Democrats Poised to Lose by Historic Margins

[lve2smk]

does'nt matter who wins the path of america will be the same,str8 down.psst they are all in on it.

I used to be just like you thinking that everyone works together no mater what, but you got to see the big picture of things.

People want different things in this world some want to help themselfs and get rich while there are others who wish to help others.

Of course this tells you that some selfish cats are in the democratic party as well and, they are the reason why all the filibustering has remained in washington, which has prevented alooot of policies from being passed that are favorable in combating global warming, helping small businesses or helping the educational system.

So you think the electoral process is a sham?
why then would different, indipendent or private corporations and people, waste million or billions of dollars on a campaign?

It all comes down to who you think will make the best decisions for your future.

[StoneMeadow]

Dems are gonna lose by HUGE numbers tomorrow.....60-75 house seats maybe......atleast 8-10 Senate seats and another 8 Governorships? Unseen since the 1940's.

Could happen, but I guess you weren't around for the correction of '94, eh? As I said above it won't be because the citizens have repudiated the DNC in some fundamental way. There are just a lot of House and Senate seats and Governorships that are inherently close. These tend to flip in off year elections. I was listening to NPR yesterday when the head of the Democratic Governor's Assoc said that since Teddy Roosevelt Administration in 1906 the party holding the White House has lost an average of 28 House seats and 4 Senate seats in off year elections (he didn't mention governorships).

President Obama lurched too far to the left and the voters are correcting the Fed gov't back to the center. Same as they did for Presidents Bush and Clinton before him. I for one find it healthy to have the White House and at least one branch of Congress held by different parties because it forces the gov't to govern from the middle. Having either the DNC or the GOP hold all the power results in lurches too far to one side or the other IMO.

Don't worry, though...it'll happen to the next GOP President, too. He or she will lurch too far to the right and the voters will jerk him or her up by the short-n-curleys! :thumbsup:

[lve2smk]

Could happen, but I guess you weren't around for the correction of '94, eh? As I said above it won't be because the citizens have repudiated the DNC in some fundamental way. There are just a lot of House and Senate seats and Governorships that are inherently close. These tend to flip in off year elections. I was listening to NPR yesterday when the head of the Democratic Governor's Assoc said that since Teddy Roosevelt Administration in 1906 the party holding the White House has lost an average of 28 House seats and 4 Senate seats in off year elections (he didn't mention governorships).

President Obama lurched too far to the left and the voters are correcting the Fed gov't back to the center. Same as they did for Presidents Bush and Clinton before him. I for one find it healthy to have the White House and at least one branch of Congress held by different parties because it forces the gov't to govern from the middle. Having either the DNC or the GOP hold all the power results in lurches too far to one side or the other IMO.

Don't worry, though...it'll happen to the next GOP President, too. He or she will lurch too far to the right and the voters will jerk him or her up by the short-n-curleys! :thumbsup:

Agreed thats something called tiket splitting, but did you know that when presidential candidates are elected they are able to pass 70% or more of what they wanted to pass when they ran, so we are taking a risk when the GOP get their chance because all their hardline rhetoric this time of year is going to damage the direction of the contry more than Bush did.
But are we making a smart decision by tiket spliting to have a decisive government? Running senators are getting elected that do not even disclose their intensions like Sharon Angle she wants to privatisize everything and she is leading in the polls because she is avoiding the spotlight by having people speak for her. why vote for such people?

[Islandborn]

Because they are tired and bored with Harry Reid. And because the private sector can RUN ANYTHING BETTER THAN BIG GOVERNMENT CAN. Harry Reid is finished in Nevada no doubt......aint enough casino employess to save him anymore. Watch West Virginia and Delaware tonight to get a feel of how big the win is...............Coons is having some troubles out there today.

Sure.....if a Repub lurches to far he will get snatched up and voted out.

Obama will NOT be able to go centrist like Clinton did......its not who he is or what he's about.

[lve2smk]

Because they are tired and bored with Harry Reid. And because the private sector can RUN ANYTHING BETTER THAN BIG GOVERNMENT CAN. Harry Reid is finished in Nevada no doubt......aint enough casino employess to save him anymore. Watch West Virginia and Delaware tonight to get a feel of how big the win is...............Coons is having some troubles out there today.

Sure.....if a Repub lurches to far he will get snatched up and voted out.

Obama will NOT be able to go centrist like Clinton did......its not who he is or what he's about.

Ha thats a nice one, you believe the private sector can do a better job?
Didnt the referance I made about the Texas private school system show you otherwise.
What about privatising financial aid? Well that will let the people in charge play favorites opposed to giving people who need the funds.
You seriously believe a corporation can handle things better than government?
Look at the bp oil spill, they wouldn't of payed to fix that problem if it wasn't for the government preasuring them for reparations. If corporations rulled their decisions, we would probably still have slavery.

My recomendation to you islnbrn: read Americas history

[DocJTre2]

Ha thats a nice one, you believe the private sector can do a better job?
Didnt the referance I made about the Texas private school system show you otherwise.
What about privatising financial aid? Well that will let the people in charge play favorites opposed to giving people who need the funds.
You seriously believe a corporation can handle things better than government?
Look at the bp oil spill, they wouldn't of payed to fix that problem if it wasn't for the government preasuring them for reparations. If corporations rulled their decisions, we would probably still have slavery.

My recomendation to you islnbrn: read Americas history

Are you talking about the SLUSH FUND Nobama BULLIED out of poor little BP? No different than those black thugs on the street strong arming your walker-bound grandmother for her purse and beating her up and leaving her for dead on the side of the street while all the other blacks and mexicans behind them walk over your dead grandmother on their way from their crack house to collect their welfare HANDOUT.

^Sarcasm