So, is anyone else holding off on any big purchases until...

[cosine]

... after the election?

I have been doing that lately. I've been wanting an electric guitar, but I'm holding off because buying a good one would decrease my "gun savings" by about half. By the time the elections occur, I should have saved enough in my "gun savings" to get a good AR and an AK (etc., or whatever guns would be affected by a proposed ban), plus extra mags and a stock of ammo, if I need to get all that stuff before the bans are enacted.

[wingnutx]

No, I'm just plain broke

[Sindawe]

Not for the elections, just until my major debt (car) is paid off in two more years.

[Perd Hapley]

What's this about a ban?

[wingnutx]

Prediction of a new AWB after the Republicans lose in 2 weeks.

[Art Eatman]

IWO, you better get off your butts and get gunfolks to vote Republican in House elections.  That's your best chance to avoid gun-law idiocy.

Art

[280plus]

hee hee, I sent the Flasher to a fair number of my staunchly Democratic friends and not one replied. :evil:

LOL...

Oh, I'm not spending any more money till I make some.

[lee n. field]

Does $700 on 3 dental extractions and an uncomfortable denture count as a big purchase?

No fun at all.

[The Rabbi]

Just committed myself to $50k in home addition, so the answer would be no.  I seriously doubt there will be a new AWB.  Opposition is just too great.

[Nathaniel Firethorn]

$25K commitment in new siding and vinyl floors last week.

I've got all the guns I can shoot at once, so no need for more.

- NF

[Jamisjockey]

F the republicans.  I'm voting my concious, and mostly voting Libertarian.  The two party system in our country is broke.  I'm no longer willing to be a part of that.

[The Rabbi]

F the republicans.  I'm voting my concious, and mostly voting Libertarian.  The two party system in our country is broke.  I'm no longer willing to be a part of that.

Will you then take responsibility for Dems getting into office and enacting their agenda?

[Marnoot]

F the republicans.  I'm voting my concious, and mostly voting Libertarian.  The two party system in our country is broke.  I'm no longer willing to be a part of that.

Will you then take responsibility for Dems getting into office and enacting their agenda?

He'll be voting in Utah this time around, so no need to worry for now Rabbi. I must admit I'm voting for a Dem incumbent (Matheson) this time around for the House. But he's also more conservative than many if not most republicans, and he's the NRA backed candidate. He doesn't tend to vote along party lines, but rather actually seems to listen to his constituents.

[jeff-10]

Personally I don't see a new AWB happening, even with a Democratic majority. The 12 year Republican dominance in goverment can directly linked to them passing one last time. I am sure that most Democrats, politicians and citizens alike, would like to see a huge gun ban and/or registration. They just don't want to lose power in 08 if they happened to gain it in 06.

[CAnnoneer]

My prediction is a repitition of 2004. Many believed GWB would not be re-elected, yet he did. All this dem talk about "getting back" the power is just hyped wishful thinking. Yes, the reps will probably lose some seats, but I doubt they will lose the house or the senate.

The fundamental reason why the dems lose elections is because they do not get it. The country is simply more conservative than before while the dems have steadily radicalized. They only have a chance if they swerve to center, but they cannot do it because their leadership and their financial backers are not centrists.

[Third_Rail]

I doubt that any new AWB will pass; too many people own AR-15s and AKs because of the first ban, and many have tricked them out since the ending of the AWB.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

I had rough plans to buy a new AR sometime in the next few years.  I'm going to speed that up a bit, if I can.  I got caught flat-footed last time around.  I thought that surely the Democrats woudn't try something as evil/anti-American/unconstitutional as the assault weapons ban.

Well, I learned that lesson well.  The Democrats really are that evil, anti-American, and unconstitutional.  Sadly, it seems the country has a short memory and has to re-elect them every few decades before we remember what kind of damage they can do.

[garyk/nm]

I think Jeff-10 may have hit the nail. Even if the Dems manage to win a majority (longshot), there will likely be no anti-gun legislation until after the 08 elections. Wouldn't want to shoot themselves in the foot, would they?

[richyoung]

... after the election?

I have been doing that lately. I've been wanting an electric guitar, but I'm holding off because buying a good one would decrease my "gun savings" by about half. By the time the elections occur, I should have saved enough in my "gun savings" to get a good AR and an AK (etc., or whatever guns would be affected by a proposed ban), plus extra mags and a stock of ammo, if I need to get all that stuff before the bans are enacted.

What kind of guitar are you considering?

[AJ Dual]

My prediction is a repitition of 2004. Many believed GWB would not be re-elected, yet he did. All this dem talk about "getting back" the power is just hyped wishful thinking. Yes, the reps will probably lose some seats, but I doubt they will lose the house or the senate.

The fundamental reason why the dems lose elections is because they do not get it. The country is simply more conservative than before while the dems have steadily radicalized. They only have a chance if they swerve to center, but they cannot do it because their leadership and their financial backers are not centrists.

+1

Barrons' mag did a "fundamentals" analysis of all the contested races and came up with the prediction that the Republicans will hold the house and senate by a narrow majority.

When you ignore the "polls", and go by other historical trends of win-lose vs. incumbency, funding (a barometer of TRUE grass-roots support, especialy since the GOP always leads in sub-$1000 individual donations), campaign spending and media buying rates, the backing party's war-chest, etc.

In the Barron's article, the Republicans hang on by the skin of their teeth.

This goes with my intuitive gut-level prediction as well.

It's possible that the majority of the MSM saying otherwise might discourage likely Republican voters into staying home, but the MSM's monopoly, and reputation, continues to shrink every year, so the "self-fulfilling prophecy" factor is blunted too.

And as others pointed out both 2002 and 2004 were to be huge "referendums" on Bush and the GOP on the "2000 selection", AWOT and Iraq etc. and neither came to pass. With the Dow over 12k, how bad can the "dissatisfaction" truly be?

Of course, unlesss the true surpise happens, that the Democrats are completely trounced, and gain almost no seats, they'll spin any gains as "victory" and a "censure" against Bush and the GOP. However, the truth is that if the DNC can't gain control of at least one house in what's probably the most fertile political ground for them in 30 years, despite whatever happens in '08, their days as an effective party are probably numbered. I see them splitting up into a weak coalition of Greens, Progressive/Socialyis, Union Labor, and Minority interests, that more correctly reflects the party's true nature anyway.

Although, without the DNC to define themselves against, and the current trend of the GOP and the neo-cons to actualy govern more like JFK Democrats, thier weak response to illegal immigration, and their amazing ability do nothing to limit government or spending, means that "winning" over the DNC might mean the same may well happen to them too. And we'll see the right wing devolve into moderates, libertarians, constitutionalists, the religious right, and tax/constitutionalists...

[cosine]

... after the election?

I have been doing that lately. I've been wanting an electric guitar, but I'm holding off because buying a good one would decrease my "gun savings" by about half. By the time the elections occur, I should have saved enough in my "gun savings" to get a good AR and an AK (etc., or whatever guns would be affected by a proposed ban), plus extra mags and a stock of ammo, if I need to get all that stuff before the bans are enacted.

What kind of guitar are you considering?

Highway One Strat. Well, I've been flopping back and forth between deciding to get a guitar or a bass. Everybody I know plays the guitar, nobody plays the bass and we need bass!

[cosine]

My prediction is a repitition of 2004. Many believed GWB would not be re-elected, yet he did. All this dem talk about "getting back" the power is just hyped wishful thinking. Yes, the reps will probably lose some seats, but I doubt they will lose the house or the senate.

The fundamental reason why the dems lose elections is because they do not get it. The country is simply more conservative than before while the dems have steadily radicalized. They only have a chance if they swerve to center, but they cannot do it because their leadership and their financial backers are not centrists.

+1

Barrons' mag did a "fundamentals" analysis of all the contested races and came up with the prediction that the Republicans will hold the house and senate by a narrow majority.

When you ignore the "polls", and go by other historical trends of win-lose vs. incumbency, funding (a barometer of TRUE grass-roots support, especialy since the GOP always leads in sub-$1000 individual donations), campaign spending and media buying rates, the backing party's war-chest, etc.

In the Barron's article, the Republicans hang on by the skin of their teeth.

This goes with my intuitive gut-level prediction as well.

It's possible that the majority of the MSM saying otherwise might discourage likely Republican voters into staying home, but the MSM's monopoly, and reputation, continues to shrink every year, so the "self-fulfilling prophecy" factor is blunted too.

And as others pointed out both 2002 and 2004 were to be huge "referendums" on Bush and the GOP on the "2000 selection", AWOT and Iraq etc. and neither came to pass. With the Dow over 12k, how bad can the "dissatisfaction" truly be?

Of course, unlesss the true surpise happens, that the Democrats are completely trounced, and gain almost no seats, they'll spin any gains as "victory" and a "censure" against Bush and the GOP. However, the truth is that if the DNC can't gain control of at least one house in what's probably the most fertile political ground for them in 30 years, despite whatever happens in '08, their days as an effective party are probably numbered. I see them splitting up into a weak coalition of Greens, Progressive/Socialyis, Union Labor, and Minority interests, that more correctly reflects the party's true nature anyway.

Although, without the DNC to define themselves against, and the current trend of the GOP and the neo-cons to actualy govern more like JFK Democrats, thier weak response to illegal immigration, and their amazing ability do nothing to limit government or spending, means that "winning" over the DNC might mean the same may well happen to them too. And we'll see the right wing devolve into moderates, libertarians, constitutionalists, the religious right, and tax/constitutionalists...

Well fine! Even if the Republicans hold on I'm still probably going to get those guns before any new musical equipment!

[mfree]

Both DNC and RNC end up subdividing into what, 7-8 parties?

OUTSTANDING!

If that's an overly strong prediction then there's a reason to vote Republican over any other.

[Perd Hapley]

However, the truth is that if the DNC can't gain control of at least one house in what's probably the most fertile political ground for them in 30 years, despite whatever happens in '08, their days as an effective party are probably numbered. I see them splitting up into a weak coalition of Greens, Progressive/Socialyis, Union Labor, and Minority interests, that more correctly reflects the party's true nature anyway.

If you're talking about a formal break-up, or anything more than a few percentage points worth of Democrats absconding to different parties, don't count on it.  The party may splinter, may have already splintered into different factions fighting for control of the same party, but never forget that the Democratic party survived a civil war and reconstruction.  Though the Democratic party hasn't been around since Thomas Jefferson, as they claim, they have been around as an organization since Andrew Jackson.   The party's current circumstances are probably just more water under the bridge.

[AJ Dual]

If you're talking about a formal break-up, or anything more than a few percentage points worth of Democrats absconding to different parties, don't count on it.  The party may splinter, may have already splintered into different factions fighting for control of the same party, but never forget that the Democratic party survived a civil war and reconstruction.  Though the Democratic party hasn't been around since Thomas Jefferson, as they claim, they have been around as an organization since Andrew Jackson.   The party's current circumstances are probably just more water under the bridge.

You may be right, the party's inerta may be just too great for it to fragment so completely.

However, what the issues and constituencies the Democratic Party "fights for" are so radicaly different than in the era of the Civil War and the Reconstruction, does it really bear any resemblance to the party that weathered those "storms"?

IMO, the closest historical continuity the DNC has is to the socialist era of FDR and the "new deal". But that's just the window dressing. In reality the Democrats are a loose coalition of Unions, Gays, Minorities, Socialists, Feminists, Environmentalists, and FDR/JFK-era "just because" knee-jerk Democrats.

Blue-collar unions (not counting civil service) are dwindling. They also trend socialy conservative on everything but labor law.

Gays probably have the the broadest interest in the various platforms, but I still see a disconnect with blue-collar interests.

Minority communities are traditionaly very homophobic. There is also the growing wedge issue in the cities of school-choice/vouchers. There is a smaller subcurrent of the DNC "taking them for granted" that is slowly growing.

The hard-core Socialist-leftist wing of the party is starting to go on purges, they can't stand the moderates in their midst. Lieberman is but the latest victim.

The (Gender, as opposed to merly "equality") Feminist movment is dying. There are legions of women who are thankful for the advances, but don't want to be reviled for being religious, or a stay-at-home-mom should they choose. The vangaurd of the feminist movment is now career women who are 40- 50, unmarried, and childless& and scaring the hell out of younger women who realize "having it all" really means "having half".

The Environmentalists can barely stand the DNC now as it is. Their interests diverge from the Union wing almost constantly. Since the DNC does "play ball" with industry, they hate them. It's only that they hate the Republicans more that keeps them under the DNC's tent. The Greens have made better showings than the LP or the Reform party of late, so the concerns over the "spoiler factor" have dwindled a bit.

The knee-jerk "just because" Democrats are aging out of the population, and not being replaced. They also have a lot of overlap with the blue-collar Union wing, and when they do "wake up and look around", they trend socialy conservative too.

The rest of "average Americans" that are the grout between these rocky shoals that make up the Democratic Party. (sorry, mixed metaphor&) Who are they? MSM zombies? Soccer Mommies that think the GOP is "mean to poor people"?

So how do you build a foundation on that? I think it's a house of cards. Lose the "I hate Bush/Rove/Cheney/Rumsfeld" mania, and what is there for a cogent vision for this party?

I'm not saying the GOP doesn't have it's factions. The spend-happy and immigration-weak Congress and current Administration is also alienating lots of voters, however, I can't imagine most of them seriously believe the DNC will address those issues to their satisfaction. That being said, I do think there's still more commonality with the party and it's membership than not, taxes, national defense, pro-economy, "America is Good" etc. Even the pro-life plank isn't that unpalatable to those who are nominaly "pro-choice, but don't like abortion&" and wish it legal, but rare as possible. So I see more "glue" holding the GOP together that's issue-based, rather than a pastiche of left-leaning special interests that comprises the "core" of the DNC.