Oh you sad sheeple. The dems approval rating in Congress is lower than the President's. It always cracks me up to watch the masses follow conventional wisdom, which is rarely objective.

No one, I will say this again, no one gives a damn about the war in Iraq. Very few Americans actually follow the war and fewer even know someone serving in Iraq. The percentage of Americans that knows someone who has died in Iraq is inconsequential. All Americans care about is perception and the current perception is that we are screwing up. However that could quickly change and if it does these same sheeple will claim to have been pro-war all along.

The reason that the Reps lost the Congress is because of the Foley scandal, the bias in the media, and the historical fact that it was the President's third term. 2008 will likely favor the Reps. Why? Because the GWOT will still be ongoing and a majority of Americans despise Hillary Clinton. The middle will swing back center-right, the anti-Bush Reps will actually show up on Election Day and red trend will continue. If you think that is bad wait until 2012 when the census gives all those reds states greater Congressional representation.

Thank you for such nice site!
chesapeake bay golf course
chesapeake bay golf
[URL=http://chesapeake-bay-golf-course.bestray.net]chesapeake bay golf course[/URL]
See you!

Thank you for such nice site!
chesapeake bay golf course
chesapeake bay golf
[URL=http://chesapeake-bay-golf-course.bestray.net]chesapeake bay golf course[/URL]
See you!

DTM, the GOP picked up nine seats in 1992 because of redistricting in Alabama, Florida, and Georgia which took black voters away from Democratic held districts to create majority-minority districts. That is not likely to happen again.

Republicans win BIG in '08 if Giuliani or McCain is the nominee. The media is trying very hard to discredit them in the eyes of conservatives, but I think this strategy will ultimately fail. Republicans are a much more practical bunch than Dems and will pick one of the two for '08, regardless of how disconnected their social views may appear. Neither Hillary nor Osama stands a chance against either one of these two in a national election.

Jack,

You could even simplify that claim further: because of incumbency advantages, most House seats in any given election will likely not change, making it difficult for either party to pick up a large number of seats.

But difficult is not impossible. Moreover, it is not like the Democrats have an overwhelming majority in the House--I think a net of 16 seats would have to change hands for the GOP to retake the House, which is about 3.7% of the total.

Again, that is why this is just a numbers game: if it is possible at all for a party to pick up House seats while losing a Presidential election (eg, the GOP picking up 9 in 1992 although Clinton won), then surely picking up 16 is possible, particularly in a really close Presidential election.

DTM,

it does, but what I am saying is that most of the seats that are gerrymandered will not change, making it difficult for either party to pick up a large number of seats absent a huge wave for the party.

DTM, it does, but what I am saying is that most of the seats that are gerrymandered will not change, making it difficult for either party to pick up a large number of seats absent a huge wave for the party.

Jack,

Right, so if (almost all) Presidential electors are elected statewide, and House members are elected districtwide, gerrymandering allows for a significant difference between which party wins the most House seats in a state and which party wins that state's electoral votes, even assuming no ticket-splitting.

DTM, I meant that there is vote counting done on district basis, but they simply are not elected that way.

Jack,

To my knowledge, the only two states which choose any of their Presidential electors on the district level are Maine and Nebraska, and even in that method the two electors associated with the Senators are elected statewide.

That is what I meant by "Presidential votes are counted on the state level not the district level". Obviously, the actual process of counting the votes is done all sorts of ways in different states, with a lot of the work actually being done on a precinct level.

DTM, Presidential votes are counted on the district level as well. Many of the districts that the Dems picked up were either gerrymandered to elect Democrats in the first place or swing districts that the winning party's candidate usually carries.

If Republicans win the Presidential election in a 1972 or 1984 style landslide, they have a chance to take back the House. If its close, there will be little net change.

Sorry--I marked the 1:25PM post as coming from Jack, when I meant to address it to Jack (and from me).

But it doesn't have to work that way. People do split their tickets, and obviously Presidential votes are counted on the state level not the district level. In turn, increasingly sophisticated gerrymandering has led to the possibility of even greater departures between statewide elections and the aggregate result of district-level elections.

All of which is not to say it isn't difficult for a party to win back the House if it loses the presidential election at the same time. But particularly in a close presidential election, I don't see why we should consider that result actually impossible.

DTM, the thing is this, when a one party's nominee wins a Presidential election, their nominee usually carries most of the Congressional districts. For example, if Edwards is the nominee and won the election, he would probably carry a lot of the districts that Democrats picked up in 2006, making it very difficult for Republicans to gain any traction.

Hi meuphys, you've made a lot of good points, and even though I still disagree with you, I understand your views.

Thanks for your reply.

Regards, William

By the way, this is completely off topic in my view, but the studies I have seen more or less consistently suggest that the most important variable in determing the degree of punishment for a crime is not the race of the perpetrator, but rather the race of the victim. In other words, both black and white perpetrators are punished more if the victim is white rather than if the victim is black.

So, for example, a 2003 Amnesty International study found that black and white people were murder victims in about equal numbers (which of course means black people are much more likely to be victims of murder than white people, since they are a lower portion of the population than white people and yet make up the same number of murder victims). But of the people actually executed for the crime of murder since 1977, about 80% of the victims in those cases were white.

Again, this is all pretty much off topic, but I think knowing these statistics is important when people are suggesting what I consider to be disinformation about how Americans view race in relation to crime.

Dan W.: You need to see more posts from William. You don't want to think that you may be the same page as him as far as racism goes.

I know what you mean about the lynching. I may as well have been lynched by the reaction of a couple of posters when I asked a truly objective question last week about the tenets of Obama's church (I am curious as to what the tenets are in-depth). The attackers never accepted that I was simply seeking more information. Heaven forbid that we would want to be more informed about something.

