National Election and Media

jimwnola

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
4,018
Ratings
185
Age
57
Location
Mandeville, LA
Offline
Almost everyday there are several stories predicting demise of Republicans in next weeks elections. I have a hard time believing that and it sounds more like what many in media are hoping it to happen, and are trying to use reports to help with efforts. It's the kind of stuff that makes so many accuse the media of being "liberals." Really, is there any sane person who would, or would not, vote for Jindal due to Mark Foley? Wouldn't that be the case with others running in other states? Don't really see the connection.
We'll see in just over a week. I predict Dems might make some slight gains, but no change in power or anything that big.
 

JimEverett

More than 15K posts served!
Joined
Mar 18, 2001
Messages
24,128
Ratings
7,388
Offline
If you look at the polls - all the polls - and believe them, then you will believe that the Democrats will take over the House and its going to come down to 4 or 5 races for the Senate (Virginia, Tennessee, Missouri, Montana/New Jersey).
So I think it is a case of watching polls.
However, I think the polls are skewed simply because I live in Tennessee and I don't think Ford is really that close to Corker here, yet the polls say it is a virtual dead heat. Maybe I am completely wrong and the polls are right, but until election night proves it, I think we are going to get more of the same for 2 more years.
 

UncleTrvlingJim

Administrator
Administrator
Super Moderator
VIP Contributor
Joined
Jan 22, 2000
Messages
23,830
Ratings
8,170
Offline
It's hard to say... scandals like Mark Foley tend to depress party faithful and energize the opposition. It's not that a lifelong Republican would suddenly vote Democrat, but they might stay home, and the lifelong Democrat who has been a spotty voter will be motivated enough to show up at the polls.

Elections don't have anything to do with what everyone in the country wants... it has to do with what those who are motivated enough to vote want.

The Republicans have thrived on being able to control the message for so long, and right now they're not doing as well in that department...

All that being said, I think the Republicans will maintain a slight majority in both the House and the Senate.
 

RebSaint

Lint smoker
Joined
May 8, 2002
Messages
36,687
Ratings
6,692
Location
Alexandria, LA
Offline
Almost everyday there are several stories predicting demise of Republicans in next weeks elections. I have a hard time believing that and it sounds more like what many in media are hoping it to happen, and are trying to use reports to help with efforts. It's the kind of stuff that makes so many accuse the media of being "liberals." Really, is there any sane person who would, or would not, vote for Jindal due to Mark Foley? Wouldn't that be the case with others running in other states? Don't really see the connection.
We'll see in just over a week. I predict Dems might make some slight gains, but no change in power or anything that big.

There's no "liberal" conspiracy here, I remember the same kind of predictions coming from this same "liberal" media regarding the Republican resurgency in 1994.
 
Banned #6

cruize

Account closed at user request
Joined
Apr 3, 2005
Messages
5,866
Offline
It will come down to a couple of key contests and amazingly the Republicans will pull it out, with voting irregularities again being in the forefront. Imagine that. Then, the stay the course message will be back. Bush will proclaim he has a mandate from the people and gas prices will amazingly go back up due to some event in the middle east.
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,032
Ratings
54
Age
54
Location
da boyah
Offline
>>is there any sane person who would, or would not, vote for Jindal due to Mark Foley?

Yep. If he voted to supress the investigation until after the election, and someone can show that to me (ala his opponent's commercial), I'll never vote for him again. ;)

TPS
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,032
Ratings
54
Age
54
Location
da boyah
Offline
hahahaha LMAO. Seriously though, if he acted out of political loyalty to his party in order to supress that information, I think he's no better than any of the other party-partisans in Washington. Speaking of partisan, I was watching Hannity & Bush and it was a :20 minute propaganda piece. Someone said on the EE yesterday or Saturday, "I vote for two things, economy and security." It was the Bush talking point. I'd be remiss if I didn't mention Hannity's test marketing of "Can you believe that San Francisco Liberal Nancy Pelosi could be speaker of the house" rabble rouse that instantly became the "bring the base back into the fold" moniker. I also watched Glen Beck while on the Treadmill and he had a nice piece tonight about how both parties have abandoned their fundamentals and ideals and how out of touch they both are with the American public. It was a nice bit of EE on CNN for once. :shrug:

TPS
 
OP
OP

jimwnola

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
4,018
Ratings
185
Age
57
Location
Mandeville, LA
Offline
Well that's why I would be surprised at any major shift. I admit if you are just talking, in general, the Reps aren't exactly thrilling anyone these days. That might have some effect on turnout. However, I really don't see much to energize anyone in election. Gas price down and economy is ok. Reps have been spending too much money, but without any tax increases to anger people, and no real sense that Dems would be any better, I don't see that issue being a big impact. The "sex scandal" to me is just reminder of all the crap that does on in Washington, and with our local democrat Jefferson stuffing money, hard to think of Dems have any moral ground here. Personally, I also don't think of 16 year old boys as totally innocent, naive children, to even get that outraged on the whole Foley thing, but others may feel differently of course. Seems like it might end up being yet another referendum on Iraq. Although support wanes, Dems have been so wishy washy on what they would do differently, I'm not sure if people are really going to run to them on this. The partisans will vote the same as always.
Maybe in other parts of country there is more interest, but I don't think anyone local even cares. If like me, I just want the LRA, the SBA and my ICC claim to actually progress. Election changes nothing.
 

Dave

Super Forum Fanatic
Joined
Mar 14, 2006
Messages
6,578
Ratings
1,762
Offline
Salon's 'favorite intellectual' and one of their founding contributors Camille Paglia on the Mark Foley scandal:
Foley is obviously a moral degenerate, and the Republican House leadership has come across as pathetically bumbling and ineffectual. But the idea that this is some sort of major scandal in the history of American politics is ludicrous. This was a story that needed to be told for, you know, like two days.

Mark Foley was never on the radar of anyone outside the small circle of news junkies. So his fall and banishment from Washington were nothing but a drip in the torrential flood of current geopolitical problems. The way the Democratic leadership was in clear collusion with the major media to push this story in the month before the midterm election seems to me to have been a big fat gift to Ann Coulter and the other conservative commentators who say the mainstream media are simply the lapdogs of the Democrats. Every time I turned on the news it was "Foley, Foley, Foley!" — and in suspiciously similar language and repetitive talking points.

After three or four days of it, as soon as I heard Foley's name, I turned the sound off or switched channels. It was gargantuan overkill, and I felt the Democrats were shooting themselves in the foot. I was especially repulsed by the manipulative use of a gay issue for political purposes by my own party. I think it was not only poor judgment but positively evil. Whatever short-term political gain there is, it can only have a negative impact on gay men. When a moralistic, buttoned-up Republican like Foley is revealed to have a secret, seamy gay life, it simply casts all gay men under a shadow and makes people distrust them. Why don't the Democratic strategists see this? These tactics are extremely foolish. Gay men through history have always been more vulnerable to public hysteria than are lesbians, who — unless they're out there parading around in all-leather bull-dyke drag — simply fit more easily into the cultural landscape than do gay men, who generally lead a more adventurous, pickup-oriented sex life.

Not only has the public image of gay men been tarnished by the over-promotion of the Foley scandal, but they have actually been put into physical danger. It's already starting with news items about teenage boys using online sites to lure gay men on dates to attack and rob them. What in the world are the Democrats thinking? We saw the beginning of this in that grotesque moment in the last presidential debates when John Kerry came out with that clearly prefab line identifying Mary Cheney as a lesbian. Since when does the Democratic Party use any gay issue in this coldblooded way as a token on the chessboard? You'd expect this stuff from right-wing ideologues, not progressives.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/10/27/paglia
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2000
Messages
36,032
Ratings
54
Age
54
Location
da boyah
Offline
I hear ya Jim. In other areas, for instance Ohio, there's likely to be a sea of change. Ohio and Indiana have kind of been the stallwarts of the remaining GOP stronghold in the midwest. But because of a lot of local scandals, they're poised to lose fairly substsantially in Ohio.

The Democrats don't have any cohesive ideas, and I think people have been complaining about that for several years, "Vote for us, we're not them" just doesn't do it for me. I'm more of a quandry voter myself. I don't see anyone making any headway on the dictatorial insanity in world politics (North Korea, Venezuela, Bolivia, Iran, etc.). I think President Bush has the dual problem of being able to identify the problems yet because he's an easy target for hyperbolous despots, he compounds the problem. Absent a statesman, and let's not kid ourselves, President Bush is definitely not one, you can't appear to be a loose cannon and also appear not to really give a damn. I don't know, there's gonna be problems on the world stage to deal with for a while, stuff that is an indirect result of the current leadership. Maybe we'll get a truly articulate Republican or Democrat in 2008 who can put the camp of bad guys in the context that will hold some merit with our partners around the world.

I'm not particularly excited about any major issues in 2006 enough to vote. Since I didn't re-register in Lafourche, I can't vote for Congressman Melancon who I feel like I owe based on him getting the Mike Brown e-mails public. Bobby will easily (80ish %) carry my congressional district in Metairie, and there's not anything else out there that I care enough to drive to the city and vote for. Of course, that's just me.

Btw, Santorum on Beck today blamed the State Dept. for an ineffectual message. :shrug:

TPS
 
OP
OP

jimwnola

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Dec 30, 2002
Messages
4,018
Ratings
185
Age
57
Location
Mandeville, LA
Offline
I'm not planning to vote either. Jindal doesn't need my vote to win and I don't even know what else might be on ballot. Dave's post also gets into what I was thinking.
 

SaintJ

hard, pipe-hittin'
Approved Blogger
Joined
Apr 13, 2002
Messages
24,109
Ratings
14,769
Offline
I wouldn't think there would be a sweeping change either, but...

I live maybe 200 yards from Curt Weldon's (R-Pa.) House district. He's not had a serious challenger in years. A 50-ish former Navy admiral decided to run against him, kinda wordy, nothing special. Right now, if you wanted to have a scavenger hunt, you'd get mega points for "Find a Curt Weldon lawn sign; somewhere, anywhere."

And in my fairly conservative yuppie neighborhood in suburban Philly, generally moderate Republican country, Santorum's not been around much, and there isn't much of the usual buzz around him. These elections are also the same day as our state governor elections, and incumbent Ed Rendell, moderate Dem and former prosecutor, is beating sacrificial lamb Lynn Swann (yes, the former Steeler) by about 20 points, and he's campaigning like mad for turnout, and he's got long coattails. And a year ago I thought Santorum was going to hold off any challenger except perhaps Rendell, and this will be Ed's last race ever.
 
Last edited:

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.




Saints Headlines (The Advocate)

Headlines

Top Bottom