• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Republicans Doomed In 2014?

Comunitee

Active member
Joined
Sep 24, 2013
Messages
256
Reaction score
59
Location
Central Jersey
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Liberal
Historically, the midterm elections usually favor the party that doesn't have the White House. In particular, the party that holds it usually gets hit pretty hard in the 6th-year elections:

1918: Woodrow Wilson's Democrats lost both houses.

1938: Franklin Roosevelt's Democrats suffered huge losses, bigger than any they've had since. It ended up not mattering, since they'd already run up gigantic majorities in 1930, '32, '34 (that, in itself, bucking the 2nd-year tradition) and '36. Considering FDR's 3rd term in 1940 a start-over, and...

1946: The 6th year of the FDR/Harry Truman Administration, and the Democrats lost both houses. Since Truman ended up getting what amounted to 2 full terms, restart the clock at 1945, and, after Truman carried both houses back in '48...

1950: Truman's Democrats didn't lose either house, but took some big losses. The numbers weren't as significant as some of the names (Claude Pepper, Millard Tydings, Helen Gahagan Douglas). The Republicans took both houses in '52, lost them in '54, didn't gain enough back in '56, and...

1958: Dwight D. Eisenhower's Republicans got pounded, worse than any loss they've had since. It didn't matter much, as they already didn't have control.

1966: The 6th year of the John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson Administration, and the Democrats lost big-time, although the huge majorities LBJ built up in '64 prevented a loss of control.

1974: The 6th year of the Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford Administration, and the GOP, already not having control, got clobbered. The Democrats elected that year became known as the Watergate Babies. They were mostly young guys, like Gary Hart; now, there's only 2 left in the House, both from California: George Miller and Henry Waxman; and 1 in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

1986: Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost control of the Senate (a lot of the guys he swept into office in '80 got found out and beat), and lost what amounted to a "working majority" in the House. Although Bill Clinton's Democrats lost both houses in '94, they actually gained in '98.

2006: George W. Bush's Republicans lost both houses. Bush called it "a thumpin'." (Not to be confused with 2010, which Obama called "a shellacking," although his Democrats retained the Senate.)

Aside from 1998, "sixth years" have been bad for the incumbent President's party. But, a little more than a year away from the 2014 elections, it's not looking good. The Democrats need a gain of 17 seats to take the House. In the Senate, they hold an edge of 4 seats.

The only Democratic incumbent who might be in trouble is Mark Begich of Alaska, and that's mainly because that State is so unpredictable. Four seats of retiring Democrats are in play. Tom Harkin of Iowa will, most likely, see his seat kept blue; but the Montana seat of Max Baucus, the South Dakota seat of Tim Johnson, and the West Virginia seat of Jay Rockefeller all have a better than 50-50 chance of turning red.

For the moment, there is, ironically, only one Republican Senator who's in trouble right now: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP Leader. He could lose. But most of the Republicans running for re-election are safe, unless they face a Tea Party primary challenge, in which case some of those seats are up for grabs: The Georgia seat of retiring Saxby Chambliss, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas (ditto).

There is a possibility that Collins, especially if she gets beaten for the nomination by an ally of Teabag Governor Paul LePage (who is almost certainly toast), could do what Angus King did to get elected that State's Governor and now one of its Senators: Run as an independent. I think she would win. But if she wins the nomination, especially if there's a fight, and the Teabags don't support her enough, and there's enough of a backlash against the GOP, she could lose in November.

So the GOP will likely take the seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. That gives them 49 seats. But they would then have to hold all the seats they have now, and that's not a given. If McConnell loses, and the Teabags claim even one primary scalp that leads to a Democratic gain in November, that drops them to 47, and even if they take Begich's and Harkin's seat, that's 49, and they'd still need 2 more. Maybe Mary Landrieu, in spite of her family's strong history in Louisiana, could be vulnerable, maybe not; but in next-door Arkansas, Mark Pryor is as popular as his father David (former Governor and Senator) was, and I don't think he'd lose.

Right now, the GOP needs 2 things to happen: Get this shutdown settled (even though it won't be in their favor), and hope that the voters have decided by November 2014 that, whatever else happens in the intervening year, their current anger is no longer worth keeping.

Polls: Shutdown Hurts '14 Gop Prospects
 
I somewhat side with Nate Silver on this....there may be some hit to the Republicans on this, and especially if it continues for a significant amount of time or if we default, but overall come the next election it's unlikely to have a significant effect in terms of the Republicans losing the House or something of the sort.
 
The GOP knows how to do the math and they would not have done it had they thought they would be hit really hard. Short of defaulting I don't think they will face much calamity.

I do think though they are sealing the deal for the 2016 Presidential elections. The national image of their brand is almost irrevocably damaged. They are pretty much an "anti-Obama" party at this point and once Obama is out of the picture I think they are going to have a hard time strumming up the energy of their base. Hatred is a great motivator as long as you have the impetus of your hatred around.
 
I think the shutdown is hurting Republicans, but it is also hurting the Dems as well. The one thing I do not see people on the left factoring in is if there are significant negative effects from Obamacare by the midterm elections. If there are the Dems could be in big trouble, because regardless of the GOPs actions of the shutdown, their response to that could be "We were trying to help the American people by trying to stop Obamacare".

There is a real chance the Dems will be in trouble come 2014. Factually, no side should be trumpeting the other side's demise just yet. There are a lot of things in the works from both parties that could change by 2014.
 
I'm with Zyphilin on this one. The American voter has a short memory and most of what determines whether they vote em out will be conditions and whom they perceive is giving them the most pain in October 2014.
 
Is the public going to remember something that happened a year ago that effected a very few or are they going to remember Obama care that is negatively affecting them all year long very time they have to pay the insurance premium
 
Is the public going to remember something that happened a year ago that effected a very few or are they going to remember Obama care that is negatively affecting them all year long very time they have to pay the insurance premium

They probably will remember their fathers and grandfathers not being allowed into their memorial. They probably will remember taking a vacation to a federal park or facility and then being turned away. And then as you say they'll see their insurance bill. With the dems as authors, and bragging about it, they'll probably also get the blame.
 
They probably will remember their fathers and grandfathers not being allowed into their memorial. They probably will remember taking a vacation to a federal park or facility and then being turned away

Which is probably going to be, relatively speaking, an amazingly small percentage of the voting public. Likely far smaller than the federal employees who have been furloughed, or who are affected by the furloughs and working unpaid currently, and are also likely to still remember this, at least to some degree. The insurance bill would be a different thing entirely, as that would be something occurring repeatedly...including around the time of the election...rather than something that happened a year prior.
 
America is so divided right now I would not place bets on either party.
 
The elections will boil down to two factions. ...no, not democrats and republicans. It'll be the moochers vs. producers. The moochers will be voting for whomever promises to give more entitlements to the poor, poor pitiful poor. The producers will be voting for whomever promises to quit coddling the moochers by stealing their money, to buy the moochers' votes.
 
The buying moochers votes is really rich considering that the so called producers are totally bought and paid for by lobbyist etc.

It is also really rich that the poor need to stop sucking at the government teat when we have the richest of the rich sucking at the teat of government and not even supporting the government they suck off of.
 
The elections will boil down to two factions. ...no, not democrats and republicans. It'll be the moochers vs. producers. The moochers will be voting for whomever promises to give more entitlements to the poor, poor pitiful poor. The producers will be voting for whomever promises to quit coddling the moochers by stealing their money, to buy the moochers' votes.

Let me guess... you're a producer right?
 
The elections will boil down to two factions. ...no, not democrats and republicans. It'll be the moochers vs. producers. The moochers will be voting for whomever promises to give more entitlements to the poor, poor pitiful poor. The producers will be voting for whomever promises to quit coddling the moochers by stealing their money, to buy the moochers' votes.

And very unfortunately, the policies of the Obama administration have been very effective, if nothing else, at reducing the population of producers, and increasing the population of moochers.
 
I think the republicans are going to lose the midterms and the 2016 elections. They've abandoned all reason and judgement. They're waaay off the rails.

You know why? because as someone said, they're the anti-obama party. That's it. It's so stupid that my brain hurts just trying to think about the kind of stupidity this requires.

And frankly, i hope the republicans, at this point, get hammered. They need to reform their party because they're full of crap and oozing stupidity for the most part. And the people who aren't oozing stupidity are isolated and put forward to be replaced by the ones who do in elections.

These are the things the repubs need to drop:
-respecting the 2nd amendment more than any other amdment. The republicans claim to be pro-constitution? Where is the respect for the 4th and the 1st when the Patriot act was pushed through? When the NDAA was silently passed by all of them. When the NSA was spying on people? Gimme a break. They have only 1 amnedment, and that's the 2nd one. Not that the 2nd one is not important, by all means, it should be upheld, but it's not more important than the others.

-drop the extremist christian stance. Seriously, they look like the islamists in Egypt. Pretending the Bible has the answer for everything (if not the bible, than the constitution, the constitution != all laws) and that society should be guided by the Bible and if it ain't in it... then it ain't good. Just drop the extremist rhetoric ok? The Bible is not a moral document, a legal document, a scientific document. It's at best a historical document in which you can derive some lessons from if you pay attention and don't take it ad literatum. And especially pay attention to the 2nd testament, there are a few things about how to get along with people there. The first part of the bible is full of crap and slavery and genocides and **** done by "gods' chosen people".

-Drop the anti-scientific rhetoric ok? Stop trying to make the bible teachable in schools because you think it has academic value. It's academic value is less in terms of biology than a 4th grade manual should have, less math value than a 2nd grade manual should have and less historical value than a 5th grade manual should have. I say should have because public education is messed up when it shouldn't be.

-Drop the gay are abominations stance. You can still not be in favor of gay marriage, that's an opinion that needs to be represented as long as there are people who oppose gay marriage, but the abomination part needs to go.

-Stop making abortion and rape the everyday talking points. Seriously... the republican leadership is just full of rape, abortion, gays, the 2nd amendment and fanatic praise of the bible and the constitution which I bet most don't even read (especially the constitution and the bill of rights) but they just keep on them to look good to their fellow fanatics.

So for all these reasons I want the republicans to get hammered. Big time. I have nothing against republicans on this forum which most are, as far as I can tell, far better and more educated people but the republican leadership is completely off the rails.
 
Historically, the midterm elections usually favor the party that doesn't have the White House. In particular, the party that holds it usually gets hit pretty hard in the 6th-year elections:

1918: Woodrow Wilson's Democrats lost both houses.

1938: Franklin Roosevelt's Democrats suffered huge losses, bigger than any they've had since. It ended up not mattering, since they'd already run up gigantic majorities in 1930, '32, '34 (that, in itself, bucking the 2nd-year tradition) and '36. Considering FDR's 3rd term in 1940 a start-over, and...

1946: The 6th year of the FDR/Harry Truman Administration, and the Democrats lost both houses. Since Truman ended up getting what amounted to 2 full terms, restart the clock at 1945, and, after Truman carried both houses back in '48...

1950: Truman's Democrats didn't lose either house, but took some big losses. The numbers weren't as significant as some of the names (Claude Pepper, Millard Tydings, Helen Gahagan Douglas). The Republicans took both houses in '52, lost them in '54, didn't gain enough back in '56, and...

1958: Dwight D. Eisenhower's Republicans got pounded, worse than any loss they've had since. It didn't matter much, as they already didn't have control.

1966: The 6th year of the John F. Kennedy/Lyndon Johnson Administration, and the Democrats lost big-time, although the huge majorities LBJ built up in '64 prevented a loss of control.

1974: The 6th year of the Richard Nixon/Gerald Ford Administration, and the GOP, already not having control, got clobbered. The Democrats elected that year became known as the Watergate Babies. They were mostly young guys, like Gary Hart; now, there's only 2 left in the House, both from California: George Miller and Henry Waxman; and 1 in the Senate, Patrick Leahy of Vermont.

1986: Ronald Reagan's Republicans lost control of the Senate (a lot of the guys he swept into office in '80 got found out and beat), and lost what amounted to a "working majority" in the House. Although Bill Clinton's Democrats lost both houses in '94, they actually gained in '98.

2006: George W. Bush's Republicans lost both houses. Bush called it "a thumpin'." (Not to be confused with 2010, which Obama called "a shellacking," although his Democrats retained the Senate.)

Aside from 1998, "sixth years" have been bad for the incumbent President's party. But, a little more than a year away from the 2014 elections, it's not looking good. The Democrats need a gain of 17 seats to take the House. In the Senate, they hold an edge of 4 seats.

The only Democratic incumbent who might be in trouble is Mark Begich of Alaska, and that's mainly because that State is so unpredictable. Four seats of retiring Democrats are in play. Tom Harkin of Iowa will, most likely, see his seat kept blue; but the Montana seat of Max Baucus, the South Dakota seat of Tim Johnson, and the West Virginia seat of Jay Rockefeller all have a better than 50-50 chance of turning red.

For the moment, there is, ironically, only one Republican Senator who's in trouble right now: Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the GOP Leader. He could lose. But most of the Republicans running for re-election are safe, unless they face a Tea Party primary challenge, in which case some of those seats are up for grabs: The Georgia seat of retiring Saxby Chambliss, Susan Collins of Maine, Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, Lamar Alexander of Tennessee and John Cornyn of Texas (ditto).

There is a possibility that Collins, especially if she gets beaten for the nomination by an ally of Teabag Governor Paul LePage (who is almost certainly toast), could do what Angus King did to get elected that State's Governor and now one of its Senators: Run as an independent. I think she would win. But if she wins the nomination, especially if there's a fight, and the Teabags don't support her enough, and there's enough of a backlash against the GOP, she could lose in November.

So the GOP will likely take the seats in Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia. That gives them 49 seats. But they would then have to hold all the seats they have now, and that's not a given. If McConnell loses, and the Teabags claim even one primary scalp that leads to a Democratic gain in November, that drops them to 47, and even if they take Begich's and Harkin's seat, that's 49, and they'd still need 2 more. Maybe Mary Landrieu, in spite of her family's strong history in Louisiana, could be vulnerable, maybe not; but in next-door Arkansas, Mark Pryor is as popular as his father David (former Governor and Senator) was, and I don't think he'd lose.

Right now, the GOP needs 2 things to happen: Get this shutdown settled (even though it won't be in their favor), and hope that the voters have decided by November 2014 that, whatever else happens in the intervening year, their current anger is no longer worth keeping.

Polls: Shutdown Hurts '14 Gop Prospects

I like you rundown. Well thought out. In Montana their Lt. Gov. Walsh has thrown his hat into the ring and if he wins in the Dem primary, he very well could retain Baucus's seat for the Dem. I agree on SD and WV though. In Georgia, my home state there is a gal on the Democratic side by the name of Michele Nunn who has thrown her hat in the ring. She is the daughter of Sam Nunn, the former immensely popular for Democratic Senator from here. I would say M. Nunn would be Broun and is a toss up against other potential GOP nominees. Just he last name brings out a yearning from old folks like me who remember her daddy very fondly.

