| Mar 19 @ 11:33 PM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 6,354
|
There is only one significantly effective way to send a message to these arrogant bastards in Washington. They think they have nearly complete control over us, and they are trying to take away even more.
We need to show them that the PEOPLE are in control and they work for US, not the other way around.
These guys think that they have a job for life and can get away with anything they want.
About 98% of the time, the incumbent in Congress is reelected. They know that they only have a few percent chance of losing. So they think they have the job for life.
Want to put the fear of God in these arrogant bastards?
Next election (which is 2010) VOTE FOR THE NEW GUY AND VOTE THE INCUMBENT OUT.
We don't need term limits, we need people to start voting the lying, corrupt thieves out of office. No new laws about term limits are needed for that, we can do it right now!
2010 - Send a message they will never forget, Start voting them out!
|
|
  |
|
| Mar 19 @ 11:38 PM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT |
|
Brass_Wolf
Posts: 1,551
|
Amen Brother. I think Jesse Ventura is available.
|
| |
|
| Mar 19 @ 11:44 PM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT
|
|
Angel54214
Posts: 18,199
|
The RNC has been working hard already this year...they have raised over $5 Million in the last 3 months for the 2010 campaign.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 19 @ 11:45 PM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT |
|
JesterDrawers
Posts: 11,116
|
DR - I think that's an idea that more and more people are getting on the bandwagon with. Fact is, that's exactly how I voted this past November. I made sure not to vote for a single incumbent...it's something I think we ALL need to do until such time as these clowns remember exactly who is working for whom! 
|
| |
|
| Mar 20 @ 12:02 AM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT
|
|
lefthandedluckie
Posts: 6,386
|
NO PROBLEMO, DIAMONDRAIN!!!!
Your prayers have been answered last November the republicans were thrown out! You can now sit back and relax as the Democrats are in full control and are making sure no republicans says one word without permission from the Speaker of the House or the Leader in the Senate! Isn't that great? Isn't that wonderful? Bet it fills you heart with glee just knowing all the hings you asked for in your thread have come true!  
We have more legislation coming down the pike soon! It is roll-back time for all the republican mess that fouled up this country for almost a decade! Isn't that wonderful news for you and yours, DR?
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 20 @ 12:27 AM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,496
|
And if DR has his way, three "RINO" Senators will caucus with the Democrats, giving them a filibuster-proof majority.
***********************
With gerrymandering, there are very few competitive seats in the House. It'll take 40 seats changing hands for the Republicans to retake the House. Changes that big have happened once in the last ten elections (and probably extends back much further). A little balance might return to the House, but definitely won't see a wholesale "toss the bums out" movement. Figure less than 15 seats change hands.
In the Senate, things are more balanced in 2010. There is a rough parity in the number of seats up for grabs. The Republicans need to get a net gain of 10 seats (including possibly winning the disputed Minnesota election; also, a 50/50 split just means Biden gets to vote again...) in order to take over the Senate. The current predictions are:
D: 7 no danger + 8 safe/likely = 15 (with 1 leans and 1 tossup)
R: 7 no danger + 5 safe/likely = 12 (with 2 leans and 5 tossup)
In other words, at best, the Republicans can hope to push their minority from 41 to 44. Enough to be filibuster-proof, but still out of power for another two years.
*********************************
Now, if you want to look at 2012... It'll be a presidential election, so the turnout will be higher. If Obama fails in his quest to "take over our country and turn it into a totalitarian Marxist state," the Republican challenger would be able to bring alot of votes in on his coattails.
In the House, the 2010 census results would come in, moving a few seats to Southern and Southwestern states. That means a few free seats to the Republicans, another round of redistricting (more free seats to the majority parties), and the "coattails" from the presidential election. Of the 70 or so seats that aren't "no danger," expect to see maybe 20 to 25 change hands.
In the Senate? Well, 24 Democratic seats are up for re-election, compared to 9 for the Republicans. Room for a LOT of damage there, maybe even turning the tables on the Democrats.
