I strongly support impeachement; but I see it as very unlikely. The democrats have for whatever reasons seemed to decide against it even if elected. They will investigate and change things but it appears unlikely they will enforce the law and impeach as they should.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
With GWB in full damage control mode, he is a captive to events----but any new event could stampede the election either way. But all the recent events don't seem to be breaking for the GOP---which does not mean anything regarding the next event---lots of October surprises may await the light of day.
Given the number of tight Senate races---what stampedes one will likely stampede them all. But worse possible case senario for the GOP---Iraq blows up past all redemtion.
Worse possible case for the dems---GWB foils a big AL-Quida attack on the homeland.
Given the number of tight Senate races---what stampedes one will likely stampede them all. But worse possible case senario for the GOP---Iraq blows up past all redemtion.
Worse possible case for the dems---GWB foils a big AL-Quida attack on the homeland.
In 1998 they failed to get a majority in either the house or senate = failure. In 2000, Republicans won the Presidency, much more important than the house or senate.
What does that have to do with anything? Pabster's theory is that the Democrats have become "extreme" and it's a recipe for disaster, which is somewhat in contrast with all the makings of a VERY strong showing this election. If anything, the lost ground Dems seem to be regaining (as suggested by your comment) seems to be indicative of the Dems moving more towards the center of the country and the Republicans becoming more extreme.
As for whether or not the Dems win, I think it's a good chance they'll win the house, and a fair chance of at least tying the Senate...but even if they don't win, they will certainly close the gap to a few seats and shake the hell out of the Republicans who thought 2004 was the beginning of a never-ending Republican majority. It will be a win for the Dems even if they DON'T win either the house or the senate, and be a perfect setup for 2008. In either case, our CURRENT situation does not seem to indicate that the Democrats are becoming extremists...or at least the people don't seem to think so.
Lemon law
Lifer
- Nov 6, 2005
- 20,984
- 3
- 0
Technically and by the constitution the legislative branch is the more powerful than the executive---but because the executive also has power of information, its gradually
assumed more power---but if divided---either branch can stimie the other.
Always remember---the legislative can impeach the executive---and its not a two way street. And there is not word one about political parties in the constitution.
But I can not think of a time in recent history where Washington has been as partisan.
assumed more power---but if divided---either branch can stimie the other.
Always remember---the legislative can impeach the executive---and its not a two way street. And there is not word one about political parties in the constitution.
But I can not think of a time in recent history where Washington has been as partisan.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
They might try to impeach but I don't think they will get any where.
Secondly, if they do go forward I think you will see a much more non-partisan group of people standing up and saying that an attempt to impeach Bush at this junction is a bad thing.
Besides, if the Democrats don't get 50 seats in he Senate they are wasting their time. Besides the fact that it takes 66 to kick him out, which they will never get unless Dan Rather finds a memo that says "Monday, lie to American people about WMD"
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Oh get over it already.
This whole Republican's are racist story is old. J.C. Watts was black and was placed into a leadership position. The two most powerful blacks in the history of this country were Powel and Rice and they worked for a Republican President.
I seriously doubt many people are voting by the color of someone?s skin these days.
Do you have PROOF to back up your claims of racist voters?
To be fair, the democrats have mostly been losing the Congress since 1994. Yes,the republicans can be criticized for everything from DeLay's corrupt redistricting in Texas to many corrupt practices to raise money for the elections, but the've still basically been winning. Gaining seats but still winning fewer than republicans is not winning the election, it's losing by less.
On the other hand, the democrats did win the 2000 and very likely the 2004 presidential elections, and were thwarted by election problems both intentional and unintentional (as well documented in Greg Palast's books).
I think the democrats are poised to take the house and they have a chance for the Senate, though the republicans have a big war chest for the last 2 weeks, and that sadly has an effect.
If you love America, donating to the democrats now is not a bad thing to do.
I'm not biased against republicans. I'll put several into positions of power, in fact, as long as they agree to my political views, even while I take steps which keep them poor and frustrate their ability to vote generally. But hey look at my poster repubs! they prove there's no discrimination at all.
Do you have PROOF to back up your claims of racist voters? [/quote]
Go read Greg Palast's "Armed Madhouse", and then we'll talk.
There's a reason why to this day we have special protections for minorities in about a dozen states nationally in elections, and even republicans had to agree to extend those protections for another couple decades recently, despite some challenges by many of their members.
The mere fact that you distort the issue of racist politics so badly by counting the number of token blacks in office instead of looking at the real issues shows how bad the problem is in fixing race policy in the republican party. TO republicans' credit though, almost none are actually 'racist', they are simply ignorant of what the race issues even are.
I guess it could be worse. Ford could be so unqualified that even using his daddy's connections he couldn't manage to even get accepted into law school. Now that would be embarassing.
- Jul 28, 2006
- 18,161
- 7
- 0
Come on now Craig, I thought you were smarter than to fall for the 2004 stolen election thing. From my understanding of the Kennedy article every little thing that could have gone wrong would have to have gone wrong and 100% against Kerry for him to have won Ohio. (Bush won Ohio by nearly 200,000 votes)
And we have talked about the 2000 election at length and sadly there are lots of things that we will never know. (How many Buchanan votes were meant for Kerry, how many people on the panhandle stayed home because they thought the polls were closed etc)
And I love the losing by less comment...
