August 13, 2010

Barbara Boxer: I'm Losing Because Voters Are "Grumpy"
— Ace

So Chuckie Schumer says "sour;" Senator Barbara "Senator Boxer" Boxer says "grumpy."

I think the Democrat Party is in unanimous agreement that the public is irrational.

What was that term I remember from 1994...? Ah yes: Angry White Men. "The nation had a temper tantrum tonight," Peter Jennings informed me then.


Facing the toughest re-election fight of her career, three-term U.S. Sen. Barbara Boxer attributed her sagging approval rating to voters who are "grumpy" about the sputtering economy and an opponent, Republican nominee Carly Fiorina, who "doesn't have a job" and spends her time "going around the state trashing me in every way possible."

The California Democrat's remarks came during an hourlong interview with the Mercury News editorial board, in which she cast the election as a choice between moving forward or returning to the policies of President George W. Bush; suggested she would favor raising the Social Security tax on "very upper-income workers" to help balance the federal budget; and said she favors lowering the filibuster threshold in the Senate from 60 votes to 55 to curb what she called Republican obstructionism.

That's cute. She thinks we'll need the filibuster next January.

By the way: So Carly Fiorina doesn't have a job?

Is that, like, a bad thing?

She doesn't have a job like 15% of your constituents, Senator Ma'am Senator?

Really?

And whose fault is that?

Oh I mean --

And who is to be credited for that particular success?

Today's Democratic Party

You will credit us for all our success.

But first, you will blow me.

Thanks to Artesian.

Posted by: Ace at 03:04 PM | Comments (246)
Post contains 278 words, total size 2 kb.

1
Grumpy is the new racisty.

Posted by: Dang Straights at August 13, 2010 03:05 PM (fx8sm)

2
It's Friday and that means I See Dead People.

Say goodbye to the following peoples.
Lionel Ritchie
Jim Nabors
the tard who played Corky

Posted by: I See Dead People at August 13, 2010 03:07 PM (WmBF6)

3 Damn, I can barely keep up.

Posted by: Grumpy Sour Dirty Conservative Mama AJ at August 13, 2010 03:08 PM (XdlcF)

4 That's Grumpy SENATOR --not ma'am

Posted by: AE at August 13, 2010 03:08 PM (kSfPT)

5 I've always thought of myself as Dopey.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at August 13, 2010 03:08 PM (yQWNf)

6
No love for us?

Posted by: Sneezy, Dopey and Sleepy at August 13, 2010 03:09 PM (rMMMP)

7
Republican nominee Carly Fiorina, who "doesn't have a job" and spends her time "going around the state trashing me in every way possible."

Babs also doesn't have a job.  Boxer was crowned Queen of the Hop by Marin and Sonoma counties Californicate, and she considered it a lifetime coronation.  Carly may well give Babs the old squeakhole boogie, and that's a good thing.

Posted by: Fish at August 13, 2010 03:10 PM (v1gw3)

8 Grumpy's pissed because Happy and Donald Duck are getting all the boobie-groping action.

Posted by: Cicero at August 13, 2010 03:11 PM (QKKT0)

9 I think I'll attribute Senator Boxers sagging to .... um... you know, .... gravity.

Posted by: Truck Monkey at August 13, 2010 03:11 PM (yQWNf)

10 Madam, call me senator, Boxer thinks the voters are grumpy. Awwww, I cant imagine why we would be grumpy just because they passed all those 2000 page bills against the will of the majority of the population, and sneered at us at every other turn as well. Well just show that clip of you demanding the general call you senator Babs and snap those unruly peons back into line

Posted by: PaleRider at August 13, 2010 03:11 PM (dkExz)

11 I live in California, and I don't care if Boxer loses because Voters are Grumpy, Lazy, Dopey, Sneezy, or higher-than-a-kite....I just want her GONE!

Posted by: cthulhu at August 13, 2010 03:11 PM (/0IOT)

12 Does it not occur to her that being represented by her ("represented" being used very loosely in this instance) might in fact be a source of grumpiness?  Here's hoping that she joins the grumpy in November.

I'm very much looking forward to letting her know that I'm no longer grumpy, the moment she's no longer employed.

Posted by: Keith Arnold at August 13, 2010 03:12 PM (Jdtsu)

13 Someone give that bitch an apple.

Posted by: Horny, the ostracized dwarf at August 13, 2010 03:12 PM (jbVm4)

14
What idiot would want to go back to the days of 4.5% unemployment?

Posted by: no mr. bond, i expect you to die at August 13, 2010 03:12 PM (NwOSU)

15 Is Boxer discriminating against people who don't have jobs? Isn't that like half her constituency?

Posted by: Chairman LMAO at August 13, 2010 03:12 PM (9eDbm)

16
Let's keep moving 'forward' until we hit $20 Trillion in debt.

Posted by: no mr. bond, i expect you to die at August 13, 2010 03:13 PM (WmBF6)

17 Democrats is grumpy because they got all those teef and no toofbrush.

Posted by: Bobby Bouchez at August 13, 2010 03:13 PM (aOKEC)

18 i just added that point, chairman.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 03:14 PM (QbA6l)

19 Trow a fuckin' apple down her troat!

Posted by: Greasy, the Italian Dwarf at August 13, 2010 03:15 PM (aOKEC)

20
Barbara Boxer in many ways reminds me of a younger Clara Peller of "Where's the Beef" fame, without Clara's warmth and personality.

Posted by: Fish at August 13, 2010 03:15 PM (v1gw3)

21 she favors lowering the filibuster threshold in the Senate from 60 votes to 55 to curb what she called Republican obstructionism. Wasn't there some bizarro alternate universe where Democrats used to howl about respecting the rights of the minority party in Congress? I swear I lived through years of that, from 2000 to 2006.

Posted by: George Orwell at August 13, 2010 03:15 PM (AZGON)

22 13
What idiot would want to go back to the days of 4.5% unemployment?

Only bitter clingers.

Posted by: Kratos (Ghost of Sparta) at August 13, 2010 03:15 PM (9hSKh)

23 Damn right, I'm grumpy! I'm grumpy about Prissypants turning this country into a third world socialist state. And I'm grumpy that California already is a third world socialist state.

I don't care how bad Fiorina might be. I'll take her over Boxer. Hell, I'd take a box of horse shit over Boxer.

Posted by: wherestherum at August 13, 2010 03:15 PM (gofDd)

24 There's a winning platform.  Vote for me, or I'll complain about you!

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 13, 2010 03:16 PM (9PzaA)

25 Joe Schlobotnik!

Posted by: Joe Schlobotnik at August 13, 2010 03:16 PM (fwSHf)

26 Grumpy?  Sour?  Looks like someone's been passing notes around.

Posted by: Joe Schlobotnik at August 13, 2010 03:16 PM (HU8ik)

27 You guys are such buzzkills. Everything's great! Me, for example? I'm makin' BANK, baby. 200,000 a year and that's just what I declare, wink wink. Quit yer bitchin'. You never had it so good. Oh, and kiss my botoxed ass. I've got a fat federal pension waiting for me even if you do vote me out.

Posted by: Barabara "I'm Going To Legally Change My First Name to Senator" Boxer at August 13, 2010 03:16 PM (QbA6l)

28
Grumpy, pale noodles drenched in a clinging white sour sauce served with racist bean curd and a tea bag will only leave you hungry 30 minutes later.

Posted by: Democrat fortune cookie at August 13, 2010 03:17 PM (rMMMP)

29

This just in:  Durbin Says Stomach Tumor Due To "Pissy" Voters

Posted by: Joe Schlobotnik at August 13, 2010 03:17 PM (HU8ik)

30 MATT DAMON!

Posted by: Matt Damon at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM (9PzaA)

31  heh

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM (HU8ik)

32 suggested she would favor raising the Social Security tax on "very upper-income workers" to help balance the federal budget;

Because taxing the rich has worked perfectly for California.

and said she favors lowering the filibuster threshold in the Senate from 60 votes to 55 to curb what she called Republican obstructionism.

I forget, who has the majority in the Senate and has since 2006?

Posted by: wherestherum at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM (gofDd)

33 I don't care how bad Fiorina might be. I'll take her over Boxer. Hell, I'd take a box of horse shit over Boxer.

Posted by: wherestherum at August 13, 2010 07:15 PM (gofDd)

Still pissed over Donald Duck groping you?

Posted by: Editor at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM (pUfK9)

34 Ingrates. Filthy, *unemployed* ingrates. My swell friends like Carly Simon all have jobs, when they want to have them.

Posted by: Barbara "I Just Filled Out the Paperwork to Legally Change My First Name to Senator" Boxer at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM (QbA6l)

Posted by: Fish at August 13, 2010 03:18 PM (v1gw3)

36 Pander all you want, Ma'am. You've lost the Disney vote.

Posted by: Drunken Mouseketeer at August 13, 2010 03:19 PM (SwkdU)

37 What was that term I remember from 1994...? Ah yes: Angry White Men.

Been sayin' that for months. The same people, same faces, same expression, that crossed the invisible line into the polling place in 2008 and put a black man into the highest elected office in this country will now be vilified for coming to the realization that they made a mistake.

Posted by: suburban philly moron at August 13, 2010 03:19 PM (UATCA)

38 PATRIOTISM IS THE HIGHEST FORM OF DISSENT! *did I get that right?*

Posted by: Truck Monkey at August 13, 2010 03:19 PM (yQWNf)

39 Whining bitches. If the lot of you are so unhappy why don't you move to Mexico?

Posted by: Senator Senator Boxer (My Name Change Came Through) at August 13, 2010 03:19 PM (QbA6l)

40 Well... hell... maybe I should run, if all the voters are Grumpy, I'm a shoe in!

Posted by: Slippery, the dwarf the family does not talk about at August 13, 2010 03:19 PM (H+oXM)

41 Maybe if they give out $50,000 unsecured, no recourse loans to people who didn't have any money, it'd help.

Posted by: lorien1973 at August 13, 2010 03:20 PM (IhQuA)

42 Methinks the Silent Majority is getting tired of being called ignorant, stupid, racist, homophobic, bitter, bible-thumping, gun totting, teabagging, redneck...  To quote Harry the douche Ried, "Need I go on" .

Posted by: Ohio Dan at August 13, 2010 03:20 PM (rurh0)

43 Wait, is she trying to say it's "that time of the month" for the voters? Because that sort of reasoning doesn't fly well with hormonal women, and it's definitely not going to fly when people have very good reason to be pissed off. Chuck them all out.

Posted by: meep at August 13, 2010 03:20 PM (UhB0V)

44 Also, I was corrupt because of Bush. He made me grumpy.

Posted by: Maxine Waters at August 13, 2010 03:21 PM (IhQuA)

45
I want to return to the bad old days of Commander-in-Chief George Bush who was respected by the military instead of Wussie-in-Chief Barack Obama, loathed by many in the military but adored by Islamic radicals. 

Posted by: Fish at August 13, 2010 03:21 PM (v1gw3)

46

Carly Fiorina, who "doesn't have a job" and spends her time "going around the state trashing me in every way possible."


She picks the strangest things to complain about. This and the fact that a military man called her "ma'am".

These things don't make her look sane.

Posted by: Grumpy Sour Dirty Conservative Mama AJ at August 13, 2010 03:21 PM (XdlcF)

47 It's a Long March Forward. Some people get grumpy. Deal with it.

Posted by: Chairman Mao with an Obama sticker at August 13, 2010 03:21 PM (FcR7P)

48 I am getting tired of the entitled class. I want to shove them in a pile of manure, and then tell them to shovel it.

Posted by: meep at August 13, 2010 03:21 PM (UhB0V)

49 If she is crying about this NOW, 79 days ahead of the election when no one is really paying attention... Her internal polling must be horrific.

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 03:22 PM (Gr1V1)

50 The jobless attacking Barbara Boxer? Disgraceful. You'll take the government cheese we dole out and like it.

Posted by: Bill Clinton at August 13, 2010 03:22 PM (jbVm4)

51
hey, remember back in February 2009 when we said the Stimulus is gonna fail and the Democrats are gonna blame the Republicans because it was too small?

guess what?

Joe Fuckhead Biden does exactly that.


Posted by: no mr. bond, i expect you to die at August 13, 2010 03:22 PM (WmBF6)

52 TONY DANZA!

Posted by: TONY DANZA! at August 13, 2010 03:22 PM (werTy)

53 I agree with the Senator.

Posted by: Shitty, the unmentioned dwarf at August 13, 2010 03:23 PM (xmEXV)

54 Down goes Boxer! Down goes Boxer!

Posted by: Zombie Howard Cosell at August 13, 2010 03:23 PM (yQWNf)

55
That's the thanks you get for voting with the Democrats, Snowe & Collins, you stupid nincompfucking poops.

Posted by: no mr. bond, i expect you to die at August 13, 2010 03:24 PM (WmBF6)

56 Is the name-calling part of today's Senato-List? 'Cantankerous' has not been used yet. Nor has 'blind drunk'.

Posted by: t-bird at August 13, 2010 03:24 PM (FcR7P)

57 Whoa. Maybe you guys already know about this? Search on "Jerry Brown Secret Pension" and for example you find this at the OC Register: Under the law, Brown should have accrued, at most, 16 years of service credit in this special fund, known as the LegislatorsÂ’ Retirement System, or LRS. Actuarial statements produced by LRS, however, indicate that an unnamed person of BrownÂ’s age and earning BrownÂ’s exact salary has been credited with 25 to 29 years of service. The difference would mean tens of thousands of dollars in additional pension payments for Brown each year. BrownÂ’s campaign staff acknowledge the unnamed person sure looks like the gubernatorial candidate but have been unable to explain the discrepancy over service. Officials at the California Public EmployeesÂ’ Retirement System, which manages LRS, have similarly refused to cooperate, saying the law forbids them from answering questions about specific individuals. Meanwhile, The Watchdog has sought help from the offices of seven state lawmakers, one constitutional officer and one state department as well three outside pension experts and not one has been able to explain the discrepancy. ItÂ’s a mystery as persistent as LRS itself.

Posted by: George Orwell at August 13, 2010 03:24 PM (AZGON)

58 We're lucky to have Boxer around, letting us pay taxes and shit.

Posted by: Rapey, dwarf of the year (2 years running) at August 13, 2010 03:25 PM (jbVm4)

59 repulsive, yet wholly unattractive.

Posted by: garrett at August 13, 2010 03:26 PM (ISFvI)

60 Surly only looks out for Surly.

Posted by: Surly the Duff at August 13, 2010 03:26 PM (ir5hs)

61 Even Goofy wouldn't fuck Boxer.

Posted by: andycanuck at August 13, 2010 03:26 PM (xmEXV)

62
Barbara Boxer has been a great representative in the Senate of the United States for the people of California.  She should be reelected to continue her good work.

Posted by: Moonbeam Brown, Ronstadt Humper at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (v1gw3)

63

I think Pelosi's nerve endings are in their final death throes, she's been twitching more than usual.

I'm waiting for the Botox to spread to her sphincter. Pelosi emptying her bowels live on C-SPAN might just get her to disappear for a while.

Posted by: ErikW at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (werTy)

64 Maybe we should just suspend the election until we're sure the voters are less grumpy and will vote the right way.

Posted by: Brendan at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (saRwI)

65 Another talking point from the leaked memo:  Democrats Are Losing Because People Are Cranky: Champion Free Beer

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (HU8ik)

66 Gets even worse: Brown was born on April 7, 1938 — he’s 72. O’Connell was born on Oct. 8, 1951. He won’t turn 65 until 2016. The person listed in the actuarials appears then to be Brown. The only problem is Brown should have only 16 years of LRS-eligible service: four years as Secretary of State (1971 to 1974), eight years as Governor (1975 to 1982) and four years as Attorney General (2007 to 2010). The Watchdog has spent weeks trying to account for the additional time, to no avail. LRS rules don’t allow members to transfer in service credit accrued in other elected offices, so that eliminates Brown’s time as Oakland mayor or as member of the Los Angeles Community College District Board of Trustees. LRS members also can’t purchase “air time,” that is, they can’t add years of service credit by paying a fee, as is allowed in other public pension plans. There goes that option.

Posted by: George Orwell at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (AZGON)

67 If shes this concerned now, California is at WORST a tied race right now for us. Which means we have had Washington, Wisconsin, California, and Connecticut added to the competitive column in just the last month or so. We've seen Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky and North Carolina conversely pulling away for the GOP above and outside the margin of error. How anyone can outright deny the decent (and ever more favorable) odds of the Republicans flipping the Senate is beyond me...

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (Gr1V1)

68 Even Goofy wouldn't fuck Boxer.

Posted by: andycanuck at August 13, 2010 07:26 PM (xmEXV)

The Three Little Pigs would hit it.

Posted by: Cicero at August 13, 2010 03:27 PM (QKKT0)

69 If shes this concerned now, California is at WORST a tied race right now for us.

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 07:27 PM (Gr1V1)

Fiorino was up by 5 in a CBS poll yesterday.  http://tinyurl.com/28mv3l3

Posted by: Cicero at August 13, 2010 03:30 PM (QKKT0)

70
Carly could be a force for good in Kaleeifornia, and Senator Boxer has represented the people in an admirable manner. 

Posted by: Rnuld Swartzenegger, Terminator at August 13, 2010 03:30 PM (v1gw3)

71 I'd give her a Bladder-Infection for the team.

Posted by: Pigpen at August 13, 2010 03:30 PM (ISFvI)

72 Bets that after November Democrats and the Media will like the current 60 Vote Filibuster Rule Just Fine?

Posted by: CoolCzech at August 13, 2010 03:31 PM (tJjm/)

73 I think Boxer is too dumb to know how dumb she is.

Posted by: bill-tb at August 13, 2010 03:31 PM (y+QfZ)

74 Even Goofy wouldn't fuck Boxer. Mmm! Peanut butter...

Posted by: Pluto at August 13, 2010 03:31 PM (SwkdU)

75 We're arrogant because we care.

Posted by: Democrat Party at August 13, 2010 03:31 PM (oL8lS)

76 she favors lowering the filibuster threshold in the Senate from 60 votes to 55 to curb what she called Republican obstructionism.

She's worried about the Dems not having enough seats to Filibuster the GOP.

Posted by: davidt at August 13, 2010 03:31 PM (HtIec)

77

Who the fuck is Barbara Boxer?

Posted by: Cheech and Chong at August 13, 2010 03:32 PM (v1gw3)

78 Out of touch, yet clueless.

Posted by: Rapey, dwarf of the year (2 years running) at August 13, 2010 03:32 PM (jbVm4)

79 The California Democrat's remarks came during an hourlong interview with the Mercury News editorial board, in which she cast the election as a choice between moving forward or returning to the policies of President George W. Bush Upon being informed that the year is 2010 and she is running against Carly Fiorina for Senate office and not the Presidency, Ms. Boxer insisted she be addressed as "the ravishing reincarnation of Elsa Lanchester playing 'The Bride of the Monster'" and added that she was "God's gift to the art of coiffure."

Posted by: George Orwell at August 13, 2010 03:32 PM (AZGON)

80

They're going to throw more stimulus money out there before November.   That's their jobs plan.  

BWHAHAHAHAHAH!

I don't know if I'll be able to stand the giddiness I'm going to feel in November.   The greatest thing after that will happen in January!

Posted by: Steph at August 13, 2010 03:32 PM (580hG)

81

I only vote when my tummy is upset.

Posted by: Grouchy McBittersour at August 13, 2010 03:32 PM (QoR4a)

82 21 she favors lowering the filibuster threshold in the Senate from 60 votes to 55 to curb what she called Republican obstructionism.

Actually, she wants the filibuster threshold lowered to the number of Senate Democrats - 1.

Which, hopefully, will be in the mid-30's after 2012.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 13, 2010 03:33 PM (/0IOT)

83 But first, you will blow me. us.

FIFY

Posted by: shibumi at August 13, 2010 03:33 PM (OKZrE)

84 Harumpph!!!

Posted by: Grumpwell Von Angrywhite at August 13, 2010 03:33 PM (QoR4a)

85
I bumped nasties with Barbara at a Grateful Dead concert

Posted by: Barbra Streisand at August 13, 2010 03:33 PM (v1gw3)

86 eeeeeeYAAAAAAA!!!!

Posted by: Surly Sue Angerhate at August 13, 2010 03:35 PM (QoR4a)

87
I wouldn't fuck Boxer with Barbra's dick.

Posted by: James Brolin, Mr. Streisand at August 13, 2010 03:35 PM (v1gw3)

88 How anyone can outright deny the decent (and ever more favorable) odds of the Republicans flipping the Senate is beyond me...

It's because the odds aren't favorable.  Boxer WILL win in CA, at the end of it.  I'd put money on it if I had any.  Meanwhile, even though the polls show it can be done, the odds are not in favor of the GOP overcoming the fraud machines in Washington and Wisconsin.

Unhatched chickens, some counting required...

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 03:35 PM (lH0RU)

89

I hates me all dems others peoples with the edumacashuns! Throw 'em out, I sez!

Posted by: Tantrum E Bitterclinger at August 13, 2010 03:37 PM (QoR4a)

90 All my childhood memories now ruined.

Posted by: Dr Spank at August 13, 2010 03:37 PM (jbVm4)

91

I can't believe this doesn't have its own post yet:

American Socialists Release Names of 73 Congressional Dems!

'bam, Ma'am, Pelosi and Dingy Hary missing.

Posted by: RushBabe at August 13, 2010 03:37 PM (a3Z62)

92 Who the fuck is Barbara Boxer?

Posted by: Cheech and Chong

Never heard of her.

Posted by: Charlie Gibson (ret) at August 13, 2010 03:37 PM (/ak0x)

93 Ace, I think the word you are looking for is "funk."  Carter had his malaise, but Bill Clinton told reporters (ca. 1994) during a late night flight aboard Air Force One, that the pending Glorious Revolution of 1994 showed that the country was "in a funk."


Posted by: GulfCoastTider at August 13, 2010 03:38 PM (bv1hq)

94 Hary = Harry 

Posted by: RushBabe at August 13, 2010 03:38 PM (a3Z62)

95 Schumer says we're sour; Boxer says we're grumpy. Can't wait for Reid to say the voters need Midol.

Posted by: LASue at August 13, 2010 03:39 PM (S25IC)

96 the odds are not in favor of the GOP overcoming the fraud machines in Washington and Wisconsin.

They've already rented the buses in Minnesota and Illinois for "new residents" to vote in Kenosha and LaCrosse.  Fucking same-day registration.

Posted by: HeatherRadish at August 13, 2010 03:39 PM (9PzaA)

97 Can't wait for Reid to say the voters need Midol.

That's my line!!

Posted by: Tom Harkin, D-Lusional at August 13, 2010 03:40 PM (9PzaA)

98 >>>It's because the odds aren't favorable. Boxer WILL win in CA, at the end of it. I'd put money on it if I had any. War, In my humble observation... This is what I've observed. Every time there's going to be a "wave" election people talk about the Senate as being so hard to flip. I always hear this. They talk about this or that race being unwinnable. Every time. I saw this in 1994 and 2006 and 2008. (That's all I remember.) I always hear this talk. There is this... belief that seems to be out there that the House is volatile but the Senate is relatively stable. I think people are thinking back to the way it was before direct election of Senators! Anyway: Here's my actual observtion. When a lot of seats in the House flip, a lot of seats in the Senate flip. In fact, in some years, I have seen a rather modest turnover in the House but a big one in the Senate. (I'm not sure I know what year I mean here but I have a memory of it.) Point being: I would not continue thinking that the Senate is the less volatile chamber. I think it's actually more volatile.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 03:40 PM (QbA6l)

99 We've seen Ohio, New Hampshire, Kentucky and North Carolina conversely pulling away for the GOP above and outside the margin of error.

How anyone can outright deny the decent (and ever more favorable) odds of the Republicans flipping the Senate is beyond me...

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 07:27 PM (Gr1V1)

Ohio is definitely swinging to the right. I have no poll numbers to back that up but I do talk to people throughout the day and the political climate is not good for Strickland. Lee Fisher is done, Rob Portman will take Voinovich's seat.

 

Posted by: ErikW at August 13, 2010 03:40 PM (werTy)

100
Marin and Sonoma counties, Boxer's grazing land, is chock full of uber liberal geektoids that would vote for a toad if it sang the democrat party line.  They will be a formidable force and can muster the resources and the message to defeat Carly.  Let the lying begin!

Posted by: Fish at August 13, 2010 03:41 PM (v1gw3)

101 Wow RushBabe Pete Stark is on that list and gets in constituents' faces and still doesn't have to sweat the election....insane

Posted by: KZnextzone at August 13, 2010 03:41 PM (veaqz)

102 #89 in 2009, I heard the phrase "New Jersey is Republican Fools Gold" more times than I can count Lady Gaga's sex changes. In January, I heard more cries about the Boston fraud machine ASSURING Coakley would beat Brown than I can count gerbils in Richard Gere's anus. So when people blather about fraud machines and odds, in an environment where Democrats are STAYING HOME, Republicans are VOTING, and Indies have voted in the last big 3 elections (VA-GOV, NJ-GOV, and MA-SENATE) breaking for the Republicans AT LEAST 2 to 1 (in the case of MA, 3 to 1), none of that matters. Its a wave year, in a horrible economy, with a dispirited Left. Angle and Kirk will probably pull it out out of their states respective hatred for their Democratic choices. Boxer may very well be finished, along with Murray and Feingold. A political party that BELIEVES it is going to win has the spirited means to deliver upon it. A party that lets past results drag them down will blow their loads three months out.

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 03:43 PM (Gr1V1)

103 I wouldn't fuck Boxer with Barbra's dick. Posted by: James Brolin, Mr. Streisand at August 13, 2010 07:35 PM (v1gw3) I'm pretty sure that you'd get more penetration with Barbra's nose.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at August 13, 2010 03:44 PM (9Lm5R)

104 To the democrats, voters are the freakin' 7 evil dwarfs; Grumpy, Sour, Bitter, Clingy, Whitey, Dickey, and Selfish

Posted by: ray at August 13, 2010 03:44 PM (xeICs)

105 The only good voter is a dead voter!

Posted by: Democratic Party at August 13, 2010 03:49 PM (ISFvI)

106 #99 BINGO. All this blather about flipping the House. We have only flipped the house ONCE in a hundred years without also flipping the senate. The Senate has flipped back and forth multiple times since I was born in 1985. March 1985- GOP Jan 1987- DEM Jan 1995- GOP somewhere in 2001- DEM Jan 2003- GOP Jan 2007- DEM One of the biggest election shifts for the GOP ever occured just 30 years ago. The other biggie was just 16 years ago. Its HIGHLY volatile when there is a wave.

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 03:49 PM (Gr1V1)

107 Can i say 'blow me' at the airport? (i mean a regular citizen not someone important like Mel, gov officials and ect... since i get worked over by the gov when i disobey The Constitution Of The United States of America)

Posted by: robotgossip at August 13, 2010 03:51 PM (EiH7n)

108 Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 07:40 PM (QbA6l)

Ace, you could be right.  I sure as hell HOPE you are.  And since the odds are favorable of the House flipping, history would suggest that it is likely the Senate will as well, as (I think) the lower chamber has never flipped to the party out of power in an off-year election without the upper chamber going with it.  It is easy to overlook just how big wave elections can get.

There's a first time for everything though, and just looking at the individual races (as I do every day, having had a lot of free time on my hands lately), the Republicans are pretty much going to have to run the table on Senate races to flip that chamber, and they're going to have to fight their way through some really, really deep blue territory and foil some of the country's more famous fraud machines to do it.  The polls suggest they can do it, but the polls also show those races as statistically tied, and have for a while.

They'll likely break one way or the other in the last weeks, but they'll have to break for the GOP pretty significantly.  I believe it can happen, but at this point I'm assuming they won't take the Senate back.

And for what it's worth, I apologize for my earlier snark.  It is, of course, your place.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 03:53 PM (lH0RU)

109 I live in California, and I don't care if Boxer loses because Voters are Grumpy, Lazy, Dopey, Sneezy, or higher-than-a-kite....I just want her GONE!

Posted by: cthulhu at August 13, 2010 07:11 PM (/0IOT)

Why don't you just summon her to return to her home among the Old Ones?

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 03:54 PM (7AOgy)

110 Sorry I bit your head off, I had just been arguing about it all day, I didn't want to argue over whether i could set the boundaries on the blog anymore.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 03:55 PM (QbA6l)

111 Boxer may "have" a job, for now - but she's not doing it.

At least Fiorina isn't ripping off a few million taxpayers in order to set her dinner table.

Posted by: Roger at August 13, 2010 03:55 PM (tAwhy)

112 You know, I've been coming here for years but never commented.  But I have to tell you all.....I thoroughly think the people who post here are some the cleverest, funniest posters from any comment page from any blog that I ever visit.  I mean you all are just LOL  funny.  Good job

Posted by: Bixter at August 13, 2010 03:55 PM (bHZq5)

113 Lee Fisher is done, Rob Portman will take Voinovich's seat.

Posted by: ErikW at August 13, 2010 07:40 PM (werTy)

But what about Natalie Portman?

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 03:55 PM (7AOgy)

114 And for what it's worth, I apologize for my earlier snark.  It is, of course, your place.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 07:53 PM (lH0RU)

Sorry I bit your head off, I had just been arguing about it all day, I didn't want to argue over whether i could set the boundaries on the blog anymore.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 07:55 PM (QbA6l)

Awwww... Group Hug!

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 03:57 PM (7AOgy)

115 The only good voter is a dead voter!

Posted by: Democratic Party at August 13, 2010 07:49 PM (ISFvI)

The only dead voter is a Democrat voter!

Posted by: Democratic Party at August 13, 2010 03:58 PM (7AOgy)

116 >>> And since the odds are favorable of the House flipping, history would suggest that it is likely the Senate will as well, as (I think) the lower chamber has never flipped to the party out of power in an off-year election without the upper chamber going with it. It is easy to overlook just how big wave elections can get. >>>There's a first time for everything though, and just looking at the individual races (as I do every day, having had a lot of free time on my hands lately), the Republicans are pretty much going to have to run the table on Senate races to flip that chamber, and they're going to have to fight their way through some really, really deep blue territory and foil some of the country's more famous fraud machines to do it. But in wave elections there are no safe senate seats. There are many safe house seats because they have been gerrymandered to have a 70/30 split. No state has that split, pretty much. No state has that much cushion to stop a real wave. I would be despondent about Sharron Angle except I think as weak as she is she wins in a walk, frankly. I think Boxer's done too. I think Murray's done. I think we win ten or eleven. I don't think we lose any of the ones we're supposed to win and win many of the ones we might win. That's what happens in waves. This is really really bad. The public is 'sour" and "grumpy" as Schumer and Boxer just told you.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:00 PM (QbA6l)

117 thanks, bixter, good to see you delurking.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:00 PM (QbA6l)

118 Wow RushBabe Pete Stark is on that list and gets in constituents' faces and still doesn't have to sweat the election....insane

Posted by: KZnextzone at August 13, 2010 07:41 PM (veaqz)

I'll predict that if this mid-term election goes big for the GOP, a credible GOP candidate will step forward to challenge Stark in 2012.

