• 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

Navy Pride said:
Could be as much as 80 seats, hasn't happened since FDR..........
Click to expand...

Wishful thinking even for a Republican like you Navy.....the number will be closer to 40-45....smaller than in 94 but enough to give your Republican party the house. The Senate will remain Democrat.
 
Obama has the Repubs right where he wants them.

Because when they take the house the Repubs will actually have to govern instead of just playing partisan politics and obstructionism. So if they don't create jobs and reduce the deficit within a year, which I doubt they will, their name is as good as mudd.
 
Moot said:
Obama has the Repubs right where he wants them.
Click to expand...

LOL!

Pelosi, Among Others, Could Exit if Dems Lose House - TIME

Other Democrats are sure to follow Pelosi out of the Capitol. After the GOP lost the House in 2006, 27 Republicans called it quits. But in the case of Pelosi's Democratic cloakroom, the exodus could be deeper: five of the 20 current committee chairmen are her allies from California. Without their champion, some veterans such as Education and Labor Committee chairman George Miller, who has been in Congress since 1975, may be inclined to leave.

Others are older — Rules Committee chair Louise Slaughter and Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, both 81, know that life in the minority holds less appeal for octogenarians. And, in any case, it might be time for some fresh blood. The average age of Democratic House chairs is nearly 70, while top Republicans are, on average, a decade younger — thanks, in part, to the 2006 spate of retirements.

Two chairmen have already retired: Appropriations Committee chief David Obey of Wisconsin and Tennessee's Bart Gordon, the top Dem on the Science and Technology Committee. Both seats look likely to fall into GOP hands next week.

Another five chairmen are endangered. A recent poll showed Budget Committee chairman John Spratt trailing by 10 points in his South Carolina district. And Armed Services Committee chairman Ike Skelton, Transportation Committee chairman Jim Oberstar and Natural Resources Committee chairman Nick Rahall are all in the toughest races of their careers. All told, half or more of the top Democrats on the House's 20 committees might lose, quit or retire.

Serving in the minority in the House is vastly different from governing. For many of the old bulls who survived a dozen years in the minority to get their chance to govern, a return to second-class citizenship is unappealing. A spate of rank-and-file retirements is likely, giving Republicans an extra advantage Dems enjoyed in 2008: dozens of open seats in districts that haven't been vacant for decades. This could set the GOP up for more gains in 2012.
Click to expand...
 
Moot said:
Obama has the Repubs right where he wants them.

Because when they take the house the Repubs will actually have to govern instead of just playing partisan politics and obstructionism. So if they don't create jobs and reduce the deficit within a year, which I doubt they will, their name is as good as mudd.
Click to expand...

Oh so the democrats will have to go back to being the party of NO like they were for the 14 years Republicans controlled both houses? You seem to have forgotten that part.

Oh how I love exposing liberalism hypocrisy.
 
Heavy Duty said:
Oh so the democrats will have to go back to being the party of NO like they were for the 14 years Republicans controlled both houses? You seem to have forgotten that part.

Oh how I love exposing liberalism hypocrisy.
Click to expand...

Of course they will. After all winning no matter what, is more important than actually governing the US and getting it out of the mess it is in. The republicans are experts at that.

But this thread will look silly if the Republicans dont take both houses... we shall see.
 
PeteEU said:
Of course they will. After all winning no matter what, is more important than actually governing the US and getting it out of the mess it is in. The republicans are experts at that.

But this thread will look silly if the Republicans dont take both houses... we shall see.
Click to expand...
Well most political pugs whom are bi partisan are saying that the senate isnt out of reach and could very well be taken. The only reason it would stay in the dems hands is because this is an off election year for most senate seats.
 
Wiseone said:
Whats funny is that if, and probably when, this election tomorrow the Republicans gain a slight majority in the House its going to be hailed as a total American rejection of Democrats. I guess it takes true denial to look at a 51%-60% majority and call it a total sweep.
Click to expand...

This is one of those things of recent years that both parties do that just will not stop anytime soon I fear. I honestly thinik that the 2000 election and the reactions to such a tight race had a LOT to do with it. Then you have 2004 with Bush having the most votes for a candidate in history at that point claiming a "mandate" with a small margin to win. Then you had Democrats in 2006 claiming a "mandate" for taking the congress during a year of low approval by either side for republicans and a ton of scandals, by using a bunch of blue dog Democrat candidates. You have the large Obama win made to look like a landslide, and an individual running as a moderate taking it as a mandate to push very left leaning ideas and policy. And now you'll have the Republicans doing it again.

The one difference I will give the Republicans of 2010 compared to the Democrats of 2006 however is that if they do it they are doing it by making their intentions fully known in regards to being firmly entrenched in the right. In 2006 Democrats won their majority by going into Republican strong holds and winning victories by running moderate to even conservative leaning democrats, in some cases seemingly only breaking with their Republican competition on the War and a few more minor issues. In 2010 the Republicans are actually OUSTING the republican equivilent of those type of people in primaries and running staunchly right-leaning people who are clearly articulating what they stand for.

While I don't think its going to necessarily mean a "mandate" that the country is decidingly and unquestionably all against Obama and all completely to the right, I do believe it sends a much more clear message of the views of the country with regards to political lean in general than 2006 due to the focuses of strategy found in both campaign years.
 
disneydude said:
Wishful thinking even for a Republican like you Navy.....the number will be closer to 40-45....smaller than in 94 but enough to give your Republican party the house. The Senate will remain Democrat.
Click to expand...

One thing for sure if they get the house they can stop the socialist government of Hussein Obama....Thank God for that........
 
Moot said:
Obama has the Repubs right where he wants them.

Because when they take the house the Repubs will actually have to govern instead of just playing partisan politics and obstructionism. So if they don't create jobs and reduce the deficit within a year, which I doubt they will, their name is as good as mudd.
Click to expand...

you people are really bad at reading the mood of this country.

Republicans are being elected precisely to be the party of "no".
 
Moot said:
Obama has the Repubs right where he wants them.
Click to expand...
I didn't know he was into that sort of thing. And all this time we thought he was bowing!
 
Zyphlin said:
This is one of those things of recent years that both parties do that just will not stop anytime soon I fear. I honestly thinik that the 2000 election and the reactions to such a tight race had a LOT to do with it. Then you have 2004 with Bush having the most votes for a candidate in history at that point claiming a "mandate" with a small margin to win. Then you had Democrats in 2006 claiming a "mandate" for taking the congress during a year of low approval by either side for republicans and a ton of scandals, by using a bunch of blue dog Democrat candidates. You have the large Obama win made to look like a landslide, and an individual running as a moderate taking it as a mandate to push very left leaning ideas and policy. And now you'll have the Republicans doing it again.

The one difference I will give the Republicans of 2010 compared to the Democrats of 2006 however is that if they do it they are doing it by making their intentions fully known in regards to being firmly entrenched in the right. In 2006 Democrats won their majority by going into Republican strong holds and winning victories by running moderate to even conservative leaning democrats, in some cases seemingly only breaking with their Republican competition on the War and a few more minor issues. In 2010 the Republicans are actually OUSTING the republican equivilent of those type of people in primaries and running staunchly right-leaning people who are clearly articulating what they stand for.

While I don't think its going to necessarily mean a "mandate" that the country is decidingly and unquestionably all against Obama and all completely to the right, I do believe it sends a much more clear message of the views of the country with regards to political lean in general than 2006 due to the focuses of strategy found in both campaign years.
Click to expand...

I think the TP and many passionate Obama voters have much in common. I wish I had a name for that group of Obama supporters I'm referring to but its those who normally weren't political involved but were caught up in a passionate and hopeful message and turned out in huge numbers to vote. However most of them weren't politically savvy, didn't understand government, didn't really have much of a response other than "Hope."

The TP is the exact same formula just with different numbers, instead of a passion for hope they have a passion for anger. They aren't politically savvy, they don't typically understand government, and they don't offer a solution any more detailed than bumper sticker logos.
I think if the recession had not had happened, Bush still would have been extremely unpopular and Obama probably would have still won the election in no so part due to these extremely passionate supporters. Then there would have been a similar pull to the left from these individuals that the TP is doing to the right. However I think both movements were destined to short lives, especially after they actually elect their savior and especially to the Presidency. Just as Obama was unable to live up to everything many people expected from him, if Palin or some other TPer is elected to the Presidency she will also be able to live up to everything.

I think its easy to say the Republicans can stand by what they believe in and don't have such a board base as the Dems, especially those Blue Dogs, because the Dem's policies are extremely unpopular. In 2006 and 2008 the Dems weren't as board as I think you are making them out to be. While you have the Blue Dogs, they tend to have liberal financial policies yet be social conservatives but since the majority of actions by Congress deal with fiscal policy they tend to vote as normal Democrats. And in 2006, 2008 we saw the Republicans split just like the Dems are doing now, they attempted to distance themselves from the President as much as they could. And now the Dems are in many cases attempting to distance themselves from the President.
 
BCR said:
I give credit to the GOP. Great job guys, you somehow managed to turn the Auto Bailouts, The Stimulus bill, and Health care reform all into terrible monstrosities used by the Left in order to create a socialist government. Nevermind that the Auto Bailouts and Stimulus bill were for the most part successes and saved/created millions of jobs. The verdict is still out on health care, I'm amazed so many disapprove before it has even taken effect...
Click to expand...

Nevermind that the bailouts (TARP) were all initiated and approved by GW Bush, that the funds taxpayers shelled out for these bailouts have pretty much been paid back nearly in full, and that even GW Bush himself saw health care reform as a necessary step to providing affordable health care to all (see his 2007 State of the Union Address) AND that the rising cost of SSN, Medicare and Medicaid were placing a significant strain on the national budget - the same concerns Obama has been trying to address.

And, finally, to keep this economy strong we must take on the challenge of entitlements. Social Security and Medicare and Medicaid are commitments of conscience, and so it is our duty to keep them permanently sound. Yet, we're failing in that duty. And this failure will one day leave our children with three bad options: huge tax increases, huge deficits, or huge and immediate cuts in benefits. Everyone in this chamber knows this to be true -- yet somehow we have not found it in ourselves to act. So let us work together and do it now. With enough good sense and goodwill, you and I can fix Medicare and Medicaid -- and save Social Security.

....

A future of hope and opportunity requires that all our citizens have affordable and available health care. When it comes to health care, government has an obligation to care for the elderly, the disabled, and poor children. And we will meet those responsibilities. For all other Americans, private health insurance is the best way to meet their needs. But many Americans cannot afford a health insurance policy.

And so tonight, I propose two new initiatives to help more Americans afford their own insurance. First, I propose a standard tax deduction for health insurance that will be like the standard tax deduction for dependents. Families with health insurance will pay no income on payroll tax -- or payroll taxes on $15,000 of their income. Single Americans with health insurance will pay no income or payroll taxes on $7,500 of their income. With this reform, more than 100 million men, women, and children who are now covered by employer-provided insurance will benefit from lower tax bills. At the same time, this reform will level the playing field for those who do not get health insurance through their job. For Americans who now purchase health insurance on their own, this proposal would mean a substantial tax savings -- $4,500 for a family of four making $60,000 a year. And for the millions of other Americans who have no health insurance at all, this deduction would help put a basic private health insurance plan within their reach. Changing the tax code is a vital and necessary step to making health care affordable for more Americans.

My second proposal is to help the states that are coming up with innovative ways to cover the uninsured. States that make basic private health insurance available to all their citizens should receive federal funds to help them provide this coverage to the poor and the sick. I have asked the Secretary of Health and Human Services to work with Congress to take existing federal funds and use them to create "Affordable Choices" grants. These grants would give our nation's governors more money and more flexibility to get private health insurance to those most in need.

There are many other ways that Congress can help. We need to expand Health Savings Accounts. We need to help small businesses through Association Health Plans. We need to reduce costs and medical errors with better information technology. We will encourage price transparency. And to protect good doctors from junk lawsuits, we passing medical liability reform. In all we do, we must remember that the best health care decisions are made not by government and insurance companies, but by patients and their doctors.
Click to expand...

GW Bush may not have gone about reforming health care in the same way Obama has, but I believe that had he not taken his focus off domestic issues, health care reform could have been his legacy instead of being remembered for the Iraq War. Even GW Bush's energy policy in some ways mirrors that of Obama's:

Extending hope and opportunity depends on a stable supply of energy that keeps America's economy running and America's environment clean. For too long our nation has been dependent on foreign oil. And this dependence leaves us more vulnerable to hostile regimes, and to terrorists -- who could cause huge disruptions of oil shipments, and raise the price of oil, and do great harm to our economy.

It's in our vital interest to diversify America's energy supply -- the way forward is through technology. We must continue changing the way America generates electric power, by even greater use of clean coal technology, solar and wind energy, and clean, safe nuclear power. We need to press on with battery research for plug-in and hybrid vehicles, and expand the use of clean diesel vehicles and biodiesel fuel. We must continue investing in new methods of producing ethanol -- using everything from wood chips to grasses, to agricultural wastes.

We made a lot of progress, thanks to good policies here in Washington and the strong response of the market. And now even more dramatic advances are within reach. Tonight, I ask Congress to join me in pursuing a great goal. Let us build on the work we've done and reduce gasoline usage in the United States by 20 percent in the next 10 years. When we do that we will have cut our total imports by the equivalent of three-quarters of all the oil we now import from the Middle East.

To reach this goal, we must increase the supply of alternative fuels, by setting a mandatory fuels standard to require 35 billion gallons of renewable and alternative fuels in 2017 -- and that is nearly five times the current target. At the same time, we need to reform and modernize fuel economy standards for cars the way we did for light trucks -- and conserve up to 8.5 billion more gallons of gasoline by 2017.

Achieving these ambitious goals will dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil, but it's not going to eliminate it. And so as we continue to diversify our fuel supply, we must step up domestic oil production in environmentally sensitive ways. And to further protect America against severe disruptions to our oil supply, I ask Congress to double the current capacity of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.

America is on the verge of technological breakthroughs that will enable us to live our lives less dependent on oil. And these technologies will help us be better stewards of the environment, and they will help us to confront the serious challenge of global climate change.
Click to expand...


I'll be the first to state the obvious concerning the Democrats over the last 2-years: They've done a terrible job of controlling the narrative and informing the American people on the truths of these issues and setting the rhetoric straight. It's the primary reason they may very well lose Congress. I like many things they have accomplished; it's just sad they couldn't present the American people with a united message that clearly defined what they were doing and why it was necessary for the nation.
 
Last edited:
This could be a great day for America but as good as it might turn out it will be only the end of the beginning, and the real battles will begin tomorrow.

We have to redouble our efforts to kill off the Liberal Progressive movement dead once and for all and it will not be easy because Liberals will not change as they have shown n mater how wrong there ave benn shown to be at every turn.

In stead of celebrating i suggest we all spend our time working on a plan of attack to repeal the Phony Health Plan, or if need be defund all implementation to save the economy.

I would also suggest that there be no effort to impeach Obama right away unless an air tight case can be made and somehow include Biden at the same time, other wise we would go from a Socialist/Marxist bent on the destruction of America to Biden who is possibly the dumbest VP in History and that is saying something when you remember how stupid Dan Quayle is.
 
Councilman said:
This could be a great day for America but as good as it might turn out it will be only the end of the beginning, and the real battles will begin tomorrow.

We have to redouble our efforts to kill off the Liberal Progressive movement dead once and for all and it will not be easy because Liberals will not change as they have shown n mater how wrong there ave benn shown to be at every turn.

In stead of celebrating i suggest we all spend our time working on a plan of attack to repeal the Phony Health Plan, or if need be defund all implementation to save the economy.

I would also suggest that there be no effort to impeach Obama right away unless an air tight case can be made and somehow include Biden at the same time, other wise we would go from a Socialist/Marxist bent on the destruction of America to Biden who is possibly the dumbest VP in History and that is saying something when you remember how stupid Dan Quayle is.
Click to expand...

Right you go plan that, the rest of us will do something productive.
 
What exactly would be the impeachable offense? What has he done that's unconstitutional/against the law or brought dishonor unto the office of the President of the United States? What offense has he committed against Congress? Because they are the ones who write the laws and give him the authority to do whatever it is he does. So, what law has he violated?
 
Last edited:
disneydude said:
Wishful thinking even for a Republican like you Navy.....the number will be closer to 40-45....smaller than in 94 but enough to give your Republican party the house. The Senate will remain Democrat.
Click to expand...

i am going to remind you of this later.
 
Objective Voice said:
What exactly would be the impeachable offense? What has he done that's unconstitutional/against the law or brought dishonor unto the office of the President of the United States? What offense has he committed against Congress? Because they are the ones who write the laws and give him the authority to do whatever it is he does. So, what law has he violated?
Click to expand...

He has a (D) next to his name. I can't really think of much else, since half of what he's done so far has been previously pitched in some way by Republicans.
 
Councilman said:
This could be a great day for America but as good as it might turn out it will be only the end of the beginning, and the real battles will begin tomorrow.

We have to redouble our efforts to kill off the Liberal Progressive movement dead once and for all and it will not be easy because Liberals will not change as they have shown n mater how wrong there ave benn shown to be at every turn.

In stead of celebrating i suggest we all spend our time working on a plan of attack to repeal the Phony Health Plan, or if need be defund all implementation to save the economy.

I would also suggest that there be no effort to impeach Obama right away unless an air tight case can be made and somehow include Biden at the same time, other wise we would go from a Socialist/Marxist bent on the destruction of America to Biden who is possibly the dumbest VP in History and that is saying something when you remember how stupid Dan Quayle is.
Click to expand...

Liberalism has been dead for twenty years. Conservatives pretend it still exists to rile themselves up whenever their own party is too incompetent to win on its own merits, pretty much perpetually.
 
Redress said:
60 seats is hardly "historic".
Click to expand...

Really, something we do every two years? :lol: Looks like one Democrat already left the country. I wonder if Alec Baldwin will follow suit.
 
molten_dragon said:
What are you talking about? The congressmen elected tomorrow will take office in January of 2011. The democrats took control of congress in January of 2007, making it 4 years that they would have control if the republicans gain control in tomorrow's election.

On the topic that the OP presented, I think that if the republicans take office, it's less indicative of people voting against the democrats than it is people voting against the status quo. If things are going poorly, people assuming that leaving the same people in charge will cause them to continue to go poorly.

I would actually prefer to see the republicans gain a small majority in one house of congress and the democrats retain a small majority in the other.
Click to expand...

I agree with you to a degree: I would appreciate this IF they took it as a message to work together and craft legislation that actually moves the country forward.

The Republicans, however, have already indicated that they take this as a mandate to do nothing but further obstruct everything and get Obama out of office in 2012.

This will be the do-nothing Congress and could result in yet another swing in two years. I know that sounds odd, but let's be honest - we're experience a two-year swing right now.

I think both parties are strongly misreading the electorate - especially independent and moderate voters (who have now swung back and forth three times in four election cycles).
 
cpwill said:
you people are really bad at reading the mood of this country.

Republicans are being elected precisely to be the party of "no".
Click to expand...
If Republicans continue to be the party of "no" then they are the ones who are misreading the mood of the country because the number one priority on voters minds are JOBS!!!

Jobs have been the top issue all year in nearly every state and congressional district.
Jobs, economic security top issues before midterms - USATODAY.com

Priorities

Public's Wish List for Congress -- Jobs and Deficit Reduction - Pew Research Center

Repubs can't create jobs unless they fund to stimulate the economy, and they can't do that if they want to reduce the deficit, and they can't reduce the deficit or create jobs if they cut taxes. Oh my, what a pickle the Repubs are going to be in.

But Boehner thinks repealing the healthcare bill is the number one priority. So if Boehner spends all congress's time trying to repeal healthcare, then he'll actually be destroying jobs and increasing the budget deficit. I think Repubs have seriously misread the priorities of American voters. tsk, tsk, tsk. "It's the economy, stupid."
 
Wiseone said:
Right you go plan that, the rest of us will do something productive.
Click to expand...

Nothing can be more productive or better for our Nation than stopping Obama and his plans dead in their tracks.

Objective Voice said:
What exactly would be the impeachable offense? What has he done that's unconstitutional/against the law or brought dishonor unto the office of the President of the United States? What offense has he committed against Congress? Because they are the ones who write the laws and give him the authority to do whatever it is he does. So, what law has he violated?
Click to expand...

Obama is in violation of his oath of office under Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.
 
Councilman said:
Nothing can be more productive or better for our Nation than stopping Obama and his plans dead in their tracks.

Obama is in violation of his oath of office under Article 4 Section 4 of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence.

That one?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom