Election predictions - lay yours down here

[Perd Hapley]

I believe that the axes the generals have to grind are with the fact that the policy sucks. come to think of it I asked for the policy... because I haven't seen it, have you?

So, you haven't seen the policy.  So, you wouldn't offer an opinion on whether Bush's Iraq policy is good or bad, because you haven't seen it? 

[garyk/nm]

Lumpy;
Your position here seems to be that the Dems are good because "they aren't Bush". Every argument is about "Bush". It seems to me that after the last 2 pres elections, the rabid Dems have been totally preoccupied with the evil Satan Bush. Here's a news flash for you: Bush is not running in this election. Regardless of how you try to spin it, Bush is a non-entity in this election.
It is time for the (sane) Dems to let go of the Bush hatred and build a solid platform (one that does NOT include any reference to G.W. Bush) if they want to be taken seriously. If that were to happen ( one in how many million?), and with a solid promise not to gut the 2nd amendment, I might give them the time of day. Otherwise, piss off. You and your ilk are not worth my time.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

It's official.  My prediction of the Republicans holding the House was wrong.

 

[cosine]

I'm not an optimist anymore.

[AJ Dual]

Don't fret it Cosine, my first election at 18, I threw away my vote on Perot, and helped usher in Clinton. 

[Guest]

Im rather astonished to note that what I wanted actually happened   

A vote for gridlock is a vote for a better tomorrow (IMHO). The house and sente controlled by different parties, niether with a big majority, and both with a lot of dissent in the ranks spells (hopefully) a lawmaking body that has a hard time passing too much ridiculous crap (or anything for that matter).

[AJ Dual]

While there were lots of Democrats who won by "running to the right", and that will blunt how leftward this swing in the House will take us, making it more of a party gain, than an ideological one. OTOH, they're all going to be beholden to some degree or another to "Speaker Pelosi" who was the driving force behind the DNC national money, the national "strategy", and the actual gains.

So there will be some initial Democratic unity, but it won't be overwhelming for the next two years.

[lumpy]

Your position here seems to be that the Dems are good because "they aren't Bush".

Is it me or does reading comprehension not seem like a strong suit here... I have consistenly said, that Bush's policies are so bad that they even make the Dems looks good. What part of that are you not understanding?

fistful... you're correct I haven't seen a printed copy of his policy, that's because we have front row seats to the execution of his policy (whatever the hell it is).

I think my prediction is was correct, Bush lost.

[Perd Hapley]

I think my prediction is was correct, Bush lost.

Let's not lose our heads in triumph or in tidings of woe.  Gaining the house for two years is but a shadow of the power the Dem. party held for decades.  And no matter how much some would like to dream about this being a proxy pres. election, Bush was elected twice.  He's the president.  Would have been a lame duck anyway, considering that Cheney's not a likely candidate for '08.

Unless you want us to believe that America would elect Pelosi to the Oval Office.   

[The Rabbi]

I would hardly say that Bush lost.  First, as pointed out ad nauseam, he wasn't running.  Second, what to make of Lincoln Chafee, one of Bush's strongest opponents on Iraq, and lost anyway.  And what to make of Joe Lieberman, one of Bush's strongest supporters on Iraq, who won anyway?
No, the issue to me was that the Republican Congress was behaving just like the Democratic Congress they replaced.  The lack of program, the uncontrolled spending, the scandals, the protectionism, etc etc all suggested a party that had lost touch with the people who put them there.  They deserved to lose.  The worst RINOs are probably finished, and good for us.  The party can sit back and consider what happened and return to Reaganism, just like in 1994.  Overall I think that the new Congress wont get anything done, especially an AWB.  And the Republicans will get their act together for '08.

[lumpy]

I would hardly say that Bush lost.  First, as pointed out ad nauseam, he wasn't running.  Second, what to make of Lincoln Chafee, one of Bush's strongest opponents on Iraq, and lost anyway.  And what to make of Joe Lieberman, one of Bush's strongest supporters on Iraq, who won anyway?

I agree, based on what I've seen of your posts, you probably wouldn't say that. As I pointed out ad nauseam... he wasn't on the ballot but his policies were. Much of the exit polling last night had 2 reasons that the republicans lost.

1.) corruption
2.) Iraq

Chaffe had the misfortune of having a (r) after his name in one of the most leberal states in the country.

Liberman had the fortune of getting the bulk of his votes from republicans, who apparently ran to the "independent democrat" becuase the

republican

candidate was so bad. He got 28% support among democrats.

If you think this wasn't a Bush loss, I'm guessing you think we're winning in Iraq.

Let's not lose our heads in triumph

fistful... I would point out that while I have stated simply that Bush lost... a review of this board will show if anyone is 'losing their heads' it would be some of those on the losing side of this election.

[The Rabbi]

And we all know the post election polls are never wrong, never skewed. 

[lumpy]

It's appearing that the right is losing the senate too. I think you're right... we shouldn't trust the polls.