Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I admit that I haven't paid that much attention to the Senate.

But did we really go from a "Republicans might take over the Senate" scenario to a "Democrats now have more seats than before" scenario?

Yeah, we did. Technically at least two of those seats are independents that will caucus Democrat (IIRC). But Republicans and their amazing ability to get suckered into the abortion conversation and say the dumbest fething thing that comes to their mind sunk at least two races. I mean Akins could have announced his candidacy and gone on vacation and won; now look where he is. (and thank God, but whatever.)

Turns out my earlier bemoaning of our Senate race (which may have been another thread) may have been premature with 450,000 ballots yet to be counted 450,000 just in this county.

 azazel the cat wrote:
McCain was an excellent choice, definitely not the "B" team you're suggesting. His (previously) moderate stance is exactly what is needed to win. His downfall was picking a mentally unstable idiot for a running mate.

McCain's problem was running as a Republican in 2008. Between following on from Bush and the GFC, Jesus himself couldn't have done enough to change how that year was going to turn out.

Palin was an out of left field option, because he needed to do something to change up that campaign.

Hell, even Romney wasn't even part of the "B Team" on the national stage. If he never had to pander to the Liars for Jesus crowd during the primaries, then he would've crushed Obama. Until the GOP splits away from the hardcore, fundamentalist-right base, it will never get anyone other than the "B Team", or else someone that looks like them, on the national stage again.

It certainly didn't help that he had to say some pretty out there stuff to get the nomination, but he's a fairly smooth operator and always couched his statements in vague enough language that Obama never really managed to hammer him on it. It was certainly no greater a hinderance to Romney than having to move out left and then back to the centre had been for Kerry in 2004.

The bigger issue is that basically Romney scored the same number of votes that McCain did - about 60 million. Bush in 2004 picked up 62 million. Which is a pretty solid sign that the Republican party is just about maxxed out with its current campaign strategy, and so if the Democrats can get a decent turn out of their supporters, there really isn't much the Republican candidate can do.

The party needs to expands its base.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 d-usa wrote:
So I admit that I haven't paid that much attention to the Senate.

But did we really go from a "Republicans might take over the Senate" scenario to a "Democrats now have more seats than before" scenario?

Which is quite a remarkable thing, when you think this election was re-electing the positions won in 2006 - a massive year for Democrats. That they could avoid losing ground when they had so many seats up for grabs, including many in strong Republican states, says a fair bit about the candidates that won the Republican primaries.