• 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!

Republicans Jump Out To Historic Lead In Gallup Generic Ballot

I think a Republican win in the House (winning the Senate is very unlikely) would be a good thing for the country. The last time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Congress (Clinton's presidency), we saw a significant drop in federal spending as a portion of GDP (source). A Democratic president with a Democratic Congress is too eager to launch into new entitlements. However, a Republican president, especially one with a Republican Congress, is too eager to expand the military and get the country into wars, which then increases federal spending. But a Republican Congress lacks the power to deploy US troops without presidential support while a Democratic president lacks the power to force through more big spending measures without Congressional support. That's a win-win for advocates of small government.
 
Civil1z@tion said:
I think a Republican win in the House (winning the Senate is very unlikely) would be a good thing for the country. The last time we had a Democratic president and a Republican Congress (Clinton's presidency), we saw a significant drop in federal spending as a portion of GDP (source). A Democratic president with a Democratic Congress is too eager to launch into new entitlements. However, a Republican president, especially one with a Republican Congress, is too eager to expand the military and get the country into wars, which then increases federal spending. But a Republican Congress lacks the power to deploy US troops without presidential support while a Democratic president lacks the power to force through more big spending measures without Congressional support. That's a win-win for advocates of small government.
Click to expand...

I don't know if that would be all that great for our country. Remember, while the Democrats are likely to tax and spend, the GOP is likely to borrow and spend. The only problem is that we've already borrowed too much to pay for 3 new wars. We have to pay it down. And while we can reduce entitlements to a certain level, that level won't be enough to pay down the government debt. Which is why I think we should also increase taxes in certain area designed solely to pay down the government debt. Which, if anybody is likely to do, it's the Democrats.

Do taxes suck? Well, yeah they do. However, we need to pay taxes for our government to operate, and to pay down the debt our government incurs.
 
RightinNYC said:
Here's a pretty cool tool. It doesn't use historical data from generic ballot v. actual result, but takes the 2008 vote differential and lets you plug in generic ballot numbers.

House of Representatives Swingometer - UnlikelyVoter.com

Gallup has some historical data:

Generic Ballot Provides Clues for 2010 Vote

The 49%-43% number isn't a two-party figure, but we can do some rough estimates from that.

2008 was a 55-45 two party split, so if we ended up with a 47-53 split this year, according to the swingometer that would translate into a 45 seat Republican gain, giving them control of the house 223-212. According to Gallup, that would translate into 227-208 control for the Reps.

I'd be very surprised if it actually ends up like that.
Click to expand...

But don't forget, Gallup's generic ballot, because it uses registered voters rather than likely ones, has historically always favored the Democrats more than the actual results. So a tie would mean that in reality the GOP is ahead... and a 6-point GOP lead is huge. Especially with enthusiasm on their side by 15 points, which would lean the turnout their way even more. Granted, this week's particular poll is probably just a bump that the Democrats will recover from soon. Still, the GOP has a lot going for them.
 
zimmer said:
For Presidential politics we need to restrict voting for our candidates to registered Republicans only in the primaries..

McCain (RINO) won, by his own admission the night he captured the R nomination, with the help of independents and Libs.

Just think, we're only 18-months from the first primaries.

.
Click to expand...

O i get it, even your own candidates aren't your fault, its still the Dems and independants. Somehow I'd imagine that when that same process resulted in a win for Bush in the Presidental race there was no complaining then, I'm sure it was a great Republican victory. So what I'm gathering from this is that Republicans never lose its the dems and indies that make them...
 
Wiseone said:
O i get it, even your own candidates aren't your fault, its still the Dems and independants. Somehow I'd imagine that when that same process resulted in a win for Bush in the Presidental race there was no complaining then, I'm sure it was a great Republican victory. So what I'm gathering from this is that Republicans never lose its the dems and indies that make them...
Click to expand...

Well, technically, the same process didn't really result in a win for Bush... But I know what you mean.
 
samsmart said:
Well, what you're effectively saying is that the American people voted for a liberal President because the Republican candidate wasn't conservative enough. Why would the American people choose a liberal President if they want more conservative policies?
Click to expand...

They want a strong leader that will LEAD them. McCain came off as weak, indecisive, ready to "reach across the isle" moderate "maverick" Obama was appealing because his campaign made him seem to be a leader. Time has shown otherwise but that's neither here nor there.
 
MrVicchio said:
They want a strong leader that will LEAD them. McCain came off as weak, indecisive, ready to "reach across the isle" moderate "maverick" Obama was appealing because his campaign made him seem to be a leader. Time has shown otherwise but that's neither here nor there.
Click to expand...

Ummm, no. McCain lost mostly because he chose Sarah Palin as his VP candidate, if you ask me. There were a lot of moderate Republican voters, or RINO voters, as you would say, he would have voted for McCain if he had chosen someone better than Palin, someone with better education and more experience with federal politics. McCain also had the troubles of being a Republican after 8 years of a Republican President in office just as the housing market collapsed. So while the reasons why you've stated that McCain lost the election is the reason why conservatives such as yourself didn't vote for him, I'm sure that independents and moderates have other reasons.
 
samsmart said:
Ummm, no. McCain lost mostly because he chose Sarah Palin as his VP candidate, if you ask me.
Click to expand...

Then you'd be absolutely wrong. Sarah Palin either helped him (which I think is true), or hurt him some trivial amount. Nobody with brains votes based on a VP pick.

He lost because he was a Republican. End of story.
A Republican with a strong conservative message might have done a bit better than him, simply by appearing to stand for something. But they would have lost anyways. In 2008, it would have taken something huge for a Republican to win.
 
Dav said:
Then you'd be absolutely wrong. Sarah Palin either helped him (which I think is true), or hurt him some trivial amount. Nobody with brains votes based on a VP pick.

He lost because he was a Republican. End of story.
A Republican with a strong conservative message might have done a bit better than him, simply by appearing to stand for something. But they would have lost anyways. In 2008, it would have taken something huge for a Republican to win.
Click to expand...

truth. the one time McCain was ahead in the polls was after Palins' keynote speech.
 
Dav said:
Then you'd be absolutely wrong. Sarah Palin either helped him (which I think is true), or hurt him some trivial amount. Nobody with brains votes based on a VP pick.
Click to expand...

When the Presidential candidate is 72-years-old, the VP pick is vastly more important than a Presidential candidate who is younger.

Dav said:
He lost because he was a Republican. End of story.
A Republican with a strong conservative message might have done a bit better than him, simply by appearing to stand for something. But they would have lost anyways. In 2008, it would have taken something huge for a Republican to win.
Click to expand...

Actually, I think McCain would have done better if he stayed with his libertarian-conservative stances that he had campaigned on in earlier runs for President. McCain could have gotten a lot of support from liberals and moderates for being more libertarian rather than social conservative. However, he chose an extremely socially conservative VP pick, which I think scared off a lot of independents and moderates, and helped him lose the election. So you're right in that he should have stuck to his guns and stood for something, but I think those should have been his original positions, not those he felt would have catered to the conservative base.

But you're right - he had a tough run as a Republican considering how G.W.B.'s administration ended.
 
one of Sarah Palins' first acts as governor was to sign into law a provision which gave spouse-equivalency rights to homosexual partners of State employees. the Sarah-the-rabid-right-winger narrative is a wee bit overblown.
 
cpwill said:
one of Sarah Palins' first acts as governor was to sign into law a provision which gave spouse-equivalency rights to homosexual partners of State employees. the Sarah-the-rabid-right-winger narrative is a wee bit overblown.
Click to expand...

Do we have a link to that act?
 
Phantom said:
Just my observation, but I think Obama was elected for his more Libertarian leaning positions on social issues. People were also getting tired of hearing a guy try to say "The fundimentals of our economy are strong" with a straight face while Wall Street pops the anxiety pills. It could also have something to do with the opinion polls related to Iraq. Public opinion polls still show to this day that Americans are not in favor of the Iraq war... But I guess those war polls don't really matter when you are a Republican.
Click to expand...

No doubt all of the things you mentioned helped Obama win the election. Another thing that helped was McCain's unsuccessful attempt to paint himself as a "maverick", i.e., not Bush. Then, there were the absurd statements made about Obama by his political enemies: He is a terrorist, not born in the US, a Muslim, and the crowning absurdity of all, the AntiChrist. The only people who believed any of that would not have voted for Obama even if McCain had been shown to be Beelzebub in disguise, but it did a lot of damage to the credibility of Obama's opposition in the eyes of rational voters.
 
Dav said:
Then you'd be absolutely wrong. Sarah Palin either helped him (which I think is true), or hurt him some trivial amount. Nobody with brains votes based on a VP pick.
Click to expand...

Care to look at the independent reaction during her debate with Biden? Hint: It's says you're wrong.

And considering McCain's health issues and age, people with brains do vote based on a VP pick. When a presidential candidate is (1) Old, (2) has boughs with cancer and (3) various other health issues, who he picks as VP is important.

He lost because he was a Republican. End of story.
Click to expand...

That certainly played a role, but to utterly dismiss Palin seems stupid.
 
cpwill said:
one of Sarah Palins' first acts as governor was to sign into law a provision which gave spouse-equivalency rights to homosexual partners of State employees. the Sarah-the-rabid-right-winger narrative is a wee bit overblown.
Click to expand...

I like how you omitted how that did it because their Supreme Court ordered them to do. And how they are trying to overturn the court's decision.

Not quite what you were arguing eh? Oh FACTS~!
 
Yes.
Conservatism has a fantastic record in national politics because socialism is easy to deconstruct, and even easier now with the EU, Kanuckistan, and Democrats illustrating its destructive nature.

McCain was a RINO. He didn't force the press to cover Obi's past.
JFK today would be a Republican to the right of McCain.
Bush 41 wasn't one, and because he caved to get along, he lost. Perot helped Clinton too.
Reagan... well, he kicked ass.
Bush 43 was no conservative. He spent way too much. Chip off the old block I guess.

It will be interesting to see who emerges for 2012. Only 18 months until Iowa!

.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
Well, what you're effectively saying is that the American people voted for a liberal President because the Republican candidate wasn't conservative enough. Why would the American people choose a liberal President if they want more conservative policies?
Click to expand...

They got caught up in a circus act.
Had too much spiked Kool-Aid, and believed the PR. The press was AWOL.

When a citizen asks a question of the candidate, lets him answer, and answer, and answer... only for Obi to let the cat out of the bag, and then to have the press turn on the citizen and investigate him... that speaks volumes.
In any other election it would have been a serious blow... but... the press put the cat back in the bag by attacking Joe Citizen.

Now we are paying for it.

One poll asks the same question year after year... and it reveals a good majority of Americans are conservative. We only have to appeal to that bloc. Sell limited government and then follow through. It worked well for Reagan, and America after the Misery Index/Stagflation years of Carter.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
And when the voters put the Republicans back in power in the Congress, what will change? The voters didn't like the Republican Congress a few years ago, so the Democrats won big. The voters still don't like what is happening in Washington, so the Republicans might win power back again. But, what will really change?

Will the new government be able to balance the budget, put a satisfactory end to the wars in the ME, reduce our appetite for drugs, put a stop to illegal immigration, get us closer to energy independence, or bring down the cost of health care?

When a party, any party has a realistic plan to do any or all of the above, then it's time to become partisan. Until then, it's just a changing of the guard, bringing on political rhetoric, which will be simply leaping and hooting, full of sound and fury but signifying nothing.

Which is what I expect to happen in the next couple of elections.
Click to expand...

In short we get the government we elected.

Same as it ever was.

That said,... I see the Tea Party movement as a wakeup call to both sides on the issue of government spending.

It's been a clear and un-mistaken message that we "the people" have had enough of it.
 
It doesn't work in our favor by having Dems and I's vote for our candidate.
Just look at the last election.
No better example is needed.

.
 
samsmart said:
Ummm, no. McCain lost mostly because he chose Sarah Palin as his VP candidate, if you ask me. There were a lot of moderate Republican voters, or RINO voters, as you would say, he would have voted for McCain if he had chosen someone better than Palin, someone with better education and more experience with federal politics. McCain also had the troubles of being a Republican after 8 years of a Republican President in office just as the housing market collapsed. So while the reasons why you've stated that McCain lost the election is the reason why conservatives such as yourself didn't vote for him, I'm sure that independents and moderates have other reasons.
Click to expand...

Palin reinvigorated a dying campaign.
It may be the first time in history a VP candidate was of more interest to the press than the running mate.

Hell, there was more scrutiny of Palin than Obama.
She scares the living **** out of the press and the left, and for good reason.
If she were an airhead, they wouldn't bother wasting their time, money and energy trying to destroy her.

.
 
Last edited:
winston53660 said:
Do we have a link to that act?
Click to expand...

hmm, looks lik i had it a bit off


..The more Republicans examined Palin’s record, the more they liked it, although some are fearful of buyer’s remorse. She was born in the conservative heartland of Idaho before moving to Alaska as a baby. At school she was nicknamed Sarah Barracuda on the basketball court because she was so competitive and she led the prayers before each game.

She was a “hockey mom” who cut her teeth at the parent-teacher association before becoming mayor of Wasilla, a suburb of Anchorage with a population under 7,000. In 2006 she beat the corrupt male establishment in Alaska to win the governorship. She opposes same-sex marriage, but one of her first acts in office was to veto a bill blocking health benefits for gay lovers of public employees...
 
obvious Child said:
I like how you omitted how that did it because their Supreme Court ordered them to do. And how they are trying to overturn the court's decision.

Not quite what you were arguing eh? Oh FACTS~!
Click to expand...

hmm seems we wee both a little wrong on those :)
 
zimmer said:
Palin reinvigorated a dying campaign.
It may be the first time in history a VP candidate was of more interest to the press than the running mate.

Hell, there was more scrutiny of Palin than Obama.
She scares the living **** out of the press and the left, and for good reason.
If she were an airhead, they wouldn't bother wasting their time, money and energy trying to destroy her.

.
Click to expand...

...she is an airhead. An airhead who was a few percentage points away from being vice president. Also, the press didn't try to destroy her, she did that herself. They asked her basic questions they ask everyone in politics, and her answers were disasters. The woman can't even answer a soft-ball question from her own team at Fox News, Glenn Beck asked her which founding father is her favorite. She took like a minute and a half to come up with "George Washington!" (after another "Oh...all of them!" classic Palin answer)

She's a celebrity now, not a politician. She's closer to Lindsay Lohan than she is to Nancy Pelosi. She gets attention for that reason.

Edit: And I wouldn't say anyone is "scared" of her. The danger of her becoming a powerful elected official has more or less passed, "the left's" only interest in the manner is making sure she stays out of public office, because there's still a following of Palin fans who think she'll be president in 2012.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
She's a celebrity now, not a politician. She's closer to Lindsay Lohan than she is to Nancy Pelosi. She gets attention for that reason.
Click to expand...

Actually, I'd probably prefer Lindsay Lohan over Nancy Pelosi.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom