The real party of NO, the GOP, steps it up

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

As for your assertion that the GOP "only" won the Senate there seems to be an awful lot of handwringing from the left over that "small" victory. Didn't the GOP pick up some seats in the Senate as well? Yeah the President has a 44% approval rate, the Democrats just lost the House and lost seats in the Senate. That sounds like they did great!

You typo'd, I said House, not Senate.

Of course the Dems want to keep seats, just like the GOP wants to win them. The norm after a big presidential is to switch over the legislative branch.

So it's rather notable, that in spite of the past two years of fear mongering: death panel, horrible Communist, Muslim, Socialist, Hitler, ruining our country, take our country back, creation of the Tea Party by the Koch brothers, health care will destroy us meme, resulting in the most endangered Senate Majority leader in ages (Reid) - and the GOP couldn't beat Reid. Or win Delaware. Lost the Alaska seat to a write in.

First time in modern history the "switch" party took only the House back, but couldn't take the Senate.

The lowest amount of House seats won out of the past three "switch" elections.

The President's approval rating may be 44%, but that's higher than Clinton, Bush Two and Reagan at this point in their presidencies. And higher than the Dem party in general, and much higher than the GOP general approval rating.

Yeah, considering what could have been, the Dems lucked out.

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

You typo'd, I said House, not Senate.

Of course the Dems want to keep seats, just like the GOP wants to win them. The norm after a big presidential is to switch over the legislative branch.

So it's rather notable, that in spite of the past two years of fear mongering: death panel, horrible Communist, Muslim, Socialist, Hitler, ruining our country, take our country back, creation of the Tea Party by the Koch brothers, health care will destroy us meme, resulting in the most endangered Senate Majority leader in ages (Reid) - and the GOP couldn't beat Reid. Or win Delaware. Lost the Alaska seat to a write in.

First time in modern history the "switch" party took only the House back, but couldn't take the Senate.

The lowest amount of House seats won out of the past three "switch" elections.

The President's approval rating may be 44%, but that's higher than Clinton, Bush Two and Reagan at this point in their presidencies. And higher than the Dem party in general, and much higher than the GOP general approval rating.

Yeah, considering what could have been, the Dems lucked out.

The election that took place two years into Bush's presidency (2002).. The republicans gained 8 seats.

In 2004, the Republicans gained 3 net seats (gained 8, lost 5)

in 2006, the dems gained 31 seats.

in 2008, the dems gained 21 seats

in 2010, the republicans gained 63 seats


to go farther back..

in 2000.. the dems gained 2 seats in the house

1998 - dems gained 5 seats

1996 - dems gained 9 seats

1994 - republicans gained 54 seats

in fact, the 63 seats taken by the GOP in 2010 was the largest gain in any house election since by a single party since 1948, when the dems picked up 75 seats.

They also gained more seats in one election than the Dems gained in the 2006 & 2008 elections combined... when Republican hating was at it's peak.

Therefore, and I'm not being mean to you anymore.. its my post historic election landslide victory promise... but you are so very very wrong about this not being a historic election for the GOP.



Also, they gained 6 out of 37 seats up for grabs in the Senate... a 16% gain.

of the 37 seats:

Republicans won 24

Dems won 13


Repubs would have most likely took Reid's seat and the Deleware one, if they had offered even semi-sane candidates.. but of course you know this, since you started about 74 threads about it prior to the election. But hey... blame goes on the GOP for those two seats.

if all 100 seats were up for grabs (which I of course know is never the case) Repubs easily have control of the senate and possibly a super majority.


so there it is, in plain english, comprised of nothing but facts (except the bottom two paragraphs, which are my opinion)... the historic skull fucl<ing the Dems took on Nov 2, 2010.

[Antitrust32]

you realistically could add Scott Brown's historic win in MA to the Senate toll, eventhough it was a jan 2010 special election.

that would be 38 seats up for grab in 2010... gain of 7 by repubs, 18.4% gain.

Repubs: 25
Dems: 13

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

you realistically could add Scott Brown's historic win in MA to the Senate toll, eventhough it was a jan 2010 special election.

that would be 38 seats up for grab in 2010... gain of 7 by repubs, 18.4% gain.

Repubs: 25
Dems: 13

No you can't When you are measuring facts, you don't add "what ifs" to your totals

You didn't leave your source - what are the total seats that each party controlled in each house before and after each election?

[Antitrust32]

Originally Posted by Riot

No you can't When you are measuring facts, you don't add "what ifs" to your totals

You didn't leave your source - what are the total seats that each party controlled in each house before and after each election?

my source is wikipedia.

you could be right about the Scott Brown one.. i dont know if Teddy's seat would have been up for re-election this november or not.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

my source is wikipedia.

you could be right about the Scott Brown one.. i dont know if Teddy's seat would have been up for re-election this november or not.

Scott Brown was a special, but I think he must be counted, as his election was simply early to 2010.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Antitrust32

so there it is, in plain english, comprised of nothing but facts (except the bottom two paragraphs, which are my opinion)... the historic skull fucl<ing the Dems took on Nov 2, 2010.

Good stats :-) Do you have the total number of seats the parties controlled before and after the elections?

Percentage of wins/losses is important, yes, but it's relative to the starting point. Certainly this election alot of House seats changed over, a huge percentage, but many had Dems sitting in them, rather than the usual GOP, to start with. Those Dems were oddities that were only there because of the Obama effect of 2008, many of those seats are historically GOP seats, and reverted right back to them.

The most notable thing I see post-election is what is being discussed in the southern states - locally and at a state level, Dems are becoming an endangered species. And changing over to be "GOP" (parties switch) so they can be involved in policy making. This goes directly to gerrymandering district configurations.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

Good stats :-) Do you have the total number of seats the parties controlled before and after the elections?

Percentage of wins/losses is important, yes, but it's relative to the starting point. Certainly this election alot of House seats changed over, a huge percentage, but many had Dems sitting in them, rather than the usual GOP, to start with. Those Dems were oddities that were only there because of the Obama effect of 2008, many of those seats are historically GOP seats, and reverted right back to them.

The most notable thing I see post-election is what is being discussed in the southern states - locally and at a state level, Dems are becoming an endangered species. And changing over to be "GOP" (parties switch) so they can be involved in policy making. This goes directly to gerrymandering district configurations.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69929420101103

Obama confessed to having suffered a long night on Tuesday as Republicans seized control of the House of Representatives and made gains in the Senate, handing him the biggest defeat of his career and threatening to block his agenda for the second half of his term.

"I feel bad," the subdued president said when asked to reflect on the drubbing his party took at the polls.


Republicans picked up at least 60 House seats in the biggest shift in power since Democrats gained 75 House seats in 1948. The election outcome put pressure on Obama to make a mid-course correction as he seeks to reduce the 9.6 percent jobless rate and prepares to seek re-election in 2012.



Interesting that Democrats are disappearing in Southern states and some still feel the GOP is party in trouble

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Interesting that Democrats are disappearing in Southern states and some still feel the GOP is party in trouble

The GOP will be the party in power when the rural poor secede from the Union

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Riot

The GOP will be the party in power when the rural poor secede from the Union

If you and the Democrats have your way the rural poor will soon be the redistributed rich

[Riot]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

If you and the Democrats have your way the rural poor will soon be the redistributed rich

The rural southern poor is overwhelmingly Republican. I wonder how they like the party they elected not extending their unemployment benefits?