Republicans Won BIG!

[Timber Loftis]

Exceerpt From a NY Times Op Ed, if you're interested:

But over all, the Republicans succeeded because of Mr. Bush's personal popularity and his smart strategy. The president's party denied Senate Democrats the chance to pass popular bills on prescription drugs for the elderly and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security by adding political poison pills the Democrats couldn't swallow. Mr. Bush then risked his own personal political standing by campaigning long and hard for Republicans in close races, energizing the Republican base and reminding undecided voters whose side he was on.

Some voters may resent being cut out of the decision-making in a year when control of the Senate depended on such a small number of voters in such a chaotic series of contests. It was true that a very small proportion of the population was in a position to control key races, the outcome of which could decide the Supreme Court's future makeup, tax policy and even the content of the nation's foreign policy. But we have learned the hard way that every vote really does count. We make our largest decisions as a nation in the best way we can, by the equivalent of a show of hands. Our best hope, as this strange and messy year of decisions ends, is that the people who have won will always remember the large number of hands that were waving on the other side.

[Charean]

I could just cry - the balance of power is in the GOP's favor and there will be no balance for the next 2 years. WAAAAH!

For us moderates and the Liberals, this will be hell.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Trust me, if you have ever had the unique... ahem... "pleasure" of driving the entirety of Iowa on I-80, you would call it anything but piddly. {edited for smileys }

Actually I have [img]smile.gif[/img] hehe in 1990 I drove from Philly to San Diego, went I-80 out to Iowa, hit nebraska don't remember the exact route (all htose flat state look alike from the highway [img]smile.gif[/img] ) and ended up in Denver and made a sharp right up over the rockies [img]smile.gif[/img] Beautiful drive, but the Midwest was interminable, especially with a lot of head winds. Gas milage sucked.

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Exceerpt From a NY Times Op Ed, if you're interested: But over all, the Republicans succeeded because of Mr. Bush's personal popularity and his smart strategy. The president's party denied Senate Democrats the chance to pass popular bills on prescription drugs for the elderly and the establishment of a Department of Homeland Security by adding political poison pills the Democrats couldn't swallow. Mr. Bush then risked his own personal political standing by campaigning long and hard for Republicans in close races, energizing the Republican base and reminding undecided voters whose side he was on. Err how does republicans stalling "popular bills" give them a win over the democrats? I would think if the republicans scuttled "popular" bills, that owuld give the Democrats a boost...Im confused Some voters may resent being cut out of the decision-making in a year when control of the Senate depended on such a small number of voters in such a chaotic series of contests. It was true that a very small proportion of the population was in a position to control key races, the outcome of which could decide the Supreme Court's future makeup, tax policy and even the content of the nation's foreign policy. But we have learned the hard way that every vote really does count. We make our largest decisions as a nation in the best way we can, by the equivalent of a show of hands. Our best hope, as this strange and messy year of decisions ends, is that the people who have won will always remember the large number of hands that were waving on the other side.

Can't argue with the second paragraph.

[Timber Loftis]

[quote]Originally posted by MagiK:

Err how does republicans stalling "popular bills" give them a win over the democrats? I would think if the republicans scuttled "popular" bills, that owuld give the Democrats a boost...Im confused

Because they had democratic sponsors - meaning the Dems would have used them as evidence of good work and accomplishment in the campaigns. Really - you should watch more West Wing. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

[Larry_OHF]

Yeah!
[img]graemlins/survivor.gif[/img]

I saw a poll on CNN, asking what was the major contributer to this win.

The choices were:

• President Bush's role
• Strong GOP candidates
• Poor strategy by Democrats

I say...all of the above.
But if I had to choose one...I would say President Bush's role.

[ 11-06-2002, 12:06 PM: Message edited by: Larry_OHF ]

[/)eathKiller]

T_T The green party never wins *waaah*

[antryg]

I'm with Timber Loftis in wanting the President and the control of Congress controlled by different parties. It seems to me that the best overall legislation comes in that situation. When either party controls both then they tend to run off with their "pet" theory of what would make America better forgetting who is going to pay for it or if the majority of people would even approve of it. That's why I was a campaign worker for Republican canidates for govenor in Texas in the late 60's and a McGovern worker in '72 at Texas A&M.
I am afraid that Bush will perceive this as a mandate to invade Iraq and not a reflection on American solidarity in the face of terrorism or people voting based on the candidates merits. (I is statistically possible that all the Republican candidates were the better ones. )

Originally posted by antryg: I'm with Timber Loftis in wanting the President and the control of Congress controlled by different parties. It seems to me that the best overall legislation comes in that situation. When either party controls both then they tend to run off with their "pet" theory of what would make America better forgetting who is going to pay for it or if the majority of people would even approve of it. That's why I was a campaign worker for Republican canidates for govenor in Texas in the late 60's and a McGovern worker in '72 at Texas A&M. I am afraid that Bush will perceive this as a mandate to invade Iraq and not a reflection on American solidarity in the face of terrorism or people voting based on the candidates merits. (I is statistically possible that all the Republican candidates were the better ones. )

You could also say that it is the best way to ensure that not much gets done [img]smile.gif[/img]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Err how does republicans stalling "popular bills" give them a win over the democrats? I would think if the republicans scuttled "popular" bills, that owuld give the Democrats a boost...Im confused Because they had democratic sponsors - meaning the Dems would have used them as evidence of good work and accomplishment in the campaigns. Really - you should watch more West Wing. [img]tongue.gif[/img]

So instead they (the Dems) publicize the republicans wanting to hurt old people and scare the voters. They attempt to frighten them away from the republicans...your saying this tactic didn't work?