Michelle Bachman wins Iowa presidential straw poll [Archive]

Back

08-13-2011, 07:15 PM

Michelle Bachman wins Iowa presidential straw poll (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14519660)

US Republican Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann has won a key pre-election campaign poll in the state of Iowa.

The Iowa straw poll held in Ames attracted about 17,000 voters and is considered the first big test of the 2012 presidential race.

Mrs Bachmann, an Iowa-born social conservative, narrowly beat her rival Ron Paul in the non-binding contest.

The vote was held on the same day Texas Governor Rick Perry announced his intention to run for the presidency.

It comes five months before the first official Iowa primaries in the race for the White House.

Leading Republican candidate Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney did not take part in the contest. Neither did newly declared Mr Perry nor former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, who has yet to announce whether she plans to run.

Before the vote took place, Mrs Bachmann told her supporters: "We are going to make Barack Obama a one-term president."

For serious?

Parkbandit

08-13-2011, 07:20 PM

How is this a surprise to anyone?

Back

08-13-2011, 07:24 PM

That Newsweek cover probably gave her a bump.

Xaerve

08-13-2011, 07:33 PM

The only thing dumber than the politicians in this country is the nation that elects them.

waywardgs

08-13-2011, 07:33 PM

Bachmann will get destroyed when her past comes out. If repubs had any sense at all they'd drop her like a hot potato.

waywardgs

08-13-2011, 07:34 PM

The only thing dumber than the politicians in this country is the nation that elects them.

This too.

Parkbandit

08-13-2011, 08:00 PM

That Newsweek cover probably gave her a bump.

You realize she is from Iowa, right?

Cephalopod

08-13-2011, 08:53 PM

You realize she is from Iowa, right?

From Waterloo! And she shares the spirit of that famous John Wayne from Waterloo, too!

kookiegod

08-13-2011, 08:54 PM

TheEschaton

08-13-2011, 09:41 PM

Perry is the definition of corrupt. He barely beat a Democrat in his last governor's race, which is pretty sad for a gun-toting Christian spouting Republican in Texas.

kookiegod

08-13-2011, 10:07 PM

Perry is the definition of corrupt. He barely beat a Democrat in his last governor's race, which is pretty sad for a gun-toting Christian spouting Republican in Texas.

Barely?

Popular vote 2,733,784[1] 2,102,606
Percentage 55.2% 42.3%

I don't consider double digit result 'barely'.

kookiegod

08-13-2011, 10:09 PM

Might want to look into why a lot of Republicans don't like him. If I were you I'd be backing Romney.

I had work with Romney and his team on some issues on CORI and MGL 93a in my old position when I still ran credit reporting companies.

I saw what he did to Mass.

I think his Mormon issues continue to haunt him, though it doesn't bother me.

He will get lambasted over MassHealth.

I had to live in this state with him.

In short, no thanks.

Xaerve

08-13-2011, 10:34 PM

Being from MA too, I agree with Paul. Fuck Willard.

Texas is the only state consistently adding jobs right now, while Perry is consistently cutting back on state spending. Like him or love him, that's a whole hell of a lot more than Obama is doing...

Oh, but we are wasting money installing HIX solutions in states, where the federal government is paying 90% of any IT project related to HIX. Oracle/SAP systems and implementation costs are routinely $100M+ projects for most states... multiply by 50 and then realize that a ton of the "work" is going offshore.... that's Obama's idea of job creation.

TheEschaton

08-13-2011, 10:50 PM

13 points over a Democrat in Texas is barely. Especially a bald, pretty liberal Democrat like Bill White.

The fact of the matter is Perry is corrupt as hell. And it's well documented too. Cronyism everywhere.

-TheE-

Tsa`ah

08-14-2011, 12:08 AM

I am excited that Rick Perry is running.

Closest thing to a centrist who can talk, has some Christian cred, and can tout he cut the government in Texas, and increased jobs (but its far cry from creating 100s of thousands of high paying jobs, a good half were entry level jobs).

He also has a nice tough stand on criminals, they don't last long in Texas, and he packs heat. Serious heat.

~Paul

Centrists everywhere are insulted that you just called Perry a centrist.

Christian cred? Spouting "Christian" talking points while practicing none of them is hardly credible. Well it is credible with the "compassionate conservative reborn" crowd ... but I wouldn't consider them Christian.

He cut government? Was the before or after he expanded government to force medical providers and pregnant women to get sonograms and counseling if they were considering abortion #pregnant women#.

Increased jobs ... with federal stimulus money #also used to balance the budget# ... that he railed against ... while suggesting secession from the union?

Sorry, the only candidate with a remote chance of challenging Obama at this point would be Romney. The rest of the "potentials" only appeal to the far right.

Androidpk

08-14-2011, 12:59 AM

Strong showing by Ron Paul makes me a happy camper.

4a6c1

08-14-2011, 01:16 AM

Perry's politics have always been disgusting. The fact that he is now trying to play the Christian card is hilarious. After he has backed robbing the public assistance programs, WIC, Workforce Solutions, SNAP, Star of Hope and Houston Community College. He went to war with the poor black neighborhoods of Houston (underfunding schools and projects) when they actively campaigned for Bill White. There is a reason Houston republicans dont back him unless they are big industry players. "Christians" who fall for his bag of tricks without doing some of their own research will be sorry later.

The upside is Houston charter schools have really pulled through...

Back

08-14-2011, 02:12 AM

Strong showing by Ron Paul makes me a happy camper.

Especially considering he isn’t Iowan and wasn’t on the cover of Newsweek last week... yeah, I’d say that an accomplishment. Of the line-up, as a dirty liberal hedonist hippy communist socialist pro-abortion pro-bestiality-marriage pro-free-drugs-for-everybody thanks-for-your-tax-dollars-welfare-cheese loving person, Ron Paul is the only one who resonates with me that might make me even think of voting republican.

Archigeek

08-14-2011, 04:28 PM

...and Tim Pawlenty calls it quits:

What I brought forward, I thought, was a rational, established, credible, strong record of results, based on experience governing — a two-term governor of a blue state. But I think the audience, so to speak, was looking for something different, -Pawlenty.

Yep, not looking for rational, credible or a strong record of results. That sounds about right.

Personally I think Pawlenty put too much stock in Iowa, and also put too much effort into changing himself to meet the expectations of voters instead of just being himself. But what he says is poignant.

Voters think there's some political mesiah out there who will save us all, and the description has become almost cartoonish: outsider, mavrick, not from inside the beltway... spare me. They're all politicians. None of these people running are outsiders, and even if they were, that wouldn't mean they'd be effective. You want to win next year? You're going to need more than die-hard Republican votes, so you'd better hope you end up with a candidate who's a bit more centrist than Bachmann.

Kembal

08-14-2011, 04:36 PM

Geijon Khyree

08-14-2011, 05:42 PM

I said it in the beginning and I'll say it again. Pawlenty never had a chance and he wasn't a good governor.

As to Bachmann. She's badshit crazy. Her zoning map for election was a strange line from Stillwater to Blaine, which is 60 miles west or so. It's made up of hard line republicans, a weird liberal mix, and a high percentage of Minnesota's trailer parks.

The Ames Straw Poll don't mean shit. If she wins the republican candidacy it's an auto win for Obama.

As it stands now even with unemployment over 9.0 Obama still stands a high probability of being re-elected, which would make him the only president to win under such unemployment conditions.

Republicans still do not have a candidate who can beat him without a great amount of luck. Rick Perry just entered the race, but he's a fake christian, corrupt as hell, and a hypocrit who's job record is largely driven by Obama's stimulus.

Republican challenger, where are you?

Androidpk

08-14-2011, 07:12 PM

Don't underestimate Ron Paul this time.

waywardgs

08-14-2011, 07:52 PM

Ron Paul is not a serious contender. Never has been, never will be. It's unfortunate because he brings up pertinent info, but he just won't be in the running. Frankly there are NO viable republican or conservative candidates yet, and I don't think there will be. Obama will see a second term.

Androidpk

08-14-2011, 08:39 PM

Such a defeatist.

Warriorbird

08-15-2011, 08:51 AM

Might want to look into why a lot of Republicans don't like him. If I were you I'd be backing Romney.

Michelle Bachman wins... 08-14-2011 09:43 PM No one cares what a liberal like you thinks.

And if this is the mentality that carries the party, PB's whole control Congress idea is the best shot.

Parkbandit

08-15-2011, 09:09 AM

Michelle Bachman wins... 08-14-2011 09:43 PM No one cares what a liberal like you thinks.

And if this is the mentality that carries the party, PB's whole control Congress idea is the best shot.

I always have the best ideas.

I don't think there is a single candidate that can beat Obama in the race currently. Obama is an effective campaigner and the stupid people of this country will once again get in line behind him as he makes claims he can turn this economy around using tax cuts and decreasing spending.. like he's always wanted to do.............

If you want to change government, change Congress. Push for a solid majority in the Senate and increase the control in the House. Ram through legislation and force Obama's hand like they did with Clinton.

Kembal

08-15-2011, 08:04 PM

Tsa`ah

08-15-2011, 09:10 PM

I always have the best ideas.

I don't think there is a single candidate that can beat Obama in the race currently. Obama is an effective campaigner and the stupid people of this country will once again get in line behind him as he makes claims he can turn this economy around using tax cuts and decreasing spending.. like he's always wanted to do.............

If you want to change government, change Congress. Push for a solid majority in the Senate and increase the control in the House. Ram through legislation and force Obama's hand like they did with Clinton.

I don't see the GOP actually making gains in congress this session ... certainly not a super majority, and certainly not enough bi-partisan support for a 2/3 majority needed to over ride a veto.

Chances are that if there's enough support for a 2/3 majority ... there's enough in the legislation for Obama to sign it anyway. If he wins a second term ... he doesn't actually still have to play compromiser in chief.

The short of it ... there's no way in hell the GOP is able to "ram" anything through short of actually winning the office of POTUS and a congressional majority.

Archigeek

08-15-2011, 10:04 PM

I don't see the GOP actually making gains in congress this session ... certainly not a super majority, and certainly not enough bi-partisan support for a 2/3 majority needed to over ride a veto.

Chances are that if there's enough support for a 2/3 majority ... there's enough in the legislation for Obama to sign it anyway. If he wins a second term ... he doesn't actually still have to play compromiser in chief.

The short of it ... there's no way in hell the GOP is able to "ram" anything through short of actually winning the office of POTUS and a congressional majority.

It's a lot more likely they'll lose seats, simply because right now because everyone hates congress, and if I recall correctly the GOP has more seats up for re-election this time around. The only way for that to change would be for something that's actually positive to pass, and best of luck with that when you're "the party of no."

Parkbandit

08-15-2011, 11:15 PM

It's a lot more likely they'll lose seats, simply because right now because everyone hates congress, and if I recall correctly the GOP has more seats up for re-election this time around. The only way for that to change would be for something that's actually positive to pass, and best of luck with that when you're "the party of no."

Who are they going to lose the seats to.. the party that wants to raise taxes so they can spend even more?

Not likely.

Archigeek

08-15-2011, 11:31 PM

Who are they going to lose the seats to.. the party that wants to raise taxes so they can spend even more?

Not likely.

Actually, yeah. You can demonize them all you want, but if the public's opinion of congress doesn't improve, the republican party will likely lose seats this time around.

Parkbandit

08-16-2011, 08:32 AM

Actually, yeah. You can demonize them all you want, but if the public's opinion of congress doesn't improve, the republican party will likely lose seats this time around.

If you care to put a wager on which party will gain more net seats.. I'll take the action.

Archigeek

08-16-2011, 04:26 PM

If you care to put a wager on which party will gain more net seats.. I'll take the action.

I started a business last fall... even the change jar on my dresser is empty, so I will have to pass. But the point really isn't which party is better or worse, my point is more about the general activity of voters. These days, voters have very little patience for the encumbants and tend to vote them out. If congress doesn't do something that more of those voters view as positive than negative, there will be more encumbants who lose their jobs in 2012. Which party has more encumbants up for re-election? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I think the answer is the republican party. That's what I'm basing my hypothesis on.

Parkbandit

08-16-2011, 04:34 PM

I started a business last fall... even the change jar on my dresser is empty, so I will have to pass. But the point really isn't which party is better or worse, my point is more about the general activity of voters. These days, voters have very little patience for the encumbants and tend to vote them out. If congress doesn't do something that more of those voters view as positive than negative, there will be more encumbants who lose their jobs in 2012. Which party has more encumbants up for re-election? I'll stand corrected if I'm wrong, but I think the answer is the republican party. That's what I'm basing my hypothesis on.

Congratulations and good luck on the new business. Once the money starts pouring in, I think you will quickly realize the difference between real world politics and theoretical politics.

As far as the wager goes.. let's do it for bragging rights. I say there will be + net Republican seats won in both the House and Senate. You say there will be + net Democrat seats won in both the House and the Senate.

We will revisit this thread in a little over a year. BRAGGING RIGHTS!

Rinualdo

08-16-2011, 06:45 PM

I'll take some of that action.

Latrinsorm

08-16-2011, 06:56 PM

In the Senate, 17 Democrats and 8 Republicans are seeking re-election in 2012, and 6 Democrats and 2 Republicans are retiring. In the House, 182 Democrats and 236 Republicans are seeking re-election, and 11 Democrats and 6 Republicans are retiring. In total, 199 Democrat incumbents and 244 Republican incumbents.

For reference, Democratic/Republican incumbents in the 2010 House elections had a 78%/99% re-election rate, and in 2008 97%/90%.

Archigeek

08-16-2011, 07:06 PM

Congratulations and good luck on the new business. Once the money starts pouring in, I think you will quickly realize the difference between real world politics and theoretical politics.

As far as the wager goes.. let's do it for bragging rights. I say there will be + net Republican seats won in both the House and Senate. You say there will be + net Democrat seats won in both the House and the Senate.

We will revisit this thread in a little over a year. BRAGGING RIGHTS!

Bragging rights wager accepted! We shall revisit in November 2012!

And while I'm not yet eligible for the AARP like PB is, I am not a newb. I've been investing for the last two decades with pretty good results. I don't think more business success is going to change my opinion on the matter of federal taxes. There are other issues where I at times throw up my hands when it comes to government. Talk to me about state by state protectionism against professionals from other states, and the mountains of paper work and fees I have to pay to do work outside of the state I'm licensed in and you'll get me pissed off. We will pay just over 2 grand just to do business in just one other state before the end of August. Talk about stiffling business.

Tsa`ah

08-16-2011, 08:55 PM

Congratulations and good luck on the new business. Once the money starts pouring in, I think you will quickly realize the difference between real world politics and theoretical politics.

I've been in business for myself for a little longer than you have ... and in doing so it has only reinforced my "liberal" beliefs and pushed a few even further to the left.

I actually have a problem with employers planning vacations while their employees are trying to figure out how to keep the lights on and put food on the table.

As far as the wager goes.. let's do it for bragging rights. I say there will be + net Republican seats won in both the House and Senate. You say there will be + net Democrat seats won in both the House and the Senate.

We will revisit this thread in a little over a year. BRAGGING RIGHTS!

Three seat swing to the Dems in the senate, 32 seat swing in the house ... most of those coming from the great lakes and midwest. Obama re-elected.

Tgo01

08-16-2011, 09:35 PM

Obama re-elected.

A year ago I would have agreed with you but at the moment it's looking very unlikely he'll get reelected. His latest approval ratings according to Gallup (http://www.gallup.com/home.aspx)is 39%, just 10 points higher than Bush left office with when everyone constantly pointed to this number and laughed.

I'll have to see who is running against him first though, if the Republicans are stupid enough to put Palin up against him then it's a sure thing Obama will be reelected.

Tsa`ah

08-16-2011, 10:21 PM

I don't think it is wise to base a judgement ... especially this early ... based on approval numbers considering the current landscape.

Tgo01

08-16-2011, 10:35 PM

I don't think it is wise to base a judgement ... especially this early ... based on approval numbers considering the current landscape.

"This early" I can understand but you're saying it's silly to base a judgement on approval numbers at all?

Rinualdo

08-16-2011, 10:36 PM

Although Obama's approval numbers aren't great, they are damn near astronomical when compared to Congress, the Tea Party, and some of the Republican candidates.

Tsa`ah

08-16-2011, 10:49 PM

"This early" I can understand but you're saying it's silly to base a judgement on approval numbers at all?

Considering the heavy levels of discrepancy between polls and the fickle nature of them in general ... I would say it is a pretty silly metric to use this far out. A week before an election, not so much.

Tgo01

08-16-2011, 10:50 PM

Considering the heavy levels of discrepancy between polls and the fickle nature of them in general ... I would say it is a pretty silly metric to use this far out. A week before an election, not so much.

Yes that's why I said at the moment it's looking unlikely he'll get reelected. Just curious though since it's silly on my part to be looking at approval numbers when deciding if Obama gets reelected or not what are you basing your opinion on?

Parkbandit

08-16-2011, 10:51 PM

I've been in business for myself for a little longer than you have ... and in doing so it has only reinforced my "liberal" beliefs and pushed a few even further to the left.

Well, I was talking to Archigeek.. who seems to be rather intelligent.

I actually have a problem with employers planning vacations while their employees are trying to figure out how to keep the lights on and put food on the table.

So, you don't believe employers should go on vacations? Why?

Three seat swing to the Dems in the senate, 32 seat swing in the house ... most of those coming from the great lakes and midwest. Obama re-elected.

I'll take that wager about Congress. I'll say Republicans have +net in both House and Senate. How much?

Tsa`ah

08-16-2011, 11:07 PM

Yes that's why I said at the moment it's looking unlikely he'll get reelected. Just curious though since it's silly on my part to be looking at approval numbers when deciding if Obama gets reelected or not what are you basing your opinion on?

...

Considering the heavy levels of discrepancy between polls and the fickle nature of them in general ... I would say it is a pretty silly metric to use this far out. A week before an election, not so much.

Well, I was talking to Archigeek.. who seems to be rather intelligent.

Your attempt at an insult aside ... you seem to be under the impression that everyone is as equally retarded as you are. That a person is going to shift from the left to the right after operating their own business.

I don't think it is everyone else that has a problem with reality vs theory ... It seems to be it's a PB thing.

So, you don't believe employers should go on vacations? Why?

If your employees can't live on the wage you pay and it has nothing to do with living beyond their means ... and you're planning a family vacation ... well then there's a problem.

So no, employers shouldn't take vacations when their employees can't afford to keep their lights on.

I'll take that wager about Congress. I'll say Republicans have +net in both House and Senate. How much?

A few things.

1. I don't trust you to pay when you lose.
2. You already set the terms.
3. Specifics. If you want to wager with the current terms of bragging rights, I need to see some numbers.

Tgo01

08-16-2011, 11:12 PM

...

Now I'm confused, why are you avoiding my question?

~Rocktar~

08-16-2011, 11:23 PM

Now I'm confused, why are you avoiding my question?

Because he avoids any and all questions that he knows will clearly demonstrate his particular level of retardedness or highlight his complete and utter detachment from reality.

Tsa`ah

08-16-2011, 11:29 PM

Now I'm confused, why are you avoiding my question?

I do believe I quoted myself in answering you ... so your question would have been answered with reading what I posted to begin with.

Tgo01

08-16-2011, 11:35 PM

I do believe I quoted myself in answering you ... so your question would have been answered with reading what I posted to begin with.

My bad then, perhaps my question wasn't phrased clear enough. What do you base your opinion on that Obama will get reelected?

Parkbandit

08-16-2011, 11:45 PM

Your attempt at an insult aside ... you seem to be under the impression that everyone is as equally retarded as you are. That a person is going to shift from the left to the right after operating their own business.

I don't think it is everyone else that has a problem with reality vs theory ... It seems to be it's a PB thing.

It wasn't an insult, Shit4Brains.. I was extremely specific to the individual I was quoting. I wouldn't expect you to understand, given your mental condition.

If your employees can't live on the wage you pay and it has nothing to do with living beyond their means ... and you're planning a family vacation ... well then there's a problem.

So no, employers shouldn't take vacations when their employees can't afford to keep their lights on.

What about Presidents who have had 9-10% unemployment for most of his administration? Do you believe that he should go on multiple vacations every year while in this economic recession?

A few things.

1. I don't trust you to pay when you lose.
2. You already set the terms.
3. Specifics. If you want to wager with the current terms of bragging rights, I need to see some numbers.

So.. if I understand you correctly:

1) You don't have the money to pay a wager. I understand.
2) So, you want Bragging Rights? Hey big spender....
3) Specifics? I will give you Net+ democrats in both House and Senate.. you give me Net+ republicans. It wasn't that difficult to understand..

Conclusion: You are too cheap for a real wager, that's fine.. bragging rights. Maybe you can put all this in crayon and keep it under your Transformers pillowcase to look at every night for the next 15 months.

Tsa`ah

08-17-2011, 12:02 AM

My bad then, perhaps my question wasn't phrased clear enough. What do you base your opinion on that Obama will get reelected?

A number of factors ... chief among them would be the current field of conservative contenders. Romney would be the only candidate with even a mild chance of challenging Obama, but he has spent most of his campaign cutting his own throat.

Other factors would be Obama's proficiency at campaigning (something that his potential challengers lack), current party shenanigans (attempts at gutting labor, obstructionism, refusing to relent or compromise on revenues ... so on and so forth), platforms based on social conservatism ... when it comes down to it ... the person standing on that debate stage with Obama is going to have to be able to pin the woes of the nation on Obama's lapel and make it believable. To be honest, I don't think they'll be able to unload that on Obama and make it stick with the current and previous congressional track records pertaining to the GOP and the off-shoot tea bag caucus.

...

Sorry ... did you say something that wasn't the usual level of idiotic even for you?

Parkbandit

08-17-2011, 09:25 AM

Sorry ... did you say something that wasn't the usual level of idiotic even for you?

Which part do I need to dumb down further for you to understand?

Hulkein

08-17-2011, 10:50 AM

I don't think it is wise to base a judgement ... especially this early ... based on approval numbers considering the current landscape.

No e in judgment unless speaking of a biblical variety.

Archigeek

11-07-2012, 01:00 PM

Congratulations and good luck on the new business. Once the money starts pouring in, I think you will quickly realize the difference between real world politics and theoretical politics.

As far as the wager goes.. let's do it for bragging rights. I say there will be + net Republican seats won in both the House and Senate. You say there will be + net Democrat seats won in both the House and the Senate.

We will revisit this thread in a little over a year. BRAGGING RIGHTS!

Me: Bragging rights wager accepted! We shall revisit in November 2012!

An awfully close end result. Democrats made gains in the Senate, but I'm not entirely sure if they made a net gain in the House. They unseated a number of republicans, but I don't see net numbers yet, and I'm too busy to do the math myself.

As for Michelle Bachman, nut job that she is: she had to spend a ton to win, and may have to go through a recount, as it looks like the difference is less than 1%. Minnesota state would mandate a recount if it were less than 1/2%... at 1%, the challenger can request one, but has to pay for it.

