Ye Olde US Midterm Elections Thread (With Extra Vitimins)

[East Lithuania]

I wanna join up with them, they're just not all that big.

They're the largest Third Party in the USA.

Surprised it's not the Green Party. I'll stick with non-party labels though.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

The party leadership cannot speak for its members.

Actually I think they can. It's kinda the job for leaderships. Sorry but the Teabaggers are NOT Libertarians, even the Libertarian Party says so. I'd say the Teabaggers are radical Neocons, which is just scary.

Well, some of them and their leaders do have that tendency.... They ought to learn from the UK tories in defence spending.

[Greed and Death]

They're the largest Third Party in the USA.

Surprised it's not the Green Party. I'll stick with non-party labels though.

Depends on the election.
IF the democrats win big libertarians come in 3rd.
If the Republicans win big the green come in 3rd.
Libertarians is where the GOP goes when made at the GOP and the green is where the democrats go when mad at the democrats.
Though the libertarians are the only 3rd party on every state ballot.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Glad Pelosi is out. Reid should have lost and let the Dems have a better Senate leader. At the very least all of Obama's "bipartisan" promises will have to come true if ANYTHING needs to get down w/o Obama's executive orders.

Actually, from 2008-2010, Obama HAS been bipartisan, it's just that the Republicans, being the spoiled brats that they are, were obstructing him. I honestly don't see how this is going to change for Obama, but hopefully the "My way or the highway" attitude of the Republicans will be amplified in the House and the people will vote them right back out.

How is it you define "Bipartisan"? There are a couple ways, but the broadest definition is that the desires of both major parties are reconciled into an act, law, bill, etc. I'm not sure I've ever seen bipartisanship in that sense from the Obama administration, or from the Democrats, in the last 2 years.

But keep drinking the kool-aid. It suits you.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Reid announces compromise with the GOP will be key policy of Senate.

Reid is scared to death that he'll lose his job in 6 years, if he doesn't.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

Actually, from 2008-2010, Obama HAS been bipartisan, it's just that the Republicans, being the spoiled brats that they are, were obstructing him. I honestly don't see how this is going to change for Obama, but hopefully the "My way or the highway" attitude of the Republicans will be amplified in the House and the people will vote them right back out.

How is it you define "Bipartisan"? There are a couple ways, but the broadest definition is that the desires of both major parties are reconciled into an act, law, bill, etc. I'm not sure I've ever seen bipartisanship in that sense from the Obama administration, or from the Democrats, in the last 2 years.

But keep drinking the kool-aid. It suits you.

I don't think being bipartisan is as important as getting facts and figures right. Imagine if Polk had been "bipartisan" on the war.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

How is it you define "Bipartisan"? There are a couple ways, but the broadest definition is that the desires of both major parties are reconciled into an act, law, bill, etc. I'm not sure I've ever seen bipartisanship in that sense from the Obama administration, or from the Democrats, in the last 2 years.

But keep drinking the kool-aid. It suits you.

I don't think being bipartisan is as important as getting facts and figures right. Imagine if Polk had been "bipartisan" on the war.

I disagree. Governing _is_ compromise. I don't imaging Polk had as much trouble getting support for expansionism, as Obama has had for any of his dictates.

[Eternal Yerushalayim]

I don't think being bipartisan is as important as getting facts and figures right. Imagine if Polk had been "bipartisan" on the war.

I disagree. Governing _is_ compromise. I don't imaging Polk had as much trouble getting support for expansionism, as Obama has had for any of his dictates.

This might be true, but it is also right that liberty must always be protected from an outspoken majority, and many of their measures have not reflected this. Furthermore, experience shows that the free market can correct most imbalances by itself as long as government maintains a careful fiscal, monetary and taxation policy.

P.S Many of the liberal ideas are not reforms, but innovations. Which do not draw from the capital of the ages.

[Wilgrove]

Actually, from 2008-2010, Obama HAS been bipartisan, it's just that the Republicans, being the spoiled brats that they are, were obstructing him. I honestly don't see how this is going to change for Obama, but hopefully the "My way or the highway" attitude of the Republicans will be amplified in the House and the people will vote them right back out.

How is it you define "Bipartisan"? There are a couple ways, but the broadest definition is that the desires of both major parties are reconciled into an act, law, bill, etc. I'm not sure I've ever seen bipartisanship in that sense from the Obama administration, or from the Democrats, in the last 2 years.

But keep drinking the kool-aid. It suits you.

Obama has reached across the isle on the healthcare bill and has actually included many stimulus that the Pubs wanted, and actually included a clause that it won't provide federal funding for abortions. When you're willing to reach across the isle and hear what the other side has to say and compromise, then that's bipartisanship.

[Farnhamia]

How is it you define "Bipartisan"? There are a couple ways, but the broadest definition is that the desires of both major parties are reconciled into an act, law, bill, etc. I'm not sure I've ever seen bipartisanship in that sense from the Obama administration, or from the Democrats, in the last 2 years.

But keep drinking the kool-aid. It suits you.

Obama has reached across the isle on the healthcare bill and has actually included many stimulus that the Pubs wanted, and actually included a clause that it won't provide federal funding for abortions. When you're willing to reach across the isle and hear what the other side has to say and compromise, then that's bipartisanship.

Not in the Republican Dictionary. There it's defined as "doing what we say even when you know we're just going to vote against it anyway."

[Wilgrove]

Obama has reached across the isle on the healthcare bill and has actually included many stimulus that the Pubs wanted, and actually included a clause that it won't provide federal funding for abortions. When you're willing to reach across the isle and hear what the other side has to say and compromise, then that's bipartisanship.

Not in the Republican Dictionary. There it's defined as "doing what we say even when you know we're just going to vote against it anyway."

Which is why I find it funny that the Republicans said that they want to compromise. Yea, where was this in 2008-2010? NOW you want to compromise? It's bullshit.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Not in the Republican Dictionary. There it's defined as "doing what we say even when you know we're just going to vote against it anyway."

Which is why I find it funny that the Republicans said that they want to compromise. Yea, where was this in 2008-2010? NOW you want to compromise? It's bullshit.

That's all nonsense -- revisionist nonsense. The Democratic agenda was passed without any Republican support because they didn't need it. The Republican minority offered plenty of amendments to all the crap that was passed in Congress, but the leadership didn't allow votes on any of them. The crowning bit of arrogance was the idea that the ObamaCare bill needed to be enacted before we could appreciate how great is was. Hearings and debate would have brought that to light and would have avoided passing a poor law.

The Democrats are the ones that absolutely need to learn the word 'compromise'.

[Muravyets]

Which is why I find it funny that the Republicans said that they want to compromise. Yea, where was this in 2008-2010? NOW you want to compromise? It's bullshit.

That's all nonsense -- revisionist nonsense. The Democratic agenda was passed without any Republican support because they didn't need it. The Republican minority offered plenty of amendments to all the crap that was passed in Congress, but the leadership didn't allow votes on any of them. The crowning bit of arrogance was the idea that the ObamaCare bill needed to be enacted before we could appreciate how great is was. Hearings and debate would have brought that to light and would have avoided passing a poor law.

The Democrats are the ones that absolutely need to learn the word 'compromise'.

And the Republicans need to learn the word 'no'. It is not a synonym for 'cooperation', and their slogan claim during the past two years that they would be the "Party of No" dedicated to the blocking or repeal of every Obama measure - backed up by their real world action to obstruct or block every single piece of legislation and presidential appointment during that period - does not fool anyone (but them, perhaps) into thinking they were looking for compromise.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

That's all nonsense -- revisionist nonsense. The Democratic agenda was passed without any Republican support because they didn't need it. The Republican minority offered plenty of amendments to all the crap that was passed in Congress, but the leadership didn't allow votes on any of them. The crowning bit of arrogance was the idea that the ObamaCare bill needed to be enacted before we could appreciate how great is was. Hearings and debate would have brought that to light and would have avoided passing a poor law.

The Democrats are the ones that absolutely need to learn the word 'compromise'.

And the Republicans need to learn the word 'no'. It is not a synonym for 'cooperation', and their slogan claim during the past two years that they would be the "Party of No" dedicated to the blocking or repeal of every Obama measure does not fool anyone (but them, perhaps) into thinking they were looking for compromise.

I think they got it right. Since they weren't offered a chance to participate and improve legislation, stalling whatever they could was the right tactic. And it resonated with the country, as we see today.

It would be better if we had a Congress that could compromise, but that doesn't seem likely. The minority party only has so many tools at its disposal and delay is certainly a valid one.

[Helertia]

Which is why I find it funny that the Republicans said that they want to compromise. Yea, where was this in 2008-2010? NOW you want to compromise? It's bullshit.

That's all nonsense -- revisionist nonsense. The Democratic agenda was passed without any Republican support because they didn't need it. The Republican minority offered plenty of amendments to all the crap that was passed in Congress, but the leadership didn't allow votes on any of them. The crowning bit of arrogance was the idea that the ObamaCare bill needed to be enacted before we could appreciate how great is was. Hearings and debate would have brought that to light and would have avoided passing a poor law.

The Democrats are the ones that absolutely need to learn the word 'compromise'.

Democrats needed to compromise? The legislation they enacted was so diluted because of attempts to comprosmise that the schemes were practically homeopathy.

[Muravyets]

And the Republicans need to learn the word 'no'. It is not a synonym for 'cooperation', and their slogan claim during the past two years that they would be the "Party of No" dedicated to the blocking or repeal of every Obama measure does not fool anyone (but them, perhaps) into thinking they were looking for compromise.

I think they got it right. Since they weren't offered a chance to participate and improve legislation, stalling whatever they could was the right tactic. And it resonated with the country, as we see today.

It would be better if we had a Congress that could compromise, but that doesn't seem likely. The minority party only has so many tools at its disposal and delay is certainly a valid one.

Of course you think they're right. In your view, which is utterly partisan and dedicated to destroying compromise not building it, you portray Republican refusal to compromise as a sign of good faith, and Democratic failure to overcome that stubborn refusal to cooperate as a sign of dishonesty. And like the Republican Party of whom you are such a fan, you dress up their obstructionism in claims that they were cut out of the process, in direct contradiction of the documented facts that every single piece of legislation in Congress must be drafted and amended from start to finish by BOTH parties, represented by BIPARTISAN committees. It must be fun to tell a lie in order to call the other side liars. That must be why the GOP does it so often.

There are several words to describe such an argument as yours. One of them is "laughable."

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

That's all nonsense -- revisionist nonsense. The Democratic agenda was passed without any Republican support because they didn't need it. The Republican minority offered plenty of amendments to all the crap that was passed in Congress, but the leadership didn't allow votes on any of them. The crowning bit of arrogance was the idea that the ObamaCare bill needed to be enacted before we could appreciate how great is was. Hearings and debate would have brought that to light and would have avoided passing a poor law.

The Democrats are the ones that absolutely need to learn the word 'compromise'.

And the Republicans need to learn the word 'no'. It is not a synonym for 'cooperation', and their slogan claim during the past two years that they would be the "Party of No" dedicated to the blocking or repeal of every Obama measure - backed up by their real world action to obstruct or block every single piece of legislation and presidential appointment during that period - does not fool anyone (but them, perhaps) into thinking they were looking for compromise.

Actually the Democrats coined the phrase "Party of No"... But don't let the facts bother you.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010 ... -democrats

September 21, 2010|By Dennis Byrne

Mindless of the din arising from the crowds of supposed hicks, reactionaries, bigots, dupes and dolts gathering to bring down their party, Democrats have coined what they believe is a nifty campaign slogan to describe the opposition: "the party of no."

No ideas, no platform, no positive affirmations, no help for the tired, poor and huddled masses. No agenda for what they would do when they take over Congress (if they should be so lucky). Witless rabble, far outside the mainstream, who have no solutions, only "no-we-can'ts."

[Helertia]

And the Republicans need to learn the word 'no'. It is not a synonym for 'cooperation', and their slogan claim during the past two years that they would be the "Party of No" dedicated to the blocking or repeal of every Obama measure - backed up by their real world action to obstruct or block every single piece of legislation and presidential appointment during that period - does not fool anyone (but them, perhaps) into thinking they were looking for compromise.

Actually the Democrats coined the phrase "Party of No"... But don't let the facts bother you.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010 ... -democrats

September 21, 2010|By Dennis Byrne

Mindless of the din arising from the crowds of supposed hicks, reactionaries, bigots, dupes and dolts gathering to bring down their party, Democrats have coined what they believe is a nifty campaign slogan to describe the opposition: "the party of no."

No ideas, no platform, no positive affirmations, no help for the tired, poor and huddled masses. No agenda for what they would do when they take over Congress (if they should be so lucky). Witless rabble, far outside the mainstream, who have no solutions, only "no-we-can'ts."

They coined it? Hey, the Democracts got something right for once!

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

I think they got it right. Since they weren't offered a chance to participate and improve legislation, stalling whatever they could was the right tactic. And it resonated with the country, as we see today.

It would be better if we had a Congress that could compromise, but that doesn't seem likely. The minority party only has so many tools at its disposal and delay is certainly a valid one.

Of course you think they're right. In your view, which is utterly partisan and dedicated to destroying compromise not building it, you portray Republican refusal to compromise as a sign of good faith, and Democratic failure to overcome that stubborn refusal to cooperate as a sign of dishonesty. And like the Republican Party of whom you are such a fan, you dress up their obstructionism in claims that they were cut out of the process, in direct contradiction of the documented facts that every single piece of legislation in Congress must be drafted and amended from start to finish by BOTH parties, represented by BIPARTISAN committees. It must be fun to tell a lie in order to call the other side liars. That must be why the GOP does it so often.

There are several words to describe such an argument as yours. One of them is "laughable."

Actually, I'm laughing a little, okay -- a lot -- at this idea that you need more than a majority vote in the House and a supermajority vote in the Senate to pass a bill on to the President. When the majority party has those numbers, as did the Democrats from 2008-9, they don't need minority support. So I don't see how BOTH parties were needed to pass legislation. Explain, please.

[Wilgrove]

And the Republicans need to learn the word 'no'. It is not a synonym for 'cooperation', and their slogan claim during the past two years that they would be the "Party of No" dedicated to the blocking or repeal of every Obama measure does not fool anyone (but them, perhaps) into thinking they were looking for compromise.

I think they got it right. Since they weren't offered a chance to participate and improve legislation, stalling whatever they could was the right tactic. And it resonated with the country, as we see today.

It would be better if we had a Congress that could compromise, but that doesn't seem likely. The minority party only has so many tools at its disposal and delay is certainly a valid one.

Dude, MANY of the amendments that were included in the healthcare bill was proposed by The Republicans. Do you notice that we don't have a public option? You can thank the Republicans for that. Notice we don't have federal funding for abortions? Thank the Republicans for that. Hel 40% of the stimulus had tax cuts in it, Republicans are big on tax cuts.

Why don't you try listening to other sources once in awhile instead of always having your head up Rush Limbaugh's and Glenn Beck's ass?

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Actually the Democrats coined the phrase "Party of No"... But don't let the facts bother you.
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2010 ... -democrats

They coined it? Hey, the Democracts got something right for once!

Yeah, but look at who lost more seats in the House, the Senate, the Statehouse, etc. Not a good November for the Dems.

[The Floridian Coast]

This is my piece of optimism for all those on the left who now have to deal with the midterm results. I welcome all feedback, even negative.

10. Florida Gets Fair Redistricting

Decades of Republican gerrymandering have come to an end in Florida. Despite largely Republican wins in the state, Floridians approved ballot measures 5 and 6 which end gerrymandering for both our state districts and national congressional districts. Florida being a vital swing state now might lean a little more blue, and no state more than Florida can make or break elections.

9. The Extremists Still Lost

Sharron Angle, Christine O'Donnell, and presumably now, Ken Buck, some of the most belligerent far right candidates, have failed. Even when independents favor conservatives such as now, there is a certain line moderates are unwilling to cross, and the line has been set. The center may be leaning right, but the far-right's attempt to consume and control the center was without success. Despite changing attitudes, the center will always remain just that - the center, and that gives Democrats another chance with them.

8. Good Riddance, Blanche Lincoln

A corporate Democrat is not preferable to a Republican. As someone who ran with the pride of killing the chance of a public option entering health reform, she could not gather enough support to remain in office. Let's celebrate the unease and unpredictability of a wolf in sheep's clothing no longer holding power. Wolves in wolves' clothing are easier to deal with.


7. And Speaking of Healthcare...

Democrats who voted no on the health reform bill did not fare well in these midterms, and many of them at this point have only a few months left with their time in government. A defining issue has helped many "Blue Dogs" meet their end. While there may be less Democrats in the House by far, the number of Democrats who will oppose Obama directly has likewise faded away.


6. Palin Remains Our Greatest Asset

Palin may win some and lose some for her various candidates that won her endorsement, but as the numbers stand, she is on a losing streak. Murkowski is projected to take Alaska, though she'll caucus with the Republicans, she has helped diminish Alaskan loyalty to Palin in her own state. The GOP is paranoid of her potential Presidential ambitions, and she may yet divide the right one more time.

5. California's and Colorado's Now or Never

With one of the worst budget crises in the United States, with the rise of the Tea Party, and riding the GOP "tsunami", this moment was the closest California ever had in their history to shifting right. But Boxer retained, Brown won, despite extraordinary amounts of money spent against them. In Colorado, despite gains for the House, CO will have a Democratic Senate seat and a Democratic governor. Colorado was also most susceptible to falling to the Republicans, but they held strong, and like Florida, it is a vital swing state. So California and Colorado both missed chances to swing to the right, chances that might not come again.

4. And Speaking of Money...

Outside money can buy some of the people some of the time, but it can't buy all of the people all of the time. Being outspent did not consistently result in being outvoted. And the White House's condemnation of foreign money unleashed by Citizens United has worked as well as it can work in this political climate. Expect to see Americans more distrustful than ever of the Chamber of Commerce.


3. The Courts Have Stayed Steady

With the repeal of Don't Ask Don't Tell, courts still make it clear that they will do with the government won't. Despite the stays and injunctions, the policy will end. Meanwhile, a federal court ruling the healthcare insurance mandate constitutional has shaken the right-wing faith in the judicial system. And most significantly, Obama has successfully put 2 new justices on the Supreme Court. 2 women who can more than ever help preserve Roe v. Wade, cementing it even further as absolutely settled law. Obama may not have shifted the balance, but he made sure to use his 2 years of power well, and the right now will have to wait to try to shift the balance off the charts in their favor.

2. So Much Has Been Done, And Won't Go Away

No one can tell at this point whether Obama will gain a second term or what the power shifts of the future might hold. But the truth is, the 111th Congress has been vastly productive. Credit Card Reform, Stimulus, Health Reform, Unemployment Extensions, Nuclear Weapons Reduction, Wall Street Reform, and a safeguarding of profitable TARP. Those are just the big wins. The Lilly Ledbetter Pay Act, Cash For Clunkers, and the end of brutal Bush-era interrogation techniques of detainees might not seem like much, but they are stepping stones of progress. Obama's veto power remains, and by 2012, American attitudes have potential to shift in favor of Obama's legislative accomplishments.


1. The Democrats Are In a Far Better Position to Cater to the Center

The discontented liberal base has been as loud, persuasive, and powerful as they could under these circumstances. The White House worried about liberal turnout, but ultimately they did turnout, because they knew what was at stake. Liberals were in a better position to demand the most of Obama these last 2 years, while the Democratic supermajority rang out strong. Now with the House lost, the left knows its means are limited, and they must settle for the best they can get. Democrats do not have to worry about the liberal base abandoning them any longer, they have nowhere else to go. With this fact, Obama can set himself up as the moderate now, and the Dems can fully set themselves up as the moderate party and use the next session of Congress to offer Republicans chances to meet in the middle every chance they get.

Republicans do not have the same privilege. The far-right base did help elect them, and now they owe them favors. The problem of course, is that no favors for the far right can be done with Democrats holding the Senate and Obama's veto power. The only conceivable thing they can do to please the Tea Party and ultraconservatives is to grandstand and gridlock government.

Centrists however, do want compromise. Surely Republicans will be willing to compromise on infrastructure reform? Deficit reduction? Renewable energy without cap and trade? Of course, every compromise is a betrayal to the far right. The Republicans can choose to keep the right or keep the center - they can't have both. And while, if they choose the center, The Tea Party might not vote against Republicans, the division sewn will have implications with ripples all the way to the 2012 Presidential.

It is our time to divide the right. Subtly, slowly, and with smug satisfaction watching a party that can never live up to their promises take the reins.

[Buffett and Colbert]

But... but... a carrot is now the Speaker of the House.

[Helertia]

They coined it? Hey, the Democracts got something right for once!

Yeah, but look at who lost more seats in the House, the Senate, the Statehouse, etc. Not a good November for the Dems.

Yes, I noticed. Your point?

[The Floridian Coast]

But... but... a carrot is now the Speaker of the House.

But maybe he'll open up all his speeches with "Oompa, Loompa, Doopity-Do, I've Got Political Matters For You..."