Midterm Elections (Nov. 2)

[Bond]

Predictions? Musings? Rants?

I see the Republicans regaining a sizable majority in the House, with the Democrats holding on to a 2-4 seat majority in the Senate.

[manasecret]

I just hope the sensible, non-ideological, simply-get-nitty-gritty-things-done former Houston mayor -- Democrat Bill White -- wins as governor of Texas over that do-nothing current governor/emperor Republican Rick Perry.

[Professor S]

Unlikely. Recent polls show that Perry has gotten a boost from previously undecided voters, which is the norm. It won't be a run-away, though, so anything can happen.

[Vampyr]

I can't believe after 8 years of shenanigans before being voted out, republicans are about to be voted back in by saying "we aren't the same republicans."

Oh well. At least the awful political ads from both sides will be over soon.

[Professor S]

I can't believe after 8 years of shenanigans before being voted out, republicans are about to be voted back in by saying "we aren't the same republicans."

Oh well. At least the awful political ads from both sides will be over soon.

This all following a very distinct pattern. Clinton came out of the box with a similar agenda and the Dems were annihilated during the first mid-term. The question is, will Pres. Obama move the center as Clinton did (and govern quite well, in fact) or will he remain pushing his current left of center agenda. If so, the new pattern will be that of Carter, not Clinton...

[Bond]

Will the recent Juan Williams firing from NPR have an effect on the elections?

[Professor S]

Will the recent Juan Williams firing from NPR have an effect on the elections?

I don't think so. To be honest, I don't agree with his firing, but I'm not seeing it as a huge issue like some. NPR has always leaned left, and Juan (while still moderate) has been steadily inching right of late.

Actually, I would say he has remained still as democrat leadership have moved left.

[Bond]

I don't think so. To be honest, I don't agree with his firing, but I'm not seeing it as a huge issue like some. NPR has always leaned left, and Juan (while still moderate) has been steadily inching right of late.

Actually, I would say he has remained still as democrat leadership have moved left.
I agree to the political implications. However, his comment was taken wayyy out of context.

[Professor S]

I agree to the political implications. However, his comment was taken wayyy out of context.

I agree. He was describing a fear he has that we need to overcome as a society, and somehow that made him a bigot. Juan Williams... who made his name as part of the civil rights movement... fired for being a bigot. Really?

[Professor S]

What we learned:

1) A Tale of Two Tea Parties. Rubio and Paul win, O'Donnell and Angle lose. Having the "tea party" stamp next to your name does not guarantee victory. The American people are smart enough to see through labels and identify is an individual is a good candidate. Angle and O'Donnell were lousy candidates, and they lost. In the end, their defeat should send a message to the Republican party that they need to listen to.

2) Money does not win elections, an informed voter base does. Lots of money was spent during this election, and in many cases the biggest spenders lost handily. In the end people chose based on their principles, whether we agree with those principles or not.

3) California, the worst run state in the union, deserves everything that is happening to it. Jerry Brown? AGAIN? Really? Barbara Boxer? AGAIN? Really? The definition of insanity is to repeat the same action over and over again expecting a different result.

4) While FoxNews is biased, MSNBC is deluded. Liberals like to say that facts have a well known liberal bias. Well I think Olberman and Maddow prove that statement wrong last night. Their analysis was comical, and I watched it all night. They could not bring themselves to make the admission that left leaning dems lost based on their record, and not simply because of advertising. Also, making the statement that the main reason why dems lost was due to advertising is essentially accusing voters of being mouth breathing retards who vote for the last person to run a commercial. Its offensive and condescending.

5) They still don't get it. If Harry Reid's post election speech is any indication, Democrats will be in trouble again in 2012. You do not take a historic beating like they did, and then pretend that you can continue to set the same tone afterward. Contrition will be the difference between Pres. Obama being another Bill Clinton, or if he falls down the same sorry path as Jimmy Carter.

