Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on November 03, 2010, 08:48:20 AM
-
State Elections: Republicans Gain Control Of Key State Legislatures
www.huffingtonpost.com
________________________ ______________________
JENNIFER C. KERR | 11/ 3/10 04:47 AM |
________________________ ________________________ _________
WASHINGTON — Republicans seized control of about a dozen state legislative chambers Tuesday night, delivering a major blow to Democrats and picking up key redistricting powers along the way.
The GOP scored decisive wins in Ohio, Indiana, and Pennsylvania. In all three states, they knocked Democrats from the majority in the state House chambers – putting the split legislative bodies into full Republican control.
In Ohio, former Rep. John Kasich also ousted Democratic Gov. Ted Strickland, and Pennsylvania's governorship went to Republican Tom Corbett over Democrat Dan Onorato – putting the GOP in the driver's seat for the upcoming redistricting. Ohio could lose two congressional seats and Pennsylvania may lose one.
Adding to their wins, Republicans pulled off double upsets in four states by wresting the state Senate and House chambers from Democrats in Alabama, New Hampshire, North Carolina and Wisconsin.
The GOP also took the Iowa House and Minnesota Senate from Democratic control.
In New York, Republicans were seeking to take back the state Senate, but it was still too close to call.
More chambers were expected to fall from the Democrats, as voters registered their disenchantment with an anemic economy, high unemployment and an overall gloomy national mood leading up to the midterm elections.
Several states, including Montana, had races that had yet to be called.
Still, Republicans put their total take of chamber flips from Democrats at 19 early Wednesday.
"As we enter a time with huge policy and political implications, new Republican officeholders will be given an opportunity to demonstrate common-sense conservative leadership and implement solutions that promise real results and positive change for voters," said Ed Gillespie, chairman of the Republican State Leadership Committee.
Overall, more than 6,100 state legislative seats were up for grabs in 46 states.
A bright spot for Democrats was in Illinois, President Barack Obama's home state. The GOP had the Illinois House on its target list, but Democrats were able to fend off Republicans to retain control of both the House and Senate.
While state legislative races draw scant attention on the national level, the party that controls the legislature plays a powerful role, crafting domestic policy and having an oversized role in the redistricting process.
Based on 2010 Census figures of population shifts, the legislatures in most states will draw political district boundaries for the U.S. House, often subject to a veto from the governor. The party in control has a huge advantage and can draw district lines in its favor, helping Republicans or Democrats dominate a state's congressional delegation for an entire decade, and possibly influencing control of the U.S. House.
While party control of redistricting is crucial, it may be not be a smooth process in states such as Ohio, says Michael McDonald, who teaches government and politics at George Mason University.
"The Republicans are still going to be able to create a map that's favorable to them, but they may have to sacrifice one of their own because they won so handily in the state," said McDonald.
Republicans now hold an eight-seat edge in Ohio's congressional delegation. The legislators must draw the new boundaries based on equal population districts, so they may not be able to draw enough safe 2012 seats for Republicans.
Texas also turned out to be a tough one for Democrats, who had been hoping to turn a slim GOP majority in the House to their favor. Instead, they faced a potential rout, with Republicans poised to pick up about two dozen seats in the state House.
____
AP Writers Gary D. Robertson in Raleigh, N.C., Ann Sanner in Columbus, Ohio, Mark Scolforo in Philadelphia, Ken Kusmer in Indianapolis, April Castro and Jay Root in Austin, Texas, Phillip Rawls in Montgomery, Ala., Norma Love in Concord, N.H., Luke Meredith in Des Moines and Todd Richmond in Milwaukee contributed to this report.
________________________ ________
-
Political Math Favors GOP to Retake Senate in ‘12
Wall Street Journal ^ | November 3, 2010 | Brody Mullins
If Republicans are pleased with their gains in Congress today, just wait until the next election when Republicans will be well positioned to take a majority in the Senate.
A total of 21 Democratic senators are be up for re-election in 2012 in what will be a politically difficult climate for many of them. In contrast, just 10 Republicans face reelection in 2012.
Many of the Democrats who face re-election won their first elections in the Democratic wave of 2006. Some of those senators will face an electorate that is much different than it was when they were first elected to office.
Take Pennsylvania. In 2006, Democratic Sen. Bob Casey pummeled then-Sen. Rick Santorum in a Democratic sweep that saw several new Democrats elected to Congress. How things have changed. On Tuesday, Pennsylvanians voted in a Republican governor, a Republican senator and five new Republican members of the House.
Freshman Democratic Sen. Jim Webb faces a similar problem from voters in Virginia who just dumped two Democratic House members for Republicans. Mr. Webb has also raised just a few thousands dollars for his re-election campaign, a sign that he’s not thinking seriously about running for another term.
Tuesday’s election results indicate that several other Democratic senators could face tough paths to reelection, including Sens. Bill Nelson of Florida, Claire McCaskill in Missouri, Jon Tester in Montana, Ben Nelson in Nebraska, Sherrod Brown in Ohio and even Herb Kohl of Wisconsin.
(Excerpt) Read more at blogs.wsj.com ...
-
Repubs have had it EASY for the last 2 years.
All they had to do was paint Obama as a socialist and obstruct everything he did (and Boehner had to produce some crocodile tears on the floor of the House).
Now they actually have to lead and provide some actual solutions to the problem that in large part they created.
I'm looking forward to seeing what solutions they propose
Simply opposing Obama is not a solution to our problems that existed prior to the Obama Administration
-
Ending Cap & trade & Card Check ius the first step.
-
Ending Cap & trade & Card Check ius the first step.
Then repeal health care and let Obama veto it,keep the tax cuts,cap the debt ceiling.Watch UE rate go down right away.
-
Then repeal health care and let Obama veto it,keep the tax cuts,cap the debt ceiling.Watch UE rate go down right away.
don't count on repeal of healthcare (IMO)
keep in mind that Repubs set the standard for filibuster of everything in the Senate.
Dems will hopefully have the balls to do the same thing and the Repubs won't have any argument since they just spent the last 2 years doing the same thing
The only way for either party to succeed is by working together and the Repubs problem will be keeping their crazy cousins (the teabaggers) from going off the reservation. Somehow though I think Teabagger like Rand Paul will turn into standard issue Repubs and probably wind off pissing off the teabaggers who voted them into office
-
Repubs have had it EASY for the last 2 years.
All they had to do was paint Obama as a socialist and obstruct everything he did (and Boehner had to produce some crocodile tears on the floor of the House).
Now they actually have to lead and provide some actual solutions to the problem that in large part they created.
I'm looking forward to seeing what solutions they propose
Simply opposing Obama is not a solution to our problems that existed prior to the Obama Administration
Well, Democrats had it easy by having filibuster proof majorities in both houses and they did not show they could lead. They provided no solutions, they made the economic situation worse, they lied about the savings of the Health Care Reform and they showed utter contempt for the American citizen.
There is one thing very clear. The Democrats have shown the past 4 years that they can't lead and shouldn't lead. I don't know exactly how the Republicans are solely in control. Since Dems still have the Senate and the Presidency.
Both parties need to work together or nothing will get done. The President, if he is smart, should swallow his pride, cast aside the stupid "they can come for the ride, but they gotta sit in the back" or "punish our enemies" rhetoric and make a genuine effort to listen to Republicans. If he doesn't reach across the aisle, he will be the worst 1 term president of all time.
-
don't count on repeal of healthcare (IMO)
keep in mind that Repubs set the standard for filibuster of everything in the Senate.
Dems will hopefully have the balls to do the same thing and the Repubs won't have any argument since they just spent the last 2 years doing the same thing
You have to stop watching so much MSNBC.
