Rasmussen still sees Dems holding Senate

[asterism]

The democrats could not lead with over 240 House members and 60 Senators. They sure as hell won't lead with less Senators. Unlike the Republicans under Bush.

LMAO Think a bit about what you just posted.
It is not very pro republican if you consider what the republican led congress did under Bush.

Only to retards. the point is with 56 Senators the Republicans PASSED shit and LEAD. The Democrats couldn't do it with 60.

Only by being fiscal liberals, and that's the problem.

 

[asterism]

Yes, they passed legislation alright, legislation written by credit card companies for example and subsequently rubber stamped by Bush. Of course, it goes without saying that whatever war funding was needed they approved and then some.

Including the 4 years the Senate was Democratic and the 2 years the House was Democratic.

Did you forget Barney Frank insisting just a month or so before the Housing collapse that Fannie and Freddie were sound and fine and that any new regulations would hurt them? He INSISTED the housing market was just fine while he and Dodd took payoffs from Mortgage companies and blocked any attempt to regulate the Industry.

I remember it not being a priority as long as the gravy train kept going.

The GOP fucked up, plain and simple.

 

[fyrenza]

And the DemoTards have gotten it SO right,

in the PAST,

as NOW?!?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Yes, they passed legislation alright, legislation written by credit card companies for example and subsequently rubber stamped by Bush. Of course, it goes without saying that whatever war funding was needed they approved and then some.

Including the 4 years the Senate was Democratic and the 2 years the House was Democratic.

Did you forget Barney Frank insisting just a month or so before the Housing collapse that Fannie and Freddie were sound and fine and that any new regulations would hurt them? He INSISTED the housing market was just fine while he and Dodd took payoffs from Mortgage companies and blocked any attempt to regulate the Industry.

I remember it not being a priority as long as the gravy train kept going.

The GOP fucked up, plain and simple.

Well lets compare shall we? In 8 years the Congresses under Bush ran up a 5.7 trillion deficit. 4 years of that under Democratic control. Under Obama and the Democrats we have 3 trillion in LESS then 2 years, do the math. AND Obama has promised to keep on spending like a drunken sailor. I would suggest that even if the Republicans were to spend like they did under Bush, we would still be better off then having the Dems in charge. 8 years 5.7 trillion or 8 years 12 trillion. Ya we should let the Dems keep running things.

 

[R.C. Christian]

Obama seems to believe that endless debt is a good thing as long as our enemies keep buying those treasury bills.

 

[asterism]

Including the 4 years the Senate was Democratic and the 2 years the House was Democratic.

Did you forget Barney Frank insisting just a month or so before the Housing collapse that Fannie and Freddie were sound and fine and that any new regulations would hurt them? He INSISTED the housing market was just fine while he and Dodd took payoffs from Mortgage companies and blocked any attempt to regulate the Industry.

I remember it not being a priority as long as the gravy train kept going.

The GOP fucked up, plain and simple.

Well lets compare shall we? In 8 years the Congresses under Bush ran up a 5.7 trillion deficit. 4 years of that under Democratic control. Under Obama and the Democrats we have 3 trillion in LESS then 2 years, do the math.

So Republicans are bad, Democrats are worse. Welcome to 1994. How did that one work out?

AND Obama has promised to keep on spending like a drunken sailor. I would suggest that even if the Republicans were to spend like they did under Bush, we would still be better off then having the Dems in charge. 8 years 5.7 trillion or 8 years 12 trillion.

And that's where we disagree. The Republicans promised fiscal responsibility and greater prosperity. They failed. They set the stage for that whole "Hope" and "Change" bullshit. Look at where we are now.

Ya we should let the Dems keep running things.

Not my point at all, but liberal-lite being effectively marketed as "fiscal conservative" has done more damage.

 

[California Girl]

RCP Projection:


Democrats 48

Republicans 46

Toss-ups

CA: Boxer (D)
CO: Bennet (D)
IL: Open (D)
NV: Reid (D)
WA: Murray (D)
WV: Open (D)

​

RealClearPolitics - 2010 Election Maps - Battle for the Senate

Boxer's a toss up. Hence the likelihood that I'll vote GOP.... Just to try to get that bitch out.

 

[asterism]

Obama seems to believe that endless debt is a good thing as long as our enemies keep buying those treasury bills.

Notice how the porkgressives don't complain about the debt to China these days.

 

[fyrenza]

Notice how the porkgressives don't complain about the debt to China these days.

Oh, for crying out loud!

If ALL of us don't realize how FUCKED we are,

and how we've been sold out, RIGHT AND LEFT,

well,

we're brain dead.

Our GOV did it to us,

with pretty lies,
with fear,
and with preying on our natural sympathy for our fellow human beings.

THAT makes me cry: That they could DO that to us, AND that we'd fall for it.

It's a sad day in Mudville...

 

[asterism]

Notice how the porkgressives don't complain about the debt to China these days.

Oh, for crying out loud!

If ALL of us don't realize how FUCKED we are,

and how we've been sold out, RIGHT AND LEFT,

well,

we're brain dead.

Our GOV did it to us,

with pretty lies,
with fear,
and with preying on our natural sympathy for our fellow human beings.

THAT makes me cry: That they could DO that to us, AND that we'd fall for it.

It's a sad day in Mudville...

How much is social conservatism worth now?

 

[fyrenza]

How much is social conservatism worth now?

Look around you, pal.

How much is ANYTHING worth, now?

Your folks, that worked for every flippin' CENT they got?

What is what they built with their blood, sweat and tears "WORTH," now?

 

[Rinata]

You know what?

Is this another of those Scare Tactics to motivate the voters?

Let's wait, at LEAST until folks are actually VOTING,

'cuz I've got news for you:

Make the dims "comfortable," and they'll SKIP the hassle of going to the polls.

Make the repugs nervous, and they'll be SURE to get to the polls.

Oh.

On second thought,

CARRY ON!

Second thought?? Better go back and work on the first one.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I remember it not being a priority as long as the gravy train kept going.

The GOP fucked up, plain and simple.

Well lets compare shall we? In 8 years the Congresses under Bush ran up a 5.7 trillion deficit. 4 years of that under Democratic control. Under Obama and the Democrats we have 3 trillion in LESS then 2 years, do the math.

So Republicans are bad, Democrats are worse. Welcome to 1994. How did that one work out?

AND Obama has promised to keep on spending like a drunken sailor. I would suggest that even if the Republicans were to spend like they did under Bush, we would still be better off then having the Dems in charge. 8 years 5.7 trillion or 8 years 12 trillion.

And that's where we disagree. The Republicans promised fiscal responsibility and greater prosperity. They failed. They set the stage for that whole "Hope" and "Change" bullshit. Look at where we are now.

Ya we should let the Dems keep running things.

Not my point at all, but liberal-lite being effectively marketed as "fiscal conservative" has done more damage.

We have 2 choices. Republican or Democrat. At the rate the Democrats are spending we only really have one choice. See if the Republicans will follow what they claim. Reelecting the Democrats is a short road to bankruptcy.

 

[fyrenza]

Second thought?? Better go back and work on the first one.

OMG!

I'm SO emBAREassed!

You've cut me So Low,

I have to look UP to see DOWN!!!

I may NEVER be able to show my face HERE, again...

But, well, there IS the Hilton thread...



Okay!

Back, by Popular Demand!

0, Teh LOLZ!

p.s. Pump off.

This Post Edited BY and FOR: Modulation

 

[JimH52]

You can tell Rove does not want to win the Senate -- that's partly why he dumped on the Delaware witch.

Having the House allows the GOP to destroy the Obama agenda, but having the House and the Senate means the GOP risked getting tainted by the lingering Bush fart that will consume the next several years.

Best to throw Obama a hot potato and blame him for dropping it.

Rove doesn't want the Senate for good reason. The GOP doesn't want to get dragged into the hole they placed Obama in.

A plausable idea there.

The democrats could not lead with over 240 House members and 60 Senators. They sure as hell won't lead with less Senators. Unlike the Republicans under Bush.

Yup, they lead us into two wars and the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression. That was typical Republican leadership.

 

[skookerasbil]

What difference does it make if you control the senate but the people you elect to replace the current human scum are more filthy neocons and corporate puppets? People like Fiorna should be put against a wall and shot. The point being simply that in some cases you'd be better off with the incumbent. Such is the situation in Arkansas, and California but you can't make the retards here see past their rightful anger.

Nothing quite like the hyper-left huh???.........you know.........the ideology that is so dedicated to open-mindedness and tolerance!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Oh....and how funny is it that all the k00k lefties on this board fall all over themselves to discredit Rasmussen...........unless they see a poll where the #'s fall out in their favor!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

Abagail was asked the other day about the coming GOP tsunami in November and the epic angst amongst liberals in the blogosphere.

Here response??

 

[Claudette]

I tend to agree. Winning the Senate back seemed pretty unrealistic to me all along. If the Republicans can just make some gains and make the Senate close again,that will be a nice enough victory for me. Just make it close again. Once it's close,this awful Socialist/Progressive agenda is over.

I don't think the Senate was in play either.

Lets just hope they gain enough seats to cause a little gridlock.

The House looks a lot better for the Reps.

Nov will tell the tail.

 

[asterism]

How much is social conservatism worth now?

Look around you, pal.

How much is ANYTHING worth, now?

Your folks, that worked for every flippin' CENT they got?

What is what they built with their blood, sweat and tears "WORTH," now?

Exactly. So maybe the conservatives in the party should have spent more time on fiscal issues and less time on social issues.