History seems to be catching up to GOP

[Judi Lynn]

History seems to be catching up to GOP
By Steven Thomma

Knight Ridder Newspapers

WASHINGTON — For five years, President Bush has defied political history.

He won the White House while losing the popular vote. He expanded his party's majority in Congress in 2002, the first president to do so in his first term since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1934. Bush added seats again in 2004, the first to do so while winning re-election since FDR in 1936.

Now, six months before Election Day, history appears to be catching up to the president and his party.

Republicans could lose seats in the House and the Senate for the first time in the Bush era — as has happened to every president in his sixth year in office since the Civil War, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton in 1998.

Republicans could lose control of the House and possibly the Senate. If Democrats capture either chamber, Bush will lose any chance to set the nation's agenda or to block investigations that could harass him through his last two years in office.
(snip/...)

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politics/2002962264_outlook30.html

[cpousnret]

1. its time to take care of

the american family

[gilpo]

9. They are already "taking care of the American family"....

Of course their definition is the same as Tony Soprano's.

[hanginthere]

2. Have you met of these "swing voters"?

It seems to me that every presidential election since Clintons first term has the voters going alsmost 50/50 Democrat/Republican. With really small differences. The 50/50 split seems to be consistent.

Yet we got these polls swinging wildly up and down. (Which is great, its nice to know people are paying attention.
You'd think someone would win with respectable double digit margins.

But it seems to me that just about everyone I meet is pretty consistent with who they decide to vote for. Most the people I meet already know if they are going to vote Democrat or Republcan and 2008 is really a long ways off. I'm always hopeful, but I would bet good money they remain consistent. I guess the odds are against meeting one of these "swing voters" is small since they are apparently 1 or 2 percent of the populace (bsed on what is happening with the presidential vote).

And really, the difference between progressive ideals and the neocon mantra are huge.
I'm thinking a sex change might be less traumatic than a move from right to left.
Which is perhaps why, for the last decade or so, the vote has been split consistently 50/50.

Feel free to tell me I'm wrong.
But it seems to be the reliable forecsast for 2008 will be a 50/50 split with 1 or 2 percent of the vote deciding the president.

[the other one]

3. You are right. No matter what the polls say, the pugs will win

by about 1-2%. Imagine that.

[hanginthere]

10. It seems to me that Clinton won by about 1% for both terms.

and I think Gore won with a similar margin.

[rodeodance]

7. yes, you are right--its that little 1-2 % that the fight is all about--but

still I hope.

[teknomanzer]

11. There is a reason for the historical anomaly

September 11, 2001... saved Bush's ass, and the Republican majority too. Bush's rating were plummeting and there were serious questions about his legitimacy. I remember the night before the buzz on DU was all about the independent press investigation of the 2000 election. Bush's days were clearly numbered and so was the GOP majority. But what a difference a day can make. Suddenly all those questions were silenced as all of America was scared shitless. Fear! Fear! Fear! 24/7 and constant calls to "stand behind the President," and "Watch what you say." And don't forget,"Your either with us or with the terrorists."

For some unknown reason Americans seem to believe that Republicans have some inherent ability to handle matters of security. I don't really know why, as it seems to me that last Republican to successfully lead this country through a major war was Abe Lincoln. Add to that the fact that Democrats had suddenly found themselves invertebrate. The decision to run a stale insider blue blood like Kerry on 2004 didn't help much. It seemed as if Democrats were determined to stay the minority party.

Lets not leave the so called "Liberal Media" out of this, those corporate lapdogs whose sole function was to rewrite White House talking points, scare the shit out of people, and provide them with meaningless distractions when something foul regarding the administration came up to the surface. That hasn't changed much, even with the tide of public opinion turning against Bush and the GOP. People started to smell the BS and turned to the foreign press, Bloggers, and sites like this one to glean any REAL information for themselves. But it took some time for the truth to filter through all the rubbish. Without any real critique of the policies coming out of the White House its amazing how opinions managed to change at all. But as they say you can't polish a turd, and it was only a matter of time before the administration's hubris turned the wheel of karma so fast it became a fan with shit flying toward it.

I must say that I can't wait for the day when neo-conservatism is completely marginalized, and the Republican party returns to the more sane paleo-conservative philosophy (which while I disagreed with it at least it was based on some sort of rational thinking,) and Democrats return to a position left of center, instead of trying so hard to be GOP light. Finally, I think that day has arrived, and I must say I'm looking forward to November.

[meow2u3]

15. There are 3 more reasons for this historical anomaly

Diebold, Sequioa, and ES&S.

[teknomanzer]

17. Thanks, I did forget to mention the possibility...

of election fraud.

[KansDem]

18. Yes.

Republicans could lose seats in the House and the Senate for the first time in the Bush era — as has happened to every president in his sixth year in office since the Civil War, with the sole exception of Bill Clinton in 1998.

Enter Diebold

He won the White House while losing the popular vote.

He also lost the electoral college. He was given the White House by his pals on the Supreme Court.

He expanded his party's majority in Congress in 2002

Diebold

Bush added seats again in 2004

Diebold

If Democrats capture either chamber, Bush will lose any chance to set the nation's agenda or to block investigations that could harass him through his last two years in office.

Harass? Since when is seeking truth and justice considered "harassment?" This "reporter" is showing his true colors: a Bushista lapdog.

[hanginthere]

20. I hope out of all the millions that the Democrats have raised

that some major percentage will be spent on poll auditing.
I mean, its something for us to talk about this, but a fraud this big, and this national has to susceptible to being uncovered.

We may not legally be able to "itimidate" voters, but perhaps independant "vetting" of poll workers, rewards for discovery of machine fraud, and perhaps some real main stream advertising so that EVERYONE has to face this theft of democracy. Lets see Bush talk himself out of it then

[depakid]

12. It's a bunch of bullshit

Going after the so called "swing voters" is why the Republicans have been able to defy history.

It's not nearly so much their victory as it's been the Democratic party's defeat. And if the party doesn't clue into that- and very soon- they're going to lose again this year for the 7th time in a row.

Despite the Republican implosion.

[BeFree]

19. No BS

Going after the swingable votes, by use of electronic bookeeping and accounting of the votes is why republicans have been able to defy history.

We have the evidence. And it is evident that the republicans have nothing to lose by stealing, yet again, another election. They've done it before, what's to stop them this time? Us.

We all need to go down to our Board of Elections and ask questions. Look over their shoulders and make them do what they know is the right thing.

[reprobate]

13. There is a difference this time with majorities favoring Democrats.

Most of the public is now fed up with the Repuglicans. Their arrogance has turned most against them, and most now know that an administration that ignores the rule of law has no place in American government.

The opinions of most americans has returned to their pre 9/11 stance. Mad George is no longer approved of, in fact he's no longer even liked. And the repuglican congress has even lower approval numbers than does the Boy King. Many now think he's just plain mad.

I think that you'll find that come November each congressional and Senate race will be decided by not just one or two percent, but by those "double digit" numbers you wish for. And then come January 20, 2007 we will see another impeachment, and this time it'll be a double impeachment and they will be found guilty and removed from office. My hope is that indictments for war crimes will follow shortly and we will watch the proceeding from the Hague live on satellite.

There's two things that will guarantee the change: keep the faith and work like hell to get Dems elected. A collective sigh will then be heard from all over the nation

[AX10]

14. I agree. Seeing that the independent voters, who make up...

20% of the electorate are against Bush and leary/untrusting of the GOP, that is good news for the Democrats.

[hanginthere]

22. hope you're right.

But I kind of lost my faith in polls when Bush I was getting consistent 90% numbers.

I don't think that this meant that 90% of the people would have voted for him again.
Even if they had held the election the morning after he had the military bomb Irag.

However, the working like hell thing does seem to make a difference.

[DoYouEverWonder]

4. Cheney with hair

looks just like Denny Hastert. Ew...

[Frank Cannon]

5. Deleted

[rodeodance]

6. Theer here is what will make them dangerous this fall (06 elections):

....Republicans could lose control of the House and possibly the Senate. If Democrats capture either chamber, Bush will lose any chance to set the nation's agenda or to block investigations that could harass him through his last two years in office.

[Piscis Austrinus]

16. This is why a Rove indictment would be pivotal

Rove is basically Lee Atwater, Jr., grandson of Donald Segretti. (I think you could trace him all the way back to Beelzebub, maybe, but who would want to try?) He's been freed up from policy to direct the GOP efforts in the '06 election.

The last thing the GOP wants is to have the guy on point for their strategy smelling strongly of Eau De Lay. Every Dem candidate in America could point at their opponent and comment on where the GOP guys were getting their talking points. The GOP would have to come up with something innovative - which, by definition, they probably are unable to do. Anti-gay? Anti-immigrant? Anti-choice? Well... then what exactly has Karl Rove told you to support? Oh, right. The same old stuff that's given us what we have now.

If you always do what you always did, you'll always get what you always got.

Peace
PsA

[area51]

8. "He expanded his party's majority in Congress in 2002..."

Sure, leave out the important fact that nazi gerrymandering got them more seats. :eyes:

[Tiggeroshii]

21. I don't know if this means anything...

But when I saw the subject line, I clicked it thinking it said "Hillary catching up to GOP"

:dunce: