November Elections
- Thread starter Dreadsox
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
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.
we also need to remember that gerrymandering makes it more difficult to unseat incumbants than even 12 years ago.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
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/nyregion/09assess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[/q]
[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/nyregion/09assess.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
[/q]
verte76
Blue Crack Addict
Support for the war is going to take its toll on Congress come November.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
... 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)
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)
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.
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.
Last edited:
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Irvine511 said:
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.
U2democrat
Blue Crack Addict
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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Maoilbheannacht said:
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
Last edited:
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Earnie Shavers said:
this is also true.
and never underestimate Bush's luck.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Irvine511 said:
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.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Maoilbheannacht said:
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.
which will be very intersting, i agree.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Maoilbheannacht said:
yes Truman was a loser
and in Nov 52 election, Ike GOP, handily won.
Maoilbheannacht said:
in Nov 60 election Nixon GOP got about the same and lost
Maoilbheannacht said:
These are W numbers, in Nov 68 Nixon GOP blew out Dem Humprey
Maoilbheannacht said:
with the Dems controlling congress Nixon was on the ropes for doing far less than Bush and Cheney have done
he left office on August 8? 1974
Maoilbheannacht said:
these numbers indicate that he is a loser in the eyes of the American people
if the GOP did not controlled congress he would have been driven from office, just like Nixon by now
by posting W with this group
it only proves that he no longer deserves to be in office
and that his supporters are not to swift
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Irvine511 said:
Actually those numbers were all during the 2nd term, which shows that Bush's 31% rating was far from being the lowest. Truman had by far the lowest at 22% 11 months before he left the office.
diamond
ONE love, blood, life
deep said:
nor are some of his detractors not knowing the difference between the words "to" and "too".
dbs
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
deep said:
Truman did not run against IKE and while he has the record for the lowest approval rating for a President ever, history regards him as one of the greatest Presidents ever.
The 1960 election was one of the closest elections in history, much closer than the 2000 election.
The 1968 election was anything but a blow out with Nixon receiving 43.4% of the popular vote to Humphrey's 42.7%.
If Bush is indeed the loser you claim he is, then we should see at a minimum Democratic Control of the House and Senate starting in January. Its hard to define someone as a loser from a political standpoint when they have won two elections, and had their party retain control of both houses of congress for 6 straight years. The fact is, November is the last chance the Democrats have to make good on any of their political claims of the past 6 years. If they fail to take back even the House in November, Bush will have been undefeated politically in office for 8 years, unless you include the 2008 elections in that game.
When was the last time a President of any political party was elected, re-elected, and had his party control both houses of congress for the whole time he was in office? It was probably when FDR was President.
deep
Blue Crack Addict
Maoilbheannacht said:
Ike beat Stevensen
I said the American people rejected him (his party)
just like all the other losers on the list
1968 was 301 to 191 Electoral vote! 56% to 35%!
1960 was closer than 2000?
well, that just shows you believe some bullshit and haven't even bothered to look up 1960
it was not as close as you have been lied to
Last edited:
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
deep said:
1960 Popular Vote:
John Kennedy 34,220,984 49.72%
Richard Nixon 34,108,157 49.55%
1968 Popular Vote:
Richard Nixon 31,783,783 43.42%
Hubert Humphrey 31,271,839 42.72%
2000 Popular Vote:
Albert Gore Jr. 51,003,926 48.38%
George W. Bush 50,460,110 47.87%
As you can see based on the percentages of the popular vote, the 1960 election was a much closer election than the 2000 election. The way the electoral college turned out in 2000 made it seem closer than it was and also led to the victory of the candidate who did not win the popular vote.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Maoilbheannacht said:
garbage. that sets up precisely the expectation you've warned the Democrats against. people aren't voting on Bush, they are voting on their specific representative to Congress. close association to Bush, in many states, will severely harm the candidates, as in CT -- when i lived there, i routinely voted for Nancy Johnson, a Republican, because Republicans in the northeast aren't religious fanatics like Republicans from many southern and heartland states. and she's now doing all she can to distance herself from Bush.
Bush is indeed a lose for the myriad failures of his presidency, the biggest foreign policy debacle since Vietnam, his utter cluelessness in the greatest American natural disaster since Gavleston, his standing as an international embarassment, and the fact that his approval ratings have been suck well below 40% for well over a year and show no signs of climbing much higher especially as the Civil War in Iraq will start to escalate.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Maoilbheannacht said:
how long was Truman below 40%?
sulawesigirl4
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
U2democrat said:
I'm registered to vote and it won't be for Allen.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Irvine511 said:
Thats your opinion, not the opinion of the entire country. The fact of the matter is, most people do not regard Bush to be the loser you claim him to be which is precisely why Democrats should be lowering their expectations for November, contrary to the landslide everyone seems to be expecting.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Irvine511 said:
I'm not sure, but dropping to as low as 22% suggest that Truman was below 40% longer than any President in history.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Maoilbheannacht said:
that's the opinion of nearly 60% of the country if we are to look at his strikingly high disapproval ratings which are every bit as important as his still anemic approval ratings.
and it seems to me that the only people "expecting" a landslide are Republicans so they can spin anything less than the total takeover as a crushing disappointment.
Maoilbheannacht
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 24, 2005
- Messages
- 2,400
Irvine511 said:
Its the Democrats who are predicting a landslide when they should be predicting an incredibly tough fight in order to mobilize volunteers to get out and work and get other more casual voters to the polls on November 7. If its, the President is lost, The Republicans are out of power already, there will be little motivation for the more casual supporters to volunteer and get to the polls in November. Mid-term elections are notorious for low voter turnout, so in an election like this, its even more important to motivate people to get out and vote.
If the Democrats really want to be a relevant party as opposed to a bunch of sidelined whiners, they need to end much of the division in their own party, and finally come out with a political victory in November. Polls, no matter how you interpret them, won't do that for you.
Last edited:
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Maoilbheannacht said:
no, it is not the Democrats who are predicting a landslide -- it's various media pundits, fueled by Republicans who are pitching the *exact* same lines/Rove talking points that you've posted. i think it would be a mistake to view this election as a referendum solely on Bush. voters are choosing candidates and generally evaluate the candidates not just on party affiliation, but on a variety of issues, and in many states, close association with George Bush, whether by a Republican or Democrat, is political poison.
and let's not forget, the system has been gerrymandered to the extreme, by both parties.
You know, any time Republicans start massively giving out advice to the left about what they should do if they want to win as if from the goodness of their heart, it's a pretty good sign they're starting to smell the coffee brewing.
