If Republicans run as strongly as Brown, only 103 House Dems are safe. [Archive] - The Orange Mane

View Full Version : If Republicans run as strongly as Brown, only 103 House Dems are safe.

spdirty

01-22-2010, 12:47 PM

Pucker up assholes, conservatives are drivin the train now.

If Republicans run as strongly as Brown, only 103 House Dems are safe.
By: Michael Barone
Senior Political Analyst
01/22/10 6:57 AM EST

Republican Scott Brown won 52%-47% in Massachusetts, which voted 62%-36% for Barack Obama in 2008. How did he do in each of Massachusetts’s 10 congressional districts, all of which are represented by Democrats who have been reelected without much opposition this decade? Blogger Fred Bauer has attempted to calculate the results, omitting results in cities or towns which are split between congressional districts. Bauer shows Coakley winning 80%-20% in Michael Capuano’s 8th district (which voted 84% for Obama), 54%-46% in Ed Markey’s 7th district (65% Obama) and 51%-49% in John Olver’s western Mass 1st district (64% Obama). He shows Coakley narrowly trailing in Barney Frank’s 4th district (63% Obama), where I think the Fall River precincts he didn’t count would have put Coakley narrowly ahead, and in Stephen Lynch’s 9th district (60% Obama) he shows her well behind but doesn’t include the Boston wards and precincts which may have put her ahead, although I rather doubt it.

Anyway, there’s a pattern here: Coakley carries districts where Obama got 65% or more of the vote and runs essentially even in the district where he got 64%, and Scott Brown runs ahead in districts where Obama got less than 64% of the vote.

Let’s extrapolate those numbers to the nation as a whole and assume that a district that voted 64% or more for Obama is safe for Democrats even under the most dire of circumstances. How many such districts are there? Answer, according to this source: 103. The other 332 districts voted 63% or less for Obama. Interestingly, there are more 64%+ Obama districts in the West (36) than in the East (27) and more in the South (21) than in the Midwest (19).

All but two of the 103 Obama 64%+ districts are represented by Democrats. The two exceptions are Louisiana 2, where Republican An Joseph Cao beat Democrat William “Cold Cash” Jefferson in a December 2008 runoff, and Florida 19, whose incumbent Robert Wexler resigned and a special election will be held in April. And, yes, it will be amazing if this heavily Jewish district in Palm Beach and Broward Counties elects a Republican; heavily Jewish Brookline and Newton voted heavily against Scott Brown in Massachusetts.

So that means that 101 of the 256 House Democrats represent 64%+ Obama districts and that 155 House Democrats represent districts which might, according to the Massachusetts metric, be vulnerable in some circumstances to Republican capture. No wonder so many House Democrats refused to vote for the Senate health care bill—enough to prompt Speaker Nancy Pelosi to say publicly that “unease would be a gentle word” to describe their attitude toward doing that.

Who represents the 103 Obama 64%+ districts? By my count, 36 are represented by members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 11 by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus; three (CA 5, HI 2, LA 3) are represented by members of Asian descent) and 53 by members who are white. I have previously characterized 36 of these last 56 districts as “gentry liberal” districts and 12 as “working class/ethnic” districts.

Where are these 64%+ Obama districts? Here’s a list by metro area:

EAST

New York (NY 6, NY 7, NY 8, NY 10, NY 11, NY 12, NY 14, NY 15, NY 16, NY 17, NJ 10, NJ 13)

Philadelphia (PA 1, PA 2, NJ 1)

Washington (MD 4, MD 5, MD 8, VA 8 [technically I count the last in the South)

Boston (MA 7, MA 8)

Baltimore (MD 7)

Pittsburgh (PA 14)

Buffalo (NY 28)

Hartford (CT 1)

Providence (RI 1)

Rural New England (MA 1, VT 1)

MIDWEST

Chicago (IL 1, IL 2, IL 3, IL 4, IL 5, IL 7, IL 9)

Detroit (MI 12, MI 13, MI 14, MI 15)

Cleveland (OH 11)