In 2004 Republican congressional candidates received 55 million votes to 52 for the Dems.
In 2002 Republican congressional candidate revived 37 million votes to 33 for the Dems
In 2000 Republican congressional candidates received 46.7 million votes to 46.4 for Dems, close as can be huh?
In 1998 Republican congressional candidates received 31.9 million votes to 31.2 for Dems
In 1996 Republican congressional candidates received 43.1 million votes to 43.3 for the Dems, a Democrat majority
In 1994 Republican congressional candidates received 36 million votes to 31 for Dems (hence the Republican landslide)
In 1992 Republican congressional candidates received 43 million votes to 48 for the Dems
Data source
So since 1994, the Democrats have won a majority of votes in congressional races ONCE. Furthermore, the margin of victory for Republicans went up drastically in 2002 and was still rather high in 2004.
So right now Republicans have "won" 5 out of the last 6 congressional elections.
I don't think anyone has really been saying Democrats will take the Senate? It's mostly that they may get closer to 50. It's the House that people/polls feel Democrats will win, which I think will happen. It will be nice to have oversight once again.
John, you asked for evidence on the discrimination by race against voters, I gave you the name of a book that has it, and you... are silent. Are you going to read it, and if not, why did you ask for the info?
There are flaws in the RKF, Jr. article, and some truths, too; it's not the only source for info on the issue, and Ohio's not the only state at issue. Read the book I mentioned and then we'll talk.
And there are many things we do know. For example, we can say to a statistical certainty a range of votes Gore lost to Buchanan, by comparing the number of votes in other counties and the political makeup of the affected county, where the bottom of that range is multiples of the number of votes that decided the election.
Of course, there are far more issues with the 2000 elelction as well - and it's clear that the voters elected Gore, and election problems thwarted the public.
You did understand I was agreeing with the statements you made, right? I was pointing out that democrats merely gaining more seats in an election than in the previous one is still losing the election if the republicans get a majorityof the seats.
If you care about our democracy, John, at some point you need to get a bit more informed by reading a book like I recommended, rather than just repeating the right-wing talking poiints on the issue. It's been 2 years now since 2004 - when will it be time for you to read something useful on the topic? If it's wrong, you can say how.
There are flaws in the RKF, Jr. article, and some truths, too; it's not the only source for info on the issue, and Ohio's not the only state at issue. Read the book I mentioned and then we'll talk.
And there are many things we do know. For example, we can say to a statistical certainty a range of votes Gore lost to Buchanan, by comparing the number of votes in other counties and the political makeup of the affected county, where the bottom of that range is multiples of the number of votes that decided the election.
Of course, there are far more issues with the 2000 elelction as well - and it's clear that the voters elected Gore, and election problems thwarted the public.
You did understand I was agreeing with the statements you made, right? I was pointing out that democrats merely gaining more seats in an election than in the previous one is still losing the election if the republicans get a majorityof the seats.
If you care about our democracy, John, at some point you need to get a bit more informed by reading a book like I recommended, rather than just repeating the right-wing talking poiints on the issue. It's been 2 years now since 2004 - when will it be time for you to read something useful on the topic? If it's wrong, you can say how.
Where in my post did I say anything about republicans?
You were the one that brought it up.
A lead by Ford to Corker (48 vs 43%) is not comfortable for Ford to win an election.
Is a 48 vs 43% lead comfortable enough for Allen? Yes.
Even if Michael Steele had a "hypothetical" 50 vs 44% lead well outside the margin of error against Ben Cardin in all major polling organizations on the night before election, it's not enough to garantee him winning the Maryland senate election.
As for proof of my previous statement...
VA Gov. candidate Doug Wilder in 1990 was polling 7-8% higher than Marshall Coleman the day before the election, and exit polls by major organizations predicted he won by 55-45 (well outside the 5% margin of error).
He won that election barely by 0.4% of the vote(6,000 votes).
David Dinkins in the 1989 New York mayoral election had a 14-point lead in the polls gave way to an ultimate victory of just 2 points against Rudolph Gulliani.
In the 1990 NC Senate race, Jesse Helms was in a dead heat with Charlotte mayor Harvey Gantt less than a week before election.
He won by 8 points 54-46. Gantt had an 8 point lead in polls 5 days before election.
George Deukmejian won the 1982 California gubernatorial contest, each and every one of the nineteen polls that were conducted put Tom Bradley ahead.
Harold Washington in 1983 was polling 14% higher than Bernard Epton 3 days before election.
He won by less than 4% of the vote.
In all the above elections, the polls misgauged support for a black candidate, predicting that he would attract a substantially greater number of votes than turned out to be the case.
Link
Are voters are lying to pollsters (or hiding out in the "undecided" column) to hide their support for the white candidate?
Voters might be nonracist but concerned about being perceived otherwise, or they might want to hide genuine racism.
That's the only conclusion I can make.
I really think the Dems are going to win the House by a huge margin. It's not even going to be close. They will take the Senate narrowly. ALL momentum is heading in there favor, and with Republican corruption scandals continually in the spotlight they will be able to ride this wave through the elections.
Republicans are shitting in their pants.....and rightly so. Say hello to a new Democratically controlled House and Senate.
Republicans are shitting in their pants.....and rightly so. Say hello to a new Democratically controlled House and Senate.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter