P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 22-10-06, 04:28 PM   #1
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default Election Predictions?

just a little over two weeks until the midterm Congressional elections - anybody want to predict the outcome?

Republicans currently hold the House with 231 seat to the Dem's 203 (with Foley's seat open). GOP controls the Senate 55-44 (with 1 independent).

i think the Dems will take back the House but not by much - maybe 220 to the GOP's 215. they'll come up short in the Senate, winning 48 seats to the GOP's 50 (with a Lieberman victory in CT, ostensibly as an independent, making for 2 independents seats.)

the Dems could do better, but i have a nagging feeling they may have peaked a little early. we'll see... i'm not very good at election predictions for the same reason i'm a lousy gambler - i tend to bet with my heart instead of my head.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-06, 05:30 PM   #2
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

well, i think you're right about lieberman...unless the republican (i can't even remember his name lol) increases his lead and siphons off those conservative voters now leaning towards joe. that's beginning to happen but i don't think there's enough time so joe goes back to dc for another term. chris shays, also in ct is in a much waeker position - his last victory over the same opponent wasn't very big. the ten-termer could very well lose this time. rep jodi rell, the ct gov is a lock and as much as i like dem chris murphy personally rep nancy johnson looks fairly secure too.

i make predictions - and i'm pretty good at them - but this national campaign is too murky for my crystal ball to resolve because the voters haven't decided either. however i do see the dems taking "control" of the house for what that's worth. as for the senate, i'd love to see it, but i'm not getting that vibe right now although i'm not as pessimistic as you on that one. i think i'll pick up more in the next few days as the people themselves come to terms with it all.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-06, 06:19 PM   #3
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JackSpratts
well, i think you're right about lieberman...unless the republican (i can't even remember his name lol) increases his lead and siphons off those conservative voters now leaning towards joe. that's beginning to happen but i don't think there's enough time so joe goes back to dc for another term. chris shays, also in ct is in a much waeker position - his last victory over the same opponent wasn't very big. the ten-termer could very well lose this time. rep jodi rell, the ct gov is a lock and as much as i like dem chris murphy personally rep nancy johnson looks fairly secure too. - js.
the current Lieberman conspiracy theory is that he wins as an "independent", then accepts an offer to be Secretary of Defense, as Rumsfeld falls on his sword to atone for the Iraq fiasco. this then allows your Republican governor to appointment a Republican to his vacant seat, officially putting it back in GOP hands. sound plausible?
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-06, 06:57 PM   #4
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

Hey Knife...

Do you think it really matters?

Save up and buy a few guns and lots of ammo. Just ask the folks in Iraq the best way to vote.

It is comming to be the same here, and U better be ready. Pretty sad when the govm'nt workers can vote their own paycheck and make the rest of the working people slaves to them. More than 1/2 of the voters now work for the gov one way or another.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-06, 08:02 PM   #5
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicobie
Hey Knife...

Do you think it really matters?
you bet i do, nic.

this election is about putting some grown-ups back into Congress.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-06, 10:17 PM   #6
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

This election is about sweet revenge, knife, what the Dems are tactfully calling a referendum on the president. Grown-ups don't run for congress.

Looking over the predictions I've made on this forum over the past 4 years I don't think I'll bother to make one this year. Usually I'm pleasantly surprised by election outcomes. Besides, the ballot issues in my state are far more interesting than national politics this year, so this round of Capitol Hill Stratego is just a side show.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22-10-06, 10:47 PM   #7
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
sound plausible?
pretty wild. like myths, good conspiracy theories live because they do sound plausible. leiberman was clearly ok with something similar when he ran for vp during the previous ct republican governor's term (since jailed for corruption). had he won his seat would have been decided by that republican at a time when the senate split was razor thin. his contempt for his party and his voters came back to haunt him and was a big reason he lost the primary. ct residents are under no illusions about his character. in spite of his avuncular camouflage he is considered arrogant and supremely selfish and out for no-one save himself. not for nothing is leiberman considered the most "republican" of democratic senators. still, the new scenario you present is pretty far out, at least the defense secretary aspect. leiberman's qualifications in that dept aren't obvious, and for him to take such a job at the exact moment korea gets the bomb and iraq devolves into all out civil war couldn't be seen by him as a clever career move. as for some other position in the administration leading to the same thing senate-wise, there's the very real possibility of bush's impeachment under a democratically controlled house and any alliance with this president becomes simply too dangerous for such an ambitious narcissist. it would confirm everyone's worst take on him but i don't see it happenning.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-06, 05:58 PM   #8
Nicobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Posts: 5,522
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
you bet i do, nic.

This election is about putting some grown-ups back into Congress.
I hope u're right, but I broke my rose colored glasses years ago.

The best we can hope for is nobody gets control of all the branches of the gov.

The less power they have, the better we, the poor tax paying people will be.
__________________
May your tote always stay tight and your edge eversharp :wink:
Nicobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24-10-06, 07:44 PM   #9
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nicobie
The best we can hope for is nobody gets control of all the branches of the gov.
agreed. absolutely power corrupts absolutely - prolly one of the biggest lessons of the last six years (along with "don't start wars you can't finish").
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-06, 07:33 PM   #10
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by theknife
this election is about putting some grown-ups back into Congress.
and the issue is Iraq:

Quote:
U.S. generals call for Democratic takeover
Disgusted with the leadership of the Iraq war, two retired generals say the GOP must go. Plus: More than 100 current military personnel join a campaign to get the U.S. out of Iraq -- now.

Oct. 25, 2006 | WASHINGTON -- Two retired senior Army generals, who served in Iraq and previously voted Republican, are now openly endorsing a Democratic takeover of Congress. The generals, and an active-duty senior military official, told Salon in separate interviews that they believe a Democratic victory will help reverse course from what they consider to be a disastrous Bush administration policy in Iraq. The two retired generals, Maj. Gen. John Batiste and Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, first openly criticized the handling of the war last spring, when they called for the resignation of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

"The best thing that can happen right now is for one or both of our houses to go Democratic so we can have some oversight," Batiste, who led the Army's 1st Infantry Division in Iraq in 2004 and 2005, told Salon. Batiste describes himself as a "lifelong Republican." But now, he said, "It is time for a change."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/10/25/generals/
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25-10-06, 08:14 PM   #11
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Lightbulb

It's simple really, says Bill Frist. Just ignore the war.

If Republican candidates want to succeed on Election Day, they should turn their focus away from the topic dominating the political debate: the Iraq war.

"The challenge is to get Americans to focus on pocketbook issues, and not on the Iraq and terror issue," Frist said in an interview yesterday.


I'll say!

Close your eyes and it all just goes away.

And oh yeah, don't forget to blame the media (except Fox) and the Democrats. You've been running things for 5 years but just pretend they have instead. It'll work - trust me.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-06, 07:15 PM   #12
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default Al Queda & The Midterm ELections

no question that Al Queda pays attention to US elections and seems to time actions to influence them. Bin Laden's video before the 2004 Presidential elections clearly helped BUsh close the deal. but to what end?

an interesting contrast in viewpoints as to AL Queda's interest in the elections...

here's one theory:
Quote:
CAVUTO: Do you suspect that these insurgent attacks are timed to influence our midterm elections?

VICE PRESIDENT CHENEY: That's my belief. I think they are, very, very cognizant of our schedule, if you will. They also -- you've got to remember what the strategy is of the terrorists. They specifically can't beat us in a stand-up fight. They never have. But whether it's al Qaeda or the other elements that are active in Iraq, they are betting on the proposition they can break the will of the American people. They think we won't have the stomach for the fight long-term. Osama bin Laden says as much. He talks about this.
Cheney doesn't actually go into why this is so - he just uses it as a springboard to peddle the "terrorists want the Dems to win" pitch. of course, selling this theory clearly benefits the GOP, but if it were true, why did Al Queda/Ben Laden raise the specter of terror precisely in time to aid the GOP's efforts to stay in power? Islamic terrorists are not stupid, and are notoriously media-savvy - it's hard to miss the connection between a pre-election appearance and a GOP victory. it's therefore hard not to conclude that, up until this point, Al Queda has wanted the GOP to remain in power.

so here's another take on Al Queda's thinking vis a vis the elections:
Quote:
The author's premise is that al-Qaeda has consistently intervened in American domestic politics where necessary in order to ensure that America stays in Iraq. Whenever America seems like it might withdraw, he writes, Osama bin Laden or Ayman al-Zawahiri pops up to remind Americans that if they do then al-Qaeda will triumph in their wake - thus goading them to remain. This predictably silences those reasonable voices calling for withdrawal, who are even accused of national treason, and strengthens the voices of stupidity. The author offers several detailed examples, including the 2004 election in which bin Laden ensured that Bush would win and continue his policies in Iraq, and a Zawahiri video last year calling on Bush to flee Iraq and admit defeat which Bush used to silence his critics. Each time al-Qaeda's leaders speak, he argues, Bush and his party are strengthened, and commit even more firmly to remaining in Iraq... while the mujahideen laugh from the depth of their souls.
interesting to note that, from either point of view - the VP's or that of the unknown anonymous jihadist - AL Queda and the Bush administration have been political soul-mates, at least up until this point, dependent on each other to further their ambitions.

the anonymous jihadist quoted above goes on to outline the possibilities:
Quote:
But now al-Qaeda has a problem. Anyone who follows the American press or the statements of US officials can sense the spirit of defeat. Even Bush admitted that Iraq has become like Vietnam. America is searching for any way to flee from Iraq, from secret negotiations with the insurgency to attempts to change the Iraqi government to the Mecca conference to the Baker commission. In the upcoming American elections, polls show the Democratic party poised to win and Iraq to be a major issue for voters. If the Democrats win, they will have to live up to their campaign promises and increase the pressure to withdraw. Even if the Republicans win, the pressure from the American street towards withdrawal is strong on them as well.

This poses a problem for al-Qaeda, since keeping America in Iraq has been so central to its strategy. If al-Qaeda believes that this stage has accomplished its goals, then the author thinks that it will permit the withdrawal and then reap its gains. But the author says that in his personal opinion, the time for the next stage has not yet arrived, and it would be better to keep the stage of America's being stuck in Iraq extended as long as possible. Even if America has suffered many losses, he argues, it remains very powerful and would only take a couple of years to recover from Iraq and return to the field of play. The author fears that al-Qaeda's leaders will fall prey to the temptation to move on to the next stage too early, and not intervene to keep the Republicans in power and the Americans in Iraq.

Therefore, while the author does not know what al-Qaeda wil do, he thinks that al-Qaeda should seek to delay the American withdrawal as long as possible by working to ensure that Bush and the Republican Party win the coming elections. How? A televised al-Qaeda video should do the trick, whether from Zahawiri or (more likely) Bin Laden - perhaps announcing the creation of an al-Qaeda state in Afghanistan or Iraq, perhaps issuing a direct threat against America. A strike against important oil facilities in the Gulf might also do it, or against an important US ally like Britain. Either should ensure a Republican victory, he writes, and secure al-Qaeda's main strategic objective of keeping America implanted in the combat zone in Iraq.

The author doesn't know which way al-Qaeda will go, and having delivered his analysis is left sitting back and waiting to see. Total silence from al-Qaeda prior to the election should be read as a signal that its leadership believes that the time has come to move to the next phase. A tape or attack by al-Qaeda prior to the election means that its leaders are not yet satisfied with the American blood and treasure lost in Iraq and want more time before moving to the next stage. And that's where "Al-Qaeda's Scenario" leaves it.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 30-10-06, 10:32 PM   #13
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

It's an interesting chain of thought, knife, but it doesn't explain al-Qaeda's motive. What are the long term stakes from their point of view? Why do they want us to stay in Iraq? We've been told that the Iraq war has always been a neocon strategy for American hegemony. But if what you're saying is true, could al-Qaeda have lured us into Iraq instead?

The PNAC conspiracy and the al-Qaeda-wants-America-in-Iraq conspiracy seem to contradict each other.

The "jihadist" you quote just sounds like an al-Qaeda fanboy who understands neither American politics nor militant Islamist strategy. Someone who actually knew what al-Qaeda wanted wouldn't be so public with his speculations, not even to post them in an Arabic language forum. He's probably a guy not unlike some of us who posts wild ideas in public forums to provoke wild responses.

Meanwhile, the translator of the above analysis gives good advice:
Quote:
To be totally clear, I am not saying that Americans should vote for Democrats because an anonymous poster on a jihadi forum says that al-Qaeda wants the Republicans to win. That would be as stupid as saying that Americans should vote for Republicans because al-Qaeda wants Democrats to win. I don't actually think that al-Qaeda should get a vote at all, either in our elections or in what we do about Iraq, and don't want partisans on either side to leap on this as either "proof that al-Qaeda votes Republican" or "proof that al-Qaeda recites liberal talking points".
Take heed, my friend. Don't let foreign interests influence your God-given right to vote your conscience. Al-Qaeda-al-Schmaeda.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 31-10-06, 09:36 AM   #14
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Johnson seat no longer secure

Polls show Murphy, Farrell With Slight Leads Over Republicans
Susan Haigh

WATERBURY, Conn. (AP) -- Popular Gov. M. Jodi Rell rallied support for Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Johnson on Monday as a new nonpartisan poll in the 5th Congressional District showed the 12-term congresswoman slightly behind Democrat challenger Chris Murphy.

The district is one of three in Connecticut that Democrats are targeting as they try to gain the 15 seats they need to regain a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Another new poll shows Democrat Diane Farrell 4 percentage points ahead of U.S. Rep. Chris Shays, R-Conn., in the 4th Congressional District, where previous polls have showed a very close race.

The Hartford Courant-University of Connecticut poll in the 5th District shows Murphy with support from 46 percent of likely voters, compared with 42 percent for Johnson. Nine percent were undecided.

More
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-06, 04:53 AM   #15
albed
flippin 'em off
 
albed's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the real world
Posts: 3,231
Default

It's amusing seeing campaign commercials from the democratic governor saying how well the state has done during his last term then other commercials from the democratic senatorial candidate saying how bad the state has done during the republican senators last term.
albed is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)