so we MIGHT reclaim ONE house of congress this year.

[unblock]

is this insane or what?

we've had 6 years of virtual complete control and virtual complete screw-ups from one party, and we're not slated to have super-majorities in both houses.

the banana republicans are on the unpopular side of virtualy EVERY policy issue out there, and yet we only MAYBE will get one house.

their strongest card, "security", is undermined by their bungling of an unpopular, optional war through lies, mismanagement, poor planning, and shameless partisan politics, and still, if all goes well, we well have EKED OUT a BARE majority in one house.


they have nothing good on their side and absolutely no excuse for it.

just how screwed up is our system that we can only hope to MAYBE get the SLIMMEST of majorities in ONE of the houses of congress???


and you just KNOW how THAT will play out -- we will probably only be able to hold majorities together on the most obviously partisan/procedural of votes (you don't think they can't twist an arm or two here or there to mess with our "majority"?), and even then, we won't be able to get anything through the senate. YET, come 2008, they of course will blame EVERYTHING on the democratic control of the house....

if there were any sense to our electoral system, these idiot wouldn't have more than 5% representation in congress after november....

[Straight Shooter]

1. People just don't want to switch horses in the middle of the stream.

Even if the horse is loco, has rolled over and is lying on top of them, suffocating the rider.

[unblock]

3. i was thinking more of the black riders' river crossing

when arwen summons the horse spirits of the river....

[The_Counsel]

2. Agreed On All Points. But You Know What's Sad...?

...the Democrats are just as much to blame as anyone---and not just because our national leaders seem clueless in today's national debate.

The biggest reason why it will be so hard to reclaim majorities in both houses is gerrymandering. And whether or not we want to admit it, we were guilty of gerrymandering in the highest order for years. How else do you hold control of the House for forty years straight?

Yeah, it's easy to say "well, the people always agreed with us," but those same people were electing REPUBLICAN presidents 70% of the time. We had a majority in the House from 1955 until 1995. In that time a GOPuke won the White House in 7 out of 10 elections.

But back to my point: the reason why we don't figure to have even MORE pickups in the House and Senate is because something like 90% of all House seats, and about half of the Senate seats up for election, are safe. Kinda makes you wonder why people even bother sometimes... :shrug:

[unblock]

5. the thing is, they're not even good at being REPUBLICANS!!

they're just plain incompetent!

how partisan do you have to be to think that it's better for the country to go down the tubes at the hands of "my" party than to have a fighting chance with "their" party in control? excuse me, with "their" party having merely bare, partial control?

if i were a republican, i'd be PISSED at shrub.

[The_Counsel]

14. Remember When Republicans Were At Least Tolerable...? ;-)

"how partisan do you have to be to think that it's better for the country to go down the tubes at the hands of "my" party than to have a fighting chance with "their" party in control?"

:rofl:

Pretty damned partisan, as it turns out.

[JAYJDF]

4. Any big change / revolution can only come from the masses.

That is why the repuks do all they can to keep more and more people from voting. That's why all the new rules. The votes have to be kept close so they can be stolen. Fact, stranger than truth. Only when the masses have had enough will things change. We're not far away now, but not sure we're there yet. I just hope America can wait until the masses realize just what has happened.

[CollegeDUer]

6. You want to know why?

Because a majority of Americans now oppose the Republicans but they have no constructive opposition in the Democrats. Quick! Name 5 things the Dems unambiguously stand for.


A coherent opposition would help.

[unblock]

8. well that's a bunch of crap!

first, congressional elections are rarely, if ever, about unified national platforms. even the 1994 "contract on america" crap was a trick snuck in at the last minute, mostly under the radar, to claim a mandate when the vast majority of races had already been decided at that point.

second, NOT BEING BANANA REPUBLICAN ought to be MORE than enough for most people.

third, just a "return to normalcy" is good enough. the last 6 years have been such a departure from normal politics and policy! just to say, hey, can we get back to actual policy debate instead of these liars calling any desagreement betrayal?

[Hav]

10. .

Obviously, there aren't enough Democratic politicians who talk like this:

"we've had 6 years of virtual complete control and virtual complete screw-ups from one party...

the banana republicans are on the unpopular side of virtualy EVERY policy issue out there...

their strongest card, "security", is undermined by their bungling of an unpopular, optional war through lies, mismanagement, poor planning, and shameless partisan politics..."

That would wake up the people. 2004 was a horror (and probably much cheating) but if the Dems can't win in 2006 and 2008, then I finally give up.

[Strelnikov_]

11. Environmental Protection, Energy Conservation/Transformation,

equal rights regardless of sexual orientation, universal health care, a sane policy to minimize the threat of terrorism.

If what you mean by 'unambiguous' is lock step conformity, you are in the wrong place. The Democratic Party is a political party of the people, with all its diversity, and not a crime syndicate posing as a political party like the Rethuglicans are.

[grasswire]

7. blame gerrymandering

[Stevepol]

9. If we had a democracy, IMO we'd reclaim both houses this year.

As long as the machines are counting the votes, don't expect that to happen.

[Road Scholar]

12. Actually, I don't agree with you about their strongest card being

security. Their strongest card is the incompetence, ignorance, and just plain indifference. They can move their 23% lemmings, and others quite well with fear. For some of them is security, others, it is the fear of God, while others it is homophobia, etc etc. They do it very well with Rove, Limpballs, Hannity. It's a fucking circus. Sometimes it seems like I'm the only one who sees this. Please respond.

[unblock]

16. well, yes. they do rely on people being "partially informed" at best

[ThomWV]

13. No! We WILL Reclaim BOTH Houses of the Congress

[Hubert Flottz]

15. I think you're right!

The pubs and their paid cheerleaders on TV want you to think it's a lost cause to go out and cast your vote. They are due one hell of an asskicking in November and I think they'll get it!

[unblock]

17. i would LOVE for this to be the case, but even still

we'd only get both houses by the barest of majorities and democrats are well known for having difficulty keeping our majorities together when push comes to shove.

it's still astounding that we're not forseeing a MAJOR seismic shift in representation. what the hell has to happen to the country for democrats to get a REAL landslide?