Even the Rapture Righties are jumping ship now

[Football_Bat]

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-warming19oct19,1,4641926.story?coll=la-news-politics-national&track=crosspromo

Only question now is how many seats will Dems gain in the Bible Belt.

Doggone shame this ain't 2008.

 

[Kaylee]

I'm still enjoying the fact that Fred Phelps has said that he doesn't align with Bush.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

 

[old_tony]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

On the day after the election they're going to be like little kids on Christmas morning who run downstairs and find nothing under the tree. And then they'll wonder how they lost an election where they had nothing to offer themselves and were running against two guys who weren't even on the ballot (Bush and Foley).

For now, they're just hoping no one notices the record Dow, the record revenues flowing into the Treasury and the record-low unemployment.

I'd be a lot happier if the GOP were touting these things better, but when the MSM doesn't want it known, it doesn't get known.

 

[Del_B_Vista]

Can anybody point me to polling that shows there's going to be a huge swing in Congress? (If somebody does and I'm wrong with the rest of my post, I'll just come back and delete it all :) ) And I don't mean "Everybody in the nation's pissed at Congress" stuff, but district-by-district stuff. Everybody's always pissed at Congress. All politics are local, and I think that unless you're directly tarred by the Foley stuff, it's not going to affect you that much. The Iraq brush I figure will only slap the presidential candidate. Congressmen will get the vote based on their pork production more than such national issues.

 

[JayFarrar]

Actually as Paul Krugman pointed out, it would take a huge swing for the Dems to get Congress back.
He did the math, and the way the vast majority of the districts are put together, it keeps them either Republican or Democrat.
Very, very few are in a race that is truly up in the air.
The Democrats could -- again -- win the majority of the popular vote overall in the congressional races and still not have the majority.

 

[Philosopher]

Can anybody point me to polling that shows there's going to be a huge swing in Congress? (If somebody does and I'm wrong with the rest of my post, I'll just come back and delete it all :) )

Here's one example, but there are others:

http://www.mydd.com/images/user/217/House_Forecast_2006.htm

 

[dog428]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

On the day after the election they're going to be like little kids on Christmas morning who run downstairs and find nothing under the tree. And then they'll wonder how they lost an election where they had nothing to offer themselves and were running against two guys who weren't even on the ballot (Bush and Foley).

For now, they're just hoping no one notices the record Dow, the record revenues flowing into the Treasury and the record-low unemployment.

I'd be a lot happier if the GOP were touting these things better, but when the MSM doesn't want it known, it doesn't get known.

Yes, it's the media's fault. Because the record Dow (smoke and mirrors), record revenues (horse**** that's already been explained to you by another REPUBLICAN on this board) and record-low unemployment (welcome to McDonalds, would you like fried with that) are much bigger stories than a page-groping Congressman and cover up, three different voting scandals and the mass departure of conservatives from the self-described conservative party.

And all of that still pales in comparison to a bull**** war and a list of crimes that are, quite simply, embarrassing.

Yeah, the media's missing real the story here. ::)

 

[old_tony]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

On the day after the election they're going to be like little kids on Christmas morning who run downstairs and find nothing under the tree. And then they'll wonder how they lost an election where they had nothing to offer themselves and were running against two guys who weren't even on the ballot (Bush and Foley).

For now, they're just hoping no one notices the record Dow, the record revenues flowing into the Treasury and the record-low unemployment.

I'd be a lot happier if the GOP were touting these things better, but when the MSM doesn't want it known, it doesn't get known.

Yes, it's the media's fault. Because the record Dow (smoke and mirrors), record revenues (horse**** that's already been explained to you by another REPUBLICAN on this board) and record-low unemployment (welcome to McDonalds, would you like fried with that) are much bigger stories than a page-groping Congressman and cover up, three different voting scandals and the mass departure of conservatives from the self-described conservative party.

And all of that still pales in comparison to a bull**** war and a list of crimes that are, quite simply, embarrassing.

Yeah, the media's missing real the story here. ::)

I started a part of that response that was going to predict the liberals' response denying the Dow success and the record revenues and noting you'd call all the jobs "burger-flipping" jobs. I took it out just to see how long you'd do that on your own.

An hour and 29 minutes. Not bad. I think the over/under was 1:45. I gotta hand it to you, you are predictable. Dumb, but predictable.

Foley's not on the ballot. Neither is Bush. Americans will eventually vote their pocketbook and security. The Democrats are out to sea on both. Conservatives will not cast votes to put Reid and Pelosi in charge. Nor, in the end, will they fail to vote and leave Pelosi and Reid in charge, no matter how hard you wish.

Question for you, dog: Why are Pelosi and Howard Dean being kept as far away as possible from cameras in these weeks leading up to the election? Could it be the Dem strategists don't want them to be seen for what they are?

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

For the same reason Putsch was momentarily kept on a tight leash by his regents -- to the point where he asked if he could take a leak, for God's sake.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Vote their security?
Is that the 58 percent of the people who trust Democratic ideas on security these days, or is it someone from somewhere else?

 

[slappy4428]

Question for you, dog: Why are Pelosi and Howard Dean being kept as far away as possible from cameras in these weeks leading up to the election? Could it be the Dem strategists don't want them to be seen for what they are?

I would think so, and I consider myself a Dem... if they speak in public, those usual Republican voters who are leaning Democratic will remember why they were Republicans in the first place...

 

[Double J]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

On the day after the election they're going to be like little kids on Christmas morning who run downstairs and find nothing under the tree. And then they'll wonder how they lost an election where they had nothing to offer themselves and were running against two guys who weren't even on the ballot (Bush and Foley).

For now, they're just hoping no one notices the record Dow, the record revenues flowing into the Treasury and the record-low unemployment.

Don't forget the record budget deficits and record national debt.

 

[dog428]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

On the day after the election they're going to be like little kids on Christmas morning who run downstairs and find nothing under the tree. And then they'll wonder how they lost an election where they had nothing to offer themselves and were running against two guys who weren't even on the ballot (Bush and Foley).

For now, they're just hoping no one notices the record Dow, the record revenues flowing into the Treasury and the record-low unemployment.

I'd be a lot happier if the GOP were touting these things better, but when the MSM doesn't want it known, it doesn't get known.

Yes, it's the media's fault. Because the record Dow (smoke and mirrors), record revenues (horse**** that's already been explained to you by another REPUBLICAN on this board) and record-low unemployment (welcome to McDonalds, would you like fried with that) are much bigger stories than a page-groping Congressman and cover up, three different voting scandals and the mass departure of conservatives from the self-described conservative party.

And all of that still pales in comparison to a bull**** war and a list of crimes that are, quite simply, embarrassing.

Yeah, the media's missing real the story here. ::)

I started a part of that response that was going to predict the liberals' response denying the Dow success and the record revenues and noting you'd call all the jobs "burger-flipping" jobs. I took it out just to see how long you'd do that on your own.

An hour and 29 minutes. Not bad. I think the over/under was 1:45. I gotta hand it to you, you are predictable. Dumb, but predictable.

Foley's not on the ballot. Neither is Bush. Americans will eventually vote their pocketbook and security. The Democrats are out to sea on both. Conservatives will not cast votes to put Reid and Pelosi in charge. Nor, in the end, will they fail to vote and leave Pelosi and Reid in charge, no matter how hard you wish.

Question for you, dog: Why are Pelosi and Howard Dean being kept as far away as possible from cameras in these weeks leading up to the election? Could it be the Dem strategists don't want them to be seen for what they are?

Of course you did, tony. Because no one is dumb enough to post such ignorant **** without expecting to be called on it.

Let's see, pocketbook and security. HUUUUUUUUUUUGGGGEEEEEE national deficit and 16 spy agencies who all say the bungled Iraq war has made us less safe. Yes, let's do hope they vote with their pocketbook and with security in mind.

You're actually asking where Pelosi and Dean are? And doing it in some school-kid-on-the-playground, finger-pointing way? And doing so while the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and the VICE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES and the SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE are all so loathed by the American public that their party's candidates won't even speak their names?

Nice work. Dip****.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Dream on, boys, dream on.

On the day after the election they're going to be like little kids on Christmas morning who run downstairs and find nothing under the tree. And then they'll wonder how they lost an election where they had nothing to offer themselves and were running against two guys who weren't even on the ballot (Bush and Foley).

