• 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!

Virginia’s Moran Announces Retirement From Congress

danarhea said:
Now, while Moran was in a district that is decidedly blue, which Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking, other retiring Democrats have held office in districts which were slightly red, thus making it hard to defend those seats. Earlier this year, I predicted that, while Democrats would pick up a few seats, Republicans would still hold the House in the 2014 elections. I now change that prediction. Democrats might actually lose a seat or 2 this year.

Why do I predict that House will remain Republican? It has to do with the paradigm each party is employing in it's races. While Democrats have a top down approach, which pushes mostly nationally, and relies on coattails of national figures to win local seats in many districts, the Republicans utilize a bottom up approach, concentrating on local races, and then leveraging their wins by taking over states and then gerrymandering their districts. The result is that, while Democrats seem to enjoy an edge these days in presidential races, many states which are considered purple, or even blue, are controlled by Republicans. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are good examples of this. They all went for Obama in 2012, but their legislatures, as well as their congressional districts, are mostly Republican.

Before Democrats start whining about how unfair this is, I must tell them that, if they had thought of this, they would have done it. But it was Republicans who came up with it, and it is Republicans who are enjoying the benefits. Democrats snoozed, and they loozed. LOL.

Article is here.
Click to expand...

I think if the election were held today, the Democrats would pick up from 1-5 seats. There just isn't that may seats in play. So I agree, the house is safely in Republican hands unless some drastic unforeseen event or two happens between now and election day.

While the house is stable and not much will change there, the senate is another story. I give the Republicans a 50-50 shot at gaining control there. If the election was held today, the Democrats would retain control. But by the slimmest of margins, in a senate with 50 R and 50 D, Vice President Biden would be casting a lot of tie breaking votes and Reid would retain his Majority Leadership position thanks to Biden and Biden only.
 
Somewhere in Virginia a congressional seat is missing its Moran.

Fozzie_Bear_3.jpg
 
Beaudreaux said:
The Republicans in power now, would rather feel superior and on the "right" side of the argument than to be actually in charge forming the argument and commanding the agenda.

On the current path, the Republicans will control great and vast conclaves of local elections, but allow the progressives to control the and grow the federal government by their refusal to lead from a reasonable position which would allow the majority of Americans to agree with them and vote them into power.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they tacitly agree with the left that stating a conservative position is tantamount to accepting failure. The idea that a conservative approach precludes compromise is one they've bought into assuring them a back seat in national politics. It's hard to imagine the gum sucking that must go on behind closed doors with these guys. My dogs have more imagination. I sometimes think these guys sat in the back benches so long with Jim Wright that the memory is buried in their subconscious permanently and is being passed from generation to generation. Also, I'm confounded by the GOP buying into all the social issue stuff. The left routinely steps in it with this stuff, but as soon as some red neck republican says something - and one of 'em invariably does - the left is off the hook cause we got us another nut job to prove the GOP is lost in the woods. The war on women is a joke, but there was Romney with his binders out there proving that a non-issue is an issue. Drives me nuts.
 
humbolt said:
Yeah, they tacitly agree with the left that stating a conservative position is tantamount to accepting failure. The idea that a conservative approach precludes compromise is one they've bought into assuring them a back seat in national politics. It's hard to imagine the gum sucking that must go on behind closed doors with these guys. My dogs have more imagination. I sometimes think these guys sat in the back benches so long with Jim Wright that the memory is buried in their subconscious permanently and is being passed from generation to generation. Also, I'm confounded by the GOP buying into all the social issue stuff. The left routinely steps in it with this stuff, but as soon as some red neck republican says something - and one of 'em invariably does - the left is off the hook cause we got us another nut job to prove the GOP is lost in the woods. The war on women is a joke, but there was Romney with his binders out there proving that a non-issue is an issue. Drives me nuts.
Click to expand...

Problem with Romney is that he was so isolated from the lives of everyday Americans that he was totally clueless.
 
danarhea said:
Problem with Romney is that he was so isolated from the lives of everyday Americans that he was totally clueless.
Click to expand...

I know. He thought he was doing a good thing when he addressed stuff that was completely outside the realm of his experience. He probably did spend a few years early in his marriage during which he didn't have everything he was accustomed to, but that is the extent of it. Reminds me of John Kerry buying a hunting license and whathisname sticking his head out of a tank hatch. That junk never flies.
 
humbolt said:
I know. He thought he was doing a good thing when he addressed stuff that was completely outside the realm of his experience. He probably did spend a few years early in his marriage during which he didn't have everything he was accustomed to, but that is the extent of it. Reminds me of John Kerry buying a hunting license and whathisname sticking his head out of a tank hatch. That junk never flies.
Click to expand...

Oh yea, Dukakis. He was actually ahead in the polls before that Tank video, but after that, he went into the toilet. Bush I crushed him. LOL.
 
danarhea said:
Oh yea, Dukakis. He was actually ahead in the polls before that Tank video, but after that, he went into the toilet. Bush I crushed him. LOL.
Click to expand...

