Rex Kickass Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Last night, they called the Senate seat for Webb. The Senate is now 51-49 Dem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maggliopipe Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 06:37 PM) I don't know if this was mentioned...but his last name is Loebsack.... Yeah, totally. Plus, he wears glasses. So what will Dan Savage's response to Santorum's defeat be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 QUOTE(maggliopipe @ Nov 9, 2006 -> 08:35 AM) So what will Dan Savage's response to Santorum's defeat be? Linkity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 Linky. Virginia Sen. George Allen ® has planned a 3 p.m. news conference in Alexandria to address the results of Tuesday's election, which left him trailing Democratic challenger James Webb by 7,484 votes as of this morning. All indications from Allen's campaign staff and advisers suggest that the senator would concede to Webb at the news conference. Republican sources said Allen had concluded that no amount of recounting would change the outcome, but members of the senator's campaign staff would not publicly confirm his intentions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rex Kickass Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 NC 08 is still up for grabs? The vote total spread is a 400 vote margin roughly, with the Republican incumbent ahead. However, there are 1400 provisional ballots yet to be counted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reddy Posted November 9, 2006 Share Posted November 9, 2006 QUOTE(sox4lifeinPA @ Nov 8, 2006 -> 07:37 PM) I don't know if this was mentioned...but his last name is Loebsack.... as bad as that is... he beat a guy named LEACH... not exactly the best name for a politician... especially if leeching is what you do best Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balta1701 Posted November 10, 2006 Share Posted November 10, 2006 Eight House races remain without winners after Tuesday's election, with Republican incumbents in tight contests to keep their seats and state officials not rushing to end the dispute. Rep. Deborah Pryce, a member of the House Republican leadership, is ahead in her central Ohio race by 3,536 votes. In the Columbus, Ohio-area, elections officials are delaying the count of more than 9,000 provisional ballots by one day so it doesn't disrupt the much-vaunted Ohio State-Michigan football game on Nov. 18. Elections officials in that district will start counting Nov. 19. AP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Interesting Article about my kind of Republicans - socially moderate or liberal, and fiscally conservative. Unfortunately, due to the movement to the right of the GOP in the last decade, the closing of ranks in that party, and the decision to not prioritize fiscal discipline... that type of Republican has been phased out. This past election cycle seems to have been the death nail. I am wondering if this is the beginning of a shift in polarity on the topic of fiscal discipline. Over the decades, some issues have actually gone from one party to another. For example, for much of the 19th Century and early 20th, the GOP was the party of environmentalism and land protection. At some point, it shifted to the Democrats. If this Democrat Congress and any that may follow start reigning in spending, and keep taxes level or nearly so (or even cut them), and the GOP continues down the path towards idealogical priorities... with the Democrats become the party of the balanced budget? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 It's my opinion that we will see a shift of power about every 12-16 years from here on out, until our "two party" system gets "overthrown". And by "overthrown", I mean that a serious crisis comes to a head where a serous third (or even fourth) party cleans out the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Why? Because both parties are too driven by power and greed. I think it's disgusting when a party did what the Republicans have done for the last 2-4 years - and the flip side, I think it's disgusting that the opposition party can scream, kick, block, and b**** about EVERYTHING the other party does, and the day after election day, say "we need to work together"... it's bulls***, and a falase pretense... why couldn't they "work together" before the election? Oh, because they have to have POWER before they can do that. That's the part of the system that I can't stand... it's not about representation anymore, it's about power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(kapkomet @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 08:45 AM) It's my opinion that we will see a shift of power about every 12-16 years from here on out, until our "two party" system gets "overthrown". And by "overthrown", I mean that a serious crisis comes to a head where a serous third (or even fourth) party cleans out the Republicans and Democrats out of office. Why? Because both parties are too driven by power and greed. I think it's disgusting when a party did what the Republicans have done for the last 2-4 years - and the flip side, I think it's disgusting that the opposition party can scream, kick, block, and b**** about EVERYTHING the other party does, and the day after election day, say "we need to work together"... it's bulls***, and a falase pretense... why couldn't they "work together" before the election? Oh, because they have to have POWER before they can do that. That's the part of the system that I can't stand... it's not about representation anymore, it's about power. I definitely agree that a viable third party would go a long way towards getting things moving a little better. But that will be a serious uphill climb. If anyone would like to form a new party, which is socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm in with ya. Maybe we can call it the Yankee party, like the article had called that profile. I think it describes a significant chunk of America, and yet, its MIA in the political process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:12 AM) I definitely agree that a viable third party would go a long way towards getting things moving a little better. But that will be a serious uphill climb. If anyone would like to form a new party, which is socially moderate and fiscally conservative, I'm in with ya. Maybe we can call it the Yankee party, like the article had called that profile. I think it describes a significant chunk of America, and yet, its MIA in the political process. Count me in. Heck put me on the ballot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:24 AM) Count me in. Heck put me on the ballot. Cool. I'll run as your veep. We can be the North-South party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:26 AM) Cool. I'll run as your veep. We can be the North-South party. How fun would that be? The real issue is that you need at least one front man to put the party into the limelight, and ideally it would take breakaways from both parties to get it into the mainstream. Ross Perot's group got a lot of attention, but it was easy to pigeonhole them as nutcases because they were all from one group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soxy Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 Just a question: how would you define "socially moderate" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 (edited) QUOTE(Soxy @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:35 AM) Just a question: how would you define "socially moderate" For me or someone else? For the purpose of this North-South party, you want to put it as somewhere in the center of the current population. That doesn't mean being in the middle on everything, though. For example, you may be for civil unions but for leaving the marriage question to the states (no amendment at U.S. level). That would be considered moderate because its in the middle of that range of views. But you also may be pro-choice or pro-life, and then have a stand on some other issue that is with the opposite party. As SS2K5 said, you need some variety of views, from both parties. So you might, say, side with the GOP on affirmative action and the 2nd amendment, but side with the Dems on abortion and gay marriage. On the net, you are a moderate. But the key, to me, is the financial angle. Fiscal discipline, running the government like a business, etc. EDIT: I just got a wicked thread idea. I think we're going to have an election right here on Soxtalk... Edited November 13, 2006 by NorthSideSox72 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kapkomet Posted November 13, 2006 Author Share Posted November 13, 2006 For me, Soxy, it's getting the government out of the social aspects of our daily lives (oversimplified). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsider2k5 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 09:50 AM) For me or someone else? For the purpose of this North-South party, you want to put it as somewhere in the center of the current population. That doesn't mean being in the middle on everything, though. For example, you may be for civil unions but for leaving the marriage question to the states (no amendment at U.S. level). That would be considered moderate because its in the middle of that range of views. But you also may be pro-choice or pro-life, and then have a stand on some other issue that is with the opposite party. As SS2K5 said, you need some variety of views, from both parties. So you might, say, side with the GOP on affirmative action and the 2nd amendment, but side with the Dems on abortion and gay marriage. On the net, you are a moderate. But the key, to me, is the financial angle. Fiscal discipline, running the government like a business, etc. EDIT: I just got a wicked thread idea. I think we're going to have an election right here on Soxtalk... Ooh, fun. BTW, good post of what I was thinking on "moderate". I think most Americans tend to be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthSideSox72 Posted November 13, 2006 Share Posted November 13, 2006 QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Nov 13, 2006 -> 10:32 AM) Ooh, fun. BTW, good post of what I was thinking on "moderate". I think most Americans tend to be socially moderate and fiscally conservative. Yeah, I'll start a thread tonight when I have more time, for a mini-election. This could be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texsox Posted November 14, 2006 Share Posted November 14, 2006 I am forming an exploratory committee . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts