2010 Midterm Election

[Neon_Chaos]

Originally Posted by jbergey22

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Neon_Chaos

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]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

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.

[lungs]

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

[JPhillips]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

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]

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

[Mizzou B-ball fan]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

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

[Ksyrup]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Alan T

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by panerd

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]

Originally Posted by Butter_of_69

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Alan T

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/20...-middle-ground

[JPhillips]

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

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

Ugh.

Never underestimate the collective stupidty of the majority of Americans.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by King of New York

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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.

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

[JPhillips]

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]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

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]

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]

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


seriously? and he won???

[chesapeake]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

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]

Originally Posted by Chubby

• 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]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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]

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]

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

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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.

Originally Posted by Chubby

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

Did he tap his foot?

[larrymcg421]

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

Iowans dismiss three justices | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

[Buccaneer]

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.

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

Iowans dismiss three justices | desmoinesregister.com | The Des Moines Register

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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.