| Author |
Message |
    
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 919
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:01 pm: | 
|
Easy question for both sides of the aisle.
What is your definition of a victory in the upcoming midterms?
With all the talk and rhetoric from both sides, this is only real meaningful outcome. For me, as a staunch conservative and Republican supporter, victory for me is very simple - maintain control of both chambers of Congress. If we lose either one or both chambers then it is a loss for my side, clear and simple. Losing seats, yet maintaining control, while not ideal for me, would be very tolerable.
What are the Democrats view? Is simply gaining seats a victory? Is winning one chamber enough for you to claim a victory? Obviously, gaining both chambers would be a total victory for the Dems. Let me know your terms if you are willing to actually face them. |
Innisowen
Citizen
Username: Innisowen
Post Number: 2031
Registered: 3-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:05 pm: |
|
Southerner:
What's your definition of a knowledge of history and historical terms?
Definitions and knowledge of European History (3 full credits) available courtesy of a check from me.
If you pass a course.
If you take it at an accredited college (you can google that term if you're unsure of its meaning).
And your answer is.....................................? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5559
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 10:15 pm: |
|
And your question is.........tiresome. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1190
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Friday, April 21, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
Save the world. Then rebuild the Democratic Party. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 920
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:31 am: |
|
Foj,
Of all posters I figured you'd at least be able to give your definition of victory. I am beginning to get the distinct feeling that even you libs don't believe your own words. If you libs are so confident that Bush and the Republicans are losers then you should have no problem stating your criteria for victory in November. Maybe most of you have finally accepted your minority status and realize the best you can do is "pick up a few seats". If that is all you libs can muster with all the red meat given to you by this admin then Foj is correct. Your party needs to be deconstructed then rebuilt. And remember, I will be voting for a Democrat for the House in my district. That guy brings home the bacon and is a Democrat in name only, not action. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1158
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:48 am: |
|
Southerner - the only thing that will satisfy me is if the dems take back at least one branch of the government. Anything less may be improvement but not 'victory'. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2046
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 12:32 pm: |
|
maybe you didn't get a lot of response because it's a really stupid question. the answer is self-evident. victory is winning. losing close is not victory. taking control of the House is one victory, taking control of the Senate is also a victory. gaining seats but not a majority isn't victory, it's losing close.
I would have thought anyone would know that, but perhaps not. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11289
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 5:34 pm: |
|
I think to really "win" the Dems have to take control of both houses of Congress. Winning just one will be important, because they will control committees and have supeona power, but anything less than taking control of both houses will not be a victory.
I really doubt that they will be able to take the Senate. I actually expect the GOP to pick up seats in Florida and New Jersey. The House is possible, but I would say it is about 60/40 against this happening, especially now that Turd Blossom can spend all his time on politics. |
anon
Supporter
Username: Anon
Post Number: 2674
Registered: 6-2002
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 6:48 pm: |
|
I have said before that it is close to a mathematical impossibility for the Dems to win control of either the House or Senate. I read some of the professional prognostications FOJ posted on another thread and they seem to bear out my position.
Given that, I think if the Dems pick up more than one or two seats in the House it will be a victory. The same is probably true of the Senate.
IMHO they ought to be concentrating on 2008 to take back the country.
In that regard here is my question:
Will the Dems be better off or worse off going into 2008 if they win control of one of the Houses in 2006? I think worse, because then they will just share in the blame for all the crap that goes on in the next two years.
My bet is that the rest of you will now disagree with me. Am I right? |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4796
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:01 pm: |
|
The Dems need to take control of more state legislatures. Then, push through re-districting plans to get rid of all the "safe" districts. THEN the composition of the national legislature has a shot at reflecting the will of the people. |
llama
Citizen
Username: Llama
Post Number: 763
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:22 pm: |
|
I think the word victory is widely mis-understood in general. It doesn't necessarily mean "good." (eg. Bush's victory, Hama's victory, the wrath of disease, starvation, war, etc. seem to have roots possibly dirived from the "victims" they lay claim to, as well as the ignorance of those to whom claim that it is all that matters without owning up to the consequences and realities). I hope that my mission in explaining this point has really been accomplished. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 922
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 7:49 pm: |
|
All interesting points, except llama who probably hasn't ever won anything in her life. Anon, I agree with you. From a big picture outlook, the Dems are certaintly better to let the Repubs screw things up (from their perspective, not mine). Then in 2008, they can go for the big enchilada. But, anon, please remember, they just tried this in 2004 and were summarily rejected using this strategy. But I agree that you are on the right track, I just don't think the Dems attract the majority anymore.
Hoops,
I also agree with you. If the Dems can't at least win the House with all this momentum then it will be a sad day for the Democratic Party.
BobK,
I tend to side with you a little more than Hoops. One chamber of Congress still leaves us Repubs with the other, the White House, and SC, as well as a majority of state legislatures and governorships. While the typical libs on this board will be jumping for joy, I will be silently laughing that all they could muster was the House. I equate it to going after Rove and getting Libby. But hey, everyone has a different view of victory.
Dr.,
I also agree with you, but please remember your sentiment the day after the election and help me remind the posters who come here talking smack because the Dems gained 7-8 seats but are still in the minority. It is similar to all the recent posts about possible indictments. Either someone is indicted or not. Anything else is just not a victory. I look forward to your help in setting guys straight.
Llama,
I have never equated victory with good. That is for each of us to decide. I don't like Dems so a victory by them will not be seen as good by me, while to you it probably will. However, unlike most abstract discussions, this discussion is not abstract. There are a set number of seats and someone will occupy all 535 of them. Good and bad is relative. But the final number is not relative. It is a constant and I'm just trying to determine where we all stand. Like I've said, all I want is to keep control for the Republicans. It would be nice to have a working majority and wonderful to have a filibuster proof number, but I'll take a single seat victory if need be. I just can't relive the 80's of Democrats running those committees like Stalin. I know Stevens and the like are not any better but at least I have a philosophical agreement with them. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1159
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 22, 2006 - 11:34 pm: |
|
Look Sthner it took the GOP 40 years to gain control of congress. It really looks to me like they will be loosing it after 12 - 14 years. So sorry but the country is waking up to the liars and frauds that are controling your party.
I do think the dems will take back the house in 06 and I do think the dems will win the presidency in 08.
I can live with that. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 925
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 5:54 am: |
|
We'll see. But don't get your hopes up. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2047
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 10:33 am: |
|
Tom is the only one here who is 100% right. Gerrymandering has made almost every seat in Congress non-competitive. If the Democrats want to win Congress, they need to win the redistricting battle first. It would be a victory to win control of the House, but I don't expect it. I expect Democrats to pile up even bigger majorities in the districts they already hold, and I expect virtually every Republican incumbent to hold on in theirs. As unpopular as Bush and the national Republican party are right now, most people have a favorable opinion of their own representative. I can't see how Bush's standing with voters will influence them to vote against their heretofore popular Republican representatives. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 931
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 5:30 pm: |
|
Dr.,
Your post is a good one. I agree with you that gerrymandering has completely screwed up the system. We have districts here in Georgia that look like they were drawn by a 2 year old. Of course, it was the Democrats who did this in order to ensure African American Reps. Now that the Dems have been losing on a consistent basis they want it changed. I understand this completely. It's called smart politics. I also agree with your point about the Dems piling up bigger numbers in their districts. To that I say, you Dems should get some of them to move so you can take over other districts. Then again, blue staters enjoy toll booths and 2 hour commutes. I don't understand this, but they do. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1198
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, April 23, 2006 - 11:49 pm: |
|
Anon-- I am offended. The purpose of those posts were to provide SOUTHERNER with some republican sources. Since I had already provided a similar list from a DEMOCRATIC source-- the DAily KOS.
Please refrain from this sort of Bull •••• in the future.
By the Way Ted Kennedy said today on "Meet the Press" DEMs are taking the Senate and the House back.
By the way ANON-- did you know that there no NJ House "R" inmcumbants running unopposed? And 2 DEMS are running unopposed in NJ. SEems the "R"s are giving up 2 seats just in NJ alone. Ya cant do that too many times before you lose congress.
ANON-- do you know how many open seats there are this year?
ANON- how many "R" seats do DEMS consider to be vulnerable?
ANON- how many "D" seats do Repubs consider to be vulnerable?
ANON- How many seats do us DEMS need for a majority in the House?
ANON- Why are Incumbant DEMS going unopposed?
ANON- why are the "Band of Brothers", a group of over 50 Veterens running for Congress, against "R" incumbants, all but one, is a DEM?
ANON- Why is there only one "R" veteren, running against a "D" incumbant.
Be more carefull when using my name. I dont appreciate your BS, and my name being in the same post. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 934
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 8:57 am: |
|
Foj,
You need to relax. I know you believe Kennedy is a prophet but just because he said it doesn't make it true. You keep stating that the Repubs aren't running in two districts in NJ. Seems to me they are smart enough not to waste money on races they can't win. Why you Dems through cash all over, we will concentrate on the races that matter. But again, you guys don't have a Rove, so you will continue to wither on the vine. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3192
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 11:15 am: |
|
Kennedy is no prophet, but I do agree that even with the ongoing lack of cohesion and cogency from Dems we are going to make major strides in the next few major elections. Polls are hardly the final say of anything, but the way Bush's approval numbers have gone down and stayed down makes a strong statement about where the nation's opinion of the GOP is.
As I see it, there are two potential impediments to a huge increase in Dem popularity. One is some kind of manufactured event designed to distract voters and/or make them afraid of voting for the less militaristic party. The other is the manipulation of elections, which is an issue that deserves far more attention than it is getting. Foj has posted perhaps more threads than some of you may want to see on this issue, but I can't think of a more essential element of democracy than accurate, unadulterated voting and vote tallying. Society is sometimes too uncritical of conspiracy theories -- we'll believe anything if it's packaged in the right way. But I think there is simply too much information about our voting machines, the companies that manufacture them, and various events during the last few major elections to deny that there have been very serious attempts to subvert those elections by the right wing. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1165
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 12:08 pm: |
|
notehead you are being far too polite in the matter. There needs to be independent oversight and machines that are fool proof and hacker proof with verifiable results. Penalties for fixing elections should be as severe as our drug laws.
Barring that voting fraud is not only a possibility it is a certainty. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 937
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 4:52 pm: |
|
Hoops,
You mean give them probation?
I thought we were making some bipartisan strides but you guys just can't accept that this country has moved to the right. You still insist on the conspiracy theories which is quite sad. If the Dems take back Congress can I use that excuse? I won't because I don't use excuses. If you guys win then I'll congratulate you and try to change the electorate for the next election. You guys can't even fathom that maybe your view isn't the dominating view anymore. And notey, I love how you give the electorate zero credit with the distraction comment. I'll be sure to use the ignorant electorate excuse if you guys win. Did you ever learn to shake your opponents hand whether you win or lose? Have you guys forgotten that since the 2000 fiasco (or in my opinion the greatest political slow death of all time) every polling station in this nation has been crawling with watch dogs from each party. If you think the Repubs are cheating then you better get some better watch dogs in there.
I love how you guys are already getting the excuses in line. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1168
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:29 pm: |
|
The only sad thing is that the so called conspiracy theories are being dismissed out of hand. Allegations of illegalities were made, evidence presented and no inquiry nor criminal investigation took place because of the partisan roles involved.
What is sad is that people like you really do not believe in democracy and freedom. What is sad is that people like you only believe what they are told by the people 'in charge'. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1201
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:37 pm: |
|
Hoops, it is "Election Fraud", right? Voters commit voter fraud....
& Is there any computer that is "fool proof and hacker proof". NO-- SO lets use paper ballots. Oregon, Montana & NH do & will in the future. In fact nearly every major US city used paper ballots untill this year.
Southerner, Teddie is an old & doddering DEM. He aint no Joe Namith. I think ANON completely misscharacterized the research I did. Mathematically impossible, WTF.
Can you condone ANON implicating that I said, or posted material that said, it was mathematically impossible. I posted the 29 minute search in the spirit of good fun, you responded likewise.
But let me go back to the KOS post, that post covered 74 house races. TO be fair the end of the list is nothing but long shots for DEMS. But with 20 open and 23 vunerable, that adds up to 43 races where DEMs have a good chance.
The "R" blogs I posted came down to zero seats gained by DEMS to 5 seats gained, to 9 seats gained.
SO lets look at the worse case scenarios from the point of the DEMS:
"R" say DEMs win zero seats.
"D" say DEMs win 43 seats.
averaged out, its a 21.5 seat gain for the DEMs.
Lets now look at the best case scenarios from the point of the DEMs:
"R" say DEMs win 9 seats.
"D" say DEMs win 74 seats.
averaged out, its a 32.5 seat gain for the DEMs.
-36 states where Bush has a dissaproval of 60% or higher.
-Congressional DEMs favored on National Security Polls
-Congressional DEMs favored on Economic Issues.
-Congressional DEMs favored on Fighting fraud.
-"Band of Brothers & Sisters", 50 Veterans running for Congress, 49 are DEMS.
-"R" have no plan.
-Republicans dont have a Howard Dean. They only have a Rove.
Southerner-- ANON either didn't pay attention, or took a cheap shot at me. ANd you should know better than to expect me to take anthing like that sitting down.
SO ANON has a choice, (1)ANON can either reframe his comment, (2)Pretend that nothing happened,(3)Hide and dont post here untill after the Novemember elections, or (4) Reframe and apologize.
Did I tell you all the story of how SLK earned my respect? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1170
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 9:42 pm: |
|
foj, I dont think anon took a cheap shot at you, but he can speak for himself.
SLK and respect dont belong in the same sentence.
Yes Election Fraud. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1206
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 10:14 pm: |
|
ANON twisted my words to mean something they didnt mean. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2935
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Monday, April 24, 2006 - 10:41 pm: |
|
No, Anon used the research you posted to make a point. He did not say that YOU thought what he said. Go back and read what he wrote... |
The Notorious S.L.K.
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1320
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:14 am: |
|
I am now convinced that I am the thing under the bed keeping Hoops up at night.... 
Of course it was election fraud, what else could it possibly be? Oh yeah, maybe the American populace or just a bunch of idiots?
(/sarcasm off)
Which one is it Hoops
-SLK |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1174
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:40 am: |
|
SLK - look back in the archives, I am not going to regurgitate the problems with the national election in Ohio and elsewhere again. I am not going to tell you again that the statistical probability for the exit polls deeclaring a Kerry victory to be wrong were impossible, yet they were somehow. I am not going to tell you again that the election machines were quite hackable, I am not going to tell you again that the election 'watchdogs' were partisans and no independant investigation was conducted, I am not going to tell you again that there were not enough voting machines in the democratic areas and there were lines over 10 hours long in a winter rain.
No SLK in your world of see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil all is well in America. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1175
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:43 am: |
|
SLK - the only thing under my bed is dust and I have no trouble sleeping. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1686
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:22 am: |
|
Southerner,
I do give you credit for trying to rewrite the dictionary. "Losing = winning." That's a true classic.
Onto your question:
Dems gaining seats would be a small victory.
Dems taking the House would be a big victory.
Dems taking both houses a huge victory. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 944
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 9:56 pm: |
|
dave,
Then we can both win. You can have your small victory and I'll continue to laugh at the minority party. As for rewriting definitions, you libs are masters. You control nothing, the Repubs control everything and yet you somehow have the kahunas to say that gaining a few seats is a small victory. The Dems are even more pathetic than I envisioned. Where has the real Democratic Party gone? So yes, the Repubs can lose and still win. When Stevens is still sticking it to the Dems next year then you answer me a simple question - Who won? |
SO Ref
Citizen
Username: So_refugee
Post Number: 1730
Registered: 2-2005
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 10:21 pm: |
|
For heaven's sake it's cojones!!! |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4813
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:09 pm: |
|
You have a very narrow view of winning. This isn't a game like football where winning isn't everything, it's the only thing. Winning is the means to power, he means to the end of accomplishing your goals and putting your agenda into action.
Republicans control everything? Yet the Social Security system is intact. The tax cuts are not made permanent. There are no constitutional amendments for flag-burning, abortion, or gay marriage. The regulatory system is still in place. The immigration bill is stalled. Only a third of Americans believe Bush is doing a good job. Half think impeachment hearings are in order.
The Republicans have won everything, but they control nothing. So what is their prize? |
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 170
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:52 pm: |
|
If Dems can't take the House or Senate, then the Republicans have essentially won this round.
If Dems win one or the other, than it will make a huge difference because you can't pass a law without both bodies' consent, no matter who is in the White House. The Senate would be better because it has to confirm the president's nominees, well unless he does a recess appointment ...
Foj, are you a flak? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1214
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, April 25, 2006 - 11:55 pm: |
|
Whats a FLAK? |
MichaelaM
Citizen
Username: Mayquene
Post Number: 171
Registered: 1-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 12:21 am: |
|
A press person. You sound like a DC flak ... |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1217
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, April 26, 2006 - 8:47 pm: |
|
OHhhh. OK. Like a loopster.
No. I have never worked in the press. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page