Health care reform, aka Obama care, will be repealed. If not, there will be so many changes to it that it won't even look like the original legislation. The reform that was passed against the will of the nation's majority will be either scrapped completely or perhaps modified to a point that it can hardly be called a reform.
After last night, the Dems socialist agenda has been neutered.
-
Cap & Trade also needs to be buried.
-
Did Rush steal this damn thread? WTF -
In the same paragraph he mention both articles I posted in this thread.
-
You have to stop watching so much MSNBC.
Health care reform, aka Obama care, will be repealed. If not, there will be so many changes to it that it won't even look like the original legislation. The reform that was passed against the will of the nation's majority will be either scrapped completely or perhaps modified to a point that it can hardly be called a reform.
After last night, the Dems socialist agenda has been neutered.
I've never heard it mentioned on MSNBC (actually hardly watch any news these days)
Repubs don't have enough votes in the Senate to overcome a POTUS veto
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A252H20101103
The challenge for Repubs is going to be the economy and jobs
They can't just obstruct anymore
Now they have to lead
-
I've never heard it mentioned on MSNBC (actually hardly watch any news these days)
Repubs don't have enough votes in the Senate to overcome a POTUS veto
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A252H20101103
The challenge for Repubs is going to be the economy and jobs
They can't just obstruct anymore
Now they have to lead
One of the comentators in MSNBC early evening stated that Health Reform will not be repealed.
I didn't state that it will get repealed soon. But, eventually it will either get repealed or changed to the point that it won't resemble the original bill.
Dems still have the Senate and Obama has veto power. How far can the Republicans get if Democrats refuse to fall in line with the country's wishes?
Lets put it this way. The Republicans will lead but if Dems and Obama decide to continue the agenda that has been rejected by the people then Dems will pay the price again in 2012.
The country tried the Dems way these past 4 years. They rejected it. They will reject the Dems even more if they don't work with the Republicans these next 2 years.
-
I think Obama is going to double down on stupid. After reading DSouzas book - Obama seems the type to rather go down in flames than work with the GOP.
-
I've never heard it mentioned on MSNBC (actually hardly watch any news these days)
Repubs don't have enough votes in the Senate to overcome a POTUS veto
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6A252H20101103
The challenge for Repubs is going to be the economy and jobs
They can't just obstruct anymore
Now they have to lead
All they have to is keep introducing legislation Americans want and let Obama veto it.Every veto is money in the bank in 2012.Cany you please give me a list of what the republicans obstructed on that Americans wanted?Because as far as I can tell they stoipped cap and trade and card check and little else and Americans dont like either of those.
-
Also, how much obstructionism are the Republicans guilty of when most of the past 4 years the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in both houses? They rammed through every possible legislation despite Republican opposition.
Lets face it. None of the Democratic party measures worked. And the legislations that they did not pass was because of divisions in their own party.
-
All they have to is keep introducing legislation Americans want and let Obama veto it.Every veto is money in the bank in 2012.Cany you please give me a list of what the republicans obstructed on that Americans wanted?Because as far as I can tell they stoipped cap and trade and card check and little else and Americans dont like either of those.
if they introduce legislation that the majority of Americans want then they will get Dem support in the House and Senate
It's the Repubs who put party before country and vote against things they actually support (like tax cuts)
The Republican now OWN the problems we're facing so that can't just sit back and do nothing
-
if they introduce legislation that the majority of Americans want then they will get Dem support in the House and Senate
It's the Repubs who put party before country and vote against things they actually support (like tax cuts)
The Republican now OWN the problems we're facing so that can't just sit back and do nothing
Straw - did you see how many dems lost their house seats who voted for obamaCare?
-
Also, how much obstructionism are the Republicans guilty of when most of the past 4 years the Democrats had a filibuster proof majority in both houses? They rammed through every possible legislation despite Republican opposition.
Lets face it. None of the Democratic party measures worked. And the legislations that they did not pass was because of divisions in their own party.
where have you been the last 2 years?
Dems never had a filibuster proof majority and the Repubs have shattered the record for filibuster in the last 2 years
-
Straw - did you see how many dems lost their house seats who voted for obamaCare?
your point?
Repubs now OWN the problems
they better start working on some solutions pretty darn quick
-
your point?
Repubs now OWN the problems
they better start working on some solutions pretty darn quick
The point was that Obama and the Dems grossly mis-read the electorate in 2008. no one wanted Obamacare. No one!
They wasted a year and a half on that mess and got killed for it.
the bottom line is that people want the economy and jobs focused on, not cap 7 trade, not health care, not social crap, but the economy.
-
where have you been the last 2 years?
Dems never had a filibuster proof majority and the Repubs have shattered the record for filibuster in the last 2 years
Straw - did it ever dawn on you that most people simply are horrified by the agenda of obama and the far left like pelosi, boxer, etc?
These people are public servants, not kings or dictators. The majority did not vote for the radical "transformation" of the nation. they wanted bama to fix the economy, period.
-
The point was that Obama and the Dems grossly mis-read the electorate in 2008. no one wanted Obamacare. No one!
They wasted a year and a half on that mess and got killed for it.
the bottom line is that people want the economy and jobs focused on, not cap 7 trade, not health care, not social crap, but the economy.
this is utter nonsense
people have wanted health insurance reform for 50+ years
some people are certainly not happy with the watered down legislation that we got but to say "No One" wanted something to be just reveals your own bias and is demonstrably not true
Repubs are great at framing issues and convincing people to vote against their own best interests
Now they just have to produce some actual solutions to the problems that they handed to Obama 2 years ago
I look forward to hearing about their solutions
-
Straw - did it ever dawn on you that most people simply are horrified by the agenda of obama and the far left like pelosi, boxer, etc?
These people are public servants, not kings or dictators. The majority did not vote for the radical "transformation" of the nation. they wanted bama to fix the economy, period.
again (and for the 1000th time)
your point of view is not shared by most people and you don't speak for most people
I wonder if you'll ever truly be able to understand that (I'm doubtful)
-
this is utter nonsense
people have wanted health insurance reform for 50+ years
some people are certainly not happy with the watered down legislation that we got but to say "No One" wanted something to be just reveals your own bias and is demonstrably not true
Repubs are great at framing issues and convincing people to vote against their own best interests
Now they just have to produce some actual solutions to the problems that they handed to Obama 2 years ago
I look forward to hearing about their solutions
Straw - the issue was that he ignored the economy for a year and a half in favor of health care, and in return, both got messed up royally.
-
again (and for the 1000th time)
your point of view is not shared by most people and you don't speak for most people
I wonder if you'll ever truly be able to understand that (I'm doubtful)
Ha ha ha - GOP won a landslide last noght in the house and state govts as a rejection of the far left crap and you still cling to that nonasense?
Last measure - 20% classify themselves as lib and at least 40% as conservatives.
You buy into this false narrative as told to you by MSNBC at your peril. no one wants the crap being sold by the far left Straw other than NY, CA and maybe MA.
-
Straw - the issue was that he ignored the economy for a year and a half in favor of health care, and in return, both got messed up royally.
?
what should have done for the economy that he didn't attempt to do
we know you were completely against the stim bill (as were the repubs - even though it was 40% tax cuts)
what should he have done instead
we're you the guy who said he shoudl do nothing and even admitted that your "do nothing" solution would have made unemployment and the economy even worse?
-
Ha ha ha - GOP won a landslide last noght in the house and state govts as a rejection of the far left crap and you still cling to that nonasense?
Last measure - 20% classify themselves as lib and at least 40% as conservatives.
You buy into this false narrative as told to you by MSNBC at your peril. no one wants the crap being sold by the far left Straw other than NY, CA and maybe MA.
I'm not buying anything
this Repub win was forecasted almost from the moment Obama won in 2008
Now it's time for the Repubs to show us what they can do
What do you think they will do to stimulate the economy and create jobs?
-
?
what should have done for the economy that he didn't attempt to do
we know you were completely against the stim bill (as were the repubs - even though it was 40% tax cuts)
what should he have done instead
we're you the guy who said he shoudl do nothing and even admitted that your "do nothing" solution would have made unemployment and the economy even worse?
First off - he should have completely shelved his agenda like Card Check, Cap & trade, and obamacare.
Second - he should not have emboldended the EPA to go wild against private industry.
Third - he should have fought for re-instatement of bush tax cuts.
Fourth - he should have included far more private sector business people in the cabinet.
Fifth - he should have done a payroll tax holiday at least, not a stupid credit through the stim bill
Sixth - he should have made the cap purchashes amortaization plan permanent.
straw - i can think of at least 100 things he should have done.
-
where have you been the last 2 years?
Dems never had a filibuster proof majority and the Repubs have shattered the record for filibuster in the last 2 years
They had it in 2009 when Specter switched. Which is why Keb Brown's victory was considered important in order to take it away. Fine they didn't have it for 4 years they had it for a year.
Either way, they had the majority to do whatever they wanted. They showed that by ramming through health care despite Brown. People want health care, just not Obama's version of it. What don't you understand? Should they just accept any crap handed it to them by the Dems?
-
Dems pushed through any legislation they wanted. They own it. The nation knew this and made them pay. Period.
When a party has the presidency, Senate and House of Representatives and the nation continues on a downward spiral despite all the measures said party has implented, then that party doesn't get to make excuses. Eventhough Dems and their supporters want to make excuses and blame the Reps the fact is THEY FAILED.
Now, the Reps have the House. IF the Dems and Obama become a constant roadblock to anything the Reps try to do, more Dems will be escorted out of the political arena in 2012.
-
First off - he should have completely shelved his agenda like Card Check, Cap & trade, and obamacare.
Second - he should not have emboldended the EPA to go wild against private industry.
Third - he should have fought for re-instatement of bush tax cuts.
Fourth - he should have included far more private sector business people in the cabinet.
Fifth - he should have done a payroll tax holiday at least, not a stupid credit through the stim bill
Sixth - he should have made the cap purchashes amortaization plan permanent.
straw - i can think of at least 100 things he should have done.
good - lets see if the Repubs do some of those things and then if they don't create any jobs they will be the ones to blame
I'll support anyone who can actually improve the economy
-
Dems pushed through any legislation they wanted. They own it. The nation knew this and made them pay. Period.
When a party has the presidency, Senate and House of Representatives and the nation continues on a downward spiral despite all the measures said party has implented, then that party doesn't get to make excuses. Eventhough Dems and their supporters want to make excuses and blame the Reps the fact is THEY FAILED.
Now, the Reps have the House. IF the Dems and Obama become a constant roadblock to anything the Reps try to do, more Dems will be escorted out of the political arena in 2012.
well most of the problems still exist only the Repubs have a much more stablized situation than what Obama had
let's see what they do with it
-
where have you been the last 2 years?
Dems never had a filibuster proof majority and the Repubs have shattered the record for filibuster in the last 2 years
Are you smoking that sticky green, again?
The Dems had a supermajority for at least six months. That's why we ended up with ObamaCare, in the first place.
-
Are you smoking that sticky green, again?
The Dems had a supermajority for at least six months. That's why we ended up with ObamaCare, in the first place.
dems didn't have a super majority in the Senate
anyway - it's all the Repubs now
I'm looking forward to their solutions
-
dems didn't have a super majority in the Senate
anyway - it's all the Repubs now
I'm looking forward to their solutions
Dems still hold the senate Straw.
-
dems didn't have a super majority in the Senate
anyway - it's all the Repubs now
I'm looking forward to their solutions
Yes they did. Why do you think that, when Scott Brown won the Mass. Senate seat, the crowd was chanting "41!! 41!! 41!!"?
Because, HE was the 41st GOP senator, thus keeping the Dems from having the supermajority.
-
Yes they did. Why do you think that, when Scott Brown won the Mass. Senate seat, the crowd was chanting "41!! 41!! 41!!"?
Because, HE was the 41st GOP senator, thus keeping the Dems from having the supermajority.
even before that they didn't have it because a few people were out and essentially not voting and a few dems voted with the Repubs.
They never had a solid or workable super majority
If they did we wouldn't have a watered down health care bill
-
even before that they didn't have it because a few people were out and essentially not voting and a few dems voted with the Repubs.
They never had a solid or workable super majority
If they did we wouldn't have a watered down health care bill
Straw - did it ever dawn on you the legislation and bills themselves royally SUCK!
-
Cap & Trade also needs to be buried.
You're always going off about cap & trade. I'm not too familiar with this topic other than knowing that it is an attempt to reduce pollution by putting a cap on it. Companies that come in under the cap can sell their credits to companies that are unable to. Does that about sum it up? What's the big deal ???
-
I'm not buying anything
this Repub win was forecasted almost from the moment Obama won in 2008
? James Carville didn't think so. I don't remember that being the mood at the time either. Do you have any specific links to anything?
-
You're always going off about cap & trade. I'm not too familiar with this topic other than knowing that it is an attempt to reduce pollution by putting a cap on it. Companies that come in under the cap can sell their credits to companies that are unable to. Does that about sum it up? What's the big deal ???
Our energy costs go way up for one. Not sure, but I also believe that the trading of credits goes on a special market that GS makes a bazillion dollars off.
-
You're always going off about cap & trade. I'm not too familiar with this topic other than knowing that it is an attempt to reduce pollution by putting a cap on it. Companies that come in under the cap can sell their credits to companies that are unable to. Does that about sum it up? What's the big deal ???
Are you kidding? Serious? If you don't know the details of this bill - than you should forever be banned from ever saying shit to me. I have posted endlessly how horrific this thins thing is and if at this stage you are that uninformed - shame on you.
SHIT - EVEN DEMOCRATS ARE IN REVOLT OVER CAP & TRADE
-
You're always going off about cap & trade. I'm not too familiar with this topic other than knowing that it is an attempt to reduce pollution by putting a cap on it. Companies that come in under the cap can sell their credits to companies that are unable to. Does that about sum it up? What's the big deal ???
You really need to wake the hell up and start getting better informed.
Serious - if you are that uninformed on this issue - no wonder you still support this Admn. Nothing personal - but really - are you that uninformed?
-
Our energy costs go way up for one. Not sure, but I also believe that the trading of credits goes on a special market that GS makes a bazillion dollars off.
It was also originally a Republican idea
Classic example of how Repubs propose something and Dems attempt to cooperate (bipartisan anyone) and then when the Dems are on board the Repubs are suddenly against it
There are many examples of this - including the Stim Bill which included 40% tax cuts to appease the Repubs yet not one Repub voted for it (yet same douche bag Repubs had no problems with handing out the money in their states and taking credit for any job creation)
Should have taken those 40% of tax cuts and spent in on infrastructure instead
-
It was also originally a Republican idea
Classic example of how Repubs propose something and Dems attempt to cooperate (bipartisan anyone) and then when the Dems are on board the Repubs are suddenly against it
There are many examples of this - including the Stim Bill which included 40% tax cuts to appease the Repubs yet not one Repub voted for it (yet same douche bag Repubs had no problems with handing out the money in their states and taking credit for any job creation)
Should have taken those 40% of tax cuts and spent in on infrastructure instead
Straw - conservatives hate the RINOs who propose these schemes. as for the tax matters in the Stim Bill - I agree with you. We would have gotten a far better return on our money if we did mostly infrastructure as opposed to the tax crap in the stim bill, which was meaningless by and large.
-
Straw - conservatives hate the RINOs who propose these schemes. as for the tax matters in the Stim Bill - I agree with you. We would have gotten a far better return on our money if we did mostly infrastructure as opposed to the tax crap in the stim bill, which was meaningless by and large.
tax cuts were there in an attempt at bipartisanship yet got zero Republican votes.
I said from the first day of the Obama Admin that they should not waste their time with Repubs
Repubs put party before country and always will
All they got for their efforts was watered down legislation that didn't please the people who put him in office and was used as a weapon by the opposition
-
Cap & Trade also needs to be buried.
Some top republican leaders have said they support capping emissions...
;D
Sorry, I almost let a day go by without mentioning Palin
-
tax cuts were there in an attempt at bipartisanship yet got zero Republican votes.
I said from the first day of the Obama Admin that they should not waste their time with Repubs
Repubs put party before country and always will
All they got for their efforts was watered down legislation that didn't please the people who put him in office and was used as a weapon by the opposition
The tax cuts were not really meaningful to stimulate anything or really make a difference, and the Infrastructure stuff was too small and scattered.
In the 1930's and 1950's we got he Hoover Dam & interstate highway. What did we get out of this?
-
I saw two guys working on the street with a giant sign that said the job was part of the stimulus ::)
-
The tax cuts were not really meaningful to stimulate anything or really make a difference, and the Infrastructure stuff was too small and scattered.
In the 1930's and 1950's we got he Hoover Dam & interstate highway. What did we get out of this?
just like all tax cuts
if you give me a tax cut I keep it or maybe spend it on something but if I own a company it doesn't in any way motivate me to higher an employee or create a job.
The whole tax cuts = stimulus is a canard and the Repubs know it
-
just like all tax cuts
if you give me a tax cut I keep it or maybe spend it on something but if I own a company it doesn't in any way motivate me to higher an employee or create a job.
The whole tax cuts = stimulus is a canard and the Repubs know it
I think at this point people want some degree of certainty. Personally, i favor a national sales tax instead of an income tax, but thats me. As for the Stim Bill - it was a lot of money not focused, targeted, or geared towards anything meaningful IMHO.
-
I think at this point people want some degree of certainty. Personally, i favor a national sales tax instead of an income tax, but thats me. As for the Stim Bill - it was a lot of money not focused, targeted, or geared towards anything meaningful IMHO.
good luck with certaintly from either party
Repubs better come up with some plans quick because the stim bill actually propped up many of their states and we know they aren't going to approve a second round.
It will be interesting to see how they handle it when states start laying off teachers, cops, firefighters etc.. and when more and more people lose unemployment benefits
I hope for their sake they have some secret plan they haven't told anyone about yet
-
anyway - it's all the Repubs now
::)
-
if you give me a tax cut I keep it or maybe spend it on something but if I own a company it doesn't in any way motivate me to higher an employee or create a job.
Have to agree with you there. It seems they would hire based on demand for their product. But, I'm not a business man so I'll let you guys argue that one. It just seems counterintuitive that tax cuts would translate into more hiring.
-
good luck with certaintly from either party
Repubs better come up with some plans quick because the stim bill actually propped up many of their states and we know they aren't going to approve a second round.
It will be interesting to see how they handle it when states start laying off teachers, cops, firefighters etc.. and when more and more people lose unemployment benefits
I hope for their sake they have some secret plan they haven't told anyone about yet
ha ha ha- I have been talking about this for months. once the stim bill money runs out - what do we do? Most of the public unios won't accept a pay decrease or decrease in benes.
-
ha ha ha- I have been talking about this for months. once the stim bill money runs out - what do we do? Most of the public unios won't accept a pay decrease or decrease in benes.
simple
we blame the Republicans
they better figure something out quick because once people start to get layed off and uemployment goes up Obama is going to go on TV and say the Republican are blocking his efforts to fix the problems and people will finally figure out what they voted for yesterday
Mabye Boehner can go on the floor of the House and cry again
-
simple
we blame the Republicans
they better figure something out quick because once people start to get layed off and uemployment goes up Obama is going to go on TV and say the Republican are blocking his efforts to fix the problems and people will finally figure out what they voted for yesterday
Mabye Boehner can go on the floor of the House and cry again
;D ;D ;D
See straw - now you are going to get you laughs out of this charade.
-
;D ;D ;D
See straw - now you are going to get you laughs out of this charade.
what part don't you agree with?
when people who voted for Repubs start feeling more pain than they feel now who do you think they will blame?
-
what part don't you agree with?
when people who voted for Repubs start feeling more pain than they feel now who do you think they will blame?
You are right, cant disagree with you on that. But, to be serious for a second - once the stim bill money ends, states like Cali and NY are in for a real rude awakening when the public employee unions refuse to negotiate anything and tax payers refuse any more tax hikes.
-
You are right, cant disagree with you on that. But, to be serious for a second - once the stim bill money ends, states like Cali and NY are in for a real rude awakening when the public employee unions refuse to negotiate anything and tax payers refuse any more tax hikes.
they'll have to negotiate but we still have a pretty decent economy and I believe I just saw a report recently that employment in the bay area was rising for the first time in a couple of years.
It's the deep red states full of people who voted for Repubs that are going to feel the most pain
-
what part don't you agree with?
when people who voted for Repubs start feeling more pain than they feel now who do you think they will blame?
You're dead-on, they can't play obstructionists at this point. But, that doesn't mean rolling over on everything either. Clinton managed to work it out, we'll see how Barry does. Negotiation doesn't appear to be his strong point in my opinion.
-
they'll have to negotiate but we still have a pretty decent economy and I believe I just saw a report recently that employment in the bay area was rising for the first time in a couple of years.
It's the deep red states full of people who voted for Repubs that are going to feel the most pain
i don't know about cali, but property taxes are what funds the schools and muni services here and we pay the highest taxes in the nation as it is. I think we used 3 billion of stim bill money last year to prop up these budgets.
We are in for a mess next year in NY.
-
You're dead-on, they can't play obstructionists at this point. But, that doesn't mean rolling over on everything either. Clinton managed to work it out, we'll see how Barry does. Negotiation doesn't appear to be his strong point in my opinion.
Obama wasted his first two years trying to be bipartisan
Repubs have already signalled no negotiation on anything (just as they've done the last 2 years)
All they have to do is find a way to fix the economy, job market and budget deficit and they'll be fine
how hard can that be?
-
Obama wasted his first two years trying to be bipartisan
Repubs have already signalled no negotiation on anything (just as they've done the last 2 years)
All they have to do is find a way to fix the economy, job market and budget deficit and they'll be fine
how hard can that be?
Helicopter Ben seems to be ready willing and able. ha ha ha ha.
-
Have to agree with you there. It seems they would hire based on demand for their product. But, I'm not a business man so I'll let you guys argue that one. It just seems counterintuitive that tax cuts would translate into more hiring.
Nah. Anytime you decrease the cost of doing business, the business has the potential to grow. When the business grows, it needs more employees.
-
Nah. Anytime you decrease the cost of doing business, the business has the potential to grow. When the business grows, it needs more employees.
it may have a potential at a higher profit but it doesn't stimulate more demand unless they lower prices and that might pull in more customers
Given that Bush gave out the largest tax cut in history (not counting the stimulus package) it didn't seem to do anything to stimulate demand or create jobs.
All it did was make the wealthy even wealthier
-
Obama wasted his first two years trying to be bipartisan
Repubs have already signalled no negotiation on anything (just as they've done the last 2 years)
All they have to do is find a way to fix the economy, job market and budget deficit and they'll be fine
how hard can that be?
Obama didn't do shit for bipartisanship. Their "inclusiveness" was essentially, "Well, we want your support, but you have to agree to everything we say". At times Repubs were not included in meetings and blocked from floor debate. Repubs have used the same tactics, of course. But acting as though Barry attempted bipartisanship - HA. More revisionist history.
-
Obama didn't do shit for bipartisanship. Their "inclusiveness" was essentially, "Well, we want your support, but you have to agree to everything we say". At times Repubs were not included in meetings and blocked from floor debate. Repubs have used the same tactics, of course. But acting as though Barry attempted bipartisanship - HA. More revisionist history.
to deny he attempted it is ridiculous
go back and look at the news stories of people in his own party criticizing him for doing so.
-
to deny he attempted it is ridiculous
go back and look at the news stories of people in his own party criticizing him for doing so.
Straw - he started out from a completely unteneable position.
What if the GOP wants to repeal all abortion laws and goes to the dems and say "do you want in on this?"
-
Worse Than It Seems (Census favors GOP nominee in 2012)
The Weekly Standard ^ | 11/6/2010 | Victorino Matus
________________________ ________________________ _______________________
Bad enough for the Democrats that they just lost their House majority and saw their Senate advantage tumble from 60 seats two years ago to 53 (it could have been worse), but now they must brace for the effects of the 2010 Census. As the Washington Post's Charles Lane reminds us,
Since the U.S. population continues to flow South and West, reapportionment will probably add House seats in red states and subtract them in blue states. Thus, the Census looks like a setback for Democratic chances to win the 270 electoral votes necessary to become president.
Texas, which has voted Republican in 9 of the last 10 elections will gain 4 electoral votes, according to projections from preliminary Census data by Polidata.com. The other gainers—one vote each—include Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, South Carolina and Utah. All of these states have voted for the GOP candidate in at least 7 of the last 10 elections.... Meanwhile, eight states that usually go blue in presidential elections—Illinois, Iowa, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania and Minnesota—are projected to lose one electoral vote each.
Or in other words,
Take the 22 states that voted for John McCain as the GOP base in the 2012 presidential election. That base is about to grow from 173 electoral votes to 180. And if Republicans hold it, they could get to 271 by carrying just six more states—Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Indiana, Virginia and Nevada—each of which has voted GOP in a majority of the last ten elections.
As it happens, all six of these states, except for North Carolina, will have Republican governors next year, and all six, except for Nevada, will have Republican state legislatures.
Sounds eminently doable.
It's like a trap has been set. From here, you will witness the final destruction of the Alliance and the end of your insignificant rebellion!
-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
November 6, 2010
Rightward, March: The Midterm Exit Polls
By BILL MARSH and MARJORIE CONNELLY
www.nyt.com
How bad was it for Democrats last week? By nearly every demographic measure, the party lost ground, significantly in some cases.
The result was the largest reshuffling of the House of Representatives in 50 years.
For the first time since 1982, when exit polls began measuring support for Congressional candidates, Republicans received a majority of women’s votes. Two years ago, House Democratic candidates won women by 14 points.
Catholics, independents and voters age 60 and older also sided with Republicans by margins not seen since 1982.
Independent voters, a key to President Obama’s election two years ago, turned sharply to the G.O.P. Republicans also won more support than usual from reliably Democratic constituencies: less affluent and less educated voters, urbanites and voters from the nation’s East and West. A notable exception was black voters, who continued to support Democrats in strong numbers.
The generational divide exposed in the 2008 election was more pronounced. Voters under 30 were the only age group to support Democrats but made up just 11 percent of the electorate, typical for a midterm election. By contrast, voters aged 60 and older represented 34 percent of voters, their highest proportion in exit polls since 1982.
Experts said that about 42 percent of voters had cast ballots, which is typical for a midterm election. — Marjorie Connelly
-
November 8, 2010
A President Who Simply Doesn't Get It
By Jack Kelly
www.realclearpolitics.co m
________________________ ______________
Democrats who didn't drown in the Republican wave had to be dismayed by the news conference President Barack Obama held Wednesday before jetting off to India.
Particularly unhappy, I suspect, are the 12 Democrats in the Senate from states that voted Republican Tuesday who are up for re-election in 2012.
In essence, what the president said (in many, many more words) is that he heard what the voters were saying, but would ignore it.
"The election was above all a referendum on the president's policies, but his big takeaway was not to relitigate his agenda," noted Peter Wehner, who was an aide to President George W. Bush.
"He still just cannot admit that his radical policies and their effects on the economy are the cause of his devastating political rebuke," wrote the historian Victor Davis Hanson.
How devastating was the rebuke? Republicans gained at least 61 seats in the House. (At this writing, 11 races were undecided.) In the Republican landslide of 1994, the GOP gained 52 seats. In the Republican landslide of 1946, the GOP gained 55 seats. There will be more Republicans in the House in January than at any time since 1947.
"Get used to Republican control of the House of Representatives. It's going to stay that way for a long time," Jonathan Chait advised readers of the liberal New Republic.
Most congressional districts lean Republican because Democrats are concentrated in cities and university towns. And Republicans did spectacularly well in races for governor and state legislative seats. These are the people who will redraw congressional district boundaries next year.
"Partisan gerrymandering can be an extremely powerful tool, and combined with the natural geographic gerrymander can give Republicans an overwhelming advantage, if not an absolute lock," Mr. Chait said.
The bad news for Republicans is that Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., is still the Senate majority leader. His victory, coupled with an upset in Colorado, likely held the Republican gain in the Senate to "only" six. (At this writing, the race in Washington state is still unsettled. So is the race in Alaska, but that's a contest between two Republicans.)
On the other hand, the good news for Republicans is that Harry Reid is still the Senate majority leader. Mr. Reid was not effective when Democrats had a filibuster-proof majority, and he is nearly as unpopular as outgoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who may be ousted as Democratic leader after the drubbing her troops took Tuesday. It's good for Republicans to have at least one figure Americans love to hate leading the Democrats in Congress.
Leading the Senate is like herding cats. Sen. Reid would have difficulty even if he were more competent. He has a sharply diminished majority in a body where 60 votes are required to pass anything substantive. And Democrats running in 2012 figure to be skittish about casting votes like those which cost so many of their colleagues their seats this year. Sen. Reid's control is more nominal than real.
But that nominal control is important, in a bad way for Democrats. Harry Truman was able to counter the Republican landslide of 1946 with a landslide of his own in 1948 by running against a "do nothing" Congress. With Democrats in control of the Senate, this would be hard for Mr. Obama to do even if he possessed Truman's political skills, which he does not.
With Mr. Obama willing to make only cosmetic changes to his agenda, we're headed for two years of gridlock. The House will pass bills to repeal Obamacare and reduce the size of government. These will be killed in the Senate or vetoed by the president.
But a clear choice will be established for 2012, for which the midterms were merely the preliminary bout.
The new electoral map is daunting for Mr. Obama as he contemplates re-election. Ohio, Florida and Wisconsin turned red, Pennsylvania and Michigan pink. It's difficult for a Democrat to be elected without carrying Ohio or Florida, impossible without Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Perhaps the most significant contributor to the Republican landslide Tuesday was the defection from the Democrats of working class whites. If Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee in 2012, there will be little reason for them to return.
I suspect many Democrats think they'd be better off with someone else.
-
November 8, 2010
The Depth & Breadth of GOP Victories
By Michael Barone
www.realclearpolitics.co m
________________________ ____________________
Let's try to put some metrics on last Tuesday's historic election. Two years ago, the popular vote for House of Representatives was 54 percent Democratic and 43 percent Republican. That may sound close, but in historic perspective it's a landslide. Democrats didn't win the House popular vote in the South, as they did from the 1870s up through 1992. But they won a larger percentage in the 36 non-Southern states than -- well, as far as I can tell, than ever before.
This year, we don't yet know the House popular vote down to the last digit, partly because California takes five weeks these days to count all its votes (Brazil, which voted last Sunday, counted its votes in less than five hours). But the exit poll had it at 52 percent Republican and 46 percent Democratic, which is probably within a point or so of the final number.
That's similar to 1994, and you have to go back to 1946 and 1928 to find years when Republicans did better. And the numbers those years aren't commensurate, since the then-segregated and Democratic South cast few popular votes. So you could argue that this is the best Republican showing ever.
Nationally, Republicans narrowly missed winning Senate seats in heavily Democratic Washington and in Nevada and California, where less problematic nominees might have won. As in all wave years, they missed winning half a dozen House seats by a whisker (or a suddenly discovered bunch of ballots).
But they made really sweeping gains in state legislatures, where candidate quality makes less difference. According to the National Conference on State Legislatures, Republicans gained about 125 seats in state senates and 550 seats in state houses -- 675 seats in total. That gives them more seats than they've won in any year since 1928.
Republicans snatched control of about 20 legislative houses from Democrats -- and by margins that hardly any political insiders expected. Republicans needed five seats for a majority in the Pennsylvania House and won 15; they needed four seats in the Ohio House and got 13; they needed 13 in the Michigan House and got 20; they needed two in the Wisconsin Senate and four in the Wisconsin House, and gained four and 14; they needed five in the North Carolina Senate and nine in the North Carolina House and gained 11 and 15.
All those gains are hugely significant in redistricting. When the 2010 Census results are announced next month, the 435 House seats will be reapportioned to the states, and state officials will draw new district lines in each state. Nonpartisan commissions authorized by voters this year will do the job in (Democratic) California and (Republican) Florida, but in most states it's up to legislators and governors (although North Carolina's governor cannot veto redistricting bills).
Republicans look to have a bigger advantage in this redistricting cycle than they've ever had before. It appears that in the states that will have more than five districts (you can make only limited partisan difference in smaller states), Republicans will control redistricting in 13 states with a total of 165 House districts and Democrats will have control in only four states with a total of 40 districts. You can add Minnesota (seven or eight districts) to the first list if the final count gives Republicans the governorship and New York (27 or 28 districts) to the second list if the final count gives Democrats the state Senate.
When the tea party movement first made itself heard, Speaker Nancy Pelosi dismissed it as "Astroturf," a phony organization financed by a few millionaires. She may have been projecting -- those union demonstrators you see at Democratic events or heckling Republicans are often paid by the hour.
In any case, the depth and the breadth of Republican victories in state legislative races, even more than their gain of 60-plus seats in the U.S. House and six seats in the Senate, shows that the tea party movement was a genuine popular upheaval of vast dimensions. Particularly in traditional blue-collar areas, voters rejected longtime Democrats or abandoned lifelong partisan allegiances and elected Republicans.
This will make a difference not just in redistricting. State governments face budget crunches and are supposed to act to help roll out Obamacare. Republican legislatures can cut spending and block the rollout.
"I won," Barack Obama told Republican leaders seeking concessions last year. This year, he didn't.
-
(WaPo:) Bad news Democrats _ 2012 could be worse than 2010
Washington comPost ^ | 11/9/2010 | CHARLES BABINGTON
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse.
Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.
The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.
President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.
Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.
"The 2012 Senate landscape shows a daunting picture for the Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the GOP's Senate campaign committee. "They're not only defending twice as many seats as Republicans, but a number of them are in states where the Obama-Reid agenda is deeply unpopular."
Harry Reid of Nevada is the Senate majority leader.
The 2012 Senate map is much kinder to Republicans, who must defend 10 seats to the Democrats' 23. Except for Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who will fight an uphill re-election battle in Massachusetts, the GOP probably will be favored to keep the Senate seats it now holds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
-
Anatomy of the Most Crushing Democratic Loss in U.S. House Since 1894
Edited on Wed Nov-10-10 12:43 AM by Time for change
Going into the 2010 Midterm elections, the Democratic Party held 255 House seats, to the Republican Party’s 178 (2 seats were vacant). Following the November 2 elections, as of this writing, the Democrats hold 190 seats to the Republicans’ 239, with 6 seats pending final results. That comes to a Democratic loss of 65 seats and a Republican gain of 61 seats, pending the results of the final 6. In the end, the Democratic loss will be anywhere from 59 to 65 seats. They also lost 6 Senate seats.
Arguably, this represents the worst defeat for the Democratic Party in the U.S. House since 1894, the midterm of the second presidential administration of Grover Cleveland – a year in which the Democratic Party lost 116 House seats and 5 Senate seats, to lose control of both Houses of Congress. Here is a capsule summary of the worst Democratic Congressional losses since that time:
1894 – Lost 116 House seats; lost 5 Senate seats; lost control of both Houses of Congress
1912 – Lost 59 House seats; gained 5 Senate seats; maintained control of both Houses
1920 – Lost 59 House seats; lost 10 Senate seats; GOP maintained control of both Houses
1938 – Lost 71 House seats; lost 6 Senate seats; but maintained huge majorities in both Houses
1946 – Lost 55 House seats; lost 12 Senate seats; lost control of both Houses
1994 – Lost 54 House seats; lost 9 Senate seats; lost control of both Houses
2010 – Lost 59-65 House seats; lost 6 Senate seats; lost control of House but not Senate
So 2010 was the first time since 1894 that the Democrats lost 59 or more House seats and lost control of the House. And what makes it all the more devastating is the far right-wing extremism of so many of the incoming Republicans. Therefore it is important to understand the political dynamics of the Democratic loss.
Overview of 2010 Democratic loss of House seats
The 2010 U.S. House elections involved 171 incumbent Republicans running for re-election. 169 of them (99%) won. There were also 24 seats in which no incumbent ran. Republicans won 21 (87%) of those seats. Democratic incumbents fared far worse than Republican incumbents, losing 49 of 240 seats (20%), with another 6 (2%) still pending. Let’s consider some of the factors involved in the loss of so many seats held by Democratic incumbents.
Role of partisanship
Far and away the most important single variable in the loss of seats held by Democratic incumbents was the conservative nature of the districts in which most of the seats were lost.
The Cook Partisan Voting Index (PVI) is a measure of how the Congressional Districts voted in the last two presidential elections. Of the 240 House elections in which Democratic incumbents won, 184 represented House districts with Democratic PVIs. The Democratic incumbents didn’t fare too terribly in those districts, winning 172 (93%) and losing 10 (5%), with 2 (1%) pending. But in the 58 House districts with Republican PVIs, the Democratic incumbents lost 39 seats (67%) and won only 15 (26%), with 4 pending. In summary, given the mood of this year’s electorate, the PVI alone statistically predicted 84% of the results among Democratic House incumbents.
Therefore, what mostly happened in 2010 was that Democrats from conservative districts lost seats that they had won in 2006 and 2008 when the Democratic Party fared much better. Indeed more than half of the 54 member Blue Dog coalition was wiped out in this election.
Role of voting patterns
The National Journal ranked all but 8 of the 240 Democrats running for reelection in the House according to their tendency to vote in a liberal direction on economic, social, and foreign affairs legislation. Those rankings demonstrated virtually no statistical effect on the likelihood of those Democrats maintaining their seats. The incumbent Democrats from the more liberal districts tended to vote substantially more liberally in all three categories, whereas those from the more conservative districts tended to vote more conservatively in all three categories. So those voting patterns don’t tell us a great deal. Had those from the more liberal districts voted more conservatively than they did, or had those from the more conservative districts voted more liberally than they did, both group probably would have lost more seats.
However, their votes on the health care reform bill and Obama’s TARP plan did have some statistically significant effect – a negative effect for a “yes” vote. Actually, those who voted for that legislation were substantially more likely to hold on to their seats. But that’s just because those who voted for them were mainly from the more liberal districts. It was the Democrats from the conservative districts whose seats were in great jeopardy, and for those Democrats a vote for Obama’s health care bill, and to a lesser extent his TARP plan, increased their likelihood of losing their seat. Evaluation of the health care vote in addition to the TARP vote and the PVI increased the statistical power to predict the election results from 84% to 88%. None of the other voting patterns noted above significantly added predictive power.