[The Germanator]

Bummer of a night. Especially for a PA voter. Oh well. Expected, but disappointed. I hope Republicans actually do something positive other than try to stifle Obama and make him lose in 2012, otherwise politics will continue to bug the hell out of me.

[Professor S]

Bummer of a night. Especially for a PA voter. Oh well. Expected, but disappointed. I hope Republicans actually do something positive other than try to stifle Obama and make him lose in 2012, otherwise politics will continue to bug the hell out of me.

I was very happy to see the Republicans take the Governor's office. I forget his name, but watching the debates and commercials, he appeared to be the only candidate who actually had a plan. Onorato just seemed to repeat generic talking points. Toomey I can take or leave. It worries me that he is so tied to big business through his lobbying, but Sestak was a horrible choice to run against him. Way too liberal to win a PA senate seat. A moderate dem would have won easily.

The Republicans in the house will have the opportunity to present legislation at least. As Speaker, Pelosi buried most Republican sponsored bills and they never hit the floor for an up or down vote. These bills will now likely be sent to the shaken-up and "moderatized" Senate, and with a little modification, many will be sent to the President for approval or veto. We'll how Clinton-esque Pres. Obama can be.

On a side note, now that the Republicans are in power, I hope they do not bury Democrat legislation like the Dems buried Republican legislation when they controlled the house. The Speaker position is one of responsibility and order, not control and "king-making". Present the bills and let the votes decide. In any case, I'd much rather see fewer bills, narrower in scope, than these monstrous bills that try and do too much and hide self-serving earmarks and other nastiness.

The process is as broken as anything else.

[Jason1]

or if he falls down the same sorry path as Jimmy Carter.

Jimmy Carter did not fall down some sorry path, and im sick of people calling him a bad president. He was a great president. Just because he didnt get elected to a second term does not mean he was a bad president, and likewise getting elected to a second term does not mean you did a good job your first term, or were a good president.

This is of course never talked about, but Carter did not fire one shot, did not drop one bomb, did not launch one missile. He Normalized diplomatic relations with China for the first time in a long time, brought peace between Israel and Egypt.

Carter also cut Oil consumption in this country IN HALF. When Carter was elected the US was importing 8.6 million barrels of oil per day, which he cut down to 4.3 million barrels per day. Now, we are back at 11 million. Carter put Solar Panels in the White House, and Reagan of course took them down. I could list numerous humanitarian things he did and continues to do to this day, but I'll stop there.


President Obama has inherited a political polarization in this Country that is Unheard of. Republicans have said they will not give Obama support under any circumstances. Obama is doing a superb job under the ridiculous circumstances the Republicans have managed to cause.

I guess at the very least now that the Republicans control the house, they are partly responsible for whatever happens, so they cant be complete idiots anymore.

[Professor S]

Jimmy Carter: 11.3% unemployment, an oil crisis that crippled the nation (if that is the reduction in oil consumption you mention, it is nothing to brag about), unheard of inflation, a stagnant economy, and an expansion of Russian aggression. Let us not forget about his hostage debacle that went on for a year. But I'm sure all of that was somebody else's fault.

Almost all of his achievements were reversed; his presidency made irrelevant. Any way you shake it, either in policy choices or in lasting impact, Jimmy Carter is one of the greatest failures in presidential history.

As for Pres. Obama, time will tell. History has a way of objectively looking at controversial times. History has not been kind to Carter. It has been very kind to Clinton.

[TheGame]

Politics are pretty disturbing right now. Republicans were just in control and raped the country in the ass with no vasaline... then managed to turn around and blame all of the issues they created on Democrats (since they took control right after the residual issues started).

Dems, on the other hand, failed to take control of the situation they had in washington and chose to compromise with a party that wasn't willing to do so. So hardly any of the real issues were getting resolved, and they looked weak... which demoralized their base and caused them to lose all of these elections (deservingly so).

Will Obama win in 2012? Well, I can safely say that Dems base is demoralized and will likely not be as strong in voting as they were the first time... and maybe some will be so ignorant that they'll completly forget the fact that a republican run congress ran the country into the ground less then 5 years ago. The facts will come out sooner or later, and I highly doubt the Obama/Democratic congress did as bad as Bush. But we'll find out soon enough.

[Professor S]

An interesting take on Pres. Obama's post "shellacking" press conference:

Washington (CNN) -- As I walked into the East Room for President Obama's post-shellacking news conference, a colleague from another organization joked, "Get ready for 17 versions of the same question."

I laughed because his point was true, many of us in the White House press corps were about to ask Obama several versions of the same question: After losing more than 60 seats in the House and several in the Senate, did you really hear the message from voters?

In short, do you get it?

Before the press conference, there had been an expectation, even among some of Obama's Democratic allies on Capitol Hill I spoke to, that he would steal a page from former President Bill Clinton's 1994 playbook and try to show he hears the anger out there and is ready to make a midcourse correction.

Instead, as I sat there in the front row of the East Room, I could see that Obama just didn't want to go there.

Now, to be clear, that is his right. He's entitled to follow his own compass and doesn't have to mindlessly follow the Clinton script. Pundits are ridiculous to suggest otherwise.

But the point is this president finally had the public's attention yesterday, and he may have missed a golden opportunity to show the American people he's ready to make the necessary adjustments to connect with their concerns over the next two years.

I realize there are people in the blogosphere who will predictably slam White House reporters on this point, basically charging we're all mindless because we end up asking the same question over and over. But part of our job is pressing the president about the most important issues confronting the nation.

And if he doesn't answer it the first time, I hardly think we should just give up and move on to some other subject he would rather talk about. In fact, Obama himself acknowledged early in the news conference that he understands this part of our job.

That moment came after Ben Feller of the Associated Press stood up first and asked whether the results were a "fundamental rejection of your agenda," and Obama ducked it with a general explanation of his view on slow economic progress and said, vaguely, "I've got to do a better job, just like everybody else in Washington does."

So, Savannah Guthrie of NBC News followed up, "You don't seem to be reflecting or second-guessing any of the policy decisions you've made. ... If you're not reflecting on your policy agenda, is it possible voters can conclude you're still not getting it?"

Obama defended himself by saying that Feller's query "was just the first question, so we're going to have a few more here." That told me the president believed Guthrie and Feller had legitimate inquiries and he knew he would get several questions along these lines. So I thought he was signaling he would use this opportunity to lay out where he thinks he screwed up and what he plans to do to fix it.

But Obama basically spoke like someone who makes a mistake but doesn't directly apologize, instead saying something to the effect of "I'm sorry if you were offended."

Case in point: Obama said the decisions he made to save the economy were in an "emergency situation" and policies were "coming at folks fast and furious." But rather than saying that, in retrospect, some of it should have been scaled back, he said, "We thought it was necessary, but I'm sympathetic to folks who looked at it and said this is looking like potential overreach."

So it was not an overreach, but you're forgiven if you thought it was one.

To bring it back to the Clinton comparison, presented with the same question about foul-ups, 'ol Bubba would have bitten his lip and talked about the error of his ways and put forward his plan to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Now don't get me wrong, this president should not simply bite his lip or feign some sort of emotional connection. The pundits who were going on and on about Obama not "emoting enough" during the oil spill crisis were kind of ridiculous. Obama has to be who he is. If he's not a lip-biter, people just need to get over it.

But nearly two years into his presidency, he eventually is going to have to find a way to build his own emotional connection to voters on his own terms, or many Americans are going to simply believe that he doesn't ... well ... feel their pain.

Note how indirect Obama was when he was talking about the pain of the midterm results. He couldn't quite say that he was humbled; instead he said that in general "some [election nights] are exhilarating, some are humbling."

And when he acknowledged early in the presser that people are frustrated that economic progress is coming too slowly, he said, "As president, I take responsibility for that." But he didn't quite get specific about what he was responsible for messing up.

This is why, near the end of the news conference, I asked Obama about the illustration he used over and over on the campaign trail about how Republicans were on the sidelines "sipping on a Slurpee" while he was trying to pull the economy out of the proverbial ditch.

He was using humor to make a point, his claim that Democratic policies ("D" on the gear shift) were moving the country forward while Republican policies would put the country in, yes, reverse and they can't have the keys back because "they don't know how to drive."

But now that this message seems to have been rejected in more than 60 House districts across the country, I asked, isn't it possible that many Americans feel Obama's policies are going in reverse and thus "what specific changes will you make to your approach to try to fix that and better connect with the American people?"

He responded that "we're still digging our way out of a pretty big mess" and now voters clearly want both parties to "push some more to get the car on level ground."

But, I followed up, "You just reject that idea altogether, that your policies could be going in reverse?"

"Yes," said the president.

Obama's announcement on Thursday that he wants to have a summit at the White House later this month with Republicans -- he laughed about a possible "Slurpee Summit" in a light moment at the news conference after my question -- may give him a second chance to show he's serious about acknowledging he doesn't have all the answers and is ready to accept some changes.

The bottom line, though, is he sent a different message on Wednesday -- that this is a president who is confident in his abilities and strongly believes that over the long haul, his policies are going to work out. Fair enough.

But to continue the car analogy, the American people seemed to be saying Tuesday they may want someone else to at least share the steering wheel. So far, however, Obama's message seems to be that he's so sure of himself that it's still his way or the highway.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/04/henry.house.obama/index.html?hpt=C2

[Vampyr]

I think the problem with the American people is that we see whoever is in power at the time as having created the 13 trillion dollar deficit.

I predict that the next series of elections will follow the same path this one did: voting out whoever is in office. I have a bad feeling that even if our new Republican house does some great things, they won't get a lot of credit for it since they weren't able to completely flip the recession around.

People want to see sweeping change that balances the budget and pays off our debt. I don't think most people realize that there's not even enough money in the world right now to do that.

Also we have a lot of people like this, who tend to actually turn out and vote:

http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs939.snc4/73282_881202595900_12905251_46003549_3227208_n.jpg

[Professor S]

Vamp, while I don't agree with the person you posted's socialism statement, I don't see any hypocrisy in his acceptance of unemployment benefits even though he is against spending. As the man said, if he refuses free money he is stupid, and his refusal would not change anything and potentially only hurt his family (if he has one). He would only be hypocritical if he lost his benefits, and then complained about the loss. If his situation is as he describes, he is simply making the best decisions for himself and his family and I can hardly fault him for that.

We also can't look at things like unemployment benefits, or entitlements in general, like they are disassociated from the rest of the economy. The wealth that pays for benefits comes from somewhere. Instead of the man working for the money, he is receives it for free, and the act of confiscating that wealth to pay for his non-work/benefits/etc might inhibit another individual or organization from employing him (in a macro-economic sense).

[TheGame]

Vamp, that guy got owned on FB. lol

As for Prof. We've had the discussion before. Prof is all for unemployment because he had to get it before to keep his family afloat. But I'm sure he'd have rather worked at McDonalds and moved to a homeless shelter... don't expect anything more then the same hypocracy from him.

(He still has me blocked, I assume.. so that's just info for everyone else who thinks Mr. Delusional makes any sense.)

[Jason1]

Obama-Carter 2012!

[TheSlyMoogle]

What is up with the hate?

EDIT:

Actually, TheGame, that was highly rude of you to post something like that in a thread. I find that to be very personal. Damn man.

[Vampyr]

Just to be clear I'm not against unemployment benefits at all, I am very much for it.

I was judging him based on the fact he is against "socialism" in general, when some aspects of socialism are obviously beneficial (as in socialized unemployment benefits). I was also judging him based on his friends responses, indicating that he isn't even trying to find a new job, and instead sits around drinking. He's abusing a system just because it's abusable, and claiming that he has the right too since they didn't make it non-abusable (which would be virtually impossible).

Systems like unemployment exist because people in bad situations deserve to be helped, and that help has to come from somewhere. People who immediately write it off as socialist and bad because it can be abused need to understand that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. It can be abused, and it is, but I would still rather have it than not.

[TheGame]

Actually, TheGame, that was highly rude of you to post something like that in a thread. I find that to be very personal. Damn man.

How is it rude? He's against the government doing something for him that he needed... and trying to justify it. I don't think that's rude, I'm just pointing out that he's a hypocrite.

People like to forget why things like unemployment payments were created in the first place. It's not because the government wanted more control over people's lives, it's because these corperations that Strangler has so much trust in could get rid of their employees at any time for any reason and bump them into an instant state of poverty. (People who have potential to get another job, but not nessicarily another job before rent is due next month...)

The second we bring up any subject about the government helping people who are truely in need for different reasons, he's strongly against it since he never had to take it himself.

[Professor S]

Just to be clear I'm not against unemployment benefits at all, I am very much for it.

I was judging him based on the fact he is against "socialism" in general, when some aspects of socialism are obviously beneficial (as in socialized unemployment benefits). I was also judging him based on his friends responses, indicating that he isn't even trying to find a new job, and instead sits around drinking. He's abusing a system just because it's abusable, and claiming that he has the right too since they didn't make it non-abusable (which would be virtually impossible).

Systems like unemployment exist because people in bad situations deserve to be helped, and that help has to come from somewhere. People who immediately write it off as socialist and bad because it can be abused need to understand that sometimes you have to take the good with the bad. It can be abused, and it is, but I would still rather have it than not.

I agree with you. When young I had to go on unemployment for about 6 months, but ended up getting hired back (and at a higher wage) by the same company. My dad owned a small construction company and his workers often would have to go on unemployment during colder winter months (the mortar would freeze). Unemployment insurance is very important, especially for those in trade professions.

Critiquing a system does not equal condemnation. I think people do need a bridge from one job to another, but our current unemployment system has serious flaws. Here are a two big ones:

1) 2 years is far too long. If you can't get a job in your chosen field for a year, its time to think about changing fields.

2) Currently, if you file as a small business in any way, you lose your benefits even if you show zero profit. This means if you become unemployed the government pays you to NOT be entrepreneurial. The benefits could be used to help fund a new, profitable business but instead are reserved for those who wait for another position and opportunity to work for someone else.

Fixing these two obvious flaws would go a long way to correcting what used to be a reasonable system, but unfortunately politics tends to extend and exacerbate obvious flaws in entitlements, and not correct them. I tend to think that maybe private industry should be allowed to throw their hat in the ring. Mandate unemployment insurance, but allow private companies to compete for the business. I'm sure there would be a lot to work out to make this possible, but its worth a thought. It works with car insurance in PA, why not unemployment?

[Professor S]

What is up with the hate?

EDIT:

Actually, TheGame, that was highly rude of you to post something like that in a thread. I find that to be very personal. Damn man.

Oh, did he insult me? This is why I have him set to "Ignore" and block his posts.

[Professor S]

Game, I signed out so that I could see what you wrote.

When are you going to learn that you can't shoe horn me into what you think is the conservative opinion? The paragraphs of assumptions you wrote have proven themselves, yet again, to be incorrect. As I mentioned in my post above, criticism does not equal condemnation. My opinions tend to be nuanced, and even though you continually try to paint me one way, your fiction cannot overturn reality once I actually offer my true opinion.

The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying. It bothers me, but I'm not upset, mainly because it doesn't surprise me that you did it.

In all, this is a perfect example of why I ignored you in the first place and will continue to ignore you. I can debate anyone on any topic as long at they are fair and honest. You are neither, and that makes any conversation on politics with you pointless.

And with that, I will continue my policy of not feeding the trolls.

