It looks very unlikely Democrats will take the Senate

[Moonbeam]

It doesn't matter who has voted for whom. The important point is that the Republican party is killing America and as it dies it will convulse.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Craig... I can't find enough time to read what I want to read let alone some book recommended to me by some liberal like yourself

Then why ask for evidence you have no intention to read? You don't care enough to read the info on how the elections are being corrupted? Makes it wasy for the thieves.

 

[Lemon law]

Its all right Prof John,

No need to read the book and get a sneak preview---GWB stupidity is coming home to roost---and we will all have a ring side seat as it self distructs. Like GWB, you confuse winning elections with good public policy. For example, good public policy delivers balance budgets---and GWB policy does not, Good public policy is not engaging in poorly planned optional wars that cost 2 billion bucks per week for almost four years straight---GWB policy does. Good public policy does not involve the US isolating itself from the international community and violating the constitution---GWB public policy does.

Get a clue Prof John---you backed an idiot---and things are getting worse--far worse---every single day---things are getting worse.

You can read why in various big books Bush can't read either---or you can watch it it happen.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then why ask for evidence you have no intention to read? You don't care enough to read the info on how the elections are being corrupted? Makes it wasy for the thieves.

Please, provide us a book or other literature that isn't written by a partisan hack.

Would you trust "How The Election Was Stolen" by Rush Limbaugh? :laugh:

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

Originally posted by: Lemon law
Its all right Prof John,

No need to read the book and get a sneak preview---GWB stupidity is coming home to roost---and we will all have a ring side seat as it self distructs. Like GWB, you confuse winning elections with good public policy. For example, good public policy delivers balance budgets---and GWB policy does not, Good public policy is not engaging in poorly planned optional wars that cost 2 billion bucks per week for almost four years straight---GWB policy does. Good public policy does not involve the US isolating itself from the international community and violating the constitution---GWB public policy does.

Get a clue Prof John---you backed an idiot---and things are getting worse--far worse---every single day---things are getting worse.

You can read why in various big books Bush can't read either---or you can watch it it happen.

Amen, Prof John just doesn't have a clue. It's a shame he might actually be a professor, I feel sorry for his students.

 

[chowderhead]

Originally posted by: Lothar


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.

Actually, the new Rasmussen will show Cardin leading Steele 53% to 44%.

I hope that we have come a long ways in 16 years though Ron Kirk in TX was in 2002 where he polled better than the final vote.

Anyway, I have a theory that some people may lie to live pollsters but will generally tell the truth to computer pollsters. SUSA and Rasmussen use robo-calling to do surveys and one has Ford up by 2% and the other show Corker up by 2%. It will be close but that is only because Ford is a very good and focused candidate while Corker has done everything to lose. Go Ford!

 

[nageov3t]

I hate all these moderate republicans... they have no problem spouting nice things on the campaign trail, but when it comes to electing the next senate majority leader, you know they're going to vote for whichever ultra conservative canidate the christian right gives their blessing to.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: loki8481
I hate all these moderate republicans... they have no problem spouting nice things on the campaign trail, but when it comes to electing the next senate majority leader, you know they're going to vote for whichever ultra conservative canidate the christian right gives their blessing to.

Exactly the point Democrats should be making in every liberal district with a republican congressman or senator.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Craig234
Then why ask for evidence you have no intention to read? You don't care enough to read the info on how the elections are being corrupted? Makes it wasy for the thieves.

Please, provide us a book or other literature that isn't written by a partisan hack.

Would you trust "How The Election Was Stolen" by Rush Limbaugh? :laugh:

Pabster, you continue your trend of getting it wrong every time.

Greg Palast is an award-winning BBC reporter and best-selling author with many, many imortant stories, conisdered one of the top investigative reporters in the world.

Rush has nothing in common with him. Rush is a self-described entertainer, not a reporter at all, not someone who investigate any new useful information; rather he has a show where his color commentary on the current events has an audience of the right who want entertainment, and his rte of accuracy is abysmal. There are books on his errors and lies.

The problem is Pabster YOU are the radical partisan, and so good info doesn't work for you. The info is good and listed in my post.

I can lead a horse - even the end you represent - to the water but you can refuse to drink, and you do.

You are an enemy of America with your behavior of supporting those who destroy her, and as shown here, your refusal to get informed with phony attacks on good info.

