POLL: What if the GOP holds on to both houses?

[IamDavid]

Everyone thinks the GOP will lose at least one if not both houses in a couple weeks. The Dems are down right gitty over it. If in the end, when all the votes are counted, the GOP holds on whet will become of the left? It was bad enough when they couldn't defeat Bush in the last presidential election with all his problems and this year the whole GOP is beaten down. I myself am kinda hoping the Dems win this go around so the Right will move back towards the center..

 

[dmcowen674]

You don't have an option for the U.S. disintegrates before history eyes.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
You don't have an option for the U.S. disintegrates before history eyes.

That will only happen if the GOP wins this one and the next with Cheaney at the helm.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

The US will sink ever lower into the abyss known as Republican rule.

 

[theeedude]

Nothing will happen, as long as Dems win some seats, which it looks like they will. It will actually help them in 2008 to run against an all GOP government.
But what will happen to GOP if they lose one or both houses? There is going to be a revolt by those who were strong armed to vote against their conservative principles to retain power. They voted to expand education department, medicare, all the things even Democrats couldn't hope to do, to pander for votes They'd have prostituted themselves and still lost power. There is gonna be a bloodbath in the GOP.

 

[Craig234]

One issue will be why they lose. If it's because the republicans commit massive election fraud, we have a whole new set of crises on our hands - but I think you mean legitimately lose.

Frankly, I think the answer is that the nation will simply continue to suffer and decline were that to happen. The left would ask some hard questions about what's needed to win elections. Is it to move to the left and provide a clearer alternative? (I get tired of still hearing the 'they're both the same' comments). Will it be trying to compromise on some issues and pull the legs out from under the republican 'big tent', such as promising a fiscal conservatism that could attract one major group who drank the kool-aid but isn't liking the aftertaste much?

The biggest danger I see is the 'rescue' of the democrats by the corporate element funding more and more 'democrats' who just happen to support the corporatists on key issues, and denying the public any choice - corporatists flavor A or flavor B.

People have said we're already there for many decades -- for example, it was a common theme, believe it or not, in 1960 driving Arthur Schlesinger to write a campaign book describing the differences between the two candidates. But I don't think we are there as badly as can be.

If the democrats get power, we'll face the challenge of keeping them from shifting towards the corporate funding which will be offered. But that's a lot better than the current situation.

 

[rockyct]

Yeah, the GOP has much much more to lose in this election. The Democrats cannot lose any more seats in Congress, so no matter what, they'll end up in a better situation come Nov. 8.

 

[Puffnstuff]

If the GOP retains power look to get power raped finacially for the next two years.

 

[Stunt]

I've advocated a loss for the Dems this election for this reason:

Get their crap together, form a good platform with good ideas and prepare for the 2008 election. If they win they will be focused on impeachment and iraq...not what Americans need right now.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

If the Rs hold both houses the Dems will be forced to defend accusations that they are a miserable failure as a party. They may even replace Dubbya on google as the lead entry for that search.

There is no way in hell a party in their position should fail to take both sides of the congress. They couldn't have anything else go right for them short of Dubbya pissing on the Pope.

I'll predict right now that if they DO fail to grab the house and/or senate Howard Dean will be quickly replaced.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy
If the Rs hold both houses the Dems will be forced to defend accusations that they are a miserable failure as a party. They may even replace Dubbya on google as the lead entry for that search.

There is no way in hell a party in their position should fail to take both sides of the congress. They couldn't have anything else go right for them short of Dubbya pissing on the Pope.

I'll predict right now that if they DO fail to grab the house and/or senate Howard Dean will be quickly replaced.

House, yes, Senate, no.

 

[Craig234]

There is no way in hell a party in their position should fail to take both sides of the congress. They couldn't have anything else go right for them short of Dubbya pissing on the Pope.

I'll predict right now that if they DO fail to grab the house and/or senate Howard Dean will be quickly replaced.

You underestimate the power of the propaganda machine of corporate money feeding think tank content creation feeding right-wing media dissemenation. The repubs have a big money advantage, and money matters in elections; people don't like to admit it, but a sweet lie they hear 25 times can convince them more than a truth heard once.

However, Bush did figuratively piss on the Pope and it didn't hurt him; Pope John Paul II spoke out against a varietyof Bush policies, including saying the Iraq war was wrong.

As for Howard Dean, he's been building a longer-term approach, and if the democrats appreciate that - his 50-state plan - then he'll keep doing it. Remains to be seen. It's a bit tough for him trying to pursue a 50-state plan for long-term planning and to win a critical election with spending in the key races at the same time.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Nothing will happen, as long as Dems win some seats, which it looks like they will. It will actually help them in 2008 to run against an all GOP government.
But what will happen to GOP if they lose one or both houses? There is going to be a revolt by those who were strong armed to vote against their conservative principles to retain power. They voted to expand education department, medicare, all the things even Democrats couldn't hope to do, to pander for votes They'd have prostituted themselves and still lost power. There is gonna be a bloodbath in the GOP.

Actually an interesting post. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans respond, hopefully we will see the true conservatives try and reassert themselves.
A lot of what the right complains about involving this congress is the movement away from conservative principles. If we continue the course we are on now (government spending solves everything) we end up losing our identity and become Democrat-light on THOSE issues.

BTW: Every time America has been given a choice between a conservative (Reagan, Bush 43 and 1994 congress) and a liberal (Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, 1994 Dem congress) they have gone for the conservatives. It is when we stop looking like conservatives and start looking like Democrats that we lose, Bush 41 and perhaps congress this year.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Stunt
I've advocated a loss for the Dems this election for this reason:

Get their crap together, form a good platform with good ideas and prepare for the 2008 election.

That's a bunch of bull because Dems have not been in power since 2000.

What were you? 14

How would you what kind of "act" the Dems had or going to have especially from observing from out of Country?

I didn't think it could be possible but foriegn Republicans are just as bad as domestic.

 

[trenchfoot]

from the perspective that you cannot lose something you don't have at the time, i'm guessing that an unseccessful bid to take over either or both houses of congress by the dems will finally get them to face the fact that despite their old habits, individual sacrifices must be made to promote party unity so that they can issue a strong concerted message that favoribly appeals to the middle class and poor fence-sitters.

also, i know of many dems who lean toward the conservative side as far as how religion influences their political opinions on matters such as abortions, same sex marriage, stem cell reearch, etc. and have a hard time reconciling that with their other liberal beliefs. if the dem higher up's can figure out a way to help these conflicted liberals stay and vote dem then i believe it solves a major part of their problem.

not gaining both houses under favorable conditions might force the party to concentrate in problem areas like this and might make the party stronger rather than weaker.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: senseamp
Nothing will happen, as long as Dems win some seats, which it looks like they will. It will actually help them in 2008 to run against an all GOP government.
But what will happen to GOP if they lose one or both houses? There is going to be a revolt by those who were strong armed to vote against their conservative principles to retain power. They voted to expand education department, medicare, all the things even Democrats couldn't hope to do, to pander for votes They'd have prostituted themselves and still lost power. There is gonna be a bloodbath in the GOP.

Actually an interesting post. It will be interesting to see how the Republicans respond, hopefully we will see the true conservatives try and reassert themselves.
A lot of what the right complains about involving this congress is the movement away from conservative principles. If we continue the course we are on now (government spending solves everything) we end up losing our identity and become Democrat-light on THOSE issues.

BTW: Every time America has been given a choice between a conservative (Reagan, Bush 43 and 1994 congress) and a liberal (Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, 1994 Dem congress) they have gone for the conservatives. It is when we stop looking like conservatives and start looking like Democrats that we lose, Bush 41 and perhaps congress this year.

But they always do start looking like Democrats, it's just a matter of time. I think GOP will be a minority party for a while while they refocus on their principles and get people to beleive them again.