It's not like there isn't a precedent they could look to for a little guidance on what might be meaningful to the public and what will surely be taken as a joke. Romney was probably correct about the 47% thing, but somebody somewhere should've told him you simply don't stand up and say it. Some things are better off left unsaid regardless of their truthfulness, and an astute manager would've told him that in advance of the event. As it was, he betrayed himself with an off the cuff remark to an audience he assumed was friendly. In politics, there is no such thing as a friendly audience anymore. Everything is recorded and examined.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Probably. I just hate to think that Conservative has been narrowed to mean only the far right (religious right and other extreme rightists). I'm more of a Goldwater Republican, the true Conservative, what the Republican party was built on before the nut bags tried to take over.
Click to expand...

danarhea said:
Yea, Conservative doesn't mean the same today as it meant back in the days of Republican sanity. I'm an old Paleocon myself, and so I remember what it used to be like before the crazy took over.
Click to expand...

Oh I don't know about that at all.
You guys may be Goldwater Conservatives but recall they were able to portray Goldwater as a war mongering nutball back then.
These days the attack machine is a ubiquitous & finely tuned machine.
They could destroy someone like Goldwater much more easily these days.
Look what they're doing to Cruz ... You yourselves called him a nut bag and a crazy so you're buying into it.
Not a good sign.
 
bubbabgone said:
Oh I don't know about that at all.
You guys may be Goldwater Conservatives but recall they were able to portray Goldwater as a war mongering nutball back then.
These days the attack machine is a ubiquitous & finely tuned machine.
They could destroy someone like Goldwater much more easily these days.
Look what they're doing to Cruz ... You yourselves called him a nut bag and a crazy so you're buying into it.
Not a good sign.
Click to expand...

I can see where you can feel that way. I, however, call Cruz a nut bag because of his actions not his beliefs, which I don't necessary agree with either. If it was just his beliefs, I wouldn't call him that, but he tends to act out and on those beliefs in a way that's detrimental to him and the party. If it was just his beliefs, I would call him an ideologue, not a nut bag. The problem with Cruz? He's both. Which makes him very dangerous... IMHO.

As for Goldwater, he took on the religious right extremists, and even said that Jerry Falwell needed his butt kicked. As far as being called a war monger, anyone that chooses to protect this country and its interests using the military is called that... including now by some on the far left... Obama himself.
 
Beaudreaux said:
I can see where you can feel that way.
I, however, call Cruz a nut bag because of his actions not his beliefs
Click to expand...
, which I don't necessary agree with either. If it was just his beliefs, I wouldn't call him that, but he tends to act out and on those beliefs in a way that's detrimental to him and the party. If it was just his beliefs, I would call him an ideologue, not a nut bag. The problem with Cruz? He's both. Which makes him very dangerous... IMHO.

As for Goldwater, he took on the religious right extremists, and even said that Jerry Falwell needed his butt kicked. As far as being called a war monger, anyone that chooses to protect this country and its interests using the military is called that... including now by some on the far left... Obama himself.
Click to expand...
I'm not slamming Goldwater by any means. I'm just saying you have to look closely at who & why the media chooses to target.
... consider this ...
- Ted Cruz mounted a filibuster over defunding Obamacare ... something that affects every one of us ... I presume that filibuster is one of the things that got him the nut bag appellation ... the media and Democrats took him apart.
- Wendy Davis, State Senator, in Texas mounted a filibuster over abortion ... the entire media apparatus portrayed her as a hero ... and that was over State legislation.

And look at how they're going after Christie and he's hardly a Conservative.
It matters less what the person stands for than who the person stands against.
 
bubbabgone said:
I'm not slamming Goldwater by any means. I'm just saying you have to look closely at who & why the media chooses to target.
... consider this ...
- Ted Cruz mounted a filibuster over defunding Obamacare ... something that affects every one of us ... I presume that filibuster is one of the things that got him the nut bag appellation ... the media and Democrats took him apart.
- Wendy Davis, State Senator, in Texas mounted a filibuster over abortion ... the entire media apparatus portrayed her as a hero ... and that was over State legislation.

And look at how they're going after Christie and he's hardly a Conservative.
It matters less what the person stands for than who the person stands against.
Click to expand...

Regarding the MSM, I totally agree. I've been laughing at all the talking heads on CNN that totally dismiss Benghazi and the latest Senate report when it's compared to "Bridge Gate." They say that Benghazi was no where near as bad as a political action made by people that currently don't even include Christie, and... they say that Christie should have known what was happening yet allow Obama to get by with the IRS scandal, Benghazi and all the rest because there's "no way" he could have known about it.

Hypocritical BS, as usual.
 
Does it really matter-- republican or democrat? Both parties are doing an exemplary job of draining the life of this country. I see them as figureheads.. a diversion of some kind.
 
humbolt said:
It's not like there isn't a precedent they could look to for a little guidance on what might be meaningful to the public and what will surely be taken as a joke. Romney was probably correct about the 47% thing, but somebody somewhere should've told him you simply don't stand up and say it. Some things are better off left unsaid regardless of their truthfulness, and an astute manager would've told him that in advance of the event. As it was, he betrayed himself with an off the cuff remark to an audience he assumed was friendly. In politics, there is no such thing as a friendly audience anymore. Everything is recorded and examined.
Click to expand...

No, Romney wasn't correct about the 47% thing. He would have been correct if he had said that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax. What he said was that 47% of the people are dependent on government, and those are two completely different things.
 
Another interesting prediction. I think your Total Recall predictions didn't work out perfectly, but you did ok. ;)

danarhea said:
Now, while Moran was in a district that is decidedly blue, which Republicans don't have a snowball's chance in hell of taking, other retiring Democrats have held office in districts which were slightly red, thus making it hard to defend those seats. Earlier this year, I predicted that, while Democrats would pick up a few seats, Republicans would still hold the House in the 2014 elections. I now change that prediction. Democrats might actually lose a seat or 2 this year.

Why do I predict that House will remain Republican? It has to do with the paradigm each party is employing in it's races. While Democrats have a top down approach, which pushes mostly nationally, and relies on coattails of national figures to win local seats in many districts, the Republicans utilize a bottom up approach, concentrating on local races, and then leveraging their wins by taking over states and then gerrymandering their districts. The result is that, while Democrats seem to enjoy an edge these days in presidential races, many states which are considered purple, or even blue, are controlled by Republicans. Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are good examples of this. They all went for Obama in 2012, but their legislatures, as well as their congressional districts, are mostly Republican.

Before Democrats start whining about how unfair this is, I must tell them that, if they had thought of this, they would have done it. But it was Republicans who came up with it, and it is Republicans who are enjoying the benefits. Democrats snoozed, and they loozed. LOL.

Article is here.
Click to expand...
 
Kobie said:
No, Romney wasn't correct about the 47% thing. He would have been correct if he had said that 47% of people don't pay federal income tax. What he said was that 47% of the people are dependent on government, and those are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

True. I was referring to the central fact that Romney was not likely to garner a vast portion of their vote.

Edit: I should add that in saying that, Romney assured that he did not receive that vote.
 
Alyssa said:
Does it really matter-- republican or democrat? Both parties are doing an exemplary job of draining the life of this country. I see them as figureheads.. a diversion of some kind.
Click to expand...

Well said, and I agree! :thumbs: And to think we actually pay our hard-earned dollars to these Doctor Kevorkian types to do us in! What's wrong with us? :eek:

Greetings, Alyssa. :2wave:
 
Alyssa said:
Does it really matter-- republican or democrat? Both parties are doing an exemplary job of draining the life of this country. I see them as figureheads.. a diversion of some kind.
Click to expand...

I have to say that if Romney had won Id probably be pissed at him but I don't think he would have been as destructive as Obama is. I think the President matters but you're right, often office of the President is larger than the man who sits in it.
 
sawdust said:
I have to say that if Romney had won Id probably be pissed at him but I don't think he would have been as destructive as Obama is. I think the President matters but you're right, often office of the President is larger than the man who sits in it.
Click to expand...

i don't know-- they're all starting to look the same to me.
 
Alyssa said:
i don't know-- they're all starting to look the same to me.
Click to expand...

I get that feeling too but I know that a Republican controlled congress would not have given us Obamacare. I doubt that a Republican president would have signed it into law. These differences aren't insignificant.
 
sawdust said:
I get that feeling too but I know that a Republican controlled congress would not have given us Obamacare. I doubt that a Republican president would have signed it into law. These differences aren't insignificant.
Click to expand...

Originally, what is now the affordable health care act was supported by Republicans in the 90s.

Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994
 
Alyssa said:
Originally, what is now the affordable health care act was supported by Republicans in the 90s.

Consumer Choice Health Security Act of 1994
Click to expand...

I've heard that a lot. Louis Black said, "Republicans get up in Congress and say, I've got a bad idea." Then Democrats get up and say. "and here's how we can make it ****tier." Thankfully Republicans didn't really work on the Heritage plan and were able to defeat Hillarycare.
 
Beaudreaux said:
Regarding the MSM, I totally agree. I've been laughing at all the talking heads on CNN that totally dismiss Benghazi and the latest Senate report when it's compared to "Bridge Gate." They say that Benghazi was no where near as bad as a political action made by people that currently don't even include Christie, and... they say that Christie should have known what was happening yet allow Obama to get by with the IRS scandal, Benghazi and all the rest because there's "no way" he could have known about it.

Hypocritical BS, as usual.
Click to expand...

The problem with Benghazi is that CBS put a person on the air who was not even there, and who lied through his teeth about what happened. In regard to the bridge fiasco, a couple of million people were there, and it was a pain in the ass for them. It was very real. But, in spite of "Bridgegate", I would still vote for Christie over Hillary Clinton, who reeks of Neoliberalism.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom