Aint ya'll proud?????

[rstrong]

Seems that in a generic D vs R congressional poll the R's now lead by 3 points after having been down by double digits just a few months ago. Tell me, just what is it like watching your utopian libtard fantasy unraveling before your very eyes..or do you fools still think that you are winning???

Dream on. We saw this four years ago. It's the difference between support for an ideal, and support for specific people.

After the 2008 election, the thoroughly non-conservative Bush II/Cheney/Rove and Palin were out of the picture. The public's perception of the Republican party shifted towards the party itself, with the memory of old conservative Republican principles. And so the party gained popularity. Sure, the Tea Party was flinging poo, but the no doubt there were adults who would step in when needed.

Then came the 2012 primaries. The party had to surround Romney with wingnuts like Parry, Bachmann, Paul, Cain and Santorum, just to make Romney look sane and viable. They, and later just Romney became the public face of the party. And so it lost popularity, and lost the election.

Once again the Republican Party doesn't have a leader to be it's public face, and people are again thinking of traditional conservative Republican principles. The Tea Party is again flinging poo, but there's still the hope that adults are around somewhere.

And again, that illusion will again be shattered in the 2016 primaries. The Republicans will have to pick a leader, one acceptable to the Tea Party, and a great many conservatives will again find that the Democrats best represent their values.

The Democrats for their part will have a new leader in 2016. They'll get their own post-Bush II magic reset button, post-primaries-Romney flip of the Etch-A-Sketch.

[Roland Deschain]

Seems that in a generic D vs R congressional poll the R's now lead by 3 points after having been down by double digits just a few months ago. Tell me, just what is it like watching your utopian libtard fantasy unraveling before your very eyes..or do you fools still think that you are winning???

Dream on. We saw this four years ago. It's the difference between support for an ideal, and support for specific people.

After the 2008 election, the thoroughly non-conservative Bush II/Cheney/Rove and Palin were out of the picture. The public's perception of the Republican party shifted towards the party itself, with the memory of old conservative Republican principles. And so the party gained popularity. Sure, the Tea Party was flinging poo, but the no doubt there were adults who would step in when needed.

Then came the 2012 primaries. The party had to surround Romney with wingnuts like Parry, Bachmann, Paul, Cain and Santorum, just to make Romney look sane and viable. They, and later just Romney became the public face of the party. And so it lost popularity, and lost the election.

Once again the Republican Party doesn't have a leader to be it's public face, and people are again thinking of traditional conservative Republican principles. The Tea Party is again flinging poo, but there's still the hope that adults are around somewhere.

And again, that illusion will again be shattered in the 2016 primaries. The Republicans will have to pick a leader, one acceptable to the Tea Party, and a great many conservatives will again find that the Democrats best represent their values.

The Democrats for their part will have a new leader in 2016. They'll get their own post-Bush II magic reset button, post-primaries-Romney flip of the Etch-A-Sketch.

Funny...you went from '08 directly to '12 while ignoring '10. Wonder why that is? Care to refresh our memories as to what happened?????

[rstrong]

Funny...you went from '08 directly to '12 while ignoring '10. Wonder why that is? Care to refresh our memories as to what happened?????

Hint: Who was the Presidential candidate of the Republican Party in 2016?

The closest the party had to a leader was John Boehner. You know, the guy that the most prominent Republicans these days have labeled a traitor. For acting sane. My point stands.

[Boatrocker]

Seems that in a generic D vs R congressional poll the R's now lead by 3 points after having been down by double digits just a few months ago. Tell me, just what is it like watching your utopian libtard fantasy unraveling before your very eyes..or do you fools still think that you are winning???

Dream on. We saw this four years ago. It's the difference between support for an ideal, and support for specific people.

After the 2008 election, the thoroughly non-conservative Bush II/Cheney/Rove and Palin were out of the picture. The public's perception of the Republican party shifted towards the party itself, with the memory of old conservative Republican principles. And so the party gained popularity. Sure, the Tea Party was flinging poo, but the no doubt there were adults who would step in when needed.

Then came the 2012 primaries. The party had to surround Romney with wingnuts like Parry, Bachmann, Paul, Cain and Santorum, just to make Romney look sane and viable. They, and later just Romney became the public face of the party. And so it lost popularity, and lost the election.

Once again the Republican Party doesn't have a leader to be it's public face, and people are again thinking of traditional conservative Republican principles. The Tea Party is again flinging poo, but there's still the hope that adults are around somewhere.

And again, that illusion will again be shattered in the 2016 primaries. The Republicans will have to pick a leader, one acceptable to the Tea Party, and a great many conservatives will again find that the Democrats best represent their values.

The Democrats for their part will have a new leader in 2016. They'll get their own post-Bush II magic reset button, post-primaries-Romney flip of the Etch-A-Sketch.

Funny...you went from '08 directly to '12 while ignoring '10. Wonder why that is? Care to refresh our memories as to what happened?????

Democrats, progressive moderates, liberals and other people of otherwise sound mind failed to register the consequences of not voting. The white trash, rednecks, NASCAR crowd and other assorted unwashed semi-literates bought into the fiction that the teagarbage candidates represented them and voted accordingly. And the racist declaration of Bitch McConnell that his whole existence- and that of his co-criminals- would be predicated on ensuring a one term presidency for "that damn n****r president." The grand, glorious result of that was this class of incompetent bomb-tossers in the HoR. And the RE-ELECTION of BHO.

[Roland Deschain]

Funny...you went from '08 directly to '12 while ignoring '10. Wonder why that is? Care to refresh our memories as to what happened?????

Hint: Who was the Presidential candidate of the Republican Party in 2016?

The closest the party had to a leader was John Boehner. You know, the guy that the most prominent Republicans these days have labeled a traitor. For acting sane. My point stands.

What point???? Other than the total ignoring that the libtards got their asses kicked in '10 due to OBAMACARE and it looks like history is going to repeat itself. I know it must really suck for you idiots to know your time is over but still trying to make believe that you are ahead.

[Boatrocker]

. . . What point???? Other than the total ignoring that the libtards got their asses kicked in '10 due to OBAMACARE and it looks like history is going to repeat itself. I know it must really suck for you idiots to know your time is over but still trying to make believe that you are ahead.

Explain the ass-kicking of your bitch Romney. Obama was re-elected in 2012, which comes AFTER 2010 on all our calendars.

[rstrong]

Explain the ass-kicking of your bitch Romney. Obama was re-elected in 2012, which comes AFTER 2010 on all our calendars.

Just so. And 2012 was fought over ObamaCare more so than 2010.

[Roland Deschain]

I agree 100% '12 was a "battle" over obamacare. However, how can it be a battle when BOTH candidates support the same nonsense? I'm still in shock that Romney even got the GOP nomination. There were much better candidates that could have gone up against obama in '12 but money won the nomination. I think the fact that Romney was sub-par was evidenced by the 3 million fewer GOP voters.

[rstrong]

I'm still in shock that Romney even got the GOP nomination. There were much better candidates that could have gone up against obama in '12 but money won the nomination.

Heck, the much better candidates didn't even appear in the primaries. Instead they made Romney look viable by standing Perry/Bachmann/Cain/Paul/Santorum next to him.

(Actually, Gingrich at least was sane and intelligent. But he would have done even worse than Romney. And he had the same pro-ObamaCare-before-Obama-adopted-it background as Romney. And he wouldn't have been able to mention "family values" or "conservative values" or without the audience breaking into laughter.)

But yes, as McCain learned in 2000, money is important. Republican candidates were told that they would back Bush II in the primaries, and not McCain, and if they did otherwise the party would withhold their funding. The primaries were as real as Eastwood's invisible Obama in 2012.

[Roland Deschain]

Yes RCP has the dims up by 1.6 in an AVERAGE of all polls. Still does not change the fact that GOP is up by 3 in a poll...not does it change the fact that your ship is sinking and it is picking up speed as it goes down. I can't wait to see how you idiots try to spin when the polls really start showing your party has gone flat line

[Ombudsman]

Poor Roland, still picking cherries.

Looks like people are still not very happy with democrats.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_dem.htm

And even less happy with Republicans.

http://www.pollingreport.com/cong_rep.htm

[Roland Deschain]

You idiots really having a problem with staying on track and comparing apples to apples. You are always bringing oranges or pears to the apple market....I guess that is what you must do when you are spinning like a wind sock in a hurricane. See, the problem for you fools is that "approval/disapproval" polls do not show voter intent. Having been on gallup's polling board for a while, I know how the questions are asked and how they MUST be answered. As a registered republican I would also answer that I DISAPPROVE of how the GOP is handling things in congress. However, I'm not going to go vote for a dim....same thing with many registered dims. The generic ballot poll gives a better indication of actual voter intent and ya'll are losing. We can even go a bit deeper and look at your precious Kay Hagan who is losing her ass as we speak. Down to just couple points ahead or even behind the GOP candidates, from double digit leads, in head to head matchups. Funny, the one she is TRAILING is the TEA party candidate too. Ya'll keep digging up approval/disapproval polls, and thinking they acually translate at the ballot box. I'll be paying attention to the ones that reflect voter intent and continuing to laugh my ass off as you DA's sink farther and faster

[neoplacebo]

Vance McAllister wins a special election in Louisiana's 5th district to fill a vacant GOP house seat. He beat the Tea Party backed candidate 60/40. This is the same district, conservative and rural, that the Duck Dynasty guys live in. One of them even did a spot for McAllister. Wingnuts lose in their own backyard.

[Roland Deschain]

Vance McAllister wins a special election in Louisiana's 5th district to fill a vacant GOP house seat. He beat the Tea Party backed candidate 60/40. This is the same district, conservative and rural, that the Duck Dynasty guys live in. One of them even did a spot for McAllister. Wingnuts lose in their own backyard.

You mean vance McAllister the REPUBLICAN...that Vance McAllister??? The one that ran as ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT? The one that ran on the ANTI-ENCUMBENT sentiment? THAT Vance McAllister?

[neoplacebo]

Vance McAllister wins a special election in Louisiana's 5th district to fill a vacant GOP house seat. He beat the Tea Party backed candidate 60/40. This is the same district, conservative and rural, that the Duck Dynasty guys live in. One of them even did a spot for McAllister. Wingnuts lose in their own backyard.

You mean vance McAllister the REPUBLICAN...that Vance McAllister??? The one that ran as ANTI-ESTABLISHMENT? The one that ran on the ANTI-ENCUMBENT sentiment? THAT Vance McAllister?

Yes, you are (by default) correct. You see, the election was for the vacant seat of a GOP house member, as I posted. You missed the point and continue to be thick as a brick. The election was between two Republicans; no Democrats were allowed to participate. The winner between the two Republicans is the one not supported by the Tea Party dumbasses. Get it?

[O Really]

Not everyone understands quite how elections work. Only the voters in the middle actually count. Somewhere around 40% for each major party are locked in before the election occurs. As Roland has mentioned, he wouldn't vote for a Dem even if if the Republican candidate was Rob Ford. So the 20-25% who might be swayed by individual issues, personal candidate preference, or whatever are the only ones who matter in the campaign. Yes, there's a turnout issue, but that's another topic. So even though a general preference poll doesn't reflect actual voting probability, it does give an indication of which way those who can be swayed might be leaning. Then, if you add that information to actual election results, you might see a trend. In this case, general sentiment has everyone faring badly in approval, but the Republicans are faring worse, and the teapartiers worse still. To see if that data appears realistic, we can look at the latest round of elections where teapartiers generally lost, even in hard core right wing country. Problem is, voters have short memories, and sometimes vote on immediate and short-sighted issues, so just because the Republicans are the bottom of the barrel now, doesn't mean they still will be in a year. But from most analyses, the teapartiers are still going to be scum, probably even lower, and if the Republicans don't scrape them off their feet, they'll get dragged down no matter what the Dems do.

[Roland Deschain]

Roland Deschain gets busted cherry picking data from his own cherry picked poll and all he can do is lamely try and spin away from it. Oh well, at least he didn't lie and run away like he did with his OP. It's a shame he never learned personal responsibility but I'm sure he has someone to blame for that, too - parents, schools, Dems, his socialist job, whoever.

...See, the problem for you fools is that "approval/disapproval" polls do not show voter intent...Ya'll keep digging up approval/disapproval polls, and thinking they acually translate at the ballot box...

You started this thread with an approval/disapproval poll, DA, and you lied about past ones while doing so. Then, without naming it or giving the whole picture, of course, you cited a Faux Noise poll that includes very negative data about the GOP. It's hilarious that you're now whining because we're more complete and accurate about the very topics and sources that you broach. What a baby!

A generic ballot poll doesn't give a very good indication of actual voter intent, either, fool. People vote on the local choice they're presented with. And, the polls don't show the Dems "losing", anyhow, as I linked. It's adorable when Roland Deschain gets so desperate that he lies, again. We're laughing our asses off at you.

Still carrying oranges to the apple market I see. Tell me oh wise one.....what are obama's chances for re-election? That's right zip, zero, zilch, nada, unless ya'll want to throw that pesky little Constitution out. (Although you have done quite well at that so far) So with that in mind....that obama can not run again....the ONLY gauge as to his job peformance is "approval" polls. The rest of my previous post stands. Please try again.....scratch that...try again AFTER you have gotten a bit smarter.

[Roland Deschain]

Not everyone understands quite how elections work. Only the voters in the middle actually count. Somewhere around 40% for each major party are locked in before the election occurs. As Roland has mentioned, he wouldn't vote for a Dem even if if the Republican candidate was Rob Ford. So the 20-25% who might be swayed by individual issues, personal candidate preference, or whatever are the only ones who matter in the campaign. Yes, there's a turnout issue, but that's another topic. So even though a general preference poll doesn't reflect actual voting probability, it does give an indication of which way those who can be swayed might be leaning. Then, if you add that information to actual election results, you might see a trend. In this case, general sentiment has everyone faring badly in approval, but the Republicans are faring worse, and the teapartiers worse still. To see if that data appears realistic, we can look at the latest round of elections where teapartiers generally lost, even in hard core right wing country. Problem is, voters have short memories, and sometimes vote on immediate and short-sighted issues, so just because the Republicans are the bottom of the barrel now, doesn't mean they still will be in a year. But from most analyses, the teapartiers are still going to be scum, probably even lower, and if the Republicans don't scrape them off their feet, they'll get dragged down no matter what the Dems do.

I don't really identify with "TEA" either but I am far more conservative than most I'd say. I think what you are going to see this cycle is a total break from "establishment" and a massive anti-encumbent mentality on BOTH sides. That is what happened in Louisiana. Seems the lesser "connected" of the two candidates pulled the victory.

[Ombudsman]

I think you mean "incumbent". What seems to be occurring is that people are realizing it's better to have experienced people in office than to have these tea-party anti-incumbent types that guys like you salivate over. Only in the world of wing nuttery is lack of experience considered something worthy of placing at the top of one's resume.

[Roland Deschain]

I think you mean "incumbent". What seems to be occurring is that people are realizing it's better to have experienced people in office than to have these tea-party anti-incumbent types that guys like you salivate over. Only in the world of wing nuttery is lack of experience considered something worthy of placing at the top of one's resume.

So the businerss man beats the state Senator and that is experience? Speaking of lack of experience just how much expereience in government di obama have when you fools elected him? Really, do think about anything you post or do you just hammer out the first bits of shit that seep out of that vacant space between your ears.