Not to be a nagbag or anything, Bricker, but are we on or not?
Done - I accept.
If the Democrats have a net gain of seats in the Congress following the 2006 elections in either the House or the Senate or both, you win $100. If not, I win.
Deal.
This bodes well:
Congress’ Approval Rating on the Slide
So what do you think Bricker, will Congress continue to make America nervous with record deficits and tinkering with Social Security, or will they resort to impeaching the President again to get back in America’a good graces before the election?
Me? I think they will keep doing things the way they have been, which is good for me. Either way, the country wins.
Sarbanes is retiring, which means one more safe Democratic seat is now up for grabs. Even if the Democrats keep it, they have to expend resources to do so.
It’s not looking great for the party. They have a long ladder to climb.
Tennessee is probably more likely to switch from R to D than Maryland is from D to R. Sarbanes retirement only means that there will be an interesting Democratic primary.
The problem, IMHO, is not that the Repubs are wildley popular, though, it’s that they’ve done such a good job vilifying the Dems (and the Dems have done such a good job vilifying themselves) that people will vote Republican rather then the hippy proterrorist, wussy, baby killing homolovin’ Dems. Consider the 2004 election where the Dem base was motivated, public opinion of Bush, the war and the economy was low, etc. and people still prefered Bush over Kerry. Dean’s challenge will not be in making the Repubs look bad, but in making the Dems look good (or more likely, less bad).
Whistle past the graveyard much, Moto?
Yes, they will, barring some miracle. And you are wise to pass. Until we have auditable elections, it really doesn’t matter who votes or how they vote – all that matters is, who counts the votes.
Beware, o fellow Democrats.
Despite the title of the thread, any net gain or loss may have little to do with “Dean’s effectiveness” and a whole lot to do with Republican gerrymandering of voting districts. (In Georgia, for example, where a new Republican majority in the state legislature is flexing its muscle.)
Sure, lots of factors may come into play.
But they utlimately will derive from the fact that more people are voting for Republicans, either by installing them in state legislatures or in the US House and Senate.
There isn’t really a better measure of the effectiveness of either party than the number of seats they control.
But sure - a loss of seats may not mean Dean is ineffective. I grant that.
I will say this, for whatever it’s worth: had the Democrats picked another party chairman, I would not have offered this bet.
…or by having elections rigged by Diebold.
Or, as the Democrats have done, by passing crack out to the homeless and bussing them to six different precinc in one day to vote six different times for their candidate.
Which is an unsupported allegation, just as yours is.
Don’t worry, Bricker. I can help support that allegation.
Phony voter registrations paid for with crack cocaine.
