[QUOTE=SilentStorm]
That’s exactly my prediction. Incumbency is tough to overcome, but since ALL 435 members of the house are up for re-election and the democrats only have to gain 15 seats (probably more, but still a relatively small amount), it’s not at all farfetched. I’ve voted Republican every time I’ve voted for a major (federal-level) office, and I will probably do so again; but I really wouldn’t be that upset if the Republicans lost one (or even both) houses. They really need a kick in the ass right now.
[/QUOTE]
If they need a real kick in the ass, then why vote for them again??? That makes no sense at all.
[QUOTE=John Mace] SilentStorn: One thing you might want to consider is the value of gridlock. When the president and Congress are of different parties, they have more trouble getting stuff done. If you’re like me, and think government often does more harm than good, it’s a plus to have one more obstacle in their path. I’ve seen both parties get drunk on power when they control everything, and the current crop of Republicans are the worst in that respect. My preferred blend is usually a Republican in the WH, and Democrats controling at least one House in Congress.
But it’s hard to argue with your approach-- looking at each candidate individually. Don’t be confused into thinking that all Dems are tax and spend types, though. There are a lot of fiscally responsible Dems out there these days.
[/QUOTE]
Dang, John, that sounds like something I would say, in fact I think I did, somewhere
[QUOTE=Malodorous]
No you’re right. I read the 50-49-1 split in Hentor’s post to be 50 Republicans, 49 Dems for some reason. But 50 Dems and Bernie would give the Dems control of the Senate.
[/QUOTE]
Not my post - I was only making a joking reference to an old debate about wagering on elections.
But I do want to say that we’ve come a very, very long way (in only a few short months, it seems) from the arguments that Republicans win elections because they are the party of ideas, whereas the Democrats have no ideas. Defenders of the GOP have had to drop down several rungs to cling to “Washington corrupted the Republicans.” However, that particular rung is pretty shaky, and is only a few desperate rungs above “Republican policies are just inherently bad” and “Washington is the Republicans and they are it.”
I wonder if that has anything to do with the rash of “farewell, cruel SDMB” posts we’ve had from those on the right. I do want to sincerely thank those from the other side of the aisle who have toughed it out to stick around.
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I wonder if that has anything to do with the rash of “farewell, cruel SDMB” posts we’ve had from those on the right.
[/QUOTE]
¯ *** [sup] “It’s hard [/sup] out here [sup]for a[/sup] Pub!”*** ¯
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
I wonder if that has anything to do with the rash of “farewell, cruel SDMB” posts we’ve had from those on the right. I do want to sincerely thank those from the other side of the aisle who have toughed it out to stick around.
[/QUOTE]
Couldn’t be that its time to renew our subscriptions and people are just tired of the board and want to move on, could it? Naw, must be the ‘fact’ that the Republican message has finally bottomed out, that the Dems have been right all along, and that its only a matter of time before the Republican party is thrown on the ash heap of history in the coming landslide of Democrat election wins…
I’m not SilentStorn, but I’ll hazard a guess: perhaps he feels that his own Republican representative is one of the good ones and doesn’t wish to punish him for his disappointment with the party’s general direction?
[QUOTE=xtisme]
Couldn’t be that its time to renew our subscriptions and people are just tired of the board and want to move on, could it? Naw, must be the ‘fact’ that the Republican message has finally bottomed out, that the Dems have been right all along, and that its only a matter of time before the Republican party is thrown on the ash heap of history in the coming landslide of Democrat election wins…
-XT
[/QUOTE]
Could be. I do know that, for example, furt and Mr. Moto successfully made it through renewals last year, and that general board fatigue and having to renew shouldn’t correlate with political orientation. But who knows - your proposition is equally valid.
Although I would hope that you wouldn’t see the posts in this thread as supportive of an assertion that the “Republican message” is strong and vibrant. If it wasn’t for the huge taint of corruption, they would be getting … hmmm, what would they be getting done, again?
[QUOTE=Hentor the Barbarian]
Although I would hope that you wouldn’t see the posts in this thread as supportive of an assertion that the “Republican message” is strong and vibrant. If it wasn’t for the huge taint of corruption, they would be getting … hmmm, what would they be getting done, again?
[/QUOTE]
Actually, I was making a joke…it was supposed to be funny in any case. To burst your bubble, I don’t think that the ‘Republican message’ is either strong nor vibrant, and hasn’t been for some time. Of course, I don’t think the ‘Democrat message’ is particularly strong nor vibrant (to use a gross understatement) either.
Actually, if spending is really your major objection, you might well be happier with the Democrats. In recent years, they have been much more “the party of fiscal responsibility” than the Republicans have.
[QUOTE=Kimstu]
Actually, if spending is really your major objection, you might well be happier with the Democrats. In recent years, they have been much more “the party of fiscal responsibility” than the Republicans have.
[/QUOTE] Kimstu, that’s true only if by recent years you mean at least the past four decades. Annual spending, as a percentage of GDP, since 1960 was reduced half the time when Democrats controlled all three branches of government, and around 60% of the time outside of the Viet Nam war era increases. The idea that Republicans have ever been notably better than Democrats for either overall impact on the economy or in terms of “fiscal responsibility” is a myth.
In Michigan DeVos whos dad started AmWay is running against Grandholm.He has for months been running ads on tv .The election period has not strated yet he is blanketing the media .The ads stress what a sucessful business man he is. Hisdad not he started Amway.Anyway you can not underestimate the power of money in campaigns.
We also can not forget Diebold and ES and S count 80% of the votes in this country.