Someday, it'd be fun to see you try actual facts in your posts attacking good info, but I don't expect to see it anytime soon, just the same old false name-calling.

 

[daveymark]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Prof John just doesn't have a clue. It's a shame he might actually be a professor, I feel sorry for his students.

how old are you?

 

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: daveymark

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
Prof John just doesn't have a clue. It's a shame he might actually be a professor, I feel sorry for his students.

how old are you?

I think Pabster and ntdz are his students...

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

I smell impeachment for Bush. If clinton can get impeached for getting a blowjob, then bush can get impeached for selling out to corperate america.

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.

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"

Hehehhehe... Who we talking about doing the trial... Senators coming up for election in '08... and a failed Presidency... the best strategy might be to actually convict him in the Senate and ride on that cuz not much better for the Elephant seems to be available... opens the door for the "Savior" Elephant to run on his own and not a carry on of Bush's insanity.. (from the liberal side). These rats jump ship as soon as they see smoke.. they don't entrench for the good of the party... someone must fall on the sword.. so while they may not convict.. they will relish the opportunity to distance themselves leaving the uncontested seats to not vote guilty.. ... a game it is not real, John.. not real at all..

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

I smell impeachment for Bush. If clinton can get impeached for getting a blowjob, then bush can get impeached for selling out to corperate america.

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.

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"

Hehehhehe... Who we talking about doing the trial... Senators coming up for election in '08... and a failed Presidency... the best strategy might be to actually convict him in the Senate and ride on that cuz not much better for the Elephant seems to be available... opens the door for the "Savior" Elephant to run on his own and not a carry on of Bush's insanity.. (from the liberal side). These rats jump ship as soon as they see smoke.. they don't entrench for the good of the party... someone must fall on the sword.. so while they may not convict.. they will relish the opportunity to distance themselves leaving the uncontested seats to not vote guilty.. ... a game it is not real, John.. not real at all..

I like Al Franken's suggestion, appeal to the Republicans in Congress by promising to really work with the ones who aren't crazy idiots, a unity Congress far different than how the Republicans behaved when THEY won. If the tide is really changing, I think enough of them would go for it.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
It doesn't matter who has voted for whom. The important point is that the Republican party is killing America and as it dies it will convulse.

I don't much care for either side given what politics really is... Power... every one of them wants to be the peerage of America.. They can't be loved like the Royal Family... Hollywood and Rock Star types... so they settle for the lesser side of it all and enjoy Power..
Both sides will profess this or that while finding out what they can and must do to keep their seats..

What we need are folks who go there for two years... and serve.. Tenured Professors and experts in their fields... instead of edifying for TV... the idiots in Congress today.. they are the folks who know.. let them make the laws..
The Senate.. heheheheh Don't know what to do there.. maybe find 100 honest folks.. who'd stay honest and true even if they had all that power... may not be 100 around.. but we should try and find two from each state..

 

[LunarRay]

I like Al Franken's suggestion, appeal to the Republicans in Congress by promising to really work with the ones who aren't crazy idiots, a unity Congress far different than how the Republicans behaved when THEY won. If the tide is really changing, I think enough of them would go for it.

Rainsford,
I'd like to think we could see that occur and on the surface we may.. but I recall a few years ago during the Senate Judiciary hearings with Biden as Chair... the entire Elephant herd up and left the hearings... over exactly what they shoved down the Donkey's throat... Donkeys are stubborn and Elephants never forget... hehehehe our folks in Washington are professional politicians.. experts on being elected and keeping their seats... that is their main objective.. then they hope and pray for events to occur to enable the balance to shift back to them.. in the mean time they do all they can to make life miserable for the other side while not presenting themselves as bad guy cry babies.. hehehehheh
Everyone of them in Congress are beholding to the folks who helped put them there.. everyone of them.. and if that plug is pulled.. out they go.. back to the real world..
So... no... it won't happen.. not really happen.. but what they say may indicate it will... but share power and compromise.. not hardly.. unless mandated..

 

[judasmachine]

yeah i don't see it happening either, i do expect them to make some gains though. the corruptions scandals all seem to be a democratic october surprise. however, i'm sure some of them are guilty as charged, but that doesn't matter as the jury of public opinion makes it's choice in a couple of weeks.

law does not equal public opinion.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Craig234
Greg Palast is an award-winning BBC reporter and best-selling author with many, many imortant stories, conisdered one of the top investigative reporters in the world.

