November Elections - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 08-09-2006, 10:54 AM   #1
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:36 PM
November Elections

Well, what do you think is going to happen? Will America hold its elected legislators accountable for their War stance?
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 10:57 AM   #2
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Liberman (D)
McKinney (D)
Schwartz (R)
Lamm (D)

All incumbents......all lost their primary.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 11:01 AM   #3
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:36 PM
seeing as the War in Iraq is now the Civil War in Iraq and is the biggest foreign policy disaster since Vietnam, those who are unable to at least distance themselves from the Bush administrations ineptness -- HRC has been able to do this, essentially that she would have done things differently, which is all she needs to do -- will suffer in the polls.

we also need to remember that gerrymandering makes it more difficult to unseat incumbants than even 12 years ago.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 11:05 AM   #4
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:36 PM
i also wonder how the "Fear Factor"/"you'll be killed by terrorists if you vote for Democrats" is going to play:



[q]At the same time, Republicans are ready to pounce on what they hoped could be a political opening presented by Mr. Lamont’s rising star, during what has been a difficult political season for them. They said this could become a crystallizing moment: an opportunity to frame the primary results in a way that has historically worked for them and that they have exploited ruthlessly, by presenting Republicans as better able to protect Americans in a dangerous world.

Ken Mehlman, the Republican National Committee chairman, is planning to give a speech in Columbus, Ohio this morning in which he will use Mr. Lamont’s victory to portray Democrats as a party weak on national defense, and his affiliation with blogs to present the Democrats as captive to the extreme wing of the party, Republican aides said.

Even before the results in Connecticut emerged, Republicans had made clear that they would try again to make national security the central issue in the fall Congressional elections. A list of talking points issued by Republican leaders for Senate Republicans to use while on recess this month bluntly advised them to note how “there have been no terrorist attacks on American soil since 9/11.”

But the results suggest problems for Republicans as well. For Republicans already contemplating a gloomy fall horizon, the Lamont victory suggested that many Democrats — stirred by their opposition to the war and hostility toward Mr. Bush — are as energized as any group of voters in years, enough so to move them to the voting booth in huge numbers.

A primary or not, this still appears to have been a vote against the status quo, something that no party in power can welcome. And the results suggested that bloggers, who are more of a force for Democrats than Republicans, may have almost as much bite as bark, which could be significant in tight low-turnout Congressional elections this fall.

For Republicans, already worried about getting their supporters to the polls after what has been a tough year for the White House and Congress, this is unwelcome news — starting in Connecticut, where Democrats have put three House Republicans, including Rep. Christopher Shays, a strong backer of the war, at the top of their target list.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/ny...=1&oref=slogin

[/q]
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 11:06 AM   #5
Blue Crack Addict
 
verte76's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: hoping for changes
Posts: 23,331
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Support for the war is going to take its toll on Congress come November.
__________________
verte76 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 11:08 AM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 01:36 PM
I think the House will flip from Republican control. The Senate will only flip if there's a really big wave of change.

But don't ask me, I have no idea how Bush got elected in 2004.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 11:11 AM   #7
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:36 PM
... just to add to my above post, i think the war is less of an issue and what is more of the issue is each candidate's realtionship to the administration. did they support the war but are now critical? are they able to present the reality of the situation and stay away from the Pollyanna procolmations of George "we do not torture" Bush, Dick "last throes" Cheney, and Don "stuff happens" Rumsfeld?

i actually think the American people are going to be more nuanced about this than we might think. it's not, "Iraq: Good or Bad?" but more, "What would you have done differently?"

but either way, it reinforces the fact that Bush is utterly toxic to nearly everyone but the most conservative of Republicans, so unpopular is the man (approval ratings still in the mid to lower 30's)
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 06:59 PM   #8
Refugee
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,435
Local Time: 06:36 PM
This very discussion is irrelevent. Of course, the Democrats will lose. Not because people will not vote for Democrats; but perhaps becuase people will seek to vote for them.

The Democrats are bound to lose because Bobby Kennedy's son tried to alert the nation to George W Bush's hugely successful instituionalizing of voting fraud, and it has worked brilliantly. The Democrats are destined to lose because America did not respond to that Rolling Stone article...he was trying to get the American public to wakeup and defend the prcoess of Democracy in this country, and the result was deafening silence. There has been no outrage, no protest, no Hispanic-style marching in the streets or email campaigns, by Americans trying to preserve democracy in this country. No asking for polling stations to be policed. No register of polling sites so that Bush's local cronies can't have them closed in urban distrcits, so urban (Democratic and minority, mostly) voters will go home after waiting in lines for hours without getting to vote. No demand for a reciept from the electronic voting machine, so that recounts are possible. No guaruntee that the person you voted for will regsiter correctly in the tally.

In about 2 months, beginning in September, there will likely be a barrage of articles in the media addressing this very subject, just as there were in 2004 after an unsuccessful "attempts" at "reform". But, like in 2004, it will be 6 months too late for effective change. And afterwards, when the Republicans win, the Democrats will be forever relegated to extinction, thinking they were at fault (as the media will once again say they, and not fraud, were) and once again attempts to call attention to manipulation in the voting process will be ingnored. We will officially no longer be a democracy--not even by Bush's standards, which seem to define "democracy" as merely "successful elections" these days.

Lest Republicans on here rejoice, I say: lament. Because even though it may benefit your party, in the future, it can be used against you. And as we are seeing with the Middle East, somethimes commanding the "moral high ground" is THE best weapon in the world.....

I am not voting this time around. The first time in my life I am not doing so. If there is no controversy over election results, no matter how rthis comes out, I might again. But this time I don't think it will be do.....a cornered rat will fight hard. Let us not forget that.
__________________
Teta040 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 07:03 PM   #9
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
... just to add to my above post, i think the war is less of an issue and what is more of the issue is each candidate's realtionship to the administration. did they support the war but are now critical? are they able to present the reality of the situation and stay away from the Pollyanna procolmations of George "we do not torture" Bush, Dick "last throes" Cheney, and Don "stuff happens" Rumsfeld?

i actually think the American people are going to be more nuanced about this than we might think. it's not, "Iraq: Good or Bad?" but more, "What would you have done differently?"

but either way, it reinforces the fact that Bush is utterly toxic to nearly everyone but the most conservative of Republicans, so unpopular is the man (approval ratings still in the mid to lower 30's)
The Presidents approval rating is actually at 40% in the latest Gallup poll and has been holding steady there for about a month now. For all the talk of political advantage that the democrats have, if they don't gain control of the Senate or the House in November, it will likely be seen as a major defeat, because of the pumped up expections. The fact is, the President and the Republicans are not as weak as the many think they are. Its unlikely the Democrats are going to have a landslide in the House and definitely not in the Senate. I'd say there is little to no chance they will take the Senate, and about a 50% chance they will take the House. But right now, victory is seen as a for gone conclusion. Lemont will actually probably lose to Lieberman in the general election making all the media hysteria over his win irrelevant by then.

The Democrats would do well to scale back their expectations and motivate their followers that attempting to take back the House is going to be a monumental task and not the walk through many seem to be talking about.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 07:04 PM   #10
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2democrat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: England by way of 'Murica.
Posts: 22,140
Local Time: 06:36 PM
As much as I would love to see Sen. Allen lose the senate race here in Virginia, he just has SO much more money and name recognition than Jim Webb. Who knows, people may get to the polls and want to change direction, but it's doubtful. I have hope in other areas though.
__________________
U2democrat is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 08:16 PM   #11
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht


The Presidents approval rating is actually at 40% in the latest Gallup poll and has been holding steady there for about a month now. For all the talk of political advantage that the democrats have, if they don't gain control of the Senate or the House in November, it will likely be seen as a major defeat, because of the pumped up expections. The fact is, the President and the Republicans are not as weak as the many think they are. Its unlikely the Democrats are going to have a landslide in the House and definitely not in the Senate. I'd say there is little to no chance they will take the Senate, and about a 50% chance they will take the House. But right now, victory is seen as a for gone conclusion. Lemont will actually probably lose to Lieberman in the general election making all the media hysteria over his win irrelevant by then.


but what's also very relevant is the "disapproval" numbers, the 2nd number in this list. Bush has edged up to 40% after a full court press to improve his rating starting in late June, and the public has been recently distracted from the Iraq debacle by the current Israel/Lebanon crisis.

Bush's approval ratings remain at a record low for a 2nd termer, the previous lowest president (in the past 50 years) was Harry Truman at 41% at the midway point in his 2nd term.


ABC/Washington Post 8/3-6/06 40 58 2 -18
.

CNN 8/2-3/06 40 59 2 -19
.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg 7/28 - 8/1/06 40 58 2 -18
.

Cook/RT Strategies RV 7/28-30/06 39 51 10 -12
.

USA Today/Gallup 7/28-30/06 40 56 4 -16
.

CBS/New York Times 7/21-25/06 36 55 9 -19
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 7/21-24/06 39 56 5 -17
.

USA Today/Gallup 7/21-23/06 37 59 4 -22



http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 08:29 PM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: London/Sydney
Posts: 6,608
Local Time: 07:36 PM
From what I've gathered from afar, never underestimate the Democrats ability to completely fuck it up. Or the simplistic nature of many American voters.
__________________
Earnie Shavers is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 08:35 PM   #13
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
From what I've gathered from afar, never underestimate the Democrats ability to completely fuck it up. Or the simplistic nature of many American voters.


this is also true.

and never underestimate Bush's luck.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 08:59 PM   #14
Refugee
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 2,400
Local Time: 06:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




but what's also very relevant is the "disapproval" numbers, the 2nd number in this list. Bush has edged up to 40% after a full court press to improve his rating starting in late June, and the public has been recently distracted from the Iraq debacle by the current Israel/Lebanon crisis.

Bush's approval ratings remain at a record low for a 2nd termer, the previous lowest president (in the past 50 years) was Harry Truman at 41% at the midway point in his 2nd term.


ABC/Washington Post 8/3-6/06 40 58 2 -18
.

CNN 8/2-3/06 40 59 2 -19
.

L.A. Times/Bloomberg 7/28 - 8/1/06 40 58 2 -18
.

Cook/RT Strategies RV 7/28-30/06 39 51 10 -12
.

USA Today/Gallup 7/28-30/06 40 56 4 -16
.

CBS/New York Times 7/21-25/06 36 55 9 -19
.

NBC/Wall Street Journal 7/21-24/06 39 56 5 -17
.

USA Today/Gallup 7/21-23/06 37 59 4 -22



http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Here are the historic lows for 2nd term Presidents in the Gallup poll:

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952

-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-George W. Bush: 31%* May, 2006

-George W. Bush: 40% late July, 2006


Bush could go back down, but he could also improve to the point that his approval number is just ahead of his disapproval number. If that happens, then one of the Democrats talking points will be gone. Its entirely possible that Bush could be where Eisenhower was in July 1960 by July 2008, the same period in his Presidency.

Of course, if the Republicans win the Senate and House in November, then all of this talk will fade away. People in 2008 will be to focused on all the various contests in both parties that will happen since this will be the first time in over 70 years that no one in the White House will be running for a Presidential election.
__________________
Maoilbheannacht is offline  
Old 08-09-2006, 09:23 PM   #15
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,499
Local Time: 01:36 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Maoilbheannacht



Here are the historic lows for 2nd term Presidents in the Gallup poll:

-Truman: 22% mid-February, 1952

-Eisenhower: 49% mid-July, 1960

-Johnson: 35% early August, 1968

-Nixon: 24% mid-July, 1974, and early August, 1974

-George W. Bush: 31%* May, 2006

-George W. Bush: 40% late July, 2006



but that is the lowest each has ever gone, at comparable points in each term of each 2nd term president over the past 50 years, Bush is by far the lowest.



[q] Bush could go back down, but he could also improve to the point that his approval number is just ahead of his disapproval number. If that happens, then one of the Democrats talking points will be gone. Its entirely possible that Bush could be where Eisenhower was in July 1960 by July 2008, the same period in his Presidency. [/q]

republicans have been saying this since December 2004. it's hard to imagine that they'll get much worse, i agree, barring any sort of exceptionally bad news.

Quote:
Of course, if the Republicans win the Senate and House in November, then all of this talk will fade away. People in 2008 will be to focused on all the various contests in both parties that will happen since this will be the first time in over 70 years that no one in the White House will be running for a Presidential election.
which will be very intersting, i agree.
__________________

__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:36 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com