Born Fighting / Battle Born

Published November 8, 2006 in 2006 Election and Democrats.

Ladies and gentlemen…

Senator-elect James Webb (D-VA)

MAJORITY-leader elect Harry Reid (D-NV)

~~Two branches~~ One branch down. Two to go. 50 States to win.

Digg This!

13 Responses to “Born Fighting / Battle Born”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 August J. Pollak
Nov 8th, 2006 at 11:22 pm

Thinking you mean one branch down unless Alito just joined the ACLU
2 Oliver Willis
Nov 9th, 2006 at 12:27 am

Yeah, I’m clearly an idiot.
3 Nimrod Gently
Nov 9th, 2006 at 3:46 pm

Macaca boy’s finally got round to conceding.
4 Nimrod Gently
Nov 9th, 2006 at 3:56 pm

And I have to say, I did not expect this. I thought the GOP would keep the upper house by the skin of their teeth, but it’s a clean damn sweep. It’s a landslide. It’s 1997 once again. It’s “a metorite hitting the Earth, obliterating all life”, as Anthony King said.
5 Marty
Nov 9th, 2006 at 5:16 pm

Landslide? What the bloody hell are you talking about. It just barely made the average of a second term president’s loss in the House and the Senate.

Yes, the house and Senate changed hands- huge impact and congrats are in order. hardly a landslide. (In fact- actually may help the next Republican presidential candidate. The next two years will be very interesting.)

And 1997? I guess you’ll have to explain why that one excites you in the ‘landslide’ department Duros.

So Oliver- You got your wish. Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker Pelosi are now the face of the Democratic party that everyone will be watching.

Say it over an over until it sinks in.

(Now tell me which Democrats would you really like to see in those positions. I’m sure you have your “druthers.”)
6 Nimrod Gently
Nov 9th, 2006 at 6:22 pm

You got raped. Accept it. Do what John Major did, take it with grace.
7 Nimrod Gently
Nov 9th, 2006 at 6:24 pm

Also I’m not Duros. And okay, it’s not as big a landslide as 1997, but it feels similar, and may well have a similar impact.
8 Quaker in a Basement
Nov 10th, 2006 at 11:20 am

Landslide? What the bloody hell are you talking about. It just barely made the average of a second term president’s loss in the House and the Senate.

Ha. Mr. “you’re-just-repeating-the-talking-points” is caught distributing taffy. Read ‘em and weep:

Here are the number of House seats lost by the President’s party in the 6th year of his presidency during the post-war period. I pulled the numbers from the House website and quickly did the math:

1958: Eisenhower–Republicans lost 48 seats
1986: Reagan–Republicans lost 5 seats
1998: Clinton–Democrats gained 5 seats

So only once in the last half century has the President’s party lost more than 30 seats in the second-term midterms.

The 1974 midterms, in which the Republicans lost 48 House seats in the aftermath of Watergate, occurred after Nixon resigned.

Don’t believe everything Mehlman says, Marts.
9 Quaker in a Basement
Nov 10th, 2006 at 11:39 am

You do bring up an interesting question, though.

In the post-Watergate midterms, the GOP lost 48 seats. So the question is: Was this year’s defeat as bad as the post-Watergate thrashing? Or only nearly so?
10 Marty
Nov 10th, 2006 at 4:58 pm

Wow- so if you don’t count the rest of the century when Roosevelt lost 72 (and then another 45) and Truman lost 34, and the Kennedy/Johnson team lost 48, (Though I realze technically it wasn’t Johnson’s second term) then I suppose your talking point from Talking Points Memo
works out.

Thank’s Josh Marshall!
11 Duros62
Nov 10th, 2006 at 5:01 pm

Dude, somebody call me?
12 Quaker in a Basement
Nov 10th, 2006 at 8:19 pm

so if you don’t count the rest of the century when Roosevelt lost 72 (and then another 45) and Truman lost 34,

Wait. You’re going back to when? The 1940s?

Dude, things have changed! Your people haven’t been gaming the districts for fun.
13 Quaker in a Basement
Nov 10th, 2006 at 8:20 pm

And “second-term” was your call. Neither Kennedy nor Johnson had a second term.