on the filibuster

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

The Dems do not have a mandate.

Well, actually, yes, they do indeed have the electoral mandate. In the Executive Branch, in the Congress [House of Reps to make Joey happy], in the Senate.

I just posted today's Rasmussen poll over in your other thread (your poll thread) that shows the Dems - for today at least - clearly in the lead.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Well, actually, yes, they do indeed have the electoral mandate. In the Executive Branch, in the Congress [House of Reps to make Joey happy], in the Senate.

I just posted today's Rasmussen poll over in your other thread (your poll thread) that shows the Dems - for today at least - clearly in the lead.

Except the Dems clearly dont lead the polls when the Tea partyers and GOP are added together. Since Palin "heads" the tea Partiers and you, Bob and the Today show say shes the face of the GOP I want to hear the reasoning on how the Dems clearly are in the lead.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Except the Dems clearly dont lead the polls when the Tea partyers and GOP are added together. Since Palin "heads" the tea Partiers and you, Bob and the Today show say shes the face of the GOP I want to hear the reasoning on how the Dems clearly are in the lead.

From what I see the Tea Partiers and the GOP are not going to vote together (witness what has happened already in elections where there are candidates from both Baggers and GOP running - NY Congress, the Dem won, hello!); that the part of the GOP that supports Baggers is moving away from Baggers and back to the GOP; and that Independents are moving away from the GOP and Baggers.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

From what I see the Tea Partiers and the GOP are not going to vote together (witness what has happened already in elections where there are candidates from both Baggers and GOP running - NY Congress, the Dem won, hello!); that the part of the GOP that supports Baggers is moving away from Baggers and back to the GOP; and that Independents are moving away from the GOP and Baggers.

There really is nothing unusual about a Dem. winning a House seat in N.Y. is there? In that particular case the Republican was far more liberal than the Dem. and had to bow out. The "tea bagger" was a relative unknown who almost won. If I remember right the Repub stayed on the ballot. I may be wrong about the last one.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

There really is nothing unusual about a Dem. winning a House seat in N.Y. is there? In that particular case the Republican was far more liberal than the Dem. and had to bow out. The "tea bagger" was a relative unknown who almost won. If I remember right the Repub stayed on the ballot. I may be wrong about the last one.

The unusualness is that that seat has always been Republican for like 40 years.

The Republican candidate bowed out when the Tea Party candidate appeared (who I think appeared on the ballot as an "independent", but not sure), and put support behind the Democrat, who then won.

The Tea Party (there are various Bagger groups, and a bit of infighting, so that kind of unfairly paints them all with the same name, there is not just one group of "Tea Party" people, there are several) - the TP intends to put up candidates against Republicans in the primaries this fall. We'll see how it works out.

[SOREHOOF]

Originally Posted by Riot

The unusualness is that that seat has always been Republican for like 40 years.

The Republican candidate bowed out when the Tea Party candidate appeared (who I think appeared on the ballot as an "independent", but not sure), and put support behind the Democrat, who then won.

The Tea Party (there are various Bagger groups, and a bit of infighting, so that kind of unfairly paints them all with the same name, there is not just one group of "Tea Party" people, there are several) - the TP intends to put up candidates against Republicans in the primaries this fall. We'll see how it works out.

Here's the scoop Riot. Hoffman ran as a Conservative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/ny...rict.html?_r=1
The Repub. got 6% of the vote after she bowed out. There is no such Party as the "Tea Party" yet. Just a lot of people (like myself) who feel both parties are running this country into the ground with endless spending with no way to pay for it except more spending. Obama says when you can't pay the mortgage you shouldn't blow a bunch of money in Vegas, but that is exactly what he himself is doing. Yet another case of O saying one thing then doing the opposite

[Riot]

Originally Posted by SOREHOOF

Here's the scoop Riot. Hoffman ran as a Conservative.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/04/ny...rict.html?_r=1
The Repub. got 6% of the vote after she bowed out. There is no such Party as the "Tea Party" yet. Just a lot of people (like myself) who feel both parties are running this country into the ground with endless spending with no way to pay for it except more spending. Obama says when you can't pay the mortgage you shouldn't blow a bunch of money in Vegas, but that is exactly what he himself is doing. Yet another case of O saying one thing then doing the opposite

Just hope Sarah Palin stops endorsing candidates, so far seems the kiss of death.