If there is any mandate in this election, it's that demagoguery may win you the primary, but you pay for your extreme views in the general election.

Parkbandit

11-07-2012, 01:08 PM

An awfully close end result. Democrats made gains in the Senate, but I'm not entirely sure if they made a net gain in the House. They unseated a number of republicans, but I don't see net numbers yet, and I'm too busy to do the math myself.

I'll help you.. Republicans gained seats. It's a push for bragging rights.

As for Michelle Bachman, nut job that she is: she had to spend a ton to win, and may have to go through a recount, as it looks like the difference is less than 1%. Minnesota state would mandate a recount if it were less than 1/2%... at 1%, the challenger can request one, but has to pay for it.

How much did that nut job Obama have to spend to win?

If there is any mandate in this election, it's that demagoguery may win you the primary, but you pay for your extreme views in the general election.

Not really. The two that lost didn't put their feet in their mouths until after they won the nomination.

Tgo01

11-07-2012, 01:19 PM

Some Rogue

11-07-2012, 01:21 PM

Hey if Alan Grayson can win then Michelle Bachman deserves another 20 terms. I don't know how anyone can really say anything bad about any Republicans that won when Democrats elected that tool Grayson...AGAIN!

Jesse Jackson Jr. got elected again and he hasn't been seen in months.

As expected, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. (D-Chicago) cruised to an easy victory with 63 percent of the vote in the Second Congressional District, despite having been absent from work since June.

Tgo01

11-07-2012, 01:26 PM

Jesse Jackson Jr. got elected again and he hasn't been seen in months.

Oh yeah, I almost forgot about him winning also. I'm going to assume Rangel won again as well?

EasternBrand

11-07-2012, 01:27 PM

Jesse Jackson Jr. got elected again and he hasn't been seen in months.

Maybe he captured some of the Tea Party vote with a new strategy of minimal government?

Warriorbird

11-07-2012, 01:34 PM

Jesse Jackson Jr. captured Republican hearts by not saying anything for months, a strategy he learned from Clarence Thomas.

Some Rogue

11-07-2012, 01:55 PM

You mean the one lone republican in Chicago?

Warriorbird

11-07-2012, 01:56 PM

You mean the one lone republican in Chicago?

Doesn't he have the county too?

Some Rogue

11-07-2012, 01:58 PM

Like that makes a difference?

msconstrew

11-07-2012, 02:10 PM

Jesse Jackson Jr. captured Republican hearts by not saying anything for months, a strategy he learned from Clarence Thomas.

LOL. Excellent, excellent reference.

TheEschaton

11-07-2012, 02:55 PM

Umm, according to CNN's map, one seat changed from Dem to Republican, and 3 (IN, MA, CT) changed from Republicanto Dem. That seems to be a net gain of 2 in the Senate for Dems.

In the House, the current makeup is 240 Republicans, 190 Democrats, 0 Independents, 5 vacancies, according to the Office of the Clerk of the House (http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/cong.aspx)

So far, 230-232 seats have been called for Republicans (the 232 number comes from FoxNews), 191 have been called for Democrats (that's from FoxNews too), and 12 in play, with about 8 being led by Democrats, though too close to call.

IDK, 191 seems to be greater than 190. What were the 5 vacancies and where were they expected to break? Even if all 5 were vacated by Dems (195), the Dems might have more than that still when it all shakes out.

TheEschaton

11-07-2012, 05:20 PM

TheEschaton

11-07-2012, 05:25 PM

In fact, CNN is now calling 194 seats for the Dems - indicating the Dems gained seats in the House. Not lost.

Archigeek

11-07-2012, 06:13 PM

In fact, CNN is now calling 194 seats for the Dems - indicating the Dems gained seats in the House. Not lost.

I was waiting for the results to become a bit more clear. Last time I checked, there were still 10 undecided seats, and I didn't have the time to dig up the details. The republicans did lose a couple of seats in the senate, and I don't see how they could pick up enough seats in the house to even make up the difference, let alone swing things over to a net gain, and now it's looking like a net loss in both chambers.

Archigeek

11-07-2012, 08:57 PM

And it's pretty much game set and match. The democrats have gained seats in both chambers.

Atlanteax

11-08-2012, 09:00 AM

Well, hopefully Congress does not pass anything for the next 4 years.

Back

11-08-2012, 09:26 AM

Well, hopefully Congress does not pass anything for the next 4 years.

Are you really that bitter that you would rather see our country get nothing done just because your party didn't win the presidency? What a fucking asshole.

AnticorRifling

11-08-2012, 09:28 AM

No action is better than the wrong action.

OOOOOOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

Back

11-08-2012, 09:37 AM

Being a big baby is worse than not being a big baby.

SNAP

Showal

11-08-2012, 09:39 AM

Are you really that bitter that you would rather see our country get nothing done just because your party didn't win the presidency? What a fucking asshole.

Obstructive politics appear to go over well at the polls.

Methais

11-08-2012, 09:55 AM

Are you really that bitter that you would rather see our country get nothing done just because your party didn't win the presidency? What a fucking asshole.

If Obama gets anything done, the country will be done is his point I'm pretty sure.

Atlanteax

11-08-2012, 09:58 AM

Are you really that bitter that you would rather see our country get nothing done just because your party didn't win the presidency? What a fucking asshole.

The Founding Fathers intended for Congress to have a difficult time passing laws ... because well ... they did not trust politics.

Back

11-08-2012, 10:05 AM

The Founding Fathers intended for Congress to have a difficult time passing laws ... because well ... they did not trust politics.

Invoking the "Founding Fathers" is political evangelism. You weren't there. You did not know them. You do not speak with them. Besides, we've come a long way since, and things change, or haven't you noticed all the free black people walking around? Idiot.

Parkbandit

11-08-2012, 10:10 AM

Invoking the "Founding Fathers" is political evangelism. You weren't there. You did not know them. You do not speak with them. Besides, we've come a long way since, and things change, or haven't you noticed all the free black people walking around? Idiot.

Why is it whenever someone mentions the Founding Fathers, the immediate response from the most ignorant liberals is slavery?

Good luck in your attempts to marginalize them. Gigantic idiot.

~Rocktar~

11-08-2012, 11:07 AM

Invoking the "Founding Fathers" is political evangelism. You weren't there. You did not know them. You do not speak with them. Besides, we've come a long way since, and things change, or haven't you noticed all the free black people walking around? Idiot.

Funny, they also didn't have the government running vast tracts of the economy, a debt that was not nearly the percentage of GDP that it is now, personal income tax didn't exist and personal freedom and responsability was at an all time high.

Back

11-08-2012, 11:31 AM

Why is it whenever someone mentions the Founding Fathers, the immediate response from the most ignorant liberals is slavery?

Good luck in your attempts to marginalize them. Gigantic idiot.

Maybe because its one of the most obvious and biggest differences between then and now.

Who am I trying to marginalize? Dead people? If you mean idiots who claim to know the motives of men who lived over 200 years ago as some sort of leverage in a political debate, then yes, they should be marginalized.

Latrinsorm

11-08-2012, 06:21 PM

Funny, they also didn't have the government running vast tracts of the economy, a debt that was not nearly the percentage of GDP that it is now, personal income tax didn't exist and personal freedom and responsability was at an all time high.Personal freedom was at an all time high when...

1. Slaves existed.
2. Only while male land-owners could vote, and even they couldn't vote for the Senate.

...boggle?

Tgo01

11-08-2012, 06:28 PM

Personal freedom was at an all time high when...

1. Slaves existed.
2. Only while male land-owners could vote, and even they couldn't vote for the Senate.

...boggle?

Slaves were only 3/5ths of a person back then, you can't count their lack of personal freedom as people having less freedoms back then. Also the government spent a lot of money upgrading them so they could be a whole person and look where it got them? They are right back to being slaves to the corporate political machine, just like we all are, am I right?!