What will happen in the 2006 mid-term elections?

[BobG]

The media is missing a real story in the House elections. And they're not just missing a story about the 2006 elections. Jay Fawcett, the Democratic candidate, might be a story that goes beyond just this election.

They completely ignored Colorado's 5th because Republicans outnumber Democrats 2-1 and because they've had a Republican Representative for their entire history.

Even people in the 5th missed this race. A lot of Republicans are flat out pissed at how the primaries turned out and have focused on how bad their Republican nominee is.

What no one expected was a very good Democratic candidate in Fawcett. A bad opponent may have opened the door, but you don't pull even in the polls when you're outnumbered 2-1 in voters and $275,000 to $30,000 in campaign funds just because of a bad candidate.

To be fair, Lamborn probably spent virtually all of his funds on the primary since common sense tells you that's the only election he needed to worry about. Considering the bad blood generated in the primaries, I'm not sure Lamborn is finding it easy to raise funds either.

Suddenly, the DNCC has noticed the district. They had been focusing on unseating Marilyn Musgrave from Colorado's 4th district, but that hasn't panned out. This week, they pulled $630,000 in planned TV advertising away from Musgrave's opponent and have decided to use it to help Fawcett.

This guy has an open road ahead of him. If he pulls off the biggest upset in the nation, he really has to weigh whether its easier to win re-election in a Republican district or to knock off a Republican Senator ranked in the bottom 5 by Time magazine in a statewide election come 2008. Demographics say it should be easier to beat Allard in the Senate than win re-election in his own district.

He has a pretty good speaking style. Put him in the national spotlight and he could rise pretty fast. A few years from now, people might be wondering just where this guy came from.

Here's the debate he had against Lamborn. [MEDIA=youtube[/URL] He has a couple of tricks in this debate that would have made Ronald Reagan proud. I keep wanting to downplay this a little bit, comparing it to Nebraska mopping up the floor with Troy St, except Fawcett's the underdog in this race - it's Troy St mopping up the floor with Nebraska!

 

[Astronuc]

It is worthwhile to listen Lamborn/Fawcett debate, since some of the rhetoric will be repeated often. Lamborn promises not to raise taxes, and will work to reduce taxes, yet he supports the military and the 'war on terror', which cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Contradictions.

Lamborn mentions that the war in Iraq is the central point on the war against terror, and that bin Laden and other terrorists are there fighting against the US because they don't like us . . . .

There are so many inaccuracies in Lamborn's comments, it is appears that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but instead he simply parrots the same old rhetoric of the Bush administration, including the inaccurate term of "cut and run".

The terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 were not from Iraq, but primarily from Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries, and they were sponsored by al Qaida (which receives support, not from Iraq, but from individuals in other countries).

Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, nor did he sponsor al Qaida.

The foreign terrorists in Iraq have arrived since the US invasion. They wouldn't be there otherwise. While it's possible that former Baathists are among the insurgents, many others may be motivated to attack US troops in retaliation for the invasion.

Very likely, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan (Badaur) with Ayman al Zawahiri, and possibly with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Al Qaida is thriving with the support of Taliban, which has become stronger in the tribal areas of Paksitan next to the border with Afghanistan.

Lamborn does not to appear to be a deep thinker or an independent, but one who would simply endorse Bush and accept status quo.

 

[BobG]

It is worthwhile to listen Lamborn/Fawcett debate, since some of the rhetoric will be repeated often. Lamborn promises not to raise taxes, and will work to reduce taxes, yet he supports the military and the 'war on terror', which cost taxpayers billions of dollars. Contradictions.

Lamborn mentions that the war in Iraq is the central point on the war against terror, and that bin Laden and other terrorists are there fighting against the US because they don't like us . . . .

There are so many inaccuracies in Lamborn's comments, it is appears that he doesn't know what he is talking about, but instead he simply parrots the same old rhetoric of the Bush administration, including the inaccurate term of "cut and run".

The terrorists who attacked the US on 9/11 were not from Iraq, but primarily from Saudi Arabia and other middle eastern countries, and they were sponsored by al Qaida (which receives support, not from Iraq, but from individuals in other countries).

Saddam Hussein did not have WMD, nor did he sponsor al Qaida.

The foreign terrorists in Iraq have arrived since the US invasion. They wouldn't be there otherwise. While it's possible that former Baathists are among the insurgents, many others may be motivated to attack US troops in retaliation for the invasion.

Very likely, Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan (Badaur) with Ayman al Zawahiri, and possibly with Gulbuddin Hekmatyar. Al Qaida is thriving with the support of Taliban, which has become stronger in the tribal areas of Paksitan next to the border with Afghanistan.

Lamborn does not to appear to be a deep thinker or an independent, but one who would simply endorse Bush and accept status quo.

Lamborn was no surprise to anyone in the Springs, yet he still appeals to the James Dobson crowd - plus to anyone that doesn't look past the 'R' after his name. His positions on most issues are shallow because he's running to do one thing - join Musgrave in the war against abortion and gay marriage. If he does that, all he has to do is to just vote with the Republican majority on the rest of the issues. Of course, I don't think his comments look quite as stupid in print as they do live. 'Does not appear to be a deep thinker'? He had trouble remembering to say 'Cut and run' at the right places.

Fawcett is the big surprise. No serious candidate runs as a Democrat in this district. The usual Democratic candidate in the past has been a guy named Imrie; an eccentric donkey breeder. (I'm so glad I don't have to walk into the voting booth and make that kind of decision - that would be as bad as Rach3's poll. )

Interesting comment about Lamborn's shot of getting on the Armed Services Committee, though. I don't really think a 'promise' from Hastert to 'try' to get him a slot would turn out to be successful - it's just campaign talk phrased to make backing out easier. But even suggesting the Speaker of the House would consider putting someone incompetent in military affairs on the Armed Services Committee is an indication of why Hastert is having so much trouble with the Foley scandal.

 

[Astronuc]

eccentric donkey breeder.

I just have to ask, is Imrie an eccentric breeder of donkeys, or a breeder of eccentric donkeys?

Although it would take an eccentric to breed eccentric donkeys.


In the long run, one should vote for competent, honest and hardworking candidates, regardless of party. I know some great Republicans and great Democrats. Unfortunately, they seem few and far between these days.

Both Dems and Reps have played games in Washington, state capitals and local governemnts. It's time people to roll up the sleeves, get a shovel and clean the manure out of the barn. Yeee Haaah!

Get involved!

 

[BobG]

I just have to ask, is Imrie an eccentric breeder of donkeys, or a breeder of eccentric donkeys?

Eccentric donkeys. Everyone knows this is llama country.

 

[Skyhunter]

CQ Politics has the House even at 209 (R) to 209 (D) with 17 No clear favorite.

http://www.cqpolitics.com/

 

[Astronuc]

Ohio Leans Toward Democrat for Governor
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298607

All Things Considered, October 18, 2006 · Ted Strickland, the Democrat in Ohio's gubernatorial race, now holds a two-to-one lead over Republican Ken Blackwell. Peter Brown, assistant director of the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute, has spent the past two days in Ohio, polling for statewide races. Robert Siegel talks with Brown.

Will the preference for democrats be reflected in any of the congressional races?

Tables Turned for the G.O.P. Over Iraq Issue
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/19/us/politics/19campaign.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 18 — Four months ago, the White House offered a set of clear political directions to Republicans heading into the midterm elections: embrace the war in Iraq as critical to the antiterrorism fight and belittle Democrats as advocates of a “cut and run” policy of weakness.

With three weeks until Election Day, Republican candidates are barely mentioning Iraq on the campaign trail and in their television advertisements.

Even President Bush, continuing to attack Democrats for opposing the war, has largely dropped his call of “stay the course” and replaced it with a more nuanced promise of flexibility.

It is the Democrats who have seized on Iraq as a central issue. In debates and in speeches, candidates are pummeling Republicans with accusations of a failed war.

NY Times Quote of the Day - Ocober 19, 2006

"Only in an election year this complicated can Republicans be happy that Mark Foley knocked the Iraq war off the front page."

MARK CAMPBELL, a Republican strategist representing several Congressional candidates.

Certainly will be interesting during the next 3 weeks, and afterward.

I am concurrently reading Bob Woodward's book "State of Denial" and Scott Ritter's book "Target Iran". The beginning of Woodward's book details the development of the Bush campaign and presidency, and the collection of people, i.e. Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld et al, while Ritter's beginning summarizes the development of events in the Middle East which lead up to the War Iraq. Ritter's thesis is that the path toward a conflict with Iran seems to be following the path toward the war in Iraq. Very interesting to read both together.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ohio Leans Toward Democrat for Governor
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298607

...Ted Strickland, the Democrat in Ohio's gubernatorial race, now holds a two-to-one lead over Republican Ken Blackwell...

Leans"??

Holding a 2-to-1 lead is hardly what I'd describe with the word 'lean'. How many other governors (even among incumbents) enjoy such a lead? The Times reported a couple days ago that the GOP was giving up on Blackwell and rerouting money to races in Indiana and Tennessee.

But that was at least a couple days ago.

I think it came out yesterday, that's there's an issue with Strickland's residence when he filed his papers to run for Governor, that might make him ineligible on a technicality. The ruling of his eligibility gets to be made by the Sec State - his current opponent, Blackwell! But this puts Blackwell in a spot - for someone already this unpopular, it can't help his image to win an "unwinnable race" by ruling his opponent ineligible.

(see my unanswered question in this thread from 5 months ago - https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=978104&postcount=31)

I pity Ohio. I can't imagine another state with more rotten a pair of candidates to choose from!

 

[Astronuc]

Republican Woes Lead to Feuding by Conservatives
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/us/politics/20conserve.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 (NYTimes) — Tax-cutters are calling evangelicals bullies. Christian conservatives say Republicans in Congress have let them down. Hawks say President Bush is bungling the war in Iraq. And many conservatives blame Representative Mark Foley’s sexual messages to teenage pages.

With polls showing Republican control of Congress in jeopardy, conservative leaders are pointing fingers at one another in an increasingly testy circle of blame for potential Republican losses this fall.

“It is one of those rare defeats that will have many fathers,” said David Keene, chairman of the American Conservative Union, expressing the gloomy view of many conservatives about the outcome on Election Day. “And they will all be somebody else.”

Whether the election will bear out their pessimism remains to be seen, and the factors that contribute to an electoral defeat are often complex and even contradictory. But the post-mortem recriminations can influence politics and policy for years after the fact. After 1992, Republicans shunned tax increases. After 1994, Democrats avoided gun control and health care reform. And 2004 led some Democrats to start quoting Scripture and rethinking abortion rights, while others opened an intraparty debate about the national security that is not yet resolved.

In the case of the Republican Party this year, the skirmish among conservatives over what is going wrong has begun unusually early and turned unusually personal.

But almost regardless of the outcome on Nov. 7, many conservatives express frustration that the party has lost its ideological focus. And after six years of nearly continuous control over the White House and Congress, conservatives are having a hard time finding anyone but one another to blame.

“It is pre-criminations,” said Rich Lowry, editor of National Review, the conservative magazine. “If a party looks like it is going to take a real pounding, this sort of debate is healthy. What is unusual is that it is happening beforehand.”

Meanwhile in Iraq -

"I can tell you that we're obviously very concerned about what we're seeing in the city. We're taking a lot of time to go back and look at the whole Baghdad security plan."
MAJ. GEN. WILLIAM B. CALDWELL IV, spokesman for the U.S. military command in Iraq, on the failure to stem violence in Baghdad.

Bush Faces a Battery of Ugly Choices on War
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/middleeast/20policy.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 19 — The acknowledgment by the United States Army spokesman in Iraq that the latest plan to secure Baghdad has faltered leaves President Bush with some of the ugliest choices he has yet faced in the war.

He can once again order a rearrangement of American forces inside the country, as he did in August, when American commanders declared that newly trained Iraqi forces would “clear and hold” neighborhoods with backup support from redeployed American forces. That strategy collapsed within a month, frequently forcing the Americans to take the lead, making them prime targets.

There is no assurance, though, that another redeployment of those forces will reduce the casualty rate, which has been unusually high in recent weeks, senior military and administration officials say. The toll comes just before midterm elections, in which even many of his own party have given up arguing that progress is being made or that the killing will soon slow.

Or Mr. Bush can reassess the strategy itself, perhaps listening to those advisers — including some members of the bipartisan Iraq Study Group, the advisory commission charged with coming up with new strategies for Iraq — who say that he needs to redefine the “victory” that he again on Thursday declared was his goal.

U.S. Says Violence in Baghdad Rises, Foiling Campaign
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/middleeast/20iraq.html

BAGHDAD, Iraq, Oct. 19 — The United States military command in Iraq acknowledged on Thursday that its 12-week-old campaign to win back control of Baghdad from sectarian death squads and insurgents had failed to reduce violence across the city. A spokesman for the command said intensive discussions were under way between American and Iraqi officials on ways to “refocus” the effort, which American officials have placed at the heart of their war strategy.

In one of the most somber assessments of the war by American commanders, a statement read by the spokesman, Maj. Gen. William B. Caldwell IV, said the campaign had been marked by increasing attacks on American troops and a spike in combat deaths. Attacks soared by 22 percent, he said, during the first three weeks of Ramadan, the holy month now nearing its end. With three new combat deaths announced on Thursday, the number of American troops who have lost their lives in October rose to 73, representing one of the sharpest surges in military casualties in the past two years.

General Caldwell said American troops were being forced to return to neighborhoods, like Dora in southwestern Baghdad, that they had sealed off and cleared as part of the security campaign because “extremists” fighting back had sent sectarian violence soaring there. The security plan sent heavy deployments of American troops into troubled neighborhoods, reversing the previous policy, which was to allow Iraqi troops to police the capital.

“The violence is indeed disheartening,” General Caldwell said. While the sweeps have contained violence in some areas, over all, he said, the campaign to gain control of the city “has not met our overall expectations of sustaining a reduction in the levels of violence.” As a result, he said, “We are working very closely with the government of Iraq to determine how to best refocus our efforts.”

President Bush, who ordered the rearrangement of troops to begin the campaign, is now left with only a handful of tough and politically unattractive options.

The general’s remarks, unusual for their candor and unvarnished portrayal of bad news, appeared to mark a new setback for the American military effort. Stark new videotape broadcast on Thursday by Al Jazeera from Ramadi, an insurgent stronghold 80 miles west of Baghdad, showed heavily armed insurgents taking over a busy city street in broad daylight to celebrate the proclamation by their leaders of an Islamic state in wide areas of Iraq’s Sunni heartland. There was no sign of any attempt to intervene by the heavy concentration of American and Iraqi troops in the city. The Iraqi government said the demonstrators fled after 15 minutes.

The insurgents’ ability to strike across wide areas of the country was demonstrated anew on Thursday in the northern oil city of Mosul, when suicide bombers attacked a police station and an American convoy, killing at least 22 people and wounding dozens more, mostly civilians, a hospital official said.

And the Mahdi Army has taken control of Amara in the south.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/20/world/middleeast/21iraqcnd.html

Just last weekend, Shiite militiamen went on a killing spree in and around the town of Balad, murdering 38 Sunnis in reprisal for the beheading by Sunni extremists of 19 Shiite workers.
. . . .
Sheik Abdul Kareem al-Muhammadawi, a prominent tribal leader, said in an interview by telephone today that the Mahdi Army responded by deploying its troops in the city. He said the police were outgunned, with insufficient weapons and ammunition.
. . . .

Iraq is embroiled in a civil war, that's been raging for a year or more. Bush needs to either double the troops in Iraq and close the borders, in order to stop the insurgency. This is exactly why Bush, Sr. and others did not remove Saddam Hussein from power. GW has created exactly the mess that Bush Sr avoided.

 

[McGyver]

Rumsfeld Likely to Resign any Day

I won't say where I heard this, but Republican plans are being discussed to have Sec Rumsfeld resign in order to give Republicans in Congressional races some boost in next month's election. Timing wise - the announcement could come today (Friday), or Monday, to allow strategists the best position to work with the information.

 

[Astronuc]

Election 2006
Midterm Congressional Races? Pick 'Em
by Andrea Seabrook and Linda Wertheimer
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6358676

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 21, 2006 · As the midterm elections approach, voters are trying to sort out politics, personality and policy issues. It's not always easy and this could be the most volatile election since the GOP groundswell of 1994 -- or even the post-Watergate vote in 1974.

Reid Pressed to Explain Land-Deal Profits
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6355043

All Things Considered, October 20, 2006 · Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) has promised to amend his financial reports to more fully explain a profitable land deal he made with a partner in Las Vegas. The Associated Press reported that Reid's original disclosure was incomplete, in possible violation of Senate ethics rules.

Since then, Republicans have been lambasting the Democratic leader. Reid would likely become majority leader if the Democrats retake the Senate in November. But questions surround the deal that earned Reid $700,000 in profits.

Reid's partner in the deal is a friend and lawyer whose name has surfaced in organized-crime investigations.

Analysis
GOP Scrambles to Save Congressional Majority
by Steve Inskeep, Mara Liasson and Ken Rudin
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6352046

Morning Edition, October 20, 2006 · With record-low approval ratings, Republican congressional representatives are scrambling to get ahead in the polls. With only three weeks to go before midterm elections, everyone is asking whether the GOP can hold on to either house of Congress.

Election 2006
Polls Show Democrats' Advantage in House Races
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6355019
by Mara Liasson

All Things Considered, October 20, 2006 · It has been a month of dramatic developments in the midterm congressional campaigns. Every day seems to bring fresh bad news for Republicans. Although the economy remains strong, the situation in Iraq has deteriorated. And the scandal around resigned Rep. Mark Foley continues to be unresolved.

Polls now show Democratic candidates have leads in about 40 House districts that are currently held by Republicans -- and in 4 races where Republican senators are running for re-election.

The Republicans' troubles have sparked a round of second-guessing about the strategy designed by Karl Rove, President Bush's political mastermind. Rove stresses getting the party's voting base to the polls, using conservative values appeals to pump up the numbers of GOP votes.

One should vote with one's convictions and not based on polls.

 

[Astronuc]

“Hastert has made it clear that he won't resign, and that makes sense. But if current trends continue, he won't be the speaker of the House after this year. And I suspect he won't become the minority leader in the 110th Congress, either.” Ken Rudin's column on NPR.org

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6352046

The US really needs a third and viable alternative to Democrats and Republicans.

We need a Physics Party.

or how about a Hardy Party or Hearty Party?

 

[Astronuc]

Election 2006
Republicans Zig; Will Christian Conservatives Zag?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6298604
by Rachel Martin

All Things Considered, October 18, 2006 · Two years ago, Evangelical Christians went to the polls in huge numbers and provided a big boost for George Bush and the Republican Party.

Since then, shifts within the Evangelical movement have broadened its focus beyond the signature issues of same-sex marriage and abortion, and lobbying and sex scandals in Washington have raised concerns that the GOP may not be able to count on such a strong evangelical turnout.

You can see that evolving relationship in churches like Potter's House Church of God outside Columbus, in the battleground state of Ohio.

On a recent Wednesday, the gymnasium-like sanctuary is filled with a couple hundred worshippers. With a microphone in one hand and a Bible in the other, guest pastor Steve Lorentz drives home a cornerstone message.

"In the Kings and the Chronicles you read about the men and it says he did that which was right or he did that which is evil," Lorentz tells the crowd. "You know there's only two ways to do it folks. It's either good or bad -- right or wrong."

Meanwhile, on the issue of Iraq,

Democrats Urge Bush to Change Course in Iraq
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6360410

All Things Considered, October 21, 2006 · Amid growing political pressure over the worsening situation in Iraq, President Bush consults with his top military and civilian advisers on war strategy. On Friday, 12 Democratic leaders in Congress sent the president a letter, urging a change in course. Jacki Lyden interviews one of the signatories -- Rep. Ike Skelton of Missouri, the ranking Democrat on the House Armed Services Committee.

 

[Astronuc]

The rumors of Rumsfeld stepping down before the election are getting louder. Cheney should also. Well - so should Bush.


In 2008, I would like to see Colin Powell run for President. I think he has the vision and integrity that seems to be lacking in Washington.

 

[turbo]

In 2008, I would like to see Colin Powell run for President. I think he has the vision and integrity that seems to be lacking in Washington.

I used to respect Colin Powell, but after his shameful shilling for the administration on WMDs, etc I'd have to hold my nose to vote for him. He is a military man, and he KNOWS what war does, yet he helped Shooter, Rummy, and the Idiot-in-Chief sell this one. We need candidates with more integrity than he has demonstrated. If he had told the truth and gotten fired for his honesty, he'd have my vote. He lied for the chickenhawks knowing full well that the war would cost us dearly. I can't forgive that.

 

[Astronuc]

We certainly don't know all the details of private conversations between Powell and the President. I think Powell was trying to work within the system, which in the case of the Bush admin, is like banging one's head agains a granite wall.

I think Powell did believe that Saddam Hussein had WMD, or was close to re-establishing the capability. Gen. Marks and others assumed that. David Kay went to Iraq assuming there was something to find. Kay later testified that although that had not found WMD, it didn't mean that they (or precursors) weren't there somewhere.

However, it looks like Kay found that most of the pre-war intelligence was based on 1998 and earlier. Intelligence after 1998 was poor and largely guesses or worse, fantasy. All of that was insufficient to go to war. Bush went to war because he wanted to go to war, and so did Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz (now head of the World Bank), and a host of neo-conservative Bush supporters.

 

[McGyver]

It is Monday, Oct. 23, and I believe I can say with reasonable certainty that the Bush White House is going to stay the course on their foreign policy matters. This means Rumsfeld stays, no one talks to the press w/o top White House approval, and the White House is going into the Congressional term elections "as is." Republicans up for Congress will sink or swim with the White House's position. If Republicans loose one house of Congress, there will likely be a meltdown of the Republican party as we know it today, setting the stage for 2008 Presidential race.

Yes - it is tragic for America and for Colin Powell's legacy - that he has chosen to remain silent on his insights with the Iraq conflict. He seved his boss well, but failed his duty to America.

 

[turbo]

Yes - it is tragic for America and for Colin Powell's legacy - that he has chosen to remain silent on his insights with the Iraq conflict. He seved his boss well, but failed his duty to America.

That's my take on Powell, too, and I am saddened by it, though I cannot let it go. Powell is not just an intelligent, competent military officer, he is (or was) a powerful political force. He squandered his political influence selling a war that was entirely unjustified and unwinnable (given the absence of any actual goals).

 

[Astronuc]

That's my take on Powell, too, and I am saddened by it, though I cannot let it go. Powell is not just an intelligent, competent military officer, he is (or was) a powerful political force. He squandered his political influence selling a war that was entirely unjustified and unwinnable (given the absence of any actual goals).

I more or less agree with these assessments. I have to wonder if people are loyal to a party or president, rather than to the country and Constitution.

Garner didn't tell the president when he had an opportunity to tell him that the US had already made 3 great mistakes. By the time Powell began speaking out, he was asked to leave.

Rice and Powell should have had it out with Bush over Rumsfeld. Probably wouldn't have done any good. The current GOP (or maybe it's just politics, although I have noticed that Democrats are more receptive to dissention and disagreement) seems to be all about top-down team playing - kind of like the Chinese communist party. Oh, you get choices - it's whatever choices are given to you.

 

[McGyver]

Vote with your best conscience. But also be practical. Cast your vote where it will count the most. Cast your vote to assure a responsible government. America can never again allow "one political party" to control its White House and both Houses of Congress.

As we have seen for several years, you have no oversight. And without oversight, you have corruption, abuse, failed laws, absense of truth, and a future very much in question! Vote for accountability in government! Vote out those in Congress who would give a free pass to anyone in the White House!

 

[Astronuc]

http://www.dontvote.com/map.html

Learn about where the candidates stand on issues - according to the AARP.

 

[BobG]

Forget how many seats the Republicans gain or lose, it just doesn't matter any more...

... because this election will end in apocaplypse for sure. The entire fabric of the universe has been irreparably ripped by this election season.

Rick Santorum boasting of how closely he has worked and cooperated with Hillary Clinton, Joe Leiberman, and Barbara Boxer? And doing it in a wrestling ring?

And Clay Shaw boasting how closely he worked with Bill Clinton during Clinton's Presidency and how Clay Shaw wrote the bills that Bill turned into law? Well, at least he worked closely with Bill Clinton when he wasn't busy impeaching him.

And come to think of it, Newt Gingrich has become pretty tight with Hillary and George 41 sure spends a lot of time with Bill. Has six years of Republican Clinton bashing come down to this??!

Like I said, it can only mean that we've truly reached the end.

 

[Astronuc]

And come to think of it, Newt Gingrich has become pretty tight with Hillary and George 41 sure spends a lot of time with Bill. Has six years of Republican Clinton bashing come down to this??!

Politics makes for stranger bed-fellows. Eeeewwww!

Acutally I have heard some conservatives say that Clinton was more Republican than some Republicans.

And some local political commentator mentioned months ago that Rupert Murdoch (FOX News) was one of Hillary Clinton's new best friend. I wonder what each gets out of that?


Battle for House Looks Tight as Vote Nears
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6397232
by Scott Simon and Mara Liasson

Weekend Edition Saturday, October 28, 2006 · With just 10 days left before the midterm elections, Republicans are prepared to lose House seats and Democrats expect gains. But will Republicans lose control of the House? That's up in the air.

 

[Astronuc]

A Senate Race Riding on Cash Flow
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/29/nyregion/29conn.html?ref=washington

HARTFORD, Oct. 27 — While Senator Joseph I. Lieberman may have lost the Democratic primary to a novice politician, his bid in the general election has come with all the financial advantages of a major party candidate and an 18-year incumbent.

Meanwhile, his financial prowess has prompted his opponent, Ned Lamont, to dig deeper into his pockets, putting $12.7 million into the campaign so far.

Mr. Lieberman, who has run for national office twice, has tapped into millions of dollars from the networks of major Republican and Democratic donors, as well as from business groups and lobbyists who have rallied around him, and several out-of-state independent groups who do not coordinate directly with the campaign.

The hotly contested Senate race has quickly become the most expensive in the state’s history, with Mr. Lieberman spending $11.5 million and Mr. Lamont spending $8.6 million through the end of September.

And there is no sign of slowing down. There have been fund-raising meals for Mr. Lieberman several times a week. . . . .

Last week, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton played host to a fund-raiser for Mr. Lamont at a home on the Upper East Side. Earlier this year, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV played host to an event on Mr. Lamont’s behalf.

The campaign has also worked with Mr. Lamont’s longtime friends in Greenwich to organize a “Republicans for Lamont” fund-raiser.

. . . .

This is representative democracy? It seems more like "Pay to Play". How is the average person supposed to get a voice?

Meanwhile - US Democrats with Big Edge in Campaign's Last Week
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/washington/politics-usa-politics-election.html

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrats enter the final week of the fight for Congress with a commanding edge over Republicans, who hope a strong voter turnout effort and shift in focus away from Iraq can limit their losses.

Recent polls show that growing Democratic momentum, fed by strong dissatisfaction with President George W. Bush's leadership and the war in Iraq, threatens Republican power in the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

The public's thirst for change in Washington has Republicans pondering how bad things will be in the November 7 election and calculating whether they can stop Democrats from picking up the 15 House and six Senate seats needed to claim majorities. . . . .

Moderate Republicans Feeling Like Endangered Species
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/us/politics/28moderates.html

. . . “There wasn’t an impetus to help develop a political and legislative plan that incorporated the broad umbrella of philosophy in our party,” said Senator Olympia J. Snowe, Republican of Maine, whom experts expect to be easily re-elected. “I think they always operated under the wrong assumption that you just appeal to the base and no more than that.”

Ms. Snowe and other moderates, while holding out hope that most of their counterparts would hang on, were dismayed by the prospect of depleted ranks, saying it could lead to a more polarized Congress.
. . . .

A polarized Congress may exacerbate the do-nothing trend.

Democrats Get Late Donations From Business
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/28/us/politics/28hedge.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 27 — Corporate America is already thinking beyond Election Day, increasing its share of last-minute donations to Democratic candidates and quietly devising strategies for how to work with Democrats if they win control of Congress.

The shift in political giving, for the first 18 days of October, has not been this pronounced in the final stages of a campaign since 1994, when Republicans swept control of the House for the first time in four decades.

Though Democratic control of either chamber of Congress is far from certain, the prospect of a power shift is leading interest groups to begin rethinking well-established relationships, with business lobbyists going as far as finding potential Democratic allies in the freshman class — even if they are still trying to defeat them on the campaign trail — and preparing to extend an olive branch the morning after the election.

Lobbyists, some of whom had fallen out of the habit of attending Democratic events, are even talking about making their way to the Sonnenalp Resort in Vail, Colo., where Representative Nancy Pelosi of California is holding a Speaker’s Club ski getaway on Jan. 3. It is an annual affair, but the gathering’s title could be especially apt for Ms. Pelosi, the House minority leader, who will be on hand to accept $15,000 checks, and could, if everything breaks her way, become the first woman to be House speaker.

I wonder if a common phrase in Washington is still "Show me the money."

 

[McGyver]

2006 Election Season Mirroring 1976 Post Watergate Election

If you hadn't sensed it, or if you're too young to remember, this election season has a very similar feel to the 1976 election - only 18 months post Watergate. In that election, Democrats did very well as many Americans felt let down by the Republican Nixon Administration, and expressed that discontent at the polls. Though Jimmy Carter's presidency did not go well with double-digit inflation and the Iran hostage crisis, the election still was a referendum on the limits of corruption that America will tolerate.

Yes - this 2006 may not be a presidential election, but it appears (based on every poll) voters are preparing to paint a NO MORE CORRUPTION referendum on Republican Congress and (especially) White House failures -to races at all levels of government. In essense, voters may hold all Republicans accountable for the Bush White House failures in Iraq, New Orleans, the ban on federal stem cell funding, high oil costs, etc. It is as though many Republicans could be voted out of office as a form of "public impeachment" of President Bush - of note in election history.

 

[turbo]

I fear that the "no more corruption" trend (as expressed in polls) is not going to give the Dems enough new seats to take control of the House or Senate. The reasons: 1) many House districts have been gerrymandered to make them safe for the incumbents
2) People who express general dissatisfaction with the party in power do not always take it out on their own congressman or senator.

I hope I am wrong.

 

[Astronuc]

If you hadn't sensed it, or if you're too young to remember, this election season has a very similar feel to the 1976 election - only 18 months post Watergate. In that election, Democrats did very well as many Americans felt let down by the Republican Nixon Administration, and expressed that discontent at the polls. Though Jimmy Carter's presidency did not go well with double-digit inflation and the Iran hostage crisis, the election still was a referendum on the limits of corruption that America will tolerate.

Yes - this 2006 may not be a presidential election, but it appears (based on every poll) voters are preparing to paint a NO MORE CORRUPTION referendum on Republican Congress and (especially) White House failures -to races at all levels of government. In essense, voters may hold all Republicans accountable for the Bush White House failures in Iraq, New Orleans, the ban on federal stem cell funding, high oil costs, etc. It is as though many Republicans could be voted out of office as a form of "public impeachment" of President Bush - of note in election history.

True, that there are parallels with the 1976 election, but there are significant differences. The country seems more politically polarized now (i.e. inclined to vote one party or the other), but there may be enough people in the middle who could either way.

I've heard for many the issue is Iraq, and more recently the Foley scandal and moral issues, and for some it's still the economy, which by some measures is doing quite well, while by other measures is somewhat tenuous.

It will be interesting to see what happens next week.

 

[edward]

The republicans are constantly saying that the democrats have no agenda. If the Gay marriage issue is all that the republicans can come up with at this point , shame on them.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 26 — The divisive debate over gay marriage, which played a prominent role in 2004 campaigns but this year largely faded from view, erupted anew on Thursday as President Bush and Republicans across the country tried to use a court ruling in New Jersey to rally dispirited conservatives to the polls.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/27/u...7200&en=f1900d2a62e2f2aa&ei=5087 &oref=slogin

 

[BobG]

I fear that the "no more corruption" trend (as expressed in polls) is not going to give the Dems enough new seats to take control of the House or Senate. The reasons: 1) many House districts have been gerrymandered to make them safe for the incumbents
2) People who express general dissatisfaction with the party in power do not always take it out on their own congressman or senator.

I hope I am wrong.

Not enough to take the House? At this point, I figure Dems pick up 19 seats plus 10 races that are too close to call. And that ignores "hot" races with no polls, or only one less reliable poll. When Dems say 20-30 seats, I think the 20 is being very conservative to avoid making an election triumph look like Dems failing to meet expectations.

Unless Bush attacking Kerry can stir up some kind of miracle, the House is shaping up to be a slaughter. At this point, the race is to hold onto the Senate.

 

[Astronuc]

As Vote Nears, Stances on War Set Off Sparks
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/us/politics/01elect.html

WASHINGTON, Oct. 31 — For at least a few hours on Tuesday, President Bush had a chance to relive his victorious campaign of 2004, taking a break from a bleak Republican campaign season as he attacked Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts over the war in Iraq.

Mr. Kerry, the Massachusetts Democrat who was Mr. Bush’s opponent in 2004, is not running for office this year. But the president seized on what he said were Mr. Kerry’s disparaging remarks about the troops — and what Mr. Kerry insisted was a botched joke aimed at Mr. Bush — as he sought to make Mr. Kerry the face of the Democratic Party this fall.

In the process, Mr. Bush brought renewed attention to the war in Iraq, which he defended with vigor while campaigning in Georgia, at the very moment that a number of Republican Congressional candidates, following the advice of party strategists, were stepping up their efforts to distance themselves from the White House on the war as the campaign enters its final days.

“President Bush isn’t getting our frustrations — it’s time to be decisive, beat the terrorists,” Mike McGavick, the Republican candidate for Senate in Washington, said in an advertisement that began running this week. “Partition the country if we have to and get our troops home in victory.”
. . .
In a debate a day earlier, Mr. Chafee indicated he would be willing to call on Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to step down; Mr. Whitehouse has been pressing Mr. Chafee to do just that in his television advertisements. In Tennessee, Bob Corker, a Republican candidate for Senate, said it was time for a new plan and a change in leadership at the Pentagon.

Kerry's comment was supposed to be ""Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." But apparently he botched it. It seems he was disparaging Bush as intellectually lazy not the troops. But apparently the remark came across "that people unable to succeed in the U.S. educational system would likely 'get stuck in Iraq.'" If Kerry mispoke and his comment was miscontrued then he should apologize and clarify. I don't understand the reluctance for someone to apologize if one's remarks have hurt or offended another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_kerry

Bush has yet to apologize (sincerely) about misleading the nation into the war in Iraq and lying about it.

 

[BobG]

As Vote Nears, Stances on War Set Off Sparks
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/01/us/politics/01elect.html

Kerry's comment was supposed to be ""Do you know where you end up if you don't study, if you aren't smart, if you're intellectually lazy? You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask President Bush." But apparently he botched it. It seems he was disparaging Bush as intellectually lazy not the troops. But apparently the remark came across "that people unable to succeed in the U.S. educational system would likely 'get stuck in Iraq.'" If Kerry mispoke and his comment was miscontrued then he should apologize and clarify. I don't understand the reluctance for someone to apologize if one's remarks have hurt or offended another.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061101/ap_on_go_pr_wh/white_house_kerry

Bush has yet to apologize (sincerely) about misleading the nation into the war in Iraq and lying about it.

Kerry's comments have made him a lot less attractive on the campaign trail. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/01/kerry.remarks/index.html

I guess now both Bush and Kerry have enough free time on their hands for another Presidential debate. Maybe they can televise it, preferably somewhere around Channel 367.

 

[matthew baird]

WASHINGTON (AP) — So far this campaign, the political parties have exposed voters to nearly $160 million in ads attacking congressional candidates. How much spent painting a positive image? About $17 million.
That's nearly $1 of nice for every $10 of nasty.

Crap like this just pisses me off! Really, if it was my decision I would dissolve all political parties and have independents run the country. The current situation with political party bickering is out of hand. George Washington himself warned that the political parties would cause problems in the future in his exit speech. If only we would have listened to him.

 

[Astronuc]

Crap like this just pisses me off! Really, if it was my decision I would dissolve all political parties and have independents run the country. The current situation with political party bickering is out of hand. George Washington himself warned that the political parties would cause problems in the future in his exit speech. If only we would have listened to him.

Write in "Matthew Baird".

So Matt, what are you plans for 2008?

Also, write in Russ Watters - another very viable candidate.

In fact, write in your favorite PF personality.

 

[matthew baird]

Write in "Matthew Baird".

So Matt, what are you plans for 2008?

Also, write in Russ Watters - another very viable candidate.

In fact, write in your favorite PF personality.

HAHAHA Okay, I'll write in "Astronuc" lol!
Funny thing is, I live in Utah! So my vote counts less than it already did
I'll have to read up more on Russ Watters...(edit) oh wait hahah just realized who he is LOL. As for 08', we will see what happens between now and then.

 

[Skyhunter]

Not enough to take the House? At this point, I figure Dems pick up 19 seats plus 10 races that are too close to call. And that ignores "hot" races with no polls, or only one less reliable poll. When Dems say 20-30 seats, I think the 20 is being very conservative to avoid making an election triumph look like Dems failing to meet expectations.

Unless Bush attacking Kerry can stir up some kind of miracle, the House is shaping up to be a slaughter. At this point, the race is to hold onto the Senate.

So far no miracle.

CQPolitics has it

House

Democrats=211
Republicans=207
No clear favorite =17

Senate
Democrats=48
Republicans=48
No clear favorite=4

The trend has been steadily against the Republicans.