Interesting "take" on William by JBK. It would be interesting what a professional psychologist could glean from William's postings.

Also, nice point/counter point response Meuphys; but me thinks William is "too far down the road" to see the validity of your points. He opened another door to his mind (soul?) two days ago when he began to categorize most of Huckabee's positions as being those of the Catholic Church. Brownback was a Methodist until he recently changed to being a Catholic. His everyday life philosophies were developed as a Methodist; but William went out of his way multiple times to link Brownback to the Catholic Church. In an odd way his anti-Catholocism reminded me of Edwards' bloggers.

As was noted yesterday, William has now officially moved beyond posting as a simple racist; he's a religious bigot also.

God help us if William ever gets into a position of power within government, before having an ephiphany as to what the real World is like.

Jack,

One thing I have learned from casually following presidential politics is that the sample size of presidential elections is so small that things which previously have never or rarely happened end up happening all the time. So, as far as I am concerned, if a party can retain or even pick up House seats while its nominee loses the Presidential election, then a party could actually take back the House while its nominee loses the Presidential election. It is just a matter of numbers.

On the general issue of Obama's race:

As I have noted before, for whatever reason, white suburban voters in Illinois tend to like Obama (he even does pretty well among white rural voters in Illinois, for a Democrat). And that is all he needs: if he gets enough support from white suburban voters in the Midwest and West, then he can win the general election.

So, the speculation sometimes offered here about white Americans not supporting Obama in sufficient numbers strikes me as disconnected from reality. And, frankly, that speculation tends to be pretty insulting of white Americans, particularly the moderate suburban white Americans who represent the current battleground between the political parties.

I think William and I have a different definition of Racism than others. If someone judges someone else solely by the color of their skin then I agree that that is racist. However, If I judge someone because their supporters and organizations they belong to are themselves racist then I don't deserve to be called a racist.

Two of Obamas supporters are Al sharpton and Jesse Jackson. I consider both of these individuals to be racists. Similarly, I am willing to bet Obama supports the NAACP. Another Racist organization. In addition much has been said about the fact that Obama belongs to a church with a very racist mission statement.

When I look at obama through these glasses I see someone who will support affirmative action and give preferential treatment to blacks based solely on their heritage.

I am currently giving him the benefit of the doubt because I havn't heard him play the race card. However, if his campaign begins to make a big deal about his heritage trying to use race as an attractor in largely black communities then I will run as fast as I can away from him.

Before you try to lynch me, Obama is the only democrat I am considering of the currently "Running" candidates.

"You see racism wherever you look."

- actually, i don't think about it too often.

"you said that people who identify themselves as 'white' are 'scared of minorities' and are 'racist.'"

-that comes from my belief that white people in this country are in fact the privileged majority. more about that below.

"in your mind, black people and other minorities are entitled to special treatment, and are justified in demanding special recognition because white people 'owe' it to them because of slavery and segregation."

-i do not believe in special treatment. i do believe in fair treatment where possible... and i do believe that because so many, granted not all, simply blacks and other minorities are the products of inferior schools, racist attitudes in hiring, admissions, promotion etc. while you may not believe that you yourself are racist, you must admit that there are still many who are. that is not to say that affirmative action has at times been misused and /.or used where not necessarily applicable, and i will admit that. but i do not agree that it should end or not play a role in those decisions just because it has the potential for abuse.

"If a white person is uneasy about voting for a black politician, that doesn't mean they are racist."

-actually, if the only reason for the unease is the candidate's race, then by definition, it does mean that the person is racist, or at least exhibits racist decision-making.

"When black politicians (or even white liberals) get into power, they tend to give special treatment and benefits (social entitlement, affirmative action, ethnic history months, etc) to minority groups."

-you have to be careful making blanket statements based only on the race or political persuasion of the person you're describing. i don't think you can ever say that something is ALWAYS true of "black politicians," or "white liberals," or any group.

"Also, black politicians are not concerned with how often black criminals attack white victims."

-same comment as above. why would any politician be unconcerned about crime victimizing any of his constituents, black, white, or whatever? maybe in some specific neighborhoods /.districts the black vote alone will elect a politician, but in most of the country, he / she needs to be supported by members of several different communities and ethnic groups.

"According to the Department of Justice, the rates of black on white rapes, sexual assaults and murders are ASTRONOMICALLY higher than white on black crimes of a similar nature."

-if that is true, i would ascribe it to economic reasons, rather than racial / cultural... i.e. I do not believe that many if any 'black on white' (or for that matter, 'any color on any color' crimes are committed by well-off assailants.)

anyway, for this and the examples you cite (tawana brawley, etc.) please keep in mind that i do not excuse anyone who commits a crime, and of course they should be prosecuted. but remember also amadou diallo in nyc, and the case in boston in the 90s - I don't remember the couple's name, but the husband killed the wife and then was able to escape prosecution for over a month because the police were easily convinced, absent any evidence, that a black man was the assailant

oh, but in re: "You know perfectly well that if the girls had been black and the attackers white, the attackers would have probably been given life in prison.
But since the attackers were black, and the victims white, the attackers were barely even punished." - that if true is the first example i have ever heard of an assailant getting off lightly because his victim was a minority. i bet there's more to the story.

"Al Sharpton and his ilk see no problem with something like that. They probably believe that white people deserve to be attacked because of segregation or whatever. And most black politicians feel the same way."

-once again, you can't assume that you know how each and every member of any group thinks simply because he / she is a member of that group. al sharpton has been a rabble-rouser at times in the past, i agree, but in the 2004 campaign, he was the democrat i most enjoyed listening to. he seemed more real than the others, and funnier. i think he may have mellowed a little bit from the man you remember. but that's not relevant. anyway -

Remember after Dinkins was elected in NYC? The black people felt they were in charge and could do whatever they wanted so they started attacking whites, and looting while Dinkins turned a blind eye.

-no, a minority element did what you describe, not "the black people." the majority of blacks in new york, as elsewhere, are concerned with eating, paying rent / mortgage, finding a job, etc. you cannot judge an entire ethnic group by the behavior of the loudest / most violent element. for example, i have been trying not to judge republicans based on the behavior of ann coulter. (yes, i know that's not the best analogy, but it made me laugh.)

"Would a black president be willing to deal harshly with his own people in a Rodney King riot type situation, or would he turn a blind eye?"

-if he were a responsible leader, as i believe obama would be, he would.
"Will a black president try to make criminal punishments lighter for blacks who have committed crimes?"

-i don't think there's any basis for believing that he would. once again, in order for him to be elected, a black leader would have had to demonstrate his appeal to all segments of society, and no intelligent politician of any race would do sth which would deliberately antagonize a majority of people. you gotta think he would want to be re-elected.

"Will he try to prevent black people sentenced to death from being executed?"

-i think that would have more to do with his position on the death penalty. "just because they're black," probably not.

"Will he push for slave reparations?"

-everyone not a member of the nation of islam knows this would be a non-starter.

"Higher taxes to fund government largesse and social entitlement for urban black communities?"

-well, i think that government should spend more on social programs - for everyone, and i'm not black...

"We know very well that white politicians are willing to do what is best for black people at the expense of white people."

-actually, only some are, and 'at the expense of white people' is just silly. white people have every opportunity they want in contemporary u.s. society.

"Would Obama or any other black president be willing to send in federal forces to quell Rodney King type riots?"

-i am confident that any president would do whatever possible in a situation like that. next question.

"But would a black president do that to protect white people? Doubtful."

-a black american leader would of course feel obligated to protect americans of any background, or else he / she would not remain a leader for very long. why do you doubt this?

"I never voted for segregation, and neither did a first generation immigrant from Denmark, to use a random example. Why should we be punished?"

-i do not believe that to offer opportunities available to members of other ethnic groups is to discriminate against those who already have those opportunities.

"Believe me, if a black candidate who will satisfy those above concerns runs for president, I would vote for them. Such a candidate would view all Americans equally and would not feel beholden or overly loyal to the black community, just as no white politician feels loyal or beholden to the white community."

-that is the impression i have so far of obama. believe me, if he started to spout farrakhan / malcolm x rhetoric, i would be less inclined to support him.

william, i have to thank you for your explanation. i will not repeat my comments above cuz it's already too long, but i understand better where you are coming from. i just don't think it's supported by the facts as I understand them, so i have to respectfully disagree. on another topic, as a southerner, how did you feel about hillary's accent in selma? make sure you tell lylepink.

Obama is polarizing because he's not white. And the idea of a minority president terrifies some people. (Not William. He's not racist. He knows that a lot of people are racists, and he expresses their concerns, but he hates racism. He said so himself!)

Obama plays the race card? Excuse me? I haven't see any such examples, i would be interested to hear what you mean. I don't see what's so 'polarizing' about him either.

JBK -- thank you for your very good analysis of the deeply troubled and very sick young man william. I would actually feel sorry for him if I didn't know how much damage people like him cause -- how many they wound or kill with their vicious hatred.

I seriously think that William may very well be schizophrenic. He is almost certainly paranoid, and may well have MPS.

One post will consist of some of the most insightful political analysis on this blog. Effectively using cost/benefit analysis to make intelligent political determinations based on hard evidence and numbers. I read these posts and almost always say to myself "yeah, I can see that. That makes sense." I may not always agree, but at least I can see the point that has been reasonably made.

Then the next post is completely off the deep end. So far out of the mainstream that it makes your head spin. Full of hatred, racism and paranoia. Do you want to know why you are a racist, even though you are unaware of the problem? Because you make statements that associate attributes to an entire race of people. You assume someone will act in a certain way because of their race. You see, that's racism. The very definition. You say "since this man is black, he will (or may) protect the black community, ignore the concerns of whites, and refuse to take action against his own people." You think that your are legitimate in this concern and fail to realize that THAT IS RACISM.

Don't confuse a hip/hop, urban culture with the black community, or any black individual. Obama has NEVER said or done anything that would lead you or anyone else to assume that he would put the needs of the black community before the needs of the American community. The guys only half black for one thing, for another, black don't SUPPORT CRIME by anyone. That is a STUPID thing to say. Your continual insistence on pointing out that "black on white" crime is higher than the other way around is really where your racism shines.

Because "black on black" crime, "black on Hispanic" crime, and "black on Asian" crime are all hirer than "white on any minority" crime. You point this out 3 times in one blog, but don't mention once that the black poverty rate is disproportionately higher than it is among whites. Don't you think it's at least possible that blacks commit more violent crimes than whites because poverty is higher in the black community? Just to show I'm not some self-loathing white guy (I'm not), you can also see that violent crimes are disproportionately higher in white trailer parks than from than from the suburbs. Poverty, not race causes crime. Yes blacks cause more crime, but because they are poorer. I don't have a solution, but I think understanding the reason is a start. Assuming blacks commit crimes because they are less moral than whites is pure racism.

You clearly provided the grounds for your concerns in electing Obama. And they that you feel he will put the needs of blacks ahead of the needs of whites. But you don't make the same assumption about white people. THAT IS RACISM. Face it dude, you're a racist. Either take steps to change that, or buy some white sheets and be proud of it. But to claim you're not a racist, and then write long posts explaining how you ARE racist is just stupid.

Do us all a favor and stick to the political analysis and leave public policy to the reasonable. Just to let you know, no centrist, moderate, or reasonable person agrees with you're far out, kool-aid, Rushophile ways. And WE (that is centrists, moderates, and reasonable people) are the majority and the true heart of this country.

P.S. Why don't you give Obama a chance until he says he wants to subject white people to 2nd class status.

Hi meuphys, I'll try to answer your post. It's 2 AM right now though and I'm very sleepy so please excuse me if I have spelling errors or whatever.

This post may be kind of long but please read the whole thing. I will try to explain my position to you, and how I am not a racist even though I am wary about voting for a black candidate (I would write African American, but for expediency I wrote black. I hope that is OK.)

I am just writing thoughts as they come to me so please bear with me.

I do not condone or support racists or racism and I condemn it wherever it is found. However, you and some other liberals on this site have an inaccurate view of racism. You see racism wherever you look. Behind every corner, in your mind, there is a racist bogeyman lurking.

For example, you accused me of being racist for not supporting affirmative action.

Also, you said that people who identify themselves as "white" are "scared of minorities" and are "racist."

In your mind, black people and other minorities are entitled to special treatment, and are justified in demanding special recognition because white people "owe" it to them because of slavery and segregation.

And to you, anyone who doesn't think minorities deserve this special treatment is racist.

In other words, you see racism where it doesn't exist. If a white person is uneasy about voting for a black politician, that doesn't mean they are racist.

Let me explain. When black politicians (or even white liberals) get into power, they tend to give special treatment and benefits (social entitlement, affirmative action, ethnic history months, etc) to minority groups.

Also, black politicians are not concerned with how often black criminals attack white victims. According to the Department of Justice, the rates of black on white rapes, sexual assaults and murders are ASTRONOMICALLY higher than white on black crimes of a similar nature.

In the Duke rape case (and earlier, in the Tawana Brawley (sp?)) case, the black politicians and leaders immediately judged the white defendents as guilty, even though the opposite was true in the Brawley case, and is almost certainly true in the Duke case.

Did you know recently, at Duke, a white girl was raped at a party by a black student? Probably not. Why wasn't that all over the news?

DO you think it would be racist for the news to report that black on white crime rates are extremely disproportionately high, even if it is true? Why or why not?

In California recently, 3 were white girls who were viciously attacked because of their race in a hate crime, which I am sure you heard about, though the liberal media buried it, lest it hurt their multiculturalist agendas.

The black kids were sentenced to IIRC something like 60 days in jail.

The girls needed serious surgery and one lost an eye.

You know perfectly well that if the girls had been black and the attackers white, the attackers would have probably been given life in prison.

But since the attackers were black, and the victims white, the attackers were barely even punished.

Al Sharpton and his ilk see no problem with something like that. They probably believe that white people deserve to be attacked because of segregation or whatever. And most black politicians feel the same way.

Remember after Dinkens was elected in NYC? The black people felt they were in charge and could do whatever they wanted so they started attacking whites, and looting while Dinkins turned a blind eye.

Would a black president be willing to deal harshly with his own people in a Rodney King riot type situation, or would he turn a blind eye?

That is a huge concern to me. Will a black president try to make criminal punishments lighter for blacks who have committed crimes? Will he try to prevent black people sentenced to death from being executed?

Will he push for slave reparations? Higher taxes to fund government largesse and social entitlement for urban black communities?

Will he push to expand or at least maintain affirmative action, a discriminatory policy? Probably.

We know very well that white politicians are willing to do what is best for black people at the expense of white people.

But we don't know if black politicians are willing to do what is best for Americans of other races at the expense of black people. I doubt that any black politicians would.

Would Obama or any other black president be willing to send in federal forces to quell Rodney King type riots? We know that white politicians like Kennedy have done that to the benefit of black people.

But would a black president do that to protect white people? Doubtful. At least I have seen nothing to indicate a black president would juding by the current black politicians.

Would a black president be willing to ensure that black people were prosecuted under hate crime laws to the extent that white people are? Even in clear hate crimes, blacks are rarely charged with a hate crime. Would a black president be willing to risk the ire of his own people to change that and make sure black people are prosecuted for their crimes?

Would a black president turn a blind eye to gangs and blame whitey or would he appoint a strong AG to go after the gangs and root them out?

Would a black president make sure that the issue of widespread black on white violent crime is addressed, or would he ignore it?

Would a black politician work to end the racist and discriminatory policy of affirmative action, which hurts whites?

If not, why should whites vote for someone who wants to discriminate against them.

I know you think that whites deserve it since they have to make up for segregation, but I don't want to be discriminated against.

I never voted for segregation, and neither did a first generation immigrant from Denmark, to use a random example. Why should we be punished?

Would a black president raise taxes to pour largesse into black urban communities, as Sharpton and Co will demand? Or will he rebuff Sharpton? Will a black president cut other programs to expand social entitlement?

Well, these are my concerns. Believe me, if a black candidate who will satisfy those above concerns runs for president, I would vote for them. Such a candidate would view all Americans equally and would not feel beholden or overly loyal to the black community, just as no white politician feels loyal or beholden to the white community.

So far however, I have not seen such a black candidate. Obama seems like a panderer.

And the "black values system" his church adheres to seems racist to me. If you substitute the word ""white" for black, wouldn't that sound like some kind of white supremacist movement?

Well, I hope I have conveyed to you that I am not a racist. I do not judge people by their skin color, and at college and in high school and middle/elementary school I had friends of many races, including Hispanic, black, Asian, etc.

I just have those concerns that I listed above about voting for a black president. If a black candidate came along who satisfied these concerns, I and other white southerners would gladly vote for him or her.

But we just want to be treated fairly. I dont think thats a lot to ask.

