gaetano wrote:

steve wrote:

tmidgett wrote:

steve wrote:2008: If McCain runs, he wins. If anybody else runs, the Democrat wins. It will be too late, unfortunately.

what do you mean by last sentence?

We're hip-deep in pure bullshit right now, and it will take a generation to get us out, not a Presidential term.

funny how that sentence also applies to the situation in Italy.

Si, si, d'accordo!!

Ciao Geotano. Come stai?

Sto andando volare domani in Argentina. Ritorno in due settimane.

Mandi!

Rick Reuschel wrote:Usually the president's party loses seats in a midterm election. That has not been the case for Bush since '00.

....a time period encompassing exactly one midterm election. One which was a historical anomaly mainly because it was campaigned within the 10 months after 9/11.

There is a larger trend toward Republican ascendance among voters and institutions that predates 9/11. That was the point in going back to '94 in the previous post.

Midterm loss is a historical trend that has held true going back to 1790. Even during the 1930s. The phenomenon has ignored "ascendancies" for 200 years. Under those circumstances I think all signs point to 2002 being an isolated event. The Republican party of today is certainly not more powerful than the Democratic party was in the middle portion of the 20th century, and yet the Democrats managed to lose seats in every midterm election throughout that period.

I think the question is not whether '02 was an outlier but whether there is a new party era of Republican dominance that is emerging. I think it is too early to say that but it appears more likely now than at anytime since 1968.

What are you talking about? The Republican party has been the majority since 1968 for all intents and purposes. The fact that it took the southern Democratic congressmen 20 years to die out and be replaced by Republicans is irrelevant. Of the two democratic Presidents we've had in 35 years, one was an accident (Carter) and the other one was half Republican (Clinton).

I don't really think that the presence of a Republican majority in the nation is debatable, and I really don't see what 2002 has to do with it. The President's approval rating was in the 80s when that election was conducted. If you don't think that makes it unusual or exceptional rather than something indicative of a larger trend, I'm not sure how you'd justify that.

Since 1968 the percentage of people identifying as Democratic has declined while the percentage identifying as Republican has been increasing, as has the number of independents. Only recently (the last fifteen years or so) has this translated into consistent Repubican majorities at the state and national levels. The number of self-identified Democrats still is greater than the number of Republicans but it has declined significantly.

Democrats consistently control both houses of congress and most state capitals until the past fifteen years.

A new party era of Republican dominance is different than saying the GOP has owned the White House since '68.

My larger point is that the GOP has been very successful at reinventing itself while the Democrats have not. That is larger than Bush or a single election.

Democrats may win some seats in the midterms but it is pretty unlikely they will take back control in '06 or '08. The idea that there will be some groundswell of Democratic support to sweep Republicans out of both houses appears very unlikely.

Fair enough, but I hereby bet you 1 American Dollar that the GOP loses ground in Congress in 2006.

That's 20 nickels buddy.

Be more specific, house, senate, net loss?

Awright for a buck yer on!

Gotta go fight rush hour.

the second american civil war will be fought around 2015. a socialist revolution will occur. the union will be dissolved and a new north america reconstituted. the rest of the world will be caught up in socialist revolution at the same time. everyone will win.