[TheGame]

The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying.

You made the choice to block me... therefore you're hiding from me, not vice versa. And you call me a coward? Everything I post I'm aware that you can see if you wanted to, and I don't say anything different now then I did when I was not blocked. As far as I know, I could be unblocked the whole time, and your opinion could be skewing based off of what I say.

So with that said, the real 'coward' is the one who runs from any viewpoint that is different from their own... aka you. So go ahead and put your earmuffs back on Mr. Republican. As I told you from the start, that's not going to stop me from sharing my opinion...

When are you going to learn that you can't shoe horn me into what you think is the conservative opinion? The paragraphs of assumptions you wrote have proven themselves, yet again, to be incorrect.

My assumption (well, not assumption... since I knew it for a fact) was that you had recieved unemployment before, therefore you're not against it, and will find a reason to defend it.. in other words, you'd be a hypocrite just like the guy who posted on FB. What did you next post start with? The fact that you've recieved unemployment, and justification for why it is good. So I was right, yet again...

So what other entitlements are you for my delusional friend? Oh wait, we had this debate before... pretty much nothing right? Anything that you won't get and/or don't have potential to get. Including 'socialized' healthcare right? Or am I making a blind assumption again?

Oh... wait... I know, I know! He won't answer this question because he has me blocked... which brings me back to my first point, about who's hiding from who. And he has the audacity to call me a coward. pssssssh

[Jason1]

The part that probably bothers me the most is how cowardly it is to attack someone, and lie about their viewpoint, when you know they can't see what you are saying.


Wow, your saying TheGame is the cowardly one here? He is not the one who blocked someone else simply because he didnt like what they were saying. Did I miss something?

Also, I in no way whatsoever feel that anything TheGame has posted in this thread as been anywhere near an "attack"

[Professor S]

Wow, your saying TheGame is the cowardly one here? He is not the one who blocked someone else simply because he didnt like what they were saying. Did I miss something?

Our political discussions were pointless and only led to more name calling and personal attacks. He invents other people's opinions and then uses that fiction to attack them. I chose to ignore The Game's posts for the reasons illustrated in posts above, and in essence, make an attempt to take the high road rather than continue the circle of nonsense we constantly engaged in.

Also, I in no way whatsoever feel that anything TheGame has posted in this thread as been anywhere near an "attack"

Well, he brought up my past and my family, lied about my opinion on unemployment to call me a hypocrite, and then insulted me personally instead of addressing my real opinion. Not an attack? Ok, lets just call it inappropriate and childish.

If he wants to debate my points and actual opinions while I hide his responses, he can feel free, but lying about someone's viewpoints, bringing their family into it, and insulting them behind their back is the act of an intellectual coward. In the end, it only further justifies my decision to ignore his posts.

[TheGame]

Well, he brought up my past and my family, lied about my opinion on unemployment to call me a hypocrite, and then insulted me personally instead of addressing my real opinion. Not an attack? Ok, lets just call it inappropriate and childish.

If he wants to debate my points and actual opinions while I hide his responses, he can feel free, but lying about someone's viewpoints, bringing their family into it, and insulting them behind their back is the act of an intellectual coward. In the end, it only further justifies my decision to ignore his posts.

I brought up a fact about your history that you willingly admitted in previous threads, and in this one. Of course you disagree that it has no bearing on your opinion, but I think it does very much... as you have illustrated yourself clearly in this thread.

I did not "lie about (your) opinion on unemployment" at any point. I said you were in favor of it, which you were.. even though you're generally against entitlements.. which you are.. and the one you happened to recieve in your history, is the one you happen to be openly in favor of..

And just in case you don't understand, saying someone is in favor of something doesn't nessicarily mean they think it's perfect. It's an entitlement system that is important and should be in place, in your opinion.. am I wrong? Or do I need to quote topics from over a year ago?

-EDIT-

Oh, and all the "Coward" BS when you're hiding from direct comfrontation is pathetic lol.