For Obama fans: I have expressed my opinion that Obama has ZERO chance of being elected POTUS. His race will be a factor, but the Liberal tag sticks to him as if glued on. "Obama is not a winner. Start being realistic", is a quote by William that goes to prove he is very intellegent, despite his ranting and raving most of the time, maybe some of the time would be a better phrase. Hillary is the best the dems have and I can't even start to think how the repubs will play as time goes by.

whatever, william... i don't remember the person's "name," but was assured by him / her after the nov. elections that sth to do with ford campaigning for his brother to win a congressional seat was what backfired.

in any case, it seems that you take delight in relying on bigoted nature of your fellow southerners. i have good friends and family from georgia, north carolina, virginia, and louisiana, so i know that all southerners are not like you describe. do you believe that being a racist is forgiveable, or at least an attribute not worth trying to change?

and enough with the osama obama, already. yes, his last name rhymes with "osama," and his middle name is "hussein." this is not news to anyone. are you seriously suggesting that this is a legitimate reason not to support him? do you seriously think this is something that americans should consider when they go to the polls?

if so, you do not have a very high opinion of the ability of the american voter to discern which criteria are important and relevant when they go to the polls. (although i'm sure if asked you would defend our educational system as 'the best in the world.')

are you smarter than a fifth-grader, william?

"It will only serve to make white swing voters even more uncomfortable with electing a black man, for fear they will be turned into 2nd class citizens."

The President has always been a white Christian man. Does that mean that blacks, women, Jews, Asians, and women are 2nd-class citizens?

You have this theory that nobody should ever vote of someone of another race. Does that mean that minorities should just leave the country entirely? After all, they can't trust a white president to support them, so why should they be here at all?

William, again a weak candidate for one party does not always mean huge coattails for the other.

In 1956, anti Cold War Democrat Adlei Stevenson lost huge to Republican Eisenhower, yet the Democrats actually gained ground in both Houses of Congress as well as a governorship.

In 1972, extreme left wing Democrat George McGovern lost by more than 3 to 2 to Republican Nixon yet Republicans lost everywhere but in the House.

In 1988, left wing Democrat Mike Dukakis lost big to Bush but the Democrats gained ground everywhere else.

In 1992, Clinton beat Bush handily, yet his party actually lost ground everywhere else.

In 1996, Clinton beat Dole easily, yet his party only gained three seats in the House.

"the "call me" ad did not have the effect intended, according to someone here who lives in the area, i forget who. and anything like that used vs. obama might actually backfire... "

Umm...I LIVE in "the area" (W NC, not TN.)

Ford would have won if not for the call me ad. A couple of days after the call me ad went out, Corker jumped like 7 points in the polls.

Even Dems in TN admit that it was Ford's race which was partially responsible for his defeat. The leader of the TN Dem party said that a different Dem congressman could have beaten Corker.

To all the people who like Obama:

Hey, I was just trying to give you some helpful advice since I would rather have a Dem in 2008 and a real conservative in 2012 than a RINO in 2008 and a RINO or Dem from 2012 to 2016.

But if you insist on being delusional and running Osama Hussein Obama, go ahead.

Then, after we retake everything from state legislatures to the presidency, you all can whine about how "racist" America is on Nov. 8.

What would you rather do? Make a statement or WIN?

Obama is not a winner. Start being realistic.

William: I go back and read the posts throughout the day and find you are one of the folks that appear to make a bit more sense as the day goes along. The am U is way out and the pm U appears to settle down a tad. These early dust-ups are are expected as well as the poll changes.

and enough about giuliani. what are his credentials to be a national leader? being mayor of nyc - no matter how multicultural a city it is - doesn't cut it, even though 09.11 happened on his watch.

no, he didn't fall apart, and was able to do his job... reassuring and holding the city together, in the absence of president bush and his pet goat. he didn't panic. good for him. now, how does he plan to address the deficit? global warming? the amt? the fda? being president is much harder than being ny mayor,

although given the current occupant, he can be forgiven for thinking the he would still be able to take long vacations and ignore problems he doesn't understand.

to recap: william is unable to imagine anyone voting for an african-american. (btw, william, the "call me" ad did not have the effect intended, according to someone here who lives in the area, i forget who. and anything like that used vs. obama might actually backfire... 1) i'm sure he is preparing for a situation like that, and 2) he is a better communicator than harold ford.) yes, obama's race will make it more difficult for some to support him, but i doubt that those voters would vote for a democrat anyway.

and john edwards is not catching on with primary voters. the thing with the bloggers is still what most people remember about his campaign thus far.

and you say "Obama's strategy of playing the race card and trying to paint anyone who doesnt like him as racist is going to backfire big time."

huh? it doesn't seem to me that obama is making much if any issue of his ethnicity, much as you might like him to.

Polling indicates that Obama does significantly better than Edwards among Independents. He also draws more self-identified Republicans that Edwards. Obviously he does better among both groups than Hillary.

Additionally, there was no Gannt/Wilder effect in Ford's Senate race. Polls showed that just as many people who said they would vote for a black candidate actually did so when they got in the voting booth. So the argument that you have to subtract five points from any minority candidates polling numbers seems to be a rather outdated theory in 2007. Thank god.

With respect to Cole's optimism, I can only surmise that the guy also feels pretty confident that he's about to win the megamillions drawing that already occurred. B/c there's as good a chance that that happens as the GOP doing well enough in 2008 to take back the house. Hard to see whoever the GOP nominee is having coattails when they all support the policies of a president who has 30% approval numbers.

William, Space won with 62% of the vote. That shows that he is a very good candidate.

Boyda's district has a history of electing moderate Democrats. If she keeps in touch with her district, she should get reelected.

Both of the Arizona districts are moderate swing districts and the Democrats are both good fits there.

Mahoney could definately hold on. That district only gave Bush two points above his national average and is trending Democratic like FL-22. It also has a large senior population that is concerned about Social Security. All Mahoney has to do is mention the Republican plan to cut benefits and he gets a large boost. If Republicans in blue districts like OH-01, IL-10, and PA-06 can get reelected, so can Mahoney.

"What are the seats that you think are sure to revert back to Republicans. They only ones that I can think of are TX-22(Lampson) and PA-10(Carney). The rest gave Bush a small enough margin that the Democrat should be able to hold on in a neutral year."

Surprisingly, Lampson is not as vulnerable as some others. He is conservative, and well-known in the area as a former COngressman. On the other hand, the write-in Republican with a weird name got 42% of the vote, so Lampson may be doomed.

Aside from Lampson, and whomever took Sherwood's seat in PA(Carney?), there are a few others.

Tim Mahoney in FL barely eked out a victory over MARK FOLEY's name on the ballot. I can't see him being reelected under any circumstances.

In OH, Zack Space (who beat Bob Ney) will have a tough, though not impossible, time being reelected. Ney's district was solidly R.

In AZ, one or both of the new Dem seats may be vulnerable. One was an open seat where a moderate Dem ran against a far right anti-immigration hardliner. In the other, the incumbent, JD Hayworth, faced corruption allegations over the Abramoff scandal, as well as accusations of anti-semitism.

I think McNerney in CA will be reelected, though the GOP will give him a run for his money.

McSweeney's district in NY may also revert to the GOP, though I think Gillibrand will be reelected.

Nancy Boyda may have a tough time in KS.

Baron Hill may have a tough time in IN, but if 2008 is even slightly blue I think he will be OK.

Obviously, I don't expect ALL these seats to switch, but I think some of them will.

I think Shuler in NC and Ellsworth and DOnnelly in IN are safe unless they swing way left.

How could New Jersey flip? Giuliani is still a 9/11 hero there. It happened just across the river where many New Jersey citizens work. McCain's war hero status also is respected in a state traumatized by 9/11. Maybe even more important, major Democratic party scandals in New Jersey are turning the citizens there against the Democrats. After, all politics is local, as they say. For you that are unware of what's going on, here's the story.

From www.northnewjersey.com -- Federal probe divides Trenton, Tuesday, February 13, 2007, by John P. McAlpin and Mitchel Maddux-Trenton Bureau. Democrats are refusing to release documents related to a federal probe on how millions in public funds were handed out over the last three years of the Democratic party controlled legislature. New Jersey legislative officials were hit with a volley of federal subpoenas last week, in a rapidly expanding corruption investigation into the Statehouse. The federal probe began last April with an investigation into state Sen. Wayne Bryant D-Camden, who was accused by a federal monitor of using his position to steer funding to the states medical university after he received a no-work job there. Among those who received subpoenas were Senate President Richard Codey D-Essex, Senate Majority Leader Bernard Kenny D-Hudson, Assembly Speaker Joseph Roberts D-Camden, and Assembly Majority Leader Bonnie Watson Coleman D-Mercer, legislative officials confirmed. This may be the biggest state-wide scandal ever once it's done.

As tarheel said, please don't shoot the messenger. Just reporting what's on the front page in New Jersey. By the way, thanks tarheel. Just some facts from Quinnipiac University. How refreshing to be able to draw our own conclusions instead of having someone try to draw them for me.

What are the seats that you think are sure to revert back to Republicans. They only ones that I can think of are TX-22(Lampson) and PA-10(Carney). The rest gave Bush a small enough margin that the Democrat should be able to hold on in a neutral year.

"Obama is only 'polarizing' if you are a racist..."

Oh, shut up.

Obama's strategy of playing the race card and trying to paint anyone who doesnt like him as racist is going to backfire big time.

It will only serve to make white swing voters even more uncomfortable with electing a black man, for fear they will be turned into 2nd class citizens.

Though people may not voice those concerns out loud, in the voting booth they will express them by which lever they pull, and you can take that to the bank.

I have 2 words for you: GANTT EFFECT.

Osama Obama is going to go down bigtime, and if he is nominated, the GOP will take back the Senate, House, everything. Get ready.

Obama is one "Call Me" ad away from complete annihilation.

All that's needed is a photoshopped picture of him kissing a white girl >:)

And you can bet one will turn up, even if Hillary has to paste two pictures together >:)

William, you added a new hat yesterday in your comments on Brownback.

Now we know you are not only a racist, but you are also a bigot.

Tarheel, coattails usually don't extend down to House races anymore. For example in 1988 Bush was beating Dukakis handily, yet his party still lost House seats. Same for Clinton in 1992. In 1996, Clinton easily beat Bob Dole yet Republicans held on to almost all of their Congressmen in Clinton districts. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry handily in many districts, yet the Democrats still won with the exception of the changes in Texas.

Tarheel, coattails usually don't extend down to House races anymore. For example in 1988 Bush was beating Dukakis handily, yet his party still lost House seats. Same for Clinton in 1992. In 1996, Clinton easily beat Bob Dole yet Republicans held on to almost all of their Congressmen in Clinton districts. In 2004, Bush beat Kerry handily in many districts, yet the Democrats still won with the exception of the changes in Texas.

I think that a few (maybe 4-6) House seats will revert to GOP control almost no matter what.

However, there are a number of vulnerable GOP seats that the Dems can target to make up for those losses and achieve a net gain of House seats in 2008.

IF the stars align for the Dems, and IF the GOP is still as unpopular as it was in 2006, then:

The Dems will likely pick up 4-7 Senate seats and lose 0-1.

The Dems will likely pick up 6-15 House seats, and lose 3-7.

Again, it ALL depends on the presidential nominee. As I mentioned above, Edwards (or Richardson, probably) won't have many coattails, but the Dems can still make gains without them in a blue year.

