GOP will win in November

<> On the contrary, it's not frivolous at all. Knowing what you mean by what you say is pertinent to how I respond. One mustn't assume another person's thoughts and statements until they are explained. When I debate, I try and make sure that every statement is clear and precise. It has nothing to do with animosity towards you or the subject. < > Your argument that the higher numbers bears no weight on the general election is false. During the 2006 midterm election, voter turnout was much higher for Democrats than Republicans with an altogether 40% increase. According to the Associated Press Nov. 8, 2006 - "WASHINGTON - Voter turnout was more than 40 percent this year, slightly higher than in the last midterm election, according to the non partisan Center for the Study of the American Electorate at American University. A preliminary analysis showed turnout down in some states and up in others — notably up in Virginia, where it appeared a higher number voted than in any midterm in the state's history, said Curtis Gans, director of the center. It also was a big turnout success for Democrats. They drew more voters than Republicans for the first time in a midterm election since 1990, Gans said Wednesday." According to this report the result led to a Democratic victory in the House and Senate. The pendulum is swinging towards the Democrats and it has not been demonstrated that it has stopped swinging. But if this is not enough to convince you. You can also turn to fund raising differences. Democrats are outnumbering Republicans in fund raising efforts. Leslie Wayne of the New York Times Politics Blog, reported that: "...in the first three quarters of 2007, the top three Democratic presidential candidates raised $200 million and had $98 million left, while the top four Republican candidates raised $154 million and had $35 million left. And every month this year, the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee raised more than the National Republican Senatorial Committee —$49.3 million raised for Democratic Senate efforts as of Nov. 30 (with $23.4 million on hand), compared with $28.7 million for Republican Senate campaigns ($10.4 million on hand). The Republicans are also at a disadvantage on the House side, with $60.8 million raised by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee ($30.7 million cash left) compared with $43.4 million for its Republican counterpart ($2.3 million on hand.)" < > There are always political divides between candidates in both parties during the primaries, and they are always bitter when two or more candidates are competing for front runner status. This is not an indication of weakness but of strength. Once a decision is made on who the Democrats will choose as their candidate, the party will be in full support of that candidate despite current differences. All the candidates have respect for each other as they have stated consistently during past debates. The differences between them are minor. Divisions between the camps is a matter of perception. If you want to compare the differences then make a list do a comparison. Each camp will have a fair amount of agreements and disagreements. How the candidates communicate those differences, is what you are responding to. If a candidate shows more anger then you may probably interpret it as bitter and divisive. I believe that the Republicans and Democrats have been relatively civil in their candor. There has been no "swift-boating" as a way of scoring political points yet. < > Your argument here is a weak one. What are the Republicans changing from? A continuation of the Iraq war to a continuation of the Iraq war? A support of "the surge" to a support of the "surge?" A support of the Bush tax cuts to a support of the Bush tax cuts?" This doesn't seem like change to me. < As voters become increasingly pleased with the situation in Iraq, the Republican party looks better and better. This is true of the economy as well. There has been a lot of recession talk lately, but just today, Bernanke issued a statement that said the economy will begin to rise during the summer and fall. We know this is probable because Washington just introduced an economic stimulus plan that will reduce the effective of the housing bubble and return growth to the economy. As the issues look better and better, Republicans follow suit.>> In a short sighted sense, the surge has reduced attacks in Baghdad only recently. However, 2007 has been the deadliest year in Iraq since the war started and it remains to be seen if the "surge" can sustain that success. There is every reason to believe that violence can increase at anytime for any reason. In fact, violence in Iraq has always had a tendency to increase during the summer season. Either way, the "surge" strategy is a not stable one. This is a gamble that can easily backfire on the Republicans if there is a sudden increase in violence. As long as there is no political reconciliation or cease-fire, violence will continue indefinitely along with the war. Either way, a majority of Americans want the war to end and this favors the Democrats over the Republicans during this election cycle. In regards to the economy the Iraq war has cost 487 billion dollars so far!! We are paying for this war by borrowing money from China. This is a recipe for economic disaster unless the government can increase its revenue. And you cannot increase revenue by cutting taxes and handing out $800 dollar checks. Gallup polls show that there is an increase momentum for economic populism which favors the Democrats. < > This is a blanket statement. Are you implying that the Republicans have no weaknesses and therefore will not be "crushed?" In conclusion, all candidates in both parties have strengths and weaknesses. There have always been candidates with inexperience and weaknesses who won the presidency.