*********************
So yeah. Don't expect much from the 2010 elections. Pin your hopes on 2012. And if you're REALLY partisan, hope and pray that the economy stays dismal for the next 3-plus years, so the Republicans can use the "Obama made it worse" argument.
|
| |
|
| Mar 20 @ 12:41 AM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT
|
|
DiamondRain
Posts: 6,354
|
Bullshit.
What a surprise you den't want any changes in 2010 while the Democrats are running the show.
This analysis relies on past experience.
This isn't about past experience. People have the power to vote anyone out in any election. That's all smoke and mirrors.
2010 - VOTE THEM OUT!
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 20 @ 1:00 AM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,496
|
DR, please point out one place that expert pollsters and political scientists are wrong?
Or was it simply that it doesn't agree with your beliefs that you reject it out of hand? I'm not advocating a position in these analyses, I'm simply stating likely outcomes. If facts are political to you, that's not my problem.
SENATE
FACT: The Democrats have a 17-seat lead in the Senate. (18, if Minnesota goes to Franken.)
FACT: The Republicans need to pick up 9 seats to tie, 10 seats to hold the Senate. (One of which could be Minnesota, if Coleman wins.) (In the case of ties, Biden would cast the deciding vote.)
FACT: There are 19 Republican seats and 17 Democratic seats up for election in 2010. (Barring special elections in those few states that don't allow governors to fill empty seats.)
CONCLUSION: Of the 17 seats that are Democratic, 9 or 10 of them must turn over to see the Republicans take over.
CONJECTURE: States that have voted overwhelmingly for Democratic presidential candidates for the last 30 years will probably vote Democratic in the 2010 elections.
CONCLUSION: Of the 17 seats that are Democratic, the historically Democratic states will leave 15 of those seats more-or-less safe.
CONCLUSION: The Republicans will have picked up no more than 2 or 3 seats by after the 2010 elections.
HOUSE
FACT: The Democrats have a 79-seat majority in the House.
FACT: The Republicans must take 40 seats in order to get a slim majority.
FACT: Gerrymandering is rife in every state.
FACT: Most elections see less than 10 seats changing hands. (The 1994, 2006, and 2008 elections being surprisingly large changes, in the above-20 range.)
CONJECTURE: Barring redistricting, any district that was won by more than 5% should be pretty stable.
CONCLUSION: Of the 535 seats in the House, less than 75 are even remotely at risk.
CONCLUSION: Of the "even remotely at risk" seats, the Republicans need to protect all their own, and pick up 40 of the Democrats'. (A change of 40 or more seats has happened once in the last dozen elections...)
**************************
After all the times I explained this to vinny/iam in 2008, I'm really getting sick of explaining the political system to neo-cons. Didn't you have to take Civics in high school to graduate?
|
| |
|
| Mar 20 @ 1:08 AM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT
|
|
Nightowl001
Posts: 7,498
|
This analysis relies on past experience.
This isn't about past experience. “Insanity: doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.”
Albert Einstein DR, just continually spouting "Throw the bums out!" does not yield better candidates. You're arguing that you are so prejudiced that even if you think someone is doing a good job, they should be ousted. And the fact is, most people like their representatives to Congress, while having a dismal view of Congress on the whole. Which is why most of them are incumbents.
If Obama is doing a job the majority of the American people like and believe in when 2010 rolls around, you are NOT going to win an election by saying "I'm different than all those people in there now, who are fixing things. I'm going to go in there and be obstinate and really gum up the works!" But, of course, you're more than welcome to have your candidates follow that campaign strategy.
|
|
| |
|
| Mar 20 @ 2:12 AM |
2010 - Take Back Our Country - Vote The Arrogant Incumbents In Washington OUT |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 8,496
|
I guess one fact I left out of the logical proof is that we live in a two-party system. To throw out the incumbent, you've a VERY limited range of alternatives. You can vote for the other major party, or you can throw away your vote by voting for a third party. (And I make that emphasis deliberately. Third parties mostly function as spoilers and protest votes. They're not taken seriously, because we're in a two-party system.)
Hypothetically, why would people vote for someone who is even LESS LIKELY to represent their views? That's the problem with the whole "throw the bums out" plan.
|
| |
|
|
|
|