Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

I can virtually guarantee you that the Republicans will.

The Democrats need to change FIFTEEN seats in Congress to make this happen. They are counting on defeating the three Republican incumbents here in Connecticut as part of that fifteen.

I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that they (Simmons, Johnson and Shays) will ALL WIN so if the Democrats can't win these seats in one of the most liberal states in the country, then how on earth do they think they will win control of Congress?

I'll take cigar bets from anyone who wants to put up some cigars that Simmons, Johnson or Shays will lose.:smiley2:

A word to the wise, I've never lost a cigar bet.......
(excluding pools, contests, etc.)

.....and pujols will hit more home runs next year than matt cain...


anyone who takes this bet is a fool....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpoppapuff

.....and pujols will hit more home runs next year than matt cain...


anyone who takes this bet is a fool....

---

So, I take that to mean you agree with me that the three Republicans from Connecticut will all win.:smiley2:

How about the main question which is the title of the thread:

"Who will have control of Congress after the 2006 elections?"

I am with you CCat. As with some of the members here all that the Dems want to do is point fingers, call names, spout lies and forge documents to atempt to smear their Republican counterparts. Having the media on their side does not hurt either. Unfortunately they do not have a plan or position . . . and when they do they will change that plan or position if the political wind dictates (ie. vote on the war).

Republicans are actually doing something and will retain control.

CC,
Only two of the republicans will win. It will be a very slim majority WHOEVER wins. Personally, I'm hoping everyone now in office gets voted out and all new people get sent to Washington.
But that's just me.

I do think we may see a swing towards a more democratic senate, if anything. Seems like people are getting kinda fed up with the way republicans are heading lately.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

CC,
Only two of the republicans will win. It will be a very slim majority WHOEVER wins. Personally, I'm hoping everyone now in office gets voted out and all new people get sent to Washington.
But that's just me.

---

Okay, so ya wanna take my bet then?:smiley32:

Which one do you think is going to lose, Shays?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MCsommerreid

I do think we may see a swing towards a more democratic senate, if anything. Seems like people are getting kinda fed up with the way republicans are heading lately.

---

Possibly but almost all the time, that is a minor consideration with respect to individual Congressmen and/or Senators. Most of the voters like to pride themselves as "looking at the individual" rather then tossing them out because of what their party as a whole is perceived as doing wrong.

The Democrats may pick up a few House and Senate seats but it won't be enough for them to have a majority in either chamber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

Most of the voters like to pride themselves as "looking at the individual" rather then tossing them out because of what their party as a whole is perceived as doing wrong.

---

In the bay area we get a butt load of partisanship. Or perhaps it's more a case of the more partisan and politically extreme the louder one is.

CC - do you still think the Republicans will keep control with the Foley fallout? Time's running short, and most of the news coming out is from the majority - Foley, Allen (yeah, Senate), and it ain't peachy. I'm hearing apologies on XM radio from a congressman from upstate NY apologizing for Foley, and Allen bought a 2 min spot on primetime TV.

tom reynolds is down to non-politician jack davis by almost 18pts...this would be a huge loss for the repugs....how many other races are changing due to foley fallout???

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpoppapuff

tom reynolds is down to non-politician jack davis by almost 18pts...this would be a huge loss for the repugs....how many other races are changing due to foley fallout???

---

that's the guy! I heard that he was the guy that convinced Foley to run for re-election. His chief of staff is Foley's ex-chief and that he was fully informed. Now he's taking credit for "forcing" Foley to resign. Try again - ABC and the media outlets forced Foley to resign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mauied1101

CC - do you still think the Republicans will keep control with the Foley fallout? Time's running short, and most of the news coming out is from the majority - Foley, Allen (yeah, Senate), and it ain't peachy. I'm hearing apologies on XM radio from a congressman from upstate NY apologizing for Foley, and Allen bought a 2 min spot on primetime TV.

---

What "Foley Fallout?" The only "fallout" I see is that the Republicans will probably not hold Foley's seat in Florida and even that is still a toss up.

As I mentioned earlier, in Connecticut, there was a Democratic State Representative who actually broke the law. In the Foley situation so far, has not been charged with a crime. In the Connecticut case, the Democratic State Representative was arrested in June of 2003 for molesting his eight year old foster child. He refused to resign. This BS went on for over a year, the Democrats SUPPORTED this guy, no one called for his resignation nor did anyone here hold his actions against the other Democratic members of the General Assembly. In the summer of 2004 when he had to decide whether or not to run for reelection, he finally gave some lame excuse abut being burnt out or some such nonsense with NO REFERENCE to his pending court case on multiple felony arrests. The Democrats even told him it was okay if he wanted to seek reelection!:smiley3: In August of 2004, a full fourteen months after his arrest, he plead guilty to one felony count and was given a ten year prison sentence and had to register as a sex offender.

So how many seats do you think the Democrats lost in the State House in Connecticut in 2004? Scroll down for the answer.....











































NONE, the Democrats had a net GAIN of FOUR SEATS!!! However, the Republicans did win the seat that was previously held by the convicted felon Democrat.

So much for "fallout".....:smiley24:

We'll let the Democrats keep fantasizing and spouting their bullshit about "Foley.":smiley36: It'll give them a reason to live for the next four weeks or so. Then when reality sets in after the election when they don't control Congress, they can start whining again.:smiley36:

I noticed that no one wants to take my bet including the blowhard liberals.:smiley29:

They sure do talk a great line of bullshit but refuse to put their money:smiley36: where their mouths are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

Yeah. I don't bet. Even on a sure thing.
That being said... I stand by my prediction that you're only going to win three of those elections.
I think it's going to be close. No great "win" for either party.

Have you checked your blood pressure lately?

---

ONLY three?:smiley5: Here's what you said originally:

Quote:

---

CC,
Only two of the republicans will win. It will be a very slim majority WHOEVER wins. Personally, I'm hoping everyone now in office gets voted out and all new people get sent to Washington.
But that's just me.

---

So I'm confused, have you changed your mind and now agree with me that all three Republicans from Connecticut will win or are you going to stick with your original thought that one of them will lose? If you think one will lose, can you tell me which one?

My blood pressure is fine. Why don't you ask Barry how his is?:smiley22:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

So, I take that to mean you agree with me that the three Republicans from Connecticut will all win.:smiley2:

How about the main question which is the title of the thread:

"Who will have control of Congress after the 2006 elections?"

---

Sid, did you miss the original question or it this a case where you feel strongly that The Republicans will but you don't want to face reality?:smiley22:

i'll bet that tom reynolds loses to jack davis...10 cigars....bet??...

[quote=CoventryCat86;63055}

They sure do talk a great line of bullshit but refuse to put their money:smiley36: where their mouths are.[/quote]


That’s because they need to save it to pay the taxes the next President will have to raise to pay off Bush's debt.


or because it's being used for social services (read donated to the communist party)

or so Hillary can get a cankle lift.

(for those who don't know a "cankle" is a term to describe when a calf merges undefined into the ankle, also known as drop-calf)


As a staunch independent who will most likely be voting for a democrat, assuming a decent one runs for president, I'm going to have to go with #3.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpoppapuff

i'll bet that tom reynolds loses to jack davis...10 cigars....bet??...

---

You can start your own thread if you'd like. This thread has to do with my thoughts about control of Congress after the election and the bet I proposed regarding the three Republican Congressmen from Connecticut.

As I stated to you in another thread, I have no idea who Tom Reynolds is so I don't want to bet on that one.

Sid, is this the third or fourth time now you've avoided answering the question which was proposed in the first post in this thread. Since you've obviously missed it, I'll ask it again:

Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

Please either answer it or just move on without posting by trying to change the subject, or bring the discussion "off topic."

Thanks.:smiley24:

Here you go, CC. I am trying to stay away from the politics forum, albeit unsuccessfully.

Congress: Republicans keep control
Senate: Democrats take control with a VERY narrow margin

There's a guess from a Demo for you. I would be very pleasantly surprised if we can pick up enough seats to take the House, but I don't see it happening.

Regardless of who wins, the American public will lose again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

Here you go, CC. I am trying to stay away from the politics forum, albeit unsuccessfully.

Congress: Republicans keep control
Senate: Democrats take control with a VERY narrow margin

There's a guess from a Demo for you. I would be very pleasantly surprised if we can pick up enough seats to take the House, but I don't see it happening.

Regardless of who wins, the American public will lose again.

---

:smiley36: The BIG BOLD font was for Sid's benefit since he keeps posting here and won't answer my question.:smiley36:

I don't think the American public will "lose again" as you said. I think overall things have been better with the Republican in control of Congress. Sure, there are some things that happened that I don't like:

HAVA (Help America Vote Act) - Nice idea but mostly lots of BS and cost
No Child Left Behind - see above

BUT, I think the good things outweigh the bad, Federal taxes sure have gone down on the average American. As I've been campaigning with candidates this year, TAXES are the #1 issue on people's mind here in Connecticut at the state level and they specify STATE, not Federal since they've seen the improvement with the Republicans in control.

So while some people think we've "lost" in some areas, overall the American public has "won"

I think the discussion between you and me on the three Connecticut Congressmen got picked up in another thread.:smiley17: Do you still think one of them will lose and if so which one?

I believe the Republicans will still control both houses after the election.At least I hope so:smiley20:

30 years of environmental protection laws have been overturned. I don't call that better for America. I'm going to disagree on the taxes, also. Here in the southern states we don't see many people affected by those tax cuts. Unemployment is higher than it was and the jobs that are available don't pay much over minimum wage. Education costs have skyrocketed. The deficit has reached new highs and the trade "balance" means we are neck-high in debt to Japan and China. I'm not sure we even have a foreign policy in place and even the republicans admit that they don't even have a budget in place.
Yes, I do still see one of your guys losing :smiley4: I'll give you at hint,"At least no one died." THAT was a scary statement. Comparing Ted Kennedy to a gay child predator? Come on!
Also, as you will probably note, I have deleted several of my posts. I do enjoy the political banter but it is not my intent to make enemies here. I disagree with you "conservatives" on many points (like Barry said, labor unions, individual rights and freedoms, the environment, education and states rights keep me on the liberal side of the fence) but I do find many of your points valid. I just believe they should be state issues, not used to give those in Washington more power.
So it's a little off topic. Sue me! :smiley2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

30 years of environmental protection laws have been overturned. I don't call that better for America. I'm going to disagree on the taxes, also. Here in the southern states we don't see many people affected by those tax cuts. Unemployment is higher than it was and the jobs that are available don't pay much over minimum wage. Education costs have skyrocketed. The deficit has reached new highs and the trade "balance" means we are neck-high in debt to Japan and China. I'm not sure we even have a foreign policy in place and even the republicans admit that they don't even have a budget in place.
Yes, I do still see one of your guys losing :smiley4: I'll give you at hint,"At least no one died." THAT was a scary statement. Comparing Ted Kennedy to a gay child predator? Come on!
Also, as you will probably note, I have deleted several of my posts. I do enjoy the political banter but it is not my intent to make enemies here. I disagree with you "conservatives" on many points (like Barry said, labor unions, individual rights and freedoms, the environment, education and states rights keep me on the liberal side of the fence) but I do find many of your points valid. I just believe they should be state issues, not used to give those in Washington more power.
So it's a little off topic. Sue me! :smiley2:

---

Well design, I used to work in the Environmental Protection field and in my opinion the Republicans didn't turn back enough of the bullshit that the EPA got through over all these years.

Take Title V of the Clean Air Act Amendment of 1990. Oh yeah, 1990 when we had a Republican president and the Democrats controlled Congress. This works for both of us, you can praise your Democratic Congress for this shit and I can blame them for it. Or you can praise George H.W. Bush for it and I can be pissed at him for it.

This program is an absolute farce. It required all major stationary sources of air pollution to go through an extensive permitting process. All this did was make a whole lot of lawyers and environmental consultants VERY wealthy, cost industry billions of dollars paying these thieves their "fees" and gave a couple of bureaucrats in the state Environmental agencies jobs. The program didn't do ONE SINGLE THING to make the air cleaner. Liberals think it's "okay" to soak big, bad industry for shit like this but all business and industry does is pass this along to the consumer which makes the American public lose again (hmmmm, where did I hear that before....:smiley22: )

The EPA is out of control and Republicans and Democrats are to skeered to do anything about these zealots. They are a classic case of bureaucracy run amok. If you want to blame the Republicans for something, can you give me some specifics as to what you mean by "30 years of environmental protection laws have been overturned" because I honestly don't know what you're talking about. The EPA didn't come into existence until 1972 (oh yeah under a Republican president :smiley2: ). So do you mean 20 years of your precious environmental laws have been overturned since 1994? Or do you mean that Congress didn't start overturning them until 2004? Or is it George Bush's fault? (which George Bush, please be specific) Or what? You can't have it both ways with your rhetoric.

As I mentioned earlier, the EPA jammed though a whole bunch of shit similar to Title V of the CAA of 1990 that as I pointed out, do NOTHING for the precious "environment" that the liberals claim is being destroyed.

Regarding unemployment, were you around in 1992? That was right before the 40+ Democratic stranglehold on Congress was broken in 1994. Unemployment under the Republican controlled Congress has NEVER been as high as it was then. Once again, please be more specific with your rhetoric.

The primary reason Education costs have skyrocketed is because of teacher's salaries. Be careful here, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Good luck with that one. And you're going to blame the Republicans for this?:smiley36:

Do you REALLY think Democrats do a better job of protecting "states rights" vs Republicans? Oh please, that's too funny!:smiley36: Now correct me if I'm wrong here but in general, Republicans think less government is better especially when it comes to Federal Government and most of my liberal friends honestly and truly believe that government is the solution to all problems.

Oh and where did I say "at least no one died?" Now, I'm a little forgetful these days designwise but I don't think I said that so please don't put words in my mouth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

Yes, I do still see one of your guys losing :smiley4:

---

Okay then are you going to take my cigar bet then? :smiley2:

Ya feelin' confident about that?

Again, any idea which one, Simmons, Shays or Johnson or just your "gut" that one will lose?

How many cigars ya wanna bet?

Wassa mater Colonel Sanders:

http://blog.qiken.org/archives/chicken.JPG

:smiley36: :smiley36: :smiley36: :smiley36:

Bill, this ends for me right here.

You do not listen very well, do you?

1) I wasn't referring to a quote by you.
2) I already told you I am not a betting man. Not even on a sure thing.

Finally, I see that you do not WANT to listen. We will have to discuss other things than politics. Maybe when I know enough about the subject, cigars would be a good topic.

Good day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

Bill, this ends for me right here.

You do not listen very well, do you?

1) I wasn't referring to a quote by you.
2) I already told you I am not a betting man. Not even on a sure thing.

Finally, I see that you do not WANT to listen. We will have to discuss other things than politics. Maybe when I know enough about the subject, cigars would be a good topic.

Good day.

---

No designwize, the real problem here is YOU don't communicate very well. Where did you say you were "not a betting man?" Again, maybe I'm not as observant as I should be I don't ever remember you saying that. So if you did say that, if you could do me a favor and quote the post I would very much appreciate it.

I also not a mind reader. In your post which I quoted you sure implied that I said "At least no one died." because it immediately followed a statement that you most certainlly directed at me.

On the other hand, it is clearly YOU who either doesn't want to "listen" or possibly you have problems comprehending simple English. Either way, the problem is on your end, not mine.

On page two of this thread, you made conflicting statements, I ask you for clarification and you don't respond.

You confuse me desginwise.....

I hope you're not getting all butt hurt now because that was not my intention. I've been trying to keep my back and forth with you on the light and humorous side but your tone in this post has taken a turn towards the whiny and defensive side.

bill...wtf!!!...calm down....take it out on larry....





and i still say your boy,tom reynolds, will get beat....and i've got 10 cigars to back it up....lemme know.....now go take a swig og metamucil...and calm the fuck down...we're all lovers here...not haters!!!..;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpoppapuff

bill...wtf!!!...calm down....take it out on larry....





and i still say your boy,tom reynolds, will get beat....and i've got 10 cigars to back it up....lemme know.....now go take a swig og metamucil...and calm the fuck down...we're all lovers here...not haters!!!..;

---

I already answered your question once Sid, and I'm pretty sure you already know that but just in case you missed it, here's a link to my reply:

LINK

Why is it that you can't answer a simple question in this thread? For the fourth time:

Quote:

---

Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

---

Instead, you keep responding with bullshit, what's up with that?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

Who will have control on Congress after the 2006 elections?

---

The DEMOCRATS!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SmokinDVM

The DEMOCRATS!!

---

Now I can understand why some would think that (the Evans-Novak link you provided) but again, I still think that a whole lot has to break for the Democrats to take control including winning two or three of the seats here in Connecticut which as I said in my first post, I just don't see happening.

I can convince myself that the House Republicans here in Connecticut COULD, MAY, HOPEFULLY, POSSIBLY gain eight seats in the House but honestly, we'll be lucky if we only lose two.

Don't shoot the messenger! :smiley2:

Not based on actual facts or anything... (yeah, I know -- just like a Democrat) ...my latest prediction has the Democrats at 51 in the Senate and the Republicans at 219 in the House.
Subject to change at any given moment. :smiley4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by designwise1

Don't shoot the messenger! :smiley2:

Not based on actual facts or anything... (yeah, I know -- just like a Democrat) ...my latest prediction has the Democrats at 51 in the Senate and the Republicans at 219 in the House.
Subject to change at any given moment. :smiley4:

---

This is a question that's virtually impossible to base on any facts at this point, it's all in what you think will happen. Just like a horse race or a baseball game, you won't know the outcome until it's over but you can have all kinds of reasons to think it will go one way or the other.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CoventryCat86

I can absolutely, positively guarantee you that they (Simmons, Johnson and Shays) will ALL WIN so if the Democrats can't win these seats in one of the most liberal states in the country, then how on earth do they think they will win control of Congress?

---

CC, meet Patrick Ewing. :smiley2:



Seriously though, Bill, although it didn't work out your way nationally (at least in the house, Senate still up in the air at this time), I hope things turned out well lin your own campaign.

I think our two party system divides America and I don't agree with it. I think it would be best if someone who wishes to run list what they stand for, and if they are elected, hold them accountable. Too much division between democrats and republicans.

Well Johnson lost which I didn't see coming. I got a nasty sense about a week before Election Day (that she was in trouble) but I had seen this happen before with her and I still felt confident that she would win.

Simmons also lost by 167 votes. A recount will be held and I think I heard it has to be completed by next Wedesday.

As far as the Connecticut Legislature, before this election, the Republicans in the Connecticut State House held 52 seats out of 151 and we held 12 out of 36 seats in the State Senate.

We lost eight seats in the House, four incumbents and four of our five open seats (but knocked off one incumbent for a net loss of seven) and a Senate seat. The Democrats now have veto-proof majorities in both chambers.

The guy who I helped get elected in 2004 (when he only won by 48 votes, the closest race in the state) was reelected this year but only by 226 votes. All of the other races I was working on lost and lost big. It was a pretty shitty night.

It's official. Dem's have the Congress.

dems have the senate,the house,and more govs and control of state legislatures....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigpoppapuff

dems have the senate,the house,and more govs and control of state legislatures....

---

we have a pretty good Dem Gov. John Lynch here in NH. Seem's like a good guy, he works hard and is doing a good job. I've voted for him twice.

As for the otherstates - don't really care. I don't put much stock in what other states are up to.

More interested in what the Dems will do in Congress.

what happened in NY?