What the exit polls tell us
Much of the exit poll data tells us what we already knew. Voters who were most likely to vote Democratic were young, poor, women, black or Latino, members of labor unions, liberal, not very religious, and were either the least educated of the electorate (high school dropouts) or the most educated (graduate school degrees). But some of the polling data was much more interesting:
The Obama factor
The exit polls show that voters who disapprove of Obama’s handling his job as president outnumbered those who approve by 54% to 45%, and that those who strongly disapprove outnumber those who strongly approve by 40% to 23%. More important, the 40% who strongly disapproved voted for the Republican House candidate by a whopping margin of 92% to 6%.
Furthermore, 37% of respondents specifically indicated that their vote was meant to express opposition to Obama (compared to 24% whose vote was meant to express support for Obama). Those voters voted Republican for their House candidate by a margin of 93% to 5%.
Opinion of the Republican Party
Responses to voter opinion of the Republican Party were especially interesting. Only 42% said that they had a favorable view of the Republican Party, compared to 52% who said that they had an unfavorable view of the Republican Party. Those responses were very similar to an analogous question regarding the Democratic Party – 43% of respondents said they had a favorable view of the Democratic Party.
One might think that the fact that the opinions of voters of the two parties were almost identical would have foretold a very close election for the House, rather than the huge Republican victory that unfolded. But those who held an unfavorable view of the Republican Party nevertheless voted for Republicans 23% of the time (compared to 10% of those who held an unfavorable view of Democrats voting for Democrats). Why would 23% of voters who held an unfavorable view of Republicans nevertheless vote for Republicans? A powerful clue to the answer to that question comes from responses to the questions about the economy.
Concern about the economy
Half of all respondents said that they were very worried about economic conditions (and another 36% were somewhat worried). Those voters voted overwhelmingly for Republicans – 70% to 28%. That finding should not be too surprising. Economic conditions have been very poor in our country for the last couple of years, and it makes sense that Democrats would be blamed for that, given that they have controlled both the presidency and Congress for nearly the past two years.
But it appears that voters did not blame the Democrats for the economy as much as the above considerations would lead one to think. In answer to the question “Who do you blame for economic problems”, only 23% blamed Obama, while 29% blamed Bush. But the most interesting responses involved Wall Street, which was blamed for our economic problems by 35% of respondents (Either Congress was not addressed in this poll question, or responses involving Congress were not included in this particular report).
Most important, voters who blamed Wall Street for our economic problems voted Republican by a margin of 56% to 42% – and this group made all the difference in the final election results. Some might think that this result is surprising, since the Republican Party has long been much more Wall Street friendly than the Democratic Party. However, over the last couple of years and beyond, the Democratic Party – both its president and its Congresspersons – has done a very poor job of differentiating itself from the interests of Wall Street. That’s the way that I see it (more on that below), and that’s the way that most voters saw it too. In other words, on an issue that pretty much decided the election, the Democratic Party failed to side with the bulk of the American people over the financial elites who provide a good deal of funding for many of their campaigns – and they apparently paid the price for it. It must be said that neither did the Republican Party side with the American people on economic issues. But the Democrats were in control of both Congress and the presidency, and so they were blamed for it.
A few words about voter suppression
One thing you never see mentioned in election polling articles is voter suppression – even though it is a major factor in many national elections in the United States these days, and probably accounted for George W. Bush’s election “victories” in both 2000 and 2004.
Information on what kinds of voters actually turn out to vote comes from exit polling. So when pollsters make assumptions about registered Democrats being less likely to vote than Republicans, they base those assumptions largely on exit poll data. But with intensive voter suppression activities, many voters who come out to vote, or who attempt to vote, don’t actually vote and aren’t included in the exit polls either.
All types of dirty tricks are used to prevent minorities, the poor, and Democrats in general from voting. Massive organized efforts are made to “challenge” voters in Democratic polling places, thereby slowing down the voting process, causing long voting lines, and causing many voters to leave, either because of time constraints or because of the intimidation itself. In many poor neighborhoods, flyers are passed out with incorrect information on voting times and places, or with threats of imprisonment in order to scare voters away from the polls. This year “Tea Party Patriots” put out an ad that put a $500 bounty on “fraudulent voters”. And they also have used fraudulent computer programs to make voters ineligible to vote, as they did to tens of thousands of Florida voters in 2000 and hundreds of thousands of Ohio voters in 2004.
The vast majority of voter suppression is conducted by Republicans, targeting Democratic voters. And they did it again this year, with Tea Party zealots playing a major role, as demonstrated in this expose written just before the election:
Numerous reports have documented how state GOP chapters, local Tea Party groups and organizations like Americans for Prosperity are mobilizing across the country – holding training sessions and posting instructional videos on their websites about how to challenge suspicious voters. But the right's concern about widespread voter fraud has virtually no basis in empirical reality; a 2007 study by the Brennan Center for Justice found that "an American is more likely to get struck by lightning than impersonate another voter at the polls."
Thus it is that massive organized efforts by thugs to repress voting end up getting interpreted by pollsters as lack of interest in voting by poor and minority Democratic voters.
The bottom line – Connecting the dots to explain the Republican tsunami of 2010
Robert Kuttner, in his book “A Presidency in Peril – The Inside Story of Obama’s Promise, Wall Street’s Power, and the Struggle to Control our Economic Future”, explains the current political problems of the Democratic Party as well as anyone I’ve read – in a chapter titled “Political Malpractice”. The book was published well before the 2010 election:
Opportunity lost
Kuttner discusses how, following the 2006 and 2008 elections, the Democratic Party seemed to be in a great position to oversee a long-standing, if not permanent realignment of major party loyalties in the United States:
The events of 2008 portended a durable partisan realignment (in favor of the Democratic Party), comparable to the Roosevelt realignment of 1932… The political cycle built on conservative social, racial and cultural backlash, which had energized the Nixon, Reagan, and Bush coalitions, was winding down. It was giving way to an economic backlash that played to the natural strength of Democrats… Voters were steadily becoming more tolerant… Gay baiting was no longer a recipe for Republican success. Younger voters were increasingly tolerant of racial diversity, as Obama’s own election underscored….. Young voters were increasingly inclined to support Democrats… Blacks, Hispanics, and other immigrant groups leaned to the Democrats, and their share of the population was increasing, too. Better-educated and professional people tended to vote Democratic… Women voted Democratic by large majorities… More of today’s voters believe it is the responsibility of government to take care of those who can’t take care of themselves… If the Democrats needed one more gift, the unpopularity of the Bush administration, combined with the open disarray of the Republican Party in 2008 and early 2009, surely provided it. Sarah Palin… was an embarrassment to a majority of Americans. Meanwhile, the party of family values was the party of one tawdry sex scandal after another…
So what happened?
Siding with Republicans and the financial elite against the American people
Throughout much of his book, Kuttner discusses how Obama’s policies have favored the financial elite over the vast majority of Americans. He notes how Obama’s solution to the home foreclosure crisis was a program called “Making Home Affordable”, and he comments on that program, comparing it with the Obama administration’s TARP program (the Wall Street bailout).
Several trillions in loans and loan guarantees for the banks, and a grudging $3 billion for the homeowners who had been the banks’ victims (resulting from Obama’s program). As a consequence of the administration’s half measures and failure to move boldly, the mortgage foreclosure crisis is continuing to drive millions of Americans from their homes, depress housing prices… and retard the recovery… Refinancing underwater retail mortgages is comparatively easy. It just requires political will.
Sometimes it’s difficult to discern the difference between siding with financial elites at the expense of the American people vs. simply trying to conciliate Republicans. Obama’s emphasis during his 2010 State of the Union message appeared to be a combination of both, as Obama indicated that deficit reduction would be a priority over stimulation of a stagnant economy. Kuttner comments on that:
The proposal put a damper on Obama’s capacity to deliver new anti-recession spending. With unemployment still rising, the president was plainly signaling that deficit reduction now came first… The freeze was a feeble sop to deficit hawks…
Nobel Prize-winning economist Paul Krugman’s response was even more scathing in its criticism:
A spending freeze? That’s the brilliant response of the Obama team… It’s appalling on every level. It’s bad economics, depressing demand when the economy is still suffering from mass unemployment… It’s bad long-run fiscal policy… And it’s a betrayal of everything Obama’s supporters thought they were working for. Just like that, Obama has embraced and validated the Republican world-view… A correspondent writes, “I feel like an idiot for supporting this guy.”
And then there was the infamous “Cat food Commission”, about which Kuttner explains:
To further appease deficit hawks, Obama appointed a deficit-reduction commission – an idea that the Senate had just voted down. The commission was designed by its advocates to bypass usual legislative procedures and compel an up-or-down vote on a deficit reduction package widely expected to slash Social security and Medicare spending. This is, of course, appalling politics. It signals: We had to spend a ton of taxpayer money to rescue the banks and prop up the ruined economy. Now, though you have paid once through the reduced value of your retirement plan and your house, you will pay again through cuts in Medicare and Social Security.
The health care “reform” fiasco
I’ve criticized in great deal Obama’s so-called health care reform, especially with regard to his decision to omit the public option which he had promised during his campaign. Kuttner’s take on this issue is very similar, and he expounds on how Obama’s handling of health care “reform” affected him and his party politically:
Cutting a deal with the insurance and drug companies, not exactly candidates to win popularity contests, associated Obama with profoundly resented interest groups. This was exactly the wrong framing. This battle should have been the president and the people versus the interests. Instead more and more voters concluded that it was the president and the interests versus the people… The interest-group strategy made it impossible to put on the table more fundamental and popular reforms, such as using federal bargaining power to negotiate cheaper drug prices, or having a true public option like Medicare for all. Instead, by embracing a deal that required the government to come up with a trillion dollars of subsidy for the insurance industry, Obama was forced to pursue policies that were justifiably unpopular – such as taxing premiums of people with decent insurance, or compelling people to buy policies that they often couldn’t afford, or diverting money from Medicare…
The bill helped about two-thirds of America’s uninsured, but it did almost nothing for the 85% of Americans with insurance that is becoming more costly and unreliable by the day – except frighten them into believing that what little they have is at increased risk of being taken away
A few words about FDR as a means of comparison
I believe that a comparison of Obama’s approach with that of FDR is highly instructive. Both were faced with what are likely the two greatest financial crises of our nation’s history. There are basically two ways to respond to a crisis or to politically prepare for the next election. One is to fight for legislation and policies that will benefit the vast majority of people. The other is to approach it mainly from a political perspective, acceding to the wishes of powerful elites who have the ability and desire to fund your campaigns, or to fight you if you turn against them. Kuttner explains:
Unlike Obama, Roosevelt was not afraid to take on Republicans for fear of being called a partisan. Nor was he reluctant to take on Wall Street for fear of being called radical. Roosevelt was not intimidated by claims that drastic reforms would “unsettle” financial markets, which were already unsettled to the point of collapse. The point of the New Deal was not to appease money markets, but to remake them – which Roosevelt did. The strategy was not to conciliate the Republican Party, but to outvote it. Virtually all of Roosevelt’s major reforms were enacted over the strenuous opposition of both Wall Street and Republicans in Congress. But it didn’t matter, because the reforms served the people and the goal of a broad recovery. Roosevelt didn’t aspire to consensus at all costs but to help people, and that proved astute politics. Despite the hysterical opposition from the Republican Party and Wall Street, the people reciprocated. In his reelection campaign, Roosevelt carried forty-six (of 48) states.
During that campaign, Roosevelt brilliantly framed the battle as one of the people versus the selfish special interests. He could do this with credibility because his policies were bold enough to yield concrete benefits in people’s lives… Far-right movements trying to rally desperate people kept bumping into folks who loved Roosevelt, because Roosevelt had tangibly improved their lives. Socially conservative citizens who did not think much of Roosevelt’s relatively liberal views on race… nonetheless supported him in droves…
In conclusion
Kuttner explains that when there are no leftist/liberal/progressive forces to address peoples’ problems…
the right fills the gap. It doesn’t matter that their diagnoses make no sense or that their remedies fail. Anxious and frightened people seek scapegoats and simple explanations. The charge that Obama was a dangerous radical was preposterous, yet it resonated in part because of his failure to use a little constructive radicalism on behalf of popular frustrations….
In an economic crisis, popular frustration has to go somewhere. If progressives don’t tell a coherent story about the culpability of rapacious elites and work to restore some balance to the economy, right-wing populists are happy to supply the narrative. A moment when progressives were primed to take back a majority politics has been not just lost but actually ceded to the right… Barack Obama’s New Democrat advisers… evidently had nothing plausible to say to those in economic distress. A deep recession was demolishing people’s dreams, and the incumbent Democrats were plainly not delivering enough. When Democrats failed to deliver, they (voters) easily reverted to Republican.
Little else matters. A Democratic Party that puts too high a priority on appeasing Republicans and the rich and powerful is a party that is either headed for electoral disaster or one that will produce little or nothing of value for the American people – probably both. As Robert Kuttner says:
The Republican Party had no serious program to remedy the financial collapse… Nor did it have plausible national leaders… But none of that mattered. If the in-party fails to perform well in a crisis, the out-party gains.
-
First off - he should have completely shelved his agenda like Card Check, Cap & trade, and obamacare.
Second - he should not have emboldended the EPA to go wild against private industry.
Third - he should have fought for re-instatement of bush tax cuts.
Fourth - he should have included far more private sector business people in the cabinet.
Fifth - he should have done a payroll tax holiday at least, not a stupid credit through the stim bill
Sixth - he should have made the cap purchashes amortaization plan permanent.
straw - i can think of at least 100 things he should have done.
-
(WaPo:) Bad news Democrats _ 2012 could be worse than 2010
Washington comPost ^ | 11/9/2010 | CHARLES BABINGTON
________________________ ________________________ ______________________
Last week's election was bad for Democrats. The next one could be worse.
Senate Democrats running in 2012 will be trying to hold their jobs in states where Republicans just scored major congressional and gubernatorial victories - Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, New Mexico and Virginia.
The Democrats' problems don't end with senators.
President Barack Obama carried those states in 2008, and he will need most of them to win re-election in two years. But this time they all will have Republican governors. These GOP governors can try to inhibit the president's policies and campaign operations. They also can help steer next year's once-a-decade House redistricting process in the GOP's favor.
Moreover, Democrats must defend Senate seats in hotly contested Missouri, and in four states that Obama has little chance of winning, assuming he even tries: North Dakota, Nebraska, West Virginia and Montana.
"The 2012 Senate landscape shows a daunting picture for the Democrats," said Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, chairman of the GOP's Senate campaign committee. "They're not only defending twice as many seats as Republicans, but a number of them are in states where the Obama-Reid agenda is deeply unpopular."
Harry Reid of Nevada is the Senate majority leader.
The 2012 Senate map is much kinder to Republicans, who must defend 10 seats to the Democrats' 23. Except for Republican Sen. Scott Brown, who will fight an uphill re-election battle in Massachusetts, the GOP probably will be favored to keep the Senate seats it now holds.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
You have all been forewarned.
-
I think Obama is going to double down on stupid. After reading DSouzas book - Obama seems the type to rather go down in flames than work with the GOP.
Q F T