St. Louis (MO 1)

Minneapolis (MN 4, MN 5)

Milwaukee (WI 4)

Indianapolis (IN 7)

Flint (MI 5)

Madison (WI 2)

WEST

Los Angeles (CA 27, CA 28, CA 29, CA 30, CA 31, CA 32, CA 33, CA 34, CA 35, CA 36, CA 37, CA 38, CA 39, CA 43)

San Francisco (CA 6, CA 7, CA 8, CA 9, CA 10, CA 12, CA 13, CA 14, CA 15, CA 16)

California North and Central Coast (CA 1, CA 17, CA 23)

San Diego (CA 53)

Sacramento (CA 5)

Seattle (WA 7)

Portland (OR 3)

Denver (CO 1)

Phoenix (AZ 4)

Las Vegas (NV 1)

Honolulu (HI 1, HI 2)

SOUTH

Atlanta (GA 4, GA 5, GA 13)

Miami (FL 17, FL 19, FL 23)

Houston (TX 9, TX 18)

Dallas (TX 30)

San Antonio (TX 20)

El Paso (TX 16)

Tampa (FL 11)

Jacksonville (FL 3)

Birmingham (AL 7)

New Orleans (LA 2)

Jackson (MS 2)

Charlotte (NC 12)

Columbia (SC 6)

Memphis (TN 9)

Richmond (VA 3)

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/If-Republicans-run-like-Brown-then-only-103-House-Dems-are-truly-safe-82360422.html#ixzz0dNNdw4TO

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/If-Republicans-run-like-Brown-then-only-103-House-Dems-are-truly-safe-82360422.html

Rigs11

01-22-2010, 02:15 PM

if....

Garcia Bronco

01-22-2010, 02:31 PM

Republicans won't see all those seats because the Democrats are going to start changing their tune to keep as much power as possible.

TexanBob

01-22-2010, 03:02 PM

Yeah, the masks are going back up on the Left. They thought they had built an unbeatable majority so they let their masks down and exposed what communists they really are and when America saw that, most of the country recoiled in horror. But it didn't matter while Democrats thought they could force their will on the rest of the country.

So what if they lost in Virginia? So what if they lost in New Jersey? But when they lost decisively in Massachusetts, the panic set in so up went the masks and they're now going to pretend again that they are all moderate centrists with real but untried solutions (mostly recycled marxism) that only need the chance to take root.

We'll see just how quickly Americans forget what the communists almost accomplished. Double-digit unemployment, debt beyond belief, humiliation after humiliation on the world stage.

I'm told Obama is going to campaign in Nevada for Harry Reid and I'm just going to love Mr. "Those Days Of Flying To Vegas Are Over" explaining how 14% unemployment is really Bush's fault and he had nothing at all to do with it.

If in November voters follow the lead of Massachusetts, it could be a whole new ballgame in 2011. But I'm not predicting it will happen. The communists have way too much graft and corruption on hand to believe they won't steal/invent the votes they need to maintain a majority.

bpc

01-22-2010, 03:18 PM

I encourage all smart people to take back California from the degenerates. Please?

bpc

01-22-2010, 03:21 PM

spdirty

01-22-2010, 03:29 PM

At the end of this year Obama reading the obit of Harry Reid to Stepanapolous

"America is not only mad about this year... about what has happened the last 10 years in this country..."

Keep attaching your name to Bush, Barry Obama, we'll see how far that gets you!

Its the only excuse they have left.

Hizaki

01-22-2010, 03:31 PM

Yeah, the masks are going back up on the Left. They thought they had built an unbeatable majority so they let their masks down and exposed what communists they really are and when America saw that, most of the country recoiled in horror. But it didn't matter while Democrats thought they could force their will on the rest of the country.

Unfortunately it will make no difference if Republicans take over Congress. They pursue many of the same failed policies as their counterparts. It makes absolutely no difference which party is in power. Politicians are bought and paid for in both parties. People are voting Democrats out now because they are outraged and that is the only way they can express their anger. If they only knew that they will just be getting much of the same.

