Gallup: Democratic Edge on Generic Ballot at Perilous 2%

Interesting analysis you may find pretty uplifting. Gallup tries to avoid saying that a 2% Democratic lead means that Republicans are actually ahead and will win, at least in so many words. But they kinda say that, with a lot of caveats and hedging.

Let's go to 1994: When the Republicans trounced the Democrats and swept the party out of power in both Houses of Congress.

In 1994, leading up to a Republican landslide, the generic ballot suggested it could be a very promising year for Republicans, as the party actually enjoyed a slight lead among registered voters in several polls. When the likely voter models were applied in the final months of the campaign, Republicans held solid leads among this group of voters.

On the other hand, when Democrats do well in the elections, their numbers on the generic ballot poll show double-digit leads:

Gallup doesn't offer a prediction at this time, except to say that the Democrats' edge in the House is so large that it is "unlikely" Republicans can take that chamber.

But the numbers at this point are close to being 1994-ish.

The generic ballot question does determine, within a range or so of 10 seats either way, how many seats each party will win. If Republicans actually manage to grab 50% of the national vote in 2010 -- which seems quite possible -- they are not nearly guaranteed of taking the House, but it's fairly likely.

Thanks to AHFF Geoff.

But There are 435 Independent Races! People say this to denigrate the importance of the generic ballot. They're wrong.

Yes, there are 435 independent races. Many seats are not up for grabs, ever. But among the competitive ones, they share something in common: the partisan split is somewhere in the range of... well, not quite even, but not so huge that either party can feel safe.

That means competitive districts tend to be purple. They tend to look a lot like Missouri or, lately, Virginia.

And just as in presidential elections, purple states tend to vote the same way. Not always. Some are more red and some are more blue, so those sorts of states may break from the general trend.

But there is a general trend: If the Democrat gets, say, 53% of the national vote, we can expect all bluish-purple states to go his way easily, and most of the purples, and even one of the reddish-purples too.

House races are the same way. There are different politicians in each and different local issues, but they are determined, to a fair extent, by national issues and national mood. People in the middle think more or less the same way on health care in Kentucky District 5 as in New York District 23.

So these races aren't truly "independent" in the sense that there is no common external force present in all of them, as if they were truly independent flips of a coin. They're not independent in that sense; they'e interrelated. When we say that "a team that gives up 4 turnovers is 95% likely to lose a game," each of those particular games is "independent" in the sense they're different games. But they're strongly related by the fact that in each game, one team gave up four or more turnovers. And that uniting factor allows us to speak intelligently about the likeliest outcome in each of those games. Guaranteed? No. But 90%.

The Democrats have thrown two or three interceptions and seem intent on throwing a couple more.

The generic ballot is fairly predictive. Given a party's getting a vote-share of 55%, for example, it's a pretty damn solid lock that that party will get somewhere between 283 seats and 304 seats, with 294 the most likely outcome.

So when Republicans are polling, essentially, at parity, that's an indicator that 218 seats is not very unlikely. The Democrats have advantages, like incumbency, but incumbency becomes a negative rather than a positive when your party is supporting unpopular measures like PelsoiCare.

Posted by: Ace at 02:47 PM



Comments

1 Half of the 52% is a total write off. Hammers and Sickles would make them happy. But the other half presents some hope. And Obama's full bore attack on everything America stands for is waking some of them up. I hope and pray.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 02, 2009 02:52 PM (QiSD7)

2 If this economy doesn't have people rattled about the Democratic partyby now,then we have reached some kind of critical mass of stupidity that we may never recover from.

Posted by: Eleven at November 02, 2009 02:53 PM (7DB+a)

3 He lives!

Can we assume that Gallup will always understate Republican strength, to a predictable amount?

Posted by: joncelli at November 02, 2009 02:53 PM (RD7QR)

4 Has anyone thought to poll George Soros? He's pretty much the only one that matters, after all. Just thelevel of election fraud he'll have to pay for, that's all.

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 02, 2009 02:54 PM (RkRxq)

5 If Newt Gingrich is serious about helping the Republican Party get back into power, he should offer some private tutorials to Eric Cantor and John Boehner to help them craft a program for 2010 analogous to the 1994 Contract with America. Voters in 2010 should see the GOP offering a positive program they can vote for, in addition to a clear enumeration of the reasons to vote against the Democrats.

Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 02:55 PM (7AOgy)

6 I don't like counting unhatched chickens.

Get out there and support good candidates in your primaries, and get out there and vote for them.

The same "Republicans are secretly lightly ahead" didn't work during the Presidential race. All the polls that gave Obama the slight edge turned out to be right.


Posted by: son of the south at November 02, 2009 02:58 PM (KNy97)

7
Posted by: joncelli at November 02, 2009 02:53 PM (RD7QR)
they claimed Obama would win in a landslide on election morning last year and that he'd beat McCain by as much as 11 points meaning he would have gotten 57-58% of the vote, they also said Obama would take the states he did plus MT, ND, GE, MO, Possibly SC SD.in reality of course Obama got 52% of the vote compared to McCain and didn't even get 30 in the state count

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 02:59 PM (xNw7B)

8 The only poll that really counts is the one they take the 1st Tuesday of November 2010. Of course, with the national situation headed in its present course, the favorable results for the Republicans seem likely to grow.

Posted by: exdem13 at November 02, 2009 02:59 PM (lYKj1)

9 If you love Newt so much why don't you marry him? You can go to Massachusetts where it's legal and where you both will feel at home.

Posted by: Purity Republican at November 02, 2009 03:00 PM (muUqs)

10 BTW, I think Rasmussen has the GOP up +4 over the Dems on the generic ballot.

Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 03:01 PM (7AOgy)

11 How many house seats did we take in 1994? Senate?

Posted by: lance at November 02, 2009 03:02 PM (BlbaS)

12 Gallup: Democratic Edge The Country's Chances of Survival on Generic Ballot at Perilous 2%
A more accurate headline........IMO.

Posted by: LGoPs at November 02, 2009 03:02 PM (QiSD7)

13 How about the Senate? How many D's are up for re-election (i.e. potential gains), and how many R's (i.e. potential losses)? What's the best we can hope for there? (Aside from knocking out Reid, I mean.)
Also, since Obama's not on the ballot, a lot of the voters who turned out for him (and then presumably also voted for the Democrats on the other tickets) won't turn out. That may be worth a few points, and sometimes, a few points is all you need.

Posted by: Some Guy at November 02, 2009 03:02 PM (lPxkl)

14 The same "Republicans are secretly lightly ahead" didn't work during
the Presidential race. All the polls that gave Obama the slight edge
turned out to be right.

the only polls you could be refering to are Pew Rasmussen which both got the election exactly correct, all the others had Obama up by double digits, also the generic ballot was horrible for reps at the time which is what matters come House+ Senate elections, i'm sorry your analysis and pessimism are misplaced

I agree let's not get excited (IE: Bill Clinton's comeback), but there's big elections coming up tomorrow it seems dems keep going farther and farther to the left even though they could learn a lesson from their 1993-1994 overreach

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:02 PM (xNw7B)

15 Snort....I read the title and immediately wondered, "Who is this 'Generic' and where the hell is 'Perilous'? I thought I knew most of the Nov 2009 races...."

