Stinger said:Well that's how most of the leftist media, CBS, NBC, AAR et al are calling it. Else it's HUGH BUSH DEFEAT, REPUBLIANS LOSE EVERYTHING.
Well let's look
First consider that in the big three races the incumbant part won. Virgina had a Democrat governor and they elected another. New Jersey had a Democrat governor an they elected another. New York City had a Republican mayor and they relected him. Then let's compare to that last elecitons
2001 Virginia: Warner (D) 52%, Earley (R) 47%
2005 Virginia: Kaine (D) 52%, Kilgore (R) 46%
2001 New Jersey: McGreevey (D) 56%, Schundler (R) 42%
2005 New Jersey: Corzine (D) 53%, Forrester (R) 44%
2001 New York City: Bloomberg (R) 50%, Green (D) 47%
2005 New York City: Bloomberg (R) 59%, Ferrer (D) 39%
Hmmmm seems to me that the Democrats held on to what they had in two and the Republicans increased their percentage in the one they won.
And in Virgina the Republican defeated the Democrat for the Lt. Govenor and 2 out of the 3 state congressional races (according to the results posted today in USA Today).
So why does the media, the mainstream leftest media, protray this as a great Democrat victory, where did they increase their standing?
danarhea said:Who is Hugh, and how do you know he's a Democrat?
Funny, the only place i'm hearing this statement from is you.Stinger said:Well that's how most of the leftist media, CBS, NBC, AAR et al are calling it. Else it's HUGH BUSH DEFEAT, REPUBLIANS LOSE EVERYTHING.
Stinger said:Well that's how most of the leftist media, CBS, NBC, AAR et al are calling it. Else it's HUGH BUSH DEFEAT, REPUBLIANS LOSE EVERYTHING.
Well let's look
First consider that in the big three races the incumbant part won. Virgina had a Democrat governor and they elected another. New Jersey had a Democrat governor an they elected another. New York City had a Republican mayor and they relected him. Then let's compare to that last elecitons
2001 Virginia: Warner (D) 52%, Earley (R) 47%
2005 Virginia: Kaine (D) 52%, Kilgore (R) 46%
2001 New Jersey: McGreevey (D) 56%, Schundler (R) 42%
2005 New Jersey: Corzine (D) 53%, Forrester (R) 44%
2001 New York City: Bloomberg (R) 50%, Green (D) 47%
2005 New York City: Bloomberg (R) 59%, Ferrer (D) 39%
Hmmmm seems to me that the Democrats held on to what they had in two and the Republicans increased their percentage in the one they won.
And in Virgina the Republican defeated the Democrat for the Lt. Govenor and 2 out of the 3 state congressional races (according to the results posted today in USA Today).
So why does the media, the mainstream leftest media, protray this as a great Democrat victory, where did they increase their standing?
aps said:Stu and Stinger--well you two have something in common--the inability to see anything negative regarding your own party.
I have heard that people are saying that this was a huge win for the democrats. I don't think it's that big of a deal.
Regardless, Kaine was able to win 2 counties that had gone to the republican candidate when Mark Warner ran. That's a good thing, although the 2 counties (Louden and Prince William) have become far more urban since 4 years ago. The more urban a a place is, the more those residents vote for democrats.
I thought Tim Kaine ran a positive campaign. Kilgore, however, was taking shots at Kaine right and left. Thus, Kaine's win is even better because he didn't stoop to Kilgore's level and still won.
Bush came to Virginia to help Kilgore campaign, and it didn't really help him now, did it?
danarhea said:Who is Hugh, and how do you know he's a Democrat?
Stinger said:Well you start off factually incorrect. I am not a Republican so it's not MY party. I vote Democrat and Independent on a regular basis.
Did you hear Chuckie Schummer and Howard Dean and see the press they were getting. You'd think they had swept every Republican out of office and their statements were not being challenged just being reported and allowed to stand.
I'd have to see the polls before and after to determine if he had any effect.
aps said:Stu and Stinger--well you two have something in common--the inability to see anything negative regarding your own party.
I have heard that people are saying that this was a huge win for the democrats. I don't think it's that big of a deal. Regardless, Kaine was able to win 2 counties that had gone to the republican candidate when Mark Warner ran. That's a good thing, although the 2 counties (Louden and Prince William) have become far more urban since 4 years ago. The more urban a a place is, the more those residents vote for democrats.
I thought Tim Kaine ran a positive campaign. Kilgore, however, was taking shots at Kaine right and left. Thus, Kaine's win is even better because he didn't stoop to Kilgore's level and still won.
Bush came to Virginia to help Kilgore campaign, and it didn't really help him now, did it?
By the way, Stu, will you eat your words if the democrats don't get spanked in 2008? :lol: :lol:
Archon said:LOL.
Give me a break. Are the liberals coming to save the world? Politics are politics are politics no matter who wins the people lost. The lesser of two evil millionaires right, Hugh?
Good God, no, do not encourage them to multiply and replenish!danarhea said:If our politicians did to their wives what they are doing to America, the divorce rate amongst them would drop to zero.
Limbaugh said:DEar Aps, ..not so! THere are things that I take issue with regards to the republican party, & Mr. Bush.
BUT, BUT....THis out of control scandalous liberal media, ..& their bedfellow democratic party leadership are the biggest hypocrites of all.
They are trying to use the Iraqi war, & this CIA leak case to help glorify their chances in 08'.
It would not be so bad IF it were only confined to that. But no, ..its, Bush lied, Bush is a Nazi, Bush endorses torture & on it goes.
MY god, listening to the democratic party leadership one "might" forget that THEY demanded their OWN war resolution when they signed on for the war in Iraq.
They saw the same intel things Bush saw, ..& their OWN words were heard, ...nobody coerced them into making anti-Sadaam speeches then. Now...they make anti-Bush speeches.
Since the viet-nam era, its ALWAYS the SAME message from the liberal democrats:
America is evil, America exploits, America tortures, & there would be peace if it wasn't for America.
Thanks to the democrats, ..why even the terrorists believe it, & in fact are politically empowered because of it, ..AND if the senate democrats make the charges; ..what do you think the terrorists think about it?
Why is it that its ALWAYS senate democrats WHO destroy national unity, accuse their own government of war crimes?
Why is it that the democrats in the senate all of a sudden pretend to care about the CIA, (Valerie PLame) ..when in FACT it was ALWAYS the senate democrats who gutted the CIA's ability to garner foreign intel, ..& have made it even more difficult to investigate mis-eastern immigrants who DO have sympathies, & ties to mideastern terror groups?
Are some senate democrats REALLY acting in good faith??? IMO, hell NO...they are politicizing the whole war in Iraq, & the war on terror & in fact trying to make Bush out a liar, a warmonger, a racist, & a hater!
Everything is Bush's fault, ..even the recent Jordan terror bombings is blamed on Bush via the LEFTIST media & certain democrats!
This senate democrat behavior is just unforgiveable, ..& it shall not be forgotten!
I thought Canuck was banned for this sorta behavior...Kandahar said:Christ, shut up. Just shut up. This is a forum for DEBATE and DISCUSSION of issues, not for your immature smear tactics.
scottyz said:I thought Canuck was banned for this sorta behavior...
aps said:I was surprised when I checked your profile that you did not affiliate yourself with a party. That surprised me because you attack Joe Wilson like a republican,
you think George Bush and his adminstration walk on water,
and, if I recall correctly, you don't have anything positive to say about democrats.
The polls taken before the race showed that it would be a close race with Kaine being the winner by like 2 points. Kaine got 52% of the vote and Kilgore got 46%. My statement was not based upon these numbers but solely based upon Kilgore losing.
Kandahar said:I'd hardly call a Bloomberg win a victory for the Republicans...
As for the others, you're right that it was not a huge win for the Democrats (nor have I seen it being portrayed as such in the media), other than the fact that the elections were close and the Democrats held on to NJ and VA.
scottyz said:Funny, the only place i'm hearing this statement from is you.
Kandahar said:Christ, shut up. Just shut up. This is a forum for DEBATE and DISCUSSION of issues, not for your immature smear tactics.
Stinger said:It was pretty much a wash nationwide. I was amused to hear Schummer saying that this was a shot across the bow of the Republicans. Then he went on to state how the DEmocrats were going to go the people with their plans and ideas and win over the country, that is sometime next year when they decide what exactly their plans and ideas are.
Stinger said:As much so as New Jersey Corzine had a HUGE lead at one point and managed to hang on while losing voter margin compared to last year. Bloomberg increased his winning margin.
Oh and the Republicans also took the Attorneys Generals office in Virginia.
It was a wash at best and if you really want to give to one or the other the Republicans posted more gains than the Democrats.
Kandahar said:I agree. But then, the media always makes too big a deal of the off-year elections and tries to draw broad conclusions, for the simple reason that there's usually not much else happening in the news.
I don't think anything involving Mike Bloomberg can really be cited as a win for the Republicans, since he is to the left of both of New York's senators.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?