On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 13:49:21 -0500, H the K
wrote:

On 11/4/09 1:02 PM, nom=de=plume wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 12:29:37 -0500, Tosk wrote:

In ,
says...

On Wed, 04 Nov 2009 06:21:25 -0500, Tom Francis - SWSports wrote:

~~ snerk ~~

The House has gained another Democrat. Of course this is at national
level
that has stood from the time of the civil war not to be confused by a
state level that changes hands with the wind. Pfffft! sails luff.



I think the problem is Gibbs who said today, "Obama did not pay
attention, he was watching a special on HBO about his own campaign".
What does this say about Obama? Karl Rove suggested that all presidents
watch these elections and wondered out loud if Obama is lying, or just
saying, "I don't give a **** what you think". The best answer for Gibbs
to have given would have been, "we were watching, and we get the
message", wouldn't you think?

Haven't given it much thought. For a November election there wasn't much
dust kicked up anywhere that was worth noticing. I certainly don't see a
trend yet.



All politics is local. That's the trend. 60% of the voters in Virginia and
NJ said Obama didn't influence their vote. 20% said he did in a positive
way; 20% said he did in a negative way.


That's especially true in Virginia. The Dems in that state have two
really large, strong pockets of strength, and a third, smaller area. The
big areas are northern Virginia and the Richmond area. So, who do they
pick in their primary? A guy almost no one has heard of, from the
backwater part of the state where the rednecks live. From that moment
on, the election results were a known conclusion. Creigh Deeds might
have been an ideal candidate for the 1970s, but not for 2008.

The House pickup in upstate New York was a kick to Sarah Palin's
gonads...:) A delightful surprise, as it were.

It's a testament to their stupidity. Circular firing squad.