Raving Conservative

Google

Thursday, November 09, 2006

Midterm Election Results 2006

After careful review of the close Senate and House Races I have discovered something VERY interesting.

In almost every case the vote that went to conservative third party candidates was more than sufficient to take the victory away from the Republican Candidate and give it to the Democrat.

Consider the following three examples:

Virginia:
Jim Webb = 1,172,541 votes
George Allen = 1,165,324 votes
Glenda Parker (Independent Grassroots, a conservative) = 26,102 votes

Jim Webb won by 7,217 votes. That is just under 19,000 votes less than the third party candidate siphoned off from George Allen.

Missouri:
Claire McCaskill = 1,028,920 votes
Jim Talent = 987,383 votes
Frank Gilmour (Libertarian) = 47,007 votes

Without the Libertarian candidate Jim Talent would have had 1,034,390 votes, more than enough to win in Missouri.

Montana:
John Tester = 198,302 votes
Conrad Burns = 195,455 votes
Stan Jones (Libertarian) = 10,324 votes

Stan Jones’ 10,324 conservative votes are plenty to bring Conrad Burns above the 198,302 vote John Tester received over 7,400 to spare.

So, Democrats across the nation, be sure to send your thanks to the various conservative third party candidates who handed the Senate to you as well as giving you a larger majority in the House than you would have otherwise had.

This I also an indicator of the people’s frustration with the apparent abandonment of many of the conservative principles the voters expected out of the Republican party. This is further evidenced by the fact that the vast majority of new Democrats coming into office are conservative Democrats, in some cases actually more conservative than the Republicans they replaced.

Of course, this totally screws the Democrats in 2008. The various committee chairs in the house and Senate are going to be the ultra liberal old guard, and they will be forced to address their constituents demands over that of the new Representatives and Senators. Specifically, there will be a deluge of investigations, the will be impeachment proceeding with no factual basis to support the charges, there will be even greater obstructionism, and it will all be hailed by the mainstream media as good for the American people and that there will be sudden reports about how our economy, which is somehow supposed to be dismal despite all time low unemployment, record high stocks, record high home ownership, record earnings, savings, and investments by ordinary Americans, and one of the most vigorously growing economy’s in the world. In spite of all this, we are supposed to be in dire straits right now, but be aware that the media will soon start to trumpet these facts that were caused by Republicans as great achievements by the Democrats . . . and some people will actually believe it despite all of the facts being to the contrary.

However, the disingenuousness of the media as well as the wacky behavior the ultra left will have forced upon them by their screaming constituencies will soon tire the American people of Democrat antics. This victory virtually guarantees that the Democrats will lose the presidential bid in 2008, as well lose the Senate in 2008. It also guarantees that their numbers in the House will be diminished as some of them are replaced, and as a few freshman congressmen get fed up and switch sides, but they will probably retain the House until they let the tax breaks expire in 2010, when they will get swept out of office on a wave of voter anger at the sudden pinch to their wallets.

Also, the Republicans have been chastened by their base. This will force them to evaluate their actions and return to the principles they were voted into to office to protect, and it will result in a freshly invigorated and potent Republican party.

In short, when one takes the long view, this election is not quite what it appears to be. By losing now the 2008 election has been saved for conservatives. And we will just get more dominant from there.

So, enjoy your victory while it lasts Dems, because you will assuredly destroy yourselves.

13 Comments:

  • I don't understand how you can refer to an "indicator of the people’s frustration with the apparent abandonment of many of the conservative principles the voters expected out of the Republican party." To the rest of the world's eyes your current Republicans are about as Conservative as you can get!

    By Blogger DanProject76, at 5:24 AM  

  • Oh i agree... the Dems will now have the chance to remind the conservatives why we vote against them. Maybe Republicans will realize why they need to act like Republicans and will abandon their big government ways...

    By Blogger Nunzia, at 6:00 AM  

  • dan project 76,

    You’ve made the common mistake of projecting your beliefs onto “the rest of the world”. To the far left any backboneless moderate weenie would seem conservative.

    By Blogger blamin, at 8:32 AM  

  • Now blamin, you can hardly blame people for thinking the Swamp Reeps represent conservatism. After all, it wasn't until the polls turned against them that conservative commentators started acknowleging just how unconservative the Reeps had become as the party in power.

    And it wasn't just the left that believed it. Conservatives and people of faith were suckered in by this administration's rhetoric as well. We tried to warn you, but you just called us "Bush-bashers" as if that was something to be ashamed of.

    Jeez, Rushbo came right out and said it after the elections -- that he was relieved that he could go back to attacking Dems rather than "carrying water" for Reeps who didn't deserve to have their water carried. He acknowledged that he'd been spinning this whole time, to protect his party from itself.

    Now, as to Daniel's predictions for the future, it's possible, but not inevitable. The Dems have only one mandate right now, and that's to keep an eye on the corrupt and careless Bush administration for the next two years. Whether they will manage to capitalize on the conservative defections this year saw, and whether the Reeps manage to coax the alienated anti-Dem base back to the polls, all remains to be seen.

    I also don't think it'll take much "wacky behavior" to keep the liberals satisfied this cycle, just some reversal of the damage done over the last 6 years.

    2008 will probably be largely a blank slate. I think Dems probably will lose numbers in the House at that point, but the proportion of Senate seats that will be up that year -- about 2/3 of them are currently held by Reeps, IIRC -- will make it more difficult for the Dems to lose ground there. It's possible, though. A lot of it hangs on how the Presidential nominations turn out.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 12:13 PM  

  • Catastophile, I have to disagree with you. I think most conservatives supported some Repubs because they are less liberal (there are some conservatives amongst the Repubs). So you see, very few conservatives were fooled.

    You need to quit relying on others telling you what to believe about Rushbo and listen or read for yourself. He never admitted “spinning”, he admitted to supporting the “lesser of two evils”.

    By Blogger blamin, at 1:00 PM  

  • See, blamin, there you go. What makes you think I'm relying on others telling me anything?

    "There have been a bunch of things going on in Congress, some of this legislation coming out of there that I have just cringed at, and it has been difficult coming in here, trying to make the case for it when the people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves -- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs." --Rush Limbaugh

    That sure sounds like spinning bad policy to me. That he was doing it based on his belief that the Dems would be worse doesn't change the fact.

    blamin: "very few conservatives were fooled"

    HA!!! Until sometime last year, there was hardly a whiff of doubt in the partisan-Reep commentator community that Bush/Cheney/Hastert/Frist were anything but the most upstanding, moral, honest men on Earth. Are you saying that was all for the benefit of the liberals?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 1:29 PM  

  • Also, Daniel, you continue to go on about how wonderful the economy is doing, citing statistics and indicators that, yes, are very commonly used as indicators, but increasingly fail to reflect the reality on the ground. Stock values and unemployment figures don't translate into money in people's pockets.

    Even while people buy into the notion that "the economy" is doing better, 75% of Americans say they're falling behind or just holding steady. People understand that there's more money being made, but they also know they're not the ones making it.

    And this has a lot to do with -- and I know you're opposed to this -- what they're calling "globalization" (more accurately, corporate trade agreements that screw over the middle class and allow multinational companies to pocket more profits).

    And yes, Clinton gave us NAFTA -- but this administration has ramped things up severely, forcing the American worker to compete with sweatshops and otherwise-depressed wages around the world. And that has a twofold impact: It means that the stock indexes, and the American worker gets poorer.

    Never mind all the taxpayer-subsidized corporate profits coming out of a nearly-unaccountable Pentagon.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 2:58 PM  

  • When faced with a choice between a group that bumbles its way through and gets some vital policies and reforms done while also fouling up half of everything and a group that will effectively make 90% of everything that has been proven to be afailure, bad for the country, racist, and simply destructive, most conservatives will choose the former. That is, unti we get fed up with the bumbling, thne we punish the people we feel have let us down so that they can be revitalized, purified even, and get back to being what they once were, and that is an effective, powerful group that responds to thier constituency.

    Catastrophile,

    If yuo honestly believe that conservatives have not been criticizing the Republicans for at least 10 years now you are sorely mistaken. W have been critical of what we thought was wrong, supportive of what we thoughtt was right, and ready to defend the only group in politics who will do what is right by us in any amount. Feel free to examine the record, examine this blog, examine Rush Limbaugh's comments, examine any conservative commentator you wish, and you will find a steady stream of criticisms and reminders of who exactly put the Republicans in office and why we put them there.

    "Stock values and unemployment figures don't translate into money in people's pockets."

    I beg to differ. The employed make more than the unemployed as a general rule. Also, as an insurance rep (for those of you who did not know I left the army last Aprtil) I can tell you that my business suffers when people have no money, and blossoms when people have ample money. My business is booming. In fact, most peopel I talk to have more money now than they did last, and the year before that, and the year before that. While opinion poll sshow a general belief that people haveless money the actual figures - ala tax returns - show the average household income to be rising faster than inflation. People do have more money now than before. I know I do.

    Blamin,

    "So you see, very few conservatives were fooled."

    I think more than a few were fooled, but only because so many people are uninformed. However, not nearly as many conservatives were fooled about the Republicans as liberals were fooled about them. The liberals hnestly believe that the last 12 years of Repulican rule have been a masive failure marked by corruption, obstruvtionism, and rampant bigotry. Nothing could be farther from the truth. However, this election was a shot of penicillin to an ailing party that needed a health upgrade. Republican wouldn't do it in the primaries, so it had to happen in the general election. Let this be a lesson, if your represenatative is of your party and is not representing your principles, vote for a challenger in the primaries that better represents your interests. Do not be afraid to lose the incumbent advantage. (This coming from a guy who is considering a run in the primaries against a long established Alaska Republican just to see what happens)

    DP76,

    "To the rest of the world's eyes your current Republicans are about as Conservative as you can get!"

    And to red blooded American conservatives like myself most foriegn conservatives are as liberal as the Democrats and your liberals the devil's army, or at least a bunch of worthless terrorist sympathizing, commie blockheads who want to see every perversion imaginable enacted by mankind. Befor eyou bother to defend the, ask yourself this: Why have the European liberals not put an end to the slave trade in Europe? Why arethey leaving hundreds of thousands if not millions of young women who have been kidnapped languish in sexual slavery under the most inhumane conditions? Then ask yourself why the UN has not put a stop to its own "humanitarian peacekeepers" extorting sex from underage girls before they will allow refugees to have the food and medicine that has been sent to them? Then remember that it is conservatives who are theonly ones even talking bout these problems, and only dedicated conservatives actually doing anything about them.

    By Blogger Daniel Levesque, at 8:52 PM  

  • Daniel: "proven to be a failure, bad for the country, racist, and simply destructive"

    LOL. That's quite a rant, that is. You've obviously learned to hate Dems quite passionately.

    Daniel: "you will find a steady stream of criticisms and reminders of who exactly put the Republicans in office and why we put them there"

    There are always periodic rumblings, I grant you. Generally reflexive griping when things aren't as far right as the base wants. What there's nearly none of is critical analysis of policy. When the Reep leadership gets up and says "this legislation will x, y, z" and the "opinion leaders" echo the claim, suddenly it's declared as fact, no matter what the policy's opponents say. And I think that has a lot to do with the first line I quoted from you, above. Many Reeps are so eager to believe that everybody else is evil incarnate that they refuse to even consider an opposing view.

    And I'm perfectly willing to say that the same goes for many Dem partisans.

    Daniel: "the average household income"

    Which includes the winners as well as the losers. That's the handy thing about an average -- it masks a lot of disparity between the highs and the lows. As far as anecdotes go, don't insurance policies also tend to be more popular in periods of financial insecurity?

    Daniel: "Why have the European liberals not put an end to the slave trade in Europe? Why are they leaving hundreds of thousands if not millions of young women who have been kidnapped languish in sexual slavery under the most inhumane conditions?"

    On that topic, why don't you ask good old Rushbo what he was doing in the Dominican Republic with a bottle of viagra?

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 11:32 PM  

  • CATASROPHILE,

    I stand by my original assessment, if you listen to the “whole” context of what Rush said, you’ll know exactly what he meant. Do I really need to pick apart each word? For example “…people who are supposedly in favor of it can't even make the case themselves-- and to have to come in here and try to do their jobs…” I think he was basically trying to say they weren’t charismatic enough to sell a difficult concept to a sound-bite news society. But hey, that’s their problem, they should’ve at least tried.

    As Daniel stated there most certainly was a “whiff of doubt”… if you were paying attention.

    As to the “Bush/Cheney/Hastert/Frist” comment, are you suggesting they agreed 100% of the time on 100% of the issues? You’ve gotta do better than that!

    What is the “reality on the ground”? That unemployment is at its all time lowest? Or is that everything really sucks, and we need to elect Dems to “fix it/help us”?

    In regards to “…rant, rant, rant, … evil corporations (in cahoots with the military, GASP!!!) …rant, rant, rant…” that’s right, our views are because we were scared into believing something…how else to get an opposing view through our closed minds? What could I possibly say that would convince you you’re wrong and I’m not just a brainwashed, puppet, bourgeoisie, plebe? BTW do you have back pains from carrying around that colossal ego? I know a decent chiropractor.

    There will always be the haves and have nots. How else are you going to measure prosperity other than averages and means? The Dems certainly use them when it suits their purpose (once in the 60’s I think, and once at the end of the Clinton admin whilst rationalizing the coming recession).

    Finally, as to your reference to salve trade in Europe – nothing is done because anytime, anyone of principle, tries to do anything, the libweenies have a hissy fit and wet their panties.

    DAN

    Unfortunately there will always be a significant number of uninformed/misinformed voters – every election, no matter who won. Yes some of us attempt to inform ourselves, but most rely on the sound-bite media for their info. So in essence the winners/losers all come down to whomever won the propaganda war.

    By Blogger blamin, at 7:57 AM  

  • blamin: "if you listen to the 'whole' context of what Rush said, you’ll know exactly what he meant"

    It's not that tough a concept. He said that a lot of the legislation that the Reep majority produce made him "cringe" . . . but he tried to put a positive spin on it, because he didn't want to give the Dems ammunition that would help them with voters.

    You can deny it all you want, but that's quite plainly what he said.

    blamin: "What could I possibly say that would convince you you’re wrong and I’m not just a brainwashed, puppet, bourgeoisie, plebe?"

    That's your preconception, not mine. You're the one who's skewing my argument to fit your preconceived stereotype, my friend. Rant, rant, rant . . .

    blamin: "What is the 'reality on the ground'? That unemployment is at its all time lowest? Or is that everything really sucks, and we need to elect Dems to 'fix it/help us'?"

    The reality is that unemployment numbers don't include people who have given up looking for work. They don't include people who are working longer hours to keep afloat, or not keeping afloat at all. They don't tell you how many second parents have had to take jobs and leave the kid in daycare. They don't tell you any of those things.

    The reality is that workers' paychecks aren't keeping up with inflation, while the incomes at the top are far outpacing it.

    None of that is reflected in your unemployment number. Once again, this isn't a tough concept.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 7:42 PM  

  • As an afterthought, blamin, I'll suggest that you might consider the little criticism of the Reeps that was offered by right wing commentators more substantial than I do, because you accept as truth many of the empty assertions and false premises that those same commentators neglected to challenge.

    A very large part of the policies that have been offered these last several years has been founded on total hogwash -- it falls apart under the slightest bit of critical analysis. But that analysis simply was never offered, and if you heard any of it you'd probably reject it without considering it because it contradicts so much of the "truth" you've absorbed.

    Your mischaracterization of my comments above ("…rant, rant, rant, … evil corporations (in cahoots with the military, GASP!!!) …rant, rant, rant…") -- which you pulled out of your own prejudices and misconceptions -- indicates just how completely you've swallowed a worldview that refuses to hear other points of view. So, undoubtedly, you would find major differences in "criticisms" of the administration that I'd consider cosmetic at most.

    By Blogger catastrophile, at 10:38 PM  

  • While I don't share your overall perspective (I am a Christian socialist pacifist), I agree that conservative 3rd parties helped this election. This happened to Democrats from left-leaning independents and Greens in '00. In order for 3rd parties to play a constructive role, rather than spoiler, we need instant run-off voting. You vote your 1st, 2nd, and 3rd choices. If your first doesn't get anywhere, your vote goes automatically for your second choice. This allows 3rd parties to play a constructive role in shaping debate and widening choices without helping "worst of the lot" get in--from whatever direction we view worst.

    Both conservatives and liberals and centrists should all support Instant Run-Off Voting. It will make for fewer cases such as you cite.

    By Blogger Michael Westmoreland-White, at 8:59 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home


 
Listed on BlogShares