There are a few running as Republican for the Senate that are worthy of the seat. Peter Schiff in Connecticut and Rand Paul in Kentucky are two that should get all of our support. These two gentlemen stand for freedom, free-market, small government and both support Ron Paul’s HR1207, the bill to Audit (and eventually dissolve) the Federal Reserve. They are more Libertarian than Republican in their beliefs, but are not running under a 3rd party, because their chances of getting in would be close to zero.

spdirty

01-22-2010, 03:38 PM

Unfortunately it will make no difference if Republicans take over Congress. They pursue many of the same failed policies as their counterparts. It makes absolutely no difference which party is in power. Politicians are bought and paid for in both parties. People are voting Democrats out now because they are outraged and that is the only way they can express their anger. If they only knew that they will just be getting much of the same.

got any examples of similar policies? I wouldnt count immigration reform as one since Bush and McCain coopted the house and senate repubs and the people expressed their outrage which damned that bill. I think the GOP is finally starting to figure it out on that issue. Other than that I cant think of any other examples off the top.

There are a few running as Republican for the Senate that are worthy of the seat. Peter Schiff in Connecticut and Rand Paul in Kentucky are two that should get all of our support. These two gentlemen stand for freedom, free-market, small government and both support Ron Paul’s HR1207, the bill to Audit (and eventually dissolve) the Federal Reserve. They are more Libertarian than Republican in their beliefs, but are not running under a 3rd party, because their chances of getting in would be close to zero.

cool.

Bronx33

01-22-2010, 03:44 PM

Republicans won't see all those seats because the Democrats are going to start changing their tune to keep as much power as possible.

It may be too late for them to change their tune i really think the people are onto obama and his agenda heck 20% dems voted against coakley in mass ( what does that tell ya)

Dems don't understand or don't care that the people don't want goverment ran healhcare and that is the dems downfall among other issues like fast tracking legislation through which is wrong on all levels.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

01-22-2010, 03:47 PM

Why the GOP should still be nervous

James Hohmann , Jim VandeHei James Hohmann , Jim Vandehei – Fri Jan 22, 12:56 am ET

Republicans are riding high in the wake of Scott Brown’s win, talking up an authentic resurgence for their party and a real chance for reclaiming power.

Don’t bet on it.

Yes, it is indisputable that the GOP has surged, especially in the past several months. Republicans won three major races in tough states — and watched the percentage of Americans who prefer Republicans over Democrats in hypothetical matchups rise to the highest level since 2004.

But it is also indisputable that the rise has little to do with the voters’ view of Republicans writ large — and that the very concerns that got them booted from power persist today.

Voters “have fallen out of love with the Democrats,” said Rep. Adam Putnam (R-Fla.). “They haven’t yet fallen back in love with us.”

POLITICO talked with many of the country’s most experienced political operatives, and each one warned Republicans against irrational exuberance.

Former New York Rep. Susan Molinari: “We have earned the right to crow a little bit. But the lesson we’ve learned from all of these races is that you ... can’t take anything for granted.”

Republican strategist Mary Matalin: “Killer negatives have lost their magic. This requires no attitude. Now we have the players on the field, and we just need to play. We remember how to do it.”

Former Rep. Vin Weber (R-Minn.): “Voters don’t want triumphalism. They still like the president as a person, so they don’t want to see a party celebrating his decline. ... The country wants to see the parties working together.”

Matthew Dowd, who consulted for former President George W. Bush and voted for President Barack Obama: “If any Republicans are running around town celebrating in jubilation, they should remember that in the country’s constant state of change, neither party gets more than a moment.”

Republicans on Capitol Hill hope their moment will come again in November. But the numbers are daunting across the board.

The most important ones: 40, the net seats to win the House, and 10, the net seats to win the Senate, are very difficult — perhaps impossible in the case of the Senate — to achieve. Republicans have picked up 40 or more House seats only seven times since 1912, when the chamber grew to 435 seats. They have picked up 10 or more Senate seats only four times in that period. They have done both three times in the past century.

It seems certain they will pick up some seats, perhaps as many as two dozen or more in the House. That would be in line with the historical average pickup for the opposition party in a president’s first term.

But away from the cameras, Republicans admit that a series of structural problems will make it hard to transform those gains into a win-back-control movement.

Privately, top Republicans tell POLITICO that they are most concerned right now about their bank balance. They are doing well in recruiting candidates but worry they might not have the cash to sufficiently fund them.

Consider the House. The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee has $15 million in the bank right now — nearly four times more than the National Republican Congressional Committee.

Officials say that, while small and large donors are still chipping in, the recession has caused a dip in contributions from middle-level donors — often the small-business types who are feeling the economic pinch. (Gee, I thought these people were supposed to be doing so much better thanks to republican policies? Ha!)

At the candidate level, if you tally up all the money for everyone running, Democrats have about $60 million more ($175 million to $114 million), according to numbers compiled by the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics.

Money is one of the many reasons top GOP officials wish the party had not elected Michael Steele as Republican National Committee chairman. Senior Republicans don’t like his loose lips or his wildly improvisational style. But they could live with that if the RNC were a cash cow. It is not, in part because of Steele’s unwillingness to personally stroke top donors.

The RNC has outraised the Democratic National Committee, but it has less money to spend right now: $9 million vs. the DNC’s $13 million. More troubling to GOP insiders on Capitol Hill is that some major donors say they don’t want to give money to Steele’s RNC.

Republicans are, however, taking some comfort in signals that some of these same contributors are funneling their money to the committees tasked with winning House, Senate and gubernatorial contests.

Democrats continue to get way more money than Republicans from groups outside the official party structure. The new Supreme Court ruling opens the door for corporations to rush back into politics, but it’s too early to tell how aggressively they will underwrite the GOP, given the inherent risk involved in taking on the majority party.

Barring a huge infusion of corporate cash, the Democrats have a decisive advantage. Not insurmountable, but by no means insignificant.

Republicans are publicly boasting that money will pour in after the Massachusetts win. If so, they could have enough to compete in November.

But Republicans still will fight against another set of numbers: the large number of voters who simply don’t like the brand the GOP is selling. The latest Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll found only 30 percent of those surveyed had a favorable view of Republicans. That is 8 percentage points lower than the favorability rating for Democrats. And 22 points lower than Obama’s.

“The American people are against their agenda,” Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (R-Ga.) said of the Democrats. But Westmoreland said the Republicans are “having a hard time” getting their agenda out, too. “We have got to do a better job getting that out.”

Even Republicans aren’t thrilled with Republicans. A CBS News poll showed only 55 percent of Republicans hold a favorable view of their congressional delegation.

And voters also still don’t trust Republicans with big decisions. A recent Washington Post poll found 24 percent trusted congressional Republicans to make the right decisions for the country — 8 points fewer than Democrats and 23 points fewer than Obama.

“Scott Brown didn’t even really run as a Republican,” Dowd notes. “He ran as an outsider.”

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) spent three days in Massachusetts before the election, and he said that even Brown supporters told him they wanted to be sure “Republicans get the message: ‘You didn’t do your job well enough when you were there.’” Still, he said, “They do recognize the Democrats have been a lot worse.”

It is a fair point for Republicans to argue that what matters more is the public’s view of the party in power, because voters have a long history of taking out their frustrations on those with the keys. Indeed, one of the most troubling signs for Democrats right now is that the public is losing faith in their ability to lead on virtually every domestic issue on the table.

Republicans are gleefully proclaiming the death of the Obama presidency, or at least his agenda. They claim the public has turned on him, holding him accountable for the sour economy and unemployment. However, the polls don’t back this up.

The WSJ/NBC poll found 65 percent felt Obama inherited the economic mess, while only 17 percent said his policies were “mostly responsible” for the current situation.

That said, just ask Massachusetts Democratic Senate nominee Martha Coakley and former New Jersey Democratic Gov. Jon Corzine who’s taking the brunt of the public’s anger right now.

Of course, it’s possible that the wave of voter discontent is now cresting and will have fizzled somewhat 10 months from now. The economy could begin a rebound.

But even if the current political environment holds, the demographic numbers will remain the biggest obstacle to any longer-term gains for the GOP.

House Minority Whip Eric Cantor said last week he was very concerned about the lack of diversity among GOP candidates and their supporters. The most obvious place for gains in this area would be with Hispanics, the fastest-growing minority group. But a recent Daily Kos poll showed three-quarters of Hispanics hold unfavorable opinions of Republicans. There’s little evidence Republicans are aggressively working to fix their diversity problem: Aside from former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, each of their potential 2012 presidential candidates is a white male.

Finally, one number Republicans are closely watching in the short term is the number of conservatives who will challenge establishment-backed candidates in key races. If this number grows too big, it will drain resources and highlight the deep divisions that remain inside the GOP.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/201...politico/31837 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20100122/pl_politico/31837)

TexanBob

01-23-2010, 01:53 PM

Bronx33

01-23-2010, 02:57 PM

cutthemdown

01-23-2010, 08:03 PM

So basically LABF saying the dems have the ball but aren't running with it. Even though coach doesn't really think repubs the way to go eventually he has to give him the ball. That's good enough to thwart the liberals plans to socialize America and that's good enough for me.

Once again the dems get power and run around like a bunch of donkeys. Obama said the other day they need to hammer out what they agree on in healthcare. Now he's backing away again and saying maybe start over with a new set of ideas. What a joke he doesn't know what he wants. He got what he deserved. He let Congress right the law and do the reform. He let them wheel and deal Chicago style thinking he could just sign the bill when it was done. Now it is all blowing up in his face.

I bet you Hilliary is secretly loving this.

rastaman

01-23-2010, 09:40 PM

It may be too late for them to change their tune i really think the people are onto obama and his agenda heck 20% dems voted against coakley in mass ( what does that tell ya)

Dems don't understand or don't care that the people don't want goverment ran healhcare and that is the dems downfall among other issues like fast tracking legislation through which is wrong on all levels.

So why do you think the people want to see a return of Republican Corporate Predatory Capitalilsm?

Also, where are the so called Tea Baggers here of late? Why aren't these they out protesting the SC latest decisions to allow Republican Facsist Corporations to buy elections now? Could it be possible that the Tea Baggers are Facsist Brown Shirts who have sold their souls to ensure that America is controled by PREDATORY CORPORATIONS.8')

rastaman

01-23-2010, 09:44 PM

Republican really shouldn't underestimate this Mass beatdown i wouldn't be suprised to see them screw this window of opportunity up with a scandle or just plain idiocy ( they have to be smart) AND THATS ASKING ALOT imo.

I don't think Brown can win a second term in 2012. As quickly as he came out of nowhere, his voting records proves he voted as a Repub. 96% of the time. He's an opportunist and not an Independent Senator.

Brown will be read the riot act by the Pimp-Thug Republican Leadership in the Senate and they will take him down to the Senate Bathroom and let him know what is expected of him and how he will be expected to behave.;)

rastaman

01-23-2010, 10:15 PM

What I've been watching is that more conservatives are giving money directly to candidates and not to the Republican Party. They don't want to see their money going to keep Arlen Specter afloat like it did last time or to keep weak-kneed RINOs in power. No doubt, the economy has sapped a lot of earning power from both parties but what I think I see happening is that donors are more closely targeting money to specific races and avoiding the weak party apparatus that sometimes betrayed them. Democrats may be less inclined to do this since they are collectivists and statists who love Big Government and Big Party but the smart people on that side of the aisle may also decide to be smarter with their money than it has been in the past.

You Republican'ts had better hope you don't awaken a sleeping giant! The liberals and progressives voters in this country out number the conservatives and independent voters......plain and simple.

The Liberal-Progressive voters in this country actually have 3 different enemies they must contend with. The first of course is the polarizing-predatory conservative-independent Republican voters, the second are DINO Blue Dog Benedict Arnold Democrats, and third are the opportunist Corporate Democrats or the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC) who are not Democrats first but are more inclined to sell the true identity of the Roosevelt New Deal Democrats.

The Democratic Liberal-Progressives voters currently have the DLC who are trying to govern from the CENTER will find themselves losing their base voters. The Liberal voters don't want their President nor their Dem Congress to legislate from the CENTER. The Liberal voters want to see their elected leaders legislate from the LEFT.

The DLC Centrist Corporate Democrats Conducting legislation in the bipartisan spirit with predatory-fascist Party first Republican's in congress is a recipe for disaster and their certain defeat.

Perhaps it will take the return of the Ebola Virus Predatory Republicans back to power to finally awaken the masses out there to take back their country from the extremest conservative taliban religious freaks and the Predatory Corporate Republicans who have ruined this once great country of ours over a 30 year period.

Take Care Republican-Corporate TexAss Bob!

mhgaffney

01-23-2010, 11:17 PM

TexanBob

01-24-2010, 12:34 AM

The Liberal-Progressive voters in this country actually have 3 different enemies they must contend with.

1) The American people.
2) Their own power madness.
3) Truth.
:thanku:

Plain and simple.

L.A. BRONCOS FAN

01-24-2010, 11:30 PM

So basically LABF saying the dems have the ball but aren't running with it.

Quote?

Or are you just pulling one out of your ass?

In any event, "not running with the ball" was enough to crush your party in a landslide in '08, according to your right-wingnut pals on this board.

How could that happen?

(Not holding breath for honest answer.)

cutthemdown

01-25-2010, 02:45 AM

Quote?

Or are you just pulling one out of your ass?

In any event, "not running with the ball" was enough to crush your party in a landslide in '08, according to your right-wingnut pals on this board.

How could that happen?

(Not holding breath for honest answer.)

I think the Dems look great when they are talking about how good they can run with the ball. Once they have it though they fumble and bumble like they always do. The repubs were doing a poor job, had a bunch of sex scandals, spent like a drunken sailor, and got what they deserved.

But Dems can't even get through one yr in charge without looking like complete idiots. Can you say one and done?

rastaman

01-25-2010, 04:02 AM

I think the Dems look great when they are talking about how good they can run with the ball. Once they have it though they fumble and bumble like they always do. The repubs were doing a poor job, had a bunch of sex scandals, spent like a drunken sailor, and got what they deserved.

But Dems can't even get through one yr in charge without looking like complete idiots. Can you say one and done?

Yes I agree, you tend to look like complete IDIOTS when you attempt to "Break Bread" and show statesmanship and bipartisanship with the "Attila Hun" Republican't Party! You don't invite Republican Rats to sit at the Thanksgiving Table!

Obama needs to take off the gloves politically and start hammering these God Damned un-American Republicans into the ground.

Screw em! Republicans want this President to fail anyway so why respect these Bastards. I say Reconciliatory these Republican't MFers until they can't see straight. If the voters who got Obama elected don't like this method, then they can RE-ELECT ANOTHER FASCIST CAPITALIST REPUBLICAN'T. Remember, its the Republican't Party that has a trail of UsedToilet Tissue hanging out their ASS. ;)

ENOUGH SAID. :sunshine:

rastaman

01-25-2010, 04:04 AM

1) The American people.
2) Their own power madness.
3) Truth.
:thanku:

Plain and simple.

You couldn't be further from the truth....but then again you're a Conservative and thats expected of you and your ilk.

The Democratic Liberal-Progressives voters currently have the DLC who are trying to govern from the CENTER will find themselves losing their base voters. The Liberal voters don't want their President nor their Dem Congress to legislate from the CENTER. The Liberal voters want to see their elected leaders legislate from the LEFT.

The DLC Centrist Corporate Democrats Conducting legislation in the bipartisan spirit with predatory-fascist Party first Republican's in congress is a recipe for disaster and their certain defeat.

Hizaki

01-25-2010, 09:31 AM

Both parties are mirror images of each other. Both are terminal.

The door is open to independents -- maverick Dems and Repubs alike.

What I don't get is why no one is talking about a new third party --

Maybe we have not gone low enough yet.

I hate to reference him again, for fear of looking obsessed with the man, but Gerald Celente is forecasting that a third party might be on the rise. He mentions it will be a mixture of the Tea Part movement, Libertarians, Conservatives and Constitutionalists along with current Democrats and Republicans, who are fed up with their respective parties.

Of course don’t count on the MSM to cover subjects such as this; they are too busy talking about the “strengthening” of the dollar and the recovery ahead of us.

Tombstone RJ

01-25-2010, 09:55 AM

Both parties are mirror images of each other. Both are terminal.

The door is open to independents -- maverick Dems and Repubs alike.

What I don't get is why no one is talking about a new third party --

Maybe we have not gone low enough yet.

I'd be up for a third party, a Libertarian party. However, there is no way in hell I'd go for a "green" party or a "Progressive" party.

More state's rights, less federal government, and a more sorta isolationist type of foreign policy (not economically per say because we live in a global economy but a more restrained approach to committing military power, while at the same time being proactive in communicating with foreign countries).

However, that will never happen. The dems and the repubs won't let a third party happen, ever.

The dems scare me because they are corrupt at their core, lie about their true motives, and don't really care about the middle class nor creating better schools, etc.

The repubs scare me because they represent the big corporations too much (although the dems are pretty strong here too) and they are to entrenched in the trickle down theory and reaganomics which I don't think helps the middle class, nor does it help things like manufacturing.

Rohirrim

01-25-2010, 10:26 AM

Hizaki

01-25-2010, 10:42 AM

got any examples of similar policies? I wouldnt count immigration reform as one since Bush and McCain coopted the house and senate repubs and the people expressed their outrage which damned that bill. I think the GOP is finally starting to figure it out on that issue. Other than that I cant think of any other examples off the top.

I would be glad to provide examples.

Monetary Policy
The most obvious to all of us is the bailouts. You cannot give money to failed businesses in a free-market society (of course ours is very far from free). Bush did it, Obama is continuing it. They handed billions of our dollars to various investment banks (Goldman Sachs, Bank of America, J.P. Morgan, etc.) along with big businesses, most notably the domestic auto industry.
Increasing our national debt (over 12 trillion and counting). This does NOT include unfunded debt obligations to Social Security, Medicare, military pensions, public debt, etc. which bring our total debt close to 70 trillion dollars (that’s trillion with a “t”).

http://www.davemanuel.com/2009/06/01/638-trillion-dollars-in-us-federal-government-debt-and-unfunded-obligations-ouch/

It doesn’t take anything more than basic understanding of economics to realize one cannot spend his/her way out of debt. If you had an immense credit card debt, would it make sense to borrow more money or would it be better to instead start saving and paying it back? Of course the latter makes sense. Our government does exactly the opposite. Borrow trillions more from China, Japan and the Saudis.
Both parties spend, spend and keep on spending.
For a really good outline of all things financial read Peter Schiff’s book, titled Crash Proof.

Foreign Policy
Both parties pursue imperialistic, intrusive policies, sending our men and women for slaughter for their own selfish agendas. If you think these brave and honorable souls are there to fight terrorism you are very naïve. There is a lot more to these wars then they let us know. The media in the US is laughable at best and lie to you on a daily basis. These wars are about oil, natural resources and drug money (heroin trade in the Middle East) among other things. We are not there to install democracy or to help those poor bastards. The Bush administration created the Iraq war on false premises to begin with, using 911 to get the American public on board (I am not saying they caused 911 just that they used the events to their advantage). The Obama administration is greatly expanding the “war on terrorism”, now having Iran and Yemen in sight.
Here is a great article on US involvement in the drug trade going back past the Vietnam War.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig11/scott-pd1.1.1.html

Domestic Policy
This is simply about the deindustrialization of the US. Our manufacturing jobs are all shipped abroad, our factories dismantled, our skilled workers jobless. This is due to many factors (NAFTA, unions) but the one I wanted to single out is governmental regulation. Overregulation of many industries caused businesses to ship their factories to third world countries where they can make insane profits. It makes a huge difference to pay someone $2 a day or $30/hour to work in a factory. Remember, these companies are after one single thing: profit.
Now I can understand why Liberals are mad at these big corporations making huge profits, but they never look into why these companies are exploiting the cheap labor abroad. It’s simply because it is not profitable for them to make it here, due to governmental regulations and the absence of tariffs.
I know for a fact that one person I follow concerning economics and finances has to employ 6 people full time (he employs about 100 people total) just to keep up with government regulations that change on a daily basis. If you miss one, you’ll get fined so you better be on top of your game.

The War on Drugs
Pointless effort, with billions invested every year. Has it gotten us anywhere? No. If you want an excellent analogy think of the war on drugs as the war on alcohol (The Prohibition) in the 20’s and 30’s. What did it accomplish other than a huge black market for liquor? Moonshiners, rumrunners, bootleggers come to mind. People still drank; the only difference is that instead of getting it at the liquor store now they had to go down to a dark alley or do business with the mafia to get it. How about legalizing all drugs and let the users use it to their own detriment. I know I would not use anything even if it was legal. From all the money saved invest in informational campaigns on the harmful effects. Look at tobacco. Not many people of our younger generation smoke compared to 20 years ago. I know of at least 5 long time smokers who quit just recently.

Here is a small article by Ron Paul on why this war is fruitless:

http://www.lewrockwell.com/paul/paul515.html

Anyways, hope this gives you a clear picture of why I think both administrations are almost identical. Of course they differ on the surface on many trivial issues, just enough to keep the two parties’ supporters bickering with each other. On mainline issues that really matter you will not get any change, regardless of who is in power.

~Crash~

01-25-2010, 10:49 AM

I don't think Brown can win a second term in 2012. As quickly as he came out of nowhere, his voting records proves he voted as a Repub. 96% of the time. He's an opportunist and not an Independent Senator.

Brown will be read the riot act by the Pimp-Thug Republican Leadership in the Senate and they will take him down to the Senate Bathroom and let him know what is expected of him and how he will be expected to behave.;)

You act like there is not planed change in the R party . there is a huge movement by tea baggers to take over the R party and I see that as positive.

cutthemdown

01-25-2010, 12:49 PM

Yes I agree, you tend to look like complete IDIOTS when you attempt to "Break Bread" and show statesmanship and bipartisanship with the "Attila Hun" Republican't Party! You don't invite Republican Rats to sit at the Thanksgiving Table!

Obama needs to take off the gloves politically and start hammering these God Damned un-American Republicans into the ground.

Screw em! Republicans want this President to fail anyway so why respect these Bastards. I say Reconciliatory these Republican't MFers until they can't see straight. If the voters who got Obama elected don't like this method, then they can RE-ELECT ANOTHER FASCIST CAPITALIST REPUBLICAN'T. Remember, its the Republican't Party that has a trail of UsedToilet Tissue hanging out their ASS. ;)

ENOUGH SAID. :sunshine:

What more do you want him to try? He totally said screw repubs, do it without them, made a bunch of deals trying to do it. If thats not taking gloves off what is? Then he got punched in the mouth because his deals fell apart, they lose a seat to Brown, and boom he's in trouble.

The problem is you can only hammer them as un-american on the right issue. On healthcare it wont work because people don't see that as an issue of patriotism, more how much govt should do in our lives.

As people saw the way govt does things start to unravel the people started to worry maybe socialized healthcare not such a good idea.

cutthemdown

01-25-2010, 12:49 PM

You act like there is not planed change in the R party . there is a huge movement by tea baggers to take over the R party and I see that as positive.

The repubs will come back socially more liberal, and fiscally more consevative. I can't wait.