Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/07/14/republicans.appoll.ap/" target="_blank">http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITI CS/07/14/republicans.appoll.ap/</a> With less than four months to the midterm elections, the latest Associated Press-Ipsos poll found that Americans by an almost 3-to-1 margin hold the GOP-controlled Congress in low regard and profess a desire to see Democrats wrest control after a dozen years of Republican rule. But a Democratic takeover of either the House or Senate would be disastrous for the president, leaving both his agenda for the last two years in office and the chairmanship of investigative committees in the hands of the opposition party. To seize control of Congress, the Democrats must displace 15 Republicans from House seats and six Republicans from the Senate. The AP-Ipsos survey asked 789 registered voters if the election for the House were held today, would they vote for the Democratic or Republican candidate in their district. Democrats were favored 51 percent to 40 percent.
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Not surprised but I wonder if its like an earlier CNN poll where they polled 80% democrats or is this a legitimate poll this time?
Originally Posted By gadzuux Three to one margin - now that's impressive, and cause for optimism. But the article doesn't mention one of the most important aspects of dems getting control of congress - subpeona power. Finally, actual oversight of the executive branch, and the ability to investigate what has gone on during the past six years. Justice and fairness is within our grasp. The kind of graft, corruption BS usurpation of power we've seen throughout bush's administration can be reined in. This november. Remember 'anybody but bush' in 2004? The new mantra for `06 is 'anybody but a republican'. Don't let them "stay the course".
Originally Posted By WilliamK99 Remember 'anybody but bush' in 2004? The new mantra for `06 is 'anybody but a republican'. Don't let them "stay the course". << Look at the Lieberman primary to see that this may blow up in Democrat's faces before the election. They are catering to the far left.......not a good idea IMO, because like with Lieberman he may lose the Democratic primary but run Independent and win anyways....
Originally Posted By gadzuux Lieberman is barely a democrat anyway - he's strayed so far from the party that he's practically bush's poodle. He may have to run as an independent because his statements don't align with democratic party values.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy Gadzuux, it's a riged poll! I swear you guys get yourself all set up just so you can fall. When you don't poll the people who are going to vote you get skewed results. Remember Kerry " leading " in all the polls. And yes, I am STILL waiting for someone to bet me that the GOP will lose EITHER the house or the Senate come November. Season passes to DL would be a good bet. Labuda!!!! You still owe me from 2004. LOL
Originally Posted By RoadTrip There are many moderate democrats running in the election. Amy Klobuchar (a former Hennepin County Prosecutor) who is running for the Senate from Minnesota has specifically rejected demands for an immediate withdrawal from Iraq: <<I also believe we have to manage our exit from Iraq in a responsible way. I do not support immediate withdrawal of our troops, as has been suggested by some, because the situation is just too precarious. We also must engage other countries in our efforts, including those countries in the region. By making clear that we will not be staying in Iraq indefinitely, we will jumpstart our diplomatic efforts to involve other countries. >> Source: <a href="http://www.amyklobuchar.com/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=" target="_blank">http://www.amyklobuchar.com/in dex.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SEC=</a>%7BF8D92BDD-8672-4CA6-A2AC-DB0D564E5F40%7D
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> By making clear that we will not be staying in Iraq indefinitely we will jumpstart our diplomatic efforts to involve other countries. << I think a gradual drawdown greatly increases the dangers for those that are left behind. Quicker is better - like taking off a bandaid. But I agree with her that we need to be emphatically clear that we're going to leave. Bush has done exactly the opposite. That's because he doesn't intend to leave. (When I say "bush" I mean the collective cabal that actually calls the shots in this administration.) So yes, I think we need to telegraph our intentions to withdraw well before we leave - so we need to start saying it now.
Originally Posted By gadzuux Forgot something - But I don't think we're going to have any great success in our "diplomatic efforts" as long as bush is in the white house. He's an impediment to progress, and that's putting it nicely.
Originally Posted By Beaumandy << But I agree with her that we need to be emphatically clear that we're going to leave. Bush has done exactly >> So you want to tell the terror groups when we are going to leave Iraq? You want to give them the date where they can sit back and wait for the mighty American military to leave so they can take over? Iran and the various terror groups thank you. No wonder Bin Laden was rooting for Kerry to win.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip <<No wonder Bin Laden was rooting for Kerry to win.>> Well Beau, neither one of us has any way of knowing. But I'm pretty darned sure that bin Laden was OVERJOYED that Bush was re-elected. Having Bush in office is great for recruiting people to join the radical Islamic movement.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <I don't think we're going to have any great success in our "diplomatic efforts" as long as bush is in the white house.> If only President Clinton was still in office. Remember all the great diplomatic successes he had? Like getting North Korea to stop pursuing nuclear weapons, and convincing Iraq to come clean to the UN weapons inspectors, and getting the Palestinians to stop attacking Israel? Oh yeah, he didn't do any of those things, did he? Has there been any great diplomatic successes by Democrat Presidents since President Carter agreed to give Egypt a billion dollars a year to make nice with Israel?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Having Bush in office is great for recruiting people to join the radical Islamic movement.> Then why are members of Al Queda sending each other memoes noting that they are losing? And why is Bin Laden, if he's living at all, in a place where he doesn't have enough electricity to make a video?
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> If only President Clinton was still in office. << If only. We'd have a president that's admired and respected around the world, a president that presided over the biggest expansion of any economy in history, while eliminating the entire federal deficit. We'd have a president who could grasp nuance and have a clear understanding of complex situations. And we'd have a president that has respect for the constitution, the rule of law, and we the people of the united states.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>Look at the Lieberman primary to see that this may blow up in Democrat's faces before the election. They are catering to the far left.......not a good idea IMO, because like with Lieberman he may lose the Democratic primary but run Independent and win anyways....<< True. But the GOP is doing a similar job of catering to big business.
Originally Posted By ecdc I'm cautiously optimistic. I'd love to see the current GOP lose control of Congress. But as has been noted here before, it's easy for people to complain in polls, yet they overwhelmingly vote for incumbents. Fear of change, I suppose.
