Almost makes me hope that the Dems do come up a bit short: win enough seats to keep the Republicans from doing their worst, but leaving it crystal clear whose mess it all is.

I said ‘almost’. I guess that’s why I’m not a Republican — I just can’t bring myself to that level of cynical Machiavellian calculation.

You say either way you’re a winner. Wrong. Either way we’re all losers.

And back in 2004 when an awkward New England dork with waffle issues came within a few thousand diebold votes in Ohio of unseating a commander-in-chief in a time of war: that was a
stirring mandate for the GOP as well, wasn’t it?

I must admit some grudging admiration for the symmetrical pefection of your dishonesty.

Here you have an unpopular president, a do-nothing complacent congress and a midterm election, and the opposition party can’t win? That is an unvarnished “loss”

Holy crap wilbur, won’t YOU believe that is a complete disavowment by the american people of the democratic party platform?

Hell if the democrats win the best that can be said is that the party in power lost a mid-term…big whoop, like THAT has never happened before. And the advantage for the republicans is that come ’08 we can blame all the bad stuff on the democrats!

Sweet, we win both ways…I feel like a wall street broker!

Go ahead, tell me that you won’t. When you do, I’ll invite my moonbat colleagues here to copy-and-paste your words into their scrapbooks, because they will have frequent opportunities in the future to haul them out and make you eat them.

“Nancy is not in sync with the vast majority of the American people,” Cheney said,

..from his underground bunker beneath the Naval Observatory. Just got his finger on the pulse of the American people, don’t he?

OK.

This would be the first time in history the mid-terms weren’t a reflection on the sitting administration.

‘pends on what you mean by ‘lose’, of course. If you mean ‘actually lose seats in the house and senate’ then I might agree. If you mean ‘fail to gain control of both houses of congress’, then no. All that would show is the effect of anti-democratic redistricting and incumbency-protection that the R’s have been working on for the last decade or so.

I’ve gotta hand it to you. Just when I thought that the contest for stupidest neocon on OW’s blog was wrapped up by the Duggster, you step up to the plate and belt one out of the park.

It is the hard core liberals like OW who miss the point that representative democracy is about the good of the COUNTRY, not “your team” winning.

I mean, holy shit, are you serious? Have you not been paying attention (to anything other than Fox News) for the past six years? Which party is dead-set against having voter-verifiable paper receipts for voting machines? Which party runs the voting machine companies? Which party makes sure that minority (read: Democratic) districts repeatedly have too few ballots, or machines, or workers? Which party steamrolled over the hand-count of the ballots in 2000? Which party was behind the illegal off-census-year redistricting in Texas?

I could go on, but hopefully you see my point. There may be Democrats who put themselves above the country, but the current batch of Republicans are the slimiest bunch of self-serving scumfucks to ever slither their way into office.

-ND-

If the republicans lose here, it is because the republican congress has done next to nothing. It has been spending like Jimmy Carter on crack, it had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the immigration debate, etc. believe me, the republican congress has done enough to piss off republicans to deserve to lose on their own merits.

Here is the scary question for democrats:

What if you lose? If the democrats lose this one, they are going to have to completely re-vamp, because it will be clear that they are completely out of step with the rest of america.

The suggestion that Bush and Cheney’s popularity doesn’t matter because they aren’t running for election is to dodge the larger point that Oliver makes: the American people are rejecting/have rejected this failed administration.

Bush and Cheney do not represent the American mainstream anymore, if they ever did. That’s why Republican candidates are treating them as if they were toxic in races all across the country.

My point is that all this wailing and gnashing of teeth during an election about Bush/Cheney is really useless. You are comparing the popularity of people who will not every run for office again, with someone who is currently running (for Majority Leader). Nancy’s popularity is an issue, Bush/Cheney isn’t (at least from an election standpoint).

Rory hits the nail on the head. It is the hard core liberals like OW who miss the point that representative democracy is about the good of the COUNTRY, not “your team” winning. But of course, that is why they continue to lose elections, also, by the way, why OW will never get one of those plush government jobs in a democratic administration: He doesn’t play well with others…

What do you call consumers who continue to buy the same inferior product every two years?

The “con rubes” who voted Republican in 2000, 2002, and 2004 are voters who, one way or another, rejected the offerings of the Democrat party and its candidates.

Don’t call consumers STUPID just because they don’t buy your product.