republicans.

"There is more energy today on the anti-Iraq, anti-gas-price, anti-changing Social Security and I think anti-Washington [side]. I think the combination of those four are all redounding to weaken Republicans and help Democrats.

Jason Mauk, political director for the Ohio Republican Party, acknowledged, "To the extent that voters in that district were sending a message to the Republican Party at the state or national level".

Keep up the good work auto pilot repugs! The only thing you can win on is fear, and that is getting old quick. Seems that American people, even those in your party are not so convinced that your way of handling terrorism and the direction you are trying to take this country is the right one after all. :Q

Pst, it's a NewsMax to lend it some credibility

Origianally burried in Hackett thread, needed its own thread since many don't bother reading any of Zends radical religious right lunatic OPs.

 

[BushBasha]

Yea, the Democrats are clearly going to win with their current platform (They have policy ideas, right?). This is like me and the Miami Dolphins; as much as I like them, as much as it hurt to see them go 4-12 last year, I keep hope alive and say, "next year will be different...we'll show them!" Well, guess what? The Dolphins aren't going to win chit.

 

[zendari]

I thought Gingrich was public enemy #1.

 

[Genx87]

Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

 

[5LiterMustang]

Until the democrats quit letting the far left lead the party they'll continue to lose, because while the public myself included may be disappointed in the bush administration its better than anything the democrats have put forth. Kerry was an idiot, and while I dont like a lot of what Bush does the only person I would have voted for over him was Lieberman.

 

[jman19]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Ah yes, nothing like the "we won, it's over, doesn't matter what happens in the future" argument that even Red Sox fans have come to adopt. 😉

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Ah yes, nothing like the "we won, it's over, doesn't matter what happens in the future" argument that even Red Sox fans have come to adopt. 😉

Never said that. All I said was that win last Nov was nothing short of sweet.
12 months ago everybody said Kerry was almost an automatic lock because of the war and fake economic gloom.

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Ah yes, nothing like the "we won, it's over, doesn't matter what happens in the future" argument that even Red Sox fans have come to adopt. 😉

Never said that. All I said was that win last Nov was nothing short of sweet.
12 months ago everybody said Kerry was almost an automatic lock because of the war and fake economic gloom.

What people also seem to forget is how close the election was. Had Ohio gone the other way, the result would have been different. Such issues as the war, gas prices, and CAFTA might swing enough votes.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Ah yes, nothing like the "we won, it's over, doesn't matter what happens in the future" argument that even Red Sox fans have come to adopt. 😉

Never said that. All I said was that win last Nov was nothing short of sweet.
12 months ago everybody said Kerry was almost an automatic lock because of the war and fake economic gloom.

What people also seem to forget is how close the election was. Had Ohio gone the other way, the result would have been different. Such issues as the war, gas prices, and CAFTA might swing enough votes.

The election was close but that was expected. Kerry if he was even a half-way decent candidate should have wiped the floor with Bush.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: DanceMan

What people also seem to forget is how close the election was. Had Ohio gone the other way, the result would have been different. Such issues as the war, gas prices, and CAFTA might swing enough votes.

How close it was; that's funny. What happened to the sky is falling, under 50% approval, etc, etc, etc....perhaps it was close by "design?" 🙂

After Ohio, Dems Map 50-State 'Virtual Victory' Plan
by Scott Ott


(2005-08-04) -- Encouraged by their close loss in this week's special election for a vacant House seat in Ohio, the Democrat National Committee (DNC) has mapped a 50-state "virtual victory" strategy for 2006 and 2008.

"It feels so good to almost win," said DNC chairman Howard Dean. "We now believe we can rally our base around the hope of down-to-the-wire losses in traditionally Republican districts coast-to-coast."

While the concept of virtual victory is familiar to the party that nearly won the presidency in 2000 and 2004, this is the first time the DNC will stake millions of dollars on advertising explicitly promoting narrow defeats. The ad campaign is tentatively titled "Close Counts."

"People need something to believe in," said Mr. Dean. "And while it's tough to believe that a party with no coherent platform can return to power, most progressives still believe this is the party of the little guy. Of course, the little guy usually loses, but we want our major donors to be able to say, in the words of Maxwell Smart, 'missed it by that much.'"

In related news, America Coming Together, the progressive fundraising group backed by billionaire George Soros which failed to make a difference for Democrats in swing states in 2004, today announced it would disband and form a new, leaner organization with the narrow mission of handling money transfers from wealthy contributors to political strategists and consultants.

"America Coming Together fulfilled that mission in 2004," said Mr. Soros. "As a businessman, I focus on results. So we have moved the goalposts to reflect the results we achieved."

 

[DanceMan]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Ah yes, nothing like the "we won, it's over, doesn't matter what happens in the future" argument that even Red Sox fans have come to adopt. 😉

Never said that. All I said was that win last Nov was nothing short of sweet.
12 months ago everybody said Kerry was almost an automatic lock because of the war and fake economic gloom.

What people also seem to forget is how close the election was. Had Ohio gone the other way, the result would have been different. Such issues as the war, gas prices, and CAFTA might swing enough votes.

The election was close but that was expected. Kerry if he was even a half-way decent candidate should have wiped the floor with Bush.

No argument there, although I don't think Kerry was that bad. But, as many here have stated, the past is the past. However, I am quite interested in how the 2006 elections might be shaping up.

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Yeah that sure was worth fvcking over the country and the world.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: Phokus

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Yeah that sure was worth fvcking over the country and the world.

"fvcking over...the world" lol




You learn that in school?

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: DanceMan

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: jman19

Originally posted by: Genx87
Yes because we all want to win elections based on our merits and ideas vs bantering out negativity until people buy into it.

Personally I could care less who wins the mid term. Bush got in in 04 and that is enough of a slap in the face of the elite liberals in this nation to last a lifetime.

Ah yes, nothing like the "we won, it's over, doesn't matter what happens in the future" argument that even Red Sox fans have come to adopt. 😉

Never said that. All I said was that win last Nov was nothing short of sweet.
12 months ago everybody said Kerry was almost an automatic lock because of the war and fake economic gloom.

What people also seem to forget is how close the election was. Had Ohio gone the other way, the result would have been different. Such issues as the war, gas prices, and CAFTA might swing enough votes.

The election was close but that was expected. Kerry if he was even a half-way decent candidate should have wiped the floor with Bush.

I have never once heard that it would be easy or that Kerry was an automatic lock. When was this, when GWB had a 90% approval rating or when we went to war and we had the rally around the president syndrome? It is VERY hard to eject a sitting President. Ford, Carter and Bush Sr are modern day examples who each had way more problems then GWB and none of the advantages of a typical incumbent or war. Then, the list gets short.

Anyway, the special election in Ohio should be a wakeup call to Republicans but I hope they have grown complacent. Hackett was the perfect candidate who ran the perfect campaign. He would have won in almost any other district in Ohio except that one.
We will also see again in the governor's race Virginia whether the Democrat can retain that seat and whether Warner can pull his guy across the finish line and retain his national aspirations.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Hackett was the perfect candidate who ran the perfect campaign. He would have won in almost any other district in Ohio except that one.

...and Hillary would have lost in almost any state except NY; what's your point? "almost?" As the old adage goes, 'woulda, coulda, shoulda: If your sister had a d**k she'd be your brother.'

Can't the liberals see that America is no longer buying their BS? Come up with a few policy proposals and perhaps their whiney voices would be heard.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Hackett was the perfect candidate who ran the perfect campaign. He would have won in almost any other district in Ohio except that one.

...and Hillary would have lost in almost any state except NY; what's your point? "almost?" As the old adage goes, 'woulda, coulda, shoulda: If your sister had a d**k she'd be your brother.'

Can't the liberals see that America is no longer buying their BS? Come up with a few policy proposals and perhaps their whiney voices would be heard.

Hillary would have won in A LOT of other states if she ran in an open race. That seat just happened to be open.
Ohio2 according to Charles Cook is the 57th most Republican district in the nation. The fact is that GWB carried 64% of the vote here in 2004. Porter routinely received 70% of the vote. The fact that Hackett received 48% and came within 5000 votes of winning in the 57th most republican district in the nation tells me something is up in Ohio. You want to continue congratulating yourself on mission accomplish. FINE. Please continue, in fact I hope you will.

 

[Darkhawk28]

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Originally posted by: BushBasha

Originally posted by: chowderhead

Hackett was the perfect candidate who ran the perfect campaign. He would have won in almost any other district in Ohio except that one.

...and Hillary would have lost in almost any state except NY; what's your point? "almost?" As the old adage goes, 'woulda, coulda, shoulda: If your sister had a d**k she'd be your brother.'

Can't the liberals see that America is no longer buying their BS? Come up with a few policy proposals and perhaps their whiney voices would be heard.

Hillary would have won in A LOT of other states if she ran in an open race. That seat just happened to be open.
Ohio2 according to Charles Cook is the 57th most Republican district in the nation. The fact is that GWB carried 64% of the vote here in 2004. Porter routinely received 70% of the vote. The fact that Hackett received 48% and came within 5000 votes of winning in the 57th most republican district in the nation tells me something is up in Ohio. You want to continue congratulating yourself on mission accomplish. FINE. Please continue, in fact I hope you will.

Actually, it was less than 3400 votes. 😉

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: Genx87
The election was close but that was expected. Kerry if he was even a half-way decent candidate should have wiped the floor with Bush.

I don't think anyone on either side of the fence will or has ever argued that. More often than not, the presidential race is a popularity contest. Kerry was too unpopular with too many.

 

[piasabird]

What do the Democrats stand for?

What good did the Democrats do in the 8 years that Clinton was in the White House?

Perhaps the best thing is that they are not War Hawks. However, they voted for War when it was popular.

I say vote everyone out of office!

 

[umbrella39]

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Can't the liberals see that America is no longer buying their BS?

Replace liberals with conservatives and you have the same story it would seem. Should be interesting mid term.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: piasabird
What do the Democrats stand for?

What good did the Democrats do in the 8 years that Clinton was in the White House?

Perhaps the best thing is that they are not War Hawks. However, they voted for War when it was popular.

I say vote everyone out of office!

I would say that the Democrats passed a deficit reduction budget WITHOUT a single Republican vote in the House. They then lost a majority which allowed a Repulican Congress to check Clinton's spending. This lead to a balanced budget which GWB and his borrow and spending ways destroyed.

I say a Democrat in the WH with a Republican Congress would be a good check on both.

 

[BushBasha]

Originally posted by: piasabird

What do the Democrats stand for?

Wow, tough one...all we know is what they are not "for" (well, some are "for it" then they are "against it" depending on the wind direction); they are headed down the same path that got them out of the majority. I am shocked they don't see it. Daschle who? lol


[/quote]

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: umbrella39

Originally posted by: BushBasha
Can't the liberals see that America is no longer buying their BS?

Replace liberals with conservatives and you have the same story it would seem. Should be interesting mid term.

I suppose it would be too much to hope for that we might see the rise of a real third party. It seems more and more true that we have the party of no ideas and the party of bad ideas, and Republican fanboys to the contrary, I don't think America is real thrilled with either anymore.