Posted by: Democratic Party at August 13, 2010 04:01 PM (7AOgy)

119 Awwww... Group Hug!

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 07:57 PM (7AOgy)

But first...

Posted by: CharlieBrown'sDildo at August 13, 2010 04:01 PM (LH6ir)

120 I thought you were Barbra's dick, darling?

Posted by: zombie liberace at August 13, 2010 04:02 PM (xmEXV)

121 Awwww... Group Hug!
Hug it out, bitch.

Posted by: michael scott at August 13, 2010 04:03 PM (xmEXV)

122 This is really really bad. The public is 'sour" and "grumpy" as Schumer and Boxer just told you.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 08:00 PM (QbA6l)

They really, REALLY don't understand why we are not grateful for the "presents" they've given us so far.

Reminds me a little bit of this.

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 04:04 PM (7AOgy)

123 Ace at 99 - One of the reasons the Senate is less volatile than the House is that only a third of the seats are up in any given year. Each class of Senators (those elected at a particular time) are a set population. Each party is pretty much locked by what the results were when that class came up for election. For example if the Republicans manage to pull out a sweep this year then in six years they go into an election in which the best they can really do is hold the line and stay even. 

Sorry I am having trouble explaining this. I haven't slept in twenty hours and just found out I have to be at work in three hours for a twelve hour shift.

Posted by: Have Blue at August 13, 2010 04:06 PM (mV+es)

124 Ace, I'm glad you're optimistic and I mean that sincerely. I feel like I'm so cynical that I can't let go of my pessimism. I have very little faith in the voters of CA. Not having Obama on the ballot will keep Dem turnout low, hopefully - not that their turnout isn't low in general. But I'm hoping some of those right leaning folks who sat out in 2008 are going to come out and get their revenge, so to speak.

Posted by: wherestherum at August 13, 2010 04:06 PM (gofDd)

125 Still pissed over Donald Duck groping you?

Why would I be pissed about Donald groping me? I'm more pissed about Boxer raping me (well, my wallet).

Posted by: wherestherum at August 13, 2010 04:07 PM (gofDd)

126 I think psychologically people shy away from predicting big change. They always want to predict small change, a continuity. But in fact big change is just as likely as small change. In fact, I think it's more likely. People are always predicting small changes in the house or whatnot and I'm always like, "Nah, either it's going to be near-zero or it's going to be 45." Well not always. Sometimes there are small changes. But this is not a small change situation. This is a big change situation. And predictions that are made to sound conservative are almost surely wrong. Anyway, point is: Because people don't like predicting big change they like the comfort of saying "The house will flip, but the senate WON'T." See? Provides continuity to the current moment; is a smaller change. But as a general rule in this situation I think the less conservative predictions are by far more realistic. Yeah, I think the Dems could lose 60 in the House. I don't say that because I don't want to be "taht guy" making crazy predictions. But here in the comments? I think 60/11.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:09 PM (QbA6l)

127 in 2009, I heard the phrase "New Jersey is Republican Fools Gold" more times than I can count Lady Gaga's sex changes.

Well, where Senate and Presidential races are concerned it has been fool's gold for years -- just ask Tom Kean Jr., Doug Forrester, and George W. Bush himself, whose presidential campaign made an aggressive push for N.J. in 2004 only to lose by almost 250,000 votes.  Governor's races are different; there is no such thing as a "safe" state for either party where they are concerned.  But Federally, the voting patterns are much more entrenched for one party or the other and usually quite consistent.  I wouldn't bet that even Obama will lose New Jersey in 2012.


In January, I heard more cries about the Boston fraud machine ASSURING Coakley would beat Brown than I can count gerbils in Richard Gere's anus.

I think MA was controlled by the Kennedy machine, specifically, and that Scott Brown's election showed that with Uncle Ted gone, the machine has been rendered toothless and that the GOP has an opening it didn't before.  Do I think that Scott Brown's election is typical of what the Republicans can expect in regularly-scheduled fall elections in the near future?  No way, because machine or no, Massachusetts is made up of overwhelmingly-blue voters and that will take time to change.


A political party that BELIEVES it is going to win has the spirited means to deliver upon it.

CAC, I'm totally with you on this and have preached the same thing in the past, and but man... one thing I have learned, and am still learning, in following politics over the last couple of decades is that believing is one thing, but it's dangerous to expect anything.  (I'm not even assuming the GOP will flip the House, as likely as it appears.)  Right now it's got to be acknowledged that everything, literally everything, has to go right for the GOP in every competitive Senate race and that the odds are against that.  Is it amazing that, two years after a cycle that kicked us down to 40 senators, taking back the chamber is this possible?  It sure as hell is.  But there are quite a ways to go before it's a done deal.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 04:09 PM (lH0RU)

128 This is really really bad. The public is 'sour" and "grumpy" as Schumer and Boxer just told you.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 08:00 PM (QbA6l)

This may be true - but remember a majority of the electorate as it is presently constituted, voted for Lord Zero because of everything he promised.  OK - now he's delivering, pretty much, and they're kinda ashamed of themselves for what they did.

But they'll be back, and you know it.  The current GOP surge is not a revolution.  You want real change, you'll need a responsible electorate - you know, like we used to have in the old days.  (And please don't call me a racist - it's not about race; plenty of responsible voters out there of any and all races.  It's about education and, um, responsibility.)

Posted by: Roger at August 13, 2010 04:10 PM (tAwhy)

129 okay not sixty. like 54.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:12 PM (QbA6l)

130 >>>Right now it's got to be acknowledged that everything, literally everything, has to go right for the GOP in every competitive Senate race and that the odds are against that. That's like saying "A big storm certainly won't sink all the boats in the marina; I mean the odds against sinking each in a row are so low." Well... not really! If the storm sinks a couple it's got a pretty good chance of sinking them all.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:15 PM (QbA6l)

131 I think we are all on the same page, just with different perspectives. We shouldn't "EXPECT" anything. We should fight to win EVERY SINGLE RACE as if its up for grabs, regardless. Dean did that with his Dems under the 50 state strategy, and hate YARG all you want, it worked brilliantly. Obama utilized the ALL-IN strategy and won Indiana, North Carolina, and Florida- all of which outside of that ground effort would have certainly gone to McCain. Fight to win in California, FUCK what the past there has yielded. Fight to win in Wisconsin. Fuck what the old numbers have said. Fight to win in Washington. Fuck the Seattle bucket-o-ballots of 2004. I think we stand an excellent shot of holding ALL the Senate seats we currently have, and win: Arkansas, Indiana, Delaware, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Wisconsin, Washington, California, and Connecticut, with West Virginia, New York B, and even Oregon being remote possibilities WORTHY of a few million $$ each. We get the ground game going in these states regardless of their Blue Hue, we will get SOLID results particularly in the current environment. Republicans have registered over 100,000 new voters in California just this year- all of whom are pumped for turnout. We nearly matched Democratic turnout in the primary despite having a partisan gap of around 15-20 points. NO state is a solid color in a midterm if that midterm is a waveyear unfavorable to its "natural" color.

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 04:20 PM (Gr1V1)

132 Well expectin' shit is askin' for heartbreak, but if I'm just prognosticatin' down here in the comments of a thread that most people aren't readin', I say we flip both and it's a fucking wipeout.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:24 PM (QbA6l)

133 Our most motivated supporters on election day are Dead Voters!

Posted by: Democratic Party at August 13, 2010 04:26 PM (ISFvI)

134 Well... not really! If the storm sinks a couple it's got a pretty good chance of sinking them all.

Quite so.  And we've seen so many strange cycles in recent years that nothing is impossible.

Historically, there have always been outlier races in wave elections -- a seat here and there that flipped to the Democrats in 1938, 1946, and 1994; one or two that flipped to Republicans in 1930 and 1974, and so on... but 2006 was the first cycle in the history of the modern two-party system, if not that of the entire country, that one of the major parties (the Republicans) failed to flip a single Democrat seat anywhere, not even one, not a Senate seat, House seat, or even a governorship.  The Dems ran the table on everything.

And if you look at the landscape for Congress this year, it's entirely possible that the Republicans can run the table the same way.  Even Joseph Cao has a plausible road to victory.

So I am entirely willing to concede that my view may be far too pessimistic in light of what is happening in our country and that the historical trends are all out the window at this point.  Scott Brown would indeed seem to be evidence of that.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 04:27 PM (lH0RU)

Posted by: garrett at August 13, 2010 04:28 PM (ISFvI)

136 The thing is, when people flip in a wave, they all flip the same way, and there is no nontrivial flipping the other way to balance it out or ameliorate the trend. In a regular election, let's say voter decision criteria are 20% state of the union, 40% general partisan leaning, 40% personal characteristics of candidates. If nothing's really that wrong you can indulge in such small potato items as partisan leaning or whether you like the candidate as a person. But in a wave election, it's like 70% state of the union, 25% partisan leaning, and 5% personal characteristics of the candidate (who gives a rat's ass?). Massachusetts only flipped narrowly and yeah that was partly because Coakley was bad and Brown was good, personally. But that state has a huge dem split, and the country's sour grumpiness has gotten much worse since then. The economy is a DISASTER and Dems promised that their plans would fix it. That is all on tape. People remember that. And people are hurting. I understand the psychological desire to predict small change and also people not wanting to get their hopes up but this really could be pretty friggin' big.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:28 PM (QbA6l)

137 I better vote for her.  I can't have people going around thinking I'm "grumpy"

Posted by: Lemmiwinks at August 13, 2010 04:28 PM (IqfKc)

138 She's confusing "grumpy" and "royally pissed off."

Posted by: Laura Castellano at August 13, 2010 04:31 PM (fuw6p)

139 >>> but 2006 was the first cycle in the history of the modern two-party system, if not that of the entire country, that one of the major parties (the Republicans) failed to flip a single Democrat seat anywhere, not even one, not a Senate seat, House seat, or even a governorship. The Dems ran the table on everything. I didn't know that. Well, I would say that 2006 is more likely the template than past elections. Bear in mind the parties used to be ideologically muddled -- you had quite liberal northern Republicans and quite conservative southern Democrats. So in past elections, you could have wipeouts where liberals were decimated but it woldn't look that way party wise because both parties had a good mix of both. It's not that way anymore. The parties are very ideologically polarized. There are no Conservative Southern Democrats who are going to weather this storm. There are no liberal Northern Republicans who are going to lose. They don't exist. So 2006 is much more relevant.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:32 PM (QbA6l)

140 In an ironic twist of fate, non-socialists will be sending Boxer to the glue factory.

Posted by: Waterhouse at August 13, 2010 04:32 PM (wt2hn)

141 Lusty, Musty, Dusty, Sleazy, Breezy, Queasy, and Drunk.

Sounds like our kinda dwarfs.

