<< SPEEDER SHAMED ~ MAIN ~ MERCINDY BENZ >>
MASS SUICIDE FORECAST
Democrat expectations have soared into the stratosphere, reports the New York Times. But on election morning ...
Some Democrats worry that those forecasts, accurate or not, may be setting the stage for a demoralizing election night, and one with lasting ramifications, sapping the party’s spirit and energy heading into the 2008 presidential election cycle.
“Two years ago, winning 14 seats in the House would have been a pipe dream,” said Matt Bennett, a founder of Third Way, a moderate Democratic organization. Now, Mr. Bennett said, failure to win the House, even by one seat, would send Democrats diving under their beds (not to mention what it might do to all the pundits).
“It would be crushing,” he said. “It would be extremely difficult.”
[Analyst Charlie] Cook put it more succinctly. “I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide,” he said.
The nation’s shrinks could be in for another windfall. A Republican win would also bring other problems, as Stanley Kurtz observes. Myself, I’d be curious to see how the left would react to a Democrat victory; since the Age of Blog, they haven’t had much chance to celebrate.
(Via AJ Strata and JMH)
Well I don’t see how mass suicide would help them in ‘08 but then I don’t have the lemming-like instincts of your average leftist retard.
How would they react to a Dem victory? The phrase ‘obscene orgy of gloating’ would not even begin to cover it. Most incumbant parties in the US lose some ground in the midterms, but the left will treat the Repubs losing a few seats like the fall of the Third Reich.
If history has taught us anything, there will most likely be a purge. That could however just be the sane vomiting out of fear.
Posted by Infidel Tiger on 2006 11 07 at 04:19 AM • permalinkOkay, here’s my prediction (albeit from an Aussie who hasn’t been following the US news all that carefully): the Dems WILL win some seats, probably close to the 15 they need to control the House, and a few in the Senate…but I’m afraid (for them) that yet again this isn’t going to be their year. Kerry’s comments about the troops last week and Saddam’s death sentence yesterday aren’t going to help them.
Then, once again, we can all look forward to hearing about how Bush has “stolen” his fourth election in a row…
Richard :-)
Posted by richard20_bris on 2006 11 07 at 05:31 AM • permalinkSorry to go off topic, but the book about the Beaconsfield miners has been launched by John Howard.
So what happened to Bill Shorten?
Posted by Oafish and Infantile on 2006 11 07 at 05:32 AM • permalinkI can’t wait for the compassionate head tilts.
Aren’t we all getting a bit hysterical here.
Analysis shows (courtesy Charles Krauthammer in JPost- no link on Internet yet) that with only one exception post-WW2, mid-term elections in a President’s second term always produce turn-arounds of either the same or usually greater magnitude than the “rout” that the Dems are predicting. History (not hystery) shows that American electors generally get tired after 6 years, and want to see some sort of change. Since they can’t get rid of the Pres, and there’s no friendly Governor-General Kerr waiting in the wings to do the right thing, they get their kicks by booting out the majority party.
If it makes the Dems feel good, let them celebrate their “victory”. Truth to tell, it’s nothing special.
Posted by rampisadmukerjee on 2006 11 07 at 05:55 AM • permalinkits like Christmas really. If the republicans win, we can look forward to wailing and nashing of teeth, gnawing down to the gums. It will be hilarious.
if the Dems win, expect over the top ululation that in its way will also provide its own special form of entertainment.Combined with the judgement of Saddam, my youngest nipper’s first birthday, and a modest win on the gee gees,
Its all good times.My lefty buddy has been in full gloat mode for several days. Having not heard of Dem Sen Reid’s real estate dealings, or Dem Rep Jefferson’s refrigerator full of cash, he is sure that a lot of Repubs will be going to jail over the issue of Halliburton no-bid contracts. He is eagerly repeating the slogan “eight years in office, 10 in the pen”.
One suspects there will be little time left for solving public problems, the energy will be spent in making it a crime to be Republican.Posted by Jim,MtnViewCA,USA on 2006 11 07 at 06:43 AM • permalinkO/T- does anyone out there have a good recipie for slow cooked pork ribs in a crockpot? I had a great one, but I’ve lost it and the Missus is planning on doing a whole mess of them, with buk choy over collards.
I’d appreciate it, especially after sitting through the inane defence of Islamic social turpitude on SBS I’ve just sat through.
BTW- no coca cola- she’s not keen o it as a marinade.
Diabetic whinger.
Hey, I got the latest Vanity Fair yesterday, because I read on Insty’s site how a huge bunch of people were misquoted in it to undercut support for the war. Haven’t got that far into it (I keep getting nauseous) but there’s strangely no mention of Graydon Carter’s great friends Joe and Val, and our Fearsome Dark Lord Rove, all demons and hellfiends hail him, is compared to Professor Moriarty.
Whom, I seem to recall, was fictional.
phil_b wrote:
I hear the Republicans have a radical new strategy to win. They are getting voters to go to polling stations.
Those lousy CHEATERS!!! ;-)
Posted by Patrick Chester on 2006 11 07 at 07:43 AM • permalink“That would significantly erode the web’s reputation for civility.”
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA ha ha ho hee… *gasp* *cough*
Man, that Stanley Kurtz is even funnier today than Iowahawk. And totally deadpan, too! You’d almost think he was serious.
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 11 07 at 08:17 AM • permalinko/t from The Australian by Brit Media writer John Lloyd.
(I can’t bear to watch Insite and need to distract myself..)
“A public broadcaster ACKNOWLEDGES its Left -wing bias”..
“Andrew Marr,the former BBC political editor, recently stood before an audience and said that “the BBC is not impartial or neutral.It’s a publically funded urban organisation with an abnormally large number of young people,gays and ethnic minorities.It has a liberal bias, a cultural liberal bias.”
The day’s project went deep, unleashing a certain amount of controlled anger,even of self contempt.It was not private, it was webcast and I was told I could write about it. Its opponents can now say “Look even the BBC says it!”
Speaking with Sue Lawley the compere,BBC Washington correspondent Justin Webb said the BBC was generally BIASED AGAINST AMERICA.He also said that in the tone in which it reported the U.S., the BBC tended TO SCORN AND DERISION and it didn’t give to America “ANY KIND OF MORAL WEIGHT”.
It is not hard to imagine what the BBC would say if this had been put to it by the American Ambassador,but Webb got grave nods.
The U.K. Daily Tele’s Janet Daley was given the lectern to lambast the BBC for showing “AN UNCRITICAL ACCEPTANCE OF SMUG CONSENSUAL OPINION”. She said it was “STAFFED BY PEOPLE WHOSE VIEWS AND BELIEFS,AND THOSE OF THEIR DINNER PARTY COMPANIONS AND THE WRITERS THEY READ, WERE SO ENTRENCHED AS TO BE NO LONGER VISIBLE. PEOPLE OUTSIDE THIS CONSENSUS WERE GIVEN SPACE—BUT PUT ON AIR “WITH A HEALTH WARNING” THAT THEY WERE RIGHT WING. cont..#20 cont
She admitted that the liberal consensus did change its mind,e.g.-certain propositions COULD NOW BE AIRED, if GINGERLY: that children with two parents have better life chances than children with one; that there may be more effective ways of providing health care than a state funded public monopoly; that MULTICULTURALISM CAN LEAD TO ALIENATION OF ETHNIC MINORITIES.
However a new raft of topics COULD NOT BE DISCUSSED, such as the CORRUPTING EFFECTS OF FOREIGN AID or that a benefit system which REWARDS THE POOR ensures the CONTINUED EXISTENCE OF POVERTY….
Interspersing the sessions were cameo appearances on video, by well known people in the broadcasting world who said that THE BBC WAS ABSURDLY ELITIST or had GONE SOFT, or presented a CARICATURE OF lIBERAL LEFTISM. ” End..caps mine.he is sure that a lot of Repubs will be going to jail over the issue of Halliburton no-bid contracts.
Yes. The Republican-issued, no-bid contracts. Which date to the Clinton administration.
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2006 11 07 at 08:47 AM • permalink#11: Your observations are absolutely correct. Democratic pick-ups in Congress would be the norm, given the election cycle and the Party profile of the folks in power. I believe the real electoral battle comes in 2008, which will be a genuine opportunity for Republicans to take the White House (again) and consolidate (or re-establish) majority control in both Houses. Of course, the GOP will have to learn the right lessons from this election, and will need to take seriously the dissatisfaction of much of its base - which is far from being a foregone conclusion. I have seen many instances, at first hand, of petty, influence-peddling, pork-barrel louts getting elected as Republican congressmen, and the Party needs to seek out and encourage higher quality people across the board, and equally importantly, live up to its standard as the party of smaller, less intrusive government.
My wife and I voted at 6 am this morning in Alexandria, VA. Our precinct’s voters are mostly single-family homeowners. We’re always early in line to vote. What we noticed today was an enormous turnout for our precinct. We were about 14th and 15th in line to vote and usually there’s maybe 20 folks behind us. When we left at 6:05 AM there were nearly 100 people in line. We felt like we had no good options: we held our noses and voted Republican. No idea if this is a trend. We’re both one year too old to be called baby boomers and the others we saw were our age or older.
I should make a shirt… “I vote Republican because the Dems won’t let me vote Lieberman.”
Posted by Tatterdemalian on 2006 11 07 at 10:37 AM • permalinkHmmm.
Don’t these Democrats remind anybody else of manic-depressives? Extreme highs followed by extreme lows with utter madness in between?
Posted by memomachine on 2006 11 07 at 10:59 AM • permalinkI keep telling my pre-gloating lefty pals that “the reason the Republicans are in throuble is that they pissed off their base. In other words, they weren’t conservative enough. What do you think this bodes for the future?”
Me, I see it this way - as long as Bush has the veto pen, and isn’t afraid to use it, the country will get two years of Speaker Pelosi. God help the Democrats then.
Only news here in msm is polls have opened.
This is tense for us too.
For a morsel to ponder on and while away the time…U2 has first concert in Oz..
Bono “We call for David Hicks to be returned to Australia”.
The arrogance of the turd. Who asked you?
FOR THE ONE HUNDREDTH TIME WE DON’T WANT HIM…..YOU BONO HAD YOUR CHANCE..YOUR COUNTRY DOESN’T WANT HIM EITHER.
So just SHUT UP AND SING….or just shut up.Will the Dems really be that different to the Reps though?
Judging by his posts in a previous thread, our buddy Totenkopf here seems to be a fascinating example of Blair’s Law in the flesh. He dismisses the major parties, thus hinting at an possible extremist position. In that previous thread, he blathered the usual Lefty nonsense about the US arming Saddam.
But wait! “Totenkopf”? That’s German for “Death’s Head”, and referred to the insignia of the SS. We got us a live one here.
I dont know if this has been linked yet, but “Truth Laid Bear” has developed a tracker that’s supposed to cover this election cycle across the nation.
http://truthlaidbear.com/election.php
I dont know if it will work or whatver, but it might be interesting.
“I think you’d see a Jim Jones situation — it would be a mass suicide”
Promises, promises….
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2006 11 07 at 01:08 PM • permalink“Totenkopf”? That’s German for “Death’s Head”, and referred to the insignia of the SS.
Your analysis is probably correct as far as that guy goes, but just in case: More generically, “Totenkopf” simply means skull, and it’s still in use in that sense in some contexts, independent of the SS connotation. For instance, the skull-and-crossbones pirate flag is known as “Totenkopf-Flagge”.
Will the Dems really be that different to the Reps though?
Depends where your feet are planted.
Inside the country, the parties play up their slight differences to the max. About the only thing I see the Repubs doing different is they are slightly less harsh on the 2A, slightly better on defense, and much better on taxes. Otherwise on everything else they are the same (I equate the Repubs doing nothing on a subject (i.e., immigration or abortion) as the same as the Donks talking about it but doing nothing). The Repubs are a (sometimes) just a bit better with nominees to SCOTUS. Spending, 5A, anti-free speech, etc - they’ll all the same.
If your feet are planted overseas - you’ll see no difference. My foreign friends tell me they can see no big difference in foreign policy between Donks and Repubs.
Bottom line - it really means more inside the US than it does outside. You could get a Donk president, and he wouldn’t be jumping out of Iraq soon either. Neither side has that big of a mandate.
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
I’m sure the liberal world would be very gracious in victory as they were in defeat.
/har-dee-har-har