2010 Midterm Election [Archive] - Front Office Football Central

lordscarlet

11-02-2010, 02:06 PM

I know the Obama thread is going strong with election talk, but I thought it might be good to make a thread much like the week-by-week football threads. This is hopefully just talk about results and the like. I have no idea why I am attaching my name to a political thread. :)

While I have no control over the national balance of power, I am interested to see how things shake out tonight.

spleen1015

11-02-2010, 02:14 PM

I'm not big into politics. It gets on my nerves, but I usually am interested come election time.

Do the Republicans have a realistic shot at taking control of the House and Senate?

sabotai

11-02-2010, 02:15 PM

The House yes, the Senate will be a close one.

Butter

11-02-2010, 02:19 PM

lordscarlet

11-02-2010, 02:43 PM

I'm not big into politics. It gets on my nerves, but I usually am interested come election time.

Do the Republicans have a realistic shot at taking control of the House and Senate?

Same here, that's why I thought I'd attempt to separate things a little bit.

Ksyrup

11-02-2010, 02:52 PM

I guess Kentucky will make a little noise tonight with the Rand Paul thing. It's looking like he's going to win.

As crazy as Florida politics usual is, I kinda miss being there this year as things have racheted up a notch or three.

Ksyrup

11-02-2010, 03:40 PM

In the spirit of the day... (some NSFW language):

http://<OBJECT width=480 height=385>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/xIraCchPDhk?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></OBJECT> (http://<object width=)</P>

Poli

11-02-2010, 03:42 PM

2011?

Ksyrup

11-02-2010, 03:43 PM

Aren't election cycles like video games?

stevew

11-02-2010, 03:44 PM

The House turning red is almost a foregone conclusion. But the Senate should still remain blue.

Will be interested to see how the governor voting in Ohio shakes out. A close election means that the angry white guy vote didn't turn out as strongly as hoped by some. A wide win by Kasich will probably portend a pretty large Republican win in the House and maybe even a Senate takeover.

I'm going to school in Ohio. I hope to god whomever wins doesn't reevaluate the out of state tuiton rates. Since I live so close to Ohio, I only pay about 200 dollars more a year than a resident does. It would be unfortunate if tuiton was to increase substantially.

chesapeake

11-02-2010, 03:51 PM

Indiana and Kentucky close their polls at 6 PM eastern. Here are some early things to look for if you are going to watch the returns:
1) Rand Paul - Jack Conway in KY SEN;
2) A couple of DEM House incumbents in IN -- Baron Hill and Joe Donnelly -- are in tough races.

If these races go GOP quickly, the wave is probably running high for the Republicans. The longer they are in doubt -- or if somehow they go the Democrats' way -- the more interesting the night becomes.

Of the 7 PM closings, my own state of VA has some interesting bellweathers. Gerry Connolly (D) in NoVA should win. If he struggles, that bad for the Ds. Ditto for fellow VA incumbent Rick Boucher (D). Tom Perriello (D) should have been toast long ago given the GOP registration advantage in his district. If he somehow is able to hang on, that would be a pretty remarkable victory for the Dems.

Charlie Cook from the National Journal mentions these races for the 8 PM closings: "Reps. Bobby Bright of Alabama, Phil Hare of Illinois, Gene Taylor of Mississippi, Ike Skelton of Missouri, John Adler of New Jersey, Chris Carney of Pennsylvania, and Lincoln Davis of Tennessee. Also, watch deadlocked race for the seat being vacated by Democratic Rep. Bill Delahunt in Massachusetts."

Ksyrup

11-02-2010, 03:54 PM

Everything I've read for a couple of weeks points to Rand Paul with a comfortable win, so unless it's too close to call shortly after the polls close, I'm not sure you can read much into it if they declare Paul right off the bat. RCP Average has him up +11.

jbergey22

11-02-2010, 03:57 PM

Does Linda McMahon have any chance?

lordscarlet

11-02-2010, 04:10 PM

2011?

oops

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 04:19 PM

The senate and house races in my district should be pretty close.

Joe Manchin seems to have opened up a 4-5% lead in most recent polls. He has been a very popular governor, but Obama is tremendously unpopular and Manchin has continually been branded as a rubberstamp for Obama. I think he'll pull it out, but more because he and the democrats have better machinery within the state. While his opponent, businessman John Raese, has run for Senate a few times before, I cannot imagine his GOTV will be as strong as that of a two-term governor.

In the house race, a local (Morgantown) democrat named Mike Oliverio knocked off a 20+ year incumbent in the primary. He is a pretty nice guy that I know from youth sports in the area. He is facing a businessman named David McKinley, from Wheeling, that has been basically running against Nancy Pelosi and Barrack Obama, rather than Oliverio, the entire time. The polls between these two have been within a few points, either way, for awhile now. I am kind of looking to see if Manchin wins by a lot or Raese wins (or keeps it close than 4-5%) to see who wins this one. I have a feeling it might not get called tonight, but if it gets called early it could be a sort of bell weather for the rest of the country.

JPhillips

11-02-2010, 04:21 PM

Does Linda McMahon have any chance?

Not according to the recent polls.

larrymcg421

11-02-2010, 04:22 PM

Does Linda McMahon have any chance?

Not much. If she wins, that probably means the GOP has taken the Senate.

Comey

11-02-2010, 04:22 PM

Does Linda McMahon have any chance?

Yes, though she'd have a better chance if the election was next week.

jbergey22

11-02-2010, 04:28 PM

Thanks for the responses. I seen on WWE Raw programming last night Vince did a little advertising skit promoting his wife. I am wondering if that race might end up closer than projected due to some of the WWE fans that probably vote once every 20 years showing up just to vote for her.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 04:56 PM

Another one to watch for possible trending tonight is Jim Marshall (D) from middle Georgia's 8th district. He's in a battle with Austin Scott that very conservative pollsters (i.e. even I'm not confident in those numbers) are showing with up to a 13% lead for the challenger.

Marshall is among the more conservative D's you'll find in the House, frequently bucking Obama agenda items. He's won by as little as 2% in '06 but by 14% against a touted challenger in '08. If he survives tonight, mark that as a good omen for the D's, but if he finally loses, it might be an indication for the fate of at least Southern Blue Dogs.

digamma

11-02-2010, 04:59 PM

Mizzou B-ball fan

11-02-2010, 05:05 PM

Just got back from the polls. I did notice that the propositions and constitution changes on the ballot were very much targeted towards conservative voters. Obviously looking to cash in on the bigger turnout on that side in this election.

Really would hate to see a great politician like Ike Skelton lose his seat as part of this election's backlash. Really good guy who votes his conscience rather than the party line.

Blount vs. Carnahan is a nightmare. Reasons to not be happy no matter who wins.

Greyroofoo

11-02-2010, 05:41 PM

Rand Paul has 57% of the vote with 2% of the votes in.

Rando

11-02-2010, 05:44 PM

Just got back from voting. Not a lot of drama at the top of the ballot. Thune is running unopposed and bluedog Herseth Sandlin is all but certain to lose to Kristi Noem.

Talking to the volunteers inside it sounded like I missed the real fun earlier in the day. Our local crazy showed up at polling building with a sign that read "Two bullets from the White House" and stood around shouting obsenities at anyone who came went into or came out of the building. They called the sheriff, who never showed up, but eventually the guy left. In a town with less than 100 people there just aren't that many voters to harrass and I'm guessing he got bored.

stevew

11-02-2010, 05:46 PM

If Sestak beats Toomey I'm gonna be shocked. If somehow Dahlkemper keeps her seat in PA3, it will be a long night for republicans. Altmire should win reelection, however I think if he loses, a huge R win is in the cards.

samifan24

11-02-2010, 05:49 PM

Are there that many of those fans in Connecticut?

Well the WWE is based here in Stamford but no, I don't think she wins.

Greyroofoo

11-02-2010, 06:01 PM

msnbc has projected that Alvin Greene lost :(

tucker rocky

11-02-2010, 06:03 PM

Election is like the SAT test, multiple choice, filling in the bubbles without going outside the lines.

Peregrine

11-02-2010, 06:06 PM

Appropriate song for tonight:

<object height="390" width="640">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/TSrW65NHqgg&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" allowscriptaccess="always" height="390" width="640"></object>

SackAttack

11-02-2010, 06:08 PM

Election is like the SAT test, multiple choice, filling in the bubbles without going outside the lines.

Not in Wisconsin. There is an arrow pointing to your choice, but with the middle of the arrow missing. Complete the arrow to indicate your choice.

It's blessedly simple.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 06:48 PM

msnbc has projected that Alvin Greene lost :(

We won't have Alvin Greene to kick around anymore. :(

Izulde

11-02-2010, 06:51 PM

Nevada uses the touch screens I found out. I miss my Wisconsin arrows. :(

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 07:09 PM

I am always surprised that they never ask for any form of identification at my polling place. Just come in, say my name, sign a sheet, get a ballot.

Kind of interesting to see Republicans start cutting into the latino vote in this election. CNN is talking about it but if they can cut Obama's huge margin in that demographic in the next election, it dramatically changes things. Makes Rubio a very attractive VP candidate in 2012.

larrymcg421

11-02-2010, 07:16 PM

Dems doing good in KY and NC, not so much in IN and FL.

GrantDawg

11-02-2010, 07:19 PM

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 07:23 PM

I am always surprised that they never ask for any form of identification at my polling place. Just come in, say my name, sign a sheet, get a ballot.

Kinda shocked me to see anyone say that ... then I noticed your location & it suddenly made perfect sense

:D

Peregrine

11-02-2010, 07:26 PM

I am always surprised that they never ask for any form of identification at my polling place. Just come in, say my name, sign a sheet, get a ballot.

Same here - they have never asked for any identification at my polling place here.

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 07:29 PM

tarcone

11-02-2010, 07:37 PM

Missouri had a big senate race. Blunt (R) Vs. Carnahan (D).
Both are sleaze bags in my opinion. I voted 3rd party.

EDIT: Blunt leads 59% to 36%

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 07:38 PM

Kinda shocked me to see anyone say that ... then I noticed your location & it suddenly made perfect sense

:D
Our motto: Vote early and often. :)

tarcone

11-02-2010, 07:42 PM

Blunt declared the winner in Missouri

stevew

11-02-2010, 07:53 PM

After the ID law was passed in Georgia, I learned that asking for ID to vote was racist. It seems only white people have picture ID. I never knew that.

I LOL'd. Sadly some people probably feel this way.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 07:54 PM

If I were still in WV, I would be working for Oliverio's campiagn this yera

I'm hoping that Manchin's (seemingly) larger than expected margin has some coat tails for Oliverio. I am trying to find some local numbers -- I'll let you know if I see anything.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 07:56 PM

I'm hoping that Manchin's (seemingly) larger than expected margin has some coat tails for Oliverio. I am trying to find some local numbers -- I'll let you know if I see anything.

U.S. House, 1st District
(142 of 672 precincts)
David McKinley (R): 24,265
Mike Oliverio (D): 23,968

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 07:58 PM

U.S. House, 1st District
(142 of 672 precincts)
David McKinley (R): 24,265
Mike Oliverio (D): 23,968

Thanks. That's been a razor thin race for months and it looks like it will go down to the wire.

What site are you using? Everything I have tried is bogged down.

larrymcg421

11-02-2010, 08:00 PM

Not looking good so far. Right now I'm just hoping the Dems can keep it under 60 losses.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 08:04 PM

Thanks. That's been a razor thin race for months and it looks like it will go down to the wire.

What site are you using? Everything I have tried is bogged down.

Got that from a plain text page at the Charleston, WV newspaper site (can't recall the url off-hand)

edit to add: surfed back to it. Got it from http://www.wvgazette.com/News/politics and then clicked a blog roll link that said "senate, house, and wv supreme court results"

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:09 PM

Blumenthal wins in CT.

In the MA Gov race (which directly affects me, 20% in, and Deval Patrick leads Charlie Baker 49-41% (Tim Cahill, Independent with 8% and a Green-Rainbow party candidate with 1%)

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:12 PM

And we won't have Christine O'Donnell to kick around any more, Chris Coons has been declared the winner in DE by the AP.

Martha Coakley, who you may remember as the person who threw away 40 years of Kennedy legacy in the Senate against Scott Brown, wins re-election as Mass Attorney General.

DanGarion

11-02-2010, 08:14 PM

I'm planning on submitting a proposition in my state to ban political robocalls.

20 Calls from recordings in two days is ridiculous.

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:15 PM

oh, and in a sigh of relief, Alan Grayson, who had appointed himself the Dems resident bomb-thrower and ran a really dirty campaign from the left (the Taliban Dan commercials?) has lost as well.

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:15 PM

I'm planning on submitting a proposition in my state to ban political robocalls.

20 Calls from recordings in two days is ridiculous.

It's politically protected speech. Will never happen.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 08:27 PM

In the Atlanta suburb of Cherokee County, Robert Rechsteiner (aka Rick Steiner of WCW fame) is headed to another term on the county school board, running unopposed as a Republican.

stevew

11-02-2010, 08:27 PM

We're robocalling you to urge you to go out tomorrow and vote for issue 16; the Robocall ban.

Drake

11-02-2010, 08:27 PM

I'm all for robocalls. They help me know who to vote against.

Then again, I voted against more candidates today than I voted for. In almost all of those cases, it was because I saw their political attack ads and was able to pick out the fabrications without even having to look it up. The tally was pretty evenly split between red and blue, and when I had stupid ads on both sides, I voted Libertarian.

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 08:30 PM

I haven't been following politics of Louisiana but how did Vitter get so popular? I know it's a red state, would have thought that they would have knocked him out in a primary. I mean he was caught dressing up in diapers and fucking prostitutes. How did he get a pass on that?

DanGarion

11-02-2010, 08:31 PM

It's politically protected speech. Will never happen.

Which is complete bullshit. If I choose not to hear it I shouldn't have to hear it. I pay for my phone, they don't. There should be an OPT in option. Protected speech means you can say what you want, it doesn't mean I have to be subjected to it.

I'm not against human calls, only robotic calls.

stevew

11-02-2010, 08:31 PM

Holy shit...Rich Boucher lost. That was heavily unexpected?

Alan T

11-02-2010, 08:32 PM

In the Atlanta suburb of Cherokee County, Robert Rechsteiner (aka Rick Steiner of WCW fame) is headed to another term on the county school board, running unopposed as a Republican.

That is the school district my mother used to teach at. (She taught at Woodstock High School) Well technically she also taught for a while in Cobb too though.

sterlingice

11-02-2010, 08:32 PM

Ok, I'm just a little worried when I hear Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, et al, talk about how we're in the greatest country in the history of the world. That sounds like pre-fall of Rome talk.

SI

stevew

11-02-2010, 08:33 PM

D-VA. Abingdon area. Has been in office 20 some years.

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 08:34 PM

It's politically protected speech. Will never happen.
How does a machine have protected speech? I can understand it with phone calls by people, but it's a machine.

And not all speech is protected. I can't come and stand in front of your house screaming at the top of my lungs all night. I can't attach speakers to the outside of my car and blast music through certain neighborhoods. When your speech effects the rights of others, then it's not protected.

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 08:35 PM

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:35 PM

Which is complete bullshit. If I choose not to hear it I shouldn't have to hear it. I pay for my phone, they don't. There should be an OPT in option. Protected speech means you can say what you want, it doesn't mean I have to be subjected to it.

I'm not against human calls, only robotic calls.

You see, who votes for this? Politicians. Who'd be inconvenienced by this? Poliiticians.

You have one state where it's banned, New Hampshire, but the rest of them, you're asking the fox to vote on better protecting chicken houses.

sterlingice

11-02-2010, 08:37 PM

What do you expect them to say when we are evaluating America? We're okay? Not too shabby? Got a good beat and I can dance to it?

Greatest country in the history of the world? Shouldn't this be more of a time for reflection at what went wrong and working hard to change things?

SI

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 08:38 PM

Ok, I'm just a little worried when I hear Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, et al, talk about how we're in the greatest country in the history of the world. That sounds like pre-fall of Rome talk.

SI
<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4mCDZMWVWuc?fs=1&hl=en_US"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4mCDZMWVWuc?fs=1&hl=en_US" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

lordscarlet

11-02-2010, 08:38 PM

Go DC!

http://twitter.com/DCBOEE/status/29483022277

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:42 PM

Current over/under for Republican take is now up to 57 or so seats, per 538

Poli

11-02-2010, 08:43 PM

Missouri had a big senate race. Blunt (R) Vs. Carnahan (D).
Both are sleaze bags in my opinion. I voted 3rd party.

EDIT: Blunt leads 59% to 36%
My district option is Martin and Carnahan. I feel screwed either way.

SirFozzie

11-02-2010, 08:54 PM

Well, it's going to be interesting, 538 just upped their prediction to Republican House wave to 60 seats, but the Democrats to have 52-53 seats in the senate, which will be huge, because it will keep Lieberman and Ben Nelson from flipping the Senate if they went red.

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 08:58 PM

I was kind of hoping that it would flip in both. Not really for political reasons, but Republicans would then be in charge of passing bills to fix the problems they see (they won't cut spending no matter what they say0. They can still use the Democratic Senate as an excuse.

Would rather people just see that it doesn't fucking matter what party controls the House or Senate. Although partisians are forever blinded from holding their party responsible for anything.

JPhillips

11-02-2010, 09:01 PM

stevew

11-02-2010, 09:08 PM

This Sestak thing is going down to the wire

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 09:08 PM

Interesting Senate races in PA and Illinois:

Pennsylvania - Election Results 2010 - The New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/pennsylvania)

Illinois - Election Results 2010 - The New York Times (http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/illinois)

I have a feeling that Sestak may pull it out in PA. Illinois looks like a lot of the vote has already come in from Cook County, so I'd give Kirk the advantage to catch up, but the third parties there look like they are having a bit of an impact (5%+ between the top two "third parties," in a really close race.

JPhillips

11-02-2010, 09:08 PM

This is like Ole Yeller for the Blue Dogs.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 09:10 PM

Also, looks like Oliverio is probably going to lose a tight one to McKinley in WV-01. McKinley is leading by about 1.5%, but I think most of Oliverio's home county has been counted.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 09:18 PM

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 09:19 PM

I'm wondering if the Republicans would be better off avoiding the repeal of healthcare reform because I can see them getting bogged down with trying to find something that will pass the Senate (and presumably need Obama's signature?) and making the public fatigued with it (once again).
Political suicide to repeal healthcare reform. It's all rhetoric. They aren't going to cut spending. Just the same ole Washington.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 09:22 PM

Political suicide to repeal healthcare reform. It's all rhetoric. They aren't going to cut spending. Just the same ole Washington.

I agree, but I wonder if they will even take a swing at it.

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 09:30 PM

I agree, but I wonder if they will even take a swing at it.
Nope. Will never get through the Senate and Obama would veto anything. Plus people don't like having things taken from them and it leaves a lot of them vulnerable.

They'll pick some wedge issues that don't really matter and run out the clock till 2012 like the Democrats did from 2006-2008.

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 09:38 PM

Political suicide to repeal healthcare reform. It's all rhetoric. They aren't going to cut spending. Just the same ole Washington.

That's not always the case though. The 94 REpublican change actually dsid what they said they would do. Among other things, they passed the Line Item Veto to give a sitting President, Democrat, and not in a time of crisis, more power over them. Because they believed it was right. That was horrible politics. The Repubs who ran that year were the true beleivers, because no one thought they would win teh house for the first time in forever. Then, in 96, you began to see power people run and win, those who wanted power for themselves, and now that their party was in charge, they ran. But for two years, the Repubs were one of the most authentic group of lawmakers you could see.

stevew

11-02-2010, 09:40 PM

Sestak up 24K votes with 86% reported.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 09:43 PM

Obama would veto anything.

I believe that's pretty much the plan (and probably has been at least ever since the internal numbers made it clear they weren't getting the Senate)

Doing so will be his downfall.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 09:44 PM

South Carolina elects their first female governor, born in India & raised a Sikh, later baptized as a Methodist.

She's a pure Palin candidate, was nowhere until she got an endorsement from SP.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 09:47 PM

If PA and Ill. stay close, it is going to be amusing watching the shenanigans in two of the most corrupt political cities in the nation. :)

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 09:47 PM

I believe that's pretty much the plan (and probably has been at least ever since the internal numbers made it clear they weren't getting the Senate)

Doing so will be his downfall.
Even if they got the Senate, they weren't going to get this to his desk. And the longer the healthcare bill is in place, the less likely it is to be repealed. People realize it doesn't change squat and would take away some nice tax breaks for people and insurance for those with pre-existing conditions. Not sure how that turns into a win for the Republicans.

Once the bill passed, it was in for good. Their hope of winning was before it went into law as once it did, sane people would realize it had zero effect on them and positive on some.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 09:50 PM

sane people will realize, sooner or late, that it has a negative affect on virtually everyone

Fixed that for you ... but for tonight, can we just agree to disagree on this one?
We'll pick back up tomorrow or whatever, but there's some pretty interesting races out there that probably ought to trump either one of our opinions. Fair enough?

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 09:51 PM

Fixed that for you ... but for tonight, can we just agree to disagree on this one?
We'll pick back up tomorrow or whatever, but there's some pretty interesting races out there that probably ought to trump either one of our opinions. Fair enough?
What will it do to people that is so negative?

stevew

11-02-2010, 09:54 PM

Toomey likely to win by 10K or so.

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 09:55 PM

I know I'm a Repub but I'm sad Feingold lost. I like true believers. The Senate was better with him in it.

stevew

11-02-2010, 09:56 PM

Need to find some dead voters in Philly.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 09:56 PM

It is weird to watch TV for such a long stretch without seeing a campaign commercial. :)

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 09:57 PM

If you like horse races, the Jim Marshal (D-GA8) race is a dandy.
http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/election_results/2010_1102/00308.htm

Marshall trails by about 8,000 votes and it looks like all of his counties are in. He's been an incredibly tough candidate to run across for years & for a GOP youngster to beat him is a well run campaign. He's weathered all comers in recent years but it looks to me that his luck has run out.

A much bigger shock has been brewing tonight in GA2, where Sanford Bishop(D) has trailed most of the evening to state rep Mike Keown.
Page Not Found (http://www.sos.ga.gov/elections/election_results/2010_1102/00302.htmp)
Based on the votes still to be counted, I don't believe that Keown's 7,200 vote lead will hold up & expect Bishop to survive

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 09:58 PM

Local TV (and likely ABC as well) just called Austin Scott the winner over Jim Marshall.

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 09:58 PM

What will it do to people that is so negative?
Or is this one of those things where we just say it but have nothing to really back it up. Like all the people screaming for cutting the deficit. Then asking what they want to cut to bring it down and disappear.

Easy to spout rhetoric if reality doesn't have to back it up.

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 10:00 PM

I hope to God that the Illinois races don't come down to a re-count or one of those 5am things. Both are real close and I don't really care that much who wins, I just want to know one way or the other.

Drake

11-02-2010, 10:04 PM

w00t! My favorite form of government is gridlock.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 10:08 PM

I've never been more ashamed of my home state or of my home county. I was shocked to see Racine County with almost 70% for Walker and Johnson.

Wisconsin is a much worse place now for having lost Feingold.

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 10:14 PM

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 10:17 PM

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 10:20 PM

Abe, if you are interested in following the Oliverio-McKinley count:

MetroNews Election Results -- Powered by Citynet (http://www.wvmetronews.com/election/results.cfm?func=showresults&show=ushouse&refresh=110528)

McKinley leads by about 1500 with 95% in. I'm assuming it will go into a recount if it sticks this close.

Looks like, based on this (http://www.wvmetronews.com/election/countybycounty.cfm), that only one county is still out & it's a heavy Oliverio county. Might see a virtual dead heat, depending upon the size of the precincts remaining.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 10:24 PM

Looks like, based on this (http://www.wvmetronews.com/election/countybycounty.cfm), that only one county is still out & it's a heavy Oliverio county. Might see a virtual dead heat, depending upon the size of the precincts remaining.

Good find -- I had been looking for a county by county, but hadn't navigated around enough.

That is a very Italian and very Catholic area that is nearby Oliverio (and Manchin's) home area. It will probably be, like you say, a dead heat.

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 10:26 PM

Good find -- I had been looking for a county by county, but hadn't navigated around enough.

That is a very Italian and very Catholic area that is nearby Oliverio (and Manchin's) home area. It will probably be, like you say, a dead heat.

Marion is outstanding? Awesome. It's got a good population, and I got to beleive they are going to vote for a favorite son

Wait, I jus looked up on CNN and its Harrison Co. Home of my parents, and also strong Oliverio support.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 10:28 PM

ABC calls GA2 for challenger Mike Keown, ending the 18 year reign of Sanford Bishop (D).

Buccaneer

11-02-2010, 10:30 PM

Or is this one of those things where we just say it but have nothing to really back it up. Like all the people screaming for cutting the deficit. Then asking what they want to cut to bring it down and disappear.

Easy to spout rhetoric if reality doesn't have to back it up.

The reality, in my evaluation of the past 40 years, is that every major legislation ended up costing more than expected along with realizing less benefits than intended. I believe there was a CBO(??) report out a few months ago confirming that it will end up costing more in the long run, as oppose to saving money in healthcare. Something like this, which was half-baked at best, could not have bucked the federal trend.

I do not think, however, it would be wholesale repealed. There are a couple good things in there but with so many opt outs and grandfathering, it would have little effect...until they made it required, which is unconstitutional. I know Colorado today has an amendment not to make it required or something like that. That part will and should be repealed.

The only thing I hope for out of all of this is less $40-$80-$400-$800 billion dollars crap coming out of the House that benefits so very few. It's better not to do those things in reality.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 10:31 PM

Reid's up 54 to 42 with 42% precincts in. Is there hope yet?

MrBug708

11-02-2010, 10:34 PM

It's super early, but it looks like the potheads havent made it out to vote yet here in Cali. No word on when the munchies will hit!

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 10:38 PM

Harrison County just updated on CNN and there wasn;t a major vote move for Oliverio and the math looks like he has now lost.

larrymcg421

11-02-2010, 10:39 PM

ABC calls GA2 for challenger Mike Keown, ending the 18 year reign of Sanford Bishop (D).

Seems premature. 300 vote difference now with 87% reporting according to Sec of Sate site.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 10:42 PM

52 to 44, still Harry Reid, 55% of precincts in. approx. 206k votes to 176k

BishopMVP

11-02-2010, 10:43 PM

Or is this one of those things where we just say it but have nothing to really back it up. Like all the people screaming for cutting the deficit. Then asking what they want to cut to bring it down and disappear.

Easy to spout rhetoric if reality doesn't have to back it up.I get that that is true of a majority (90%?) of people, but do you really think JiMGA isn't a true believer at this point? You could ask him which branches of the military should be disbanded for the good of the country and he'd be able to name at least one.

Deval Patrick wins re-election in Massachusetts. Barney Frank won comfortably over a decent candidate, while the Republicans probably would have won on the Cape vs. William Keating if they didn't have a creep for a candidate. On the bright side, voters at least got rid of the sales tax on alcohol, and even the People's Republic of Cambridge voted down the most ridiculous ballot initiative I've seen recently Summary: Should the state representative from this district be instructed to vote to amend the state constitution to allow Massachusetts voters, through a law enacted by initiative petition, to vote to delegate their powers concerning international affairs to a democratically elected legislative body of a global federal union of democratic nations?:lol:

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 10:45 PM

The reality, in my evaluation of the past 40 years, is that every major legislation ended up costing more than expected along with realizing less benefits than intended. I believe there was a CBO(??) report out a few months ago confirming that it will end up costing more in the long run, as oppose to saving money in healthcare. Something like this, which was half-baked at best, could not have bucked the federal trend.

I do not think, however, it would be wholesale repealed. There are a couple good things in there but with so many opt outs and grandfathering, it would have little effect...until they made it required, which is unconstitutional. I know Colorado today has an amendment not to make it required or something like that. That part will and should be repealed.

The only thing I hope for out of all of this is less $40-$80-$400-$800 billion dollars crap coming out of the House that benefits so very few. It's better not to do those things in reality.

Of course it does. It's a corporate oligarchy. When businesses run the country, they are going to try and profit off the people as much as they possibly can. It's their job.

I'm just asking for all the horrible things this is going to bring. Coverage for people who can't get health care because they didn't win the genetic lottery? Are people really that dramatically upset over that? Or the tax breaks it gives small businesses like mine. Are people upset that my company can now get a nice credit and offer health insurance to more people (or a better policy)?

I'm just asking for the horrible things that this bill is bringing with it. I've head all sorts of doom and gloom and how everyone's life will dramatically change. Please someone tell me what in the bill is going to bring this. Because it's starting to feel like the people saying that don't know jack shit about what's in the bill and are just parroting rhetoric like a sheep.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 10:46 PM

Sweet. John Boehner just channeled Dick Vermeil.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 10:46 PM

Seems premature. 300 vote difference now with 87% reporting according to Sec of Sate site.

See, that's what I expected to see happen, the thought would be that ABC (or their analysts) have picked up on something I haven't.

It's 120 ish votes now btw

edit to add: And Bishop takes the lead by 127 votes, with 2/3rds of Muscogee Co still to report & it's like 4-to-1 for Bishop. Methinks somebody at ABC screwed up majorly.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 10:50 PM

Titus and Heck are close in Nevada D3. Heck's 400 votes ahead out of 161k votes thus far.

Tigercat

11-02-2010, 10:51 PM

And Louisiana re-elects another corrupt, clueless, and should-be-criminal politician. Only this one is a Republican, who got ~95% of the republican vote in the state. Yes, only 5% of Republicans voted for the guy who didn't hire prostitutes while on the job in DC, who didn't keep employed a man who assaulted his wife, and who didn't try to bail BP out right after the oil spill. But hey, Vitter is a Republican, and we sure don't like Obama in these parts..

In other news, african american voters voted a black democrat in over a minority republican, who barely voted like a republican in the house. A congressman who made plenty of headlines for his independent voice and did a lot for his district in a short time. But, of course the city's church leaders felt it was a better idea to ensure a blind vote for the black candidate with the D next to his name.

Yea, it is nights like this that I thank God I jumped the ship on working on political campaigns after college. Not because of the changeover that happened tonight, I think changeovers every few years between libertarian principles and progressive principles is a good thing. (Of course it would be better if the parties better represented thee principles.) Congressional election politics makes presidential election politics look civil and reasonable.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 10:55 PM

Feingold's campaign manager George Aldrich told the crowd in Middleton that only 40 percent of the vote has been reported.

“Russ is down by 80,000 votes, but...up to 1.4 million votes haven’t been counted,” he told the crowd.

Among those votes that have been counted, there is “not a single vote” from the city of Madison, he said.

“We are confident that this race is going to tighten, it is going to tighten quickly, and we may be in for a long night here,” he said.

Cheers erupted from the crowd and Feingold’s supporters have become buoyant and upbeat.

Aldrich, interviewing with WMTV in Madison, says they're not throwing in the towel despite media outlets calling the race for Johnson.

"There's reason for optimism," he said.

He said there remain 300,000 votes to be counted in Milwaukee County, and another 200,000 in Dane County.

Granted, I don't think the turnaround will happen, but it's nice to see they're not giving up so soon.

Poli

11-02-2010, 11:01 PM

I figured Prop B in Missouri would be a landslide "yes". Prop B would essentially shut down most dog breeders in the state. With all the advertising dollars spent on it, I figure it would easily pass. 83% reporting according to Fox 2 News St. Louis, deadlocked at 50%.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 11:02 PM

Roy Barnes has conceded to Nathan Deal in the Georgia governor's race.

Goodbye you slimy son of a whore.

ISiddiqui

11-02-2010, 11:07 PM

Shame, Georgia now has a Governor who may be indicted for ethic violations while a Congressmen.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 11:10 PM

LOL, at the Murkowski spelling aid for Alaska voters. It's a flyer that says

Mur
+
{picture of a cow}
+
{picture of a ski}

RainMaker

11-02-2010, 11:12 PM

Shame, Georgia now has a Governor who may be indicted for ethic violations while a Congressmen.
They can be the South's version of Illinois.

digamma

11-02-2010, 11:27 PM

A guy who I knew decently well growing up, though he was a few years older than me, was elected as a representative in GA-7 tonight.

Young Drachma

11-02-2010, 11:34 PM

Looks like there will be at least two black Republicans in Congress this time for the first time since 1997. Possibly three, depending on how the race in Colorado's 7th district flops out.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 11:34 PM

In GA-2, Keown goes back in front of Bishop by 490 votes, still counting 35 in-person early voting precincts & 56 early voting by mail precincts.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 11:35 PM

Random trivia: first time since reconstruction that Georgia will not have a single (D) in statewide office.

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 11:39 PM

MSNBC calls Nevada for Reid.

Illinois, Colorado, Nevada, and PA polls were all pretty close at the end, but Nevada seems like the only one that came out a little unexpectedly. I guess Colorado is kind of up in the air still, but it was more of a toss up in the final few days.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 11:42 PM

FOX has also called Nevada for Reid, but I'll hold off the victory dance until I see it on CNN.

Kodos

11-02-2010, 11:47 PM

Gotta think with even a halfway decent candidate that the Republicans would have ousted Reid with ease.

Not a big Reid fan at all, but this has to make you smile just a bit. :)

Izulde

11-02-2010, 11:48 PM

And there's the CNN call of Nevada for Reid.

I can sleep much easier tonight knowing that at least the state I'm in isn't being destroyed by a crackhead freshman Tea Party senator.

I'm thrilled at the margin Reid's winning by. I thought it'd be much, much closer than this.

Izulde

11-02-2010, 11:50 PM

Gotta think with even a halfway decent candidate that the Republicans would have ousted Reid with ease.

Not a big Reid fan at all, but this has to make you smile just a bit. :)

Agreed on a halfway decent Republican candidate knocking Reid out. As far as my opinion goes, he certainly has his flaws, but he's done far more for the state of Nevada than Angle would ever accomplish.

And for me, that was the important thing.

stevew

11-02-2010, 11:52 PM

Krystal Ball should have forseen that she'd get 35% of the vote.

JonInMiddleGA

11-02-2010, 11:52 PM

Disappointing, but Reid happens. Control of the Senate wasn't changing anyway, might as well be him that presides over the drive toward oblivion as anyone else.

kingfc22

11-02-2010, 11:53 PM

Seriously...Jerry Brown again?! Wow. Love living amongst a bunch of liberals. :rolleyes:

Swaggs

11-02-2010, 11:54 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure what the feeling is going to be for the Tea Party candidates this time around.

It seems pretty clear that they cost the GOP Senate seats in Nevada and Delaware, and possibly in Colorado and/or Alaska (if it gets wacky with the write-ins and the Democrat comes in close enough for it to become a big legal mess).

Abe Sargent

11-02-2010, 11:59 PM

Agreed on a halfway decent Republican candidate knocking Reid out. As far as my opinion goes, he certainly has his flaws, but he's done far more for the state of Nevada than Angle would ever accomplish.

And for me, that was the important thing.

I liked Reid the Senator. I think Reid the Majority Leader is a dick.

MrBug708

11-02-2010, 11:59 PM

Seriously...Jerry Brown again?! Wow. Love living amongst a bunch of liberals. :rolleyes:

California is seriously screwed up. I don't like Meg Whitman and thought she was a bad choice, but how bad are you when you can't even beat a guy who was bad the first time around, is the biggest career politician in a fucked up state, and had 140 million dollars to invest in the campaign?

I dont understand calling the election here. Boxer is being "declared" the winner, yet she is behind in the votes?

MrBug708

11-03-2010, 12:01 AM

larrymcg421

11-03-2010, 12:01 AM

Gotta think with even a halfway decent candidate that the Republicans would have ousted Reid with ease.

Not a big Reid fan at all, but this has to make you smile just a bit. :)

Yeah, Republicans shot themselves in the foot in both Delaware and Nevada. They had easy victories in both of those states if they had just nominated someone sane.

But no, nothing is gonna make me smile tonight.

kingfc22

11-03-2010, 12:03 AM

California is seriously screwed up. I don't like Meg Whitman and thought she was a bad choice, but how bad are you when you can't even beat a guy who was bad the first time around, is the biggest career politician in a fucked up state, and had 140 million dollars to invest in the campaign?

I dont understand calling the election here. Boxer is being "declared" the winner, yet she is behind in the votes?

Yea, I don't want either of them as well, but somehow the state can't find ANYBODY better.

As for Boxer, what the hell has she done to keep her spot? :banghead:

Probably the heavy democratic precincts in the state have yet to report and that is why she is being "declared" the winner.

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 12:04 AM

I dont understand calling the election here. Boxer is being "declared" the winner, yet she is behind in the votes?

Presumably that's a function of where those votes are from; i.e. they're confident that Boxer will pull at least X from certain areas still to be counted & that X is larger than the current Y that she trails by.

MrBug708

11-03-2010, 12:07 AM

I can understand that idea, but seems odd to declare her the winner when she currently trails. I'd at least wait it was a couple percentage points the other way

stevew

11-03-2010, 12:16 AM

Think of it as her opponent didn't win the particular areas by enough.

MrBug708

11-03-2010, 12:18 AM

LIke I said, I understand "calling" the election for somebody, just find it odd to call it when the projected winner is losing in the polls released

jbergey22

11-03-2010, 12:22 AM

So if Prop 19 had passed in California what would that have meant? Anyone could smoke weed wherever they wanted in Cali? Would the federal government gone along with this?

Recoil

11-03-2010, 12:26 AM

So if Prop 19 had passed in California what would that have meant? Anyone could smoke weed wherever they wanted in Cali? Would the federal government gone along with this?

1.) They mostly do it anyways.
2.) No.

jbergey22

11-03-2010, 12:28 AM

1.) They mostly do it anyways.
2.) No.

Thank you! It was interesting that the vote on that was so close.

MrBug708

11-03-2010, 12:38 AM

Thank you! It was interesting that the vote on that was so close.

A few months ago, it looked like it would pass

Young Drachma

11-03-2010, 12:38 AM

LIke I said, I understand "calling" the election for somebody, just find it odd to call it when the projected winner is losing in the polls released

Exit polling indicates she'd win, that's what they use to make their calls. So basically, they know something we don't and it's better to call the races sooner so you can get a sense of how the national races will unfold rather than waiting for hours for what the exit poll data indicate is going to happen anyway.

Recoil

11-03-2010, 12:46 AM

Thank you! It was interesting that the vote on that was so close.

No, thank you for the sarcasm.

And thank God this poorly written bill didn't pass.

Neon_Chaos

11-03-2010, 01:34 AM

So if Prop 19 had passed in California what would that have meant? Anyone could smoke weed wherever they wanted in Cali? Would the federal government gone along with this?

Adults over 21 would have been allowed to carry 1 ounce of pot. Smoking weed would have been legal in any non-public place or establishment licensed for marijuana use. People would also have been allowed to grow pot in a private residence in a 25 square foot space.

RainMaker

11-03-2010, 01:41 AM

Kind of crazy that a write-in candidate for Senator might win. Guess they won't know for weeks but I have to say that's kind of cool that it can still be done.

Peregrine

11-03-2010, 05:20 AM

Adults over 21 would have been allowed to carry 1 ounce of pot. Smoking weed would have been legal in any non-public place or establishment licensed for marijuana use. People would also have been allowed to grow pot in a private residence in a 25 square foot space.

It seems to me that the law that was passed in October reducing the penalty for small amounts of pot possession to an infraction and a $100 fine probably took some of the wind out of the sails of Prop 19.

Neon_Chaos

11-03-2010, 06:26 AM

It seems to me that the law that was passed in October reducing the penalty for small amounts of pot possession to an infraction and a $100 fine probably took some of the wind out of the sails of Prop 19.

My friend thinks that all the stoners were just too lazy to vote. :D

lungs

11-03-2010, 06:42 AM

I REALLY REALLY wish it would've been Herb Kohl up for election this year and not Russ Feingold.

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 06:47 AM

Thanks Teabaggers for keeping the Senate in Dem control. Sane candidates in DE, NV and CO would have made it a 50-50 world with Lieberman the most sought after date in D.C.

Ksyrup

11-03-2010, 06:48 AM

In my House race, Democrat Ben Chandler appears to have won by 600 votes, but Andy Barr has not conceded. He made some cryptic remarks last night and could ask for a recount, it looks like.

Several ads against Barr referred to him as a convicted criminal, and since they never specified what the offense was, I assumed it was something pretty minor. Turns out he was arrest at 19 while on spring break in Florida for having a fake ID. CONVICTED CRIMINAL!!! I'm surprised they haven't deported him to Australia or something.

Poli

11-03-2010, 06:52 AM

Does this mean there would be limits on it?
Yes. No more than 50 dogs. Each dog has to have a rather large room, things along those lines. The concept is to get rid of the "Puppy Mill Capital of the World" stigma that Missouri has.

Thing is, MO has plenty of laws already on the books that could take care of the "bad" puppy mills...the mills we see on TV. We never see the clean, well run, puppy mills...and they are out there.

Agriculture/rural types believe this is the HSUS's attempt to set up shop in MO and start limiting livestock and domesticated pets in general. Truthfully, I could see something along those lines.

"Hey, if this prop is good for puppies without a home, why not enforce that for pets (or even livestock) with homes?"

The prop is pretty ambiguous as well in some of it's wording.

Bottom line is that if puppy mills were breeding and not obeying the current laws this prop will mean nothing to them. They're used to not following the law already.

All it does it shut down the puppy mill owners that were doing it the right way.

Ksyrup

11-03-2010, 06:52 AM

Thanks Teabaggers for keeping the Senate in Dem control. Sane candidates in DE, NV and CO would have made it a 50-50 world with Lieberman the most sought after date in D.C.

Heh. That's one way to spin it, I guess.

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 07:08 AM

Heh. That's one way to spin it, I guess.

Not spin, just reality. I said a ouple of months ago that the Senate would switch if not for the teabagger candidates. Paul won and even though Miller is going to lose AL will stay GOP, but DE, CO, and NV are only in Dems hands because of the crazy candidates chosen to run for the GOP. Ideological purity cost the GOP three Senate seats.

Greyroofoo

11-03-2010, 07:15 AM

Well now that the election is over we can get the 2012 presidential election season started!

Mizzou B-ball fan

11-03-2010, 07:17 AM

Not spin, just reality. I said a ouple of months ago that the Senate would switch if not for the teabagger candidates. Paul won and even though Miller is going to lose AL will stay GOP, but DE, CO, and NV are only in Dems hands because of the crazy candidates chosen to run for the GOP. Ideological purity cost the GOP three Senate seats.

It probably was a best case scenario for the Republicans to not win the Senate if we're looking towards 2012. With 2/3 of the power (Pres. & Senate) remaining with the Democrats, the onus is still on them to make something happen, though it will have to be through cooperation since the Republicans have the House. We'll hope cooperation prevails, but I won't hold my breath.

I think that the 'crazy candidates' still put forth a clear message. That message to the Democrats would be if these three candidates actually drew some votes against your candidate, you're doing something VERY wrong. Shape up quickly.

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 07:24 AM

Unfreakinbelievable to me that Murkowski may win. That might be the biggest surprise of all the Senate races (to me anyway).

Ksyrup

11-03-2010, 07:26 AM

Not spin, just reality. I said a ouple of months ago that the Senate would switch if not for the teabagger candidates. Paul won and even though Miller is going to lose AL will stay GOP, but DE, CO, and NV are only in Dems hands because of the crazy candidates chosen to run for the GOP. Ideological purity cost the GOP three Senate seats.

Yeah, I understand all of that, but the big picture reality of it is that this was a spanking, and the extent of the tea party's influence underscores that ass whoopin', not detracts from it. Perhaps voters wouldn't have bought into the outrage/rhetoric that the tea party challengers had in DE, CO, and NV if it was attempted by the standard GOP fill-in. Maybe those candidates were the better shot at winning because they got more people to turnout, but it just wasn't enough.

Alan T

11-03-2010, 07:30 AM

Well now that the election is over we can get the 2012 presidential election season started!

As a moderate independent, I would likely vote for Obama again if the election happened today. He has not been nearly as liberal in the presidency as I feared and while not as moderate as I would like, sometimes going with what you know is better even though it is not perfect rather than switching to an unknown. Of course ideally I would like to say my vote or thought on the subject mattered much, but since I live in Massachusetts which is pretty much already locked up Democrat regardless who runs, my personal vote doesn't matter much. I do think though that my feelings are pretty similar though nationwide with other moderates that feel completely left out right now by the radicals from both of the major parties.

I think the most important thing for me the next two years is now with a split Senate-House to see if both parties continue the crazy bi-partisanship that has been happening or if they actually start trying to meet with some form of compromise. Then seeing how Obama handles that compromise if it does happen. If it ends up being two more years of bi-partisanship, I absolutely bet this wave of Republicans sweeping into the house won't last too long and wouldn't be too shocked to see the Senate go Republican and House swing back to the Democrats in two years.

Ronnie Dobbs2

11-03-2010, 07:31 AM

I predict, in the not too distant future, the country will have a political uprising where all these corrupt Republicans get thrown out, replaced by Democrats.

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 07:32 AM

If it ends up being two more years of bi-partisanship, I absolutely bet this wave of Republicans sweeping into the house won't last too long and wouldn't be too shocked to see the Senate go Republican and House swing back to the Democrats in two years.

If you do see signs of compromise then you're definitely going to see the House swing back, because there'll be precious few people willing to vote for GOP candidates who give the D's an inch.

Mizzou B-ball fan

11-03-2010, 07:37 AM

So there are still three races up for grabs, correct?

Murkowski will win assuming the write-in votes are done correctly. Then Washington and Colorado are even with votes still to come.

panerd

11-03-2010, 07:40 AM

I predict, in the not too distant future, the country will have a political uprising where all these corrupt Republicans get thrown out, replaced by Democrats.

Unfortunately I agree. The machine is much too large to ever accept a third party into the mix (whether it be reform party, libertarian, constitution, tea party, communist, ...) I do think there are populist uprisings that result in temporary outrages like Ross Perot in the 90's and the Tea Party last year (obviously I am speaking my lifetime I am sure there are many more example than this) but the two parties are way too good at taking them over. Perfect example is here in Missouri where the people were pissed about spending and business as usual and somehow career politician Roy Blunt convinces the voters that he hears them and will change his entire career policy as a Republicrat and become "one of them". I had higher hopes a year ago and will continue to vote third party but I guess...

Fool me once (1994) shame on them... Fool me twice (last year) shame on me.

Alan T

11-03-2010, 07:45 AM

If you do see signs of compromise then you're definitely going to see the House swing back, because there'll be precious few people willing to vote for GOP candidates who give the D's an inch.

That may be true, and I think it is an interesting problem for both parties. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have radical groups that make up a large part of their party leadership that desire no form of compromise. Yet with the country as a whole being fairly evenly split among the populace the last several elections have required some form of appeasing moderates or independents to try to gain the advantage in the election.

While the Republicans are using this election as an indicator to the Democrats that they and their policies/beliefs are wrong, I personally feel this election is more of an indication from the moderate/independent populace that we want more cooperation and not less.

I guess the big question is what would help/hurt each party the most? Which is most important to the party staying in power in Washington, appeasing and gaining the moderate vote by risking apathy or rebellion from the radical factions of the parties, or appeasing the radical faction but alienating the moderate vote.

Butter

11-03-2010, 07:46 AM

the Tea Party last year (obviously I am speaking my lifetime I am sure there are many more example than this) but the two parties are way too good at taking them over.

This idea that the Tea Party was ever a 3rd party movement is laughable. It is an attempt by GOP'ers to reform the GOP as a reaction to the Bush years and Obama's "socialism".

panerd

11-03-2010, 07:48 AM

This idea that the Tea Party was ever a 3rd party movement is laughable. It is an attempt by GOP'ers to reform the GOP as a reaction to the Bush years and Obama's "socialism".

OK. I guess I should say an alternative to the high spending Republican and Democratic Parties. Isn't that what all third parties are, an alternative to one of the two exisiting parties? And not to rehash this debate for the thousandth time but Ron Paul's followers actually started the tea party and it was (IMO) the best of what both parties claim to offer and then it was taken over quickly by Beck and Palin who (again IMO) are part of the machine you speak of.

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 07:57 AM

Unfreakinbelievable to me that Murkowski may win. That might be the biggest surprise of all the Senate races (to me anyway).

Since she's going to caucus with the GOP it will probably end quickly, but if this were a GOP/Dem race the court challenges would rival Franken/Coleman.

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 08:01 AM

I personally feel this election is more of an indication from the moderate/independent populace that we want more cooperation and not less.

I can't imagine how anyone would interpret these results that way, not on the whole. I mean, look at the people who won last night, from Reid to DeMint. Heck, look at Paul. This is not a wave of winners known for compromise.

I'm inclined to agree with (D) strategist Joe Trippi, there's less prospect for compromise than we've seen in recent years. "In 2006 and 2008, we saw a lot of moderate Republicans go out the window," Trippi said. "And this year, you see half of the Blue Dogs on the Democratic side being wiped out tonight. So you're seeing the middle of both parties being pushed out."
http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/03/no-more-middle-ground

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 08:02 AM

It's perhaps comforting to fit this election into whatever analysis makes us feel smart, but isn't it much more simple? Unemployment is over 9% and 13% of mortgages are in foreclosure. The economy seems much more important than and policy position or tactical choice.

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 08:05 AM

The economy seems much more important than and policy position or tactical choice.

Except that policy positions & tactical choices are impacting the economy (or are perceived as doing so, take your pick).

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 08:20 AM

Can't believe we have an oompa-loompa as Speaker.

Ugh.

Never underestimate the collective stupidty of the majority of Americans.

panerd

11-03-2010, 08:22 AM

Can't believe we have an oompa-loompa as Speaker.

Ugh.

Never underestimate the collective stupidty of the majority of Americans.

It's like two guys with ugly wives. They both see it in the other's but not theirs. The new speaker is an idiot, and even though you don't see it, the old one was as well.

Ronnie Dobbs2

11-03-2010, 08:22 AM

Never underestimate the collective stupidty of the majority of Americans.

Don't despair, with this kind of attitude you are sure to win them over next go round!

King of New York

11-03-2010, 08:26 AM

I can't imagine how anyone would interpret these results that way, not on the whole. I mean, look at the people who won last night, from Reid to DeMint. Heck, look at Paul. This is not a wave of winners known for compromise.

I'm inclined to agree with (D) strategist Joe Trippi, there's less prospect for compromise than we've seen in recent years. "In 2006 and 2008, we saw a lot of moderate Republicans go out the window," Trippi said. "And this year, you see half of the Blue Dogs on the Democratic side being wiped out tonight. So you're seeing the middle of both parties being pushed out."
No More Middle Ground? | Foxnews.com (http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/11/03/no-more-middle-ground)

This. I think that the prospects of the government getting anything done during the next two years, for good or for ill, are close to zero, with the exception of a compromise on the Bush tax cuts. Today's situation is different from 1994 because Clinton's political and survival instincts reliably trumped his ideological inclinations, but the opposite has been true for Obama (thus far). Also, I find it hard to imagine John Boehner and Harry Reid agreeing on anything--they'll probably find it hard to say good morning to one another, much less work on legislation together.

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 08:27 AM

Except that policy positions & tactical choices are impacting the economy (or are perceived as doing so, take your pick).

For years now I've believed that policy isn't that important in relation to outcome come election night and I think the exit polls back that up. Dems are unpopular, but Republicans are more unpopular. A plurality thinks the banks are to blame for the economy and they voted for the GOP by a wide margin. A majority wants the Bush tax cuts to expire for the top bracket or for everyone. A majority wants a smaller government, but majorities want no cuts to defense, Medicare or SS.

It's hard for me to see a coherent national vision in those numbers one way or the other. Certainly policy matters for the most engaged voters on either side, but the swing voters that actually determine the outcome of elections don't seem to have knowledge of policy or particularly care.

panerd

11-03-2010, 08:32 AM

This. I think that the prospects of the government getting anything done during the next two years, for good or for ill, are close to zero, with the exception of a compromise on the Bush tax cuts. Today's situation is different from 1994 because Clinton's political and survival instincts reliably trumped his ideological inclinations, but the opposite has been true for Obama (thus far). Also, I find it hard to imagine John Boehner and Harry Reid agreeing on anything--they'll probably find it hard to say good morning to one another, much less work on legislation together.

God, I hope this is true. In our current system this is about as close I will ever get to a third party. Gridlock. Of course both parties sadly still agree on continued war, cosmetic anti-terror acts, and whoring to big companies so I predict they won't have trouble accomplishing plenty in those three areas.

Buccaneer

11-03-2010, 09:00 AM

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 09:05 AM

That was true in 2008.

But, I don't think the people that swing elections care about the deficit per se. A plurality says that spending for new jobs should be the highest priority. If unemployment were 7% I don't think the deficit would be as much of an issue.

molson

11-03-2010, 09:09 AM

But, I don't think the people that swing elections care about the deficit per se. A plurality says that spending for new jobs should be the highest priority. If unemployment were 7% I don't think the deficit would be as much of an issue.

I'm sure that's true.

But if we spend enough, we can make unemployment 0%. Just hand out some shovels and some paychecks. (Point being, that at SOME level, everyone has to be concerned about the deficit to some degree, right? Or can we just increase it 10X and spend all our trouble away?)

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 09:37 AM

I'm not saying the deficit doesn't matter. I'm saying I don't think people are as upset about the deficit as they are about unemployment.

Swaggs

11-03-2010, 10:12 AM

The Denver Post has called Colorado for Michael Bennet. I heard him give an interview last night and he sounds like Thurston Howell III (aka the Millionaire from Gilligan's Island).

Chubby

11-03-2010, 10:46 AM

• Heath Shuler, D, NFL, North Carolina, U.S. House

seriously? and he won???

chesapeake

11-03-2010, 10:47 AM

I'm not saying the deficit doesn't matter. I'm saying I don't think people are as upset about the deficit as they are about unemployment.

Any problem on paper is much less important than a problem in your own family. When you or a family member is losing a job or a house -- or very worried about that happening to them -- you're not going to spend a whole lot of time worrying about OMB's latest deficit projection.

I think Jon has identified why the President will have the opportunity to turn around the public perception in the next couple of years. The new GOP Senators and House members predominantly think like Jon does and believe that there can be no compromise. But, despite their gains, they don't have the votes in Congress not to compromise.

On two issues alone, that could be very, very bad for them politically. Without compromise, the Bush-era tax cuts expire. And without compromise on spending, the entire government shuts down. That didn't work for the GOP in 1995 and I don't expect it will work any better this time. Even if it may sound like great policy to Jon :)

chesapeake

11-03-2010, 10:50 AM

• Heath Shuler, D, NFL, North Carolina, U.S. House

seriously? and he won???

He won re-election. Shuler has turned out to be a very savvy pol and a good fit for his district. And I'm not just saying that because he winked at me in the Longworth Building.

Chubby

11-03-2010, 10:51 AM

He won re-election. Shuler has turned out to be a very savvy pol and a good fit for his district. And I'm not just saying that because he winked at me in the Longworth Building.

I only noticed because i was reading an espn article about athletes in elections this year.

you're saying it because of what happened AFTER the wink ;)

Swaggs

11-03-2010, 11:10 AM

Jon Runyan also won a seat in the house out of New Jersey.

And Real World cast member Sean Duffy (from Boston, I think) also won a seat to the US House.

chesapeake

11-03-2010, 11:14 AM

Chris Dudley is likely the new -- and extremely tall -- Governor of Oregon.

RendeR

11-03-2010, 11:18 AM

And the deficit went from $400 billion to $1 trillion?

This was why we elected Obama 2 years ago, has nothing to do with the here and now.

Greyroofoo

11-03-2010, 11:25 AM

And the deficit went from $400 billion to $1 trillion?

Out of curiosity, do you think voters would reward politicians for cutting the deficit?

Or would they be mad at the inevitable taxes increases and/or spending cuts?

Suburban Rhythm

11-03-2010, 11:28 AM

larrymcg421

11-03-2010, 11:36 AM

Buccaneer

11-03-2010, 11:38 AM

molson

11-03-2010, 11:48 AM

Three Iowa Justices lose their jobs because of the gay marriage decision:

Iowans dismiss three justices | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register (http://www.desmoinesregister.com/article/20101103/NEWS09/11030390/Iowans-dismiss-three-justices)

If appellate justices are going to legislate, I guess it's fair that we subject them to vote. If appellate justices are going to be the deciders of whether gay marriage is "good or bad" instead of doing their jobs, the people should have some direct say in their appointment.

It can work both ways. People can also retain (or in some states, actually vote in) appellate justices who will support gay marriage regardless of the law, if that's what they want.

There is SO much potential for corruption of the judiciary, now more than ever, as their power grows and grows, it's scary.

RendeR

11-03-2010, 11:50 AM

It is not surprising to hear all of the elected politicians to talk about "creating jobs". The federal govt. does not create job (except for those employed in the bureaucracy) but it can enact policies that allows small businesses to start, small businesses to grow into larger ones and to encourage entrepreneurship without fear of penalities for success.

Rewriting the tax code would help as well. Whether the taxes are regressive, progressive or flat, the place to start is to simplify.

In my mind, the federal govt. needs to get more out of the way (and allow local and state govt. to do more of their jobs), which will open up more disposable income and thus, increase consumer confidence. Too much legislation have been passed (and wars continued) which add more costs (and more deficit spending) without benefits except for a relative few.

I agree with you here Bucc, but the problem being is that we've seen how utterly unfairly many states can handle things towards individuals. If the states were allowed the leeway and control you speak of we'd have never had women's sufferage, civil rights reforms, or in the future, gay marriage/equal rights unions whatever you want to call them.

The states are too easily swayed into areas that are unconstitutional by their constituencies.

Now if we could return the control you want to teh states, but have that control overseen by the Fed, then perhaps we could get somewhere.

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 11:51 AM

Out of curiosity, do you think voters would reward politicians for cutting the deficit?

Or would they be mad at the inevitable taxes increases and/or spending cuts?

mad. clearly.

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 11:52 AM

Buccaneer

11-03-2010, 11:52 AM

Out of curiosity, do you think voters would reward politicians for cutting the deficit?

Or would they be mad at the inevitable taxes increases and/or spending cuts?

No to the first and maybe to the second. Voters will "reward" if things are going good and if they do not feel that Washington is throwing their good money after bad. Both parties have very low confidence ratings in Congress for good reasons.

One of the reasons for such confidence is the inability to do "smart" things and the lack of leadership to pull that off (in both Executive and Legislative). It has become more about prestige (re-electability), perks and party machines. Voters will not care if taxes are raised marginally if they feel that smart things are being done, nor will they care about spending cuts if it's done smartly and sold as such. But interest groups, lobbyists, media and district politicians prevent those from happening and we know that. So in the end, it all become a reactionary system.

Perhaps one place to start is to elect less lawyer politicians to Washington and more of those that ran businesses, engaged in professional careers, etc.

Noop

11-03-2010, 11:54 AM

So I didn't vote does that make me a bad person?

molson

11-03-2010, 11:59 AM

I have a simple question. Give me 1.3 trillion dollars of cuts to the budget that would get even 40% approval. If American's truly want a 'small government', it can't be that hard.

Small v. big really doesn't matter when you're getting pennies of government services to the taxpayer dollar.

Give me Swedish "big government" any day. The liberals point at this as the ideal but where's my universal health scare that costs half or 1/3 what we currently spend per capita? Where's that plan? I'll vote for that. Instead, you only offer outrageously expensive garbage. If that's all you can offer, I'll just take the less expensive garbage that doesn't really short me too much on the "services".

Galaxy

11-03-2010, 12:04 PM

So I didn't vote does that make me a bad person?

My philosophy if you are old enough to vote, but you didn't, then you have no right to complain.

Galaxy

11-03-2010, 12:07 PM

It is not surprising to hear all of the elected politicians to talk about "creating jobs". The federal govt. does not create job (except for those employed in the bureaucracy) but it can enact policies that allows small businesses to start, small businesses to grow into larger ones and to encourage entrepreneurship without fear of penalities for success.

Rewriting the tax code would help as well. Whether the taxes are regressive, progressive or flat, the place to start is to simplify.

In my mind, the federal govt. needs to get more out of the way (and allow local and state govt. to do more of their jobs), which will open up more disposable income and thus, increase consumer confidence. Too much legislation have been passed (and wars continued) which add more costs (and more deficit spending) without benefits except for a relative few.

What do you think about this article from Fortune:

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010 (http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/news/economy/no_fix_economy_full.fortune/index.htm)

molson

11-03-2010, 12:07 PM

So, Americans are just too dumb to be effective at government?

Not sure, but Democrats certainly aren't offering anything that that looks remotely like the systems they say are so ideal (I think that's more corruption than stupidity).

Galaxy

11-03-2010, 12:08 PM

So, Americans are just too dumb to be effective at government?

But, to your point, Medicare, "the outrageously expensive garbage" health care plan is more effective and has a slower rise in costs despite having to deal with a bunch of old and sick people. So, there ya' go. Now, without massive "government intrusions into personal FREEDOM~!", no, we can't be effective as Sweden.

Then why is Medicare being turned away by an ever-increasing number of doctors and hospitals?

panerd

11-03-2010, 12:08 PM

Out of curiosity, do you think voters would reward politicians for cutting the deficit?

Or would they be mad at the inevitable taxes increases and/or spending cuts?

This is really a question of whether politicians should do this for a career or for service to the country. Obviously a career politician will never want to do either thing but that doesn't justify them not doing it.

If I asked somebody are your kids happier when you give them what you want or when you are a good parent and make them go to bed on time and don't buy them the shit displayed at the checkout at Walmart what would their answer be?

molson

11-03-2010, 12:09 PM

But, to your point, Medicare, "the outrageously expensive garbage" health care plan is more effective and has a slower rise in costs despite having to deal with a bunch of old and sick people. So, there ya' go. Now, without massive "government intrusions into personal FREEDOM~!", no, we can't be effective as Sweden.

I was refering to Obamacare. Medicare isn't a Sweden-esque model of government efficiency either, of course.

You're labeling me as a "government intrusions into personal freedom" guy (I think that's the only way you know how to argue), but like I said, give me Swedish universal health care for what they spend per capita on health care and I'm on board. You'd win the moderates too. And probably even some conservatives.

Instead we get "European Health Care is the way to go!.....So please support our plan that costs way, way, more and delivers way, way less, may or may not negatively impact the quality of healthcare across the country, and protects the insurance companies most of all")

panerd

11-03-2010, 12:11 PM

I have a simple question. Give me 1.3 trillion dollars of cuts to the budget that would get even 40% approval. If American's truly want a 'small government', it can't be that hard.

Here you go (54%)...

Public opinion and the war in Afghanistan - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com (http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/09/16/afghanistan)

Noop

11-03-2010, 12:13 PM

My philosophy if you are old enough to vote, but you didn't, then you have no right to complain.

Rights is a funny word to me. However I won't complain at all but facebook is trying to make everyone who didn't vote into the devil.

larrymcg421

11-03-2010, 12:19 PM

how are justices to any court elected? that makes absolutely no fucking sense to me. stupid state.

They're not elected, but every so often they go up for retention and if they fall below 50%, they lose their seat.

molson

11-03-2010, 12:31 PM

And the only way to get down to European levels on health care spending is yes, restrictions on freedom in health care. You might not get a private room anymore. You might have to wait a few months for non-essential surgeries. Doctors might only make $100,000/yr instead of $250,000/yr.

If that plan was out there though, and you could offer that level of services, with tax cuts, and deficit reduction, I think it would gain some support. More than Obamacare, at least - if only because people could understand it and see huge differences.

You'd have to harm or kill the insurance companies though. Dealbreaker for Democratic party (at least the part of it actually in power). Republican party too, since we have short-sighted whining about lost jobs.

Peregrine

11-03-2010, 12:41 PM

They're not elected, but every so often they go up for retention and if they fall below 50%, they lose their seat.

We have full judicial elections in North Carolina, for the State Appeals Court and the State Supreme Court at least. 8 year terms, and they are non-partisan (can't register a party affiliation.)

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 12:46 PM

And without compromise on spending, the entire government shuts down.

Having spent two years getting a glimpse of just how bad government can be (without hardly trying), I don't believe you'd see near the upset level over vast portions of it being shut down that you did previously. Hell, I'm surprised we haven't seen people shutting small chunks of it down by force on occasion already.

JediKooter

11-03-2010, 12:46 PM

Rights is a funny word to me. However I won't complain at all but facebook is trying to make everyone who didn't vote into the devil.

The mere fact of being a citizen of this country gives you the right to complain, just because you did not vote, you do not lose that 'right'. The only thing that I can think of is, if you want things to be different, find a way to make that happen. Easier said than done though. You would be fighting an uphill battle against people who think they are entitled to the positions they have been elected to and think that they should be able to hold onto those positions for a life time.

JonInMiddleGA

11-03-2010, 12:47 PM

We have full judicial elections in North Carolina, for the State Appeals Court and the State Supreme Court at least. 8 year terms, and they are non-partisan (can't register a party affiliation.)

Ditto much of the Georgia courts, although off the top of my head I think we're 4 year terms. State court circuit judges are elected as well, a few dozen of those.

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 12:55 PM

One quick point. This was essentially a different country voting last night than two years ago. A much older country.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/votingage.jpg

Not really a surprise given how things turned out. I wonder why though? Fear? Apathy?

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 01:03 PM

Um, I hate to break this to you, but the era of tax cuts should be over. If we want this robust a welfare state (which is even most Republicans are for), we're either going to massively dismantle the defense budget or raise taxes.

But otherwise, yeah. Also, we'd need public financing of campaigns and a reversal of most of the SC decisions on 'money is speech', but that's a whole other argument.

+1000.

Happy to say I voted against all the local provisions to cut sales tax and cut liquor tax here in MA.

Wasn't a "feel good" vote, but definitely a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" vote. A smart vote. Forward-thinking.

JediKooter

11-03-2010, 01:03 PM

Not really a surprise given how things turned out. I wonder why though? Fear? Apathy?

I'd lean towards apathy. People wanted the economy to be fixed the day after Obama was sworn in. They wanted the unemployment rate to drop to 3% a month after he was sworn in. I just don't think enough people are smart enough to realize these things take years to recover from and in the age of instant gratification (especially with the younger people), they just did a big collective 'fuck it', yesterday.

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 01:05 PM

I'd lean towards apathy. People wanted the economy to be fixed the day after Obama was sworn in. They wanted the unemployment rate to drop to 3% a month after he was sworn in. I just don't think enough people are smart enough to realize these things take years to recover from and in the age of instant gratification (especially with the younger people), they just did a big collective 'fuck it', yesterday.

I tend to agree, although it was probably a combination of it too. Lots of mobilizing of the scared senior citizens who are very gullible for the saavy scare-tactic ads.

JediKooter

11-03-2010, 01:13 PM

I tend to agree, although it was probably a combination of it too. Lots of mobilizing of the scared senior citizens who are very gullible for the saavy scare-tactic ads.

Oh yes, I do believe the older vote was definitely swayed by scare tactics and rhetoric. I just think that had the younger vote not been apathetic, it may have marginalized or even over came the older vote.

Historically though, aren't mid terms usually low voter turn out anyway?

chesapeake

11-03-2010, 01:23 PM

Having spent two years getting a glimpse of just how bad government can be (without hardly trying), I don't believe you'd see near the upset level over vast portions of it being shut down that you did previously. Hell, I'm surprised we haven't seen people shutting small chunks of it down by force on occasion already.

As I noted, government shutdown is a policy you, personally, are inclined to support. I know you don't understand why most of the rest of us don't see it the same way, but we don't.

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 01:33 PM

Rewriting the tax code would help as well. Whether the taxes are regressive, progressive or flat, the place to start is to simplify.

I'm sure we'd disagree on details, but in general this is a place where we agree.

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 01:36 PM

Not sure, but Democrats certainly aren't offering anything that that looks remotely like the systems they say are so ideal (I think that's more corruption than stupidity).

A lot of Liberals hate the Democratic party too.

Celeval

11-03-2010, 01:40 PM

We have full judicial elections in North Carolina, for the State Appeals Court and the State Supreme Court at least. 8 year terms, and they are non-partisan (can't register a party affiliation.)

...but it's not like you can't figure it out pretty easily if you wanted to.

SirFozzie

11-03-2010, 01:40 PM

Looks like I called it pretty close (I got pulled into the CW that Reid was a goner), approx 65 seats lost in the House, and 52-53 senators, making Nelson/Lieberman unable to flip the senate.

heybrad

11-03-2010, 01:42 PM

So I didn't vote does that make me a bad person?
Just remember Noop... Even though it's never come close to happening in 200+ years, your one vote could make the difference!

JPhillips

11-03-2010, 01:51 PM

Having spent two years getting a glimpse of just how bad government can be (without hardly trying), I don't believe you'd see near the upset level over vast portions of it being shut down that you did previously. Hell, I'm surprised we haven't seen people shutting small chunks of it down by force on occasion already.

Wait until old people stop getting their checks,students are denied federal student aid, national parks close and government employees start getting laid off.

Galaxy

11-03-2010, 02:01 PM

Because they can bill private insurance for much more much easier. Also, that's sort of a myth about "tons" of hospitals and doctors turning down Medicare.

Or private insurance actually covers the bills. Medicare patients are money-losers.

When Medicare Falls Short - NYTimes.com (http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/when-medicare-falls-short/)

Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn’t Easy - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1288810891-CL+rZfkeIb3jpc7DTXQb/w)

The Mayo Clinic is one big-name hospital that has stopped taking Medicare.

No, I wouldn't. Because we just passed Bob Dole's health insurance plan and it's called socialism by conservatives. Actual socialism would be painted as the end of freedom.

And the only way to get down to European levels on health care spending is yes, restrictions on freedom in health care. You might not get a private room anymore. You might have to wait a few months for non-essential surgeries. Doctors might only make $100,000/yr instead of $250,000/yr.

We are already starting to have problems with a doctor/surgeon shortage, you want to make it even less attractive?

Galaxy

11-03-2010, 02:03 PM

Rights is a funny word to me. However I won't complain at all but facebook is trying to make everyone who didn't vote into the devil.

I guess right isn't exactly the right word. I think you know what I mean though. If a person is not part of the process, then that person shouldn't complain if something happens they don't like.

stevew

11-03-2010, 02:09 PM

Or private insurance actually covers the bills. Medicare patients are money-losers.

When Medicare Falls Short - NYTimes.com (http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/16/when-medicare-falls-short/)

Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn’t Easy - NYTimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/02/business/retirementspecial/02health.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1288810891-CL+rZfkeIb3jpc7DTXQb/w)

The Mayo Clinic is one big-name hospital that has stopped taking Medicare.

We are already starting to have problems with a doctor/surgeon shortage, you want to make it even less attractive?

I'm going to spend like 150 thousand dollars going to medical school so I can make less than a high school administrator. Umm, no.

SirFozzie

11-03-2010, 02:18 PM

SirFozzie

11-03-2010, 02:24 PM

Honestly, the next two years are going to be interesting. It's my opinion (and I know Jon etcetera will disagree), but, it will be very interesting to see how the R's play this. they captured a good part of the "middle" during this campaign (Independents are always going to be the swing votes).

The Tea Partiers got them a lot of attention and a lot of base enthusiasm, but in several high profile cases, the middle rejected them (DE, NV.. both likely R pickups for want of a better R primary winners). A lot depends on two factors:

A) Finding well-spoken, articulate candidates who can get their message out about their platform, like Rubio in Florida, etcetera. Just selling yourself as an "outsider" or a "Tea Partier" probably won't fly as well in 2012.

B) The Presidential candidate. If Mama Bear Sarah Palin is the nominee, the base will love it. The middle will hate it. I wouldn't be surprised if the base demands Palin as a VP candidate again even if she runs and doesn't win the R primary.. but I honestly think that if they get someone who isn't so polarizing, they have a good shot at it.

SirFozzie

11-03-2010, 02:31 PM

To be fair, Snowe was on a hit list starting back in January. I see no way she wins a Republican primary in 2012. Her only way out is going independent or switching parties (which might not help her, see Specter.)

As for Brown, the GOP just went 0-for-Massachusetts...again. So, I think Brown knows he still has to play moderate to win reelection in 2012.

Honestly, as they say on that list: They can probably primary Snowe.. and lose the election.

Now, before you all get giddy about Olympia Snowe, I would respectfully suggest that Corker, Hatch, Hutchison, Lugar, and Wicker make better targets as we have a much greater certainty of both beating them in primaries and also winning the general election.

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 02:34 PM

To be fair, Snowe was on a hit list starting back in January. I see no way she wins a Republican primary in 2012. Her only way out is going independent or switching parties (which might not help her, see Specter.)

As for Brown, the GOP just went 0-for-Massachusetts...again. So, I think Brown knows he still has to play moderate to win reelection in 2012.

I don't think Brown really stands a chance of getting reelected. He either has to toe the line with the GOP in DC, in which case he's not an independent and gets voted out, or he breaks with them and gets primaried by someone more "hardline" who gets beaten.

SirFozzie

11-03-2010, 02:35 PM

Some of them are regretting it now.

SirFozzie

11-03-2010, 02:36 PM

I don't think Brown really stands a chance of getting reelected. He either has to toe the line with the GOP in DC, in which case he's not an independent and gets voted out, or he breaks with them and gets primaried by someone more "hardline" who gets beaten.

I'd put it at 40-45% myself that he retains. He'd have the 5-10% incumbent bump.. yes he'd lose a lot of the tea party fervor, but I think the incumbent bump is enough that he could possibly win.

RainMaker

11-03-2010, 02:38 PM

If you do see signs of compromise then you're definitely going to see the House swing back, because there'll be precious few people willing to vote for GOP candidates who give the D's an inch.
I think you're overthinking this. Hardcore partisians still don't make up a huge part of the voting block. Elections are won by moderates and independents who vote. Every election we hear about how such and such party needs to become more liberal and more conservative. But they don't. They have those votes already. Sure there is an element of firing up your base and getting them to the polls, but ultimately you have to sway that 33% of the country that doesn't have a party and doesn't mind voting for either one in any given election.

It's why this country hasn't elected a far right conservative or far left liberal in ages. Why the two last Presidents people generally think were good (Reagan and Clinton) were both as moderate as they come.

This country will never be conservative or liberal no matter what you want or believe. There are too many states that won't allow it to happen.

RainMaker

11-03-2010, 02:42 PM

Honestly, while I disagree with their message, I found this RedState thread on political targets to be interesting reading. Some interesting discussion on GOTV campaigns, etcetera, and I have to say, I don't like the way it's being spun elsewhere that this puts Brown and Snowe on some kind of "hit list". This is a list of GOP Senators coming up for reelection in 2012.

Potential Tea Party Targets for 2012 | RedState (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/03/potential-tea-party-targets-for-2012/)
I understand what they are trying to do, but it's also clear that they are semi-retarded when it comes to politics. Scott Brown is about as good as they can expect out of Massachusetts. Knocking him out with a tea party candidate just means they lose the seat by 40 points in the general election. It's just plain stupidity.

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 02:48 PM

I understand what they are trying to do, but it's also clear that they are semi-retarded when it comes to politics. Scott Brown is about as good as they can expect out of Massachusetts. Knocking him out with a tea party candidate just means they lose the seat by 40 points in the general election. It's just plain stupidity.

I'm all for their knocking him out with a tea party candidate then!!! :D

DaddyTorgo

11-03-2010, 02:50 PM

Question - how'd Maes end up doing? Is the GOP a minor-party there now for the next couple election cycles because he didn't get over 10%?

larrymcg421

11-03-2010, 03:01 PM

If appellate justices are going to legislate, I guess it's fair that we subject them to vote. If appellate justices are going to be the deciders of whether gay marriage is "good or bad" instead of doing their jobs, the people should have some direct say in their appointment.

It can work both ways. People can also retain (or in some states, actually vote in) appellate justices who will support gay marriage regardless of the law, if that's what they want.

There is SO much potential for corruption of the judiciary, now more than ever, as their power grows and grows, it's scary.

"regardless of the law"?

The 14th Amendment is the law. State law cannot violate that, so I'd say they did their job.

And making judges have to run for office adds to the potential for corruption, not decreases it. You have judges taking corporate campaign donations and then hearing cases involving that company.

Ksyrup

11-03-2010, 03:09 PM

And making judges have to run for office adds to the potential for corruption, not decreases it. You have judges taking corporate campaign donations and then hearing cases involving that company.

I don't know what's in the water in WV, but they've been at the forefront of these issues the last couple of years.

http://www.wvpubcast.org/newsarticle.aspx?id=9936

New Recusal Controversy in West Virginia High Court - The BLT: The Blog of Legal Times (http://legaltimes.typepad.com/blt/2010/09/new-recusal-controversy-in-west-virginia-high-court.html)

molson

11-03-2010, 03:12 PM

The 14th Amendment is the law. State law cannot violate that, so I'd say they did their job.

Even Obama thinks (i.e. says, whatever) gay marriage is a state issue.

Greyroofoo

11-03-2010, 03:15 PM

Even Obama thinks (i.e. says, whatever) gay marriage is a state issue.

Oddly enough Dick Cheney does too

molson

11-03-2010, 03:16 PM

That doesn't matter. States still have to follow the _US_ Constitution.

The right to same-sex marriage is not guaranteed by the U.S. constitution. (says most people, including Obama)

The people can certainly give that right to people in their states (only because the Bush administration failed at putting together some kind of real marriage protection act banning gay marriage nationwide....expansive federal power can also take rights away).

Galaxy

11-03-2010, 03:19 PM

One, you can make doctoring more attractive by making it more like the very well-paid public service it is in the rest of the world. In other words, free or low cost for medical school so yes, you won't be making 250k a year as a private practice, but you won't have 500k in medical school bills either. Plus, actual reform of malpractice (which would be actual reform of malpractice insurance, not lawsuit caps).

As for Medicare, 92% of private physicians still accept Medicare. Second, many doctors will get higher reimbusrments from Medicare and Medicaid due to the ACA. Now, I'll admit, this is bad news for insurers. But, it is good news for health care providers. For example, the AMA estimates that doctors provided about 24 billion in charity care. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/26/AR2010032604387.html?hpid=topnews) Thanks to ACA, that number will go down.

There's also the simple fact that when you actually poll doctors, 63% wanted a public option (which was in many ways, expanding Medicare to more people) and another 10% wanted a single-payer system.

You're still not addressing the issue of costs and quality control, just who is going to fund the expanded spending under your ideas (and if you are able to fund it).