D

9/13/2005 5:14:51 PM

Quote :

"I believe you missed the point on TGD's comments. Polling is fine for getting a feel for what the public wants and possible backlash, etc. Its normal. Where TGD is saying he has a problem is when someone's platform is derived, in essence, completely from these polls and not on convictions. It leads to them being too wishy-washy and unable to count on. The right decision isn't always going to be what the polls indicate (what the public wants) but someone sanding by their convictions will do it regardless because they feel it is in the best interest of the country. If there is a Democratic president, I want to know how they are going to respond and what their general philosphy on key issues are. I don't want it to be a flavor of the day mentality. I might disagree with a Democratic President on things but at least I know where he/she is going and what their intentions are."

See: Election '04 re: John Kerry

9/13/2005 5:16:43 PM

SO TGD WANTS HIS POLITICIANS TO BE MORE SAVY WHEN IT COMES TO FRONTIN FOR THE PUBLIC?

They'll never stop frontin'; they'll just get better at it.

9/13/2005 5:29:25 PM

^
Exactly. That's it precisely.

9/13/2005 11:28:43 PM

We'll go ahead and throw pryderi into A.

Anyone want to change their votes now that we've got DeLay / Frist / Bennett all swirling at once, plus Karl suffering from kidney stones?

Looks like G is the runaway winner at the moment...

A. Completely and totally fucked: --1--
B. Moderately fucked: --2--
C. Possibly fucked, but possibly not fucked: --1--
D. Generally not fucked: --2--
E. Two words: Karl Rove: --5--
F. I blame Bush: --0--
G. Will not be fucked until the DNC gets tired of fucking itself: --11--


[Edited on October 1, 2005 at 9:19 PM. Reason : current results]

10/1/2005 9:12:58 PM

so people do realize this was originally a topic about the 2006 elections right? no presidential election that year.

10/1/2005 9:39:25 PM

G

10/1/2005 9:44:04 PM

A

What will motivate the base next year? CAFTA? Massive spending? Record illegal immigration? How about the failure of congress to pass Social Security reform? I'd say they're pretty well fucked, as they should be. If Bush really wants a bloodbath, he can nominate Alberto "LA RAZA" Gonzales to replace O'Connor.

10/2/2005 3:20:19 PM

what's the problem with CAFTA?

10/2/2005 4:11:17 PM

what happened b/c of NAFTA?

that might answer your question.

10/2/2005 4:35:54 PM

i think there were 3 votes for D... myself, Bridget, and Axl.

10/2/2005 4:36:30 PM

Now throw in the Harriet Miers nomination. Any upgrades from G to A or B?

A. Completely and totally fucked: --2--
B. Moderately fucked: --2--
C. Possibly fucked, but possibly not fucked: --1--
D. Generally not fucked: --3--
E. Two words: Karl Rove: --5--
F. I blame Bush: --0--
G. Will not be fucked until the DNC gets tired of fucking itself: --12--

10/4/2005 2:09:24 PM

I wonder how the votes will change when Rove is indicted in Traitorgate.

10/4/2005 2:56:35 PM

G

10/4/2005 3:57:05 PM

G.

10/4/2005 8:45:32 PM

The GOP has been fucking itself alot harder than the DNC.

10/4/2005 9:00:19 PM

Quote :

"I wonder how the votes will change when Rove is indicted in Traitorgate."

ohhh oh...me too!!!

and the vast majority of americans know that the leadership on the left is completely losing it. so im thinking the repubs are ok for 2006.

10/4/2005 9:03:07 PM

Quote :

"and the vast majority of americans know that the leadership on the left is completely losing it. so im thinking the repubs are ok for 2006."

Really? Explain.

The Republican leadership in both the House and the Senate have been indicted or are under investigation, Whitehouse senior leaders Rove and Libby under investigation for Traitorgate, the FEMA/Crony/Katrina fiasco, the appointment of an unqualified Supreme Court nominee,the Religious right angry over the nomination, Iraq, Abu Ghraib, Bush's drinking, the deficit, gas prices etc. etc.

10/4/2005 9:13:05 PM

None of those things are good, but none of them imply that we're "losing it," either. Maybe we're just a little evil, or a lot evil, or whatever you want to say. The Dems have been running around like headless chickens for a while, saying some fairly ridiculous bullshit (case in point: you). So if stability and sanity is your thing, you might accept a little bit of badness as long as it's sane, predictable, stable badness.

10/4/2005 9:34:27 PM

Quote :

"So if stability and sanity is your thing, you might accept a little bit of badness as long as it's sane, predictable, stable badness."

Stability? Sanity? You find either one of these in today's republican party? Can you give me some examples of them?

Also, what does the republican party stand for that you agree with and makes you a republican? Smaller gov't? Fiscal responsibility?

10/4/2005 10:44:33 PM

1) Tax cuts for the rich.

