Political Junkies: Predictions for U.S. Mid-Terms?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sowa

The US's biggest ally in the middle east is Saudi and they are vehemently against partitioning because it increases Iran's sphere of control. The US is not going to pursue a policy that will really **** off their biggest ally in the area.

Pure speculation on your part and like anything else they can work it out. It's not going to be called partition in the first place, going to be both parties on board in the US and they can sell it and throw the Saudi's a bone if need be.

That's what diplomacy is all about. You know this is based on what settled the Balkans and fart you would be dang hard pressed to find people that hate each other more than they do and yet they got it done.

Fart if a had even a nickel for every time a person/state/country etc. said something was a NO GO and then in the end settled for something that looked a whole lot like it with a different name I'd be a ZILLIONAIRE!!!!

[Bobblehead]

Not unexpected but a remarkable result, none the less.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Not unexpected but a remarkable result, none the less.

I love the Onion!

I think Webb's lead is now virtually recount-proof, barring the discovery of 30,000 ballots in somebody's trunk. Tester and Burns is a more iffy story, but if Tester holds on, does this count as a Democratic "wave"?

[Nehkara]

In the house, Connecticut 02 is ridiculously close with Courtney, the Dem, leading the Republican incumbent by just 170 votes with (apparently) 100% reporting.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

In the house, Connecticut 02 is ridiculously close with Courtney, the Dem, leading the Republican incumbent by just 170 votes with (apparently) 100% reporting.

Democrats are also leading by 1500 in Pennsylvania 08. Anything they pick up now is icing on the cake, I guess--but it would be nice to see a few more seats in their majority.

I also take back what I said earlier about Jim Leach, my representative, being "the only Republican to win in Iowa." In fact, Leach has lost in Iowa 02, meaning that in all of the Iowa tossups Democrats have won.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I love the Onion!

I think Webb's lead is now virtually recount-proof, barring the discovery of 30,000 ballots in somebody's trunk. Tester and Burns is a more iffy story, but if Tester holds on, does this count as a Democratic "wave"?

With the only riding left to report being Burns, I think Burns would take it given the dramatic differences and disparities from county to county in Montana (it will be close though)

Webb's will win, the state uses automated ballots, the machine reads the number. Recently they had a District Attourney or Judge vote and a recount only changed 26 votes.

MYK

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

If you are infering that people vote on the qualifications of the local candidate over the national platform, that may be the case in the USA but it's not the case in Canada, particularly Calgary, where the Conservatives could run and elect a kangoroo if they wanted.

The reason a kangaroo would win in some ridings in Calgary is the polarity between Canadian regions, in the US you dont have a guy form NY saying we want all of Alaskas oil money cause well we are NY ala the NEP saying we want all of Albertas oil money cause well we are from Toronto/Montreal.

MYK

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Tony Snow said that Bush had rejected the Baker partition plan on October 20th. Tony said the idea of paritioning Iraq was a 'non-starter'.

"We've thought about partition, for a series of reasons," but Mr. Bush has categorically rejected the idea of breaking Iraq into regions, Mr. Snow said in reply to questions about an article in The Washington Times.

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...5632-5191r.htm

So let me get this straight. The Turks are against the idea, the Syrians are against the idea, the Saudis are against the idea, the Iranians are against the idea, and Bush is against the idea, but someone here says its still going to happen because a supposed "non-partisan" proposal from a Washington think tank says its the way to go? Uh huh.

[Nehkara]

Holy crap!

Tester somehow broke open (comparatively) the Montana senate race!

The Democrats' lead has almost doubled to 3128 votes!

It is very notable that a 0.78% lead (Tester's current lead) is too much for a recount in Montana.

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by Displaced Flames fan

Now, are the democrats capable of actually choosing an electable candidate for President in '08?

I used to think Hillary was electable....I'm not so sure anymore. Obama hasn't committed and actually hasn't really given any indication that he's seriously considering it.

They'd better nominate the right person this time...because you know the GOP WILL.

I would be very surprised if Obama put his name in, he has it good right now and is still young, let him go on a few Foreign Comittees first, the next prez will have a doozey of a time whoever that may be with Terrorism still there yet the malaze of the American polpulace thinking they are now safe as well as what to do with Iraq (if an Iraq solution appears within the next few years then maybe).

MYK

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I love the Onion!

I think Webb's lead is now virtually recount-proof, barring the discovery of 30,000 ballots in somebody's trunk. Tester and Burns is a more iffy story, but if Tester holds on, does this count as a Democratic "wave"?

So the house is clearly Democratically controlled, and the Senate appears to be a deadlock, I think that will make Dumbya an even greater lame duck than he already is.

[Nehkara]

It looks like the Democrats will successfully hold their slim leads in Montana and Virginia and claim control of the Senate and the House, as well as having the majority of Governors.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So the house is clearly Democratically controlled, and the Senate appears to be a deadlock, I think that will make Dumbya an even greater lame duck than he already is.

It would be interesting if the Senate was 50/50, we might start to see VP Cheney cast deciding votes here and there. Has that happened often in the past (VP casting deciding votes in the Senate)?

[badnarik]

i wonder why the republicans didn't just rig the voting machines again

[Looger]

Originally Posted by badnarik

i wonder why the republicans didn't just rig the voting machines again

they're only in aboot 35% of the districts, and if they overplay that hand then they won't have it forever.

they've got democrats that won't impeach them, i guess it's not situation critical.

plus, people are REALLY wising up to the machines...

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

So let me get this straight. The Turks are against the idea, the Syrians are against the idea, the Saudis are against the idea, the Iranians are against the idea, and Bush is against the idea, but someone here says its still going to happen because a supposed "non-partisan" proposal from a Washington think tank says its the way to go? Uh huh.

Yes keep blathering oh irrelevant one. The proposal as is now stands has never been presented to any of those countries -- Yep talkin out of your arse once again. Hmmm anybody surprised?

Someone here Lanny? Duh. Are Richard Holbrooke, Senator Obama, Baker, Hamilton, Biden and on and on and on members of Calgarypuck?

Your Washington think tank comment also shows how little you know as per usual. The Baker Hamilton Commission(yep commission) was put to it's work by the Congress. Senator Obama who may well be the next president does an interview, says hey duh we need to change IRAQ, and follows that with the Baker plan.

The movers and shakers are stacking up for the idea but don't let the facts get in the way Lanny --not that facts every enter into your political blather. Yep the countries all around are up in arms over a plan they have never seen --sure they are Lanny -- I mean you would know wouldn't ya --Comical.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Yes keep blathering oh irrelevant one. The proposal as is now stands has never been presented to any of those countries -- Yep talkin out of your arse once again. Hmmm anybody surprised?

Someone here Lanny? Duh. Are Richard Holbrooke, Senator Obama, Baker, Hamilton, Biden and on and on and on members of Calgarypuck?

Your Washington think tank comment also shows how little you know as per usual. The Baker Hamilton Commission(yep commission) was put to it's work by the Congress. Senator Obama who may well be the next president does an interview, says hey duh we need to change IRAQ, and follows that with the Baker plan.

The movers and shakers are stacking up for the idea but don't let the facts get in the way Lanny --not that facts every enter into your political blather. Yep the countries all around are up in arms over a plan they have never seen --sure they are Lanny -- I mean you would know wouldn't ya --Comical.

What a joke. Hey Johnny, where the hell do you think these yahoos get their ideas??? They come from the think tanks. That's what these bodies do. Dream up ideas on how to deal with issues. Then they get a politician to sponsor the idea and promote it as their own pet project. Meanwhile the think tank provides any supporting work required to make the idea come to fruition. The guys doing the face time don't hatch these plans, they are the talking heads that get them some credibility in the political arena. I can't believe you think that these guys dream this stuff up themselves! Hilarious!!!

Oh, and its also damn comical when YOU say don't let the facts get in the way. YOU have completely ignored the FACT that this is a regional problem, NOT an American one. REGIONAL stability is not something that can be enforced at the end of a gun, nor at the end of policy that the people of the region do not believe in. The countries of the region want NOTHING to do with this lame plan and have stated as much. Bush has stated he wants nothing to do with this. THOSE are the facts. Its been pointed out by multiple people. You're the only one claiming otherwise. That makes you the "someone", and the butt of the joke (as usual).

BTW, I'm still waiting for you to answer the basic questions that sink your "heroic plan", oh Artless Dodger. When can we expect a brilliant destruction of those points using your air tight framework of peace in Iraq and stability in the region?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Pure speculation on your part and like anything else they can work it out. It's not going to be called partition in the first place, going to be both parties on board in the US and they can sell it and throw the Saudi's a bone if need be.

That's what diplomacy is all about. You know this is based on what settled the Balkans and fart you would be dang hard pressed to find people that hate each other more than they do and yet they got it done.

Fart if a had even a nickel for every time a person/state/country etc. said something was a NO GO and then in the end settled for something that looked a whole lot like it with a different name I'd be a ZILLIONAIRE!!!!

Not pure speculation on my part Saudi's foreign minister came out and said it a week ago... I'll find the link in a second. Nevermind he said it a year ago but was quoted in an article from a week ago. but nevertheless here's the quote sounds like all the mideast wants seperate states right?

The prince said he served on a council of Iraq's neighboring countries - Jordan, Syria, Turkey, Iran and Kuwait as well as Saudi Arabia - "and the main worry of all the neighbors" was that the potential disintegration of Iraq into Sunni, *****e and Kurdish states would "bring other countries in the region into the conflict."

http://salon.com/opinion/feature/200...on/index1.html

[troutman]

I should not be so astonished, but I turned on the TV last night and the big networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) did not have election coverage on (execpt for some graphics scrolling at the bottom of the screen). Only CNN seemed to have live coverage.

Is Dancing With The Stars more important than these elections in the US?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by troutman

I should not be so astonished, but I turned on the TV last night and the big networks (ABC, NBC, CBS) did not have election coverage on (execpt for some grpahics scrolling at the bottom of the screen). Only CNN seemed to have live coverage.

Is Dancing With The Stars more important than these elections in the US?

Wow...that seems strange to me.