Election Night

[audtatious]

Looks like more fun in MN. Time for people to pull ballots out of trunks, closets, garages and what-nots again.

http://www.startribune.com/politics/106 ... BP:_17c3mU

[dusred]

I hope the Prez got the message loud and clear: "I'M MAD AS HELL AND I'M NOT GONNA TAKE IT ANYMORE!"

The nation clearly rejects his agenda. All those times of ramming bills through against the will of the people are popping into mind. Health care, Cap and Tax, Stimulus Package, and the bailout's. Now he comes and says "now lets play nice and I'll work with you now lets find common ground and we'll meet you in the middle". Sorry bro, you're too damn late. Now stfu and gtfo. You listen to us now only because you're forced to.

[stebo0728]

Let me say this, sorry ive been so busy lately and unable to participate in this forum But I had to pop in for a bit after this election.

Now, my thoughts. No republican happy dance here, although there is quite a grin. But what do the results mean? Well I think Rubio summed it up best last night. To paraphrase:
"It would be a grave mistake to consider todays election as an embrace of the republican party. Instead let us consider it one more chance for the republicans to be what they promised so long ago." The results were a direct blow to Obama, ObamaCare, and to consider it anything else would be foolish on the part of the republicans. Many that won did not win of their own merit as much as they won by the mere fact that they WERENT DEMOCRAT. Yes that sets us up for possibly just more of the same old crap. But I hope not. Republicans have a chance to get back to their small government, low taxes, low spending, private sector solution base that gets things done. Lets be clear, the republicans AT BEST are on serious probation, and must tread a fine line. What happens if that fails? Who knows, maybe the democrats get all the power back again and this nation crumbles, maybe a strong third party can finally step up and bring some balance, or just maybe the whole partisan model can finally be seen as the dark horseman it has always been.

[srellim234]

Dammit! We were unsuccessful in ousting Boxer in California. Argh!

Z

Problem is, the Republicans didn't put up a candidate that the voters could trust. Same thing with Whitman for governor.

If the Republican candidates were true to their capitalist claims they spent millions, much of it their own, as a personal investment. That means that they intended to manipulate the government in ways that would allow them to get all that money back in a way that paid them better than if they had invested that money elsewhere. At whose expense? The middle and lower class taxpayers. As demonstrated in her business life Fiorina definitely demonstrated she didn't deserve our trust. And Whitman just tried to buy the election.

If the third parties continue to do such a poor job of marketing themselves it's my hope that at least for the next election cycle we get some people we can trust out of the two major parties. Unfortunately there's no indication that will EVER happen with a Republican or Democrat but hope springs eternal.

As for my own voting, without naming names and offices I voted for a few Republicans, a few Democrats, a few Libertarians and a few American Independent candidates. All based on my perception of how trustworthy they were, stances, the particular office and the individual's background (qualification for that particular job).

[IBCoupe]

The nation clearly rejects his agenda.

That's certainly one way to look at it, but I think an equally plausible reading is that the dissatisfaction that led to the Democratic tidal wave in 2008 is now reverberating back in the other direction, not necessarily because Democrats took it too far, but because people are no less dissatisfied with their lives. The Democrats in power didn't actually drastically change the face of any individual's life, at least not for the worse. That the economy remains roughly the same is pretty important, especially because...

Exit polls indicate that 62% of voters labeled the economy as their #1 issue. If you guys can look at that fact and honestly tell me that this was a rejection of ideological policy and government growth, rather than a dissatisfaction with the state of the economy and with still-high unemployment, I'm gonna go ahead and pat you guys on the back for the effort you put into self-deception.

If Americans were so fundamentally opposed to the size of government necessary for universal healthcare, for example, why in the heck would they go ahead and elect a guy who promised to give it? The trouble with President Obama and the electorate isn't his policies, it's his timing.

[srellim234]

z- quick analysis of the Fiorina-Boxer race here:

http://www.caivn.org/article/2010/11/03 ... weaknesses

Sums it up fairly well.

[stebo0728]

Sorry IB, gotta agree with Dus here, at least mostly. I dont want to say Obama is the sole cause for the turnover, but its his policies that are to blame first and foremost, followed by the Congress's blind faith in said policies. I think if you wanted to sum the loss up in one phrase, it would most definitely be "You just gonna pass it to see whats in it". If ever there was a massive failing of the spoken word, that was it. Its no simply that people are no less dissatisfied so lets give the other folks a try, I think it boils down to the majority IS MORE dissatisfied now, and they decided to speak up, that couple with a massively low turnout of democrat votes, you can blame that on whatever you like, but I feel that most of the democratic vote in 2008 came from the black vote that came out in droves just to get a black man as president, and while they were there they picked the rest of the names marked "D". Now that vote presence was gone, Obama wasnt on the ticket, so lets get back to whatever else we were doing, who cares.

[IBCoupe]

Correct me if I'm wrong, Stebo, but you were opposed to it from the start, right?

I'm not saying there aren't people who are very unhappy with the President's policies. I'm suggested that those aren't the people who decided the election. Again: the economy was top on the lists of 62% of voters.

[stebo0728]

Yes I was opposed from the start.

I guess maybe we disagree that Obamas agenda has pretty much everything to do with the economy. Yes that was the biggest factor in the election, and I think that solidifies the position that the results are a repudiation of the Obama agenda.

[IBCoupe]

Obama's policies didn't have much to do with the economy. The parts of healthcare that will significantly affect industry (and then the economy, as it relates to individuals) don't come into effect for years. The bank bailouts were meant to stave off economic disaster, and opposition to them stems from class warfare and budgetary issues. The auto bailouts were meant to stave off economic disaster, and opposition to them stems from mostly just budgetary issues (and probably a healthy dose of anti-union sentiment). The opposition to the stimulus, on the other hand, came from the fact that it wasn't doing enough. That's the only opposition that had anything to do with the economy, and the opposition argued that Obama needed to do more, not less.

The economy is jobs, and that's what we heard leading up to the election: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Ask yourself, in all seriousness, this question: if unemployment were at 4%, what would last night have looked like? This election was nothing but blind dissatisfaction; much the same as what brought in the Democrats it just kicked out. The American electorate is flailing madly, and the political parties are looking to it as intentional.

Right after the election, I heard the statement from an analyst on NPR: "Voters who vote for change and don't get enough will vote for more change."

[stebo0728]

What about the fight over the tax cuts, thats 100% all about jobs, and the complete disdain Obama has for any notion of keeping the cuts intact for ACTUAL job producers was also at play in the minds of the voters.

ObamaCare may not go into effect until 2014, but its still very much forefront issue, and the public wants it repealed before it ever sees the light of day.

How about Obama raising the deficit in 18 months the same as Bushs entire 8 years!?! Obama/Reid/Pelosi have completely FUBAR'd this nations economy, yesterday they began paying the piper.

[IBCoupe]

What about the fight over the tax cuts, thats 100% all about jobs, and the complete disdain Obama has for any notion of keeping the cuts intact for ACTUAL job producers was also at play in the minds of the voters.

You mean the one that isn't policy yet? The fight that Republicans would rather have everyone pay more than some? Think that tipped in their favor?

ObamaCare may not go into effect until 2014, but its still very much forefront issue, and [my edit: some of] the public wants it repealed before it ever sees the light of day.

For reasons completely unrelated to the current economy.

How about Obama raising the deficit in 18 months the same as Bushs entire 8 years!?! Obama/Reid/Pelosi have completely FUBAR'd this nations economy, yesterday they began paying the piper.

Things that are, again, completely unrelated to the economy.

[dusred]

Obama's policies didn't have much to do with the economy.

Woah woah woah! Wait What!? Raising taxes hard core across the board and racking up trillions in debt doesn't have much to do with the economy?

The parts of healthcare that will significantly affect industry (and then the economy, as it relates to individuals) don't come into effect for years.

Yup. But we get to start paying for it right away. We reap the 'benefits' down the road.

The bank bailouts were meant to stave off economic disaster, and opposition to them stems from class warfare and budgetary issues. The auto bailouts were meant to stave off economic disaster, and opposition to them stems from mostly just budgetary issues (and probably a healthy dose of anti-union sentiment). The opposition to the stimulus, on the other hand, came from the fact that it wasn't doing enough. That's the only opposition that had anything to do with the economy, and the opposition argued that Obama needed to do more, not less.

That's the problem. The measures taken were meant to do great things but in reality failed.

The economy is jobs, and that's what we heard leading up to the election: jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs, jobs. Ask yourself, in all seriousness, this question: if unemployment were at 4%, what would last night have looked like?

Well, I'm sure the Dems would have stayed in power but realize the people largely blame them for the current crisis.

Well I think Rubio summed it up best last night. To paraphrase:
"It would be a grave mistake to consider todays election as an embrace of the republican party. Instead let us consider it one more chance for the republicans to be what they promised so long ago."

Exactly right. I'd say the Repub's won by default as the "lesser of the evils". Just like the Dems won in 08 because they were the lesser of the evils.

[AppleBonker]

Exactly right. I'd say the Repub's won by default as the "lesser of the evils". Just like the Dems won in 08 because they were the lesser of the evils.

Just wanna correct this, as it probably should read the lesser of the perceived evils. I've got news for you, neither side is right. Woohoo, there it is. If only more people would see this, we might be able to make progress. Seriously. All I see on the news now is newly elected repubs claiming they're going to fight to repeal everything the current congress/administration has implemented. I guess the thought is that since it didn't cause the nation to do a complete 180 and bring us out all shiny on the other side it must be entirely worthless. So we should go back to exactly where we were 2 years ago. Do over, if you will. And then, when that doesn't work (because it wont, quote me on it), the dems can get the power back and push hard to re-implement everything that was recently repealed. It'll be fun...

Who else is excited about spinning in circles for the rest of their existence?

Edit: I should clarify that I'm not blaming or taking a shot at the GOP. Hell, the democrats ran the same thing 2 years ago (hey, the GOP screwed us up so bad, give us the power and we'll fix it). Both are equally bad and both suck hard at fixing issues. I feel like every election from here on out is going to be like choosing between eating your own sh*t and someone else's vomit...

[audtatious]

If the Republican candidates were true to their capitalist claims they spent millions, much of it their own, as a personal investment. That means that they intended to manipulate the government in ways that would allow them to get all that money back in a way that paid them better than if they had invested that money elsewhere. At whose expense? The middle and lower class taxpayers. As demonstrated in her business life Fiorina definitely demonstrated she didn't deserve our trust. And Whitman just tried to buy the election.

When the Dems do the same stuff is it "capitalist" too?

[dusred]

Just wanna correct this, as it probably should read the lesser of the perceived evils. I've got news for you, neither side is right.

That's why they're called the lesser of the 'evils', right? Cause neither are right. . . right?

[srellim234]

aud- if the Democrat is running on a capitalist platform and claims to be a capitalist, yes.

[IBCoupe]

Woah woah woah! Wait What!? Raising taxes hard core across the board and racking up trillions in debt doesn't have much to do with the economy?

Which taxes did he raise?

Yup. But we get to start paying for it right away. We reap the 'benefits' down the road.

How so?

That's the problem. The measures taken were meant to do great things but in reality failed.

Says you. But I've got a rock that staves off tiger attacks and I've never been attacked by a tiger.

Well, I'm sure the Dems would have stayed in power but realize the people largely blame them for the current crisis.

Then why would they have stayed in power if this election wasn't about the economy?

[IBCoupe]

When the Dems do the same stuff is it "capitalist" too?

No, the correct term is "socialist."

[telcoman]

It's weird, Fox is reporting these candidates have won and CNN is saying they "Project" them to win. :

You do realize that when watching Fox you were watching an infomercial channel and not a news channel.

Telcoman

[srellim234]

How dare you insult infomercials like that! Infomercials are more believable than Fox!

[IBCoupe]

I really want a bucket of oxyclean right now.

[HashiriyaS14]

I don't really read this as a repudiation of Obama's agenda by the people who voted for him.

Obviously, it is by the people who never voted for him in the first place, but that isn't anything new.

Rather, for those that did, I think it hinges almost entirely on the economy. His liberal base, despite their grumblings, held on with the democrats in this election. The dems lost the independents from 2008, largely because so many of them still don't have jobs.

If the jobs situation still looks like this in 2012, woe be Obama. If not, he's almost certainly a 2-termer.

Winning the House doesn't give the GOP the power to do anything but set the agenda, they still can't execute it. They won't be able to get anything through the Senate, let alone the White House. They're in kind of a shxtty position, because if they suggest BAD ideas the Dems will say "we told you so", but if they suggest GOOD ideas, the Dems can vote them through and claim bipartisanship.

If good things come of us having a GOP house and a Dem Senate/WH, then you can bet that will be a status quo that will continue. If bad things or nothing comes of it (more likely), then one or other of those two parties will meet reckoning in 2012. Hard to say which, will depend on economy.

[IBCoupe]

I don't really read this as a repudiation of Obama's agenda by the people who voted for him.

Obviously, it is by the people who never voted for him in the first place, but that isn't anything new.

Rather, for those that did, I think it hinges almost entirely on the economy. His liberal base, despite their grumblings, held on with the democrats in this election. The dems lost the independents from 2008, largely because so many of them still don't have jobs.

If the jobs situation still looks like this in 2012, woe be Obama. If not, he's almost certainly a 2-termer.

