mad? Mad is sitting on your ass waiting for the government to fix your life.You mad.
he won by less than 10% of the vote in a district where more than 2/3 of the voters are democraps. He won by running RIGHT.
And the Democrat won. Being linked to sccarryyyy Obama and Pelosi, the Democrat still beat the Conservative.You mean a blue dog democrat ran against a conservative and won and you claim victory?
The only race in the nation last night with a Democrat vs a Republican that is further leaning more and more right elected a Democrat.
You're right. The dems are going to SWEEP this november. Conservatives just don't stand a chance.Preview of November.
Critz was a legacy of Murtha - what's surprising about this race is that it was so close, not that a legacy won.
That is to say, I was thinking by listening to hours of right wing talk radio that the mood of the country is anti-incumbent or even specifically anti-democrat. This election result doesn't seem to fit into that narrative,
Story is hereWASHINGTON – Voters rejected one of President Barack Obama's hand-picked candidates and forced another into a runoff, the latest sign that his political capital is slipping beneath a wave of anti-establishment anger.
Sen. Arlen Specter became the fourth Democrat in seven months to lose a high-profile race despite the president's active involvement, raising doubts about Obama's ability to help fellow Democrats in this November's elections.
The first three candidates fell to Republicans. But Specter's loss Tuesday to Rep. Joe Sestak in Pennsylvania's Democratic senatorial primary cast doubts on Obama's influence and popularity even within his own party — and in a battleground state, no less.
Of course, it's possible that Democrats will fare better than expected this fall. And there's only so much that any president can do to help other candidates, especially in a non-presidential election year.
Still, Obama's poor record thus far could hurt his legislative agenda if Democratic lawmakers decide they need some distance from him as they seek re-election in what is shaping up as a pro-Republican year. Conversely, it might embolden Republican lawmakers and candidates who oppose him.
"We're licking our chops at running against President Obama," said Rand Paul, tea party candidate and victor in Kentucky's Republican primary for retiring GOP Sen. Jim Bunning's seat. Paul told CNN on Wednesday he'd relish Obama's campaigning on behalf of Democrat Jack Conway. Obama's agenda, Paul said, is "so far to the left, he's not popular in Kentucky."
I have no doubt that the democrats are going to lose seats in November, what matters is if they lose enough to clog up the legislation process if the Republicans take majorities.
Most of the people I talk to (and I talk to a lot) seem to see professional politicians, their PACs, and their lack of accountability as the main problem. Republicans are seen as slightly less odious only because there is the potential for ideaological reform in the GOP and there is no potential for reform among the Democrats.
In the few years the Republicans almost always get every single member to vote along with the party. The Democrats have been the party with more groups represented and with more directions being pulled at once. Even with huge majorities in congress they could not get all in line.
How does this translate to the Republicans being reformable while the Democrats are not reformable?
|« Previous Thread | Next Thread »|