"the average losses in a president's sixth year have been 34 House seats and seven Senate seats. By that standard, the Democrats came up just shy of average"
http://blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2006/11/post_27.html
2006-11-09 03:59:09 · 18 answers · asked by C = JD 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
With Bush's approval numbers, the scandal mongering media, and shifting blame on Iraq from al Qaeda and Iran to Bush, you would think Dems would have won more seats.
2006-11-09 04:24:47 · update #1
Bill and Kut, nice job dodging what I posted.
2006-11-09 07:11:57 · update #2
it matters when people keep saying it was a "landslide" and republicans got their "asses kicked" like PLEASE PEOPLE. if you say it's the highest turnout for a non-presidential election, guess HOW MANY RACES WERE SUPER CLOSE??? Idiots. So The dems are in control, that is fine, but I find it hilarious when people are trying to gloat, when really, big deal. and what was that idiot girl above me? the same thing happened to CLinton.
saying Sore loser and such to you, they can't answer your question, all they want is to gloat like the little pigs they are. Yes, you won, we give that to you, but quit making it this mockery of bush and the republicans, cause really IT WASN'T. especially not in my state, that remained red. There was no *** kicking here. dummies.
2006-11-10 05:30:42 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 3⤋
Well, congressional redistricting did just happened 2 years ago. Gerrymandering is always at work when that happens. Compared with Republican revolution in 1994, there were more than 100 vs. 50 or so contentious seats, and there are only 10 senate seats in contention this year. I would say Deomcrates did pretty well.
XR
2006-11-09 04:09:33 · answer #2 · answered by XReader 5 · 3⤊ 0⤋
That number is b.s. The dems are celebrating, because after winning two presidnetal elections in a row, then having tham stolen, they have finally beat the cheaters, which is especially nice since they did it without cheating. This means that they have a mandate to do what they have been trying to do for a couple of years already. Get some accountability for why we went to iraq, why we are still there, and why our president has an IQ of 7.
2006-11-09 04:04:58 · answer #3 · answered by dobbskramer 1 · 4⤊ 1⤋
This is the first time the Dem's have controlled congress in twelve years, this moment is orgasmic for them.
Also they did very well in a lot of local races, as an example; Colorado, which has been a solid Republican state now has a Democratic state legislature, and that's a total political re-alignment.
2006-11-09 04:02:19 · answer #4 · answered by billy d 5 · 4⤊ 0⤋
The Dems are celebrating oversight.
If President Bush went to far, the Dems may find it and some people would LOVE to see him Impeached, but I don't think that will happen, but I think he has to be very careful about what he says and does from now on in!
The Dems now have the right to investigate his private "interrogation" rooms outside the US
I'm not saying Bush is wrong and the DEMS may actually back him.
But I feel better with the "opposition" party doing the oversight.
There's something inherentily wrong with the concept of the Fox guarding the Hen house!
2006-11-09 04:02:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
So one of the highest turn-outs for a non-presidental election, and the point that's already been made above, that the Dems turned a lot of states Blue, in both Houses and state governorships, mean nothing? You don't believe exit polling when they are dead on, then you hold these stats up as high as you can?? Double standards my friend, no reason to maintain the agenda when your not in power, time for the GOP to rethink their big ideas.
2006-11-09 04:09:13 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Hilarious! This election is "average" when compared to other elections in a president's sixth year. How about comparing it to elections in which one party has lost a majority in both houses? How about elections in which more than 16% of the incumbents had last names beginning with the letter B?
Considering that 1994 marked the first time Republicans had won both houses since 1946 (!!!) -- and that Democrats have now won them both back -- this election seems a little more significant than "just shy of average," wouldn't you say?
I salute your spin!
You might find this interesting:
http://www.slate.com/id/2153281/?nav=tap3
2006-11-09 06:26:56 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 2⤋
Whenever there is a major switch in power the number of seats lost has gone down progressively. This is in large part because of gerrymandering.
2006-11-09 08:32:38 · answer #8 · answered by E 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, if no longer for the illegals, lifeless human beings and undesirable ignorant (supply me) fools, the dems could have a no longer hassle-free time getting elected. this is the main reason they are so against voter I.D.
2016-12-17 07:04:54 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Only one other president in history lost control of both houses in his 6th year - Woodrow Wilson.
Bush got his a** handed to him. But feel free to spin away if it makes you feel better.
2006-11-09 07:05:40 · answer #10 · answered by Kutekymmee 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