What did Democrats win?

2 states had Governors races Tuesday, New Jersey and Virginia.

In both states Democrats were elected to take the place of a Democrat.

Now Democrats are proclaiming this as a mandate against Bush? Some are even going way out on a limb thinking that Democrats will take over the House and Senate in 2006.

Not one Senate seat, House seat or Governorship changed hands and Democrats are celebrating. Why?

[edit on 9-11-2005 by Carseller4]

No carseller4 is just the choice of two evils, see when people get dissatisfy with the present administration most Americans falls for the next of the two evils now is Democrats time.

While been oblivious to the fact that both parties represent the same goals.

Now you see how well controlled politics are in our country, we have two political parties that are the ones in charge and third parties are not given a chance.

So instead of wasting your vote you chose either, or, still it makes no difference but in name only.

I am very frustrated with politics in this country is not freedom of choices but to stay home and refuse to vote.

That will be wasting your vote while one of the two evils is going ot win anyway.

Carseller, they are just playing the party song. What else could they possibly say.

Marg,
if everyone who was disatisfied with the two party system and everyone who only votes for the lesser of two evil voted third party candidates, we would see a change. At least for awhile.
There is strength in numbers...and the government is out to divide and counquer.

Originally posted by DontTreadOnMe
At least for awhile.
There is strength in numbers...and the government is out to divide and counquer.

I agree very much, but that is the whole idea DontTreadOnMe to keep the people divide so they can keep their power.

Depending of the choices of both parties to president I will be making my choice if I don't like any of the two evils I will go with the third party choices, at least I will be making a choice that is mine and no motivated by the evils.

Originally posted by marg6043
Now you see how well controlled politics are in our country, we have two political parties that are the ones in charge and third parties are not given a chance.

So instead of wasting your vote you chose either, or, still it makes no difference but in name only.

I am very frustrated with politics in this country is not freedom of choices but to stay home and refuse to vote.

That will be wasting your vote while one of the two evils is going ot win anyway.

Much room for frustration in that system, but how about our canadian system. We vote for our constituents in the Liberal Party who represent our area as our Member of Parliament. Which makes up our House of Commons, Our elected MP's do not even vote by how the people want. Atleast when you vote for a Senator, he can vote how his conscious chooses, whether it be good or not. Our MP's vote how their party tells them, has no voice, no power. Just has to keep the party leader happy so hes kept in the party.

Now do you see more justification in your system or my system. Both have flaws, I like yours though, Simply because the person your voting for can speak on his own behalf.

Once, after a long day of hiking...like 10 miles or so..
We sat down to get something to eat...granola...trail mix..
Then, I found a Can of Spam, in the bottom of my backpack..

WE CELEBRATED...
We cooked, and ate that Spam, like it was a medium rare T-Bone steak!

Even so, it was still Spam, nothing but Pork by-products..

Originally posted by Carseller4
Now Democrats are proclaiming this as a mandate against Bush? Some are even going way out on a limb thinking that Democrats will take over the House and Senate in 2006.

Not one Senate seat, House seat or Governorship changed hands and Democrats are celebrating. Why?

I haven't seen a lot of Democrats crowing exactly, more like bemused assessments of Republican comments, like J.D. Hayworth running in Arizona calling Bush radioactive and to keep him away from him after seeing the results of everyone else Bush stumped for.

I mean the California GOP nearly went ballistic when Bush showed up for a fundraiser recently and look what hapened to Arnold's confidence vote? He lost every single ballot he proposed. That's about Republicans as much as Bush, but it is telling. Blind men see it.

There were quite a few more Mayorial and other minor elections, but the net result was anyone siding with Bush was the kiss of death. Some midwestern Dem that "stood with Bush" was ousted via mandate (by another Dem challenger) specifically according to polls for siding with Bush.

So think what ya like, but a Bush "mandate" or Republican sweep in 06 isn't uh.. whatever.

The only real loser from the 2005 elections was Schwarzenegger. He fought hard for the ballot initiatives in California and lost them all, it could mean a problem for him when he's up for re-election. The rest of the races really don't say or change anything.

Originally posted by Carseller4
What did Democrats win?

Nothing... yet.

Originally posted by spacedoubt
WE CELEBRATED...
We cooked, and ate that Spam, like it was a medium rare T-Bone steak!

Even so, it was still Spam, nothing but Pork by-products..

Perfect! There IS such a thing as the lesser of two evils. And there's always a chance that new blood in either side (and preferably both sides) would bring about welcome change. Mmmm... filled with Spammy deliciousness!

Last night (was it Jon Stewart? Yes) they called the parties the Re-pig-licans and Spend-o-crats. It reminded me of some of the political mud slinging here.

[edit on 10-11-2005 by Benevolent Heretic]

I hear a lot of talk about how we should vote in a third party. I really don't think that this would be a solution to anything. People love "Right Vs. Left", or "Black Vs. White" battles. If a third party were to be voted in, chances are that parties opposing party would step in, and it would be the exact same thing we've got going on with Republicans and Democrats. It might be the Greens Vs. the Libertarians, but it would all be the same. Maybe there would be new talk show hosts. Someone would replace Limbaugh (Or limbaugh would simply change the name of what he calls himself), and Vice Versa for people like Al Franken and Michael Moore. We'd end up, inevitably, with the same bickering with different names for the sides.

Seems Bob Novak gets it.

GOP Scare

"Bush gets the blame."

Fox News gets it.

Fox News. 11/8-9. MoE 3% (10/25-26)

Do you approve or disapprove of the job George W. Bush is doing as president?

Approve Disapprove
All 36 53
Dems 10 84
Reps 72 18
Ind 25 58

I have to say that what the Republicans is getting now is the fact that they may lose the majority in the house and also the presidential elections in 2008.

That's what's going on.

Marge...I just love sentences that include "fact" and "may" in it.

Anyway, Democrats have no leadership. Who are they going to sacrifice in 2008? How about ALGORE or John Kerry again? Or better yet Hillary Rodham? I personally hope it is Hillary!

Until Democrats come up with some original ideas, they are doomed to be the minority party. John Kerry's "I can do better" speeches did not work in 2004 and will not work in 2008 and beyond.

What about the Dover School Board in Pennsylvania? All eight of the pro-whatever the hell they support were rejected.

In Dover, Pennsylvania, voters rejected all eight school board members who supported teaching requiring a statement in classrooms about the so-called “intelligent designer.” The winning candidates all argued that such religious discussion has no place in science classrooms, according to USA Today. The decision by the school board has been challenged in federal court, and a ruling is expected by early January.

And this race in New Jersey which saw a Republican delegate who mailed fetuses to Senators defeated by a Pro-gay pro-choice democrat.

In other election news, one of the Virginia legislature’s most anti-abortion delegates, Richard H. Black (R), was defeated by Democrat David Poisson, who supports reproductive rights and legal benefits for lesbian and gay couples. Black received bipartisan criticism in 2003 when he sent Virginia’s 40 senators a pink plastic fetus along with a letter urging support for several anti-abortion measures being considered by the legislature.

Source

Originally posted by Carseller4
Marge...I just love sentences that include "fact" and "may" in it.

Anyway, Democrats have no leadership. Who are they going to sacrifice in 2008? How about ALGORE or John Kerry again? Or better yet Hillary Rodham? I personally hope it is Hillary!

Until Democrats come up with some original ideas, they are doomed to be the minority party. John Kerry's "I can do better" speeches did not work in 2004 and will not work in 2008 and beyond.

Pot? Say Bonjour to the kettle.

Introducing Senator Harry Reid of Nevada as the Senate Minority Leader.

Let us take some career snippets from this oh so ineptleader.

Non Functional Leader Reid Does Nothing About A Non Closure of the Senate

Non Functional Leader Reid Doesn't Not Ask President Bush Not To Sign A Pledge

And Non Fuctional Democratic Not Majority Leader Doesn't Not Help A Compromise.

When the Republicans threatened to invoke the nuclear option, Reid became one of the option's most fervent opponents. He threatened to virtually shut down Senate business if it were successfully invoked. However, when the Gang of Fourteen reached a compromise, he embraced the compromise with open arms.

Go on...

GoogleNews Cheney, Frist, McCain, Torture, Bush Approval, Trent Lott.

I dare ya.

As a Conservative and a Bush supporter, I really do think that the Democrats have a huge chance at winning in '08. Although politics shouldn't be seen as a game, I think they're winning the "media war" through being vocal and persistance.

Then again, I predicted Bush as losing in '04.

I meant being *persistant* not being *persistance* .

Originally posted by Carseller4
Marge...I just love sentences that include "fact" and "may" in it.

Well if they still the elections with their nice electoral machines I will said they perhaps may win, but it will be so obvious in 2008 that it will spark riots all over the US. Sorry I still believe that the machines use for elections are fixed.

Anyway, Democrats have no leadership.

And the Republicans do? This my response

Who are they going to sacrifice in 2008? How about ALGORE or John Kerry again? Or better yet Hillary Rodham? I personally hope it is Hillary!

They will have somebody, and so the Republicans too, it will be another sacrificial lamb in their mist. Bush did an exellent job with a war for profits and ruling in favor of the real power in this country.

Until Democrats come up with some original ideas.

Just like the ones that came from Bush. Right? he will pass into history as the worst president ever elected for two terms because the corruption felt too good and the money was not a problem everybody will do anything in the Bush administration for the right amount.

they are doomed to be the minority party. John Kerry's "I can do better" speeches did not work in 2004 and will not work in 2008 and beyond.

So you share the same genes as Bush? You and him sound the same still in a denial trip.

Carseller you have not waken up to the smell of your rotting leaders, but no to fear it will get to you sooner or later.

Make sure to have Prozac available.

[edit on 11-11-2005 by marg6043]

Uh, weren't the Gov. in NJ and WV already democrats? So the guys just held their spots. Also, it was a 2005 election so it was all state/local level, no federal level, so what's the big deal?

Originally posted by UfoofU
Uh, weren't the Gov. in NJ and WV already democrats? So the guys just held their spots. Also, it was a 2005 election so it was all state/local level, no federal level, so what's the big deal?

There is none. People just love big deals, so they'll try to turn anything into a big deal.