Winning the House doesn't give the GOP the power to do anything but set the agenda, they still can't execute it. They won't be able to get anything through the Senate, let alone the White House. They're in kind of a shxtty position, because if they suggest BAD ideas the Dems will say "we told you so", but if they suggest GOOD ideas, the Dems can vote them through and claim bipartisanship.

If good things come of us having a GOP house and a Dem Senate/WH, then you can bet that will be a status quo that will continue. If bad things or nothing comes of it (more likely), then one or other of those two parties will meet reckoning in 2012. Hard to say which, will depend on economy.

+1, but that probably went without saying.

[Cold_Zero]

What will be interesting to see is how many Radio Talk Show Hosts track back to their Republican new found affiliations, now that there is a so called 'victory" with these elections. Remember, it was popular in 2008 in the midst of the elections and an unpopular President to track away from said affiliation saying "Well, I am really a conservative and not a Republican..Now I am really an independent... Now I am really libertarian leaning."

I think where these elections were a let down for me, is that it did nothing to move the government back its enumerated powers and abide by the US Constitution. But that is another argument for another time.

[heliochrome85]

slate had a great article on this...
http://www.slate.com/id/2273199/pagenum/all/#p2

[dusred]

Which taxes did he raise?

Cap and tax, though it hasn't taken effect yet will "cause utility bills to necessarily skyrocket". The Bush Tax Cuts will expire.

How so?

Do you think the day it takes full effect our taxes will just suddenly jump? No. The money has to come from somewhere and it will be gathered before the health care system takes full effect.

Says you. But I've got a rock that staves off tiger attacks and I've never been attacked by a tiger.

Are you saying that the bailouts were successful? The CEO's of those companies took millions of the money and gave themselves bonuses, and guess what, many of those huge companies who were bailed out are still in deep s***. Like GM for example.

Then why would they have stayed in power if this election wasn't about the economy?

Good question. I'd say because the Repub's screwed things up so badly 8 years in a row that the people were damn tired of it and would stick to Dem's for a while. Problem is the Dems are proving to be just as irresponsible.

[stebo0728]

I don't really read this as a repudiation of Obama's agenda by the people who voted for him.

Obviously, it is by the people who never voted for him in the first place, but that isn't anything new.

Rather, for those that did, I think it hinges almost entirely on the economy. His liberal base, despite their grumblings, held on with the democrats in this election. The dems lost the independents from 2008, largely because so many of them still don't have jobs.

If the jobs situation still looks like this in 2012, woe be Obama. If not, he's almost certainly a 2-termer.

Winning the House doesn't give the GOP the power to do anything but set the agenda, they still can't execute it. They won't be able to get anything through the Senate, let alone the White House. They're in kind of a shxtty position, because if they suggest BAD ideas the Dems will say "we told you so", but if they suggest GOOD ideas, the Dems can vote them through and claim bipartisanship.

If good things come of us having a GOP house and a Dem Senate/WH, then you can bet that will be a status quo that will continue. If bad things or nothing comes of it (more likely), then one or other of those two parties will meet reckoning in 2012. Hard to say which, will depend on economy.

Or just maybe the Repubes actually put forth some good ideas that the populous agree with, and the Dems in the Senate shoot them down, and suddenly the Repubes get the White House and Senate back in 2012 cause the Dems just lately cant help but piss the populous off.

Just another possibility....

[AppleBonker]

Or just maybe the Repubes actually put forth some good ideas that the populous agree with, and the Dems in the Senate shoot them down, and suddenly the Repubes get the White House and Senate back in 2012 cause the Dems just lately cant help but piss the populous off.

So the democrats are pissing off the populace? Such an absurd statement. If 49% agree with democratic proposals and 51% disagree, I'm not too sure I go spouting that the populace is opposed to them. But we might as well keep the black or white thing going. If 51% decide they don't like the way things are going, to obvious solution is to swing as hard as possible to the other end of the spectrum. Cause that will work...

And lol at "repubes"

[stebo0728]

And another thing, the House elections seem to have the spotlight for obvious reasons, but check this...

10 governors races flipped from Left to Right
around 500 state level seats flipped from Left to Right

Couple that with the 60+ House seats that flipped from Left to Right and I think that says alot about the vitriol the American people hold for the Democrats right now. Again I dont attribute this to any greatness on the part of the Republicans. Theres only a slight chance that this power flip is going to do any good for the nation, a slight chance. Its clearly a repudiation of the Left, of the socialist big government nanny state policies they push.