Board Republicans: Where did it all go wrong?

[ChumpDumper]

Iraq?

Katrina?

Multiple high-profile scandals?

Weak candidates?

Vast left-wing conspiracy?

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/jamackey/rushjerky.gif?

Your thoughts, please. I'm still fascinated that the Democrats gained so much merely running on the "We aren't Republicans" platform.

[MannyIsGod]

All of the above. Alllllllllllllll of the above.

[MannyIsGod]

The bottom line? If you can't do shit right, you won't stay in power.

[PixelPusher]

Karl Rove's liquid diet made him light headed and he fucked up the polling data.

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/jamackey/RIPgop.jpg

[MannyIsGod]

Thats such a great freaking picture.

[Nbadan]

Turns out it was Abramahoff.

[Zunni]

Classic photoshop. Hope you don't mind if I borrow it for a few days. :lol

[PixelPusher]

Classic photoshop. Hope you don't mind if I borrow it for a few days. :lol
go for it, it's a SpursTalk>Political Forum specific pic anyway. :p:

[AFE7FATMAN]

Congratulations are in order to the Dems who ran a skillful campaign that kept the focus on the GOP's scandals and away from the left's agenda.

The GOP couldn't recover from Foley's repulsive conduct,and the stupidity of Katrina, and the enemy was willing to kill randomly in the run-up to the vote in order to demoralize an American public.

With our continued open boarders it won't be long, till the democrats have another
12 million votes, along with a few AQ cells.


But the war isn't lost, and won't be on this Administration's watch. But the prospect of a Leahy chairmanship of Judiciary and Biden back with the gavel at Foreign Relations is wearying. Hope Montana comes in strong, if not Thank You Joe Liberman,in advance, You may be the only hope America has.

[101A]

Iraq.

That's whats the polls say in the races that matter.

[JoeChalupa]

Rack that sig!! :lmao

[boutons_]

"Most critically, perhaps, Republicans lost the political center on the Iraq war, according to national exit polls. Voters who identified themselves as independents broke strongly for the Democrats, the exit polls showed, as did those who described themselves as moderates."

"Nearly 4 in 10 voters said they saw their ballot as a vote against Mr. Bush, about twice as many as those who said they had cast their ballots for him. It was a remarkable turnaround for a president who just two years ago emerged triumphant from his re-election campaign, declaring that he had earned political capital and intended to spend it."

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08assess.html?hp&ex=1163048400&en=654cbccf9b779806&ei=5094&partner=homepage

=============

Because we can't possibly lose Iraq (but dubya can and won't care in his "what? me worry?" stupidity), there should be a military conscription but only of kids whose parents voted Repug yesterday, and only of families of Repugs in the Senate and House.

[Trainwreck2100]

Your thoughts, please. I'm still fascinated that the Democrats gained so much merely running on the "We aren't Republicans" platform.

That's right, fuck teh gays, fuck teh immigrants, fuck teh little stem cells, fuck the mullet havin pro choice bitches, shoulda ran on that platform in 04

[ducks]

they said on cbs last night the first midterm with clinton his party lost 54 seats

[boutons_]

"We aren't Republicans"

Demonstrates clearly how disastrous and repugnant in being a) Repug or b) dubya/dickhead has become for a majority of Americans.

[101A]

Because we can't possibly lose Iraq (but dubya can and won't care in his "what? me worry?" stupidity), there should be a military conscription but only of kids whose parents voted Repug yesterday, and only of families of Repugs in the Senate and House.

Boutons, I'll take that deal. In return, can only Democrats pay higher taxes?

[Mr. Peabody]

they said on cbs last night the first midterm with clinton his party lost 54 seats


Yeah, I remember. It was a disaster for the Democrats, very similar to the one experienced last night by the Republicans.

[Trainwreck2100]

Boutons, I'll take that deal. In return, can only Democrats pay higher taxes?

As a moderate I agree with both proposals, motion carries.

[boutons_]

"Overall, 59 percent of voters surveyed in a news media consortium series of exit polls yesterday expressed dissatisfaction or anger with the Bush administration; 36 percent said they cast their vote to express opposition to Bush, compared with 22 percent who were voting to support him. Fifty-six percent of voters support withdrawing some or all U.S. troops from Iraq, which will embolden Democrats pushing for a pullout.

Corruption proved to be a more potent issue than it had appeared even weeks ago. After 12 years in control, the Republicans who took power with Gingrich promising to sweep out a calcified and ethically bankrupt Democratic leadership found themselves perceived as becoming what they had tried to expunge. Exit polls found 41 percent of voters rated corruption "extremely important" to their decision."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/07/AR2006110701697.html

The Repugs went wrong in so many places, that even the sheeple couldn't stand the Repug bullshit anymore. "The Permanent Repug Majority" and "The Repugs as America's Party" were just Repug bullshit.

Where and on what exactly did dubya spend his capital he said he had after the 2004 election? :lol

[DFW Spurs]

Is your proposition for the entire military or only the military in Iraq Boutons?

[xrayzebra]

Does it really matter why the Republicans lost. The question now becomes
what will the dimm-o-craps do with their new found power? Are they going
to govern or get revenge? Are they going to support the troops or leave
them out to hang? I suspect the later. Everyone needs to remember something.
The speaker is going to be an avowed socialist from SF, Calif. Many of the
chairmanships are going to militant minorities with an agenda. We can only hope
they will try to do what is right for the country and security of the country. But
I have my doubts. But never-the-less, you won and we lost. If they do a good
job I will be with them. If they do as I suspect I will just have to put up with it
and hope and wait for the next election.

We do know now that: There are no more homeless. No more poverty. All the
children will have health insurance and everyone will live happily ever after. Cause
the dimm-o-craps are in control of the House and I suspect the Senate before
it is all over. Oh, and new housing for everyone. New taxes and no more
deficit.

[101A]

they said on cbs last night the first midterm with clinton his party lost 54 seats

...and the very next day, nothing but headlines: "Voters throw a fit"; and things of that nature. I guess our "fit" has ended, and we've finally seen the light.

[101A]

I'm betting we start seeing more reports on the economy and its health here in the next couple of weeks.

[boutons_]

"can only Democrats pay higher taxes"

We anti-Repugs didn't order the Iraq war, so why should we pay for it?

The Repugs started this $2T boondoggle in the Iraq that accomplishes nothing for the USA. Why should anybody else but the Repugs pay for it?

Repugs started it, so only Repugs die/get maimed in it, and only Repugs pay for it.

[xrayzebra]

boutons, what have you been drinking all night, your post doesn't make sense.

Too much celebrating?

[boutons_]

"Geoffrey Garin, a Democratic pollster, said, “An important feature of this election, with implications for 2008, is that the center of the electorate clearly doesn’t like to be ignored in an era of base politics. The Republicans played to the base at their great peril among the middle.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08assess.html?hp&ex=1163048400&en=654cbccf9b779806&ei=5094&partner=homepage

===========

I wonder how the Repugs are going to spin their losing the house.

[Chris Bell]

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a394/jamackey/RIPgop.jpg

:tu

[DarkReign]

Seriously, its simple.

Iraq.

To a lesser degree, Bush Jr.

[foodie2]

And corruption. That was a big deal in the exit polls.

[Extra Stout]

1. Iraq

2. George W. Bush

3. Republican Congressional corruption

[Crookshanks]

This is how I feel about last night :depressed :bang

But don't blame this loss on the social conservatives. This loss is squarely on the shoulders of the republicans who became wussified and wouldn't stand up for anything (except for more spending). They ignored their conservative base and their base stayed home! The democrats won EVERY demographic - when's the last time that happened?

Now I'll just sit back and wait to see if the democrats can come up with a plan for change now that they got what they wanted. And we'll see how the republicans rebound and regroup. This was a huge wake-up call for the republicans - let's see how they respond to the message.

One last thought - last night was a victory for the democrats, but not necessarily for the liberal agenda. Many of the democrats who won were just as conservative as their republican opponents. That's my only bright spot.

[boutons_]

"They ignored their conservative base "

Not at all. Their incredibly repulsive dishonest negative campaigning pandered to their base while ingoring moderates and independents.

After the 2000, 2004, and 2006 elections have been extremely close, only spin-crazy assholes can claim "the USA is a conservative country". This "conservative country" voted by 600,000 votes more for Gore to keep dubya and his assholes out of office.

[whottt]

When Democrats started considering moral victories and, at best, a return to the status quo, as victory...


You guys remind me of the Mavs hanging their WC Championship banner....it's cute, in it's own sad little way. Baby steps.....

[Mr. Peabody]

When Democrats started considering moral victories and, at best, a return to the status quo, as victory...


You guys remind me of the Mavs hanging their WC Championship banner....it's cute, in it's own sad little way. Baby steps.....

:rolleyes

A "moral victory"? They captured the House and the Senate. A moral victory is Republicans saying the loss was good for them because it was a much needed "shot in the arm."

[2centsworth]

1. Bush and Congress not being fiscal conservatives.
They lost a lot of their base.

2. Corruption and hypocrisy.

3. Iraq

[PixelPusher]

:rolleyes

A "moral victory"? They captured the House and the Senate. A moral victory is Republicans saying the loss was good for them because it was a much needed "shot in the arm."
Look for that talking point be spewed forth ad infinitum on Fox News.

[whottt]

:rolleyes

A "moral victory"? They captured the House and the Senate. A moral victory is Republicans saying the loss was good for them because it was a much needed "shot in the arm."

Midterms = Moral victory...and since Congress and the Whitehouse have traditionally been opposing parties....it's at best a return to the status quo instead of the total vote of no confidence that Crats recieved in 04.



Seriously...don't let it go to your head. Not getting embarrassed in one of the most humiliating losses of face in American history, as the Crats suffered in 04, does not equal a great victory.

If you guys consider this a great victory there is absolutely no way you will regain the whitehouse.

[Crookshanks]

There's no "moral victory" here for the republicans - there's no way to spin this - the republicans got shellacked.

However, I think when all the votes are counted and this election is analyzed, I think boutons will be wrong. Many, many of these races were very close - 51-49, 52-48. I think it was the christian conservatives who stayed home that lost those races.

Also, as far as the corruption and scandals are concerned - conservatives may be forgiving of the person, but they are less tolerant of their behaviors and want them removed from power. Liberals talk a lot about the "culture of corruption", but they don't seem to punish any of their own. They just keep re-electing them! I mean, Ted Kennedy is a perfect example - and he was re-elected with 70% of the vote!

[Trainwreck2100]

Are they going to support the troops or leave them out to hang? I suspect the later.


Well then the troops are fucked then aren't they, but

1) it's all volunteer so nobody forced them to join
2) We have to win "no matter what the cost" American lives are a kind of cost so like the Alamo we can turn this loss into a victory.

[johnsmith]

I think the democrats were involved in voter intimidation and tampering of the ballots.

[DarkReign]

I think the democrats were involved in voter intimidation and tampering of the ballots.

:lmao True.

[PixelPusher]

There's no "moral victory" here for the republicans - there's no way to spin this - the republicans got shellacked.

However, I think when all the votes are counted and this election is analyzed, I think boutons will be wrong. Many, many of these races were very close - 51-49, 52-48. I think it was the christian conservatives who stayed home that lost those races.

Also, as far as the corruption and scandals are concerned - conservatives may be forgiving of the person, but they are less tolerant of their behaviors and want them removed from power. Liberals talk a lot about the "culture of corruption", but they don't seem to punish any of their own. They just keep re-electing them! I mean, Ted Kennedy is a perfect example - and he was re-elected with 70% of the vote!



Associated Press Exit Polls: A Third Of Evangelicals Vote For Dems (http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2006/nov/07/associated_press_exit_polls_a_third_of_evangelical s_vote_for_dems)

By Greg Sargent | bio
The Associated Press has just posted a piece on its exit polls, and just like CNN's exit polls found, AP is finding that corruption is a key issue driving voters today. AP's exit numbers are also finding a surprisingly high number of evangelicals going Dem, a trend that many political analysts noted early in the cycle:

Those early exit polls also showed that three in four voters said corruption was very important to their vote, and they tended to vote Democratic. In a sign of a dispirited GOP base, most white evangelicals said corruption was very important to their vote — and almost a third of them turned to the Democrats.
AP also finds, unsurprisingly, that voters are heavily driven by the Iraq war:

Two out of three voters called the war very important to them and said they leaned toward the Democrats, while six in ten voters said they disapproved of the war. About the same number said they were dissatisfied with the president — and they were far more likely to vote Democratic.

[PixelPusher]

I think the democrats were involved in voter intimidation and tampering of the ballots.
Yeah, they sent out letters to all the rich, white Republicans saying if they showed up to vote, SEC officials would be there waiting to arrest them.

[clambake]

America took a smart pill last night. Republicans can now discover that the world is not flat and the moon is not made of cheese.

"W" will be changing his name to "Mr. Veto".

[NASCARdad]

Go ahead enjoy the party while it lasts. You idiots just guaranteed a republican presidential victory in '08!!

[clambake]

Nascardad is one of my favorites!!!!

[DarkReign]

Cmon, lets get real here.

This midterm was not some big Democrat victory. It wasnt.

It was a declaration that most Americans dont approve of Bush or Iraq. The RNC just took the bullet instead of Bush. He is the sole reason that his party lost the seats it did.

People had to make a choice, status quo or change. They chose change.

Change just by proxy meant they voted Democrat, not necessarily they were Democrats.

Really, this is a good thing. No one party should control Congress and the WH, but I have a sinking feeling the Democratic leadership will squander this golden opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04.

The Dems will waste precious time and effort on tasks that do not further American interest, they will stake in partisan squabbles only with a bigger dog in the fight.

Although, in happy-world, they could be the bigger party, admit their previous shortcomings, forget the crap thats happened in the past, and reach out to the moderate right and get some things done.

The only "squabble" I agree they should turn stones over for is Iraq. Beyond that, let a sleeping dog lie. Dont, Dear God, even mention the "I" word. Let the past be the past, move forward, work together, and lets get some shit done.

But then again, this is politics. I forsee too many supeonas, too much back-biting, too many scores being settled.

Mark my words (and anyone else who has said the same thing), if the Dems squander this opportunity by going too far with the limited power they have been given, the RNC will have the ultimate laugh in 08.

Please, PLEASE Dems, dont get drunk with this and think this is some sort of revolution of ideals. Its not. Its change. Change is good. But temper it with progress and truly, TRULY reach across the aisle and hammer out some ideas and get some shit down around here.

[clambake]

I'd like to see them "hammer out some idea's", but i'm afraid there will be too much contempt in the early going. Dems have to start by pushing their weight around, then look for compremise.

[johnsmith]

Nascardad is one of my favorites!!!!


Is there a reason you have a quote from me as your sig? Are you obsessed with me? Do you love me? What is it?

[Crookshanks]

DarkReign - that was an excellent, well-articulated post.

[101A]

Cmon, lets get real here.

This midterm was not some big Democrat victory. It wasnt.

It was a declaration that most Americans dont approve of Bush or Iraq. The RNC just took the bullet instead of Bush. He is the sole reason that his party lost the seats it did.

People had to make a choice, status quo or change. They chose change.

Change just by proxy meant they voted Democrat, not necessarily they were Democrats.

Really, this is a good thing. No one party should control Congress and the WH, but I have a sinking feeling the Democratic leadership will squander this golden opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04.

The Dems will waste precious time and effort on tasks that do not further American interest, they will stake in partisan squabbles only with a bigger dog in the fight.

Although, in happy-world, they could be the bigger party, admit their previous shortcomings, forget the crap thats happened in the past, and reach out to the moderate right and get some things done.

The only "squabble" I agree they should turn stones over for is Iraq. Beyond that, let a sleeping dog lie. Dont, Dear God, even mention the "I" word. Let the past be the past, move forward, work together, and lets get some shit done.

But then again, this is politics. I forsee too many supeonas, too much back-biting, too many scores being settled.

Mark my words (and anyone else who has said the same thing), if the Dems squander this opportunity by going too far with the limited power they have been given, the RNC will have the ultimate laugh in 08.

Please, PLEASE Dems, dont get drunk with this and think this is some sort of revolution of ideals. Its not. Its change. Change is good. But temper it with progress and truly, TRULY reach across the aisle and hammer out some ideas and get some shit down around here.

Nice.

[boutons_]

"opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04."

We all know the Repugs lied about WMD and Saddam-WTC.

What I really want now, at a very minimum, is a tooth-y 9/11 commission to expose the Repugs' responsbility and truthi-ness in 2001 for permitting the WTC attack, such that the responsibility will be indisputably clear and forever branded on dubya/dickhead/rummy's and all Repug foreheads.

Apart from such investigations, it's clear the Dems don't have the power to do anything legislatively for at least 2 years. They can't remediate how badly dubya has fucked up the Exec branch, nor have any influence on dubya's foreign policy.

[AFBlue]

Midterms = Moral victory...and since Congress and the Whitehouse have traditionally been opposing parties....it's at best a return to the status quo instead of the total vote of no confidence that Crats recieved in 04.



Seriously...don't let it go to your head. Not getting embarrassed in one of the most humiliating losses of face in American history, as the Crats suffered in 04, does not equal a great victory.

If you guys consider this a great victory there is absolutely no way you will regain the whitehouse.

I think it was a legitimate victory for the democrats, not because they won back congress, but HOW they won back congress. Iraq, be it the first or third reason, played a significant role in the eyes of voters across this nation. And no matter how much the republican party, and by extension the Republican nominee for President in 2008, try to seperate themselves, they will be linked to their support of that decision and of this administration.

So it is very conceivable that this round of elections was just the beginning of a widespread shift to supporting the democratic party. Then again, alot can happen in two years, and both parties will be judged on their performance going forward.

[whottt]

I think it was a legitimate victory for the democrats, not because they won back congress, but HOW they won back congress. Iraq, be it the first or third reason, played a significant role in the eyes of voters across this nation. And no matter how much the republican party, and by extension the Republican nominee for President in 2008, try to seperate themselves, they will be linked to their support of that decision and of this administration.


Um...the Democrats have no stance on Iraq...other than it shouldn't have happened....even though they all voted for it too.


So it is very conceivable that this round of elections was just the beginning of a widespread shift to supporting the democratic party. Then again, alot can happen in two years, and both parties will be judged on their performance going forward.

False...it's not an endorsement of anything other than ambivalence about the midterms.

How can it be an endorsement of a party that essentially stands for nothing right now?


The deciding voters are not straight Democrat or Republican...they are moderates...


Attacking the opposition party is never a platform it never causes big shifts in party affiliation.


Those same moderates that decide elections are moderate for a reason...they don't agree with everything either party stands for...and they never will. They just choose the lesser of two fuckups...in this I don't think it means the Democrats are less fucked up...

They are just fucked up in a different way...and the country is choosing to have diversified fuck up rather than straight party fuckups...

Moderates don't like a total swing and don't want one party to have absolute power...I am in favor of stem cell research, I like women having a right to abortion...I hate those things about the Republican Party...

I just hate the Democrats cut and run philosophy more than anything else.

IF the Democrats trot another cut and run candidate out there in 08, they will get their ass kicked again...

It's next to impossible to find someone with less charisma that Bush, but they managed to do it in 08.

My guess is that due to the Crats being more extreme than the Republicans at this time, that their candidate will again have to be incorportating extremists stances into his campaign, and they will again alienate the moderates.


This election essentially means shit....the country doesn't like swining completely to one side...and it was time for a correction, it's not that the Democrats have done anything to earn it or deserve it, becauser they haven't...it's just that hte Republicans don't deserve total control of the country, and they were only given that due to complete and absolute Democratic failure.


Take heed from 04...Americans don't like the "we're the bad guys" stance of the Democrats...

And any Democrat that thinks that has changed is in for a rude awakening.

That'd be like Rush thinking that because the Republicans swept into power that the majority of the country is anti-abortion.....

[DarkReign]

"opportunity just like the Republicans did in 04."

We all know the Repugs lied about WMD and Saddam-WTC.

What I really want now, at a very minimum, is a tooth-y 9/11 commission to expose the Repugs' responsbility and truthi-ness in 2001 for permitting the WTC attack, such that the responsibility will be indisputably clear and forever branded on dubya/dickhead/rummy's and all Repug foreheads.

Apart from such investigations, it's clear the Dems don't have the power to do anything legislatively for at least 2 years. They can't remediate how badly dubya has fucked up the Exec branch, nor have any influence on dubya's foreign policy.

But why, boutons? What does such a thing accomplish? Does it change the fact that we indeed invaded Iraq? Does it change that we currently have troops there?

Does it change the fact that if we leave Iraq immediately, the country will in fact tear itself apart in probably the worst genocide this side of Sudan?

Turning some stones over about Iraq's current direction is completely understandable (and expected). But to find out whether Bush "lied" or cherry-picked intel for invasion.....

What does that accomplish besides petty payback/revenge?

[01Snake]

..

What does that accomplish besides petty payback/revenge?

Thats all Croutons is looking for.

[boutons_]

"But why, boutons?"

To place the blame squarely for Iraq and WTC where it belongs.

Clintons got witch-hunted by the Repugs for 8 years for trivial bullshit while the Repugs commiting dereliction of duty in before 9/11 and starting a phony war, escape without blame to fuck us up again?

Prosecuting the Repugs for WTC and Iraq won't distract anybody from losing Iraq. Iraq is done, gone, finished, LOST BY THE REPUGS. The only question is how soon can the US disengage from the Iraqi civil war.

The Repugs tough on crime? We need to be hard on the Repugs for their blatant crimes.

[101A]

Thats all Croutons is looking for.


...and he's not the only one. Dems with presidential aspirations who want style points with the radical base, will be out for blood.

[101A]

"But why, boutons?"

To place the blame squarely for Iraq and WTC where it belongs.

Clintons got witch-hunted by the Repugs for 8 years for trivial bullshit while the Repugs commiting dereliction of duty in before 9/11 and starting a phone war, escape without blame to fuck us up again?

Prosecuting the Repugs for WTC and Iraq won't distract anybody from losing Iraq. Iraq is done, gone, finished, LOST BY THE REPUGS. The only question is how soon can the US disengage from the Iraqi civil war.

The Repugs tough on crime? We need to be hard on the Repugs for their blatant crimes.


If the dems try to blame the WH for WTC, it will backfire. Opening the wound will unleash maggots that will feast all over the beltway; don't fool yourself with partisan blinders.

The blame for Iraq IS on the WH; or have you not seen the election results?

[DarkReign]

Man, I sincerely hope the Dems dont think anything like you boutons.

You may be right about the RNC and Clinton. Fine.

But youre willing to lower yourself for a similar witch hunt for no other reason than "they did it first"?

[clambake]

He's just letting off steam. We have to look at today, boutons. This is critical. Move forward. Bush gets one more chance to do whats good for america. We can revisit later.

[boutons_]

"similar witch hunt"

absolutely not. Clintons were witch-hunted for trivial shit that all petered out, as did the impeachment.

The Repugs have the blood of 3000 dead US military on their hands, a phony war sucking $1T or more in the sands of Iraq, and a Repug-de-stabilized Iraq (and it oil) falling to radical Muslims.

Going after the Repugs is not witch-hunting (remember, there were no actual witches. The hunt was bogus, as with Repugs and Clintons), but bastard-convicting for clear responsibility for their lies and murderous fuckups.

[101A]

You only got two years, Boutons - not enough time to do what you want done. In the meantime, Bush can pardon everyone involved; then resign a couple of hours early, and get pardoned by Cheney.

[Yonivore]

Where'd it go wrong?

Well, 26 or so House Districts wanted to change their Representative and 5, maybe 6 (have they decided VA yet?), States wanted a change in Senators.

Nice going Democrats, you focused on the right races.

I do find it hard to believe this was a referendum on the war when you've got Lieberman winning and Chaffee losing. But, hey, we'll see what happens next.

I predict two years of inaction and a more robust use of the Presidential veto. Unfortunately, that means inaction on making the tax cuts permanent.

The big winner? Illegal Immigrants.

So, I tip my hat to the Dems. Enjoy the Champagne and balloons.

[xrayzebra]

Well then the troops are fucked then aren't they, but

1) it's all volunteer so nobody forced them to join
2) We have to win "no matter what the cost" American lives are a kind of cost so like the Alamo we can turn this loss into a victory.


You prove my point!
:depressed

[boutons_]

November 8, 2006, 5:03 pm

Rove’s Losing Strategy


By Frank Rich, New York Times Op-Ed Columnist

George W. Bush is hardly the wittiest figure in American politics, but he did score a genuine laugh at his press conference today when he made his wisecrack about Karl Rove: “I obviously was working harder in the campaign than he was.”

Of all the bits of conventional wisdom that died with this week’s election results — all politics is local; Congressional corruption will affect only a few races; gerrymandering will limit G.O.P. losses — the biggest is the Beltway deification of Karl Rove. Don’t expect to hear anyone emote again any time too soon about how he is a genius, infallible, reinventing American politics, on his way to establishing a permanent Republic majority, etc., etc. In 2006 Rove revealed himself to be a one-trick pony. Rather than adjust to the reality visible everywhere (including in every poll), he refought the political wars of 2002 and 2004, doggedly insisting that his party embrace Iraq, play the fear card and constantly slur the opposition as cut-and-run Defeatocrat traitors. Not even the parade of conservative Republican candidates cutting-and-running from his strategy in the last throes of the campaign could deter him or the president from staying the course. The self-immolation of the campaign strategy was nothing if not a replay (albeit with only political casualties, not real ones) of the botched strategy in Iraq.

As a result, Rove ended up playing into the Democrats’ hands and realizing their political goal: he succeeded in nationalizing the election around the issue of a wildly unpopular war. He was so out of touch with reality — so eager to preserve the image of a resolute President certain of “victory” in Iraq no matter what — that he didn’t even see the political wisdom of having the White House string up Rumsfeld before the election rather than after. Had Rumsfeld been fired a week ago, it might have given some credibility to the White House talking points about “constantly adjusting tactics” and drowned out Cheney’s politically suicidal boast that it would be “full speed ahead” with current Iraq war policy no matter what the election results. A pre-election Rumsfeld firing would have taken some air out of the national wave that raised so many Democratic boats, even some fairly flimsy ones. It certainly would have had a bigger effect on the election results than two other developments that were widely thought to help the Republicans but apparently did not: the last-minute Saddam Hussein verdict and John Kerry’s “joke.” The joke, it turned out, was not on the Democrats but on the stay-the-course Republicans led into a political quagmire by Karl Rove.

[PixelPusher]

Where'd it go wrong?

Well, 26 or so House Districts wanted to change their Representative and 5, maybe 6 (have they decided VA yet?), States wanted a change in Senators.

Nice going Democrats, you focused on the right races.

I do find it hard to believe this was a referendum on the war when you've got Lieberman winning and Chaffee losing. But, hey, we'll see what happens next.

I predict two years of inaction and a more robust use of the Presidential veto. Unfortunately, that means inaction on making the tax cuts permanent.

The big winner? Illegal Immigrants.

So, I tip my hat to the Dems. Enjoy the Champagne and balloons.
From the same distorted and severly limited sense of reality that brought you...

So, how's that "Foleygate" working out for the Democrats?

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

and


Wow, I hope the pharmacies have stocked up on Zoloft. (responding to Zunni post "Yup. The Senate probably won't, but the House is almost a lock to switch control.")

and of course


You're absolutely right. However, I do wonder why you're so happy about the House and Senate remaining in Republican hands.

[ploto]

I think it was a great deal about who DID vote-- the youth of America.


In Election 2006, voters under the age of 30 once again showed more support for Democrats than did older voters. According to the exit polls on election night by the National Election Pool (the network consortium of the five networks and the Associated Press), 60 percent of young people voted for a Democratic congressional candidate, compared with 52 percent of older people. In Election 2004, young voters also gave more support to the Democratic candidates by about eight percentage points—55 percent, compared with 47 percent Democratic support among older voters.

A new study by Young Voter Strategies suggests even more good news for the Democrats. Youth voter turnout increased from about 20 percent in 2002 to 24 percent in 2006. According to this study, the youth vote constituted about 13 percent of all voters, up by about two percentage points from 2002.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061109_polling_results/


Republican pollster Ed Goeas said young voters could have swayed a number of tight races on Tuesday, noting that of 28 seats Democrats picked up from Republicans in the 435-member House of Representatives, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote and 18 were won by just 5,000 votes or less.

"The increase in the youth vote did come into play," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2639565

[CharlieMac]

Getting Rummy to resign a week earlier would have been nice.

[101A]

I think it was a great deal about who DID vote-- the youth of America.


In Election 2006, voters under the age of 30 once again showed more support for Democrats than did older voters. According to the exit polls on election night by the National Election Pool (the network consortium of the five networks and the Associated Press), 60 percent of young people voted for a Democratic congressional candidate, compared with 52 percent of older people. In Election 2004, young voters also gave more support to the Democratic candidates by about eight percentage points—55 percent, compared with 47 percent Democratic support among older voters.

A new study by Young Voter Strategies suggests even more good news for the Democrats. Youth voter turnout increased from about 20 percent in 2002 to 24 percent in 2006. According to this study, the youth vote constituted about 13 percent of all voters, up by about two percentage points from 2002.
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20061109_polling_results/


Republican pollster Ed Goeas said young voters could have swayed a number of tight races on Tuesday, noting that of 28 seats Democrats picked up from Republicans in the 435-member House of Representatives, 22 were won by less than 2 percent of the vote and 18 were won by just 5,000 votes or less.

"The increase in the youth vote did come into play," he said.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=2639565


The Youth voting Democratic is certainly no surprise to me; assuming, of course, that the education my children are receiving is a representative sample..

My son's 6th grade history textbook's first sentence in the chapter on the Vietnam war:

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

When history is taught from that perspective (and pretty much all the other subjects as well); the results are predictable. (understanding of course that most posters here will have no problem with a history book including that statement on Vietnam - of course most of y'all are probably young enough to have experienced that same "education")

[boutons_]

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

Sounds about right, but hindsight is easy.
VN was not a threat to the USA.
The VN war accomplished absolutely nothing.
The VN war cost 50K lives and 250K injured, all wasted.

What's your single sentence of (re)writing the story of the VN war?

=========

The phony Iraq war was one in which the WHIG/Repugs lied the USA into it, fucked around, and left Iraq more fucked up than under Sadam.

The Repugs have lost Iraq. There's no way to win. Baker's commission will present a plan for disengagement. "Some say" that Baker took the role on the comission on the condition that Rummy would be gone, aka, not around to shoot down and/or poorly execute Baker's Iraq plan.

There is no Iraq state there and nobody capable/willing to try to build an Iraq state.

[ChumpDumper]

The Vietnam War conflict which the United States won handily and turned the country into a land of fluffy bunnies who drive Tahoes and listen to Toby Keith.

[BIG IRISH]

....

My son's 6th grade history textbook's first sentence in the chapter on the Vietnam war:

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

When history is taught from that perspective (and pretty much all the other subjects as well); the results are predictable. (understanding of course that most posters here will have no problem with a history book including that statement on Vietnam - of course most of y'all are probably young enough to have experienced that same "education")

:clap

If I may be so bold I would suggest that you Have your son read the Pentagon Papers and how the American People were lied to by 5 different Presidents, My Son did in his 2nd year of college and he began to change his opinions from the late 70's. What a great weekend that was, It was when I realized he was growing up, and he realized he had been taken. If possible have your son learn a second language, it is amazing to learn HISTORY from a different point of view.

[BIG IRISH]

"The Vietnam war is a conflict which the United States blundered in, blundered around, and finally blundered out."

Sounds about right, but hindsight is easy.
VN was not a threat to the USA.
The VN war accomplished absolutely nothing.
The VN war cost 50K lives and 250K injured, all wasted.

What's your single sentence of (re)writing the story of the VN war?

=========

The phony Iraq war was one in which the WHIG/Repugs lied the USA into it, fucked around, and left Iraq more fucked up than under Sadam.

The Repugs have lost Iraq. There's no way to win. Baker's commission will present a plan for disengagement. "Some say" that Baker took the role on the comission on the condition that Rummy would be gone, aka, not around to shoot down and/or poorly execute Baker's Iraq plan.

There is no Iraq state there and nobody capable/willing to try to build an Iraq state.

The Vietnam war was about the american people being lied to by 5 different Presidents. on a personal note:

Long as I remember
The rain been comin' down.
Clouds of myst'ry pourin'
Confusion on the ground.
Good men through the ages,
Tryin' to find the sun;
And I wonder, Still I wonder,
Who'll stop the rain.
I went down Virginia,
Seekin' shelter from the storm.
Caught up in the fable,
I watched the tower grow.
Five year plans and new deals, .
And I wonder, Still I wonder
Who'll stop the rain.
Heard the singers playin',
How we cheered for more.
The crowd had rushed together,
Tryin' to keep warm.
Still the rain kept pourin',
Fallin' on my ears.
And I wonder, Still I wonder
Who'll stop the rain.

Has any song hit you that way? Or am I alone? Or have I gone soft?
:elephant / :donkey
It is all about character and 98.2% Politicans, don't have any and Manny if
you read this maybe you will admit we had better song's in the 60's. :lol

[AFE7FATMAN]

Irish, here is a song the gets to me from my past

Still in Saigon

As Performed by the Charlie Daniels Band (1981)


Got on a plane in 'Frisco and got off in Vietnam
I walked into a different world, the past forever gone
I could've gone to Canada or I could have stayed in school
But I was brought up differently -- I couldn't break the rules
Thirteen months and fifteen days -- the last ones were the worst
One minute I kneel down and pray and the next I stand and cure
No place to run to where I did not feel that war
When I got home I stayed alone and checked behind each door
'Cause I'm...
CHORUS:
Still in Saigon,
Still in Saigon
I am still in Saigon
In my mind
The ground at home was covered in snow and I was covered with sweat
My younger brother calls me a killer and my daddy calls me a vet
Everybody says I'm someone else, that I'm sick and there's no cure
Damned if I know who I am -- there was only one place I was sure
When I was...
CHORUS
Every summer when it rains,
I smell the jungle, I hear the flames
I can't tell no one -- I feel ashamed
Afraid someday I'll go insane
That's been ten long years ago and time has gone on by
But now and then I catch myself, eyes searching through the sky
All the sounds from long ago will be forever in my head
Mingled with the wounded cries and the silence of the dead.
'Cause I'm...
CHORUS
Still in Saigon,
Still in Saigon
I am still in Saigon
In my mind

the War in IRAQ brought this one back, I heard it when they called my son to Active Duty, Thank God he went to Ft Sill OK as a DI.

[French Souris]

:....clap

It is amazing to learn HISTORY from a different point of view.

I don't speak English well enough but I can speak for a frenchman, We
learned about trying to colonize Countries but it seems America tries
to want to make others in her image.

Vietnam was about the Cold War, Good guy vs bad guys and most
people were not as well informed as they are today.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't speak English well enough but I can speak for a frenchman, We
learned about trying to colonize Countries but it seems America tries
to want to make others in her image.

Vietnam was about the Cold War, Good guy vs bad guys and most
people were not as well informed as they are today.This is very true, and I think most Americans understnad this. They feel we have the best country, so why shouldn't everyone wnat to be like us? Its a generalization, but I believe it fits the nationalism that most Americans feel.


I disagree that illegal immigrants won yesterday. Most of those democrats who won congressional seats did so on platforms that are tough on immigration.

That being said, the chances of congress actually doing anything about it are about as large as the chances of Allen finding 30,000 votes under his bed tomorrow.

[smeagol]

If you think illegal immigration is one of the biggest problems America has, you have no clue about reality.

[JoeChalupa]

I listened to the Lara Ingram show on Wednesday morning and she stated it correctly by saying that, "The Republicans got shalacked and I don't want to hear any conservative trying to spin it otherwise". She gave credit to a great campaign strategy and admitted that the conservative movement in the republican party caused them to lose touch with how most Americans felt about the Iraq war.
No need to spin it otherwise. They got beat and the American sent a message loud and clear. To think otherwise is denial.

[boutons_]

Here's "true" conservative's "scorecard" :

Keeping Score on Tuesday

By George F. Will
Sunday, November 5, 2006; B07

As ballpark vendors say, you can't enjoy the game without a scorecard. Here is one for Tuesday night.

? The election actually began four weeks ago with early voting. Passion drives turnout; anger is a passion; contentment is not. Is there anger at incumbents generally, or only at Republican incumbents? Two years ago 162 incumbents in each party (78 percent of Republicans reelected and 87 percent of Democrats) won with at least 60 percent of the vote. Only 21 incumbents won with 55 percent or less. Will these numbers -- and the 98.6 percent reelection rate for incumbents since 1996 -- change dramatically? Stuart Rothenberg, an independent analyst, says that in the past 26 elections, dating to 1954, only three times (1956, 1990, 1992) have a total of at least six incumbents in each party lost.

? Republicans Rob Simmons, Nancy Johnson and Chris Shays -- House members from Connecticut -- are vulnerable. If they lose, American politics will have become yet more "European," propelled by ideologically homogenous parties.

? In the 14 presidential elections starting with 1952, only once (1964) did Democrats win more than 50 percent of the suburban vote. Last May a Gallup Poll measured President Bush's approval among suburban voters at 29 percent . If Republicans are being rejected in suburbia, that will be apparent in two Pennsylvania districts, the 6th, held by a second-term Republican, Jim Gerlach, and the 7th, held by Curt Weldon, vice chairman of the Armed Services Committee, who is seeking an 11th term. Also, watch the open-seat contest -- the Republican incumbent is running for governor -- in Colorado's 7th, just north of Denver.

? Florida's 22nd has one of the nation's best House members, Clay Shaw, who, if Republicans retain control of the House, will become chairman of the most consequential committee, Ways and Means. The 22nd has one of the nation's highest percentages of voters over the age of 65 -- 37 percent. In 2004 Shaw won with 63 percent, but he is in a close race, partly because many of his constituents are irritable about their first encounter with the "doughnut hole" in Medicare's new prescription drug entitlement: The government pays 75 percent of the first $2,250 in annual drug expenditures and 95 percent of expenditures over $5,100, but the individual must pay the cost between $2,250 and $5,100. Republicans hoped that the new entitlement would purchase support from the elderly. If Shaw loses, that will be evidence for this axiom of politics in a welfare state: Any new entitlement generates less gratitude for what is given than it does resentment for what is withheld.

? It is frequently said but infrequently true that Americans "vote their pocketbooks" -- that economic conditions determine their votes. In Michigan, however, economic determinism may prevail in the gubernatorial race, where Republican Dick DeVos is challenging Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm. The state has two Democratic senators and has voted Democratic in four consecutive presidential elections. But Michigan's unemployment rate of more than 7 percent is far above the nation's 4.4 percent. Just three states are net losers of jobs in the past four years, and Michigan has lost the most. In August a jobs fair in Sterling Heights, featuring factory jobs at $10 an hour and no benefits, drew 4,000 applicants. If DeVos, energetic and well funded (partly by himself), cannot win, economic explanations of voting behavior should be interred.

? Four years ago all eight Mountain West states -- Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Utah and Wyoming -- had Republican governors. If Democrat Bill Ritter wins Colorado's governorship, Democrats will hold five of eight governorships in the Mountain West, which in the 1990s was even more reliably Republican than the South. In 2004 a change of a total of 63,508 votes in Colorado, Nevada and New Mexico would have given those states' 19 electoral votes and the presidency to John Kerry. No wonder the Democrats' 2008 convention will probably be in Denver.

? Republicans will convene in Minneapolis, the largest city in "Minnewisowa." That neologism refers to the contiguous states of Minnesota, Wisconsin and Iowa, which have 27 electoral votes. Pollster Peter Hart notes that every president elected since 1912 has won a plurality of the states along the Mississippi River. Illinois is the only one of those 10 states that is reliably Democratic. In 2004 Iowa, one of just three states to switch sides from 2000 (with New Hampshire and New Mexico), went for Bush. John Kerry narrowly won Wisconsin and Minnesota with 49.7 percent and 51.1 percent, respectively. If Minnesota's Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty is reelected, he goes on every Republican presidential candidate's shortlist of possible running mates.

There. A scorecard. Now, as ticket-takers say at ballpark turnstiles, enjoy the game.

[101A]

(Democrats Winning) != rebuke of Conservatism

(Democrats Winning) = rebuke of Republicans (even liberal ones)

Nothing more. This election was not about Liberal v. Conservative.

Name a SINGLE liberal position that was trumpeted far and wide to sweep Democrats to victory. The Iraq war got them their power; liberal idealism and big government programs, did not.

[boutons_]

"The Iraq war got them their power;"

That door swings both ways.

The Repugs started in the Iraq war as the "immediate and only option" to get dubya elected. "immediate" because they had to start to war in March and give it enough time to become"Mission Accomplished" well before the Nov 2003 election. dubya won as the "war president" in 2003 with the smallest margin ever for a winning incumbent president.

With no Iraq war, there was a much better chance of dubya getting kicked out after 1 term, like his father.

[MannyIsGod]

If you think illegal immigration is one of the biggest problems America has, you have no clue about reality.O Rly?

[101A]

"The Iraq war got them their power;"

That door swings both ways.

The Repugs started in the Iraq war as the "immediate and only option" to get dubya elected. "immediate" because they had to start to war in March and give it enough time to become"Mission Accomplished" well before the Nov 2003 election. dubya won as the "war president" in 2003 with the smallest margin ever for a winning incumbent president.

With no Iraq war, there was a much better chance of dubya getting kicked out after 1 term, like his father.

I agree in theory, but I think Afghanistan would of been a bigger deal.

[boutons_]

I support/ed going after the Taleban as hosts of al Quaida.

I think the USA would had a hard time just stabilizing Afghanistan even without the Repugs going after Iraq. But the Repugs pulled priority and resources off Afghanistan to go into Iraq, much they way the the Bush 41 abandoned Afhanistan to the Taleban and al-Quaida after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan.

Now the Repugs are losing both Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars half-done badly.

The Repugs can't do shit right, except when their shit is protecting/enriching the super-rich and the corps.

[101A]

I support/ed going after the Taleban as hosts of al Quaida.

I think the USA would had a hard time just stabilizing Afghanistan even without the Repugs going after Iraq. But the Repugs pulled priority and resources off Afghanistan to go into Iraq, much they way the the Bush 41 abandoned Afhanistan to the Taleban and al-Quaida after the Russians withdrew from Afghanistan.

Now the Repugs are losing both Iraq and Afghanistan, two wars half-done badly.

....

I agree with that, pretty much, and it's because of Afghanistan that Bush still could of run, and most likely won, as a "war" president in '03.

[DarkReign]

O Rly?

http://i84.photobucket.com/albums/k19/darkreign24/orly.jpg








Cmon Manny, you know better than to use the phrase without the ridiculous looking owl.

[MannyIsGod]

:lol You're so right.