• 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!

2010 Midterm Election Predictions

What do you think the results are going to be in 2010

  • Democrats gain in house and senate

    Votes: 2 6.7%

  • Democrats gain in house, senate relatively unchanged

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Republicans gain in house but not a majority, senate relatively unchanged

    Votes: 18 60.0%

  • Republicans gain a majority in house, senate relatively unchanged

    Votes: 8 26.7%

  • Status quo, no significant changes in house or senate

    Votes: 2 6.7%
  • Total voters
    30
Redress said:
That was the point, yes.
Click to expand...
And yet this is exactly what you want to see again?? Nonstop Democrats with control of all three branches of government for decades??? I see that crap here in the People's Republic of New York and it is not good. Zero private sector growth and a whole slew of brand new taxes and fees in a vain attempt to close a 2 billion dollar shortfall.
 
Bassman said:
And yet this is exactly what you want to see again?? Nonstop Democrats with control of all three branches of government for decades??? I see that crap here in the People's Republic of New York and it is not good. Zero private sector growth and a whole slew of brand new taxes and fees in a vain attempt to close a 2 billion dollar shortfall.
Click to expand...

Again, where have I said that? Step one to having a sane, enjoyable conversations is to not go on these random, off the wall rants.
 
Last edited:
Redress said:
No moreso than any other party out of power. I think most of us where not even that pissed until 2000. But it goes back and forth, with every shift in power. There just have not been that many shifts in congress, so it made it more noticeable in 94.
Click to expand...
One thing that has to be remembered is that, historically speaking, 2001-2006 was exceptional as a period of "unified" government (both houses of Congress and the Presidency under a single party).

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congress"]United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
Year Congress President Senate (100) House (435)
2009 111th D D - 58*** D - 256
2007 110th R D - 51** D - 233
2005 109th R R - 55 R - 232
2003 108th R R - 51 R - 229
2001 107th R D* R - 221
1999 106th D R - 55 R - 223
1997 105th D R - 55 R - 228
1995 104th D R - 52 R - 230
1993 103rd D D - 57 D - 258
1991 102nd R D - 56 D - 267
1989 101st R D - 55 D - 260
1987 100th R D - 55 D - 258
1985 99th R R - 53 D - 253
1983 98th R R - 54 D - 269
1981 97th R R - 53 D - 242
1979 96th D D - 58 D - 277
1977 95th D D - 61 D - 292
1975 94th R D - 60 D -291
1973 93rd R D - 56 D - 242
1971 92nd R D - 54 D - 255
1969 91st R D - 57 D - 243
1967 90th D D - 64 D - 247
1965 89th D D - 68 D - 295
1963 88th D D - 66 D - 259
1961 87th D D - 64 D - 263
1959 86th R D - 65 D -283
1957 85th R D - 49 D - 232
1955 84th R D - 48 D - 232
1953 83rd R R - 48 D - 221
1951 82nd D D - 49 D - 235
1949 81st D D - 54 D - 263
1947 80th D R - 51 R - 246
1945 79th D D - 57 D - 242
Click to expand...
Since WWII, only one other time--the 1960s--has one party dominated the national government for more than a single Presidential cycle (although 2001 was an odd session for the Senate because of starting out with an exact 50-50 split).

The pattern of American government--the long term historical trend--is very much one of divided government. For whatever particular mix of political forces that come into play, the natural political balance of this country has been that a party can have the White House, or the Congress, but not both.

The times where it has occurred have, interestingly enough, been fairly controversial times: Truman's second term was punctuated by the Soviet Union becoming a nuclear power, the Korean War, the 1952 steel strike, McCarthyism, just to name a few; Kennedy's abbreviated Presidency began with the Bay of Pigs and reached a crescendo during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Civil Rights throughout; Johnson's term not only had the Great Society legislation, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident (now known to be a manufactured incident) and the escalation of Vietnam; Carter's administration had stagflation, malaise, and the humiliation of the hostages in Iran; Bush's term had 9/11, Iraq, and the associated controversies from the Patriot Act and the Gitmo detainees.

Unified government does not seem to bring much in the way of domestic tranquility.
 
Bassman said:
So lemme ask. You favor a permanent Democrat majority with no opposition except a few token Conservatives?? Sick indeed!!
Click to expand...

What makes you think that the Republicans are Conservative?

What we have is a liberal party who isn't pretending it's liberal and a liberal party pretending it's conservative.
 
Bassman said:
And yet this is exactly what you want to see again?? Nonstop Democrats with control of all three branches of government for decades??? I see that crap here in the People's Republic of New York and it is not good. Zero private sector growth and a whole slew of brand new taxes and fees in a vain attempt to close a 2 billion dollar shortfall.
Click to expand...
"Again"? Check my previous post. The historical norm since WWII has been divided government.
 
celticlord said:
"Again". Check my previous post. The historical norm since WWII has been divided government.
Click to expand...
Really???
Let's see:

1960-1963
President: John F. Kennedy-Democrat (Assassinated)
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1963-1969
President: Lyndon Baines Johnson-Democrat
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1969-1974
President: Richard Milhouse Nixon-Republican (Resigned)
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1974-1977
President: Gerald Rudolph Ford
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1977-1981
President: James Earl Cart-Democrat
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1981-1985
President: Ronald Wilson Reagan-Republican
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1985-1989
President: Ronald Wilson Reagan-Republican
House of Represntatives-Democrat
Senate-Republican

1989-1993
President:George Herbert Walker Bush-Republican
House of Representatives-Democrat
Senate-Democrat

1993-1997
President:William Jefferson Clinton-Democrat
House of Representatives-Democrat (to 1995) Republican (since 1995)
Senate-Democrat (to 1995) Republican (since 1995)

1997-2001
President: William Jefferson Clinton-Democrat
House of Representatives-Republican
Senate-Republican

2001-2005
President: George Walker Bush
House of Representatives-Republican
Senate-Republican

2005-2009
President: George Walker bush
House of Representatives-Republican (to 2007) Democrat (since 2007)
Senate-Republican (to 2007) Democrat (since 2007)

See a pattern here?? Democrats have had the advantage here!
 
Bassman said:
You didn't have to say that. As a die-hard Liberal, you want to see endless Democrat rule!
Click to expand...

Please do not tell me what I want. Argue against what I say, not what you think I might, possibly, maybe want. I am not going to have an argument with some one who is building positions for me I have never advocated.
 
Uh Bassman. Check your list again. 1960-69, 1977-1981, 1993-1995 are the only Democrat only.

So celtic is correct that divided government is the norm over time.
 
Redress said:
Please do not tell me what I want. Argue against what I say, not what you think I might, possibly, maybe want. I am not going to have an argument with some one who is building positions for me I have never advocated.
Click to expand...
So then tell me. Since you're all giddy with the current incompetent empty skulls in DC, what is your IDEAL government in DC??
 
celticlord said:
One thing that has to be remembered is that, historically speaking, 2001-2006 was exceptional as a period of "unified" government (both houses of Congress and the Presidency under a single party).

United States Congress - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Since WWII, only one other time--the 1960s--has one party dominated the national government for more than a single Presidential cycle (although 2001 was an odd session for the Senate because of starting out with an exact 50-50 split).

The pattern of American government--the long term historical trend--is very much one of divided government. For whatever particular mix of political forces that come into play, the natural political balance of this country has been that a party can have the White House, or the Congress, but not both.

The times where it has occurred have, interestingly enough, been fairly controversial times: Truman's second term was punctuated by the Soviet Union becoming a nuclear power, the Korean War, the 1952 steel strike, McCarthyism, just to name a few; Kennedy's abbreviated Presidency began with the Bay of Pigs and reached a crescendo during the Cuban Missile Crisis, with Civil Rights throughout; Johnson's term not only had the Great Society legislation, but the Gulf of Tonkin incident (now known to be a manufactured incident) and the escalation of Vietnam; Carter's administration had stagflation, malaise, and the humiliation of the hostages in Iran; Bush's term had 9/11, Iraq, and the associated controversies from the Patriot Act and the Gitmo detainees.

Unified government does not seem to bring much in the way of domestic tranquility.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I am aware of that, though it is a nice summary. I have said that I do think checks on a single party in power are a positive. I am going to enjoy this period of democrats in pretty much total power, but I don't think that is healthy in a long run. There needs to be a strong opposition, which unfortunately, the republican are not handling well. Admittedly, we did not handle it well from 2000 to 2006 either.
 
Redress said:
Yeah, I am aware of that, though it is a nice summary. I have said that I do think checks on a single party in power are a positive. I am going to enjoy this period of democrats in pretty much total power, but I don't think that is healthy in a long run.
Click to expand...
Yes you do!!
There needs to be a strong opposition, which unfortunately, the republican are not handling well. Admittedly, we did not handle it well from 2000 to 2006 either.
Click to expand...
Face it! You want to quash all opposition!
 
Bassman said:
So then tell me. Since you're all giddy with the current incompetent empty skulls in DC, what is your IDEAL government in DC??
Click to expand...

Me as benevolent dictator.
 
Bassman said:
Yes you do!! Face it! You want to quash all opposition!
Click to expand...

Do you realize how foolish your posts are becoming? Ask a few of our diehard conservatives who know me(the sane ones) and see if they agree with you on what I want.
 
Redress said:
Me as benevolent dictator.
Click to expand...

Bassman said:
Try again, this time with some legitimacy!
Click to expand...
Redress as malevolent dictator?

kim.jpg
 
Redress said:
Do you realize how foolish your posts are becoming? Ask a few of our diehard conservatives who know me(the sane ones) and see if they agree with you on what I want.
Click to expand...
How?? You just admitted as such, or do I need to redirect you to the post. You're just loving the Democrat majority and fail to see all the damage they are causing!!!
 
celticlord said:
Redress as malevolent dictator?

kim.jpg
Click to expand...

Sadly, until I get called back to work and can afford some new glasses, mine look almost like that. My newer, smaller glasses broke, and I had to go back to a pair that are, well, alot less stylish(ie, they was safety glasses until I pulled off the sideshields...poverty sucks).
 
Bassman said:
Try again, this time with some legitimacy!
Click to expand...

How about, out of the house, senate, and presidency, one party controlling one, the other party the other 2. Preferable democrats having the 2.
 
Bassman said:
How?? You just admitted as such, or do I need to redirect you to the post. You're just loving the Democrat majority and fail to see all the damage they are causing!!!
Click to expand...

You need to go back and read my posts, preferably with comprehension in mind.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom