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

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Iowa, have you seen any of the exit poll data yet? I'm wondering if we'll see similar anomolies like we did last election.

I haven't seen anything yet--and I teach in an hour, so I won't have a chance to look at anything until around 8:30 tonight.

My guess is that media outlets (slate.com in particular, since they were the big culprits) will be a bit more hesitant to publish any exit poll data that they have--which regardless of irregularities, is how it should be--they shouldn't publish exit polls while the polls are still open.

[Flash Walken]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A few of the more interesting stats I've seen on this particular election is that 79% or so of Americans are "angry" with the current government (President, Congress, etc), yet roughly 67% to 70% (can't remember the exact number) are personally happy with their current local congressperson.

In other words, Americans profoundly want change but they're not necessarily translating that unhappiness onto their local guy.

In effect, they're saying its up to other Americans in other jurisdictions to make the change they're angry about . . . . . hence the limited number of seats actually in play.

Cowperson

Classic democracy

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Flash Walken

Classic democracy

Makes sense dosen't it? Is there anything more clueless than voters ousting somebody who voted against the war because they are unhappy with the how the war is going? To me I wonder who are they voting for -- the President(ahhh wrong election) or their local guy?

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Ahh I love letting you hang yourself. Holbrooke also pointed out how implementation could be achieved through real threats to remove American troops. Nice to see that you have accepted the American troops in the Kurdish state as a stabilizing force. But hey you go on thinking you know about partition/loose federation. I'm seeing minds with some actual experience and knowledge and success in diplomacy/negotiations about to reccomend this plan to Bush after the elections. That and it has bi-partisan support.

Yours is the shrill "nothing can work" cause I hate Republicans argument. Frankly I bet you are hoping IRAQ gets worse so the Republicans are ousted.

Meanwhile despite your shrill and of course unsubstantiated rubbish that neighboring countries would take over and that diplomacy/negotation is impossible and other mindless blather those who are actually in the know are working on it.

Frankly I find that they think it will work far, far more compelling than your armchair opinion.

Also what about Saudi Arabia who has come out vehemently against any partitioning?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Makes sense dosen't it? Is there anything more clueless than voters ousting somebody who voted against the war because they are unhappy with the how the war is going? To me I wonder who are they voting for -- the President(ahhh wrong election) or their local guy?

And we come around again to the phrase . . . . "All politics are local."

Cowperson

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

And we come around again to the phrase . . . . "All politics are local."

Cowperson

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.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Sowa

Also what about Saudi Arabia who has come out vehemently against any partitioning?

This is where unlike Lanny you have to actually know what's going on. The original Biden/Gelb plan was devoid of weath sharing, security concerns over the Kurds etc. The Iraq government was interested but the concerns voiced especially about the weath sharing made them set it aside.

The plan has evolved though to a spot where a top notch diplomat like Holbrooke thinks it's viable. What it is now is a three state federated union. Central government takes care of taxation and national defense, the three states have their own elected people. American troops would be stationed in the Kurd state to stabilize that region(translation --keep the Kurd haters happy).

The idea is sound -- It is based on the Dayton accords which brought about piece between the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc.

You know those groups who hate each other and would never agree to a diplomatic solution and the usual blah, blah, blah.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Makes sense dosen't it? Is there anything more clueless than voters ousting somebody who voted against the war because they are unhappy with the how the war is going? To me I wonder who are they voting for -- the President(ahhh wrong election) or their local guy?

I know this is your favourite example, but there aree relatively few Republicans who "voted against the war." I know, because I live in a district where a GOP candidate (Jim Leach) DID vote against the war. And guess what? He's the one Republican who's probably going back to congress from the Hawkeye state.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

This is where unlike Lanny you have to actually know what's going on. The original Biden/Gelb plan was devoid of weath sharing, security concerns over the Kurds etc. The Iraq government was interested but the concerns voiced especially about the weath sharing made them set it aside.

The plan has evolved though to a spot where a top notch diplomat like Holbrooke thinks it's viable. What it is now is a three state federated union. Central government takes care of taxation and national defense, the three states have their own elected people. American troops would be stationed in the Kurd state to stabilize that region(translation --keep the Kurd haters happy).

The idea is sound -- It is based on the Dayton accords which brought about piece between the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc.

You know those groups who hate each other and would never agree to a diplomatic solution and the usual blah, blah, blah.

But Saudi doesn't fear the Kurds they fear Iran influencing the partition that is Shi'ite. They are worried about an imbalance in the region favoring Shia muslims. I don't believe that a US presence will prevent violence because unlike Serbia 2 of the groups have a disdain for the US itself.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

This is where unlike Lanny you have to actually know what's going on. The original Biden/Gelb plan was devoid of weath sharing, security concerns over the Kurds etc. The Iraq government was interested but the concerns voiced especially about the weath sharing made them set it aside.

The plan has evolved though to a spot where a top notch diplomat like Holbrooke thinks it's viable. What it is now is a three state federated union. Central government takes care of taxation and national defense, the three states have their own elected people. American troops would be stationed in the Kurd state to stabilize that region(translation --keep the Kurd haters happy).

The idea is sound -- It is based on the Dayton accords which brought about piece between the Serbs, Croats, Bosnians etc.

You know those groups who hate each other and would never agree to a diplomatic solution and the usual blah, blah, blah.

I don't know if this plan will work but I'm glad to see the Bush administration moving from gunboat diplomacy to actual deal making diplomacy. Too bad it's taken 6 years to educate Bush on world affairs.

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

I don't know if this plan will work but I'm glad to see the Bush administration moving from gunboat diplomacy to actual deal making diplomacy. Too bad it's taken 6 years to educate Bush on world affairs.

Don't mistake this as Bush policy. This is a bi-partisan effort. Bush is stuck on doing what they have been doing but doing it better by having more Iraqui troops and training their police force.

Dem's as per usual are all over the place.

Biden was one of the few of any persuasion to come up with an alternative plan. His plan has been improved and the reccomendation will get sent Bush's way. Dosen't mean he will listen.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

Ahh I love letting you hang yourself. Holbrooke also pointed out how implementation could be achieved through real threats to remove American troops. Nice to see that you have accepted the American troops in the Kurdish state as a stabilizing force. But hey you go on thinking you know about partition/loose federation. I'm seeing minds with some actual experience and knowledge and success in diplomacy/negotiations about to reccomend this plan to Bush after the elections. That and it has bi-partisan support.

Yours is the shrill "nothing can work" cause I hate Republicans argument. Frankly I bet you are hoping IRAQ gets worse so the Republicans are ousted.

Meanwhile despite your shrill and of course unsubstantiated rubbish that neighboring countries would take over and that diplomacy/negotation is impossible and other mindless blather those who are actually in the know are working on it.

Frankly I find that they think it will work far, far more compelling than your armchair opinion.

Johnny, where have I said ANYTHING about this idea being ideology based? NO WHERE. That is a figment of your imagination. If I have mentioned the Democratic position only when you have whined endlessly about their supposed lack of position. Beyond that the only politics I have mentioned is regional, as that is all that matters. Only brainwashed dolts think that what happens in a Washington think tank will have any bearing on the holding of the muslim world together. For crying outloud, it was a Washington think tank (the PNAC) that got us into this mess. The last thing we need is another one butting their noses in and making a larger mess.

Frankly, all of this arm waving you are doing is kind of sad. You are dodging the issues and it is pretty evident by your refusal to answer the questions. If the partitioning or "loose union" plan has the answers, then you should be able to answer the questions easily and stop running away from them. Burying your head in the bogus policy dreamed up by a think tank is not going to make the issues go away. Now quite with the insults and the arm waving and answer the questions once and for all.

1) How does this magical plan work in answering the obvious regional inequity?

2) How does this brilliant partitioning strategy create security in Iraq when there is economic and infrastructure inequity existent in the proposed regions?

3) How does partitioning create regional stability, when the neighboring nations are not having their wishes observed?

4) Who is going to support the initiative of partitioning in the region when it has the potential to affect their own internal national security and promote ethnic discord?

5) What is going to prevent this partitioning from being a land grab by certain neighboring nations and immediately break out into a larger and much more aggressive war?

[JohnnyFlame]

Originally Posted by Lanny_MacDonald

Johnny, where have I said ANYTHING about this idea being ideology based? NO WHERE. That is a figment of your imagination. If I have mentioned the Democratic position only when you have whined endlessly about their supposed lack of position. Beyond that the only politics I have mentioned is regional, as that is all that matters. Only brainwashed dolts think that what happens in a Washington think tank will have any bearing on the holding of the muslim world together. For crying outloud, it was a Washington think tank (the PNAC) that got us into this mess. The last thing we need is another one butting their noses in and making a larger mess.

Frankly, all of this arm waving you are doing is kind of sad. You are dodging the issues and it is pretty evident by your refusal to answer the questions. If the partitioning or "loose union" plan has the answers, then you should be able to answer the questions easily and stop running away from them. Burying your head in the bogus policy dreamed up by a think tank is not going to make the issues go away. Now quite with the insults and the arm waving and answer the questions once and for all.

1) How does this magical plan work in answering the obvious regional inequity?

2) How does this brilliant partitioning strategy create security in Iraq when there is economic and infrastructure inequity existent in the proposed regions?

3) How does partitioning create regional stability, when the neighboring nations are not having their wishes observed?

4) Who is going to support the initiative of partitioning in the region when it has the potential to affect their own internal national security and promote ethnic discord?

5) What is going to prevent this partitioning from being a land grab by certain neighboring nations and immediately break out into a larger and much more aggressive war?

Read the plan --Answers are right in it. Read what Holbrooke had to say. Is this all you have left? Answers are public record. If you are too lazy to check them out that would equal what = ahh yes your usual research habits.

Those far more intelligent that you have come up with a plan and yeah those with a heck of a lot more influence than you as well.

So go ahead and print your dumb questions again -- I've heard from those more intelligent and influential -- I'm going with their opinion -- yours is meaningless and uninformed and based on hooeey!!!

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by Mccree

Thanks I did not realize they had elections each year. I guess my next question is why have elections every year? Why not once every 4 years like here in Canada. Not saying our way is better just wondering why they need to vote every year?

I think this was answered above but feel free to add to it.

Mostly to give the voter the chance to change their minds... they do half every four years, each getting a four year term. (Or congress which has six year terms they vote on every 3 years... I think.) So if you don't like what's going on in two years, (or 3!) you CAN change your vote and change your government early, even though you don't get to oust the President early.

They also vote on different things every year... municipal, congressional, senate, sherriffs... the list goes on and on. It's another check on the balance of power.

Helps some?

[Mccree]

^^
Thanks

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally Posted by JohnnyFlame

So go ahead and print your dumb questions again -- I've heard from those more intelligent and influential -- I'm going with their opinion -- yours is meaningless and uninformed and based on hooeey!!!

So basically you have no answers Johnny. None. And neither does the bull**** plan you place so much faith in. If it did, you would knock these down without even working up a sweat. Not surprising at all strawman.

[notoepik]

Originally Posted by FireFly

Mostly to give the voter the chance to change their minds... they do half every four years, each getting a four year term. (Or congress which has six year terms they vote on every 3 years... I think.) So if you don't like what's going on in two years, (or 3!) you CAN change your vote and change your government early, even though you don't get to oust the President early.

They also vote on different things every year... municipal, congressional, senate, sherriffs... the list goes on and on. It's another check on the balance of power.

Helps some?

Congressmen for the House of Representatives serve 2 year terms. Senators serve 6 year terms. They are elected in alternating even years, so 1/3 of the Senators are elected every other year. None of that 3 year business.

[FireFly]

Originally Posted by notoepik

Congressmen for the House of Representatives serve 2 year terms. Senators serve 6 year terms. They are elected in alternating even years, so 1/3 of the Senators are elected every other year. None of that 3 year business.

Oh, pardon me. Thanks for the correction, that's why I said, "I think..." It felt wrong somehow, but it's been a while since I studied US elections.

[octothorp]

Just watching CNN... they've projected that Cardin defeated Steele in Maryland while the only numbers they have show Steele leading with 55% and only 1% of precincts reporting... you've really gotta wonder about their process for calling these.

Great start for the Dems, if you believe the CNN projections, which personally I don't.

edit: not that I think they won't win those seats, but I really think CNN is calling them a bit too early.

[Nehkara]

The Democrats now have a majority of the Governor positions. 28 of 50 with 2 undecided.

The Democrats now have a majority of the House seats. 227 of 435 with 14 undecided.

Democrats need:

Both remaining Senate seats for a majority.