I'll be glad when tomorrow is over.




Posted by: Intrepid at November 02, 2009 03:02 PM (92zkk)

16 5 - stuiec - I agree with you. They need to get after some of this crap that is pissing people off. Hell, they know healthcare needs to be fixed (note fixed - not taken over). They need to commit to fixing it. They know that Wall Street is bilking pretty much everyone. The need to fix that too. And they need to start pissing people off who are pissing the people off - namely the trial lawyers. They need to stop the effing earmarks, for crying out loud. They need to bring some statemanship back into the mix.
P.S. - a little - no need to go overboard - just a little effing truth. Is that too much to ask?

Posted by: Hussein the Plumber at November 02, 2009 03:02 PM (RkRxq)

17 Big urban population centers that vote and poll 90% for the democrats skew these figures.

Posted by: wws at November 02, 2009 03:03 PM (T1boi)

18 I fully expect the Republicans to take advantage of this and launch an all-out national campaign on something very important and close to the heart of every American...like a Flag-burning Amendment.

Posted by: Oedipus at November 02, 2009 03:04 PM (KIzJt)

19 Now all we need is to keep Michael Steele out of the MSM and we're golden.

Posted by: Mr. Pissed at November 02, 2009 03:06 PM (EL+OC)

20 So, if the general public is increasingly inclined to vote for anything not with a (D) after it's name, can we please, maybe, try some more Conservative candidates?

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:07 PM (IoxPW)

21 how about holding the poll amongst 'people who have jobs and pay taxes'?
then compare that with 'likely voters'

Posted by: chuck in st paul at November 02, 2009 03:07 PM (adr25)

22 Even if the Pubs just take one chamber, it will be enough to make the Blue Dogs perk up and take notice. Hell, even stopping the filibuster proof majority will be a decent victory.

I'm one of the weirdos that thinks a Gov't locked up with infighting is a GOOD thing for the nation. It keeps their attention away from me and my family.

Posted by: Big John Henry at November 02, 2009 03:07 PM (RukaG)

23 o/t somewhat interesting there is a show called numbers on tnt, and they are discussing "the weathermen" i'm a little surprised guess i'll wait and watch how it is dealt with.

Posted by: willow at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (GkYyh)

24 Republicans haven't really given anyone a reason to vote for them. And when they throw their support behind the likes of Scozzafava, who can blame voters for thinking, "Why bother?"

Posted by: Gregory of Yardale at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (PLvLS)

25 "If Republicans actually manage to grab 50% of the national vote in 2010
-- which seems quite possible -- they are not nearly guaranteed of
taking the House, but it's fairly likely."

As happy as it would make me to see the House change hands in 2010 I would still rather see a gain in seats just shy of a full majority. That way the Democrats still "own" the whole mess and Obama will have to defend the government's failures when he runs for re-election in 2012.

If the House changes hands it gives Obama an "out" to deflect the blame- which with the support of a compliant media he will surely be able to do (no, I don't think the media will turn on him- he's still their "Historic President" no matter how badly he screws up). He will be able to run against Congress in a fashion (somewhat) similar to that of Harry Truman in 1948. I would rather he not have that opportunity since I think it increases the chance that he (G*d forbid) gets re-elected.

Posted by: Spiro Agnew at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (OtQXp)

26 lance: I would also like to know how many seats the GOP gained in the House in 94.
And unfortunately, election day 2009 won't be over until almost election day 2010, the way that ACORN stretches out the recounts.

Posted by: Truman North at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (e8YaH)

27
Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 03:01 PM (7AOgy)
Rasmussen got the election last year 100% correct, Obama's also at 46% approval there the last couple days (he's at 53% on Gallup). one reason Rasmussen is always so correct is because they only poll likely voters while the rest poll w/e dofus picks up the phone and for some reason dems get advantages from those polls while Republicans do better in likely voters' polls
What's the best we can hope for there? (Aside from knocking out Reid, I mean.)

Dodd getting taken out (as much trouble as Reid), as a WWE fan it'd be cool to see Linda McMahon take him out but frankly since she's a moderate she won't be as much of an addition to the conservative cause as one might hope

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (xNw7B)

28 Newt's dead to me now.

Posted by: Cool Money Grip at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (KOkrW)

29 A Marxist President and Repubs still lose? Sad, really sad.

Posted by: wHodat at November 02, 2009 03:10 PM (+sBB4)

30 FU52.... thanks for getting us in this mess...!!!

Posted by: PISSEd at November 02, 2009 03:11 PM (+v+oy)

31 6 I don't like counting unhatched chickens. Get out there and support good candidates in your primaries, and get out there and vote for them.
Tomorrow, for instance, in both NY-23 and CA-10, people (in those districts) should get out and vote. Without the actual votes, all the other forms and measures of support are meaningless.
I just got an email from BarackObama.com ("Organizing for America") urging CA-10 voters to get out and vote for that parasite and carpetbagger John Garamendi. Anyone who, like me, lives in CA-10 needs to get to the polls tomorrow to vote for David Harmer and send Garamendi and Obama the message that the era of big government is over -- again.

Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 03:11 PM (7AOgy)

32
Rush was wrong today when he said tomorrow will be the first election for ACORN, SEIU, and the Black Panthers to rig elections under Obama.

The Democrats stole NY-20 earlier this year.

Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses at November 02, 2009 03:11 PM (UUkhk)

33 @11

How many house seats did we take in 1994? Senate?

It's probably more important to know what the total count was in each following the election. And what the polls were the last time Congress was evenly split (the Senate in the 2000 election, for example).

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:11 PM (IoxPW)

34 I can has schadenfreude?

Posted by: Leela at November 02, 2009 03:12 PM (sIktl)

35 Linda McMahon is running for Senate? Dude, I'm so totally moving. She's the good McMahon.

Posted by: Truman North at November 02, 2009 03:12 PM (e8YaH)

36
Newt should stay home and keep eating da twinkies. Soft fluffy cakes full of airy goo, just like Newtie.

Posted by: Adolf Lohan at November 02, 2009 03:12 PM (Oxen1)

37 filibuster proof majority

Never heard if that. What can I do with one, again?

Posted by: Senate Democratic Caucus at November 02, 2009 03:12 PM (wOGfT)

38 D*mn sock puppet...

Posted by: Nighthawk at November 02, 2009 03:14 PM (OtQXp)

39 http://www.bullionbullscanada.com/images/stories/armgraph.jpg

This is a scary chart. If its for real, it means the next major phase of the housing market collapse starts right about now and lasts through the 2010 election.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at November 02, 2009 03:14 PM (CQdIU)

40 Now all we need is to keep Michael Steele out of the MSM and we're golden.

wanna know what should scare dems? Steele has approvals in the 30s among reps, he's inept in the eyes of many as a chairman...yet he still has been able to out raise the DNC since Obama has been President

He will be able to run against Congress in a fashion (somewhat) similar
to that of Harry Truman in 1948.

Greatest Campaign Ever IMHO, ran perfectly and had a man in approvals as low as 39% come back to get re-elected

I would rather he not have that
opportunity since I think it increases the chance that he (G*d forbid)
gets re-elected.

I doubt he will, I know everyone is cautiously pessimistic about it and the RNC sucks and blah-blah but History says the likelyhood of 3 straight 2 termers is below 10%

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:14 PM (xNw7B)

41 You guys are celebrating way too early. Just over 24 hours to go. No win for a Conservative yet. Donate immediately or try to volunteer. This race is critical - notice that the MSM is already spinning that these races WON'T be a referendum on Obama?
I wonder what's making them say that?

Posted by: Def Leppard at November 02, 2009 03:15 PM (hIOnV)

42
She's the good McMahon.

Yeah, this week.

Next week they change the storyline and make her the bad McMahon.

Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses at November 02, 2009 03:15 PM (UUkhk)

43 How is this going to help my kids?

Posted by: Michelle Obama at November 02, 2009 03:16 PM (jvrmc)

44 FU52.... thanks for getting us in this mess...!!!

how you think we feel?

Posted by: 50.1% That Voted For Carter In 76 at November 02, 2009 03:17 PM (xNw7B)

45 I thought the last time we had this poll the Republicans were up. What am I missing here?

Posted by: South Carolina at November 02, 2009 03:18 PM (CDUiN)

46 As happy as it would make me to see the House change hands in 2010 I
would still rather see a gain in seats just shy of a full majority.
That way the Democrats still "own" the whole mess and Obama will have
to defend the government's failures when he runs for re-election in
2012.

I'd rather see serious Conservatices take the House and during the resulting gridlock, spend the next two years complaining about Obama's obstructionism to their agenda (by forcing him to veto stuff). Probably need to take the Senate (or put a scare into Dems up in 2012) for that to work, though.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:18 PM (IoxPW)

47
Posted by: 50.1% That Voted For Carter In 76 at November 02, 2009 03:17 PM (xNw7B)
Scratch that, don't forget us that actually voted to re-elect him!

Posted by: 41% That Voted For Carter In 80 at November 02, 2009 03:18 PM (xNw7B)

48 Great post, Ace... I think. Stuff just kinda started bouncing off toward the end.
I think I'm wonked out.

Posted by: Bat Chain Puller at November 02, 2009 03:19 PM (SCcgT)

49 16
5 - stuiec - I agree with you. They need to get after some of this crap that is pissing people off. Hell, they know healthcare needs to be fixed (note fixed - not taken over). They need to commit to fixing it. They know that Wall Street is bilking pretty much everyone. The need to fix that too. And they need to start pissing people off who are pissing the people off - namely the trial lawyers. They need to stop the effing earmarks, for crying out loud. They need to bring some statemanship back into the mix.
I can see why Palin promoted Boehner's weekly address as a game-changer on health care reform, and I can also see why people like Allahpundit wondered why she thought it was a game-changer. Boehner put forth a clear, concise four-point program for Republican reform of health care, a real game-changer if it gets out and gets noticed. But he muddled the message by spending more time on criticizing the Pelosi Plan -- without going back at the end of his message to re-iterate his four points and how they would accomplish through market reforms what the Pelosi Plan will fail to do through government takeover.
That's health care. There's taxation, energy, jobs, small business policy, regulation, and a whole host of other issues that need to be in the GOP program and packaged for voter consumption. Boehner and Cantor need to be the point men on the messaging on the House side. Who in the GOP caucus in the Senate has the stature and the skill to make the case from that side? (Not Mitch McConnell, I think.)

Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 03:19 PM (7AOgy)

50 Next week they change the storyline and make her the bad McMahon.

and kick JR in the nuts while Vince fires him...

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:20 PM (xNw7B)

51

"... they also said Obama would take the states he did plus MT, ND, GE ..."

Well, the polls were right about GE: it's in Obama's hip pocket. Along with GM, Chrysler, Citibank, and Goldman-Sachs.

Posted by: Brown Line at November 02, 2009 03:21 PM (VrNoa)

52 I can also see why people like Allahpundit wondered why she thought it was a game-changer.

dude, I always wonder what's with Palin, man she is so not the right candidate, what an obligatory person to have as the GOP's nominee. what nuance huh? dude and what about how these God people don't like us atheists, like that guy Glenn Beck. no love for beta males? call me Meggy Mac!

Posted by: AllahPundit at November 02, 2009 03:24 PM (xNw7B)

53 29 A Marxist President and Repubs still lose? Sad, really sad.
The corollary is, how moderate does a GOP candidate have to be if people in "moderate" districts were willing to vote for Oba-Mao? Doesn't that show that a person of immoderate conviction, if presented properly, can win in a moderate district?
(And by "presented properly," I don't mean "cloaked in lies that hide his true positions" as Obama was, but "shown to have uncompromising principles that nevertheless appeal to moderate voters, such as fiscal responsibility, patriotism and other mainstream American values.")

Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 03:25 PM (7AOgy)

54 Well, the polls were right about GE: it's in Obama's hip pocket. Along with GM, Chrysler, Citibank, and Goldman-Sachs.

fucking typo *slaps self*

I meant GA

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:25 PM (xNw7B)

55 43 How is this going to help my kids?
Posted by: Michelle Obama
Perhaps we could work out a deal...?

Posted by: Roman Polanski at November 02, 2009 03:26 PM (e8YaH)

56 Don't forget about me!! Obama gonna pay my mortgage and gas bill1!!!!!11!!!!!

Posted by: Zombie Obama voter signing up for some of his "stash" at November 02, 2009 03:26 PM (SqAkN)

57
Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 03:25 PM (7AOgy)
their were districts that Obama won by literally just 3-6 votes, there's still hope. their were even districts that McCain did much better in then Dubya in 2004

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:27 PM (xNw7B)

58 Unless the GOP keeps its collective head up its ass like they did in NY-23 I think we will take back the House in a huge blowout. Not so the Senate because there just are not enough seats up for grab in 2010. They will lose their 60 seat filibuster proof majority though.

It will be back to the RINOs and the ME sisters then, but I also predict they will not have RINO McLame to help them.

Posted by: South Carolina at November 02, 2009 03:27 PM (CDUiN)

59 Sock Off

Posted by: Vic at November 02, 2009 03:27 PM (CDUiN)

60 their

there

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:27 PM (xNw7B)

61 I thought the last time we had this poll the Republicans were up. What am I missing here?

I think those were different polls. Rasmussen usually has better numbers for Republicans (and more accurate compared to election results), while Gallup better approximates the people you'd randomly meet in a bar. The last of these polls I remember was from Harris that's done once a month and was generally considered an outlier.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:28 PM (IoxPW)

62 Since we're having a conversation that is kinda silly until next summer, I'll bite, and go ahead and predict if Obama is consistently below 45% in likely voters' approval, the R's will take the house, merely because of passion, motivation and turn-out of the pissed off people in this country. If not, then the nation has either not learned its lessons or has truly turned away from founding principles.

