General discussion

The Election today will be....

...a political lynching is how things are shaping up in latest polls. I for one will be glad to see brakes restored on this circus of fools in their runaway democrat political machine.
Republicans, who need a net gain of 39 seats to take control of the House, may pick up at least 50 in today?s elections, capitalizing on concerns about government spending and a 9.6 percent unemployment rate. The party may win as many as eight seats in the Senate, just shy of the 10 needed for a majority.

?It?s going to be one of those elections that 10 to 15 years from now people look back and point to as a midterm bloodletting,? said Stuart Rothenberg, editor of the Washington-based Rothenberg Political Report. Voters ?are just in a foul mood,? he said.

Amid criticism of Obama?s domestic agenda, including health-care and economic-stimulus measures, Democratic losses in the House could top the 54 seats Republicans gained in their 1994 resurgence. The Democrats? losses could be the deepest since the 1938 midterms, when the party lost 72 seats.

Discussion is locked

Reply to: The Election today will be....
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: The Election today will be....
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
I was second in line this AM

Members of at least 3 parties got my vote. I do regret that the too many of the wannabe replacements for the incumbents were already well entrenched in politics.

- Collapse -
One democrat

I will be voting for one, for governor. Not because I agree with all his social positions, but on more important issues at the moment, especially concerning gambling in Maryland. Republicans are on the wrong side of that Question A far as I'm concerned. I also want someone other than Ehrlich to be Republican choice next year and until it's proven he's beaten twice, I don't see that happening, elections will continue to be reruns of earlier ones.

I know this is predominantly a Democrat state, but I don't want Republicans that compromise principles to try and get elected. No RINOs needed.

Everything else will be Republican. I do admire Mikulski's positive ad campaign, but she really has no need in this state to go negative. I don't care that much for her opponent, but do want to see change in Washington and that won't happen by helping send more Democrats there than there already are, tripping over each other to fawn and bow to their Obama image.

I doubt much Republican power will go to Washington from Maryland, it's just too deep into the back pockets of the federal govt programs due to it's proximity.

- Collapse -
Do you have Casino gambling?

If not, keep it away. Here's the latest news about ours.

casino owners now want incentives

The long of the story is that the promoters bought prime land in the downtown area in anticipation of eventually getting legislation passed to allow a casino to be built. It had always been promised that the gambling interests would absorb any and all expenses and the state would just make money. It was years before a state constitutional amendment was passed to allow the gambling in 4 cities in Ohio. My town, which is Columbus, had a vote count against the gambling measure. After the gambling issue passed, many were still not happy and especially with the location. The casino owners and mayor's office eventually reached compromise that would move the site to a more suitable location. The property was substantially cheaper but the old property would need to be sold. Since the downtown property was purchased, however, it has gone down in value. It seems that, although the new site cost less, the gambling promoters are looking to cut their loses on the sale of the downtown property. Keep in mind that the property was purchased long before they got the voters to approve of allowing casino gambling here. Hey...that's why it's called gambling. These guys gambled when they bought the original site. They'd have incurred the same loses had the vote gone against them. I'm sure they wouldn't give my money back if I wasn't happy leaving their establishment with a lighter wallet than the one I came in with. Happy

- Collapse -
Horse track

And the issue now is slots in the largest family mall in the state, just down the road a few miles from my neighborhood. I don't think there is "casino" gambling. The gambling group pushing this is always talking about "jobs", almost exclusively. Of course in this economy they hope that's a big enough issue to carry the matter for them. They don't want people to look at the type of traffic, the type of money, the type of crime, the traffic impact, and the type of people gambling bring into an area. We've even had door ******** wanting to extol the wonders of "slots at the mall" and they quickly leave when we cut to the heart of the matter by simply saying "we are against ALL forms of gambling, period". See, they want to argue the WHERE of gambling, not the REFUSAL of gambling. Personally I'd love to see all gambling gone. Failing that, the further I can keep it from my home, my county, the better.

CNET Forums

Forum Info