Ye Olde US Midterm Elections Thread (With Extra Vitimins)

[Helertia]

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

I thought he was an Oompa Loompa.

Anyways, great post The Floridian Coast.

That kinda fits into that Katy Perry song, erm, California Gurls.
"It's a great post from the Floridian Coasstttt
Once you party with him, you'll be beaten soundly (also possibly drunk on Pimms)

NS General Girls, they're undeniably
absent from most debates
As usual it's mostly guys in mums basement - woooaaaahhhhh, woooaaaahhhh"

[Greater Tomainia]

I'm glad the GOP took control of the House. Now they'll really have to grow up and take some responsibility instead of being the party of No.

Lol I know, right? Why would the GOP ever stop saying no! They've got a Commie Kenyan to contain!

[Wilgrove]

Thank you, much appreciated from an NSer I remember from when I used to have a nation 3 years ago, and whom I've always found to be insightful.

He is also mine. *Draws line two feet in between you and him.*

*Pouts*


And I am sad that the raving loonies didn't get in, it'll make the Repubs seem more mature.

[Jagalonia]

Oh well, never mind. Reform can wait for 2 more years, when they elect Palin to finally take the country Back. What could possibly go wrong?

Well, for starters....a meteor would fly from space, and strike many people who voted for her, as they have brought gods angry judgement upon them, Palin would use this as an excuse to attack Russia, and become subsiquently nuked, creating the fallout 3 paradise we all know and love.

This is just a guess, but it probably will happen.

[Innsmothe]

He is also mine. *Draws line two feet in between you and him.*

*Pouts*


And I am sad that the raving loonies didn't get in, it'll make the Repubs seem more mature.

[Alien Space Bats]

I have some questions:

In the run up to this midterm election, the liberal pundits painted a picture that the american voters were morons, that the current agenda by obama was supported by the majority but was only drowned by a noisy minority, that the generic polls were biased and were slanted by Fox news.

I would like to know if:
1.Is this election result a clear sign that there is a real disconnect between obama and the people, and that the majority of these voters are really not morons?
2. Is Fox really correct on the major sentiments on some of these current political issues? Or are the mainstream/liberal media in denial?
3. Did the democrat's attacks on voters rather than trying to explain its accomplishment created a rift in the independents?
4. Is this election a referendum on the democratic policies?

Asking leading questions ("How long have you been beating your wife?") is generally not conducive to constructive discourse.

I didn't see liberal pundits (or the allegedly liberal media, who were as uncritical of Republicans in this election cycle as the day is long) make the statements you claim they made. Ergo, I can't answer your questions in quite the way you asked them, since none of them are really relevant to the reality I just experienced.

But I'll humor you by attempting to answer your questions as best as is possible, considering our ontological differences.

1. There is a clear disconnect Obama and conservatives; since conservatives believe the overwhelming majority of Americans are also conservative (or that liberals aren't really people), they clearly believe all Democrats to be out of touch with the rest of the nation (i.e., conservatives). As for whether conservatives are morons or merely self-deluded, the jury's still out on that question.
   
   
2. Fox is clearly a major player in shaping conservative opinions; indeed, more conservatives get their opinions from Fox than from any other source. Whether than makes them more in touch with America (or less in touch with reality) is an open question. As for the liberal media (e.g., The Nation), I'm not sure what it is you think they're in denial of; from my perspective, they seem to have understood why the Democrats were blowing things badly right from the get-go.
   
   With the mainstream media, however (which is neither conservative nor liberal but rather spineless and yellow), there is certainly a problem, although I'm not sure that problem can be labeled as "denial". Indeed, the mainstream media seem to believe that Americans have no core ideological values, are intensely forgetful, relatively naive, and reinvent themselves every two years: Thus all of those Obama voters of '08 clear want to lynch him now. Apparently, this is easier to believe than to accept that people generally hold the same views for considerable lengths of time and that wide changes in the views of the voting electorate are largely due to the fact that many people simply don't vote, with the exact makeup of the voting and non-voting populations varying wildly between elections.
   
   IOW, there are actually very few so-called independents left in America; rather, on any given Election Day, one side or the other in America's standing political debate might just decide not to show up at the polls, giving the illusion of a "swinging" electorate when, in fact, the electorate barely swings at all.
   
   
3. The Democrats' failure to stand behind their actions and explain themselves to the electorate certainly contributed to their base not showing up on Election Day.
   
   
4. Every election is, in the technical sense, a referendum on the party in power. As for whether this means that the majority of Americans now embrace the Republican agenda, or reject the Democratic agenda, it seems hard to draw any meaningful conclusions based on what actually happened.
   
   A better understanding of what this election "means" would be to say that it indicates that the Republican strategy of beginning the '10 election cycle as soon as the '08 election was over and carefully doing whatever was needed to energize their base was a winning strategy, and that the Democratic strategy of essentially letting their base go home until needed for the next election was clearly a losing one. Going forward, Republicans will obviously continue their 24 x 7 x 365 campaign strategy in hopes of keeping their base permanently mobilized; how Democrats answer this will be anybody's guess - and is probably subject to some debate anyway.

Does that help? I doubt it was what you were looking for, but it might clarify things nonetheless.

[Farnhamia]

The comments made on this thread are a microcosm of liberals who wont work with the right. jsut as bad as those on the right who are hyper-partisan wouldn't you agree?

I'd be happy to work with the right. When do you suppose they'll be finished demonizing me because of my sexual orientation, because of my support for a woman's right to control her own reproductive choices, and because of my disapproval of eight years of cowboy diplomacy and nation-building, among other things? Let me know, because there are things that need attending to in this country.

[Wilgrove]

The comments made on this thread are a microcosm of liberals who wont work with the right. jsut as bad as those on the right who are hyper-partisan wouldn't you agree?

I'd be happy to work with the right. When do you suppose they'll be finished demonizing me because of my sexual orientation, because of my support for a woman's right to control her own reproductive choices, and because of my disapproval of eight years of cowboy diplomacy and nation-building, among other things? Let me know, because there are things that need attending to in this country.

I agree with this, and I'd also like to add, when will the Republicans stop supporting tax cuts and corporate welfare for corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and when will they realize that we have an immigration problem not because we don't have a secured enough border, but because their corporate backers hire the illegals?

[Helertia]

I'd be happy to work with the right. When do you suppose they'll be finished demonizing me because of my sexual orientation, because of my support for a woman's right to control her own reproductive choices, and because of my disapproval of eight years of cowboy diplomacy and nation-building, among other things? Let me know, because there are things that need attending to in this country.

I agree with this, and I'd also like to add, when will the Republicans stop supporting tax cuts and corporate welfare for corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and when will they realize that we have an immigration problem not because we don't have a secured enough border, but because their corporate backers hire the illegals?

Personally I'd just be happy with the Republicans finally getting that compromise means that both sides make concessions and reach an agreement, not tear down as much of the other sides proposal as possible and then whinge about how they aren't working with you when they ask you to make a small concession.

[Alien Space Bats]

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

Translation: Democrats will roll over and let the GOP do whatever they want to do. *sigh*

God dammit Dems...get some damn balls....

And what they want to do is confront the President while claiming it's his fault there's no compromise. Same old same old.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results.

[Wilgrove]

I agree with this, and I'd also like to add, when will the Republicans stop supporting tax cuts and corporate welfare for corporations that ship our jobs overseas, and when will they realize that we have an immigration problem not because we don't have a secured enough border, but because their corporate backers hire the illegals?

Personally I'd just be happy with the Republicans finally getting that compromise means that both sides make concessions and reach an agreement, not tear down as much of the other sides proposal as possible and then whinge about how they aren't working with you when they ask you to make a small concession.

Hmm good point.

[Miami Shores]

They should be careful or they can be seen as obstructionists and voted out of more seats in 2012.

Hey, the Republicans were obstructionists and it worked yesterday.

I think the message the American people sent to both the Democrats and Republicans that both will be held accountable was made very clear by Fox news and some of the Republican candidates that won. Hopefully they will all get it right this time. If ever Fox news was fair, balanced and unafraid they were this time on this point.

[Farnhamia]

Hey, the Republicans were obstructionists and it worked yesterday.

I think the message the American people sent to both the Democrats and Republicans that both will be held accountable was made very clear by Fox news and some of the Republican candidates that won. Hopefully they will all get it right this time. If ever Fox news was fair, balanced and unafraid they were this time on this point.

My only question is, were the Fox News commentators/entertainers able to keep a straight face while saying that?

Of course that's what they said, it's what politicians always say. I myself was amused by the righteous declarations of winning Republicans - the n00bs, I mean - about going to Washington and balancing the budget and slashing spending. I wish one of them had had the guts to say, "I'll be checking in with Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner whenever I feel unsure how to vote."

[Alien Space Bats]

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'.

All right, it's time to explode this little myth.

Historically - with the exception of the period from 1940-1994 - the House of Representatives has been controlled in near-dictatorial fashion by the majority party. This was the modus operandi of the House for the first 150 years of its history; as one 18th Century Speaker put it, "The job of the opposition is to sit and listen".

Sam Rayburn broke this pattern, largely because he believed in constructive compromise ("Any jackass can knock down a barn"). During his 17-year tenure as Speaker (from 1940-1961, less two 2-year interruptions), the House - while still largely run in accordance with the will of the majority - became a more congenial place, with the minority party given more input and privileges. Republican Speaker Joseph W. Martin, Jr. answered Rayburn's policies in kind during his 4 years as Speaker during the same period, and their attitude became the foundation for House politics for the next 33 years under Democratic Speakers John W. McCormack, Carl Albert, Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright, and Tom Foley.

The system began to break down in 1988 with the rise of the present Republican House leadership. Newt Gingrich, who was Minority Whip, began angling for the Majority Leader's job (and a shot at the speakership), even though he was widely recognized as excessively partisan by his fellow Congressman (as one Republican put it at the time, questioning Newt's fitness for the Majority Leader's post, "Newt's a grenade thrower").

When Gingrich got his chance to take over as Speaker in 1994, then, he turned the clock back to the 19th Century (surprise, surprise!) with regards the operation of the House. Democrats found doors slammed in their faces, votes on shot notice without prior review of legislation, and every other nasty partisan trick allowed under House rules. It was in complete violation of the congenial working relationship most of them had grown accustomed to - Rayburn's rules, in essence - but not at all in contravention to the older traditions of the House, which Gingrich believed suited the political needs of the GOP far better (recall, if you will, that Newt was a professor of history before he was a politician).

The GOP controlled the House for 12 years until the Democrats took it back in 2006. By then, just as Rayburn's congenial attitude led the GOP to treat Democrats with dignity during their two short stints in control under Martin (1947-1948 and 1953-1954), the return to the "old-style" partisanship in the House left the Democrats ill-disposed to treat the GOP any better when the worm turned again.

Thus, Pelosi's hardline handling of Republicans during her two terms as Speaker precisely mirrors Republican treatment of Democrats during Gingrich's 4 years and Dennis Hastert's 8 years as Speaker before her. What goes around comes around.

The charge that Obama refused to cooperate with Republicans is based entirely on this simple political reality - and therefore constitutes a lie by virtue of ignoring the broader political context, not to mention events in the U.S. Senate (remember, what happened in the House only happened in the House, kids - it's by no means the entire picture). Even as House Democrats rammed legislation through with an efficiency that would have done Newt Gingrich proud (provoking GOP protests that were hypocritical in their deliberate refusal to note that it was their way of doing business, instituted back in 1994, that had establish the precedent for all of this [and therefore further proving that the GOP truly believes that there ought to be one set of rules for Republicans and an entirely different set of rules for Democrats]), the President and Senate Majority Leader Reid sought to engage the Republicans in detail on each and every piece of legislation.

So there was compromise; there just wasn't any in the House. It all took place in the Senate, where the existence of the filibuster made it mandatory. Any other interpretation of what happened is intellectually dishonest.

Besides which: I rather doubt that the same Republicans who griped about Pelosi's "heavy handedness" or Obama's "unwillingness to compromise" are even remotely prepared to do the right thing and go back to the way the House was run under Rayburn and his successors. No, they'll follow Newt's lead - and in their typical "what, us do anything wrong?" fashion, blame Pelosi for "poisoning relations between the two parties" in the House - as though the events of 1994-2006 never happened.

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?

But... their sh-t is so tasty!

[Miami Shores]

I think the message the American people sent to both the Democrats and Republicans that both will be held accountable was made very clear by Fox news and some of the Republican candidates that won. Hopefully they will all get it right this time. If ever Fox news was fair, balanced and unafraid they were this time on this point.

My only question is, were the Fox News commentators/entertainers able to keep a straight face while saying that?

Of course that's what they said, it's what politicians always say. I myself was amused by the righteous declarations of winning Republicans - the n00bs, I mean - about going to Washington and balancing the budget and slashing spending. I wish one of them had had the guts to say, "I'll be checking in with Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner whenever I feel unsure how to vote."

The problem is while they might actually mean they got the message that both will be held accountable, thier intrepretation of the message of what needs to be done is already based on thier political, economic and social ideologies. Dosent necessarilly mean they didnt get the message or dont care.

[Farnhamia]

My only question is, were the Fox News commentators/entertainers able to keep a straight face while saying that?

Of course that's what they said, it's what politicians always say. I myself was amused by the righteous declarations of winning Republicans - the n00bs, I mean - about going to Washington and balancing the budget and slashing spending. I wish one of them had had the guts to say, "I'll be checking in with Senator McConnell and Speaker Boehner whenever I feel unsure how to vote."

The problem is while they might actually mean they got the message that both will be held accountable, thier intrepretation of the message of what needs to be done is already based on thier political, economic and social ideologies. Dosent necessarilly mean they didnt get the message or dont care.

Then they ought to have the decency to say so, rather than wrap themselves in a cloak of sanctimony. I might not like an honest statement of political ambition but I can admire the politician who speaks it.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

Are you talking about the tax cut that no one noticed? The $15 per month that wasn't withheld? Yeah! That really stimulated the economy!

*sigh*

Obama did cut taxes
The Stimulus worked, but it wasn't enough. However, The stimulus did create 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs.

As I said, no one noticed...
From your article,

In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.

3.3 million jobs. Wow! That would have brought the unemployment rate down from 9.5 in July 2010. But it went up to 9.6 in August and stayed there in September. Nice try, but the BLS says otherwise. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
-54,000 to -66,000, and the change for August was revised from -54,000 to
-57,000.

We know that the Democrats don't understand the economy and have no idea how to fix it. That's why so many were replaced.

[Bramborska]

I literally can't imagine how Democrats could've lost more.

Regardless of where you stand, I think we can all agree that whatever policies Obama/Democrats have pursued in the last two years; they have been unequivocally labeled "failure" by the electorate.

And, admittedly, I'm inclined to agree with the electorate.

[Wilgrove]

*sigh*

Obama did cut taxes
The Stimulus worked, but it wasn't enough. However, The stimulus did create 1.4 to 3.3 million jobs.

As I said, no one noticed...
From your article,

In a troubling sign for Democrats as they head into the midterm elections, their signature tax cut of the past two years, which decreased income taxes by up to $400 a year for individuals and $800 for married couples, has gone largely unnoticed.

Ok, and? Your argument was that Obama didn't cut taxes, I just proved he did, it just went unnoticed, so once again, what's your argument?

3.3 million jobs. Wow! That would have brought the unemployment rate down from 9.5 in July 2010. But it went up to 9.6 in August and stayed there in September. Nice try, but the BLS says otherwise. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

The change in total nonfarm payroll employment for July was revised from
-54,000 to -66,000, and the change for August was revised from -54,000 to
-57,000.

We know that the Democrats don't understand the economy and have no idea how to fix it. That's why so many were replaced.

Eh, actually according to your sources.

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-95,000) in September, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

We do know what unchanged means, right? Also, as of right now, unemployment rate is at 9.2% and decreasing.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... yment+rate

[Serrland]

Now comes the real fun for political junkies: watching the Republicans jostle for positioning in 2012 without officially doing so.

[Bramborska]

We do know what unchanged means, right? Also, as of right now, unemployment rate is at 9.2% and decreasing.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... yment+rate

I really don't want to get involved in this "debate" (and I use that term in the most loosest possible sense) but two quick points:

1. The reason the 'recorded' unemployment rate is decreasing is because people are falling out of the job market, not because they are necessarily finding a new job.

2. Why are you debating this? If the unemployment picture is really as rosy as you make it out to be, why the hell did America just send the biggest "fuck you guys" to the ruling political party since 1948?

[Wilgrove]

I literally can't imagine how Democrats could've lost more.

Regardless of where you stand, I think we can all agree that whatever policies Obama/Democrats have pursued in the last two years; they have been unequivocally labeled "failure" by the electorate.

And, admittedly, I'm inclined to agree with the electorate.

They're only "failures" because the right wing has lied and spread misinformation about them. Here's an interesting little article you need to read.

Eight False Things the Public "Knows" Prior to Election Day

As for the electorate, I think Agent Kay from MIB summed it up best.

A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky dangerous animals and you know it.

[Wilgrove]

We do know what unchanged means, right? Also, as of right now, unemployment rate is at 9.2% and decreasing.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... yment+rate

I really don't want to get involved in this "debate" (and I use that term in the most loosest possible sense) but two quick points:

1. The reason the 'recorded' unemployment rate is decreasing is because people are falling out of the job market, not because they are necessarily finding a new job.

2. Why are you debating this? If the unemployment picture is really as rosy as you make it out to be, why the hell did America just send the biggest "fuck you guys" to the ruling political party since 1948?

1. Source?

2. Because the people are angry that Obama didn't fix things in a week, that we aren't all riding around on Unicorns that are powered by dreams and the wishes of little girls. People got angry, and when you get angry, you don't think clearly. The Republicans knew this, which is why they grabbed onto the Teabaggers movement and directed that anger. They were damn efficient at directing that anger too. You're assuming that the Republicans won this election fair and square, they did not.

[Les Drapeaux Brulants]

As I said, no one noticed...
From your article,

Ok, and? Your argument was that Obama didn't cut taxes, I just proved he did, it just went unnoticed, so once again, what's your argument?

If no one noticed then it didn't do much good. I'm really glad, though, that you are satisfied with what you got. In my case, the "tax cut" caused underwitholding and I had to pay some of it back.

3.3 million jobs. Wow! That would have brought the unemployment rate down from 9.5 in July 2010. But it went up to 9.6 in August and stayed there in September. Nice try, but the BLS says otherwise. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm

We know that the Democrats don't understand the economy and have no idea how to fix it. That's why so many were replaced.

Eh, actually according to your sources.

Nonfarm payroll employment edged down (-95,000) in September, and the unemployment rate was unchanged at 9.6 percent, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today.

We do know what unchanged means, right? Also, as of right now, unemployment rate is at 9.2% and decreasing.

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds=usu ... yment+rate

Again, I'm really glad you're satisfied with unemployment above 9% and GDP growth of 2% annually. In fact, the real unemployment rate is more like 22%. It's the difference between the U6 and U3 rates, or the real vs headline rates...

The seasonally-adjusted SGS Alternate Unemployment Rate reflects current unemployment reporting methodology adjusted for SGS-estimated long-term discouraged workers, who were defined out of official existence in 1994. That estimate is added to the BLS estimate of U-6 unemployment, which includes short-term discouraged workers.
The U-3 unemployment rate is the monthly headline number. The U-6 unemployment rate is the Bureau of Labor Statistics’ (BLS) broadest unemployment measure, including short-term discouraged and other marginally-attached workers as well as those forced to work part-time because they cannot find full-time employment.

http://www.shadowstats.com/alternate_da ... ent-charts

Most of us don't consider this to be a healthy economy and none of the measures taken by the Democratic administration have demonstrated that they understand anything about stimulating it. In fact, the only thing I see from this administration is a concerted effort to pay back contributors with the largest pork bill, ever -- that $750 billion monstrosity you call "stimulus".

[Geniasis]

It doesn't help that Obama has an allergy to gimmicks and soundbites. Do they forgo substance in favor of style? Yes.

But let's be realistic, it works. Hell, even Lincoln had a few soundbites.