Republicans gain control of senate!! (Official 2002 Election results thread)

"As such, it is often these left wing democrats that live in Fantasy Land's of their own minds, and think what they do in their districts should carry over nationwide."

The reason for this is because they are utopians, not realists. They believe ina very particular vision for the US, a "one size fits all" philosophy. Many conservatives believe this too, they just believe utopia occured in the past, not the future. They believe we have "fallen from a golden age" of the past rather than progressing towards one.

The Jesse Helms and Nancy Pelosi's of the world are both wrong.

 

Dark Lady Mara, do you recall the attempted Millenium bombing? The person(s) that were supposed to bomb LA's airport came across the Canadian border.

I think plenty of potential terrorists could come across either Canada's border, Mexico's, etc. Candians can be as ticked off as they want to, but that is not helping the situation.

 

That still doesn't make GWB's singling out of Canadian security reasonable when there are people literally walking into the U.S. from across the Mexican border. I'm not denying that there could be a successful terrorist attack by someone who got into the U.S. from Canada, but I do sympathize with Canadians who feel Bush is unfairly scapegoating their country and blaming them for all the U.S.'s problems.

 

It seems that conservatives are bent on heckling Rep. Pelosi's liberal stance, saying that it will kill the Democratic Party. They quote Rep. Frost's statement that the country has stepped to the right, and the DP must step with it.

Which is total bull.

If the DP steps along with the Republicans, wouldn't they BECOME Republicans?

As Rep. Pelosi said, Democrats have to be able to distinguish themselves from the Republicans. Otherwise, they'd just look like cowardly copycats who are trying to placate the public by following the Republicans while totally throwing away their own convictions.

And Rep. Pelosi mentioned something along the line that people can tell a real Republican from a fake one (a Democrat) and they'll always settle for the real thing.

Which is why I think that having Rep. Pelosi as House Minority Leader is a step in the right direction for the DP. I could be wrong, but it's not like Rep. Pelosi will become the DP's new dictator.

 

"I could be wrong, but it's not like Rep. Pelosi will become the DP's new dictator."

Not a dictator, but the democrats version of Newt Gingrich, shrill, an idealogue, and a partisan.

 

but Dark Lady, you still haven't posted a statement from Bush or the administration that shows "singling out of Canadian security" or "blaming them for all the U.S.'s problems."

An actual quote or statement would make it a lot easier to debate the issue. Otherwise it sounds like you're grossly exaggerating (intentionally or not) the position that the open border could cause a problem, which even you admit.

 

Darth Fierce, ask the State Dept officials who issued them visas if they came from Canada.

If you want proof, I can probably find their schedule, from the Middle East onwards. I wouldn't be surprised if they went straight to the US - After all, an al-Qaeda terrorist named Ali Mohammed trained for years in the Army's Special Forces, even becoming an instructor.

E_S

 

Well, the face of the Democrat Party for the next two years will undoubtedly be whomever emerges as the Presidential nominee's. As such, Pelosi has two years essentially of a pass, as the Presidential Candidates will be the face of the party.

After 2004 elections are done, she will be the face of the party.

---

I read something in another post really quick: YOU know something? This has been the longest period in the past 10 years that we have gone without so much as a peep from William Jefferson Clinton. I can imagine how the 2002 elections were a terrible shock on his ego, but has anybody here seen or heard anything about him in the news?

 

Ender
That may be. But Dark Lady's assertion was "Bush did accuse Canada of letting terrorists into the U.S." And even if he did say that, he's still correct if the context was not specifically the 9/11 terrorists, as POLUNIS pointed out.

Saying Bush is "blaming them for all the U.S.'s problems." is a gross mischaracterization.

 

Oh, for sure. However, I think the general failings of certain US institutions became apparent with the 11-9-01 attack, and so the idea that terrorists would need to go through Canada prior to September last year could be a reach.


E_S

 

A few of the 9/11 terrorists entered the US via Mexico, and I believe I heard it said they did it by pretending to be mexican. At first glance, really dark complexioned arabs can pass for mexican's.

 

Hmm. I think they all came directly, which makes continued belief that they came from Mexico or Canada look a bit politically motivated.

 

I am not so sure about that, Red7. I am pretty sure that at least two of them did cross from MExico.

 

Let's assume, for argument's sake, that terrorists have never come across the Canadian or Mexican borders. Does that mean we ought to let down our guard JUST because it has not happened yet. That would be just inviting the terrorists to exploit the obvious loophole. It is stupid to wear a huge set of armor and then leave an obvious gap in the armor for an opponent to exploit.

The war is being brought to us; this is no easy situation to deal with because of the fact that terrorists are unscrupulous. They just do not fight fair. I would prefer all immigration would be halted for the time being, to be honest.

 

heh heh. speaking of immigration... i have nothing against immigrants. my parents were immigrants and a lot of my friends are immigrants. however... 25% (that's a pretty large chunk, BTW) of these immigrants that flood through our borders are illegal! i believe that tighter immigration policies is a better answer than bringing immigration to a total halt.

cheers!

 

I agree with you to some extent, but I do not see reform in the near future without a total overhaul of the system. Security ought to be a priority for the INS or whatever organization takes over.

 

I hate when people make allegations, and then leave the thread when asked to back them up.

Oh well.

 

ShaneP: Not a dictator, but the democrats version of Newt Gingrich, shrill, an idealogue, and a partisan.

Aren't all politicians like that?

 

Well, Nancy Pelosi was just elected House Minority Leader.

This is the best possible news for Republicans, since she is so far to the left that many conservative and moderate Democrats might switch parties. My bet is that atleast Charles Stenholm(D-TX) and Ralph Hall(D-TX) switch parties.

 

Ahmen to that....Nancy Pelosi will probably get a pass for the next two years, as the face of the Party will be whomever emerges as Presidential contenders.

But from 2004 to 2006, she will be a face of the Party and that will no doubt KILL the Democrats in the 2006 midterm elections.

Also DaschleBlamesRushLimbaughforhisFailure, in one of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen a politician do....Tom Daschle has blamed Rush LImbaugh for his failure for not getting more done in the Senate.......

I thought at first when I heard Rush play the Daschle comment, that it was some kind of joke, but getting home and reading it for myself.....

 

DidClintonHurttheDems?

Well, found this online, thought it might be worth postinig up here.

---

The Clinton Drag
This Election Day, he hurt Democrats more than he helped.

Thursday, November 21, 2002 12:01 a.m. EST

Did Bill Clinton help or hurt the candidates he stumped for this year? Some commentators argue that the former president has lost his appeal since most of the candidates he campaigned for lost. "The stumpers got stomped," says Newsweek political writer Howard Fineman, referring to the Clintons. "This election was the official end of the Clinton-Gore era."

Richard Blow, a former editor of George magazine, disagrees. Writing for the liberal Web site TomPaine.com, he says "there's no evidence that [Democratic candidates] lost because of a Clinton visit, and lots of evidence that they lost for entirely different reasons."

The truth lies closer to Mr. Fineman's view than to Mr. Blow's. Conservatives who say the election was a repudiation of Bill or Hillary Clinton are overreaching, but Mr. Blow and others are also stretching a point when they cite victories by several candidates Mr. Clinton campaigned for.

The ex-president did stump for Jennifer Granholm, who was elected Michigan's first female governor. But she won by only three percentage points, a much smaller margin than any poll forecast. Similarly, Arkansas Attorney General Mark Pryor, the only Democrat to defeat a GOP Senate incumbent, did finally allow himself to appear with his state's most well known political figure at a small rally in Pine Bluff in late October. But the Memphis Commercial-Appeal noted that "Pryor has previously shunned campaign appearances with Clinton in the former president's visits to his home state this year."

Surely Mr. Pryor's reluctance was prompted by something other than scheduling problems.





Where Mr. Clinton was a clear benefit to Democrats was in fund-raising. He and Mrs. Clinton are the party's most sought-after speakers at gatherings where cash is separated from Democratic donors. "He's always been a good provider," Rep. Gary Ackerman of New York once told me. But he acknowledged that Mr. Clinton had to be selectively used on the campaign trail for fear of alienating independent voters or stimulating GOP turnout.
Contrary to Mr. Blow, there is some evidence that Mr. Clinton was a liability even where Democrats thought his campaign appearances wouldn't be controversial. Hawaii is a staunchly Democratic state, having gone for Mr. Clinton by 19 points in 1992 and 25 points in 1996, and even backing Jimmy Carter in 1980 and Michael Dukakis in 1988. But this year, the state Democratic Party's 40-year grip on the governor's mansion was in jeopardy when Republican Linda Lingle, a former mayor of Maui, was tied in the polls with Democratic Lt. Gov. Mazie Hirono in late-October. Local unions decided to spend $100,000 to fly Mr. Clinton to the state in a private jet for a series of get-out-the-vote rallies.

Mr. Clinton arrived in Hawaii on Oct. 29, flying all night after attending the infamous "memorial service" in Minneapolis for the late Sen. Paul Wellstone. In Hawaii, Mr. Clinton made appearances at rallies on all the state's major islands: Hawaii, Kauai, Maui and Oahu.

In Honolulu, he appeared at an event that had been marketed as a "memorial service" for Rep. Patsy Mink, who died on Sept. 28. It was Minnesota writ small: Mr. Clinton used the occasion to exhort the crowd to elect a Democratic governor. While criticism of the event was not nearly as intense as in Minnesota, and it got little national attention, many callers to talk shows felt that Mr. Clinton's politicking was inappropriate.

At his Kauai rally, Mr. Clinton responded to a heckler who yelled out "Liar!" with yet another one of his trademark whoppers: "Newt Gingrich once told me, 'I'm sorry we have to be so mean to you, but if we fought fairly, we'd lose every time.' " Mr. Gingrich says this tale is "completely untrue." Does anyone believe that a s

 

I posted the below on the Bowling for COlumbine Thread. Since the below was really off topic for the thread, I guess reposting it below makes sense.

Granted, I doubt TheScarlettBanner will ever actually reply to it.




The Scarlett Banner said

>>39% of the voting-age population voted in the 2002 mid-term elections. While that is a twenty-year high (whereas '98, with 36.4% ratio was the lowest), it is still MUCH lower than it is possible to say that it is the will of the people. This could mean several things: <<

Ok, let me rephrase it to the will of the people that SHOW UP TO VOTE.

But you have opened a door that I was hoping would get opened. 1998 vs 2002 midterm election. More in a minute.

>>1. The popularity of the Republican Party and its leader has substantially increased, which is why they made such great gains,
2. The traditional Democrat voters stayed at home, either because they were disenfranchised or because they thought they would win it without turning up, <<

Remember 1998? It was probably one of the darkest years, politically that I can ever remember. And why? Because there was a general sentiment that this vote was a referendum on BIll Clinton's personal affairs. The result then was that Republicans largely stayed away, while Democrat's had the higher 'get out the vote/save bill clinton' turnouts.

ANd, even though the end result of 1998 was the Democrats picking up 5 seat's in the House (but not getting the majority) and holding things even in the Senate (no pickups), it was hailed as a victory. THe media and the democrats were laughing and were really rubbing it into the right that day.

IN comparison, is that Bill CLinton took the country thru the low road, to get a successfull midterm election. George W Bush took the country on the high road to get his succesfull midterm election

>>3. The swing voters switched on a large scale to the Republican Party, possibly because of the increase in patriotic fervour following Sept. 11, and the possible upcoming war with Iraq (meaning that those most likely to vote were Republican). For whatever reason, the Democrats were as quiet as mice (when they should have been hassling about the economy and beating the drums about Enron), and that probably helped a bit. <<

Enron would not have helped. THe reason the hearing have ended is because the shadow is now pointing at former CLinton Treasurey Secretary Robert Rubin's illegally getting the Treasurey Department to hold off regulators and keep Enron's bond price up, while he was CFO of Citigroup. To the rest of it, it goes to the 'High Road' point I made above

>>If it was 3., which I believe it is, then it isn't all doom and gloom for the Democrats. It depends on a number of things:

1. The war with Iraq: if it goes well, and ends not long before the '04 Presidential election, GWB can probably expect a healthy return. If not, it's likely that some of those swing voters will switch back to the Democrats.
2. The economy: this could be the issue that could win the '04 election for the Democrats. If GWB fails to reinvigorate the economy, and the Democrats make a meal out of this prior to the election, it will probably help substantially.
3. Who the Democrats field. Bush is enjoying Reagan-like popularity, and if the Dems decide to field boring Alberto Gore again, they can expect to be blown down. As it is, there is absolutely no other clear successor to Clinton and the next Democratic President. Hillary Clinton (probably a bad choice anyway) isn't running in '04, as she has said. If they manage to come up with someone good, and the above two issues are handled well, then they have an excellent chance. <<

I noticed you failed to acknowledge point #4. It was well reported that the CLintons had said humiliating the Bush family was one of their main goals in 2002.....and that seemed to have failed big time, didn't it?

And this is way off subject, don't you think? The topic of the thread, that is?

 

I've been staying out of this thread, but I'll say this much:

Everything cycles. All this talk about the democrats being leaderless, visionless, and dead is premature, and wrong.

They are down, but not out. The republicans have been where the dems are now, and will be again. Things move in phases. Ten years ago, no-one thought Clinton would win. But he did-twice. 7 years ago, an article in TIME called the conservative movement "dead".

It just amuses me. I would not call this or any other midterm election of the past decade a mandate on anything. Nowhere near enough turnout. Bush beat the war drum, and got his votes. It's exceedingly difficult to challenge the popularity of a wartime president. If a war starts, bogs down, and terrorism cranks up again relentlessly in the US, guess what: the republicans will get hurt. They will even go down. They are not invicible.

Anyone who thinks I'm blowing smoke, just go back and read a little history. Even better, wait and see what happens when the next Supreme Court seat opens up. That will be a war.

Peace,

V-03

 

The Scarlett Banner said

One 't' in Scarlet.

Ok, let me rephrase it to the will of the people that SHOW UP TO VOTE.

Yeah. In other words, not democracy in the strictest sense. We have no idea how it would have gone had there been a higher turnout (we in Britain got 59%ish last general election, which was our lowest since... 1932, I think. Still fairly high, though, in comparison).

Remember 1998? It was probably one of the darkest years, politically that I can ever remember. And why? Because there was a general sentiment that this vote was a referendum on BIll Clinton's personal affairs. The result then was that Republicans largely stayed away, while Democrat's had the higher 'get out the vote/save bill clinton' turnouts.

I think you're making a sociological mistake, there.

I believe the tendancy of the Republicans to get out and get rid of Bill Clinton would have outweighed the urges of the Democrats, perhaps disenfranchised with their party, to save Bill Clinton.

I noticed you failed to acknowledge point #4. It was well reported that the CLintons had said humiliating the Bush family was one of their main goals in 2002.....and that seemed to have failed big time, didn't it?

I would have no idea how much affect Clinton had. It's my guess that the swing population generally turned Republican owing to GWB's popularity, and patriotic fervour following Sept. 11 and the upcoming Iraq war; I think BC had less to do with it.

And this is way off subject, don't you think?

It's a 2002 election results thread. I think that's what we were discussing...

- Scarlet.

 

Aww, come on, Scarlet!! Even at TomPaine.com, they have a better spin on the Clinton effect then you just put out.