It seems like the Dems will be taking both houses of Congress.

[Guynemer]

What Spiffor said.

[Elok]

Idunno, even I wouldn't have been too eager to vote against W if the alternative was that muckraking POS...

Oh, and have some rain for your parade, Dems:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/new.dems/index.html

I don't know how accurate it is, but if it's true it's pretty funny.

EDIT: Trivial but niggling spelling error.

[Drake Tungsten]

Kos responds!!!

Carville needs to shut the **** up. If he wants a war, we'll give him one.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/135814/54

[Impaler[WrG]]

Well lets do the math the Dems have about 230 seats in the House, 30 of which are newly elected, the rest are returning incumbants. More then half the new Democrates are from new England and the Mid west with the rest from more conservative areas. So realisticaly were talking about 10-15 representives who could arguagly be called "Democrate in name only". Their both very junior compared to the established Democrates and small in number. They will move the party only slightly towards the center, a far stronger factor which has/will blunt Democrates will be fear of energizing social conservatives. I'd dont think either party will do much with social issue over the next two years, the dems campagined on and will focus on economics and Iraq. The new members are going to be eager to see some meaty legislation passed that they can take back and present to their constituents, they cant let this wave for the Democrates fizzle and reverse (they would be the first to go) and they cant rest on non-existent years of incumbancy.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Kos responds!!!

Carville needs to shut the **** up. If he wants a war, we'll give him one.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/135814/54

Well gotta go with Kos on this one.

Dean: did his best to expand the number of regions in play, which helped the dems be competitive in more districts.

Ford: was the only Dem Senator who lost against a non-incumbent in a wave year.

Who looks better here?

Kos might be a loud-mouth dork at times by Carville is a has-been. What has he done that's been of any use since 1992?

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Bosh
Ford: was the only Dem Senator who lost against a non-incumbent in a wave year.

A) Ford is a Representative from a heavily democratic district, not a Senator.
B) There was no incumbent in this race; Frist is retiring.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Originally posted by Elok
Oh, and have some rain for your parade, Dems:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/11/10/new.dems/index.html

I don't know how accurate it is, but if it's true it's pretty funny.

This is the new GOP talking point: America rejected the GOP, but still voted conservative; it's clever spin designed to save face, but that's all. Here's the best response I've seen:

There's just one problem with all this: It's not true. Never mind the fact that the Democrats' victory will result in leadership posts for some of the most liberal members of the party; when actually broken down quantitatively, the number of liberal and conservative freshmen Democrats elected on Tuesday puts the lie to this running theme.

Media Matters for America, the liberal press watchdog, has already documented the political proclivities of 27 of the new Democrats in Congress; MMA restricted its analysis to those who defeated incumbent Republicans or took over open seats previously held by Republicans. It found: "All 27 candidates support raising the minimum wage. All 27 candidates advocate changing course in Iraq. All 27 candidates oppose efforts to privatize Social Security. Only two of the 27 candidates do not support embryonic stem cell research. Only five of the 27 candidates describe themselves as 'pro-life.'"

An analysis by Salon has found that the other freshmen Democrats predominantly hold liberal views as well; for example, there's Illinois' Phil Hare, who will replace his former boss, liberal Democrat Lane Evans, and ran on a platform of being little different from Evans in policy terms; Keith Ellison, taking over for a retiring Democrat in Minnesota, who will become the first Muslim member of Congress and has been compared to liberal hero Paul Wellstone; and John Sarbanes, who inherits his liberal politics from his father, outgoing Maryland Democratic Sen. Paul Sarbanes.

In the Senate, Ohio's Sherrod Brown is a devoted liberal, as is Maryland's Ben Cardin; and even the so-called conservative Senate candidates who won Tuesday -- Montana's Jon Tester and Virginia's Jim Webb -- are not nearly so conservative as some have argued, as blogger Atrios pointed out recently.

In all of these arguments one name pops up continuously: Heath Shuler, the former NFL quarterback who ran, and won, as a social conservative. That's because, other than Shuler, there are very few others to whom the proponents of this theory can point. And yet this meme shows no signs of dying: It continues to be pushed by reporters and pundits who, like Brooks, have a vested interest in proving to their readers and employers that their views are shared by America at large. There are some moderate to conservative freshmen, to be sure, but if we had one message for the media this weekend it would be this: Five antiabortion congressmen does not a revolution make.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/

In a separate piece, Salon noted with some amusement that Fox News had already begun spewing the "America is still voting conservative" line on election night, while simultaneously decrying the liberalism of all teh dems getting elected.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by MrFun

I too, think the Democrats who want to oust Dean seriously depreciate his contributions to the recent party victories.

I like Dean for pushing the 50 state strategy but let's face a basic fact here. Dean didn't win this last election, Bush won it for the Democrats by being the worst President in living memory. If the Democrats take this to be some sort of leftist mandate and go on some extremist crusade or try to spend more time hacheting their enemies instead of solving the nation's problems then 2008 will go badly for us.

All we need to do is show that we are more responsive and responsible in government then the Republicans were in theirs and we'll be in an excellent position to pick up more seats and possibly the executive in 2008. Most of the new gains ran as centrists so the Democratic Caucaus actually has was more Clinton style centrists then leftists so a center-left policy seems assured.

[Dinner]

Lastly Carville is just an old guy without much influence left. At the end of the day the winners of the recent election will be the ones who get most of the rewards and influence. Carville wasn't one of the winners.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Well lets do the math the Dems have about 230 seats in the House, 30 of which are newly elected, the rest are returning incumbants. More then half the new Democrates are from new England and the Mid west with the rest from more conservative areas. So realisticaly were talking about 10-15 representives who could arguagly be called "Democrate in name only". Their both very junior compared to the established Democrates and small in number. They will move the party only slightly towards the center, a far stronger factor which has/will blunt Democrates will be fear of energizing social conservatives. I'd dont think either party will do much with social issue over the next two years, the dems campagined on and will focus on economics and Iraq. The new members are going to be eager to see some meaty legislation passed that they can take back and present to their constituents, they cant let this wave for the Democrates fizzle and reverse (they would be the first to go) and they cant rest on non-existent years of incumbancy.

You are forgeting the large numbers of centrist Democrats from places like SoCal and Washington state. In any event Pelosi has released her proposed agenda and it is as middle of the road and achievable as can be with nothing extremist about it.

Her stated agenda is Congressional ethics reforms, a minimum wage increase, pay-as-you-go rules for the budget, and implimenting the 9/11 Commission recommendations.

The minimum wage increase is a slam dunk since so many states already have minimum wages higher then the Federal level. Instituting pay as you go rules was one of the great successes of the Democratic controlled Congress of 1989-1990 and more then anything else set the stage for Clinton's balanced budgets. It made it so no new spending was approved without offseting cuts else where or new taxes to pay for it).

Not implimenting the 9/11 commission's findings was one of the great failures of the Republican controlled Congress because they hated the idea of prioritizing Homeland Security funding based upon actual need instead of porkbarrel politics. If funding were prioritized by need and likelihood of attackthen places like NYC, Washington DC, and LA would get the lions share instead of places with like Omaha. That would mean Democratic strongholds would get the money so the Republicans tossed national security needs out the window so they could keep wrecklessly mispending security funds. Seeing that practice end should make all Americans happier since it is a move towards more effective and responsible government.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Representation for crazy people representation for commies but I repeat myself.

What did we do to get dragged into this?

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Oerdin
If things didn't go well this election then Dean would have been out but for now he gets most of the credit for this win.

Actually, they DLC types are talking about ousting him, claiming his strategy was a failure and that Emmanuel was the one who won things for the party. They're talking about replacing him with Ford.

It really isn't about strategy, however. It's about control of the party. The Deaniacs and Netroots have fair claim for a share of the victory, and the old guard wants to ice them out. The truth is, Dean, Emmanuel, and Schumer all contributed, but really most of the credit must go to Brown, Rumsfeld and Abramoff.

[Drake Tungsten]

If funding were prioritized by need and likelihood of attackthen places like NYC, Washington DC, and LA would get the lions share instead of places with like Omaha.

Omaha is the home of the US Strategic Command and a transportation/communications hub. It's a hell of a lot more vital to national security than San Diego...

[Odin]

Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
Kos responds!!!

Carville needs to shut the **** up. If he wants a war, we'll give him one.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/11/10/135814/54

He should of never married Mary Matalin, she seems to have contaminated him.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
What did we do to get dragged into this?

I wondered how long it would take for that to get a response