• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Gallup poll points to GOP rout

Actually, when you look at the statistics, the races that the tea party candidate won were for the most part in ultra-red districts where anyone with an (R) behind their name would have won, with few exceptions.....in competitive districts, the tea-party candidates lost across the board.

Lets see the statistics. I want to know where these "ultra-red" districts that were controlled by Democrats before were. Hell, I find it interseting that an "Ultra-red" district was controlled by a Democrat...doesn't seem so "ultra-red".

You speak of statistics Disney, lets see them.

I'm glad. But my "spin" is no different that the spin from the far right.....actually I would have to say I've even been more moderate. The reality is...the lesson that I hope the GOP doesn't learn is that America is a centrist country.

America has kicked out the moderates by and large from both countries, leaving the house of representitives with stauch ideological conservatives and staunch ideological democrats with little moderates at all...and the message of that is "CENTRIST!"?

As a far-left liberal I hate to admit that...and I hate having Blue Dogs and moderate Democrats, but I accept that this is the reality.

You accept it because its supposed to win you races in "moderate" districts that would take a moderate liberal over a staunch conservative.

....wait a second, didn't almost all the blue dogs lose to staunch conservatives.

it must be because the countries moderate and centrist.

If the GOP accepts your spin and believes that this is a mandate to move the country to the hard right....that can only be good for people like me because they will alienate the vast majority of the people in this country.

No, its not a mandate to move the country to the hard right in total. Its a mandate to move the country right, in general, on fiscal and governmental issues.
 
Indeed, however the more accurate thing to look at would be 2006.



Indeed. The issue is, just like in 2006, reading what it is will "please" them.



Yes, and specifically to get **** done and create jobs in a conservative manner.



In 2006 the Democrats got swept into office with the focus being on Anti-War sentiment, and the secondary sentiment being against Republican and Bush policies in general. They did this by running moderate to conservative "blue dog" Democrats. After winning they misread the mandate and decided it meant support of universal health care, bailouts, stimulus, cap and trade, and other such things they've been trying to push.

In 2010 Republicans got swept into congress by rejecting moderate and liberal republicans in exchange for conservative ones, and based on a message of fixing the deficit and economy with lowered spending, smaller government, and not raising taxes.

Like the Democrats, if they misread what they were elected for they're going to be booted out. HOWEVER, what they got elected for is NOT the same reasons Democrats got elected in 2006, nor was it the same way. MODERATE democrats were elected in 2006 to give them their majority, primarily due to the war. In 2010 CONSERVATIVe republicans were elected to give them the majority, primarily due to economic and governmental issues.

If the republicans over reach and think this was a referendum on conservatism as a whole and start pushing massive Defense and Social conservative issues as their focus then yes, they're doomed for misreading the message. Similarly however if republicans read this as the country wanting them to be "moderate" and to "compromise" to help the Democratic President pass what he wants then they're ALSO misreading the message.

Believe it or not....I actually agree almost 100% with what you wrote here. The only thing that I think you are a little off on and/or failed to mention is that it wasn't simply the Democrats misreading the mandate....the Democrats really were between a rock and a hard place. Part of the losses in the house have in large part to do with Democrats not coming out to vote because they are disappointed with the Democrats for NOT pushing the mandate. Dems are either going to lose the mod/indep vote by going too far to the left...or lose the left vote by going too far to the middle. I recognize that...and although I personally would prefer a hard left agenda, I understand that the Dems are not going to win elections by doing that...many of my leftist cohorts get pissed off and don't understand that.
 
Lets see the statistics. I want to know where these "ultra-red" districts that were controlled by Democrats before were. Hell, I find it interseting that an "Ultra-red" district was controlled by a Democrat...doesn't seem so "ultra-red".

You speak of statistics Disney, lets see them.

I was referencing the previous poster who cited Rand Paul and Mike Lee....both of those seats were going to be Republican regardless of whether they were tea party or not....I don't know when the last Senator from Kentucky was a Democrat...but I know that Utah hasn't had a Democratic Senator since the 1960's.
Also...New Hampshire is generally a red state....as is Arizona and South Carolina...although to lesser extents. Florida, fluctuates.
 
I was referencing the previous poster who cited Rand Paul and Mike Lee....both of those seats were going to be Republican regardless of whether they were tea party or not....I don't know when the last Senator from Kentucky was a Democrat...but I know that Utah hasn't had a Democratic Senator since the 1960's.
Also...New Hampshire is generally a red state....as is Arizona and South Carolina...although to lesser extents. Florida, fluctuates.



10 years ago, Wendell H. Ford
 
I never said that your Republican party would "only pick up a few seats"....I said that they would pick up between 45-50. I was off slightly....but not as badly as your prediction that they would win 80...LOL.....

The results of the election were definitely a mixed bag. Clearly the Republican party did well in the house, but did not have a particularly strong showing in the Senate, losing most of the close races and not coming close to taking the Senate.
The more interesting thing to come out of this election is to see what direction the GOP takes....if the teabaggers are able to push the GOP further to the right, I think that this would be very good for the Democrats and lefties like me. The more linked the GOP is to Sarah Palin and the fringe groups, the better for us...in fact, I hope that Palin feels a surge and rides it to the party's nomination. 2012 should be fun.

You said they would narely pick up enough to win the house........Blew that predeiction to hell but what else is new when it comes to your predictions............Last nights election where a direct rejection of Hussein Obama socialism............
 
If the GOP accepts your spin and believes that this is a mandate to move the country to the hard right....that can only be good for people like me because they will alienate the vast majority of the people in this country.

well, we won't be suing the people of arizona and trying to move ksm to manhattan...

that'll certainly help
 
28 of 54 dogs died

Blue Dog Coalition Crushed By GOP Wave Election)

the moderate democrat is as extinct as global warming

so are lifers, they swooned the saturday suckerpunch stupak switched

no such thing as a pro life dem, a moderate dem, a southern or rocky mountain dem (except for a lost and lonely outpost in denver, surrounded by rising red)

only a ranting remnant of "professional left" out to "punish its enemies"

except it got spanked

pathetic
 
Wasn't a rout.

The only thing that happened was R took the congress, D held the senate and still commands the high ground.

I don't agree. This was about as big a rout as you'll ever see. The fact that there was even a question of whether the Republicans would take the Senate until they counted the votes was an unbelievably strong showing for the Republicans.

BTW, this makes me sad.
 
Wasn't a rout.
It was the biggest pick up of seats in the house... ever.
That's a rout... the GOP also taking the Senate would have been an absolute disaster.
 
That's a rout... the GOP also taking the Senate would have been an absolute disaster.

No, the '10 midterms wasn't a rout... the GOP also taking the Senate would have been a rout.

and anyway, I don't see why either side still gets overly excited and emotional over this.. it's the same cycle the Ds and Rs go through ever few years.
 
Last edited:
Lets see the statistics. I want to know where these "ultra-red" districts that were controlled by Democrats before were. Hell, I find it interseting that an "Ultra-red" district was controlled by a Democrat...doesn't seem so "ultra-red".

You speak of statistics Disney, lets see them.



America has kicked out the moderates by and large from both countries, leaving the house of representitives with stauch ideological conservatives and staunch ideological democrats with little moderates at all...and the message of that is "CENTRIST!"?



You accept it because its supposed to win you races in "moderate" districts that would take a moderate liberal over a staunch conservative.

....wait a second, didn't almost all the blue dogs lose to staunch conservatives.

it must be because the countries moderate and centrist.



No, its not a mandate to move the country to the hard right in total. Its a mandate to move the country right, in general, on fiscal and governmental issues.

Disney got it out of a new book from school.

see-bunny.jpg
 
No, the '10 midterms wasn't a rout... the GOP also taking the Senate would have been a rout.

and anyway, I don't see why either side still gets overly excited and emotional over this.. it's the same cycle the Ds and Rs go through ever few years.

Your wrong, the pick up by the Republicans is the most by either party since 1948.......
 
No, the '10 midterms wasn't a rout... the GOP also taking the Senate would have been a rout.

and anyway, I don't see why either side still gets overly excited and emotional over this.. it's the same cycle the Ds and Rs go through ever few years.

So just to be straight, you define a rout only as taking both houses of congress regardless of the margins?
 
So just to be straight, you define a rout only as taking both houses of congress regardless of the margins?
\


Again its the biggest rout in the HOR since 1948......You just can't poo poo that........
 
Your wrong, the pick up by the Republicans is the most by either party since 1948.......

no. you are wrong. nyaaa!

A couple of years ago it was "ZOMG the GOP will never recover!!1!", a few years before that it was "OOoNOES!1!! the Dems are dooomed!!". and now it's "YAAARRR! The DNC has been routed!!". hehe, the 24/7/365 tv-newstertainment industry have got the some people all riled up. again. PT Barnum would be proud ;)
 
Last edited:
So just to be straight, you define a rout only as taking both houses of congress regardless of the margins?

I define routing the opponent as it's meant to be defined. in military terms, that is to defeat overwhelmingly.
 
I define routing the opponent as it's meant to be defined. in military terms, that is to defeat overwhelmingly.

What did the Dems win? Have you considered the State houses and governorships?
 
\


Again its the biggest rout in the HOR since 1948......You just can't poo poo that........

Might I remind you though sir, that even though Truman suffered that defeat in his midterms, he was still re-elected.

YOu can't just Poo Poo that either.
 
Last edited:
no. you are wrong. nyaaa!

A couple of years ago it was "ZOMG the GOP will never recover!!1!", a few years before that it was "OOoNOES!1!! the Dems are dooomed!!". and now it's "YAAARRR! The DNC has been routed!!". hehe, the 24/7/365 tv-newstertainment industry have got the some people all riled up. again. PT Barnum would be proud ;)

Grow up my left wing friend...........It wasn't me that said that.....I know it kills you lefties bbut the fact remains it was a bloodbath in the

HOR........
 
Might I remind you though sir, that even though Truman suffered that defeat in his midterms, he was still re-elected.

YOu can't just Poo Poo that either.

I am not poo pooing anything but Truman was a huge upset and Dewey was a bad candidate.......
 
I define routing the opponent as it's meant to be defined. in military terms, that is to defeat overwhelmingly.

But you're suggesting that a "rout" would mean to win every single battle by stating that the republicans didn't do that. More than that, it seems you don't believe a singular battle can be a rout but it must apply to the entire war.

They won a 50+ year record number of House seats
They won a 70+ year record number of state legislative seats
They now control the governor seat of almost 2/3rd of the country
They now control I believe they own at last one house of 1/2 or 2/3rds of all state legislatures
They gained a number of seats in the senate, including seats held for some time by democrats, putting them within striking distance the following year.

For this particular election cycle its hard to not call it a rout. Perhaps not a complete and utter slaughter, but that's not what's required for a rout. A rout does not need every last individual on the other side to be slain for it to be called as such.

By your definition it would seem that there's NEVER been a rout and never could be a rout during an election cycle because it almost never spells the permanent end of a political party and it never is an example where EVERYONE on the other side loses.
 
So just to be straight, you define a rout only as taking both houses of congress regardless of the margins?

the biggest sweep since 1948 wasn't a rout.....


and i believe it is 1938 if you count the down-ticket wins at the state level?

that's not a rout?

I define routing the opponent as it's meant to be defined. in military terms, that is to defeat overwhelmingly.

well, then, what you are left with is either admitting that this was a rout, or the claim that there has never in the history of American politics been a rout.
 
Back
Top Bottom