Since Edwards is just another Southern white Dem, it will not have an adverse affect on down ticket races, as he will not be viewed as risky or someone new and uncertain by voters.

I think an EDWARDS - RICHARDSON ticket would be quite strong, perhaps the strongest possible given the current mediocre Dem field.

Edwards would stand a good chance of holding all Kerry's states, while Richardson would draw an overwhelming majority of Hispanics (even Republican Hispanics.)

In the VP role, Richardson would not alarm white voters who may be uneasy voting for a Hispanic for president (and he has an Anglo last name, too).

But since he is Latino, he would attract wide Hispanic support and probably carry NM, CO, NV, and possibly even FL.

Richardson has extremely extensive foreign policy and administrative experience, and would help make up for Edwards' inexperience.

If Richardson himself is nominated, then Edwards would make a bad VP choice, since he cannot really offer anything.

A Richardson-Sweitzer ticket would be pretty strong, as would be Richardson-Bredesen.

Against Guiliani or Romney, that ticket may be able to take a few states in the South.

Obama is only 'polarizing' if you are a racist...

Maybe Cole has a reason for optimism since a presidential candidate usually has a coattail effect of bringing in new Congressmen if he/she is elected. Just released polls show that if the election were held today that either Giuliani or McCain could beat Hillary in Pennsylvania (20 electoral votes) and New Jersey (15 electoral votes). This projected flip of 35 electorial votes is very encouraging to the Republicans and must be a source of concern for the Democrats.

New York's Quinnipiac University New Jersey poll from February 25:
Giuliani(R) 50% - 41% Clinton(D)
Giuliani(R) 50% - 39% Obama(D)
McCain(R) 45% - 45% Clinton(D)
MCain(R) 41% - 45% Obama(D)

New York's Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania poll from March 7:
Giuliani 51% Clinton 40%
Giuliani 48% Obama 36%

From the Center for Opinion Research at Franklin and Marshall College in Pennsylvania:
Giuliani 53% Clinton 37%
Giuliani 52% Obama 32%
McCain 45% Clinton 41%
McCain 43% Obama 37%

By the way, don't shoot the messenger. All the major news outlets reported on these polls.

Assuming that there is no drastic rightward shift in the political climate between now and 2008, I think the Democrats will do well.

HOWEVER, that depends on their presidential nominee.

The GOP nominee is likely to be either McCain, Romney or Guiliani, none of whom are liked by the base and all of whom will make GOTV very hard for the GOP.

BUT, that will change if HRC or Obama is the Dem nominee, since conservatives are so afraid of them that they will vote for whomever the GOP candidate is. HRC or Obama being nominated will galvanize the GOP base and result in huge conservative turnout.

This will have an adverse affect on down ticket races, such as Senate, House, gubenatorial, and state legislature races.

Remember, after 2010, there will be redistricting, and certain swing states, like NV and CO stand to gain a seat, while blue states will be losing seats. Therefore, it is imperative for the Dems to make sure they make up for those lost seats by getting new blue seats in other states.

Even in LA, a conservative state, Dems stand a good chance of keeping the governorship if Blanco doesnt run again. LA may get a new House seat too.

If Obama or HRC is the Dem nominee, the consequences for the Dem down ticket races will be disastrous. Liberals will insist otherwise, claiming that Obama has wide appeal and that HRC is a strong candidate too, but this is either delusion, or liberal GroupThink. Out in the real world, Dems will be devastated and ravaged in 2008 if Obama or HRC is the nominee.

If that happens, the Dems ability to influence the redistricting in their favor will be a lot less (not to mention losing a number of seats in the House.)

And if Obama or HRC is the nominee, Dems will lose their Senate seats in LA and probably AR and maybe even SD. They will also have a harder time taking potential pickups in VA, NC and TN, and even CO and NH. Remember, a presidential election galvanizes turnout.

As an African-American SC state senator warrned, "if Obama is the nominee we will lose everything, the presidency, the senate, the House, the governorships, the state legislatures, everything!!!"

He is completely right. The same applies to HRC, to a lesser extent.

John Edwards, as CC remarked yesterday, poses the greatest threat to the GOP in 2008 out of the current Dem field (aside from maybe Richardson.)

Edwards isn't that strong of a candidate but most people don't see him as polarizing or threatening, unlike HRC or Obama.

If he is the nominee, I cannot see it having a negative affect on down ticket races, though it won't have a positive affect either.

DTM, never in history has one party picked up the House and lost the Presidency in the same election.

Cole's job in the RNCC is to be optimistic. This is a timely story?

Clintons have lost another $$$ backer from DC, influential super-attorney Greg Craig is going to back Obama. Thought you might like to know.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"You forgot incompetence, cronyism and rampant corruption"

I think both parties have a lock on this statement. The new congress has screwed up with eliminating all earmarks instead of eliminating pork earmarks. I hate to inform them but the Chinook helicopters and other needed defense items used to help our troops in Iraq are all earmarks. There are a host of other federal programs to help the poor which are earmarks. But hey what do you expect with election year gimmicks...this reminds me of the contract with America used by the R in 1994. Now the OMB has to decide what is a true earmark and Sen. Byrd will be overseeing this process (talk about King of Pork). Please there is plenty of incompetence, cronyism and have rampant corruption in both parties no party has a lock.

I actually think if the GOP gets a good Presidential nominee, it is entirely possible they will pick up seats in 2008, and maybe take back the House, even if a Democrat eventually wins the Presidency. I wouldn't say that based on the current climate, however--but there is still plenty of time for the GOP to get its act back together.

A lot of these districts that he is talking about barely went for Bush and will not automatically go back to voting for Republicans at the Congressional level. The fact that he is running Jeb Bradley again against Shea-Porter does not help. She can easily just tie him to Bush and the Republican leadership again.

Cole himself sits in a very Democratic district that has a 20 point registration advantage for Democrats and elected nothing but Democrats before 1994. Does that mean that his district will go back to electing Democrats again? I think not.

For uncensored news please bookmark:

otherside123.blogspot.com
www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.info
www.onlinejournal.com

Sen. Clinton and Corporate America
Hillary, Inc.

By RALPH NADER

Just as the Democrats could never seem to get a handle on Ronald Reagan in his sixteen years as Governor of California and President, the Republicans cannot get a handle on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

No matter what they tried-and they were admittedly timid-the Democrats could neither upset, mire, or throw Ronald Reagan on the defensive. He smiled, shrugged his shoulders and tefloned his way to victory after victory.

The Republicans are flummoxed when it comes to Senator Clinton. They could not even mount a hardy campaign against her in 2006, leaving a nominal Yonkers mayor the hapless task to take up the space on the ballot opposite her. She walked to victory, spending over $35 million in the process.

The reasons why Republicans cannot score points against Clinton is that she is so much like them on the key corporate power issues. Although she is on the Armed Services Committee, she took President Eisenhower's description of the "military-industrial complex" and repeatedly rubber stamped the massive, bloated, wasteful and corrupt expenditures.

It was not for her to question any redundant weapons systems, no longer strategically needed in the post-Soviet Union era. It was not for her to act on the scores of investigative findings by the Government Accountability Office of the Congress documenting corporate waste, fraud and abuse and do something about them. Let a thousand weapon systems bloom was and is her mantra.

The corporate crime wave of the past seven years, draining and looting trillions of dollars from workers, investors and pension-holders did not catch her industrious attention either. Notwithstanding the publicized enforcement efforts of her state's attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, whose popularity took him to a landslide win for the Governorship, she refused to extend his efforts in the U.S. Senate by pushing the regulatory agencies for a necessary crackdown on corporate crime. He gave her the ultimate political cover, by showing the great public support for his "law and order" drives, but she lacked the political fortitude and opted instead for the political cash for her campaigns.

Further contributing to the gigantic government deficit in Washington are the dozens of programs providing subsidies, handouts and bailouts to large corporations known as "corporate welfare." One would think that all that experience in her husband's White House, which she touts routinely, would have predisposed her to championing cutting corporate welfare that now amounts to hundreds of billions of dollars a year in an upward distribution of wealth from the have-littles to the have-lots. No way. Hillary lets the tax revenues and the tax loopholes grow and the windfalls swell the coffers of big business.

By this time the Republicans cannot describe her in the least as "anti-business." Why the junior Senator from New York has done virtually nothing about the business crimes against the poor in her state, especially in the inner city where outrageous interest charges on pay-day loans, predatory lending, redlining, landlord abuses and code violations, lead and asbestos abound. Many of these financial scams benefit Wall Street financiers.

What's left for the Republicans to work on? The Iraq war? Senator Clinton voted for the war resolution and refuses to admit her mistake in so doing. She remains generally a Democratic Hawk on foreign policy.

What about global corporate trade? She is a fervent backer of the World Trade Organization and NAFTA, though she now wants to tweak them with some unenforceable labor and environmental qualifications. The evidence behind the treaties' supplanting our nation's legitimate sovereignty and procedural safeguards through these transnational forms of autocratic, secretive governance, is overwhelming. The evidence that these trade treaties have cost good industrial jobs, driven down efforts to keep living wages, and contributed to the country's huge trade deficits is also decisive.

Yet Senator Clinton follows the Republicans and neuters what could be the latter's criticism of any potential demand for renegotiating these vise-like trade shackles that have led to shipping whole industries to the communist dictatorship in China.

Moreover, she has co-sponsored bills with Republicans and received their public praise, including that of former House Speaker, Newt Gingrich.

The new publication, Politico, headlined recently an article by Jim Vandehei and Carrie Sheffield with the words-"Clinton Presidency May be Inevitable, Republicans say." Former House Majority leader, Tom DeLay, is quoted as saying: "If the conservative movement and Republicans don't understand how massive the Clinton coalition is, she will be the next president." He should know about massive coalitions.

The article also quotes other Republican Party bigwigs in the same vein. None of them offered any strategy. Instead they speak generalities that simply prove the point that Senator Clinton has them neutralized and nullified by the very brazen scope of her political expediency and opportunism.

About all these Republican operatives could offer is that a Hillary presidency would prod and shock conservative foot soldiers into action. Such an attitude means capitulation for 2008.

Ralph Nader is the author of The Seventeen Traditions

'The slide in approval for President Bush and the widespread unpopularity of the war in Iraq -- the prime factors in the congressional Republicans' fall from power in 2006'

You forgot incompetence, cronyism and rampant corruption.

I have sympathy for Cole. He had to raise 4 mil to cover last cycles debt. That sucks if your first day on the job someone says "go payoff my screw-up for me, thanks"

He may be right that alot of districts may flip back to Republican control, but he does have a serious retirement problem on his hands. Taken with the fact that people like Heather Wilson can't seem to not act like a complete jacka$$ he has his work cut out for him. Also the RNC is going to have its hands full trying to protect the Senate. Not an enviable position if you ask me.

Let's see... what's there to be optimistic about, 1) it's likely we'll be stuck in Iraq in Nov. '08, 2) we'll still be stuck in Iraq in Nov. '08, and 3) we'll still be stuck in Iraq in Nov. '08... on a lighter note, Anna Nicole's "Texas" (mom's attorney who collapsed in the courtroom) is hosting a fund-raiser for John Edwards tonight: http://www.solidpolitics.com

"Our political positioning is very good,"

That's not optimism, that's delusion.