2) Wars on brown people.

That's enough for me...


[Edited on October 4, 2005 at 11:20 PM. Reason : more]

10/4/2005 11:04:42 PM

Quote :

"pryderi: I'd like to thank President Bush, Karl Rove, Tom DeLay, Bill Frist and Jack Abramoff for their efforts in putting the Democratic party in charge in 2006."

So was that an official vote for A now?

10/10/2005 9:34:22 PM

37% approval rating:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/10/06/opinion/polls/main924485.shtml

10/10/2005 9:55:52 PM

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/bush_ja.html
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Bush_Job_Approval.htm

42% and 44% respectively.

10/10/2005 9:59:08 PM

It's not like that's a lot better...

10/10/2005 10:03:27 PM

no, but hardly "OMF W is at a new record low Democrats are teh wins!!1" like boonedocks there...

10/10/2005 10:05:17 PM

I say.

It appears George W. Bush's job approval is at a record low.

Seems like Democrats have a sporting chance.

10/10/2005 11:03:40 PM

^

Low approval of W does not mean high approval of Democrats.

Bush's rating of ~43% > NaN (John Kerry's current rating)

10/10/2005 11:29:25 PM

Low approval of Bush does mean low approval of Republicans in general, however, and that effectively makes boonedocks absolutely correct. Democrats do have a sporting chance.

RealClearPolitics has generic congressional Democratic voters leading Republicans by 9%.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Presidential_04/generic_vote.html

10/10/2005 11:36:52 PM

And I'm not talking about a sporting chance of regaining the House or anything like that.

Just a net gain.

10/10/2005 11:40:35 PM

^^

I was unaware that electoral politics was a zero-sum game.

The only national races that are even remotely competitive are the senatorial races; the House races have been gerrymandered to death.

And the Democrats are defending 18 senate seats, versus the Republicans' 15.

Which ones will the Republicans lose? Wyoming maybe?

Ok, maybe Pennslyvania if Santorum is totally, utterly incompetent. Or Ohio, although we've seen how that's gone in the past.

Compare the Democrats: Nebraska, Florida of all places, North Dakota -- basically the centers of the "red-state" trend. Even West Virginia is just hanging on because of Byrd running again at 86.

In the federal system under which we live, local demographics tend to top national polls.

[Edited on October 10, 2005 at 11:53 PM. Reason : foo]

10/10/2005 11:53:33 PM

Quote :

"RealClearPolitics has generic congressional Democratic voters leading Republicans by 9%."

Democrats are always ahead 5-10 points in those generic congressional polls.

10/10/2005 11:57:56 PM

Liberalism= Watered Down Communism
Democrat Politicians= Puppet Masters- Selling their sad song and dance to their voters, telling them they "need" the government to better their situation. Hence the "Help is on the Way" slogan Kerry and Edwards (Haha) used in '04. Sure, tell them they cant make it without you, thats a Real good way to help them help themselves and progress. Oppotunity was never created through pessimism Just like throwing a dog a bone, keep throwing him just enough food to keep him around and he'll always be there for you. (vote for you in Nov.) Sure wont teach him to go find food on his own for later days or be independent.

Good example... You will never hear that dumb ass Jesse Jackson ever talk about whats going well for Blacks in the country or any positive things have happened to mend race relations, only negative news and jibba jabba hype. Why? So he will have a purpose, a reason to squawk and get a new caddy every year. Same with Mainstream lib politicians, make shallow promises of government handouts to keep everyone at a nice little medium level, just enough to get by and they will keep voting for you as their savior. Wow, thank goodness for the backbone of Bush to continue to put the government back in the hands of the working american and not letting the tail wag the dog.

And if you are going to lash out to this, at least try to do it w/o mentioning the war, I hope you libs had some defensive platform before we had to defend the homefront.

Bottom Line

10/11/2005 12:02:37 AM

Quote :

"Good example... You will never hear that dumb ass Jesse Jackson ever talk about whats going well for Blacks in the country or any positive things have happened to mend race relations, only negative news and jibba jabba hype. Why? So he will have a purpose, a reason to squawk and get a new caddy every year. "

Wait... so you are attacking Jesse Jackson's personal advancement, in order to defend the idea of personal advancement?

Quote :

"Same with Mainstream lib politicians, make shallow promises of government handouts to keep everyone at a nice little medium level, just enough to get by and they will keep voting for you as their savior. Wow, thank goodness for the backbone of Bush to continue to put the government back in the hands of the working american and not letting the tail wag the dog."

Ahahahaha What great strides has Bush made in the past 5 years, with Republicans in control of most of the national gov.?

10/11/2005 12:23:09 AM

i still want to know how bush put the gov. back in our hands

10/11/2005 12:24:52 AM

WHERE ARE THESE PEOPLE COMING FROM?

Quote :

"Ok, maybe Pennslyvania if Santorum is totally, utterly incompetent."

And what are you smoking, exactly? Last I checked Casey was above by 14 points

10/11/2005 12:37:28 AM

Quote :

"Also, what does the republican party stand for that you agree with and makes you a republican?"

Include, but are not limited to: Justified (in my mind) interventionism; strong moves against terrorism; Bush's psued-pro-immigration moves; support of the death penalty; no racist policies one way or the other; tax cuts (sort of).

I like smaller government and reduced spending, but at the moment my party's failures in those departments are compensated for by the above strong points.

10/11/2005 12:50:18 AM

Quote :

"boonedocks: And what are you smoking, exactly? Last I checked Casey was above by 14 points"

A year out, before any actual campaigning has taken place...

See: Bowles vs. Burr

10/11/2005 12:52:49 AM

Interventionism has historically been a democratic tenet, and Iraq was a bad choice for a place to intervene in. Most republicans still don't really like the pseudo pro immigration stance of Bush. I don't think either party supports any racist policies, but Republicans have said more racist things than Democrats recently.

I'm fine with the death penalty, but wouldn't cry if it were gone (or fight to keep it).

10/11/2005 12:55:12 AM

^^ I'm sure you'll be helping Santorum, too. Out of protest to the Republicans' social policy, of course.

[Edited on October 11, 2005 at 12:56 AM. Reason : /]

10/11/2005 12:56:29 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4: Which ones will the Republicans lose?"

In addition to the certain replacement of Santorum (if Santorum is incompetent?), Rhode Island and Tennessee seem likely to flip. I like Casey's chances against DeWine in OH, too. Republicans aren't polling well in OH despite how they voted in '04. I have to admit that I'm flabbergasted you even brought yourself to consider Nelson in any type of danger of losing Florida. (Katherine Harris? Really now...)

10/11/2005 1:07:09 AM

Quote :

"MathFreak: ^^ I'm sure you'll be helping Santorum, too. Out of protest to the Republicans' social policy, of course."

Only if I'd be making $texas. The money's gonna go somewhere, may as well be to someone with my political beliefs


[Edited on October 11, 2005 at 1:00 PM. Reason : besides, that's what being a political whore is all about right? ]

10/11/2005 12:59:52 PM

Quote :

"In addition to the certain replacement of Santorum (if Santorum is incompetent?),"

OK, look -- I don't like Santorum, as much as the next guy. But let's all be adults here and be realistic and accept, for a change, that just because we don't like someone in office, that doesn't mean that they're on their way out the first time someone who challenges them has some hype.

Whatever you say about Santorum, he's the sitting senator who actually won his seat, and that alone makes him immensely formidable -- incumbents always have a steep advantage.

Then you consider that his seat is, in fact, strategic to the party as a whole -- especially now that the Democrats have trumped up his imminent defeat. So that means he has big $$$ and the GOP's grassroots organization behind him (not to mention Rove if push comes to shove).

And, as was noted, the actual election is well away, and it's more than likely that Santorum will turn the heat up now that the "polls" show him "slipping."

I mean, you have to be really naive to think that this "14 points behind" nonsense has any staying power -- the GOP will fight like tigers to make him competitive, if he doesn't himself. Do you REALLY think the GOP is going to let their #3 senator lose, much less with a margin even RESEMBLING that?

Get a grip, man. Let reality sink in.

10/12/2005 12:19:28 AM

Quote :

"besides, that's what being a political whore is all about right? "

Nah.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=safari&rls=en&q=lenin+useful+fools&btnG=Search

10/12/2005 12:36:17 AM

Quote :

"Casey's chances against DeWine in OH"

Casey is up against Santorum in PA. Paul Hackett is running against DeWine.

10/12/2005 10:04:48 AM

Quote :

"Smoker4: Do you REALLY think the GOP is going to let their #3 senator lose, much less with a margin even RESEMBLING that?"

I don't think the GOP is going to have a choice in the matter.

10/12/2005 5:28:47 PM

^Except that the GOP owns the voting booths.

[Edited on October 12, 2005 at 11:42 PM. Reason : [Diebold]]

10/12/2005 11:41:46 PM

OMF conspiracy!!1

[Edited on October 12, 2005 at 11:49 PM. Reason : !!1]

10/12/2005 11:47:11 PM

D

10/12/2005 11:59:54 PM

Let's bttt this now that Duke has resigned in disgrace, Abramoff + Scanlon are looking to drop bombshells, Turd Blossom is still under investigation and you've had a half-dozen indictments filed between DeLay and Scooter.

A. Completely and totally fucked: --2--
B. Moderately fucked: --2--
C. Possibly fucked, but possibly not fucked: --1--
D. Generally not fucked: --4--
E. Two words: Karl Rove: --5--
F. I blame Bush: --0--
G. Will not be fucked until the DNC gets tired of fucking itself: --14--

11/29/2005 3:59:55 PM