I personally think Pryor of AR is at the moment in more trouble than Landrieu or Begich. With the right nominee, McConnell can be had. But this far out back in October of 2011, it looked like Generic Republican Senator Candidates would pick up at least 6 seats if not 7. Once names get placed next to the nomination, things change. Then too how many Aiken's Mourdocks, Berg's and Rehberg's will the Republicans nominate? I think the House will stay Republican, but if the election was held today, I am not sure of that. But come February of next year this shutdown will be history and most Americans will have forgotten all about it with other events and issues taking its place.

I also think this fools errand of attaching the defunding rider to the CR and shutting down government may have killed the GOP chances of taking the senate next year. Time will tell.
 
Let me guess... you're a producer right?
Absolutely. I am not on welfare of any kind. I have a full-time job (with full insurance benefits). I pay my bills. I pay my taxes. I even give to certain charities when I can.

Moochers are on welfare. They may have full-time jobs, but lots of time it's a crap job because they didn't stay in school. Moochers usually get back more in tax returns, than what they pay in income tax. Moochers may blow money on night life, cable or their cell phone, but then complain that they don't have enough money for rent or food.


And very unfortunately, the policies of the Obama administration have been very effective, if nothing else, at reducing the population of producers, and increasing the population of moochers.

That's because Mother Government has enslaved the moochers. They want ultimate control over as many citizens as possible. They want to control your health...your expenditures...your entertainment...your children...etc.
 
You know why? because as someone said, they're the anti-obama party.
The democrats were nothing but the "anti-Bush party" back in '08, so get over yourself.

They need to reform their party because they're full of crap and oozing stupidity for the most part. And the people who aren't oozing stupidity.
Oh, and the democrats are all level-headed and sincere? If you believe that, you're a sucker. Democrats are nothing but power-mongers. They don't give a rat's ass about you...only your vote. Remember...this is the party that signs bills into law, so that they can find out what's in them.

These are the things the repubs need to drop:
-respecting the 2nd amendment more than any other amdment. The republicans claim to be pro-constitution? Where is the respect for the 4th and the 1st when the Patriot act was pushed through? When the NDAA was silently passed by all of them. When the NSA was spying on people? Gimme a break. They have only 1 amnedment, and that's the 2nd one. Not that the 2nd one is not important, by all means, it should be upheld, but it's not more important than the others.

-drop the extremist christian stance. Seriously, they look like the islamists in Egypt. Pretending the Bible has the answer for everything (if not the bible, than the constitution, the constitution != all laws) and that society should be guided by the Bible and if it ain't in it... then it ain't good. Just drop the extremist rhetoric ok? The Bible is not a moral document, a legal document, a scientific document. It's at best a historical document in which you can derive some lessons from if you pay attention and don't take it ad literatum. And especially pay attention to the 2nd testament, there are a few things about how to get along with people there. The first part of the bible is full of crap and slavery and genocides and **** done by "gods' chosen people".

-Drop the anti-scientific rhetoric ok? Stop trying to make the bible teachable in schools because you think it has academic value. It's academic value is less in terms of biology than a 4th grade manual should have, less math value than a 2nd grade manual should have and less historical value than a 5th grade manual should have. I say should have because public education is messed up when it shouldn't be.

-Drop the gay are abominations stance. You can still not be in favor of gay marriage, that's an opinion that needs to be represented as long as there are people who oppose gay marriage, but the abomination part needs to go.

-Stop making abortion and rape the everyday talking points. Seriously... the republican leadership is just full of rape, abortion, gays, the 2nd amendment and fanatic praise of the bible and the constitution which I bet most don't even read (especially the constitution and the bill of rights) but they just keep on them to look good to their fellow fanatics.

How about liberals stop listening to the radical 1% of the right-wing. There are millions of republicans that don't give a damn about gays, and even more that don't give a damn about abortions. You have clouded judgement.

I have nothing against republicans on this forum which most are, as far as I can tell, far better and more educated people but the republican leadership is completely off the rails.
This kinda sounds like the cliched "I'm not a racist, but [insert totally racist epithet]."
 
Absolutely. I am not on welfare of any kind. I have a full-time job (with full insurance benefits). I pay my bills. I pay my taxes. I even give to certain charities when I can.

Moochers are on welfare. They may have full-time jobs, but lots of time it's a crap job because they didn't stay in school. Moochers usually get back more in tax returns, than what they pay in income tax. Moochers may blow money on night life, cable or their cell phone, but then complain that they don't have enough money for rent or food.




That's because Mother Government has enslaved the moochers. They want ultimate control over as many citizens as possible. They want to control your health...your expenditures...your entertainment...your children...etc.

At least you're humble about it, I guess. What would you call me then, someone who's by the age of 25 used up more tax dollars than I could ever repay over several lifetimes.
 
The Party Is United

It is a great time to be a Republican. Many media outlets are making accusations that the republican party is divided against itself, that republicans are anarchist and that republicans are bypassing the legislative process. According to the Open Congress website Congressional Votes - All Roll Calls - OpenCongress since October 1, 2013 the Republicans have voted on many bills without any dissension among Republicans. Here is a brief list below. I tried to leave out procedural votes to the best of my understanding.

H.J.Res.72 Honoring Our Promise to America's Veteran's Bill (0 republicans against)

H.J.Res.71 Provide Local Funding for the District of Columbia Bill (0 republicans against)

H.J.Res.70 Open Our National Parks and Museums Bill (1 republican against)

H.J.Res.73 Research For Life Saving Cures Bill (1 republican against)

H.R.3230 Pay Our Guard and Reserve Act (0 Republican against)

H.J.Res.85 National Emergency and Disaster Recovery Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res 75 Nutrition Assistance for Low-Income Women and Children Bill (0 republicans against)

H.R.3223 Federal Employee Retroactive Pay Fairness Act (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.77 Food & Drug Safety Bill (1 Republican against)

H.J.Res.84 Head Start For Low-Income Children Bill (2 Republicans against)

H.R.3273 To Establish a Bicameral Working Group on Deficit Reduction and Economic Growth (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.89 Federal Worker Pay Fairness Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.90 Federal Aviation Administration Continuing Appropriations Resolution 2014 (0 Republicans against)

H.J. Res.91 Honoring the Families of Fallen Soldiers Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J.Res.79 Border Safety & Security Bill (0 Republicans against)

H.J. Res.76 Nuclear Weapon Security & Non Proliferation Bill (0 Republicans against)

This is a lot of work to accomplish in just 12 days. The Republicans are not divided. The Republicans are not anarchist. The Republicans are not bypassing the legislative process. This is the legislative process designed to protect us from a tyrannical president and it's working. The Republicans are united in their opposition to the Affordable Care Act. The Republicans are united in their opposition to runaway government spending. More importantly the Republicans are united with their actions not just their words. Republicans have opened up discussion with the American people about how to solve these two very important issues. It is a great time to be a Republican. America is being repaired for the better. I hope that we are all wise enough to ignore the panic and ignore the lies that the Republican party is divided. It most certainly is not.

I think partisan politics will become popular soon. America is getting a lesson on how it works. It works good.

vasuderatorrent
 
imo, the shutdown is hurting any incumbent. With going on five years of Congress (House and Senate) having the country work under a CR, it is clear the ones in office are incapable of developing and passing a budget in a timely manner. Time for new people who will fulfill their obligations and work for the people who elected them.
 
Both branches of government are working right now. They are also fulfilling their obligations. Two major problems in our nation are being addressed.

Many American citizens are afraid that they will go broke if they incurr major medical expenses. This is being addressed right now.

Many Americans believe that spending more money than you take in for an extended period of time is unsustainable. Most states, counties and city governments have already put measures in place to keep local governments from doing this. The spending problem is being addressed right now.

