Obama Losing Independents - 2010 In Play

[Intense]

Good points - Republicans like diversity, as long as it looks, walks, talks, and believes EXACTLY as they do.

What a fool.
So that's why Ron Paul, Lincoln Chafee, and Rudy Giuliani, and Kay Bailey Hutchinson are all Republicans? Because they all think alike?
Get a grip.

Its why they've been so successful in the GOP.

Rudy could be our next Governor, It's his choice. That is Power in the Party. I'd vote for him without hesitation, as would most. That would test and prepare him for what comes next.

 

[Intense]

Its why they've been so successful in the GOP.

So are you saying the democrats looks, walks, talks, and believes exaxtly the same, and that's why they're successful? Doesn't leave much room for diversity, does it?

Democrats, like all left wingers, kill their dissenters. Look at Lieberman and Zell Miller, both pariahs in the party.

Watching those play out was like watching a mugging. Very Sad. Jerry Brown too. Clinton is still going after him now, while he's trying to run for Governor. They do not like dissent.

 

[Intense]

Because they are a diverse group and the GOP is made up of diverse elements.
Yes, exactly.

The point is that the above mentioned politicians have been pushed aside by the right wing monolith that is now the republican party.

Anyone who dares to adopt a moderate position is immediately shouted down, much like a healthcare town hall meeting

Yep. Ron Paul and his supporters are the laughing stock of the GOP. Several elements in the GOP would love to see Kay switch parties or just lose, and Rudy couldn't win a single state in the Primaries.

Conservatives are not interested in supporting anyone that will not toe the line. That's their choice of course, but its also one that costs them in the long run every time. You do NOT win elections without the moderates, and you don't get them if you're not willing to at least try to accept moderate positions.

I have two words for that line of Shit.

Ralph Nader!!!


Shame on You for what You did to Him.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Lieberman lost his primary, refused to respect the wishes of the Democratic voters of his state, and ran third party. Is there any reason at all that he should expect to be welcomed with open arms?

Zell Miller picked the most public and embarrasing way possible to air his grievances. Even the most tolerant co-workers will give you the cold shoulders when you act in such a manner. He did bring that on himself.

As for Nader... Nader is Nader. Calling him a Democrat is kinda strange when Nader's platform has always been that both parties suck.

I'd really like to know what Ron Paul did to deserve such ire in the GOP.

 

[rightwinger]

The point is that the above mentioned politicians have been pushed aside by the right wing monolith that is now the republican party.

Anyone who dares to adopt a moderate position is immediately shouted down, much like a healthcare town hall meeting

Yep. Ron Paul and his supporters are the laughing stock of the GOP. Several elements in the GOP would love to see Kay switch parties or just lose, and Rudy couldn't win a single state in the Primaries.

Conservatives are not interested in supporting anyone that will not toe the line. That's their choice of course, but its also one that costs them in the long run every time. You do NOT win elections without the moderates, and you don't get them if you're not willing to at least try to accept moderate positions.

I have two words for that line of Shit.

Ralph Nader!!!


Shame on You for what You did to Him.

Good ole Ralph Nader!

The man responsible for sticking us with George Bush

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Good ole Ralph Nader!

The man responsible for sticking us with George Bush

C'mon now. If Nader's paltry showing really did make a difference, Gore didn't deserve to win. Most of Nader's support comes from college students that I'm highly doubtful would have voted for Gore anyways.

 

[rightwinger]

Good ole Ralph Nader!

The man responsible for sticking us with George Bush

C'mon now. If Nader's paltry showing really did make a difference, Gore didn't deserve to win. Most of Nader's support comes from college students that I'm highly doubtful would have voted for Gore anyways.

Al Gore lost by 600 votes in Florida. If Nader had not conducted his "I am still relevant" campaign, Gore would have won the election.
The rest is history

 

[NYcarbineer]

Either the GOP gets on board the Bama express for reform, or the Pubs will get run over in the election next year.

They did. That's why McCain got shellacked in the election.

As much as the party now throws him under the bus, John McCain was the best candidate by far the republicans had to offer in 2008.

What is even more significant, McCain was a better candidate than anyone the republicans have to offer in 2012.

Now I know you are going to ridicule and post cute emoticons....but my only response is, if you have someone better than McCain....name him!

I've asked that question many times. No one has a good answer. The conservatives who claim that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough still can't name the conservative who could have won.

 

[Intense]

Lieberman lost his primary, refused to respect the wishes of the Democratic voters of his state, and ran third party. Is there any reason at all that he should expect to be welcomed with open arms?

Zell Miller picked the most public and embarrasing way possible to air his grievances. Even the most tolerant co-workers will give you the cold shoulders when you act in such a manner. He did bring that on himself.

As for Nader... Nader is Nader. Calling him a Democrat is kinda strange when Nader's platform has always been that both parties suck.

I'd really like to know what Ron Paul did to deserve such ire in the GOP.

Massachusetts Passed a Law to stop the Governor from appointing Senators because they had a Republican Governor, now they have a Democratic Governor and want to change the law back. They just did. Total Hack Bullshit.

 

[Intense]

They did. That's why McCain got shellacked in the election.

As much as the party now throws him under the bus, John McCain was the best candidate by far the republicans had to offer in 2008.

What is even more significant, McCain was a better candidate than anyone the republicans have to offer in 2012.

Now I know you are going to ridicule and post cute emoticons....but my only response is, if you have someone better than McCain....name him!

I've asked that question many times. No one has a good answer. The conservatives who claim that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough still can't name the conservative who could have won.

Before He was attacked by the Dems, Tom Delay. Huckabee, possibly Romney. The Masses that decided to support McCain were not there in the General Election, most probably never intended to be.

 

[rightwinger]

As much as the party now throws him under the bus, John McCain was the best candidate by far the republicans had to offer in 2008.

What is even more significant, McCain was a better candidate than anyone the republicans have to offer in 2012.

Now I know you are going to ridicule and post cute emoticons....but my only response is, if you have someone better than McCain....name him!

I've asked that question many times. No one has a good answer. The conservatives who claim that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough still can't name the conservative who could have won.

Before He was attacked by the Dems, Tom Delay. Huckabee, possibly Romney. The Masses that decided to support McCain were not there in the General Election, most probably never intended to be.

Finally, a republican with the courage to name names

As such, I will not criticize your choices, even though one is somewhat extreme

 

[Intense]

I've asked that question many times. No one has a good answer. The conservatives who claim that McCain lost because he wasn't conservative enough still can't name the conservative who could have won.

Before He was attacked by the Dems, Tom Delay. Huckabee, possibly Romney. The Masses that decided to support McCain were not there in the General Election, most probably never intended to be.

Finally, a republican with the courage to name names

As such, I will not criticize your choices, even though one is somewhat extreme

Delay was charged with statutes that had not existed at the time the acts were done. The history of Gerrymandering in Texas is pretty extreme, some of those Democratic Boundaries would leave Picasso speechless. They are shameful. Delay got railroaded, there is no doubt about it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Delay was charged with statutes that had not existed at the time the acts were done. The history of Gerrymandering in Texas is pretty extreme, some of those Democratic Boundaries would leave Picasso speechless. They are shameful. Delay got railroaded, there is no doubt about it.

On the charges he was facing... yeah.

However, if he'd run for President he'd have had a really tough fight. Some of the K Street Lobbying stories out of the DeLay run House just sound corrupt in the telling.

I do think that Huckabee or Romney would have been good choices in 2008. I would have voted for either (People think I'm an Obamabot, so ). Romney though never seemed to stand a real chance. Some of the my wife's family are pretty solid "R" voters in swing states and I recall seeing bible studies and study books on Mormons start to crop up when Romney looked like a credible nominee.

I do think you'll see Romney again. If the GOP is serious about wanting to beat Obama, he's the candidate for 2012.

 

[Toro]

It is far too early to say what will happen in 2010 but it is likely that the Dems will lose at least some seats.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It is far too early to say what will happen in 2010 but it is likely that the Dems will lose at least some seats.

I'd put good money down on them at least dipping below 60 in the Senate. I just don't see the Philibuster Proof Senate surviving 2010 at the very least.

 

[Sinatra]

It is far too early to say what will happen in 2010 but it is likely that the Dems will lose at least some seats.

I'd put good money down on them at least dipping below 60 in the Senate. I just don't see the Philibuster Proof Senate surviving 2010 at the very least.

It will not. The Dems will keep the Senate majority - but reduced.

They will also likely keep the House Majority - but even more greatly reduced.

The entire power structure within DC will be shifted - and Pelosi's term as Speaker will be done. She has offended the Democrat moderates as well as the White House with her continued partisan stupidity.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

It is far too early to say what will happen in 2010 but it is likely that the Dems will lose at least some seats.

I'd put good money down on them at least dipping below 60 in the Senate. I just don't see the Philibuster Proof Senate surviving 2010 at the very least.

It will not. The Dems will keep the Senate majority - but reduced.

They will also likely keep the House Majority - but even more greatly reduced.

The entire power structure within DC will be shifted - and Pelosi's term as Speaker will be done. She has offended the Democrat moderates as well as the White House with her continued partisan stupidity.

I think that Reid and Pelosi could be looking at intra-party coup attempts. Reid will probably survive 2010 politically, Pelosi won't.

I agree the Democrats are likely to keep the Senate. There are 18 Republican seats up in 2010, and 19 Democrat seats up (IIRC). If the GOP held all 18, the Democrats would still have to lose 11 of their 19 races to lose total control of the Senate. At this point (Which is still early granted), that doesn't look likely.

For the House, who knows what will happen.

 

[rightwinger]

I'd put good money down on them at least dipping below 60 in the Senate. I just don't see the Philibuster Proof Senate surviving 2010 at the very least.

It will not. The Dems will keep the Senate majority - but reduced.

They will also likely keep the House Majority - but even more greatly reduced.

The entire power structure within DC will be shifted - and Pelosi's term as Speaker will be done. She has offended the Democrat moderates as well as the White House with her continued partisan stupidity.

I think that Reid and Pelosi could be looking at intra-party coup attempts. Reid will probably survive 2010 politically, Pelosi won't.

I agree the Democrats are likely to keep the Senate. There are 18 Republican seats up in 2010, and 19 Democrat seats up (IIRC). If the GOP held all 18, the Democrats would still have to lose 11 of their 19 races to lose total control of the Senate. At this point (Which is still early granted), that doesn't look likely.

For the House, who knows what will happen.

We will probably see a slight shift in numbers for both the Senate and the House. I would like to see both Pelosi and Reid replaced. Both are lightweights and incapable of doing their jobs.

For 2012, I would like to see Mitt Romney as republican candidate. This is an opportunity for the republicans to show they care more about winning than following the demands of their extreme right. My perception now is that they will bite off their noses to spite their face and nominate a right winger. The right wing hate machine will gear up against Romney and prevent him from receiving the nomination

 

[JakeStarkey]

The Southern evangelicals may be a bit more soft on Romney next time around, but enough of them are loony enough to keep him out because he is Mormon. But, hey, no one ever equated Southern evangelicalism with being even handed and fair.

 

[Sinatra]

It was the liberal media who made Romney's Mormon beliefs an issue far more than the "right wing"...