Posted by: beggar thy neighbor at November 02, 2009 03:28 PM (DIYmd)

63 and go ahead and predict if Obama is consistently below 45%

he's at 46% today w/ Likely Voters

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:29 PM (xNw7B)

64 stop fucking doing that. How many times do I have to say "Don't sockpuppet real people who actually post here or conceivably could post here?"

Everytime you do that people start giving him grief about "that comment he left at Ace's."

Posted by: ace at November 02, 2009 03:30 PM (ub1pq)

65
I want to see Linda McMahon go on Letterman and body-slam Andy Kaufman's corpse.


Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses at November 02, 2009 03:30 PM (UUkhk)

66
Posted by: ace at November 02, 2009 03:30 PM (ub1pq)
I left a link that obv. shows i'm not Allah last i checked Allah posts as "Allah" not "AllahPundit"

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:31 PM (xNw7B)

67 Ace, One Word,
Gerrymandering.
The legislatures draw the districts. Blue States usually have Democrat legislatures, which draw the districts to protect their own.
In the South we have the Voting Rights Act. Which REQUIRES the state to carve outminority districts. This sometimes helps Republicans by lumping all the Black votes in one or two districts. See Mel Watt's district, it runs from CLT up I-85 for 100 miles. Computer programs now let the legislators predict nearly the exact vote count in each precinct. They now split precincts to make sure their guys win. I am in a House precinct that is split in two, so that the white vote is not included in the total of the other district.
Now that we have the Obama DOJ, expect even more blatant gerrymandering. You will have nowhere to go to challenge.

Posted by: Kemp at November 02, 2009 03:31 PM (2+9Yx)

68 6 I don't like counting unhatched chickens.
FYI, the scientific name is"eggs".
Sometimes there's a double yolk; two chickens.


Posted by: eggs ackley at November 02, 2009 03:32 PM (2jywx)

69
btw, How is Toomey doing in PA?


Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses at November 02, 2009 03:32 PM (Uf4aV)

70 The NY-23 race was an eye-opener for a lot of people. How, they wonder, did a raging leftist manage to get picked by the GOP? And when SarahCuda led the charge, many others jumped on the bandwagon.
Real, genuwine conservatism will tend to win every time it's offered. Our problem has been with a national Republican machine more closely aligned with Thurston Howell III than with average Americans just trying to get by. The Scozzafava Debacle slapped a few in the Party back to semi-consciousness.
If Michael Steele ever decides to, he could start making campaign ads touting issues like low taxes, energy independence and improving the economy. These are the truly big-tent items that affect everybody everywhere.
It's the issues, stupid!

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 02, 2009 03:33 PM (ZGhSv)

71 Sockpuppet amature.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 02, 2009 03:33 PM (SqAkN)

72
Posted by: AllahPundit at November 02, 2009 03:24 PM (xNw7B)
since ace is getting all worried about it that was me sockpuppeting, though the link the obv. deprecating humor should had been sufficient enough next time i'll mention it's really me

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:33 PM (xNw7B)

73
Sockpuppet amature.

Learn how to spell, dummy!

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 02, 2009 03:35 PM (Uf4aV)

74 ace, it wasn't me, but I'm curious what the etiquette for that ought to be. For example, there's a guy who comments as "ace's liver" but mostly when trying to plumb the depths of your soul, so I assume it's a situational sockpuppet.

You and Gabe have both been pretty clear on posting under a non-troll's name, and especially any of the posters, being a bannable offense. I'm just wondering how much distinction is necessary when just poking fun. For example "Ace" was obviously not you a couple of weeks ago.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:36 PM (IoxPW)

75 Very good Ace, really. I would say the numbers look the same in 2009 as they did in 1994 but Newt and the boys swept with less than the Republicans have today. Then it was health care and taxes. Now it's health care, taxes, the war on terror foreign policy in general, cap trade AND taxes.

Back then you ended up with a tropical storm. Next year, if Obama and Congress keep this up, we could be looking at a hurricane. If the Republicans have the brains, and the guts, to stick their necks out and ride it that is. Right now they just seem to be content with the idea that less of them will get blown away in the storm.

Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 03:37 PM (Q1lie)

76
Wow, was that really Allahpundit from Hot Air at #52?



Posted by: Mr. Late To The Party at November 02, 2009 03:37 PM (UUkhk)

77
Posted by: Mr. Late To The Party at November 02, 2009 03:37 PM (UUkhk)
you got to be kidding me...that better be a joke, no way anyone would actually think that's him

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:39 PM (xNw7B)

78 SqAkN ain't me. He doesn't have the moral authority.

Posted by: Dummy (the only non-courtesan at AoSHQ) at November 02, 2009 03:40 PM (IoxPW)

79 I can't spell worth crap sue me.

Posted by: Mr. Pink at November 02, 2009 03:40 PM (SqAkN)

80
Posted by: Dummy (the only non-courtesan at AoSHQ) at November 02, 2009 03:40 PM (IoxPW)
PUT ME BACK ON!

Posted by: Palin Steele (Banned Racist) at November 02, 2009 03:41 PM (xNw7B)

81 63
and go ahead and predict if Obama is consistently below 45%

he's at 46% today w/ Likely Voters
I know, that's one reason why Hoffman and McDonnell will win, and Christy will be close enough in NJ to lose after the recount and being within the margin of fraud.

But that's why I hedged that its way too early to handicap 2010, all kinds of things can happen by then. (most likely the RNC having their collective heads in a certain portion of their anatomy where rays of light from our local star shall not reach.)

Posted by: beggar thy neighbor at November 02, 2009 03:41 PM (DIYmd)

82 Can we assume that Gallup will always understate Republican strength

The Republican Poll Tax

Posted by: toby928: time traveler at November 02, 2009 03:41 PM (PD1tk)

83 Dodd getting taken out (as much trouble as Reid), as
a WWE fan it'd be cool to see Linda McMahon take him out but frankly
since she's a moderate she won't be as much of an addition to the
conservative cause as one might hope

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:09 PM (xNw7B)

Moderate my ass. She's got Snowe/Collins written all over her ass and the WWE association hurts her as far as I'm concerned.
Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting my vote.

Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 03:42 PM (Q1lie)

84 These are the truly big-tent items that affect everybody everywhere. It's the issues, stupid!

Posted by: BackwardsBoy

Furthermore, initiatives that shrink government end up affecting other issues that even the right-most con's want. Pro-life? Stopping any healthcare plan that provides federal funding for abortions is something we can all vociferously agree upon.

Hate illegal immigration? Rolling back the federal entitlement schemes would help slow it down. Again, 98% of conservatives would agree with this.

Shrinking government affects enough issues that it could unite all sub-groups in the GOP's wing.

Posted by: Iskandar at November 02, 2009 03:42 PM (u1pln)

85 InTrade New Jersey Governeor's Race Contract:

Christie 55
Corzine 45

Yes, we can!

Phone bank, peeps...this is the final push.

Posted by: JB at November 02, 2009 03:42 PM (1OoPr)

86 Now that we have the Obama DOJ, expect even more blatant gerrymandering. You will have nowhere to go to challenge.
The proper term for drawing up racist districts is "benign Gerrymandering"
I shit you not

Posted by: Truman North at November 02, 2009 03:44 PM (e8YaH)

87 Shrinking government affects enough issues that it could unite all sub-groups in the GOP's wing.

Posted by: Iskandar at November 02, 2009 03:42 PM (u1pln)

And what makes you think "moderate" Repunblicans are insterested in shrinking government? Shrinking the growth maybe, not in their state anyway.

Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 03:44 PM (Q1lie)

88
Instead of Allahpundit, maybe we should Allahpudenda.


Posted by: Tweet beats dead horses at November 02, 2009 03:44 PM (Uf4aV)

89 My analysis of the CA-10 race jives with the idea that Dem's are serioulsy out of favor.
The Dems have held this seat since 1994. Obama carried the seat last Nov by +30. The Congresswoman (who has vacated to serve in the Obama admin) won the 2008 election by +34.
The Democrats are running the current Lieutenant Governor who was firstelected to a statewide office over 20 years ago. This is a pretty high power candidate for a little congressional seat, to be running against a political unknown.
Based on my TV viewing, Ithink the Dems are by far outspending the Republican candidate.
The polls last week had the Republican only down 7 points going into the election.
What does all this mean? Itmeans that the Democrats have to fight tooth andnail to keep a seat that should easliy be thiers. If the Republicans can compete in the CA-10, it is very much a 1994 scenario.

Posted by: California Red at November 02, 2009 03:44 PM (7uWb8)

90 Did someone say something about me?

Posted by: Michael Jackson at November 02, 2009 03:45 PM (+sBB4)

91 "Shrinking government affects enough issues that it could unite all sub-groups in the GOP's wing."

And all this can be done under the reasonable, "moderate" meme of "fiscal responsibility." Beat these fuckers with their own tactics.

Posted by: JB at November 02, 2009 03:46 PM (1OoPr)

92 Shrinking government affects enough issues that it could unite all sub-groups in the GOP's wing.

As long as that's the point of the effort. There were a few lunatics on here yesterday that thought it would be a good idea to throw social conservatives out of the party.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:46 PM (IoxPW)

93 This is moretelling than the generic polling data.
http://tinyurl.com/y9mgmdh

Posted by: flenser at November 02, 2009 03:46 PM (jSBte)

94 I'm all excited about this.

Posted by: Allah Pundit's anal warts at November 02, 2009 03:46 PM (+sBB4)

95 I also don't think the numbers and contests involved can support the Republicans taking back a Congressional majority in 2010.

So the first and biggest order of business is to break the filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

That wouldn't be so necessary if the Dems weren't being led from the extreme left, but they are. . .and it is.

Posted by: looking closely at November 02, 2009 03:47 PM (KNy97)

96 Stop beating me.

Posted by: Dead Horse at November 02, 2009 03:47 PM (+sBB4)

97 ok the swing in 1994 was a 54 seat swing for the Republicans. Damn that was huge. wow. I dont see that happening again. but who knows?

Posted by: lance at November 02, 2009 03:48 PM (BlbaS)

98 And what makes you think
"moderate" Repunblicans are insterested in shrinking government?
Shrinking the growth maybe, not in their state anyway. Posted by: RocksAs JB points out above, the traditional moderate in the GOP has been the fiscal con / social lib. It's only after Bush that we have an abundance of fiscal lib / social libs.

Posted by: Iskandar at November 02, 2009 03:48 PM (u1pln)

99 Moderate my ass. She's got Snowe/Collins written all over her ass

Snowe/Collins voted for the stimulus...Linda McMahon opposed it oposses HealthCare, again...moderate

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:48 PM (xNw7B)

100 I hope the Republicans win by 1 rep in the house and someone flips to the Dems. If that happens voters will be so pissed, Obama and the Dems will be routed in 2012.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 02, 2009 03:48 PM (HAdov)

101 There were a few lunatics on here yesterday that thought it would be a good idea to throw social conservatives out of the party.


Posted by: Methos

Name them.

Posted by: Iskandar at November 02, 2009 03:48 PM (u1pln)

102 oposses HealthCare ObamaCare

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:50 PM (xNw7B)

103 stop fucking doing that. How many times do I have to say "Don't sockpuppet real people who actually post here or conceivably could post here?"

Sorry Ace; that was left over from the California v Texas thread and I wasn’t aware that we had someone posting under the name “South Carolina”.

Posted by: Vic at November 02, 2009 03:51 PM (CDUiN)

104 Hate illegal immigration? Rolling back the federal entitlement schemes would help slow it down. Again, 98% of conservatives would agree with this.

You'd think so, although there seems to be a sizable chunk of the GOP that is hooked on illegal aliens like a junkie on smack, especiallyamong the party elite.

Posted by: flenser at November 02, 2009 03:51 PM (jSBte)

105 Not a snowball's chance in hell of getting my vote.


Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 03:42 PM (Q1lie)
Rocks, what's your take on the rest of the field? Simmons? Schiff? Foley?

Posted by: Tami at November 02, 2009 03:52 PM (VuLos)

106 13
How about the Senate? How many D's are up for re-election (i.e.
potential gains), and how many R's (i.e. potential losses)? What's the
best we can hope for there?

Best we can hope for? A pickup of 10 seats or so, which isn't quite enough to take it back. In reality? Probably only a modest gain (2-3 or so). Here's the races to watch for, roughly in order from most likely to least likely to pick up:

Nevada (Reid)
Connecticut (Dodd)
Delaware (Open)
Pennsylvania (Specter)
Arkansas (Lincoln)
Colorado (Bennett)
Illinois (Open, most likely)
New York (Gillibrand)
North Dakota (Dorgan)
West Virginia (technically not up for grabs, but, not to be macabre or anything, Byrd isn't getting any younger)

Sure, you could try to put CA or HI or WI in there somewhere, but let's be reasonable. And while that list may look like a lot, there's an awful lot of open seats being defended by Republicans (OH, MO, FL, NH) or a bunch of weak incumbents (KY, NC, LA). So in reality, Republicans could actually lose seats in the Senate (unlikely, but possible).

Posted by: Mariner at November 02, 2009 03:52 PM (v5kGt)

107 Rocks, what's your take on the rest of the field?

he seems like a tough customer to call McMahon not a moderate

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:54 PM (xNw7B)

108 93
This is moretelling than the generic polling data.
http://tinyurl.com/y9mgmdh

That chart has 59 with 3 or more "bad" factors. So going by that a R landslide is possible.

Posted by: beggar thy neighbor at November 02, 2009 03:54 PM (DIYmd)

109 Being close isn't enough, Ace. Democrats cheat. They always have and always will. A republican has to be ahead by a significant amount to counter the effect of Democratic voting fraud, voter intimidation and other corruption. Between ACORN, the Black Panthers, fladulent votes and Obama running the printing presses to give out money to voters (it is really not an accident, Ace, that a LOT of the stimulus money is coming out just in time for the 2010 and 2012 elections), don't be surprised if the Dems keep comfortable majorities in both houses of congress, no matter what the economy looks like at the time.
In NJ at least, the fix is already in, what with vote counters already told not to worry about ballots with false names on them. Mark my words, no matter what the polls say, the candidate favored by the Dems will win.

Posted by: BattleofthePyramids at November 02, 2009 03:54 PM (0/dug)

110 Name them.

laceyunderalls made the intitial comment, Peaches voiced support for the notion, and there was one other guy that at a later point in the thread made some joke about running for President and being the first to say "fuck off" in a debate. I think there were one or two others.

Michael in MI did a good job of telling them off, I recall oLD gUY and some others backing him, before the discussion devolved into a mocking flame war.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 03:55 PM (IoxPW)

111 As JB points out above, the traditional moderate in the GOP has been the fiscal con / social lib.
I don't think that's true. The traditional "moderates" in the GOP have been the country-club/ Rockeller Republican types, and they are both fiscally and socially liberal. Think Jeffords, Chaffee, Collins, Specter etc in recent years.

Posted by: flenser at November 02, 2009 03:55 PM (jSBte)

112 Ronaldus Magnus's meme was to starve the bloated beast. But you know all we'd hear from the MSM is the wailing about cuts in programs and all the cops, teachers and firemen that would be laid off. Still, I think there are enough folks who are awake now that the bleating wouldn't matter. The Dims are breaking the bank and America knows it.

Posted by: BackwardsBoy at November 02, 2009 03:56 PM (ZGhSv)

113 my opinions:

Nevada (Reid) - we take it
Connecticut (Dodd) - we might just take it
Delaware (Open) - tossup
Pennsylvania (Specter) - we take it
Arkansas (Lincoln) - tossup
Colorado (Bennett)- tossup
Illinois (Open, most likely) - we lose it
New York (Gillibrand) - we lose it
North Dakota (Dorgan) - tossup
West Virginia (technically not up for grabs, but, not to be macabre or anything, Byrd isn't getting any younger) - no comment

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:56 PM (xNw7B)

114 Snowe/Collins voted for the stimulus...Linda McMahon opposed it oposses HealthCare, again...moderate

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:48 PM (xNw7B)

NOW she does. What did she think all those Dems were going to vote for when she was donating to their campaigns? Free tickets to WWE for people on welfare paid for by the state? And she won't be remotely moderate on pro-life or social issues. Guaranteed. She'll make Chris Shays look like a piker and he was pretty damn liberal.

Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 03:57 PM (Q1lie)

115 Hm. I was predicting 35 seats for the GOP-- exactly enough to balance the House. Based upon your link, flenser, it's not out of the question. 50 would be a stretch, but 35 is doable.

Posted by: Truman North at November 02, 2009 03:57 PM (e8YaH)

116 before the discussion devolved into a mocking flame war.

A HotAir Moment?

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 03:58 PM (xNw7B)

117 I'm in Michigan, so everybody's depressed - but, for what it's worth - I see a near totalcollapse in Democratic engagement and energy.
They all put SO much energy into hating Bush, that they don't know what to do anymore. Co-workers who used to bash the GOP now remain silent, even when somebody tears into the incompetence of Obama and Granholm.
My Obama-supporting friends no longer even bring him up: they don't know what to say or how to defend him.
It's laughable - these guys thought Obama would bring a magical new world full of unicorns and wonder, and now they're completely disspirited after ten months.

Posted by: stickety at November 02, 2009 03:59 PM (Jg5C9)

118 Wait a minute. You guys are talking about real politics and stuff?

Wow. Please ignore all my previous comments. I thought this was a site about bacon and boobs.

Posted by: wHodat at November 02, 2009 03:59 PM (+sBB4)

119 stop fucking doing that. How many times do I have to say "Don't sockpuppet real people who actually post here or conceivably could post here?"
Shit, there goes half my arsenal.
I got......nothing.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 02, 2009 04:00 PM (V9SYy)

120 NOW she does.

not fair, she wasn't a legislator at the time we can't know how true/false that is

What did she think all those Dems were going to vote for
when she was donating to their campaigns? Free tickets to WWE for
people on welfare paid for by the state?

i'd love WWE tickets lol

seriously though, she was head of a voting campaigning for both sides that WWE does every 2-4 years, she was probably showing an example, she also didn't vote the last election because she thought McCain was not a good GOP nominee for us

And she won't be remotely
moderate on pro-life or social issues. Guaranteed. She'll make Chris
Shays look like a piker and he was pretty damn liberal.

social issues? duh! she's a moderate

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:01 PM (xNw7B)

121 "Hate illegal immigration? Rolling back the federal entitlement
schemes would help slow it down. Again, 98% of conservatives would
agree with this."

My parents who raised me to be a good Conservative (and registered Republicans) said they were conflicted about Reid since he brings so much money to the state. Since they now collect social security and medicare benefits, I wouldn't bet on getting 98% agreement. Everyone agrees in principal until you start naming benefits. Its like the Dems and healthcare. Everyone wants changes until you start actually talking about what will change.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 02, 2009 04:02 PM (HAdov)

122 68
6 I don't like counting unhatched chickens.
FYI, the scientific name is "eggs".
Sometimes there's a double yolk; two chickens.
Actually, an unhatched chicken in this context is not the same thing as an egg.
The egg is literally the physical precursor to the chicken, but the unhatched chickens the farm girl counts in the fable are theoretical future chickens, akin to Schroedinger's cat. The concept is, "don't rely on the actual value of things you only plan to receive, when the outcome of your plan is not under your total control."
Of course, nowadays one can buy and sell unhatched chickens on the commodity futures exchange, as in "60 tons of 30-day-old pullets for March 2010 delivery."

Posted by: stuiec at November 02, 2009 04:02 PM (7AOgy)

123 There goes my "Barack Obama" sockpuppet.

Posted by: flenser at November 02, 2009 04:03 PM (jSBte)

124 My Obama-supporting friends no longer even bring him up: they don't know what to say or how to defend him.

It's laughable - these guys thought Obama would bring a magical new
world full of unicorns and wonder, and now they're completely
disspirited after ten months.

shit, my gf who voted for Obama based on Bush hatred has turned on Obama and opening her eyes more calling him a joke, Obama might be a help for our side

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:03 PM (xNw7B)

125 "My Obama-supporting friends no longer even bring him up: they don't know what to say or how to defend him. "

Fortune article on Pantone colors:
"2009's color was mimosa yellow, a hue that carries pshychological overtones of change"

"As for next year's color, people are wanting someplace to go, someplace to retreat to... to create a feeling of escape"

haha That's why they want to legalize pot. Escape from the Age of Obama.

Posted by: wHodat at November 02, 2009 04:04 PM (+sBB4)

126 Stop beating me.

Posted by: Dead Horse at November 02, 2009 03:47 PM (+sBB4)

You've got it easy, pal.

Posted by: That Chicken at November 02, 2009 04:04 PM (eR37w)

127 You people thought I wouldn't show up.

Posted by: George Soros at November 02, 2009 04:05 PM (+sBB4)

128 Assuming the poll is accurate, a lot of the final result depends upon how things are gerrymandered.

Posted by: drfredc at November 02, 2009 04:06 PM (ljMiA)

129 #124 Republicans better keep religion in the party, because they better get on their hands and knees and start thanking God for giving them the Democratic Party. Think about this, the Dems are so bad that we all actually think that the Republican Party is the best choice to run our country. That is a sad fact when you sit down and think about it.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 02, 2009 04:06 PM (HAdov)

130 Nevada (Reid) likely puConnecticut (Dodd) likely puDelaware (Open) nopePennsylvania (Specter) likely puArkansas (Lincoln) maybeColorado (Bennett) nope Illinois (Open, most likely) nopeNew York (Gillibrand) nopeNorth Dakota (Dorgan) likely puWest Virginia (technically not up for grabs, but, not to be macabre or anything, Byrd isn't getting any younger)
is the gov an R?


I say four

Posted by: Vic at November 02, 2009 04:07 PM (CDUiN)

131
Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 02, 2009 04:06 PM (HAdov)
religion isn't the winning issue in an economic election like that which will be 2010, that was 2000-2004

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:08 PM (xNw7B)

132 Mariners Senate break down was nearly spot on. Clearly, Harry Reid is now the most vulnerable incumbent, followed by Dodd, Lincoln, Spector and then Bennett.In the open seat arena, Castle looks good in Deleware. Kirk has a 50/50 shot in Illinois...Blago's going on trial in 2010 - so who knows how that impacts the election. Bunning is retiring in Kentucky, so that will prob. stay in Republican hands.

Posted by: Mallamutt at November 02, 2009 04:08 PM (V9SYy)

133 West Virginia (technically not up for grabs, but, not to be macabre or anything, Byrd isn't getting any younger)
is the gov an R?

Democrat, WV is still locally run by dems but nationally have become one of the redest states (McCain won w/ 56% of the vote)

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:09 PM (xNw7B)

134 "As JB points out above, the traditional moderate in the GOP has been the fiscal con / social lib."

I think you may have misinterpreted my point.

The way to sell the new conservative, Republican agenda is under the rubric of fiscal responsibility. For fiscal conservatives, this means low taxes, low spending. For social conservatives, blocking initiatives under which the taxpayer foots the bill for policies promoting social liberalism (abortion, gay marriage, NEA, etc.) And squishy moderates will acquiesce to the meme that fiscal responsibility is paramount in this day and age.

Cutting the budget with a hatchet not a scalpel will cut away at the funding to promote liberalism.

Posted by: JB at November 02, 2009 04:09 PM (1OoPr)

135 ace can't keep me away

Posted by: Elvis at November 02, 2009 04:09 PM (+sBB4)

136 In the end, besides chaos, we only need 4 good conservative senators and 25 conservative reps to stop the pelosi/obama/reid (poor?) from their goose stepping this country into socialism.

Posted by: beggar thy neighbor at November 02, 2009 04:09 PM (DIYmd)

137 No YRM, lacey asked what a flame war was, so a bunch of regulars let her know.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 04:10 PM (IoxPW)

138 No YRM, lacey asked what a flame war was, so a bunch of regulars let her know.

oh, I see

well obv. the answer is simple: go look at most HotAir posts

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:12 PM (xNw7B)

139 "religion isn't the winning issue in an economic election like that which will be 2010, that was 2000-2004"

sarcasm.

I forgot who made the point yesterday, but the proper position is that anything dealing with a social issue is a state right and the discussion does not belong in a national campaign.

Posted by: Just Another Poster at November 02, 2009 04:12 PM (HAdov)

140 I forgot who made the point yesterday, but the proper position is that
anything dealing with a social issue is a state right and the
discussion does not belong in a national campaign.

i'd agree w/ that to an extend, but in certain national elections (2004 being a great example) it's an asset because reps tend to win elections like those

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:13 PM (xNw7B)

141 Bennett in CO is currently in trouble, already polls less than likely challengers and will have a primary opponent.

Posted by: beggar thy neighbor at November 02, 2009 04:15 PM (DIYmd)

142 religion isn't the winning issue in an economic election like that which will be 2010, that was 2000-2004

That may depend on who runs. But if the argument is "I'm going to use the federal government to push my war against God by promoting the murder of children, marriage for gays, and the atheist creation myth (evolution), but vote for me because I'll lower your taxes? the fiscal conservative-only crowd is going to find Christians turning our backs on them just as we did for the middle of the 20th century.

Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 04:16 PM (IoxPW)

143 Rocks, what's your take on the rest of the field? Simmons? Schiff? Foley?


Posted by: Tami at November 02, 2009 03:52 PM (VuLos)
The candidate will be pretty liberal no matter what, especially on social issues. I think the WWE thing does McMahon in over the long haul. Some of the crap used in promoting and selling it, especially towards women, is disgusting. I don't mind it but I ain't voting for it. Plus she just looks like some rich fat cat looking to take advantage of an opportunity when Dodd is down. She's trying to freeze everybody out with massive ad buys now and it's getting her nowhere. Not a great look in a bad economy. Without the WWE thing and all the donations to Dems she would be in easy.
Schiff's a Paulnut so he's going nowhere.Rob Simmons has great name recognition but the problem is it's burnout. They have been hearing his name year in and year out with all the close races but he has a lot of loyal people. Plus he has a lot of votes in the House to drag around. He's not new or a change.
Foley will get it I think though. He got a good business record, which didn't require girls in hot pants beating each other, and he's new. Newness will actually be a plus next year. That is the one thing which won't wear off from Obama.



Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 04:16 PM (Q1lie)

144 I forgot who made the point yesterday, but the proper position is that anything dealing with a social issue is a state right and the discussion does not belong in a national campaign.
That's a dumb point. The Democrats made abortion, for example,a national issue. And the only place it can be addressed now is at the national level.
The GOP can argue that Roe should be overturned and the issue sent back to the states, but that is still an argument which has to be made in the national campaign.

Posted by: flenser at November 02, 2009 04:18 PM (jSBte)

145 Some of the crap used in promoting and selling it, especially towards women, is disgusting.

have you seen the product lately? it's pissed older male audience members' off because it's gone "TV-PG" the attitude era ended back in 2001 they've stopped using bloody fights since 2006 the women don't pose pratically naked on their mags/shows like they did since 2007ish

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:20 PM (xNw7B)

146
Posted by: Methos at November 02, 2009 04:16 PM (IoxPW)
Allah's kind of campaign lol

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:20 PM (xNw7B)

147 "As JB points out above, the traditional moderate in the GOP has been the fiscal con / social lib."

..................................................................



social issues? duh! she's a moderate


Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:01 PM (xNw7B)





Moderates are not liberal. You can be pro-choice but
if you think parents have no right to know if there 13 year old is
getting an abortion that's liberal. If you have a 100% NARAL rating you
are very liberal. Far more liberal than even the majority in a blue
state like CT.


Traditional Republican moderates were fiscally conservative and socially moderate, never liberal.
RINO's today are like Rockefeller Repubs, fiscally moderate and socially liberal.
In other words they are moderate democrats.


Nobody wants either one of them.



Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 04:27 PM (Q1lie)

148
Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 04:27 PM (Q1lie)
just sounds to me like your some purist like Glenn Beck that wants some litmus test for Republicans

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:29 PM (xNw7B)

149 out for this thread...

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:30 PM (xNw7B)

150 have you seen the product lately? it's pissed older
male audience members' off because it's gone "TV-PG" the attitude era
ended back in 2001 they've stopped using bloody fights since 2006
the women don't pose pratically naked on their mags/shows like
they did since 2007ish

Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:20 PM (xNw7B)

It's still fodder for the commercials.

Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 04:36 PM (Q1lie)

151 cock?

Posted by: tom at November 02, 2009 04:43 PM (PD1tk)

152 just sounds to me like your some purist like Glenn Beck that wants some litmus test for Republicans


Posted by: YRM at November 02, 2009 04:29 PM (xNw7B)

I don't pay attention to Glenn Back much unless somebody posts a video.But if you mean I expect a candidate to state what his principles are, how he'll vote and stick with them AND I agree with them mostly before I will vote then yeah, I have a litmus test. I could give a rat's ass about individuals. Shays wasn't my rep but if he was and if I had another reason to be at the polls I would vote for him over a flat out liberal, but I wouldn't have gone out of my way.

Posted by: Rocks at November 02, 2009 04:44 PM (Q1lie)

153 Age of Conan CD KeyAion Online CD keyChampions Online CD KeyCall of Duty II CD KeyCompany of Heroes CD KeyCounter - Strike CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comDiablo 2 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comFallout 3 CD KeyGrand Theft Auto IV CD KeyGuild Wars CD KeyNexon Cash for MapleStory: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comRed Alert 3 CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comStarCraft CD Key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comThe Godfather II CD KeyThe Sim 3 CD KeyTitan Quest CD KeyWarCraft3 CD key: http://www.cdkeyexpress.comWarhammer Online CD keyWorld Of Warcraft CD Key http://www.cdkeyexpress.com
Burberry scarf: http://www.scarves-store.comsilk scarf: http://www.scarves-store.com

Posted by: jason at November 02, 2009 09:17 PM (i1eiU)

154 132 -- I think you will see the downstate, except for centers around the universities (although, that may change thanks to Quinn's latest) going more red. Then again, I think they'd vote a communist in as long as that person didn't hail from Chicago and promised to represent the downstate-- they'd vote their neighbor's cat in (which actually might be an improvement).
Tim Johnson will have to watch out for Dr. Fish...and that's not good (I've met Fish in person, he's managed to get a fair amount of support in Johnson's district, and really on meeting him the first thing that popped into my mind was "here's our homegrown version of Al Gore"; not good).

Posted by: unknown jane at November 03, 2009 10:21 AM (5/yRG)

155 25 -- Very good point; I've been worried about that as well. If the Republicans take back Congress in 2010, he can keep up with the "blame Bush" meme and win (and possibly take back a majority of Congress, and that would be terrible -- I think this may be what they are hoping for); if they don't then there's a possiblity that the country gets wrecked beyond redemption. The best hope is for there to be enough of a change to the makeup of Congress to force the Dems up for re-electionto become "squishy" (which to some extent is happening right now -- cold feet might be a better term) and put the brakes on this.

Posted by: unknown jane at November 03, 2009 10:31 AM (5/yRG)

156 中古DVD

Posted by: ttrtrtrert at November 09, 2009 12:53 AM (VUwOn)

157 Everything dynamic and very positively!Ugg Classic Cardy,discount, free shipping!

Posted by: ugg classic cardy at December 03, 2009 07:23 AM (ftu8y)

158 Everything dynamic and very positively!Ugg Classic Cardy,discount, free shipping!

Posted by: ugg classic cardy at December 03, 2009 07:31 AM (ftu8y)

159 .....................................................................................................................................................................................................


...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................


.........................................................................................


...........................................................................................


............................................................................................................


...................................................................................................


..................................................................................................


...................................................................................................


....................................................<a

Posted by: Arslanian at April 11, 2010 12:32 AM (eLEtO)






Processing 0.04, elapsed 0.0385 seconds.
15 queries taking 0.0147 seconds, 168 records returned.
Page size 105 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.7 alpha.

MuNuvians
MeeNuvians
Polls! Polls! Polls!
Frequently Asked Questions
The (Almost) Complete Paul Anka Integrity Kick
Top Top Tens
Greatest Hitjobs

The Ace of Spades HQ Sex-for-Money Skankathon
A D&D Guide to the Democratic Candidates
Margaret Cho: Just Not Funny
More Margaret Cho Abuse
Margaret Cho: Still Not Funny
Iraqi Prisoner Claims He Was Raped... By Woman
Wonkette Announces "Morning Zoo" Format
John Kerry's "Plan" Causes Surrender of Moqtada al-Sadr's Militia
World Muslim Leaders Apologize for Nick Berg's Beheading
Michael Moore Goes on Lunchtime Manhattan Death-Spree
Milestone: Oliver Willis Posts 400th "Fake News Article" Referencing Britney Spears
Liberal Economists Rue a "New Decade of Greed"
Artificial Insouciance: Maureen Dowd's Word Processor Revolts Against Her Numbing Imbecility
Intelligence Officials Eye Blogs for Tips
They Done Found Us Out, Cletus: Intrepid Internet Detective Figures Out Our Master Plan
Shock: Josh Marshall Almost Mentions Sarin Discovery in Iraq
Leather-Clad Biker Freaks Terrorize Australian Town
When Clinton Was President, Torture Was Cool
What Wonkette Means When She Explains What Tina Brown Means
Wonkette's Stand-Up Act
Wankette HQ Gay-Rumors Du Jour
Here's What's Bugging Me: Goose and Slider
My Own Micah Wright Style Confession of Dishonesty
Outraged "Conservatives" React to the FMA
An On-Line Impression of Dennis Miller Having Sex with a Kodiak Bear
The Story the Rightwing Media Refuses to Report!
Our Lunch with David "Glengarry Glen Ross" Mamet
The House of Love: Paul Krugman
A Michael Moore Mystery (TM)
The Dowd-O-Matic!
Liberal Consistency and Other Myths
Kepler's Laws of Liberal Media Bias
John Kerry-- The Splunge! Candidate
"Divisive" Politics & "Attacks on Patriotism" (very long)
The Donkey ("The Raven" parody)
News/Chat