Democrats victory going way beyond Obama

[88Comrade2000]

I think the Democrats victory in 10 days will go beyond Obama's landslide.

Once the focus become the economy, all Obama had to do was make people comfortable with voting him. He did that and Mccain did the opposite.

The republican brand is toxic this election and on election night will see Democratic wins not seen since the post watergate elections of 74 and 76.

I see Republicans losing even in areas considered safe. The dems could win 30+ house seats to give them around 260 seats. In the Senate they will get close or probably get their filibuster proof majority of 60 seats.

I also think this will sweep into state and local elections. I think this will be one of the biggest Democratic victories since the mid 70's and maybe as big as the mid 60's.

The democrats aren't hiding what they plan to do. The anger in this election is at the Republicans; so the voters want change. When they actually get the change, will they like it?

The democrats with the power have been there 14 years or longer. So when they have full control, it should be all liberal fest. If it actually works; then they further cement their majority in 2010. If it fails, they will be swept out.

I know people expect things to be really different with Obama, but I don't. I expect congress to control the agenda and Obama will go along with it. They gave up to much power to Bush and they are now going to take it back.

I've been telling my friends that are die hard Republicans to prepare for themselves for what's coming.

[sellyoursol]

You may be sorely disappointed if you expect an Obama landslide. I believe we're going to see something more akin to 2000. But with more violence.

[Larry]

If it happens, then I hope we can manage to pull a Clinton, and give him a Republican Congress (read "gridlock") after two years. That seems to be a good formula for success.

Unopposed Democrat rule might be as bad as unopposed Republican rule.

(Although, granted, they'll have to work at it. And my opinion is that generally, the Democrats aren't as competent at abusing power as the Republicans are.)

[Cooked Crack]

I was reading WaPo and David Frum seems to agree that Dems will run the table. The RNC should apparently be thinking Senators First instead of giving money to a losing cause.

You may be sorely disappointed if you expect an Obama landslide. I believe we're going to see something more akin to 2000. But with more violence.

What makes you think it will be like 2000?

[WVUforREDSKINS]

You may be sorely disappointed if you expect an Obama landslide. I believe we're going to see something more akin to 2000. But with more violence.

I predict massive voting scandals (or at least accusations) and a huge mess on Nov. 4th

[sellyoursol]

I was reading WaPo and David Frum seems to agree that Dems will run the table. The RNC should apparently be thinking Senators First instead of giving money to a losing cause.

What makes you think it will be like 2000?

I believe that the reality of the situation will manifest itself on election day...white middle America will turn out in record numbers to combat being overrun by the vocal liberal minority. And if it is really, really close or if Obama actually loses...all hell will break loose in urban areas across the nation. People are being led to believe that there is no way that Obama could lose and they will not will not understand or accept it lightly if it happens.

[TuckahoeSkin]

If it happens, then I hope we can manage to pull a Clinton, and give him a Republican Congress (read "gridlock") after two years. That seems to be a good formula for success.

Unopposed Democrat rule might be as bad as unopposed Republican rule.

(Although, granted, they'll have to work at it. And my opinion is that generally, the Democrats aren't as competent at abusing power as the Republicans are.)

Agree. That is a major problem during Bush's term.

[Cooked Crack]

I believe that the reality of the situation will manifest itself on election day...white middle America will turn out in record numbers to combat being overrun by the vocal liberal minority. And if it is really, really close or if Obama actually loses...all hell will break loose in urban areas across the nation. People are being led to believe that there is no way that Obama could lose and they will not will not understand or accept it lightly if it happens.

Code for, I'm praying for the Bradley effect.

[sellyoursol]

Code for, I'm praying for the Bradley effect.

I'm not praying for anything of the sort. What type of sadistic individual would be praying for that and the civil unrest that would undoubtedly ensue?

It's simply what I believe will happen.

[SteveFromYellowstone]

I believe that the reality of the situation will manifest itself on election day...white middle America will turn out in record numbers to combat being overrun by the vocal liberal minority. And if it is really, really close or if Obama actually loses...all hell will break loose in urban areas across the nation. People are being led to believe that there is no way that Obama could lose and they will not will not understand or accept it lightly if it happens.

Guess we better hope he wins by a land slide, right?

[TuckahoeSkin]

Guess we better hope he wins by a land slide, right?

McCain, of course.

[JimboDaMan]

And if it is really, really close or if Obama actually loses...all hell will break loose in urban areas across the nation. People are being led to believe that there is no way that Obama could lose and they will not will not understand or accept it lightly if it happens.

I think that kind of talk needs to stop. I've heard some of the conservative talking heads saying major city police forces are making contingency plans for rioting if Obama loses. Other than putting fear of the minority boogeyman into the heads of white voters I see nothing gained by such inflammatory talk.

[brandymac27]

I believe that the reality of the situation will manifest itself on election day...white middle America will turn out in record numbers to combat being overrun by the vocal liberal minority. And if it is really, really close or if Obama actually loses...all hell will break loose in urban areas across the nation. People are being led to believe that there is no way that Obama could lose and they will not will not understand or accept it lightly if it happens.

I actually think you have a valid argument. All the polls are showing Obama is leading, in some cases by quite a bit, and if he loses I can see people really getting upset over it. Especially b/c there are a lot of first time voters who may not understand things like the Bradley effect. Some may have never even heard of it, so these people are gonna be shocked if he does lose. I can only hope nothing bad happens.

[sellyoursol]

I think that kind of talk needs to stop. I've heard some of the conservative talking heads saying major city police forces are making contingency plans for rioting if Obama loses. Other than putting fear of the minority boogeyman into the heads of white voters I see nothing gained by such inflammatory talk.

Historically, what would lead you to believe that anything OTHER than civil unrest would ensue should Obama lose? I believe the media is behaving very irresponsibly in claiming that it will be a cakewalk, and that could potentially lead to a very passionate reaction should the "slam-dunk" candidate not actually prevail.

[Larry]

(Admiring all of these people saying that those evil, hair-trigger, inner city, minority types are going to riot if they don't get what they want, because the Democrats have been deliberately set up months in advance to expect that if they lose, it's because of election fraud.)

[JimboDaMan]

Historically, what would lead you to believe that anything OTHER than civil unrest would ensue should Obama lose? I believe the media is behaving very irresponsibly in claiming that it will be a cakewalk, and that could potentially lead to a very passionate reaction should the "slam-dunk" candidate not actually prevail.

Its the police department's job to keep the peace, without regard for political considerations. I do not blame them for taking any precautions they deem necessary, they'd be remiss not to. Its the transforming of routine precautions into an alarmist pre-election talking point that I find irresponsible.

But you specifically asked historically - in that sense, my answer would be that never in our nation's history has there been significant unrest after a presidential election. Unless you are arguing that there's something different about Obama supporters, history would suggest otherwise.

[brandymac27]

Its the police department's job to keep the peace, without regard for political considerations. I do not blame them for taking any precautions they deem necessary, they'd be remiss not to. Its the transforming of routine precautions into an alarmist pre-election talking point that I find irresponsible.

But you specifically asked historically - in that sense, my answer would be that never in our nation's history has there been significant unrest after a presidential election. Unless you are arguing that there's something different about Obama supporters, history would suggest otherwise.

I get what you're saying, but let's face it, the media does this regardless what the topic is about.

[Dan T.]

Code for, I'm praying for the Bradley effect.

I'm not praying for anything of the sort. What type of sadistic individual would be praying for that and the civil unrest that would undoubtedly ensue?

It's simply what I believe will happen.

Do you even know what the Bradley effect is?

[SkinsHokieFan]

If it happens, then I hope we can manage to pull a Clinton, and give him a Republican Congress (read "gridlock") after two years. That seems to be a good formula for success.

Unopposed Democrat rule might be as bad as unopposed Republican rule.

(Although, granted, they'll have to work at it. And my opinion is that generally, the Democrats aren't as competent at abusing power as the Republicans are.)

Not a chance in hell the Republicans come close to gaining back Congress, well in our lifetime

President Obama will easily be able to campaign for Democrats in 2010 saying "look where we were in October 2008. You wanna put those guys back in charge?"

It would have to take a watergate for Democrats for Republicans to ever gain back power

Is Mike Pence the Newt Gingrich of 1993? Who the hell will Republicans look at for leadership in the Senate? There is no Bob Dole

[sellyoursol]

Did you not read the post? Is what I described in post #6 NOT the Bradley effect?

[Dan T.]

Did you not read the post? Is what I described in post #6 NOT the Bradley effect?

The Bradley Effect is the phenomenon of a black candidate having inflated pre-election numbers in polls, presumably because white voters surveyed in those polls express willingness to vote for a black candidate, but then vote otherwise once behind the curtain in the voting booth.

It is named after Tom Bradley, a black candidate for California governor who enjoyed a wide margin in pre-election polls in a 1980-something California race, only to lose in the election.

It has nothing to do with civil unrest.

[sellyoursol]

Again, I described the Bradley effect (in terms relative to this election) in post #6 and what the ramifications could be (civil unrest) of such a scenario in this race.

[Larry]

Not a chance in hell the Republicans come close to gaining back Congress, well in our lifetime

President Obama will easily be able to campaign for Democrats in 2010 saying "look where we were in October 2008. You wanna put those guys back in charge?"

It would have to take a watergate for Democrats for Republicans to ever gain back power

Is Mike Pence the Newt Gingrich of 1993? Who the hell will Republicans look at for leadership in the Senate? There is no Bob Dole

You're assuming that things will be noticeably better a year and a half from now. I don't see things "getting fixed" that quick. (Even if the government does all the right things, which would suppose that they know what the right thing is, and that they're able to get the right thing through Congress.)

Although I suppose there's something for the theory that things will get better simply due to normal cycles, even if the government screws up.

[Dan T.]

Again, I described the Bradley effect (in terms relative to this election) in post #6 and what the ramifications could be of such a scenario in this race.

Here's post #6.

I believe that the reality of the situation will manifest itself on election day...white middle America will turn out in record numbers to combat being overrun by the vocal liberal minority. And if it is really, really close or if Obama actually loses...all hell will break loose in urban areas across the nation. People are being led to believe that there is no way that Obama could lose and they will not will not understand or accept it lightly if it happens.

Did you use ninja text? Because I don't see ANYTHING related to the Bradley effect there.

What is there, though, is wild speculation based on, what, a hunch? :whoknows:

[SkinsHokieFan]

You're assuming that things will be noticeably better a year and a half from now. I don't see things "getting fixed" that quick. (Even if the government does all the right things, which would suppose that they know what the right thing is, and that they're able to get the right thing through Congress.)

Although I suppose there's something for the theory that things will get better simply due to normal cycles, even if the government screws up.

I am not assuming things get "considerably" better

The perception will be that things are a better, even if it is by the tiniest bit, or even if they are worse

Lets be honest, 60 senators and a 60 plus majority. It would be an absolute political tsunami for Republicans to win back Congress

The difference between 1993 and 2009 will be Republicans will have far fewer state level positions that they had in 1993. Those people were the freshman class of 1994

President Obama will get a friendly media and a very long honeymoon, he can always point at President Bush. And it will work