Fishing - Speaking of Cabin Fever

FishingBanter (http://www.fishingbanter.com/index.php)

- Fly Fishing (http://www.fishingbanter.com/forumdisplay.php?f=6)

- - Speaking of Cabin Fever (http://www.fishingbanter.com/showthread.php?t=24436)

Speaking of Cabin Fever

On 7 Dec 2006 08:30:21 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
fun stuff snipped

I tell ya r, that's funnier stuff than Limbaugh comes up with.

So you, then, are regular listener...I'm not.

The election results had little to do with Iraq?

No, it didn't. I'd offer that the Lieberman race was about a good a
signal to all as could be made - the voters didn't give a flock about
his position on Iraq, his political party or what "Dems" (or even real
Dems) outside of Connecticut thought or who _they_ supported, or
anything else other than what they perceive as what Lieberman has done
_for them_. I'd further offer that if straight-ticket/one-(quicker and
easier)choice voting were impossible, his margin would have been even
bigger.

Both houses of Congress changing hands is not a major shift?

No, it isn't, not when the "shift" is so slight, occurred in a midterm,
and was the result of winning "up for grabs" or "in jeopardy" seats.
IOW, there were few real surprises to careful observers. For example,
Lieberman could decide to caucus with the GOP (unlikely, but...), and
the Senate control goes to the GOP.

Losing almost every contested election is merely a clever setup by the
Republican Party to win by giving up power?

Er, VERY few contested elections resulted in a change. Look at a list
of results nationwide and you'll see that in many cases, the challenger
only got 1/4-1/3 of the votes, whether the incumbent was Dem or GOP.
What I suspect you mean to say is that in the Congressional races, a Dem
candidate was able to defeat a GOP candidate in the majority of a
relative few races where the GOP candidate was "weak" for one reason or
another or where the incumbent wasn't in the race. And you (and plenty
of others) have misinterpreted the meaning of the fact that "Iraq" was
successfully used to do so in _some_ of these races. Most of these had
to do with "local" issues and a huge effort to get out the Dem vote. And
this is among the reasons why I suspect certain GOP strategists might
have decided it was a good idea to let them go so far out on a limb to
do it.

You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a
jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something
they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the
correct one.

Obama is keeping a low profile?

Relatively, yes, as compared to the past months, although some of it is
(hopefully) due to wise counsel against over-exposure, and some is
possibly influenced by Hillary's "I haven't decided yet" bull****.

TC,
R

Speaking of Cabin Fever

On 7 Dec 2006 17:43:36 GMT, Scott Seidman
wrote:

wrote in news:albgn2huv0ra1mu27a09qp3ilj3bp3gsdp@
4ax.com:

For the most part, the numbers show a pretty typical, i.e.,
unremarkable, midterm, but some (on both sides of the aisle) wish to
portray it as some major shift, and if the media and pundits oblige, the
public (again, on both sides) will see it that way.

I obviously disagree. I think that its far more likely that historians
will look at this as the checking of an out of control Administrative
Branch. It was a very important election, and I doubt that I'll ever see a
majority party hand the White House the keys again like this last majority
did ever again in my lifetime. I suspect that the investigations that
begin to look at just how little oversight was done will indicate that the
problem is worse than I've imagined to date. In a sense, it might take a
year or two for us to begin to understand just how important this election
was.

I do agree, however, that this election has little impact on the future of
either party. The important issues are constitutional, not political.

The election had to do with a whole ****pot of money spent to convince a
relative few voters that a choice for the Dem would instantly make them
rich, untaxed, beautiful, healthy, and be just as good as Paris Hilton
and/or George Clooney (who, BTW, they then might have a shot of not only
hanging with, but bedding, too) and a the Republican would result in
them instantly being, well, just not good, smart, or worthy enough
for...for...well, for being honored with having the Dem screw them over
rather than the Republican. The fact that a couple of Republicans
stepped particularly hard on their dicks (Allen, Santorum) simply made
it easier in those races. Think about it - an incompetent racist
buffoon like Allen managed to make it close - in a real "sea change," he
wouldn't have even gotten his campaign manager's vote. In another race,
a little twerp manipulating his meds blatantly lied to people's faces
and an idiot like Rush Limbaugh is about the only one who _really_ calls
him on it, and it helps win a race. I still say the most telling race
in the US was Lieberman.

TC,
R

Speaking of Cabin Fever

On 7 Dec 2006 10:58:03 -0800, "rb608" wrote:

wrote:
You are letting partisanship cause you to look at the facts with a
jaundiced eye, and then, attempting to force them into meaning something
they don't mean in an attempt to "prove" your partisan view is the
correct one.

Yeah; that must be it.

Joe F.

A few interesting excepts from a look at the national results (the
dollar amount is the amount reported to the FEC as _raised_):

House:

MI CD 01 Bart Stupak (I) Democratic 180,388 69.43% $802,503
MI CD 01 Don Hooper Republican 72,709 27.98% $2,896

MI CD 02 Peter Hoekstra (I) Republican 182,879 66.47% $640,320
MI CD 02 Kimon John Kotos Democratic 86,803 31.55% $4,720

Senate:

MA 1 E.M. "Ted" Kennedy (I) Democratic 1,497,304 69.46% $8,770,211
MA 1 K. G. "Ken" Chase Republican 658,374 30.54% $726,858

and

UT 1 Orrin G. Hatch (I) Republican 344,416 62.62% $4,639,286
UT 1 Peter Lynn Ashdown Democratic 169,369 30.80% $227,243

Compared with:

PA 1 R. P. "Bob" Casey, Jr. Democratic 2,357,058 58.69% $16,363,637
PA 1 R. J. "Rick" Santorum (I) Republican 1,658,853 41.31% $22,478,293

and just because of the sheer vulgarity of it:

NY 1 Hillary Rodham Clinton (I) Democratic 2,811,981 66.64% $37,853,894
NY 1 John D. Spencer Republican 1,320,571 31.29% $5,138,870

HTH,
R

Speaking of Cabin Fever