The Obama Presidency - 2008 & 2012

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by stevew

heh, a democratic house canidate in Virginia 1 is named Krystal Ball. Surely someone has mentioned this before, but if not, it's hilarious.

I did not know that. I am grateful to have that knowledge

SI

[larrymcg421]

So not happy with what's about to happen tomorrow. I predict GOP +55 in the House and +7 in the Senate.

The one loss above all that really hurts is Feingold. He's a great man and has been a great Senator. The only guy that had the guts to vote against the Patriot Act. Was against the war from the beginning. Wisonsin is about to turn their backs on him.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Here's some pre-tally punditry for you, no charge: It'll be a night of GOP gains but not at the record-shattering levels that have been discussed in some circles today & about 3 short of retaking the Senate.

Right now I'm leaning toward something a couple of seats short of the 53 currently predicted by 538. I think the early balloting will counteract the continued fall in the polls in a few races, just enough to change the expected outcomes.

[JPhillips]

The next two years are going to be 95-97 all over again. The only thing, though, I really worry about is the glee that so many in the GOP feel for pushing the country into default. If they really refuse to increase the debt limit we're all screwed.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

So not happy with what's about to happen tomorrow. I predict GOP +55 in the House and +7 in the Senate.

The one loss above all that really hurts is Feingold. He's a great man and has been a great Senator. The only guy that had the guts to vote against the Patriot Act. Was against the war from the beginning. Wisonsin is about to turn their backs on him.

As a resident of Wisconsin, I'm absolutely ashamed that we are about to throw Feingold out of office. Especially for Ron Johnson. The guy has absolutely no ideas.

I wish it would've been Herb Kohl up for reelection this year rather than Feingold.

[JPhillips]

And my prediction is a huge wave.

House +66

Senate +9 (and a Lieberman shift to throw the Senate to the GOP)

[RainMaker]

Weren't the Republicans expected to keep the Senate in 2006 but didn't? Seems similar to this election. I'm guessing that the wave is much bigger than people expect because the people who vote for change will be much more motivated than those who don't.

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

Weren't the Republicans expected to keep the Senate in 2006 but didn't? Seems similar to this election. I'm guessing that the wave is much bigger than people expect because the people who vote for change will be much more motivated than those who don't.

Rightly or wrongly, this is the first election I can remember where there's a bit of a backlash, tho. I can't remember the last time I've heard a few people say "I wouldn't normally vote but the other guy is batshit crazy".

That said, it's probably still going to be a pretty ugly night for the Dems. As usual, their specialty is screwing up elections and this one was going to be a loss either way. But their ineptitude of being able to stay on message and their complete lack of unity on much of anything isn't going to help.

Five Thirty Eight has some "fun" reading from both sides, if you want to try to feel optimistic about one side's chances:
5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected - NYTimes.com
5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House - NYTimes.com

SI

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

I can't remember the last time I've heard a few people say "I wouldn't normally vote but the other guy is batshit crazy".

Hey, that's the price the Libertarians pay for being on the ballot. Welcome to Hollywood

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

Rightly or wrongly, this is the first election I can remember where there's a bit of a backlash, tho. I can't remember the last time I've heard a few people say "I wouldn't normally vote but the other guy is batshit crazy".

That said, it's probably still going to be a pretty ugly night for the Dems. As usual, their specialty is screwing up elections and this one was going to be a loss either way. But their ineptitude of being able to stay on message and their complete lack of unity on much of anything isn't going to help.

Five Thirty Eight has some "fun" reading from both sides, if you want to try to feel optimistic about one side's chances:
5 Reasons Republicans Could Do Even Better Than Expected - NYTimes.com
5 Reasons Democrats Could Beat the Polls and Hold the House - NYTimes.com

SI

I think 2006 had that backlash feel to it. Maybe not the crazy people running thing, but it had a lot of people who decided they needed to get their representative out of office. And 2008 saw a lot of people who wouldn't normally vote head out to the polls for various reasons.

These days elections are mainly backlash elections. With cable news on 24/7 and an endless stream of hate speech on TV and radio, you're just going to have tons of people riled up about something every 2 years.

[JonInMiddleGA]

My relatively lukewarm endorsements for today's Georgia ballot are now on the blog Election Day 2010 « Jon's Three Cents

[stevew]

Today is the first time I've voted in about 16 years. I don't see a point in trading my relatively moderate democrat for a republican, but I suppose she will lose. Sestak vs Toomey is just an ugly choice to make.

[Buccaneer]

So that is what it comes down to? When reading the people's comments on many articles and opinions, the Democrats only argument is not to have Republitards (of whatever they call them) back in control. It's not vote for us in the positive but vote for us because of the negatives of the past. Perhaps there are no positives in our current system of two-party politics? Two years ago, I went on and on about the evils of a one-party government. I was right and now it is your chance to have a split Congress. Keep the Senate Dems but make the House Reps. In 2012, we can reshuffle the deck again as long as it cannot be a one-party government.

[miked]

Voted this morning. Want to puke seeing all these options on the ballot. Nathan Deal? Really? Against Roy Barnes? Does anyone remember the 49th ranked education system he ran? Casey Cagle? Johnny Isaakson? It's like the who's who of the robovotes. I had to laugh seeing all these commercials with Isaakson talking about how spending was out of control and he was for reducing taxes and cutting spending...neither of which he did in his first term. But in GA all you have to do is shout out against gays, stem cell research, and taxes and you'll get the votes. Even Barnes wanted to adopt an Arizona-style immigration bill.

And I voted heck no on 1. It stinks of corporate bullying/bribery of the legislation to uphold these awful no-bid, anti-compete contacts. I would expect Nathan Deal to love this since a company he had a stake in (or owned) as a congressman got a very nice no-bid, exclusive deal that was very lucrative for them. I don't want to give these fools any more power than they already have, let alone ones that allow them to pick and choose no-bid deals that exclude competition.

[Neon_Chaos]

Many of my friends and in Cali are hopeful for the passage of Prop 19.

[molson]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

Many of my friends and in Cali are hopeful for the passage of Prop 19.

There's nothing I want more than THE decisive fed/state fight to be over marijuana. Then we'll have something people care about at stake, then we'll have something so many people believe is within the proper legislating powers of the states and their individual and unique culture/history.

Just voted myself. I used a six-tier process for the most part.

1. Eliminate anybody whom I have at least second-hand knowledge of corrupt practices.
2. For national legislators - vote for anyone with big ideas and actual proven actions regarding energy reform/alternative energy.
3. After that, any 3rd party/independent candidates with a pulse that are at least somewhat competent for the job.
4. After that, eliminate anyone with a high enough degree of liberal smugness that it reminds me of FOFC. Those candidates often allege beliefs in some honorable things, but they tend to think they're already god's gift to politics and the world, and won't have to deliver anything in office.
5. If there's still multiple candidates for an office, go with the democrat if they preach/act on financial restraint to any degree at all. (State republicans lose to the final tiebreaker for me, because they operate such a cartel in this state. So I always like to see a few of them getting kicked out here and there so they don't get too comfortable).
6. For non-political positions (like coroner) go with the guy already in office unless he screwed something up since last election bad enough for me to know about it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by miked

And I voted heck no on 1. It stinks of corporate bullying/bribery of the legislation to uphold these awful no-bid, anti-compete contacts.

Do you mean 3 & 4 perhaps? Those dealt with allowing government agencies to enter into multi-year contracts.

A1 was about making non-competes a bit more enforceable in Georgia, while R1 (the only referendum on the ballot) had to do with removing the ad valorem tax from inventory on hand (something that only a handful of states still do).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So that is what it comes down to? When reading the people's comments on many articles and opinions, the Democrats only argument is not to have Republitards (of whatever they call them) back in control. It's not vote for us in the positive but vote for us because of the negatives of the past. Perhaps there are no positives in our current system of two-party politics? Two years ago, I went on and on about the evils of a one-party government. I was right and now it is your chance to have a split Congress. Keep the Senate Dems but make the House Reps. In 2012, we can reshuffle the deck again as long as it cannot be a one-party government.

I'm not going to defend the weak-kneed, ineffectual Congressional Dems and I won't feel sorry for the vast majority of those that have to go be lobbyists next year. However, it's not in my power to establish a split government. All I can do is vote for a Rep and, in an odd twist in NY, two Senators. Shouldn't I vote for the people I think will do the best job at advancing the policies I think are important?

[stevew]

LOL at all these states that have dozens of shit to vote for. Our ballot in PA? 5 choices.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

My relatively lukewarm endorsements for today's Georgia ballot are now on the blog Election Day 2010 « Jon's Three Cents

Somewhat surprisingly, I'm actually with you on #2, though certainly for different reasons.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

So that is what it comes down to? When reading the people's comments on many articles and opinions, the Democrats only argument is not to have Republitards (of whatever they call them) back in control. It's not vote for us in the positive but vote for us because of the negatives of the past. Perhaps there are no positives in our current system of two-party politics? Two years ago, I went on and on about the evils of a one-party government. I was right and now it is your chance to have a split Congress. Keep the Senate Dems but make the House Reps. In 2012, we can reshuffle the deck again as long as it cannot be a one-party government.

Yay, Bucc is here to lecture us again!

Am I disappointed in the Democrats? Sure. But why am I going to vote for a party that runs counter to everything I believe in? Not gonna happen. I don't care who's in charge of what branch.

Also, it's pretty silly to argue we have one party government with the current Supreme Court.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by miked

Voted this morning. Want to puke seeing all these options on the ballot. Nathan Deal? Really? Against Roy Barnes? Does anyone remember the 49th ranked education system he ran? Casey Cagle? Johnny Isaakson? It's like the who's who of the robovotes. I had to laugh seeing all these commercials with Isaakson talking about how spending was out of control and he was for reducing taxes and cutting spending...neither of which he did in his first term. But in GA all you have to do is shout out against gays, stem cell research, and taxes and you'll get the votes. Even Barnes wanted to adopt an Arizona-style immigration bill.

And I voted heck no on 1. It stinks of corporate bullying/bribery of the legislation to uphold these awful no-bid, anti-compete contacts. I would expect Nathan Deal to love this since a company he had a stake in (or owned) as a congressman got a very nice no-bid, exclusive deal that was very lucrative for them. I don't want to give these fools any more power than they already have, let alone ones that allow them to pick and choose no-bid deals that exclude competition.

What's #1 about?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

What's #1 about?

#1 involves a change in state law, which would allow courts to enforce provisions in non-compete clauses that were deemed legal/reasonable while rejecting provisions which were disallowed by the court for whatever reason.

Under current Georgia law, if any portion is found to be improper then the entire agreement is deemed unenforceable.

[Izulde]

It was a tough choice for me whether to keep my Wisconsin registration or switch to Nevada. In the end, I decided I needed to fight Tea Party insanity in Nevada more.

Feingold and Reid both being ousted, which looks fairly likely to happen, would be a damn shame. Two long-serving Senators who have done a lot of good for their respective states.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Izulde

In the end, I decided I needed to fight Tea Party insanity in Nevada more.

Entirely meaningless of course but FWIW I'd be more surprised if Reid lost than I would if Feingold lost.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Entirely meaningless of course but FWIW I'd be more surprised if Reid lost than I would if Feingold lost.

No doubt. Feingold is toast unless the pollsters are way off. Reid might win only because he's up against Angle. If the GOP nominated a sane candidate, Reid would be losing as badly as Blanche Lincoln.

Also is the fact that McConnell has not campaigned against Reid, probably realizing that he'd rather work with Harry Reid than Chuck Schumer (who would be Majority Leader if Reid loses).

[JPhillips]

I think Reid's a good man, but he's been a terribly ineffective leader. Regardless of whether he wins or loses he should be replaced.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Dems never replace ineffective leaders.

[Butter]

Reid and Pelosi have both been awful. I will be glad to see someone else as the legislative face of the party for a change, frankly.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Reid and Pelosi have both been awful. I will be glad to see someone else as the legislative face of the party for a change, frankly.

But at the price of having Sharron "Sharia law is being implemented in the US!" Angle in the Senate for 6 years?

[Young Drachma]

This is the third election season I've lived in a different state, so I'm always sort of woefully behind on the intensely locale issues and I don't feel enough kinship to either of the major parties to feel the need to protest and vote.

Same day voting is great, but...the only candidate I'd vote for is someone I actually had a class in college who is running for an at-large city council, but truth be told...I've seen him in town a few times and even though he did add me on Facebook, he never actually said hello and hilarious and petty as this is, that's off-putting. Plus, I know nothing about who he's running against.

It's a strange universe for a guy who was actively involved in campaigns into my early 20s, but...I've just soured largely on the remarkable state of our political affairs these days. It's weird, but I don't really feel all that bad about it.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

Reid and Pelosi have both been awful. I will be glad to see someone else as the legislative face of the party for a change, frankly.

What's Pelosi done wrong? She's no Tip O'Neill, but she's been pretty effective as a leader IMO.

[Butter]

How so?

[Butter]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

But at the price of having Sharron "Sharia law is being implemented in the US!" Angle in the Senate for 6 years?

Hey, I didn't say there wouldn't be costs.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I think Reid's a good man, but he's been a terribly ineffective leader. Regardless of whether he wins or loses he should be replaced.

Yeah, yeah, I know. Dems never replace ineffective leaders.

I just worry about what's going to happen with the state of Nevada if Angle's elected. There's a world of difference in power between your state having the Senate Majority Leader and having a crackhead freshman Senator everyone avoids (I forget who Nevada's other senator is).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Since this is also kind of a general election thread, I'll share this here.

Been voting 25 years as of this election, in precincts from tiny towns to metro Atlanta but a few minutes ago was the very first time I've ever spoken to a poll worker about improper campaigning activities on-site. I mean, the "no campaigning within 150 feet of a polling place" rule has existed my entire recollection & no matter where I lived it seemed pretty much respected (largely because it was so easy to get spanked for & so obvious when you do it). But on the front porch of the polling site, just around the corner from the entrance used by voters, there's a trio of half-wits waving their signs for all their worth.

Poll workers said they've been dealing with them most of the day, moving them back to the required distance & then going back again as the slowly creep back inside the line.

Irony, for the FOFC folks here who think they know me at least, is that the morons are backing the most conservative guy in a local school board race (that I didn't even know existed until yesterday) whose major campaign plank is the desire to create public charter schools based on "the teaching of God's word". Well intentioned or not, I quickly dismiss anyone campaigning on the basis of something they have zero percent chance of successfully accomplishing & voted for one of his competitors without much hesitation.

[SirFozzie]

My prediction: 65 House Seats lost, and in the Senate, Dems JUST survive with 51 senators. (If it's 50, the biggest ever full court press will happen with Lieberman)

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

My prediction: 65 House Seats lost, and in the Senate, Dems JUST survive with 51 senators. (If it's 50, the biggest ever full court press will happen with Lieberman)

65 and 51 seems like a pretty worst-case scenario.

I just don't see it being that bad. Not that it's going to be GOOD, but I can't see my way to it being that bad.

[molson]

I see a projection for 51.6 Democrat Senators.

I'm all for that depending on which two senators they plan on cutting in half to make that work.

[Greyroofoo]

Originally Posted by molson

I see a projection for 51.6 Democrat Senators.

I'm all for that depending on which two senators they plan on cutting in half to make that work.

Maybe Christine O'Donnel could make it happen with her witchcraft

[Swaggs]

I wouldn't want to be Ben Nelson's or Joe Lieberman's cell phone tomorrow morning.

[JediKooter]

As long as Dewey defeats Truman, all should be well.

[larrymcg421]

Love to see McCain making a last minute effort to get Sharron Angle. I mean, seriously? She's exactly the opposite type of Republican he's been throughout his career. What a joke.

[Izulde]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Love to see McCain making a last minute effort to get Sharron Angle. I mean, seriously? She's exactly the opposite type of Republican he's been throughout his career. What a joke.

Yeah it's sad to see how he's declined the last few years.

That said, Angle is probably going to win, much as I hate to say it. Reid's elections have always been extremely close to begin with, and while southern Nevada usually votes Democrat and northern Nevada Republican, Reno, a traditional Democratic stronghold, is likely going to be much closer, if not go red, because Angle's from there.

And in a race this close, that could well be the difference.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Love to see McCain making a last minute effort to get Sharron Angle. I mean, seriously? She's exactly the opposite type of Republican he's been throughout his career. What a joke.

While it is sad to see the demise of McCain, I can see him getting out the vote for Angle because knocking off the Senate Majority Leader is a HUGE deal.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

Even conservatives admit she's been an effective speaker. But, if you want things done. OK. A larger stimulus, a health care bill w/ a public option, cap 'n' trade passed, a better financial reform bill, and about 450 bills that were passed waiting for the Senate to do anything about them.

I would argue that getting these passed were good for her, however, to pass them and allow your party to get steamrolled in the next election for passing them is not.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I would argue that getting these passed were good for her, however, to pass them and allow your party to get steamrolled in the next election for passing them is not.

I completely disagree. The prize is governing, not winning elections. IMO the biggest problem with Senate Dems is that too many of them see reelection as the ultimate goal. There's no point in me voting for someone who isn't prepared to do anything when they get to Washington.

[dbd1963]

Wish there was an option between "met most" and "average" because Obama has done quite a bit to change things in ways I like, but he did NOT try very hard for changes I'd have liked more. Public option would have saved billions, didn't even try. (In fact, rumor has it he'd already promised the health care lobby he would get that off the table.)

But changes like these are very hard to accomplish in ordinary times. The opposition is very vocal, support not so strong during a "great recession." I don't know how much more he realistically could have done. He shows himself to be a pragmatist, which is probably actually the best thing for us at this time.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

I would argue that getting these passed were good for her, however, to pass them and allow your party to get steamrolled in the next election for passing them is not.

Of course, let's not forget that Clinton, who wimped out on Health Care and Gays in the Military, still got steamrolled in his first midterm by about the same amount that we're about to see today.

I am disappointed with a number of things Obama has done, but I admire him for doing what it took to get Health Care reform passed. Sure, it was watered down and he spent all of his politicap capitol to do it, but it was worth it to get something done finally. Pre-existing conditions gone. Lifetime caps done. Everyone has access to coverage. All of these are good things.

[JPhillips]

Outside of civil liberties, which is a huge black eye, I don't have a lot of issues with Obama. My problems come with the weak-willed, useless Congressional delegation. That's why it's hard for me to get too upset that a bunch of them are going to start their careers as lobbyists.

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

"The result was passage of the most important social legislation in decades."

Wow, the legacy of that health care "reform" gets better and better every day. The attitude sure was different back when the public option was first kicked, and right when the health insurance company lobbyists were assured their interests would be taken care of first. Makes you wonder why anyone could argue that a public option, or even a single-player system, was needed at all when what we ended up with was so glorious anyway.