 

[Craig234]

BTW: Every time America has been given a choice between a conservative (Reagan, Bush 43 and 1994 congress) and a liberal (Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, 1994 Dem congress) they have gone for the conservatives. It is when we stop looking like conservatives and start looking like Democrats that we lose, Bush 41 and perhaps congress this year.

Let's not ignore the rest of the story - that while Americans do indeed so often choose the right in these elections, the right again and again proves why that's a mistake.

How far back do you want to go - the gilded age was when the republicans ran the country into a feudalistic state, and the people turned to progressives.

The 1920's were a time where right-wing ideas were given full flower to bloom, and ran the country into the great depression, which is how FDR got elected.

The next republican after the liberal-by-today's-standards Eisenhower was Nixon, who gave us a prolonged, expanded Viet Nam, the end of the upward economy and Watergate.

Then, we've had the modern Reagan/Bush/Bush era where real wages for 90% for 25 years are flat or down, debt has skyrocketed robbing the young Americans, etc.

And we're on the verge of once again 'voting the rascals out'. How do they keep coming back? Look at most of the nation's wealth in 1% of the people's hands - that buys a lot.

 

[IamDavid]

Originally posted by: Craig234

BTW: Every time America has been given a choice between a conservative (Reagan, Bush 43 and 1994 congress) and a liberal (Carter, Mondale, Gore, Kerry, 1994 Dem congress) they have gone for the conservatives. It is when we stop looking like conservatives and start looking like Democrats that we lose, Bush 41 and perhaps congress this year.

Let's not ignore the rest of the story - that while Americans do indeed so often choose the right in these elections, the right again and again proves why that's a mistake.

How far back do you want to go - the gilded age was when the republicans ran the country into a feudalistic state, and the people turned to progressives.

The 1920's were a time where right-wing ideas were given full flower to bloom, and ran the country into the great depression, which is how FDR got elected.

The next republican after the liberal-by-today's-standards Eisenhower was Nixon, who gave us a prolonged, expanded Viet Nam, the end of the upward economy and Watergate.

Then, we've had the modern Reagan/Bush/Bush era where real wages for 90% for 25 years are flat or down, debt has skyrocketed robbing the young Americans, etc.

And we're on the verge of once again 'voting the rascals out'. How do they keep coming back? Look at most of the nation's wealth in 1% of the people's hands - that buys a lot.

Craig, I think your a closet republican. No one can honestly accuse a party, or person, of so much and keep a straight face. The more crap you throw out the more it makes me and allot of others want to vote for the GOP. Even though I can't bring myself to do so this year.. SO keep up the good work and tell Karl I said hi..
The GOP "keeps coming back into power" because the alternatives are a joke.

 

[Craig234]

Craig, I think your a closet republican.

There's a sort of double negative at work here - only someone really, really clueless would say that, you are a republican, so it all fits I do note the utter lack of any facts you use to support your claims that anything I said was inaccurate. Nothing like ideology, which you illustrate.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Craig234
The next republican after the liberal-by-today's-standards Eisenhower was Nixon, who gave us a prolonged, expanded Viet Nam, the end of the upward economy and Watergate.

I'm going to ignore the other stuff you posted but THAT made me LOL

The expansion of Veitnam happened all through Kennedy and Johnson. To lay that off on Nixon only shows what a true hack you really are. :laugh:

As for the economy, Nixon was the last prez to post a surplus until Clinton. The economy didn't poop out until Carter.

I'll give you Watergate.

 

[Craig234]

I'm going to ignore the other stuff you posted but THAT made me LOL

The expansion of Veitnam happened all through Kennedy and Johnson. To lay that off on Nixon only shows what a true hack you really are.

As for the economy, Nixon was the last prez to post a surplus until Clinton. The economy didn't poop out until Carter.

I'll give you Watergate.

You are not only wrong, but a jerk in your name-calling (the you started it exception is hereby invoked).

I was discussing the transitions of the end of republican rule reverting to democrats, making Nixon's role in Viet Nam relevant, and LBJ's not. I didn't excuse LBJ, nor any other off-topic part of American history, I didn't say anything one way or the other. It's not relevant, the topic is not 'who's to blame for Viet Nam'.

Since you bring it up - I think Kennedy handled it about as well as it could be, refusing demands to send combat troops, and he planned to withdraw in 1965. LBJ, on the other hand, does deserve a lot of blame. He gave in to pressures and it was costly; he paid with his second term.

Nixon on the other hand, was arguably far worse - from the evidence that he committed treason in secretly sabotaging the LBJ peace negotiations, prolonging the war, to his disastrous extension and expansion of the war, doubling the US casualties (and I'd guess that or more for the Vietnamese).

As for the economy, only ignorance can explain your comments about Nixon - republicans have long since disowned him. Since when are 'wage and price controls' part of the republican set of economic policies? A decades-long trend of increasing American prosperity, well-distributed growth, flattened out with him.

With a large factor the oil problems, Nixon's policies paved the way for the economic mess continuing in the 70's.

You cherry pick your comments - Reagan will likely get credit for ending inflation without mention of his deficits or the stealth tax on social security, while you mention Nixon's balanced budget without mention of his problematic policies.

At least we agree on Watergate.

 

[Stunt]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Stunt
I've advocated a loss for the Dems this election for this reason:

Get their crap together, form a good platform with good ideas and prepare for the 2008 election.

That's a bunch of bull because Dems have not been in power since 2000.

What were you? 14

How would you what kind of "act" the Dems had or going to have especially from observing from out of Country?

I didn't think it could be possible but foriegn Republicans are just as bad as domestic.

No they haven't and they will continue to be denied power if they don't get their crap together and put forward an agenda Americans want.

I know this might be a surprise to you but US politics are covered quite extensively worldwide and the US continues to be the world's one superpower; therefore is a point of interest for those interested. I actually find it quite humorous you are criticizing me for being on the outside looking in when you do the exact same with Iraq and other nations.

I don't know why I bother responding to your small minded and ignorant posts. I have stated my political views many times here and you continue to ignore what I have said. Nationality, Age complaints are for those who cannot argue valid comments.

 

[Ferocious]

The last time the GOP controlled all three branches of government for more than four years we entered the great depression!

(actually they controlled all three branches for 10 straight years...1920-1930)

 

[DaveSimmons]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
A lot of what the right complains about involving this congress is the movement away from conservative principles. If we continue the course we are on now (government spending solves everything) we end up losing our identity and become Democrat-light on THOSE issues.

Moderates, independents and libertarians are also complaining about Reublicans betraying their fiscal conservative and small government principles, which is one reason why almost everyone here is bashing Republicans.

I'm hoping for Democrats to take at least the House and erode the Senate majority, so like senseamp said Republican members in Congress will grow back their spines and stop with the rubber-stamping of bad ideas and pandering to extremists.

 

[Craig234]

I'm hoping for Democrats to take at least the House and erode the Senate majority, so like senseamp said Republican members in Congress will grow back their spines and stop with the rubber-stamping of bad ideas and pandering to extremists.

It's not about spines. Their core constituency today are the money interests, the large corporations and ultra wealthy who pay for their core infrastructure. The rest are all the suckers added onto the boat to get 51% - the 'real conservatives', the 'financial conservatives', the 'religious fundamentalists', the 'log cabin republicans', whatever.

Frankly, the 'real' agenda of the republicans is not a good sell, and it's not too optional. The republicans would have to go through a radical redo to change that and return to 'real conservatism', and I think they'd have to tolerate losing some elections without the money interests helping as the price.

I've seen no indication they're willing to pay it.

No, I think the best solution now is from the outside, for the democrats to win and fix things enough that the 'big money' interests are not so overwhelmingly dominating in the system, so that the conservatives can rebuild the party without needing them as much.

It's one thing to have some preference for the wealthy, and another to be their lapdog, where we are today.

The old saying, "you have to LOOK good to the voters, and DO good for the donors" explains a lot.

How are away are we from fixing this? So far that few Americans are even comfortable to look at the issues in any reference to 'top 1% vs. bottom 99%'. They get caught up in phony distinctions instead.