Republicans due to lose elections?

[MobBoss]

So much for the dire prediction that the republicans are going to lose elections because of corruption. http://apnews.myway.com/article/20060607/D8I3BT6G0.html

If what Duke Cunningham did couldnt seal the deal for democrats, nothing will.

 

[Elrohir]

Excellent news.

 

[Babbler]

Depressing.

 

[Keshik]

What I enjoy is the left wing spin, defining victory as "look how close it was!"
Very amusing, in a pathetic way.

 

[Cuivienen]

Given that Republicans consist of nearly half of registered voters in the district, it is fairly impressive. (On average, registered voters split 39D-36R-25I.) Busby also cut her margin down from 22% in 2004 to 4% in 2006. If every House seat has a swing of even half of that to the Democrats, the Democrats will sweep key regions and win a handful of other seats to take the House.

 

[Akhhorus]

The GOP doesn't have the money to spend the 5 million on each race like they did here. Even if Busby won, you can't read much into this race.

 

[MobBoss]

The GOP warchest far exceeds that currently hedl by the democrats and has often been widely lamented by same.

That will be one of the factors that will enable the Republicans to win again in 2008. They will simply outsepend the dems 2 to 1.

 

[GenMarshall]

The party does not matter to me, its the canidate.

 

[Akhhorus]

The GOP warchest far exceeds that currently hedl by the democrats and has often been widely lamented by same.

The RNC has the advantage, the Campaign Committees for 06, the dems have the advantage. They still can't spend 5 million per Congressional race like they did for the CA-50 seat.

That will be one of the factors that will enable the Republicans to win again in 2008. They will simply outsepend the dems 2 to 1.

If they don't have an attractive candidate for 08(which they don't now), they'll lose-especially if Hillary hits her goal of 200 million(which is extremely realistic).

 

[tomsnowman123]

Doesn't really matter to me. I'm not really a Republican or Democrat, and it's not like this decides all the future elections. But I agree the Republicans won't spend that kind of money on everyone.

 

[greekguy]

How could someone win a race to be the Rep. from California's 50th District...California's 50th District never existed, I thought that was common knowledge.

 

[Sidhe]

The party does not matter to me, its the canidate.

That's a very enlightened view point if I may say so. People should look at the candidate if they think he's the right man they should not let political bias stand in the way. Unfortunately people aren't always that logical about voting,voting behaviour ingrained in the past does not change over night, especially if it's very biased.

 

[North King]

Strongly Republican District=/=Predictor for 2006 elections.

 

[JerichoHill]

There is absolutely no way Hillary Clinton can win the Presidency, given her public perception.

It is my opinion that the Democractic party would be better served by a run by Warner, who did a remarkable job of not f*cking up Virginia during his tenure, instead leaving it as the best managed state in the Union (according to some governmental magazines). But he may not be "left" enough.

EDIT: And Warner would easily carry Virginia, so thats +13 for the Dems and -13 Electoral Votes for the Repubs.

 

[IglooDame]

Well, he used to represent the 49th district, but lost in 2001, so no reason why he can't live at his mother's house and win the 50th, I suppose.

 

[North King]

There is absolutely no way Hillary Clinton can win the Presidency, given her public perception.

It is my opinion that the Democractic party would be better served by a run by Warner, who did a remarkable job of not f*cking up Virginia during his tenure, instead leaving it as the best managed state in the Union (according to some governmental magazines). But he may not be "left" enough.

EDIT: And Warner would easily carry Virginia, so thats +13 for the Dems and -13 Electoral Votes for the Repubs.

I'm hoping for a Warner candidacy...

But look at 2004. If we switch parties around, it seems very similar to what would happen if HC ran--A very, very unpopular candidate, which the other side would be bashing constantly... Yet, I'd think Clinton would win. Simply because defining yourself as the opposition to a hated candidate has been shown to utterly fail.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm hoping for a Warner candidacy...

But look at 2004. If we switch parties around, it seems very similar to what would happen if HC ran--A very, very unpopular candidate, which the other side would be bashing constantly... Yet, I'd think Clinton would win. Simply because defining yourself as the opposition to a hated candidate has been shown to utterly fail.

True, but in 2004 "the opposition to the hated candidate" was pretty much all Senator Kerry had to offer. Get a candidate able to go beyond that, and Senator Clinton is toast.

 

[Rik Meleet]

The GOP warchest far exceeds that currently hedl by the democrats and has often been widely lamented by same.

That will be one of the factors that will enable the Republicans to win again in 2008. They will simply outsepend the dems 2 to 1.

This is basically saying that elections in the USA are decide through corruption and bribery and not through democracy. I knew that that was to some extend the case, but I've never heard someone from the USA cheering happily that the USA was not a Democracy but a Corporatacy.

 

[Akhhorus]

There is absolutely no way Hillary Clinton can win the Presidency, given her public perception.

It is my opinion that the Democractic party would be better served by a run by Warner, who did a remarkable job of not f*cking up Virginia during his tenure, instead leaving it as the best managed state in the Union (according to some governmental magazines). But he may not be "left" enough.

EDIT: And Warner would easily carry Virginia, so thats +13 for the Dems and -13 Electoral Votes for the Repubs.

Hillary could win if the GOP nominates a schmuck like Frist or Romney as their candidate.

 

[blackheart]

This is basically saying that elections in the USA are decide through corruption and bribery and not through democracy. I knew that that was to some extend the case, but I've never heard someone from the USA cheering happily that the USA was not a Democracy but a Corporatacy.

Unfortunately it's true, money is a huge factor in victory in elections in America.