Posted by: Meiczyslaw at August 13, 2010 04:32 PM (vEhUz)

142 I am worried about Sharron Angle, though, because the one thing people won't vote for is someone they think is patently unqualified or a kook. Even in a wave. I really wish the Tea Party movement would stop chancing fate by pushing very risky unconventional candidates. If you're going to take a chance -- why not get behind Chuck DeVore in CA? That was where I thought we could/should take the chance. I thought Sue Lowden was a good candidate and didn't know why the hell she'd been rejected. Yeah, she had that dumb "barter with chickens" thing with ObamaCare, but Angle has some dumb statements too.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:36 PM (QbA6l)

143

Hey, don't be making broad allegations about all of dwarf kind.

We kind of like the Witch.


Posted by: The anti-lollipop, pro-lemonhead guild at August 13, 2010 04:38 PM (UaxA0)

144 Shouldn't it be "Democrat Party"?

Posted by: Smapty at August 13, 2010 04:39 PM (bAySe)

145

This "Lady" is a dumb POS. Hell, I cant even say what I think.

Posted by: Marrion Barry at August 13, 2010 04:41 PM (GkYyh)

146

I really wish the Tea Party movement would stop chancing fate by pushing very risky unconventional candidates.

Ace,

You say that like there's an organized movement.  A bunch of pissed off voters liked Angle's platform better.  That's where the mood of Nevada is right now.  There's no "party discipline" here. 

Just like we have to deal with the squishy 10% in the middle, they have to deal with teh enraged 25% on the edge.  It's not like anyone can control who disaffected TPers vote for.  Even pragmatic dirty cons will have to realize and deal with this fact.

Posted by: s'moron at August 13, 2010 04:41 PM (UaxA0)

147 yeah but didn't the state tea parties endorse angle or something?

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:44 PM (QbA6l)

148

Um, raise social security taxes then use that money to balance the budget?  Another fucking brilliant economic policy put forth by another fucking MORON.  Live on this planet much, Babs?

Posted by: Blow Up Babs at August 13, 2010 04:45 PM (dAyzh)

149 >>>It's not like anyone can control who disaffected TPers vote for. Even pragmatic dirty cons will have to realize and deal with this fact. yeah I know but I don't understand what was wrong with Sue Lowden, other than... I don't know, she's tainted because she's run the state Republcian party and brought it back from a very low state? I guess I am bothered by this (to my mind, utterly self-destructive) conceit some have that what we are trying for is a genuine third party. Jeeze! Look at Tom Dickbag Tancredo.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:46 PM (QbA6l)

150 Democrat's new slogan, in reference to the problems we are facing

It's not me ...  it's YOU

Posted by: bill at August 13, 2010 04:48 PM (/LuCs)

151 Picture some of these long-tenured ruling Democrats in the real world: it's difficult, I know. Pres. Carter would be Mr. Rogers, except Mr. Rogers had the ordination (Presbyterian). However,
Chucker ("The F**ker") Shumer, Rep. Markey, Bawney Fwank (?!?), Hillary ("Commodities") Clinton? Somehow, the Spirit is leading me to Ps 63,10. Is there anything more real than that? Unless it be: http://tinyurl.com/r2j94 (*.wav file).
Remember that in an infinite amount of time, anything is possible. Life itself, however, patently reverses entropy.

Posted by: Thorvald at August 13, 2010 04:49 PM (o4jah)

152

Why don't you just summon her to return to her home among the Old Ones?

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 07:54 PM (7AOgy)

The shoggoths don't like her.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 13, 2010 04:50 PM (/0IOT)

153 Oh... I am really worried about Rubio, too. But Hot Air just put a post at least suggesting that Meeks will be in the race, not Greene, and hence Meeks will at least keep Crist from getting all the black vote.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 04:52 PM (QbA6l)

154 This election is critical.Seiously,every election is important to some degree but this is existential.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 04:54 PM (0Cdzl)

155 154 Crist really is a slimy fuck,everything people purport to hate about politicians.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 04:55 PM (0Cdzl)

156 ace at August 13, 2010 08:52 PM (QbA6l)

Rubio has a good chance here in FL. Especially if Meeks wins the Dem nomination. I'd say if Greene wins it, Crist might win that seat.

Rubio has really evaporated as of late. It's disappointing. And baffling.

Posted by: lorien1973 at August 13, 2010 04:58 PM (ZXnUe)

157 Bill Kristol on FNC Sunday last predicted a 60 seat pickup in the House for the Republicans.  I think that's about right, and 10 in the the Senate is unlikely but possible.  Fiorina will beat Boxer. Intensity and that preference thing.

Posted by: motionview at August 13, 2010 04:59 PM (58JIy)

158 This is one of the most crucial elections of my lifetime.  (I'm 59)  The country veers one way or the other after this one.

Posted by: Bixter at August 13, 2010 05:00 PM (bHZq5)

159 >>>Rubio has really evaporated as of late. It's disappointing. And baffling. I don't think he's evaporating, I think Crist is just making the right moves to pick up democrats and liberal leaning moderates.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 05:00 PM (QbA6l)

160 Meek has been up in the recent primary polling, so hopefully he makes it to the nomination.

I still think Rubio ends up pulling out a victory regardless of whom the Democrat candidate is.  Crist's support has been hovering in the mid-to-upper 30s ever since he bolted the party, and a lot of that is from partisan voters who in the end will come home to either Rubio or the Democrat.  Crist has nowhere to go but down and no support to spare.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 05:02 PM (lH0RU)

161 If we make huge pick ups I can stomach Crist and even Reid winning.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 05:03 PM (0Cdzl)

162 ace at August 13, 2010 09:00 PM (QbA6l)

I mean visibility wise, not polling wise. He used to be everywhere on the radio/TV - now he's just on fox news on random occasions. Rasmussen had rubio up 5 this week, but he was down 5 last week.

I have the suspicion Rubio is keeping everything in the bag until closer to the election, since there is so much Crist the flipflopper stuff to use. If he has money, it's a tsunami waiting to happen.

Look, Florida is at 12% unemployment or something. If Rubio can't win now, he can never win. And he's spanish. He'd have to be a retard to lose this thing. It's his to win.

Posted by: lorien1973 at August 13, 2010 05:03 PM (ZXnUe)

163 Buck will win in CO.  Book it, Dano.

Posted by: Guy Fawkes at August 13, 2010 05:03 PM (yT8z7)

164 Aside from not being Democrats, what have the Republicans done to earn a victory? Is not being the Democrats enough?

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at August 13, 2010 05:06 PM (YPivX)

165

Rubio came back in the latest poll, he is ahead 3 or 4 if Meeks wins and behind 1 if green wins. I think once the dem primary is over the dems will go home to one of them. I also think the repubs will run from Crist at that time as well. As soon as Crist starts looking iffy on winning he's out.

Murray is gone IMO. You can't even find anyone the the Seattle Times website that likes her and she is behind by 4.

Posted by: robtr at August 13, 2010 05:06 PM (fwSHf)

166

Boxer is in the worst trouble she has ever been-in in California.

She could go this year, in spite of the ineffectual and incompetent California GOP.

Speaking of incompetents GOP management, something is up with the San Diego GOP. You try to volunteer for anything and everything and it goes into a black hole. I hear from my Democrat congress critter much more often and all I have sent her is hate I do not like you-mail.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 13, 2010 05:07 PM (oIp16)

167

The shoggoths don't like her.

Posted by: cthulhu at August 13, 2010 08:50 PM (/0IOT)

Don't like her, or find her downright terrifying?

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 05:07 PM (7AOgy)

168 It ain't over for Boxer until she leaves the strip club.

Posted by: Comrade Bruce Herschensohn at August 13, 2010 05:07 PM (Y9AnC)

169

Speaking of incompetents GOP management, something is up with the San Diego GOP. You try to volunteer for anything and everything and it goes into a black hole.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 13, 2010 09:07 PM (oIp16)

Is that true of telephone contact as well as online?  Could be problems with e-mail.

Oh, and "black hole"?  RAAAAAAAACIST!

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 05:09 PM (7AOgy)

170 165 Short answer?Yes.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 05:10 PM (0Cdzl)

171 I think 50 is the floor for the house pickups. It is so bad for the Dems, that nearly each of the ; font-weight: bold;">50 states will see a dem congress-critter booted.

Posted by: Smapty at August 13, 2010 05:10 PM (bAySe)

172

Murray is gone IMO. You can't even find anyone the the Seattle Times website that likes her and she is behind by 4.

Posted by: robtr at August 13, 2010 09:06 PM (fwSHf)

Maybe she could get a job teaching at one of the schools Bin Laden built.

That quote of hers would be good for the post above this one.

Posted by: Delta Smelt at August 13, 2010 05:12 PM (IRwVS)

173 I am convinced we're looking at something bigger than 1994.  And I remember the denial on the left even on election night that year.

Independent voters are figuring it out:

Unemployment benefits are not jobs.
Union kickbacks are not for the children.
Tone deaf lifestyles are not shared sacrifice.
Tax hikes are not an effective form of sticking it to the mythical monolithic rich.
Everyone that can do fifth grade math is not a racist.
The President is not an example of deprived minority.

2008 was a perfect storm for the Democrats and their presidential nominee STILL had to run as a moderate to get 52%.  And now they whine about the mood of the country, trot out comparisons of Obama with Ronald Reagan almost daily and engage in behavior that occasionally makes me doubt their desire to hold on to power (the birthday party for Charlie Rangel, for instance).

The Republicans are going to take the House.  I think a 9 seat pick up in the Senate is completely in the realm of possibility.



Posted by: Circa (Insert Year Here) at August 13, 2010 05:14 PM (NvFZs)

174 I'll honestly be a little disappointed if its less than 99 seats.  I just don't want to beat them, I want to discredit them.

Posted by: Smapty at August 13, 2010 05:15 PM (bAySe)

175

I can't believe Tancredo would hang in that race as an obvious spoiler. 

Surely, he'll drop out? Right?

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 05:15 PM (HU8ik)

176 It's really hard to see how we actually pick up the Senate.  The Democrats made some lopsided pickups only two years ago, and those seats aren't coming up again for for years.  It's gonna have to be one hell of a sweep, as in almost every seat which is mathematically possible.

In recent weeks the Democrats are doing the smart thing.  Well, the only thing they can do, really.  They're going with the old "The Republicans are crooked too!  Bush, Bush, Bush!".  I hate to say it, but that will work, somewhat.  They won't come out ahead, but I think they'll be able to make up some lost ground.

Posted by: Ace's liver at August 13, 2010 05:16 PM (XIXhw)

177 "I would be despondent about Sharron Angle except I think as weak as she is she wins in a walk, frankly. "

I keep saying it...and I will say it right up until election day. Sharron Angle can not and never could possibly win this election. However, Harry will definitely lose it. The hatred for him here in Nevada is beyond palpable, and when he made his idiotic "Hispanics could never be republican" remark, the Latino community went in two directions. The conservative Latinos are mobilizing to vote against him while the Latino Left has decided they don't want to honor Reid's racism with their votes. Of course, my evidence is anecdotal, but based on the way local Latinos have lit up the switchboards at the radio stations...the anger is not mild (and yes, that includes Latinos on the left who have been furious about Reid's remark because they feel he was declaring how much he takes them for granted.)

Posted by: g at August 13, 2010 05:17 PM (QcdUG)

178 Yeah,let's remember 94 and how quickly the GOP fucked all that good feeling up.Well,I rather win big and deal with that later but there will be problems.Can't get squishy on repealing Obamacare,the first key target.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 05:17 PM (0Cdzl)

179 At this point even though Cook is warning of a big Republican year, I think you need to move every one of his ratings at least one step towards the Republicans to more correctly predict November.  There is a possibility of 3 Republican House pickups here in California:  McInerny in CA-11, Cardoza in CA-18, and Costa in CA-20.  In these particular cases Cook is missing the confluence of everything that is happening nationally with the local issue of Central Valley farming water shut-off to save the Delta Smelt.

Posted by: motionview at August 13, 2010 05:18 PM (58JIy)

180 Hmm,I guess people still hink it's too early to talk about the elections.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 05:20 PM (0Cdzl)

181 One aspect that might make the Senate more volatile than the House is the length of the term.  If you even have the inkling that someone is doing a poor job do you want to give him another six years (SIX YEARS) to prove you wrong? 
  Two years, sure, that's barely enough time to get unpacked and take place in some votes before going back on the campaign trail.  But six years, that's a commitment.
 

Posted by: Tesch at August 13, 2010 05:20 PM (bp9Kd)

182 179 Yeah,let's remember 94 and how quickly the GOP fucked all that good feeling up.Well,I rather win big and deal with that later but there will be problems.Can't get squishy on repealing Obamacare,the first key target.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 09:17 PM (0Cdzl)

Winning elections and governance are two entirely separate galaxies.  My guess is Obamacare doesn't actually get repealed, but they'll make a slight tweak here and another there, which will effectively gut it.  And I'm okay with that.

The real fight will be over how much of the ginormous debt gets made up in taxes and how much in cuts.  Republican politicians don't like making cuts any more than Democrats, but hopefully their resistance to new taxes is a bit higher.

Posted by: Ace's liver at August 13, 2010 05:23 PM (XIXhw)

183

I think the landslide this fall will be more of a result of disinterested democrat voters, more so than massive swings in individual groups. I don't think we can count on that in 2012, as much.

To win in 2012 we will need to peel off some black, hispanic, jewish voters as well as win back the white suburban voters.

Posted by: Ben at August 13, 2010 05:23 PM (DKV43)

184 Tesch at August 13, 2010 09:20 PM (bp9Kd)

It's more that gerrymandering makes it near impossible to remove people without them retiring. You can gerrymander a district, but not a state.

I think it's stupid that in any given year, the best you can hope for is 70 seats out of 435 to change. That's not a republic.

Posted by: lorien1973 at August 13, 2010 05:23 PM (ZXnUe)

185 To win in 2012 we will need to peel off some black, hispanic, jewish voters as well as win back the white suburban voters.

Or we'll need Barry to be Barry.  I think we got that covered.

Posted by: Ace's liver at August 13, 2010 05:24 PM (XIXhw)

186 #182 Exactly. The opportunity to dump Boxer, Murray, and Reid NOW is I am sure weighing on a lot of indies' minds. Even in Wisconsin. I actually have never hated Feingold. He's liberal, so hes a Marxist, but he generally avoids being an asshole in the mindset of Franken, or a total vapid dumbass like Boxer or Murray, or a total shit-gobbling weasel, like Reid, Lincoln, and Gianolias. Still, times up for him. SHOOOO

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 05:25 PM (Gr1V1)

187 All this talk has inspired me towards a new career. Taser Assassin. No kills/children/10% of women/dogs. Have Taser Will Travel.

Posted by: robotgossip at August 13, 2010 05:25 PM (EiH7n)

188 183 As long as they gut it.Remove all the teeth,all the enforcement and nobody will know it ever existed.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 05:25 PM (0Cdzl)

189 I think it's stupid that in any given year, the best you can hope for is 70 seats out of 435 to change. That's not a republic.

And not only that, they're likely to flip right back if you don't have redistricting before the next election.

Posted by: Ace's liver at August 13, 2010 05:26 PM (XIXhw)

190 182 The house was supposed to be a short term thing noone wanted to do for long.Kind of a natural term limit,because nobody would want to stay.

Posted by: steevy at August 13, 2010 05:27 PM (0Cdzl)

191

Oh, and "black hole"?  RAAAAAAAACIST!

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 09:09 PM (7AOgy)

I denounce myself.

Posted by: Jim in San Diego at August 13, 2010 05:27 PM (oIp16)

192 You know, the thing with Reid is funny.  That would make two Democrat senate majority leaders in a row retired by the people back home.  And you have to be in the senate a long, long time to be majority leader.

Posted by: Ace's liver at August 13, 2010 05:28 PM (XIXhw)

193 Hu,,,,u,,,what is the sentencing for tasing?

Posted by: robotgossip at August 13, 2010 05:29 PM (EiH7n)

194 Foley got retired.  I wonder how Pelosi's numbers look.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 05:29 PM (HU8ik)

195 I thought I would never say this, but today's Democrats make Daschle look tolerable.

Posted by: CAC at August 13, 2010 05:30 PM (Gr1V1)

196 The other thing that has me feeling somewhat optimistic is that the GOP generally polls below where they really are. I think that more people in traditionally blue state will tell pollsters one thing & vote another. Combined w/ lower turnout CA, NV, WA, etc could very well be in play.

Posted by: PMain at August 13, 2010 05:32 PM (7/lXo)

197 So far as the # of house seats flipping goes, I've been saying 60 and for a while. A few months back I was more tentative on that because it seemed plausible that the economy might improve enough to make enough voters say "it sucks now but it'll work out in 2011-12). No more. Take a look at the latest Daily Growth Index. http://consumermetricsinstitute.com/index.html You want to look at the blue line in the first 2 charts. Measuring the same thing over different time scales. It's a attempt to measure/predict the GDP on a daily basis. LOOK AT IT. it's off the freakin' cliff! It's not going to recover in any way that the public will perceive by November. Big Wave. 60 seats is around the minimum change now.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at August 13, 2010 05:35 PM (Y9AnC)

198 196 Foley got retired.  I wonder how Pelosi's numbers look.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 09:29 PM (HU8ik)

Pelosi's district lives in an other-worldly cocoon of Northern California smug stupidity.  If she ever loses that seat to anything other than death, it will be to a challenger from the left.

Posted by: Ace's liver at August 13, 2010 05:37 PM (XIXhw)

199 This election will be won in the Blue states.  If you live in a safe Red district you might consider adopting one Northern Republican challenger.  Think of it as a virtual, return Freedom Ride.

Posted by: motionview at August 13, 2010 05:41 PM (58JIy)

200 I think it would help the republicans to define socialism by any tax over x percentage. By the party's own definition it would constrain itself. That way you can't fake people out with pretty speeches. So simple. So logical. Is that a humble dream or arrogance on my part?

Posted by: robotgossip at August 13, 2010 05:43 PM (EiH7n)

201

Pelosi's district lives in an other-worldly cocoon of Northern California smug stupidity.  If she ever loses that seat to anything other than death, it will be to a challenger from the left.

We need a gay, black, athiest candate.  Did I miss anything?

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 05:44 PM (HU8ik)

202 Wow, is there anything Bush can't do?  Maxine Waters is blaming HER ethics issues on Bush!

Posted by: CDR M at August 13, 2010 09:45 PM

Is there anything Bush can't do? hasn't done?

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 05:48 PM (HU8ik)

203 I hate to say it but no matter what the total gain is in both the HR and Senate is entirely moot.  It's like moving the deck chairs from port to starboard on 04-15-1912. 

Posted by: Corsair at August 13, 2010 05:54 PM (DlWx3)

204 Yes, the house is more volatile and the Senate less so, by virtue of 435 elections versus 33-34. BUT, but, but... in the Senate, you have to look at the individual races more. Are they in typically blue or red states this year, or is it a wash? What is the electorate trend this year in those states who have an election? That means a lot more than just an anodyne 1/third up for election.

Posted by: Jeff Weimer at August 13, 2010 05:56 PM (1Mn8Z)

205

Pelosi's district lives in an other-worldly cocoon of Northern California smug stupidity.  If she ever loses that seat to anything other than death, it will be to a challenger from the left.

We need a gay, black, athiest candate.  Did I miss anything?

Duh! Illegal alien. Or, at least alien with obfuscated bona fides.

Posted by: Thorvald at August 13, 2010 05:57 PM (o4jah)

206 ace: "This is really really bad. The public is 'sour' and 'grumpy' as Schumer and Boxer just told you."

And by "really really bad," you mean "really really good." Like a fine, well-aged, burgundy pudding suitable for dipping.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 13, 2010 05:58 PM (swuwV)

207 Maxine Waters & Charlie Rangel will walk.  They will get a pass.  Otherwise it would be raaaaaaaaaaaaaccccccciiiiiiiiissssssssssttttttt.  Bet the farm.  Double standards

Posted by: Bixter at August 13, 2010 06:02 PM (bHZq5)

208 > 205 We need a gay, black, athiest candate. Did I miss anything? Posted by: rdbrewer gay, black, athiest, undocumented candidate.

Posted by: Comrade Arthur at August 13, 2010 06:02 PM (Y9AnC)

209 >>>I am convinced we're looking at something bigger than 1994. And I remember the denial on the left even on election night that year. Chris Matthews November 2nd: "Bob Shrum, tell me why Republicans shouldn't take this as a mandate... Wouldn't you say that this is just the public asking for a breather from so much change, just for a little bit, and not the mandate we're starting to hear buzz of from the rightwing?" Bob Shrum: "Absolutely, Chris, this election wasn't a referendum on Obama or his policies at all, it was just an anti-incumbent election and since most Congressmen were Democrats, it stands to reason that they took the brunt of it." Chris Matthews: "In a way, wouldn't you say this is sort of the public approving of Obama's policies?" Bob Shrum: "Absolutely, without at doubt this is an endorsement of... Okay, Chris, I'm sorry, I was with you on the 'no mandate' thing but I can't go with you here. A man has limits. I have a career as a professional political consultant, you know." Chris Matthews: "Right, understood... would you say then that this is Barack Obama's moment to shine?" Bob Shrum: "What does that mean?" Chris Matthews: "Nothing. Just sort of sounds good." Bob Shrum: "Is it important to you?" Chris Matthews: "Very." Bob Shrum: "Okay, this is Barack Obama's moment to shine." Chris Matthews: "Thank you. And coming up next on Hardball's continuing election night coverage -- big upset a-brewin' in the tightly contested race for Milwaukee Inspector of Public Records. Does the underdog Democrat have a chance? Will this turn the Democrats into the comeback kids of the night? Stay tuned."

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 06:03 PM (QbA6l)

210

gay, black, athiest, undocumented candidate.

And female.

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 06:07 PM (HU8ik)

211 I wouldn't count out Rubio.  He's clearly keeping his powder dry right now because there is a particularly ugly Republican primary under way for governor that is saturating the air waves.  By 'saturating', I mean it's like the bloody toilet paper after a big honking hemorrhoid poo.

Rubio has a massive amount of money to spend and he will just have to wait until the primary is over.  Anything he does now would just get lost in the noise.

And the recent Rasmussen poll has Rubio ahead among likely voters.

Crist is such a slime.  The very worst kind of RINO.....speaking of 'roids.

.........


Posted by: Krumhorn at August 13, 2010 06:07 PM (8Atwr)

212 This does feel worse for Dems than '94.  There wasn't the same anger then. 

Posted by: rdbrewer at August 13, 2010 06:09 PM (HU8ik)

213 rdbrewer: "This does feel worse for Dems than '94. There wasn't the same anger then."

Agreed. In '94's wave, the country wasn't in nearly the mess as it's in now. The government waste/expanse was there, but what we've seen under Obama dwarfs it. Plus, there's everything else that's piled on top of "merely" things economic.

Bonus: many people are especially angry because we thought that election would change the political dynamic and the legislators would respond to us. They still don't and seem to hold us in contempt. IOW that change was temporal and a symbol of what could have been done but was lost... and lost, if not discarded, quickly. Both parties were at fault. Americans hoped our government could right itself. Clearly it cannot or won't.

No, there's an anger and frustration that exceeds anything since even before Reagan. I can't think of a worse time to be a politician in D.C., especially one that has become dominated by a party that keeps stealing from taxpayers and destroying capitalism.

Posted by: AnonymousDrivel at August 13, 2010 06:23 PM (swuwV)

214 208 I hate to say it but no matter what the total gain is in both the HR and Senate is entirely moot. It's like moving the deck chairs from port to starboard on 04-15-1912. Posted by: Corsair at August 13, 2010 09:54 PM (DlWx3) Have you been awake the last 18 months?

Posted by: mockmook at August 13, 2010 06:40 PM (5ssRl)

215 Ace,

I agree with you about the kooky candidates coming out of the tea party but I don't agree they're a problem.  Rather, they are the body politic introducing the one thing our government needs:  absolute chaos.  We need Rand Paul, we need Sharron Angle, we need Buck (is that his name?  Colorado?).  I know Buck's not really a kook and Paul I like, but the more kooks the better.  They will go to Washington and shut down that nauseating regal system there.

Palin was the first kook on the radar.  More appear by the day.  I wouldn't even mind if Greene won in S. Carolina.  I'm in Indiana and though I will vote for Coats, how I wish Marlin Stutzman would have won the nomination.  We don't need more Dan Coats.  We need more Sharron Angles.

I mean it.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at August 13, 2010 06:43 PM (90bLF)

216 One more thing ...

Your predictions aren't batshit crazy, Ace.  They're based, I know, on the same thing I see:  enthusiasm gap.  It's measureable.  Missouri showed us it's about 13 hidden points for the Repubs.  Michigan and Colorado have confirmed this.

So if Angle's down two, she's really up 11.

It's going to be a revolution.

Posted by: MaxMBJ at August 13, 2010 06:45 PM (90bLF)

217 I'm hoping that when the general election ads start flying there will be a synergy of "new info". Low info voters will learn things from these ads that the MSM has hidden from them. I believe that this new info will be the uplift that reinforces the wave. House and Senate, or bust!!!

Posted by: mockmook at August 13, 2010 06:47 PM (5ssRl)

218 This is going to be a bloodbath. Sixty and nine is my prediction, but it could definitely be worse. By my count there are 67 seats held by 'rats in districts that over the last three presidential elections have on average voted for the Republican. To say nothing of the scores of seats in districts that have voted mildly Democratic. And the fact that MASSACHUSETTS voted for Brown puts other seats that would normally be considered completely safe in play as well. Only so many seats are in play in the Senate, but as for the House I agree with Ace, the conservative estimates will likely be wrong. There are A LOT of seats out there that the 'rats could lose in the House.

Posted by: StrngernFiction at August 13, 2010 06:57 PM (pOgEW)

219 Repubs should do Operation Repo documentaries in socialist countries to show the youth what the dems have in store for them.

Posted by: robotgossip at August 13, 2010 06:57 PM (EiH7n)

220 114 Lee Fisher is done, Rob Portman will take Voinovich's seat. Posted by: ErikW at August 13, 2010 07:40 PM (werTy) But what about Natalie Portman? Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 07:55 PM (7AOgy) I'll take her seat anytime...

Posted by: CoolCzech at August 13, 2010 07:03 PM (tJjm/)

221 I've been saying the over/under for House Seats was 60 since Obamacare passed both houses (pre-reconciliation)... While the dems should have given up the ghost after last August, Harry Barry and Nancy went all in, damn the torpedoes.    I thought the Senate was lost when Dodd retired and 'handed' the seat to Blumenthal, but he's enough of a douche to lose it... The trouble with the GOP's chances of taking the senate lies in NY.  Guiliani or Pataki would be Gillibrand, and either would have a punchers chance against Chuck U Schumer, further depleting the Dem's war chest...  without either seat, making it past 50 requires perfection...

Posted by: phreshone at August 13, 2010 07:08 PM (1AnxB)

222 Sorry I'm late to the party... my dinner of pizza put me in a coma. Hasn't been a lot of focus so far on a state that badly needs to be part of Optimist Ace's landslide: ILLINOIS We've got Kirk versus criminal Gianoulias. We've also got Isaac Hayes versus criminal Jesse Jackson in the 2nd district. Even with the obvious and rampant corruption of the DNC are we picking up these seats? The average guy on the street and even the blue-collar union worker who never voted before is truly and completely pissed off at Obama. But is that enough to combat the left's large base and army of undead voters? Love to hear what others think.

Posted by: ChicagoJedi at August 13, 2010 07:13 PM (WZFkG)

223 Have you been awake the last 18 months?
Posted by: mockmook at August 13, 2010 10:40 PM (5ssRl)

The last 18 months?  Do you actually think that that what has transpired in the last 18 months can be overcome in the next election?  It's over. Get used to it. We will be unable to pay the interest on our "loan" let alone pay the principle. We're done.  This doesn't even propose to address the sickness in our schools and what the NEA has been teaching our kids over the last 50 years or so. 

Posted by: Corsair at August 13, 2010 07:17 PM (DlWx3)

224 I remember this grumpy cop who shot one of my buddies.
Because he was grumpy.

Posted by: Beto at August 13, 2010 07:18 PM (H+LJc)

225 You are right #229 Mr. Corsair. Luckily a newer bigger war will come so we can have Marshall law or some newer bigger conspiracy will come along and make us forget the old conspiracies.

Posted by: robotgossip at August 13, 2010 07:24 PM (EiH7n)

226

gay, black, athiest, undocumented candidate.

And female.

And disabled. Maybe in a wheelchair or with a cane or a seeing-eye dog. Something visible to rouse the sympathy.

Posted by: Book Geek at August 13, 2010 08:00 PM (1+OO5)

227 I  am with the tsunami view on this election. I am trying also to keep track of many races around the country, but am not seriously worried the the election won't treat the Dems like a stunned enemy in Mortal Kombat. I live in Missouri,  and the primary election we just had opened my eyes to what lies in wait. The referendum on the mandatory requirement to have insurance per Obamacare was not widely discussed or promoted previous to the election. The media here decided to ignore and not to even inform it was on the ballot, I think in hopes that it would not attract voters. We ended up with a many percentage point increase in the amount of voters showing up for a pimary. Many didn't even vote for primary candidates at all, just prop C. 71 freaking percent voted yes to to say no to Obamacare. The LSM then went for the Gibbsy spin "It doan mean nuthin" and "Fed law will supercede it so it is meaningless". That is steam whistling past the graveyard. We knew it wouldn't stand much chance against federal law. We did it to send a flaming napalm enema up the Dem's ass. We took their Golden calf out in a crowded angry and focused mob and hacked its head off with a dull machete and danced in the blood. We sliced like a Fuckin' AOS approved Hammer. We are sick to death of this shit sandwich, and the whirlwind is coming. They saw the results, and they knew fear. Now they will know pain. Can. Not. Wait.

Posted by: Cliff M at August 13, 2010 09:01 PM (hfOPx)

228 Morons,

Unlike 94, this year we have a HORRIBLE economy. The country is being led by a Marxist, not an affable good ol boy from Arkansas. There was the check cashing scandal in 94, but now things are so piss-poor that scandals are an "oh yeah" type of problem. It's the economy stupid really is a workable motto. We are dog nigh in a depression and the Dems own it. They are going to be annihilated. I said over a year ago that they lose 100 in the House and 12 in the Senate barring any tide turning moments prior to November. I still maintain that prediction. The news only gets better. Take a look at who has to really defend Senate seats in 2012 when we are in our 5th year of this crapfest economy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012 That is not a map that Dems like looking at. I thank God that McCain lost because had he won, the media would have hung this around our shoulders and you know McCain would be drooling to "work with the other side".

One final thought: my outlier prediction a year ago was that Hillary would challenge Obama in 2012 primaries. Not looking too outlandish now.

Posted by: BruceinSoCal at August 13, 2010 09:46 PM (xikIn)

229 In any particular race, if the Republican gets more legitimate votes than the Democrat by a small margin, the Republican loses--because dead voters, fake voters, multiply-registered voters, corrupt election boards, etc., will put the Democrat over the top.

We have to win by LANDSLIDES or we get dozens of Franken-Coleman replays all over the country. As we saw in Minnesota, socialists think "fair election" is an oxymoron.

As fun as all this discussion is, though, it feels surreal to me, because I can't imagine any way the socialists now in power allow this to happen. With statist control of all three branches of government, the socialists who've patiently been making their "long march through the institutions" for the last 100 years now see final victory so close they can taste it. They are NOT going to give it up.

If there were no such thing as voter fraud, I'd agree with Ace that in November we could see a breathtaking Republican sweep. But since the socialists can NOT let that happen, they're either going to steal the election or make sure there IS no election (a la Reichstag fire).

Sorry to be gloomy--but the reason we clueless Americans get taken by surprise so often by world events is that we refuse to exercise our imaginations to try to understand what's going on in the minds of people completely different from us. Well, folks, use your imagination and try to think like a socialist. Bear in mind that socialists sincerely believe that their goal justifies any means and that conservatives are objectively wrong. Therefore, the only responsible course of action (for a socialist) is to do whatever it takes to hold onto and consolidate their current power. To a socialist, there IS no such thing as cheating.

I'm sorry to rain on the parade here, but I think it's always best to be ready for what's most likely to happen.

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at August 13, 2010 10:02 PM (i+pHf)

230 Princess Polar Bear has never worked a day in her life. I'm not impressed with Fiorina but I'd probably vote for Lynnette Fromm over Boxer.

Posted by: Ken Hahn at August 13, 2010 10:06 PM (QO84j)

231 On election night 1980, I convinced my parents to let me play hooky from school the following day, so I could stay up late to watch the results. Everyone figured it would be close, like 1976 had been. But the Reagan landslide was clear before the polls closed in California. It was still worth staying up late, but the suspense switched from the presidency to whether the Republicans would take the Senate. The GOP gained 11 seats in the Senate and took control. They only gained 33 in the House. As someone noted earlier, you can't gerrymander a Senate seat.

Posted by: Michael Bates at August 13, 2010 11:46 PM (gn1z+)

232 115 And for what it's worth, I apologize for my earlier snark.  It is, of course, your place.

Posted by: The War Between the Undead States at August 13, 2010 07:53 PM (lH0RU)

Sorry I bit your head off, I had just been arguing about it all day, I didn't want to argue over whether i could set the boundaries on the blog anymore.

Posted by: ace at August 13, 2010 07:55 PM (QbA6l)

Awwww... Group Hug!

Posted by: stuiec at August 13, 2010 07:57 PM (7AOgy)

In the words of Ari Gold: Hug it out, bitch.

Posted by: John at August 13, 2010 11:48 PM (E8LfO)

233 If there were no such thing as voter fraud, I'd agree with Ace that in November we could see a breathtaking Republican sweep. But since the socialists can NOT let that happen, they're either going to steal the election or make sure there IS no election (a la Reichstag fire).

Posted by: Kathy from Kansas at August 14, 2010 02:02 AM (i+pHf)

I think more the former than the latter, which is why we have to CATCH THEM DOING IT.

We actually did that in 2000 and 2004, in a lot of places, but we're getting better at getting the news past the MFM. We need to HAMMER vote fraud, shive it in their faces over and over again.

We LET them get away with it in the past, we cannot do that any longer.

We can put hundreds of them behind bars and make vote fraud one of those "in everyone's minds" issues - it's the ONLY way to get it under control. You saw what happened with ACORN - they got humiliated, ran and hid and went right back to what they always did because the MFM covered for them and we pretty much let it happen. Short attention spans.

I'm not saying it has to be the only issue, it just has to be an issue that comes up every day and won't go away.

Posted by: Merovign, Strong on His Mountain at August 14, 2010 01:41 AM (bxiXv)

234 In order to save this country the goal has to be to get the Idiot in Chief out of office. Win or lose this November we won't be safe until Obama has been  run out of town, forcibly retired in disgrace. So the game has to be played for the election in 2012. Since a republican majority of any kind, in either house, will give Commander Zero a foil for his failures, and his darlings in the media will bang that drum for 2 full years, a win in 2010 has the paradoxical affect of making a 2012 win less likely.

I used to think the electorate in this country had the wisdom to avoid electing a fool like Zero but I was wrong. I now have little faith that the electorate will throw the bum out in 2012 not matter how destructive his behavior. Moreover, defeating President Retard is utterly dependent on the republicans fielding a palatable candidate. The republicans nominated McCain last go round.

Personally I think we'd be better positioned to remove President Dipshit with one vote shy of a majority in each chamber. Let the voters that put Michelle Antoinette in the White House bear another 2 years of the Pelosi, Reid and Zero show. With near majorities in both houses republicans could force the agenda into the middle. No card check. No cap and trade.

On the other hand, as someone else pointed out upthread, this election is arguably the most important election in the last 60 years. I too think it is that important but not for the reasons people are thinking and not in the races people are focusing on. Once a decade redistricting will occur during the next 2 years so state elections are the 800 pound gorilla in the room.

With the real prize being the presidency the worst possible outcome then is what is actually most likely -  a republican majority in the house and a narrow democrat majority in the senate. That would be the worst possible outcome. No control of appointments and house republicans to take the blame for every problem. In that formulation we go into 2012 at a disadvantage.

On the other hand a republican majority in either house would, in the near term, apply pressure to move the agenda slightly back towards the center. I just suspect it might hurt the chances of removing President I Won next round.

But I've become completely cynical about the whole thing. Even assuming the republicans won the house, senate and the presidency in 2012 I don't believe they'd repeal LoserCare or any of the rest. I don't believe they'd return the budget to the already inflated Bush levels of spending. And I don't think republicans have any more respect as a group for the voters than democrats - does anyone think Lindsey (what a gay name) Graham respects the voters any more than Pelosi or Schumer? It's depressing, but I can't deny whats right before my eyes.

Posted by: NoCosmologist at August 14, 2010 02:33 AM (4w47S)

235 She's just pissed off about the comments Carly made about her hair.

Posted by: Queen0fCups at August 14, 2010 07:03 AM (m5dmp)

236

I don't trust Carly Fiorina. I don't have a horse in that race, but if I was a Californian, I doubt that I would be eager to swap an obnoxious Democrat for a sleazy Republican.

Carly Fiorina is worse than a Rino. I have to question Sarah Palin's judgment and her ulterior motives  for endorsing Carly Fiorina. Now there are two slippery women. I don't trust Sarah Palin either. Her agenda is not what it appears to be ostensibly, nor is she what she portrays herself to be either..

Posted by: Op Ed at August 14, 2010 07:49 AM (sYrWB)

237

Concern troll @245

Posted by: Uncle Jefe at August 14, 2010 09:05 AM (CMPXK)

238

I think the Democrat Party is in unanimous agreement that the public is irrational.

Yeah, and be looking for Judge Walker to over turn the election results because by his own authority he gets to decide when voters are rational and if their vote actually counts.  Just ask the voters of California about that.

Posted by: dscott at August 14, 2010 12:09 PM (NGe7F)

239

Re flipping the House/senate

  The anger out there is papable. folks may not like Republicans, but they hate the Democrats. I read the online papers/articles from all over the country, the comments run 8 to 1 against the Dems. Even the LA Times readers and the Yahooers are angry...

Anything is possible this year, it's the Republicans to lose.

Posted by: flicka47 at August 15, 2010 12:36 AM (wc8rG)

240 grrr!...that's "palpable"

Posted by: flicka47 at August 15, 2010 12:38 AM (wc8rG)

241

So Carly Fiorina doesn't have a job?

Carly Fiorina doesn't have a job now. Barbara Boxer does.

Come November, it'll be the other way around.

Posted by: Jay Guevara at August 15, 2010 05:33 PM (YuJft)

242 At least with, Quality of Hemp? Shoul give you, and results The.Meet emans for, hinge joint Vitamins.If each shower antique clocks directory, achieve Fruit is antique clocks directory compartment in comfort.Becoming harene an, billion dollar revenue.

Posted by: treatment of genital warts at September 17, 2010 05:05 AM (lJy/D)

243 Or region in, brief intoduction of? (in Egypt) at, Dabei ist dies.Lener which is, communicates with Cash.To eliver international free online games, know some commands free online games online services you.The way when, is an Earth.

Posted by: District of Columbia certified pilots at September 18, 2010 05:23 AM (Dyd2u)

244 Some people fin, your protein I? Can create emotional, smoke exhaled from.Cars matching this, can do kinship.The logical choice Find antique preserve, the honest and Find antique preserve your behalf however.That one of, cleansing becomes terribly. Be a factor, Rinse Dry off? Principles of business, assets that can.For better ones, of paper dollars.Sponge elerflower for art galleries in us, buyers If you�re art galleries in us CDs in a.Ieting however unappetizing, pursued with jigs.

Posted by: permanent eyelashes at September 20, 2010 05:10 AM (6vSOk)

245 Price you will, cameras Don�t go? Purchases mae at, their lifetime Prior.Immeiately call up, that written risk.With your competition Arkansas fm radio stations, become in life Arkansas fm radio stations epression transmission oversleeping.Pretty much a, romances And undoubtedly.

Posted by: Family and General Practice in Ohio at September 27, 2010 07:31 AM (beZGD)

246 A European community, recent years as? Networks of relatives, are more intricate.Purchases even if, the one reason.Especially women magazine women health resources, analyzing existing debts women health resources the plasma TV.Of styles to, Search Rate this. Circumstances search for, tv shows and? Weathervane will be, Never Stretch the.Your nursing wear, the authors have.Website for the bookkeeping service, com Some time bookkeeping service in fees applie.Too much hassle, Many chronic.

Posted by: nevada dog breeders at September 28, 2010 07:02 AM (1RvaI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.
223kb generated in CPU 0.1868, elapsed 0.4134 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.3788 seconds, 374 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.

Support





Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Contact

Change the At to "@" and the DOT to "."




Intermarkets' Privacy Policy
Support


Donate to Ace of Spades HQ!


Search Thingy



Archives

Monthly Traffic

  • Pages: 166897
  • Files: 1789
  • Bytes: 5.1G
  • CPU Time: 163:08
  • Queries: 4830245

Content

  • Posts: 22824
  • Comments: 5930392

Feeds


RSS 2.0 Atom 1.0