I'm not ready to call it a Democrat Landslide just yet...

1. Problems in Denver could tear up the party and people stay home in November.
2. Obama is the 08 version of Mike Dukakis
3. "Someone" may get killed/captured in Pakistan in October.

The Democrats will gain seat in the House, but may lose a few in the Senate.

WMD Owl Wrote:I'm not ready to call it a Democrat Landslide just yet...

1. Problems in Denver could tear up the party and people stay home in November.
2. Obama is the 08 version of Mike Dukakis
3. "Someone" may get killed/captured in Pakistan in October.

The Democrats will gain seat in the House, but may lose a few in the Senate.

house and senate, especially Senate the Dems are gaining seats. McCain may be able to win because obama is so far left and is a good buffer against a dem congress.

its not just gop brand problems and almost like a perfect storm. In the Senate the math was already stacked against the GOP, most of the Dem Senate seats up are by incumbents and there are more of them this time. Then the GOP seats up are vulnerable and in some cases like Va. are open and Mark Warner will win it.

whats pathetic is they couldn't find anyone in Arkansas to run against the one term Dem there who could be beat. THey should've made Huckabee run...instead the Dem goes unapposed.

in Alaska the Dems got a popular mayor to run against scandal plagued, "Bridge to Nowhere", Stevens.

the house will be a disaster, the Dems have a strategy that is simple. Heath Schuler is a prime example.

In red to purple districts they are running Conservative Democrats, or atleast they give lip service to it on the issues. So you have Dems running as pro-life, pro-school prayer, pro-2nd Amendment, against gay marriage, etc.

the GOP has tried to associate them with the national party and it doesn't work, not now with the GOP brand problems. The fact that all of these Dems increase Nancy Pelosi' and the National Dems power flies right over the head of Joe Blow voter.

the only positive thing is for political reasons they are forced to vote conservative on some stuff, for instance Heath Schuler had a 40% ACU rating last year so its not a complete disaster. There are plenty of times it contradicts their campaign promises and as that builds up they will be vulernerable down the road as the public starts to turn against the Dems again.


hold on to your pocket book for the next 4 years or so, and hope on the national security stuff. if Obama wins, Socialized medicine will be a given however sold without calling it what it is.


the only good news is the Dems aren't winning on Liberal issues so much. If Obama wins it will be because a significant percentage of conservative voters stay home or vote 3rd party. a la Ross Perot.

The Electoral College might still swing the election to McCain. He'll lose the popular vote by millions, but still be elected.

Hold onto your hat if that happens. Might be a good weekend to head to the cabin if you live in a city.

That's what polls are showing now. Even with Obama showing a 5-6% lead in popular vote, electoral vote shows them pretty much neck-and-neck. Last tabulation I showed had Obama with ~260 EV and McCain with ~250, with Indiana and Virginia too close to call (but McCain with slight lead in most recent poll in both). Obama's popular vote lead is built on huge leads in NY and IL (which dems win if Hitler's the nominee) and a somewhat smaller lead in CA, but McCain gets narrow wins in more states and in the end it adds up very close on the EV side.

The problem Obama has is that in most of the really close states (those plus Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Florida) he didn't do well vs. Clinton. He probably should give in and let the Florida and Michigan delegations be seated in Denver. He has the votes to win anyway, and it takes away an issue that could hurt him in two key states in the fall.

If Obama wins NC, the road gets easier for him. He may pick John Edwards as running mate for that reason. But there's a real divide as to whether Edwards would be an advantage or disadvantage in NC. He has some baggage there, and it's sure to get trotted out if he's the VP nominee, and that could hurt the ticket elsewhere. Remember, there was a lot of speculation that Edwards jumped on the VP nomination in 2004 because his polls showed that there was no way he was going to win reelection to the Senate. The other place he might look to find a VP running mate is Ohio, apparently there are a couple of well-regarded democrats there. But there's nobody who really helps him in several states, and nobody who doesn't have the potential to hurt him somewhere else. If he picks Hillary, her negatives come into play. Evangelicals turn out en masse to vote against her, and that frees McCain to move to the center and take centrist votes away from Obama. Then if he wins, he has to put up with her, which may the be worst consequence of all.

That's not meant as an attack on Hillary. I might well vote for her if she somehow got the nomination. I'm certainly more likely to vote for her than for Obama (on the slight chance that Hillary's first term might turn out to be Bill's 3rd). I just don't think that Obama wants her around his White House, I can just foresee a lot of problems with that.

Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:I just don't think that Obama wants her around his White House, I can just foresee a lot of problems with that.

I can't see how any sane male would want her around ANY House!!! God......could you imagine having to be around her all the time.

I guess that's why Bill has such a history of screwing around with soo many other women (some real uglys at that). Maybe most guys would have followed Bill's path if they had to wake up to that every morning.

RP is a racist kook? Here we go again.

And Ron Paul is not a republican?! He stands for what republicans used to stand for...before they got into careless spending, nation building, and expanding the government at hyper speed.

ETSUfan1 Wrote:RP is a racist kook? Here we go again.

And Ron Paul is not a republican?! He stands for what republicans used to stand for...before they got into careless spending, nation building, and expanding the government at hyper speed.

put him on Prime Time TV with an R next to his name and he gets al his dirt aired. So long as the media could attach it to the GOP with the "R" next to his name.


the GOP has never stood for exactly what he's preaching, nor did the founding fathers. he's a fringe wingnut, far-right on economics and far-left on FP. He is a Murray Rothbard follower....i.e. an anarcho-capitalist. anyone who calls Ronald Reagan a traitor is not a Traditional Republican


but I don't know, maybe you find nothing wrong with paul pandering around with kooks like Alex Jones who thinks 2/3's of the world population is about to be exterminated by the "Bilderbergers".....he's a Bircher nut, the people William F. Buckley threw out of the conservative movement.

WMD Owl Wrote:I'm not ready to call it a Democrat Landslide just yet...

1. Problems in Denver could tear up the party and people stay home in November.
2. Obama is the 08 version of Mike Dukakis
3. "Someone" may get killed/captured in Pakistan in October.

The Democrats will gain seat in the House, but may lose a few in the Senate.

The Democrats will gain in the House and the Senate. It remains to be seen if they can pick up the hat trick and take the White House too.

Wait....are you saying Ron Paul called Reagan a traitor?! Surely I am reading you wrong.

And please give me a break. The other 3 candidates pander to anyone who would give them a buck.

ETSUfan1 Wrote:Wait....are you saying Ron Paul called Reagan a traitor?! Surely I am reading you wrong.

And please give me a break. The other 3 candidates pander to anyone who would give them a buck.

They have the goods on paul, with the long documented history of his racist and conspiratorial newsletters. all of his apperances on scumbags radio shows like Alex JOnes and then his open endorsements on some conspiracies like the North American Union, talking about the "Trilateral Commission", CFR, bilderbergers...etc. the far right paranoid mind at work.

just forget all of that while realizing its out there, my point is if the GOP placed Paul on stage there is a good chance the Media/Dems would jump on it, compare him to David Duke and how the two support each other and all this stuff would be on the news to make the "R" brand look racist..and kooky. This would happen any year, but especially this year with Obama on the ticket and part of their strategy being all criticism of obambi is "racist", hoping moderates buy it.

oh, the "traitor" thing...that was actually Tim Russert's word though it may have come from something paul said back then. Here is what Paul said back during the late 80's, last time the anti-GOP cycle was around(though not as magnifyied as today).

Quote:MR. RUSSERT: You're running as a Republican. In your--on your Web site, in your brochures, you make this claim: "Principled Leadership. Ron was also one of only four Republican Congressmen to endorse Ronald Reagan for president against Gerald Ford in" '76. There's a photograph of you, Ronald Reagan on the right, heralding your support of Ronald Reagan. And yet you divorced yourself from Ronald Reagan. You said this: "Although he was once an ardent supporter of President Reagan, Paul now speaks of him as a traitor leading the country into debt and conflicts around the world. "I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration." And you go on to The Dallas Morning News: "Paul now calls Reagan a `dramatic failure.'"

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/wrong_paul.html

Quote:Paul (May 10, 1988): The American people have never reached this point of disgust with politicians before. I want to totally disassociate myself from the Reagan Administration.

sounds familar to today, yet back then he made the mistake of running on the LP ticket, now he's just using the party

Quote:Paul's disaffection started early in Reagan's presidency. "Ronald Reagan has given us a deficit 10 times greater than what we had with the Democrats," Paul told the Christian Science Monitor in 1987. "It didn't take more than a month after 1981, to realize there would be no changes."

Sometime between 1988 (during Paul's run for the presidency on the Libertarian Party ticket) and 1996 (when Paul, running as a Republican once more, successfully ousted an incumbent House member in a GOP primary), Paul once again embraced Reagan's legacy. The New York Times reported then that Paul had used the longer version of the Reagan quote in a videotape sent to 30,000 households. According to the Times, Reagan’s former attorney general, Edwin Meese III, flew to Texas "to insist that Mr. Reagan had offered no recent endorsements."

We were unable to document Reagan's endorsement of Paul. When we asked the Paul campaign for documentation, a spokesperson told us that the campaign was "a little more focused on positive things." The Paul campaign did not provide the Times with a date for the quotation in 1996, either.

its sad that Paul can't understand that while Debt increased in the 80's, and for good reason, the countries Assets increased by about 10 times as much thanks to Reagan's reforms....this has the net effect of increased Liberty which he fails to grasp. probably thanks to his anarchist views.

i'm not sure what the asset to liability ratio under Bush is yet, but I'm confident it isn't as bad as fringes like this will make it sound, when analyzed. I know spending as a percent of GDP hasn't reached the high under Reagan yet for example.

ETSUfan1 Wrote:Wait....are you saying Ron Paul called Reagan a traitor?! Surely I am reading you wrong.

And please give me a break. The other 3 candidates pander to anyone who would give them a buck.

Forget this topic with GG...unless you want to debate this forever. For some reason he is very threatened by RP and us silly little people that agree with his stances on the issues.

the point continues to be missed, part of the Dem strategy this fall is to label Republicans "racist"(more so than usual) and hope the Moderates buy it. So set aside whether he is or isn't, in past or present, a racist or atleast in some dirty business with some that are(Rockwell)....it doesn't matter.

they got the goods on him, put him on prime time during the convention and the media/dems will jump all over it. This stuff would get aired like the Rev. Wright stuff to drive it home followed with: "Why would the GOP have someone with these views and past history on a prominent stage"......and then the old david duke stuff. the possibilities of what they could do are endless. the last thing the gop needs is to be seen accommodating dirt like that in the PR arena.