2006 Elections

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
Post Reply
User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

2006 Elections

Post by lance » Jan 24th 2005, 7:02 pm

May seem early to some but work is already being done by both sides for the upcoming political fight that well may determine whether the US will remain under one party rule for years to come.

Harry Reid was interviewed recently here in Las Vegas. He gives some hints to Democratic strategy and his position in the party. You can listen here:

http://www.knpr.org/son/archive/detail. ... gramID=356

Also a recent article in that nation shows how Democrats have improved in statewide issues, elections and in the West as a whole:

You can read more here:

http://www.thenation.com/edcut/index.mh ... 7&pid=2137

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

well crap

Post by lance » Feb 16th 2006, 9:48 am

:evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil: :evil:

Well let me call this 2006 elections: the GOP will pick up 2 seats in the Senate and 10 in the House. Is it because the GOP will cut the deficit? No. Is it because they support the troops? No, they continue to cut benefits and turn over wounded vets to debt collectors. Is it because the GOP cares about anyone who is rich or powerful. No, if you are not a member of this group the Grand Old Party says you have the right to die, unassisted. That's it.

No the GOP will win because they want to win while the Democratic Leadership seems hell bent on losing and angering their base. These conservative Democrats, DLC clones are the same ones who brought us such glorious losses as 2000, 2002 and 2004. Yesterday they got rid of Paul Hackett in favor of Sherrod Brown. Sherrod who? Exactly. Except in Cleveland Sherrod is not well known.

Paul was an outspoken Democrat who did not apologize for his beliefs or statements clearly this something that folks like Chuck "Born to Lose" Schumer could not stand. Paul was an Iraq vet who could uniquely speak to both red and blue state America. Paul entered the race for Senate in Ohio in August with the full blessing of the party leaders and with no primary opponent. Then a couple of months later Sherrod Brown entered.

During his speech yesterday Paul said that Charles "Machiavelli" Schumer, Harry Reid and Rahm Emmanuel told him don't worry about finances and donors you are okay. Turns out that Chuck called Paul's donors and said don't bother sending checks. So Paul is out and with him ANY chance of defeating Republican Senator Mike "I hate gays and poor people" DeWine. In fact yesterday DeWine just won reelection. At least his party didn't stab him in the back, must feel nice.

What is clear : "But many rank-and-file Democrats see something besides decorum at stake. Some conclude that the national Democratic leaders are addicted to losing, content as long as the party holds some seats and the consultants get shares of the campaign ad buys. "
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/021406.html

So like I said the GOP will win this fall because the Democratic base is pissed and they may not vote this year. Hey if I was the GOP I would send some thank you cards and flowers to Schumer, Reid and Emmanuel: "Good job guys, we could not have done it with out you."

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Oct 2nd 2006, 9:53 pm

Ya know,

I might be wrong on this one.

I have the distinct feeling that the 2006 elections aren't going to be close. One side or the other will win "big". Can't exactly tell you why, just a feeling I have.

Anyone else notice gas prices tumbling, must be an election coming or something.

:roll:

Gas prices here tumbled from $3.15 in August down to $2.67 now.

-LanceMan

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 14th 2007, 9:48 pm

Hey all,

Been way too busy with life stuff.

I was pleasantly shocked and amazed by the election results.

Seeing the first woman Speaker of the House sworn in was an incredible, incredible thing. Felt like Hope.

Never underestimate the power of Democrats to wimp out in the face of pressure, but looks like finally there may some accountability.

Anyone noticing things like Rx prices and heating prices falling since November? Coincidence? Possibly or maybe just maybe industries that have had little to no oversight are starting to sweat.

-LanceMan

User avatar
SanDeE*
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Jan 14th 2007, 11:56 pm

Back in November, I was proud of Missouri (where I live now) for voting YES for stem cell research.

I was VERY VERY VERY dissapointed in Wisconsin (where I grew up) for voting IN FAVOR of the marriage ban. For shame. What the butt, WI? :evil:
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.

~~Kristin~~

User avatar
stburr91
Liberty High Student
Posts: 122
Joined: May 18th 2006, 2:17 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Post by stburr91 » Jan 15th 2007, 2:43 pm

Oh, the optimism of a liberal.

This past election was no different than in 94, where the dems lost big time. The people were sick of that congress, and after passing the "Assault Weapon Ban" (That was the final nail in the coffin for the dems.), the people showed their unhappiness at the polls.

These new bums are no different than the old bums. Just wait, you'll see.

The problem comes from having a president, that is at the extreme side of his party. Clinton was too far to the left, and Bush is as far to the right as you can get.

I think jumping back a forth, from one extreme to the other, is not good for the country. That's why I think McCain (Not that I particularly like McCain.) would be a good choice in 08. He is much closer to the middle of the road, than anyone the dems will run.

User avatar
SanDeE*
So-Called Addict
Posts: 989
Joined: Sep 24th 2002, 4:40 am

Post by SanDeE* » Jan 15th 2007, 3:03 pm

Hey, who said I was a liberal? :wink: I like to think of myself as progressive if nothing else.

I totally agree - this 'pendulum' thing we have going is no good for anyone. Another problem is the perfection that everyone expects out of a president. Because of course, no one is perfect. (So Clinton cheated on his wife... is that my business? No. Not that it is acceptable behavior for anyone, but other presidents have done the same thing in the past.) And no one has the exact same opinion on everything. I agree that we need someone who is middle of the road. I find that the democrats and republicans have (VERY GENERALLY speaking) the same goals for the country.... but it's when people throw their personal beliefs into the mix (like the fundamentalist evangelical christian thing that's happening now) that we run into trouble. Not everyone is a fundamentalist evangelical christian... duh. What is best for everyone?
Um, in my room, one seam is a little off and I stare at it constantly. It's, like, destroying me.

~~Kristin~~

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 31st 2007, 10:30 pm

stburr91 wrote:Oh, the optimism of a liberal.

This past election was no different than in 94, where the dems lost big time. The people were sick of that congress, and after passing the "Assault Weapon Ban" (That was the final nail in the coffin for the dems.), the people showed their unhappiness at the polls.

These new bums are no different than the old bums. Just wait, you'll see.

The problem comes from having a president, that is at the extreme side of his party. Clinton was too far to the left, and Bush is as far to the right as you can get.

I think jumping back a forth, from one extreme to the other, is not good for the country. That's why I think McCain (Not that I particularly like McCain.) would be a good choice in 08. He is much closer to the middle of the road, than anyone the dems will run.
Ahh the skepticism of a conservative.

I don't think the country has "jumped" from one extreme to another. The country does many things, quick switches aren't one of them. It took the country something like 40 years before it gave control of the Congress to Republicans in 1994. It also took the country as a whole 6 years to go from 51% of the country supporting Bush to now something like 30%. 6 years is not long say in geologic time but that is an eternity in politics.

Speaking as a liberal, Clinton was not a liberal. He was part of the center right hugging DLC. In fact after '94 he adopted large parts of the Contract with America. A sensible, pragmatic approach possibly but not a liberal one.

McCain prior to his bid to win the religious conservatives struck me as another pragmatic, center-right politician. Now that he is running for high office is much more to the right. Not George W conservative but more to the right than say Hagel or Arlene Spector say.

The Dem field is wide open. Ideology aside I don't think Democrats are going to go with the most liberal person to say, just to annoy or amuse conservatives. In 2004 Dems went with a candidate who they thought looked good on paper. Unfortunately Kerry didn't do well in fighting back. Look for the Dems to find someone who will box out (basketball metaphor) well, throw a few elbows and fight back quickly and often with the Repubs.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests