2010 Midterm Election

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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]

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

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

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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]

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

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.

What do you think about this article from Fortune:

Who can magically fix the economy? No one - Full version - Oct. 15, 2010

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by Greyroofoo

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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

[Noop]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by chesapeake

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]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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

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

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Peregrine

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]

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]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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

Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn’t Easy - NYTimes.com

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

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by Noop

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]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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

When Medicare Falls Short - NYTimes.com

Finding a Doctor Who Accepts Medicare Isn’t Easy - NYTimes.com

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]

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

[SirFozzie]

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Some of them are regretting it now.

[SirFozzie]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by SirFozzie

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

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]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

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!!!

[DaddyTorgo]

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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

Oddly enough Dick Cheney does too

[molson]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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]

Originally Posted by SteveBollea

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. 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).