He's also a far-left loon who has opposed Bush and his administration from day one.

The problem is Pabster YOU are the radical partisan, and so good info doesn't work for you. The info is good and listed in my post.

Right, we'll just take YOUR word for it :laugh:

You are an enemy of America with your behavior of supporting those who destroy her, and as shown here, your refusal to get informed with phony attacks on good info.

Get that mirror out, slide it real close, and open your eyes.

 

[Craig234]

He's also a far-left loon who has opposed Bush and his administration from day one.

Right, and those NASA scientists are not credible on the question whether man landed on the moon - from day one, they've been on one side of the issue.

Clearly, anyone who says something against Bush is lying, since the only correct position is that Bush is right on everything.

You're a cult member, Pabster, not a rational citizen, based on your constant posts filled with mostly a lack of facts, and errors when you do try.

Your side's spokespeople are proven wrong again and again and again; but you are unable to show how Palast is wrong much, a 'far-left loon'. No, he's a raidical the way Galielo way: in the eyes of the real radicals, like yourself.

Show ten things Palast is wrong about - show five. He's written thousands of things, so you should be able to back up your claims with examples easily with all that material.

(I've challenged a small amount of what he's said; I've exhanged e-mail and spoken with him. But I strongly suspect you are not informed enough to know those areas).

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Craig234

The fact of the matter is it took 40 years for the Democratic majority to crumble. It's taken 12 years for the Republicans. Now what does that say about strategy? What does that say about job performance? Fvcking embarrassed, is what you guys should be.

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.

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.

And look what they've done with it. Even after the 94 "Revolution" it took Clinton to hold their feet to the fire on their promises to make them effective. Lord knows how ineffective they would have been if we had a incompetent President like Bush in the White House at that time. T ome it shows that for the Legislature to be effective they need to have the other party in the White House led by a strong President, not some bumbling fool like Bush.

Because of that if the Democrats do win the White House in 08 I hope the Republicans take the Legislature and start acting like real Republicans. Of course if the Republicans take the White House (with a competent President this time) I hope the Dems take the Legislature.

 

[International Machine Consortium]

Who would this "competent" Republican be? Don't say McCain. I might consider voting for Snowe. Bascially, I think anyone who voted for the Patriot act and the Iraq war should be instantly disqualified.

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Who would this "competent" Republican be? Don't say McCain. I might consider voting for Snowe. Bascially, I think anyone who voted for the Patriot act and the Iraq war should be instantly disqualified.

Well there goes your entire party :laugh:

 

[International Machine Consortium]

I realize that, smiley man.

Thank you for your hit and run post of the day.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: techs
With the recent events not yet reflected in the polls I am going to say the Republicans will get a slight pickup of voters than had been predicted before these events. When late breaking events occur before elections the party in power has the advantage of driving the debate and access to free media that translates to a slight bump.
The House goes Democrat in what may be the greatest political shift in 100 years. The Senate stays Republican.
I think Ford will lose. I guess I just believe there is still a racist vote that is under-reported in polls.

Please tell me that I won't have to listen to a bunch of statements like that on election night if the Democrats win.

News for you... Democrats held the house for 40 years before losing it in 1994. Republicans have only held the house for 12 years since then.
How can you even pretend to say the greatest shift in 100 years? 1994 saw a 54 seat shift in power. At most we are seeing a 20 or so seat shift, and that is most likely the best Democrats will do.

Please explain your 100 year comment?

Ps. If Ford loses it will be because of statements like claiming he is/was a lawyer when in fact he never passed the bar exam.

News for you... Democrats held the house for 40 years before losing it in 1994. Republicans have only held the house for 12 years since then.
How can you even pretend to say the greatest shift in 100 years? 1994 saw a 54 seat shift in power. At most we are seeing a 20 or so seat shift, and that is most likely the best Democrats will do.
When you look at the 10 straight years of Republican gains then see even a 20 seat shift that changes the power between the parties it becomes the greatest reversal of trends in 100 years.

 

[miketheidiot]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Who would this "competent" Republican be? Don't say McCain. I might consider voting for Snowe. Bascially, I think anyone who voted for the Patriot act and the Iraq war should be instantly disqualified.

Well there goes your entire party :laugh:

You are such a constructive poster.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: miketheidiot

Originally posted by: Pabster

Well there goes your entire party :laugh:

You are such a constructive poster.

In all fairness, his :laugh:s per post percentage is unrivaled.