The government has to find out how the American public feels about these two issues. Forcing the discussion will allow Americans to voice their opinion and allow government to make the appropriate repairs to the current infrastructure. These are complex issues and this current administration is against the band-aid approach that has been used for 70+ years. I think Obama is doing a fine job leading our country. He is just standing by patiently to hear what they have to say.

Sequester, the Affordable Care Act and the Government Shutdown is part of the diagnosis process so that we can begin conducting major surgery on this country's infrastracture. Do we want socialized medicine? Do we want mandated health insurance purchase for all citizens? Do we want to try another approach that hasn't been considered yet? Do we want to cut out certain government programs to pay off our debts? Do we want to raise taxes to pay off our debts? Do we want to print money to pay off our debts? Do we want to default on our debts and reorganize under bankruptcy? Do we want to try some other approach that hasn't been considered yet?

Your government is hard at work diagnosing the problem and obtaining feedback from the public. To suggest otherwise is not quite fair. Don't listen to those cable TV whackos. They don't do anything. Action speaks much louder than words. Look what congress is currently doing. Look what radio host are currently doing. Don't listen to what either of them are saying. Words are empty.

We are blessed to have such a wonderfully functioning government at this point in history. It is great to be an American.

vasuderatorrent
 
The democrats were nothing but the "anti-Bush party" back in '08, so get over yourself.

Oh, and the democrats are all level-headed and sincere? If you believe that, you're a sucker. Democrats are nothing but power-mongers. They don't give a rat's ass about you...only your vote. Remember...this is the party that signs bills into law, so that they can find out what's in them.

How about liberals stop listening to the radical 1% of the right-wing. There are millions of republicans that don't give a damn about gays, and even more that don't give a damn about abortions. You have clouded judgement.

This kinda sounds like the cliched "I'm not a racist, but [insert totally racist epithet]."

Rest assured, I am not accusing the democrats of being the better party. The democrat party is both idiotic, lazy and spiteful. But they aren't making the headlines in terms of stupidity/min epiteths that the republican leadership is making.

yes, the democrats were the anti-bush party and because their electorate is also lazy, idiotic and spiteful, they won the 2008 elections and congress. I do hope, for the sake of the republic, that the republican electorate is more elevated and hence, will punish the republican leaders for returning the same kind of pathetic political treatment.

I have no clouded judgement. As I said repeatedly in this comment adn the one above, when I say republicans, I don't include the republican electorate as being anti-gay, religiously fanatic, only-pro-second-amendment etc. Sure there are people who fit that description in the electorate, and there are those who partially fit it and those who don't fit it at all. But this doesn't change the fact that the republican leadership, for the most part, is exactly as I said it is. The first world equivalent of the islamists in the ME.
 
The Republicans are hurting right now, but the election is a year away. The end result of the disastrous for the GOP 1996 shutdown was that they lost seven House seats. And that was a Presidential election year, when Democrats actually bother to vote.

In a midterm election where Democrats are defending far more red seats than Republicans defending blue seats, it's hard to see how Democrats avoid losing Senate seats, while maybe gaining a few House seats.
 
The end result of the disastrous for the GOP 1996 shutdown was that they lost seven House seats.

I looked this data up too because I kept hearing how the Republicans were martyring themselves for the cause. I thought it was just liberal talk. It seems that the shutdown did negatively impact the Republicans in the 1996 election. History usually repeats itself. I am not sure if the circumstances are different or not. Surely the GOP has an analyst on their side advising them.

I have heard that Clinton and Gingrich were talking every single day during the shutdown of 1995. Maybe that makes the political ball game a lot different. Obama is confirming a lot of the right wing exagerations that I used to ignore and laugh at. In the Muslim world his leadership style of strength is welcomed. In a balance of power system the president has the responsibility to smooth things over even if that means losing. Is he being arrogant and practicing foreign customs? I used to think those accusations of President Obama was baseless. I'm starting to get suspicious. Maybe President Obama is not as "OK" as I once thought.

vasuderatorrent
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom