That's where you have it wrong.

 

I've said on this board for a while that the economy was only solid in select places in this country and other places were hurting long before the last 2 years as you state.

 

If you want evidence, look at the solid GOP states of VA and NC among others. Those states went Obama or close to Obama because their economy has been in the tank for years. We didn't just wake up to a lousy economy in 2008. It was a regional mess and a regional boon and this election I believe shows that quite well.

 

VA has gone Dem in the presidential, overwhelming sent a different Warner to the Senate and even my local congressman trails in an election too close to call when he has won by 10 points or more in every election he's been in for 5 terms. Why? Because the Southside economy tanked long before the Northern VA economy did. The two have been a lethal combo for the GOP.

 

Nope, the last two years is what cost McCain and more specifically the last two months. Before that the war was the major issue. Any economy will always have it's hot spots and it's spots that are suffering even in a good economy. They work out vote wise.

The figures this morning lean to 52 % to 46 %.

 

If you are looking for comparison, Reagan only received 50.7 % of the popular vote in '80. I might add that more actual people voted in this election than in any other in our history. (at least I think I heard that this morning)

 

True but he won by 10 percentage points as John Anderson ran a strong 3rd party campaign so the call for change was pretty strong.

Nope, the last two years is what cost McCain and more specifically the last two months. Before that the war was the major issue. Any economy will always have it's hot spots and it's spots that are suffering even in a good economy. They work out vote wise.

 

But my bona contention is that they didn't work out vote wise this time did they? What happened was that the already disenchanted found their ranks swelled by the newly disenchanted.

True but he won by 10 percentage points as John Anderson ran a strong 3rd party campaign so the call for change was pretty strong.

 

Just as this one has been. This election is not just based on a 6% victory but also that the Congress fell a little more (thought not as much as feared) into the President's control. If memory serves Reagan may have brought in a 1 or 2 vote lead in the Senate but the House was firmly in the Dems side.

 

This was a definite wake up call to the GOP to return to their conservative roots that Bush, McCain and the previous Republican Congress did not really embrace and practice.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

The war has had a pretty big effect on our economy hasn't it?

 

The single issue that cost McCain was the bank failures which was not related to the war. McCain was leading in the polls until that day in September. The polls flipped almost immediately. How has the war directly impacted our economy?

2/3rd of America said... McCain was too much like Bush.. America has spoken.. McCain had no chance.

 

1/2 of Americans said they thought that the Republicans controlled the Congress. So when America speaks do they even know what they're saying?

1/2 of Americans said they thought that the Republicans controlled the Congress. So when America speaks do they even know what they're saying?

I've long held the belief that Americans in general have no idea what they're voting for. They don't know the issues, they don't pay attention. I had to listen to people 4 years ago tell me they were voting for George W. Bush with no idea why. Some at least offered that it was because he is a Christian, which of course, pretty much every candidate is.

 

If Americans were paying attention, they could never have elected George W. Bush four years ago. But Obama IMO is not the answer, and is essentially our president because he wasn't Republican. It's complete garbage to base your vote on the policies of the previous president. Base your opinion on what the current candidate stands for. If you agree with Obama's policies, then by all means vote that way, and vice versa for McCain. I will never allow myself to make a decision based upon a party vote or the party of the previous person.

SCOREBOARD!!!

Great commercial but it doesn't make your statement any more true.

Just as this one has been. This election is not just based on a 6% victory but also that the Congress fell a little more (thought not as much as feared) into the President's control. If memory serves Reagan may have brought in a 1 or 2 vote lead in the Senate but the House was firmly in the Dems side.

 

This was a definite wake up call to the GOP to return to their conservative roots that Bush, McCain and the previous Republican Congress did not really embrace and practice.

 

I agree that it's a wake up call and there is a strong call for change. That's never been in doubt to me.

But my bona contention is that they didn't work out vote wise this time did they? What happened was that the already disenchanted found their ranks swelled by the newly disenchanted.

 

No it didn't but if you look at the swelling it happened at the last moment. That's why I think it was a reaction to more recent events.

1/2 of Americans said they thought that the Republicans controlled the Congress. So when America speaks do they even know what they're saying?

 

That's sad.

It's pathetic that someone that has no bearing on the current election is influencing so many voters.

 

 

I disagree. It's true that GWB was not up for re-election yesterday, however many people who enabled him over the last eight years were. Republicans in Congress who were in lockstep with the president's policies and refused to break with him on a host of unpopular policies deserve to be judged with the President they enabled.

52% to 46% is borderline landslide, especially when you look at the electoral vote.

I'm not sure what you are saying.

 

The war has had a pretty big effect on our economy hasn't it?

 

None what so ever.

^

Kidding, right?