For now, they're just hoping no one notices the record Dow, the record revenues flowing into the Treasury and the record-low unemployment.

Don't forget the record budget deficits and record national debt.

You mean the ones that currently are much less than projected?

And I guess you forgot a little thing called 9/11 that caused a bit of an economic problem, too?

 

[D-Backs Hack]

Actually as Paul Krugman pointed out, it would take a huge swing for the Dems to get Congress back.
He did the math, and the way the vast majority of the districts are put together, it keeps them either Republican or Democrat.
Very, very few are in a race that is truly up in the air.
The Democrats could -- again -- win the majority of the popular vote overall in the congressional races and still not have the majority.

This is an excellent point. And the main reason why I won't be doing any crowing before election day, no matter what the polls say.

I've got five beers in me right now -- great idea, as I have to cover a college football game with a 12:30 kick tomorrow, er, today -- so someone could check the numbers and prove me wrong: If I remember correctly, more Americans cast votes for a Democratic Congressman in 2002, and '04, than a GOP one.

Think of it this way: The roughly 8 million people of greater Los Angeles, who by in large vote Democratic, get two Senators they have to share with the rest of California. The 8 million residents of Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, who tend to vote Republican, have eight senators all to themselves.

I may be off on the population figures, but do you see the point? As long as the rural states vote Republican, the Democrats are always going to be in an uphill battle for control of Congress.

And Lyman: Oh, please. The Bushies have badly missed on their budget projections heretofore; why on Earth should we believe them now? And for the Nth time: Those deficit figures do not include war expeditures; therefore, they are a complete joke.

 

[Lyman_Bostock]

Actually as Paul Krugman pointed out, it would take a huge swing for the Dems to get Congress back.
He did the math, and the way the vast majority of the districts are put together, it keeps them either Republican or Democrat.
Very, very few are in a race that is truly up in the air.
The Democrats could -- again -- win the majority of the popular vote overall in the congressional races and still not have the majority.

This is an excellent point. And the main reason why I won't be doing any crowing before election day, no matter what the polls say.

I've got five beers in me right now -- great idea, as I have to cover a college football game with a 12:30 kick tomorrow, er, today -- so someone could check the numbers and prove me wrong: If I remember correctly, more Americans cast votes for a Democratic Congressman in 2002, and '04, than a GOP one.

Think of it this way: The roughly 8 million people of greater Los Angeles, who by in large vote Democratic, get two Senators they have to share with the rest of California. The 8 million residents of Utah, Wyoming, Montana and Idaho, who tend to vote Republican, have eight senators all to themselves.

I may be off on the population figures, but do you see the point? As long as the rural states vote Republican, the Democrats are always going to be in an uphill battle for control of Congress.

And Lyman: Oh, please. The Bushies have badly missed on their budget projections heretofore; why on Earth should we believe them now? And for the Nth time: Those deficit figures do not include war expeditures; therefore, they are a complete joke.

So damned if they do, damned if they don't, Joe? The way you've structured the argument, they can't win. I guess that's your point.

I also gather you don't think the way we elect senators in this country is fair?

 

[sportschick]

Montanans do not always tend Republican, dammit. Out of 7 statewide elections in 2004, 5 went to Dems.

And Conrad Burns is going down on Election Day!

 

[D-Backs Hack]

So damned if they do, damned if they don't, Joe? The way you've structured the argument, they can't win. I guess that's your point.

I also gather you don't think the way we elect senators in this country is fair?

My point is don't insult the intelligence of a radish by crowing about deifict numbers when you've been way off in the past and you're not including one of the biggest expeditures the government currently has. But you're on here crowing about the projected deficit numbers, so I guess we should line you up in the vegetable aisle, huh?

And just because I point out an inequitity of the Senate doesn't mean I think the system should be changed. For an overwhelming majority of this nation's history -- particularly when the primary office tool in the chamber is not a rubber stamp -- it's worked just fine.

 

[Fenian_Bastard]

Personally, given the unbelievable carnival of crazoids that has run amuck in the House since 1994, I think the Senate was an awfully good idea.