America Votes 2010

[Chisoxfn]

First, look at the bills that DID pass. The Stimulus bill was half tax breaks, which was not the Dems' intention, that was a concession to the GOP. The Health Care bill had all sorts of modifications to it to make it palatable. Clearly, concessions were made for votes.

 

Second, its been well-reported that Obama and his cohorts have reached out to GOP leaders in Congress, and were basically told that there was no interest in compromise.

 

 

 

Revolution? Hardly. They took the house, and couldn't take the Senate despite how bad everything is.

 

And did you seriously say Obama is one of the worst Presidents in history? He's not even the worst President in the past decade.

They made huge headway in the senate despite it being an election cycle in which by and large it were republican seats up for re-election. They held all of their seats and made significant headway.

 

What happened in the house was the biggest swing in 60+ years.

[Cknolls]

Yah... and the Republicans are the party of old white people and nothing more...

 

Good to see Michael Bennett win in Colorado. From what I've seen the guy doesn't seem like a complete tool, and it's always good to see homophobes like Ken Buck take it on the chin. The Dems must have a pretty strong team on the ground in Colorado.

 

 

Well if that includes the first Latina Governor, an Indian American woman Governor and two black Reps, then yeah.

[Chisoxfn]

...and it will swing back the other way by about 2014.

Would you like to bet on that?

[Soxy]

Biggest swing since social security was passed. I'd say the biggest swing in 60+ years is a pretty powerful mandate of sorts.

 

There is only one way to measure a revolution: what happens after. I imagine in 2 years, the R's will lose a bunch of seats in the house, maybe gain some in the senate. Who knows?

 

One election does not lasting change make.

 

Step away from the Kool-Ade.

[Soxbadger]

Its hard to predict swings because they depend on individual circumstances. But its not very hard to see that in 2012 there will be a push back. Historically the last 2 times a large swing like this happened (Clinton and some one else) they both were reelected 2 years later.

 

No matter what the sun will set tonight and rise tomorrow, something needs to change and I think this election is more of the same.

[StrangeSox]

There is only one way to measure a revolution: what happens after. I imagine in 2 years, the R's will lose a bunch of seats in the house, maybe gain some in the senate. Who knows?

 

One election does not lasting change make.

 

Step away from the Kool-Ade.

 

There were plenty of Democrats writing the GOP obituaries after 2008.

 

[Soxy]

There were plenty of Democrats writing the GOP obituaries after 2008.

 

Exactly and they were being silly too.

[Chisoxfn]

I'm not writing off the democratic party, I'm writing off the fact that in 2 more years, more change will occur and the republicans will likely grab a hold of the senate. Whether they get the white house or not as well, I have no idea.

 

Hard to say when you aren't sure who will be running. I also expect the tea party movement to grow more in the next 2 years.

[StrangeSox]

They made huge headway in the senate despite it being an election cycle in which by and large it were republican seats up for re-election. They held all of their seats and made significant headway.

 

What happened in the house was the biggest swing in 60+ years.

 

Why were there so many Dem targets? Why could they pick up so many House seats? Oh, right, because the Dems had such a strong majority.

 

It was a big night for the GOP, pretty much across the board. There's no doubt about that.

[Soxbadger]

Ill bet you that in 2012 (a Presidential election when you get much higher turnout which means a shift in voter age younger) you will see a Democratic push back.

 

Its a Sun Tzu principle, but you want to fight your battle on death ground. The last 2 years have been death ground for the Republican's they were pinned into a corner to be destroyed. But nothing makings people fight harder than being put in a position where the alternative is death.

 

Now it is the Democrats turn to be on death ground. You will see Republican's start to act as if they are bringing Democrats to their grave, but this will inspire Democrats to fight back harder than before. Because the Democrats could only lose in this cycle, there was basically no way they would improve from 2008. So you had complacency.

 

Now whether they can fully take back the House, hard to tell, but I think youll see them gain back seats as well as most likely hold on to the Presidency.

Edited November 3, 2010 by Soxbadger

[Chisoxfn]

Why were there so many Dem targets? Why could they pick up so many House seats? Oh, right, because the Dems had such a strong majority.

 

It was a big night for the GOP, pretty much across the board. There's no doubt about that.

And if you guys don't think that Obama and the democrats didn't notice where the republicans took power again, you guys would be niave. It was in the significant swing states or even historically democratic states.

 

I'm curious to see if Feingold sticks his nose out and tries to run for the democratic nomination 2 years ago. He just might and that could really make things crazy.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm not writing off the democratic party, I'm writing off the fact that in 2 more years, more change will occur and the republicans will likely grab a hold of the senate. Whether they get the white house or not as well, I have no idea.

 

Hard to say when you aren't sure who will be running. I also expect the tea party movement to grow more in the next 2 years.

Tea Party can't grow without viable candidates for national office, which they don't have. Also, its been co-opted, and I think it will look different in a couple years than it does now.

 

And I sincerely doubt the GOP makes another jump in 2012. Possible, but unlikely. I mean, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and the President is not well-liked, the GOP was still not able to take both houses. People realize that the GOP isn't some magic fix, any more than the Dems were in 2008.

 

[StrangeSox]

The Democrats aren't a fractured party right now, why would Feingold try to make it one?

 

The GOP is going to have a harder time reconciling the more sane part of their base with the tea party crazies.

[Chisoxfn]

Tea Party can't grow without viable candidates for national office, which they don't have. Also, its been co-opted, and I think it will look different in a couple years than it does now.

 

And I sincerely doubt the GOP makes another jump in 2012. Possible, but unlikely. I mean, despite the fact that we are in a deep recession and the President is not well-liked, the GOP was still not able to take both houses. People realize that the GOP isn't some magic fix, any more than the Dems were in 2008.

What will fix this country is compromise and that can only happen when you have a nice split power system. And I fully admit when the republicans got power happy they made massive mistakes too.

[Chisoxfn]

The Democrats aren't a fractured party right now, why would Feingold try to make it one?

 

The GOP is going to have a harder time reconciling the more sane part of their base with the tea party crazies.

And out of work Feingold is going to make things very uneasy.

[Soxbadger]

Why would Feingold run?

 

Maybe hell be a VP candidate, but I cant see any set of circumstances besides for Obama resigning where Feingold would even try.

[knightni]

Would you like to bet on that?

What's to bet?

 

There's an uproar by the swing voters, the incumbent "house cleaning" occurs, and the house changes over majority every 6 to 8 years.

 

The side that takes control thinks, "Man we're really going to do stuff now!"...and nothing of great significance ever gets done.

 

Keep your rose-colored glasses on if you want, but all of politics is a huge bureaucratic joke - no matter who's in "power."

[StrangeSox]

Compromise for the sake of compromise and split power for the sake of split power isn't a real answer. Appeal to moderation is a fallacy. It assumes that the correct answers really do lie somewhere in the middle of the current political spectrum.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation

 

It could be that some policies are just manifestly wrong and that there's no reason to compromise good policy simply for the sake of compromise.

[NorthSideSox72]

What will fix this country is compromise and that can only happen when you have a nice split power system. And I fully admit when the republicans got power happy they made massive mistakes too.

Now here I agree.

 

Hell, as much as I despise both Clinton and Gingrich as people, they were both very smart and very adept at their jobs, and both understood they needed to compromise to make things better. Unfortunately, that relationship was really the last time the Prez-Congress relationship was that effective.

 

Hell, look at Illinois. When Thompson and Edgar were Republican governors, working with Michael Madigan and a heavily democratic legislature, Illinois was actually held up as an example of a state that got things done better than most. Then under Blago and his predecessor, things went to s***.

 

I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves.

 

[StrangeSox]

If one party wants $4 billion in jobs programs and the other wants $4 billion in taxes cuts, that doesn't necessarily mean $2 billion for each is the best answer. Compromise for the sake of compromise leaves us with terrible policies like DADT.

[Chisoxfn]

Now here I agree.

 

Hell, as much as I despise both Clinton and Gingrich as people, they were both very smart and very adept at their jobs, and both understood they needed to compromise to make things better. Unfortunately, that relationship was really the last time the Prez-Congress relationship was that effective.

 

Hell, look at Illinois. When Thompson and Edgar were Republican governors, working with Michael Madigan and a heavily democratic legislature, Illinois was actually held up as an example of a state that got things done better than most. Then under Blago and his predecessor, things went to s***.

 

I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves.

I agree with this.

 

And in case you guys haven't seen, in the middle of all my ranting/raving I'm not stating the republicans would have done things differently.

[StrangeSox]

I agree with this.

 

And in case you guys haven't seen, in the middle of all my ranting/raving I'm not stating the republicans would have done things differently.

 

You're still painting a false picture of Democrats being completely unwilling to compromise on anything with Republicans. Hell, Republicans published manuals on how to obstruct anything and everything.

[Balta1701]

Tea Partier GOP Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann had a victory party last night. It wasn't in the district she represents.

Bachmann is making a push for the #3 spot in the GOP House Caucus.

[Balta1701]

I think Obama needs to decide at this point who he wants to be. Does he want to be a moderate, compromising leader, like a Clinton or an Edgar/Thompson, or does he want to try to fight tooth and nail? And by the way, Boehner and his crew have the SAME question to answer for themselves.

I don't know what Obama will do...but I can pretty much guarantee that if Boehner doesn't answer the way I think he's going to answer, he'll be beaten in a primary in 2012, or at least lose his speakership.

[mr_genius]

I paid no attention to the news last night. I take it this means the Tea Party candidates kept the Dems in control of the Senate?

 

GOP establishment candidate Fiorina lost pretty bad too. A bunch of tea party candidates won. Overall, the tea party helped the GOP in the midterms, that much is obvious. If they don't vote, or vote third party no big swing in seats.