We had a local Democrat tell us about how he respected Hoosier values, that Washington was out of control, that he would not simply vote along party lines, that immigration reform must not reward law breakers.... then he voted for Obama's amnesty for illegals. Before the Midterms I expect to see more Democrats scramble to distance themselves from the current Administration. Once the elections are over though they’ll quickly fall back into lockstep with their party.
The cynic in me also noted that she never once mentioned self defense in her video, only hunting and sporting purposes.
Frazzled wrote: Anytime a Democratic politican talks about guns like they are a supporter I just laugh and laugh and laugh.
Surely there's some gun-loving Democrats our there?
In other news... here's exhibit A on how mainstream news organizations treat Republicans differently than Democrats.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Jan 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 for Bush; and Jan 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014 for Obama.
Both eight-month periods are located in the respective president's sixth year, in the first half of the year before the midterms.
In both cases, the President's job approval rating hit lows in the low 40s. `````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Exhibit A1: Networks covered Bush's crumbling poll numbers 124 times in a 8 month period.
vs.
Exhibit A2: Networks covered obama's crumbling poll numbers 9 times in a 8 month period.
Frazzled wrote: Anytime a Democratic politican talks about guns like they are a supporter I just laugh and laugh and laugh.
Surely there's some gun-loving Democrats our there?
In other news... here's exhibit A on how mainstream news organizations treat Republicans differently than Democrats.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Jan 1, 2006 to August 31, 2006 for Bush; and
Jan 1, 2014 to August 31, 2014 for Obama.
Both six-month periods are located in the respective president's sixth year, in the first half of the year before the midterms.
In both cases, the President's job approval rating hit lows in the low 40s.
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
Exhibit A1: Networks covered Bush's crumbling poll numbers 124 times in a six month period.
vs.
Exhibit A2: Networks covered obama's crumbling poll numbers 9 times in a six month period.
Almost anything is a more neutral source than a orginization trying to prove something. It's like quoting a tobacco company on the health risks of cigarettes.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Almost anything is a more neutral source than a orginization trying to prove something. It's like quoting a tobacco company on the health risks of cigarettes.
I'll restate, please show me an organization like that. There is only opinion journalism now, often because of vested financial interests. And thats all sides, Fox most definitely included.
Use a neutral source or it doesn't mean anything (I mean, fox news id better than that).
*dodges Co'tor's clumsy swipe while smiling a gak eating grin*
It's obvious bias that easily described.
Keep this in mind: Both President's falling polls by itself isn't partisan... it's facts (or, as scientifically executed as "facts"). Facts, after all, have no political leaning. No one can say that these facts is partisan.
However, the choice to hammer Bush's poll ratings again and again is itself a partisan choice. (remember the "Grim Milestones", rising gas prices, Katrina, and the whole middle class stagnation????)
Conversely, during Obama's similar fall. The major big networks mentioned it nine times.
I mean, these news orgranizations have the choice of whether to report a specific fact, or conceal it, or whether to give it the "Headline News" treatment, or a minor mention on page A24... which points media's action as a partisan decision.
The media tries real hard not to appear interested partisans (by interested I mean they have an interest in the outcome of their reportage).
Hence, reviewing their treatment of Bush compared to Obama substantiates that there's partisan bias in their reporting.
Alternatively the television ratings regarding political news have fallen substantially, given that people who are concerned with politics tend to source their news from the internet; while those not so disposed change the channel.
Alternatively the television ratings regarding political news have fallen substantially, given that people who are concerned with politics tend to source their news from the internet; while those not so disposed change the channel.
That's true...
There's a belief that 24/7 news cycle will cease to exist in it's current format.
In it's place would be the internet and ppv channels like "The Blaze".
Considering that I have seen more than 9 reports about his poll numbers, and heard more than 9 reports from evil liberal NPR...I'll just chalk this up to another one of those "the media is evil" scary bedtime stories.
Facts must be presented. At a basic level this entails whether or not a glass is half-empty or half-full. Any such consideration will necessarily be political.
Facts must be presented. At a basic level this entails whether or not a glass is half-empty or half-full. Any such consideration will necessarily be political.
I...
uh...
O.o
Sure... I'd go with that.
I was simply saying that the reporting of a poll (ie, the fact of the discussion) in itself, isn't partisan. But, how such polls is communicated and by how much can be partisan.
Use a neutral source or it doesn't mean anything (I mean, fox news id better than that).
*dodges Co'tor's clumsy swipe while smiling a gak eating grin*
It's obvious bias that easily described.
Keep this in mind: Both President's falling polls by itself isn't partisan... it's facts (or, as scientifically executed as "facts"). Facts, after all, have no political leaning. No one can say that these facts is partisan.
However, the choice to hammer Bush's poll ratings again and again is itself a partisan choice. (remember the "Grim Milestones", rising gas prices, Katrina, and the whole middle class stagnation????)
Conversely, during Obama's similar fall. The major big networks mentioned it nine times.
I mean, these news orgranizations have the choice of whether to report a specific fact, or conceal it, or whether to give it the "Headline News" treatment, or a minor mention on page A24... which points media's action as a partisan decision.
The media tries real hard not to appear interested partisans (by interested I mean they have an interest in the outcome of their reportage).
Hence, reviewing their treatment of Bush compared to Obama substantiates that there's partisan bias in their reporting.
I'm not saying it's wrong (that's a whole other thing) I'm saying that it is a sight that is extremely biased. Slight to moderate bias is OK, but this is very biased. It is a right-wing organization bent solely on proving a single idea as fact. It's just not reliable, and you should get something else to back it up.
On the other part, I find it very hard to believe that there is a vast left-wing conspiracy to distort the media. The only thing these compaines are biased towords is money.
I was simply saying that the reporting of a poll (ie, the fact of the discussion) in itself, isn't partisan. But, how such polls is communicated and by how much can be partisan.
Well, that's not true. How a poll is constructed, and how it is presented by interlocutors (tone of voice, syllabic emphasis, etc.), is also necessarily political given that people will often respond differently as a result of very small changes in either.
I was simply saying that the reporting of a poll (ie, the fact of the discussion) in itself, isn't partisan. But, how such polls is communicated and by how much can be partisan.
Well, that's not true. How a poll is constructed, and how it is presented by interlocutors (tone of voice, syllabic emphasis, etc.), is also necessarily political given that people will often respond differently as a result of very small changes in either.
Keep pulling that strand dogma.
The point, is that instead of openly advocating for a desired candidate/party, they choose to run stories which, while not obviously partisan on their faces, are nevertheless chosen according to partisan motivations.
Don't claim to be "Fair and Balanced" or "Most Trusted News", when it's obvious that it's not.
There is bias in media, but it is not structured bias, but personal bias. An individual reporter that leans towards the democrats will unconsciously spin stories to benefit the democrats, same with republicans. As far as I know we only have one example of structured bias in the major media corporations, fox.
George Stephanopoulis is effectively the cohead of ABC News. Guess which Clinton Administration he worked for.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Co'tor Shas wrote: There is bias in media, but it is not structured bias, but personal bias. An individual reporter that leans towards the democrats will unconsciously spin stories to benefit the democrats, same with republicans. As far as I know we only have one example of structured bias in the major media corporations, fox.
NBC/MSNBC - owned by GE which had contracts with the government and paid big bucks in political donations.
Dammit, I forgot about MSNBC ! Don't watch much TV.
Also polls can be very biased. Even small things like: How good is President Obama doing? v.s. How bad is President Obama doing?
Can have have an effect on the outcomes. There is also things like sampling bias. And then there are downright falsifications. A little extreme, but gives the general idea.
The point, is that instead of openly advocating for a desired candidate/party, they choose to run stories which, while not obviously partisan on their faces, are nevertheless chosen according to partisan motivations.
There are numerous benign explanations for such behavior. Hell, you even agreed to one of them.
What strand? The phenomena that I'm describing are well known to anyone who has ever worked with poll statistics.
I have to agree with the accursed platypus on this one. The question itself and manner its asked is just as important. After all, thats what push polling is all about.
The point, is that instead of openly advocating for a desired candidate/party, they choose to run stories which, while not obviously partisan on their faces, are nevertheless chosen according to partisan motivations.
There are numerous benign explanations for such behavior. Hell, you even agreed to one of them.
“I would like President Obama to re-read the speeches of candidate Obama"
He's basically saying that getting involved in other people’s fights almost always makes our problems worse... and yet, he's endorsing intervention against ISIS in Iraq.
*shrugs*
He's also digging at McCain and the more hawkish potential candidates.
Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell
Follow
To be fair, the guy who made it over the fence at the White House should be able to live there now....with his family. #Undocumented
Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell
Follow
To be fair, the guy who made it over the fence at the White House should be able to live there now....with his family. #Undocumented
Would be funnier if it was a) a child jumping the fence and b) someone running into the Capitol.
You know, considering that the whole "undocumented children getting to stay with family if they make it across the fence" thing is actually mandated by a federal law that was passed by Congress and renewed multiple times, last in 2008 without any objection by Republicans.
But I guess that's not as funny as making a joke on twitter that has no basis on reality.
Richard Grenell @RichardGrenell
Follow
To be fair, the guy who made it over the fence at the White House should be able to live there now....with his family. #Undocumented
Would be funnier if it was a) a child jumping the fence and b) someone running into the Capitol.
You know, considering that the whole "undocumented children getting to stay with family if they make it across the fence" thing is actually mandated by a federal law that was passed by Congress and renewed multiple times, last in 2008 without any objection by Republicans.
But I guess that's not as funny as making a joke on twitter that has no basis on reality.
Definitely.
You know, I don't mind too much about the whole anchor baby\child situation. Just sign the fething guest book, get in line and do more to secure the borders/ports.
Anyhoo... is it me, or has there been an increased occurance of this sort of thing? (whackadoos trying to jump fence and run to the WH).
I don't know if there has been that many more. I'm trying to remember the year that we had the guy shooting at the White House, was that still under Bush? That's the last "high profile" thing that comes to mind, aside from the party crasher couple.
Having two incidents back to back is something that's pretty rare though, but I'm guessing that the average number of incidents have been steady. But that's just a guess on my part.
Edit: I guess the White House shooting was in 2011. I could have sworn there was one during Bush as well...
Since you are talking about it, apparently the guy is nuts, but not actually bad .
After he jumped the fence last week, agents found 800 rounds of ammunition in the Bronco, parked on Independence Avenue Northwest, in boxes and in magazines. Gonzalez told an agent that “he was concerned the atmosphere was collapsing and he needed to get the information to the president,” according to the complaint.
Probably Obama/Demcocrats is itching for a confirmation battle?
Or he is 63 and wants to get out of politics... I'd certainty understand that.
Either he really wants to spend more time with his family, which let's be honest, it's likely...
...or another shoe is going to drop (ie, Fast & Furious). Maybe the idea is to get his replacement confirmed before the GOP gains the majority in January?? Considering that it would be an even more obvious ploy if Holder waited until the mid-terms and it was official the GOP would have control in a few months.
Probably Obama/Demcocrats is itching for a confirmation battle?
Or he is 63 and wants to get out of politics... I'd certainty understand that.
Either he really wants to spend more time with his family, which let's be honest, it's likely...
...or another shoe is going to drop (ie, Fast & Furious). Maybe the idea is to get his replacement confirmed before the GOP gains the majority in January?? Considering that it would be an even more obvious ploy if Holder waited until the mid-terms and it was official the GOP would have control in a few months.
Still... odd timing.
Fair enough. I just find people tend to over-analyze things.
The comments on the article are getting hilarious. It's a bunch of Rs who made accounts spamming the hell out of it with stuff like "everyone in the administration should be arrested" (when no one has broken the law).
No one, but is she enough of a party loyalist to care who drinks from the cup she declined?
Still, being the first woman president in the US, forever, has an incalculable appeal. Knowing that, 100 years from now, little girls will be reading about you the way they read about Susan B. Anthony...
I dunno. I wouldn't run if I were her but it's probably not a wholly unemotional decision.
Polls tend to tell the partisan veiw in the areas mapped, when it is theunregistered who often decide the vote, ot at least that has been my experience.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Polls tend to tell the partisan veiw in the areas mapped, when it is theunregistered who often decide the vote, ot at least that has been my experience.
I used to argue with him online on how sabermetric biggest flaw is that it really discounts the human elements of the game. Fun times.
So you trolled him.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Polls tend to tell the partisan veiw in the areas mapped, when it is theunregistered who often decide the vote, ot at least that has been my experience.
Well, no, that isn't how polls work. At least not the ones that are commonly publicized.
Generally speaking a publicized poll will require a person to self-identify as being affiliated with a particular party (eg. "I am a Republican."); limited to a list which is created by the people administering the poll. Registration is not considered unless it is admitted to via a specific poll question, or registration records that are open to the people administering the poll.
“Mary Landrieu first ran for Senate in 1996 promising to be a champion for the black community,” Guillory says in the video, filmed in Opelousas, La. “But 18 years later, little has changed.”
“Our communities are poorer than they were in 1996. Our schools continue to fail children,” he said. “And our jails are filled with young black men who should be at home being fathers.”
Says Guillory: “Meanwhile Mary Landrieu lives in a $2 million mansion on Capitol Hill.”
…
Addressing black voters, Guillory says: “While you scrounge together food stamps to buy kool aid, she sips champagne at cocktail parties. While you dig through the couch looking for gas money, she flies around in private jets funded by taxpayer dollars.”
“But Mary Landrieu knows that she doesn’t have to do anything for our community, because no matter what she does, 95 percent of us will line up to vote for her,” Guillory says, “Every. Single. Time.”
A $1,000-per-plate fundraiser with Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor (Ark.) turned into an anti-Harry Reid gripe fest last month, after one donor blamed the majority leader for the Senate’s poor public approval ratings and said the idea of him leading the institution was laughable.
“If you asked a thousand Americans, is this the guy who’s best positioned to lead the U.S. Senate, people would laugh at you,” said the donor, according to another attendee and a recording of the event obtained by the Washington Free Beacon.
Pryor was speaking at an invitation-only fundraiser in New York to benefit the Democrats for Education Reform Federal PAC on Sept. 21.
During the discussion, an attendee began criticizing Reid, telling Pryor that the Democratic leader held some responsibility for the low approval rating of Congress.
“Let me just interrupt,” Pryor said, according to an audio recording that was corroborated by an attendee. “I think possibly the best thing that could happen … to this institution, this election cycle would be if [Senate Minority Leader] Mitch McConnell gets beat and Harry Reid gets replaced.”
The rest of Pryor’s comment is drowned out by clapping. A spokesperson for the Pryor campaign did not respond to requests to confirm this statement or questions about his opinion on Reid’s leadership role.
“Okay, so you made my question a lot easier,” the attendee told Pryor. “I agree with you 100 percent, because I think there’s a big, forget about partisanship and [inaudible], there’s a generational issue. I just don’t think Harry Reid is in touch with what is happening in modern America on education, the economy, all of these things.”
He went on to ask Pryor who would be the best option to succeed Reid as majority leader.
Pryor suggested Sen. Chuck Schumer (D., N.Y.), saying he “does a pretty darn good job there in the Senate, and he’s actually, he’s not this crazy wild-eyed, left wing liberal either.”
The senator also had favorable words for Sen. Mark Begich (D., Alaska).
“I think Begich is really strong,” said Pryor. “You know, he’s green, he’s just running for his first reelection.”
He called the leadership role “a full time [job], you have to really focus on that to the exclusion of all the state issues … you really have to devote your life to it. But I think Schumer is pretty much there on that.”
Pryor also weighed in on potential replacements for Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.) if he lost his seat to Democratic candidate Alison Lundergan-Grimes.
“The next guy in line would be [Senate Minority Whip John] Cornyn from Texas,” said Pryor. “Cornyn, I don’t see him as really being that great.”
Pryor suggested Sen. Richard Burr (R., N.C.), but “I don’t think he’d ever do it.”
“Of course the best one would be Sen. Lamar Alexander (R., Tenn.),” he added. “Lamar doesn’t have a chance of doing it, he’s too moderate in this environment.”
Earlier this year, Pryor told Politico that he would support Reid staying on as majority leader, although his endorsement was hardly enthusiastic.
“Yeah,” said Pryor when asked if he would back Reid. “It’s up to him on whether he wants to do it.”
The Republican National Committee later used this to hit Pryor for “ma[king] it clear that, if elected again, his first vote would be for Obama’s best friend—Harry Reid.”
Pryor has been pushing back against the Cotton campaign’s effort to portray him as partisan Democrat and a loyal foot soldier for President Barack Obama, who is unpopular in Arkansas.
A donor at the fundraiser also joked that “a lot of the Koch brothers money” was being used to tie Pryor to President Obama in Arkansas.
“Yeah. Eighty-five percent of it,” said Pryor.
Pryor’s campaign received a $5,000 contribution from Koch Industries last September, the Weekly Standard reported, and the company has been one of the top 20 contributors to his PAC since 2009.
Pryor was also the top Democratic recipient of Koch Industry contributions in the Senate during the 2012 cycle, taking in $10,000, according to OpenSecrets.
I mention this because, although I think she would win, I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton will not run for president.
Being president is actually kind of a lousy job and if the Democrats lose the Senate it will be more so
She already is fairly powerful in the private sector pushing for women's rights, without being tied to ethics rules and FOIA requests
It would likely be a pay cut
She likely legitimately would like to spend time with her family
This is obviously subjective, but in my opinion, in 2008 she capitulated pretty early.
She would be the oldest president ever (although women do live longer than men, so this one is last)
Good summary
I think she's likely pushed into running. Simply because she'd win handily.
Who else in the Democratic party has that kind of cache?
She'll get curb stomped on Libya and Syria. i think she may try to run. I think she has no chance actually. She can't campaign well and just looks...20th century.
I mention this because, although I think she would win, I strongly suspect that Hillary Clinton will not run for president.
Being president is actually kind of a lousy job and if the Democrats lose the Senate it will be more so
She already is fairly powerful in the private sector pushing for women's rights, without being tied to ethics rules and FOIA requests
It would likely be a pay cut
She likely legitimately would like to spend time with her family
This is obviously subjective, but in my opinion, in 2008 she capitulated pretty early.
She would be the oldest president ever (although women do live longer than men, so this one is last)
Good summary
I think she's likely pushed into running. Simply because she'd win handily.
Who else in the Democratic party has that kind of cache?
She'll get curb stomped on Libya and Syria. i think she may try to run. I think she has no chance actually. She can't campaign well and just looks...20th century.
I think that if she's nominated as the Democratic Presidential candidate, her past get whitewashed.
Interestingly, Republican Gov. Scott Walker is receiving the support of 50 percent of likely voters and Democratic challenger Mary Burke receiving 45 percent support, according to Marquette Polling. If he wins, this is a Republican that I'd want to see run for President. (unless HRC is running... then, he should just stay in WI)
Interestingly, Republican Gov. Scott Walker is receiving the support of 50 percent of likely voters and Democratic challenger Mary Burke receiving 45 percent support, according to Marquette Polling. If he wins, this is a Republican that I'd want to see run for President. (unless HRC is running... then, he should just stay in WI)
That isn't good data. The number of respondents is well under the industry standard (801 v. 1000). Additionally the variation between the MoE for all respondents and the MoE for likely voters is rather unusual, ordinarily you would want to see something significantly less than .6% if your sample of respondents is dominated by the group you have selected as likely voters.
I don't watch any of the news channels, so I can't talk about what the on-air statements are. But I know that I have read some very critical articles on CNN.com about this ad. I don't know about MSNBC.com because that website manages to be more worthless than FoxNews.com (seriously people, hire some better web designers).
I'm mixed on the ad itself. I see where it crosses the line, but I also think that if you use the wheelchair as a prop in your own ads then you lose some of the wind in your sail when you complain about other people using it as well. It's hard to scream "Oh no, she pointed out my wheelchair" if your ads include "look at me and my wheelchair" messages.
But she should have seen the outrage coming and known better.
The Agenda Project is a progressive non-profit political organization founded in 2010 by author Erica Payne. This ad, featuring clips of Mitch McConnell, Pat Roberts, and many other Republicans implies that austerity cuts to the CDC and NIH are responsible for the 2014 Ebola outbreak. This ad with run in Kentucky and other states leading up to the election.
It's crazy season now!
Both sides will be going butt-nutt fething pants now...
Is it now law that you have to be clinically insane to make political adds?
I saw one against the D who is to oust the R in my house district (an has a pretty good chance) who accused him of being... rich, and holding fundaiserd for Ds. The horror, a rich D who supports his party .
Co'tor Shas wrote: Is it now law that you have to be clinically insane to make political adds?
I saw one against the D who is to oust the R in my house district (an has a pretty good chance) who accused him of being... rich, and holding fundaiserd for Ds. The horror, a rich D who supports his party .
Are they actually still yelling about repealing the ACA? removing it will cause more damage than any possible good at this point. Unless a better system is put into place, nit just a strait repeal.
If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
They've always talked about replacing them with something similar to that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
They've always talked about replacing them with something similar to that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
They've always talked about replacing them with something similar to that.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
They've always talked about replacing them with something similar to that.
Yes, they have always talked about it. The same way I talk about taking over the world and becomg a universally loved world dictator.
There is no consensus on what would replace the ACA. I have a feeling they would repeal the ACA and replace it with.... essentially the ACA with a few tweaks about medicl device taxes, etc. It could be called Liberty Care or something.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
They've always talked about replacing them with something similar to that.
Yes, they have always talked about it. The same way I talk about taking over the world and becomg a universally loved world dictator.
There is no consensus on what would replace the ACA. I have a feeling they would repeal the ACA and replace it with.... essentially the ACA with a few tweaks about medicl device taxes, etc. It could be called Liberty Care or something.
Or, we could go to Canadian model by expanding Medicare and overhaul US tax codes to support this.
Co'tor Shas wrote: If you don't put a similar but better system in place, than preexisting condition protection, medicare expansion, people with government sponsored health insurance, ect will disapear. I'm fine with them repealing it (or trying to), but they would have to put something else in place, not just cut, and move on.
They've always talked about replacing them with something similar to that.
Yes, they have always talked about it. The same way I talk about taking over the world and becomg a universally loved world dictator.
There is no consensus on what would replace the ACA. I have a feeling they would repeal the ACA and replace it with.... essentially the ACA with a few tweaks about medicl device taxes, etc. It could be called Liberty Care or something.
Or, we could go to Canadian model by expanding Medicare and overhaul US tax codes to support this.
Yeah, the R's are going to vote for THAT! If ACA is "socialism" what do you think thei voters feel about a Canadian single-payer system? Even calling it "Freedom and Propserity Care" won't save it.
Not a Registered Republican if that's what you're driving at. But, I vote mostly Republicans, especially for Federal positions. I'm about 50/50 in my local elections. If you a local democrat and I haven't heard of you... I'll likely vote for you again because "you kept your head down".
Voter Fraud: As early voting begins in the Land of Lincoln, President Obama casts his ballot and a Republican state senator voting for himself finds that his ballot was counted for his opponent. Eric Holder, call your office.
The day after resigning as attorney General, Eric Holder told the Congressional Black Caucus that the voter ID laws he and his Justice Department opposed were answers to a problem that "doesn't exist." Yet when President Obama left the golf course Monday to vote early in his home state of Illinois, he was asked to present his ID before casting his ballot.
Upon casting his early ballot, Alex Wagner, the MSNBC anchor and wife of White House chef Sam Kass, opined that Obama was doing "something that almost a half million Texas residents may no longer be able to do this election cycle."
She was upset the U.S. Supreme Court "at five in the morning on Saturday . . . decided to allow Texas to enforce its strict voter ID law in the November elections."
What she failed to point out is that the president himself, like all early Illinois voters, is required by law to present a valid government-issued photo ID to cast his early vote. As we've noted repeatedly, there's no evidence voter ID laws suppress minority voting.
Judging from the polls, any voting suppressed this November will be due to the president's failed policies, which he has insisted are on the ballot in every state.
Also voting early in Illinois on Monday was Republican state representative candidate Jim Moynihan. "While early voting at the Schaumburg Public Library today," Moynihan said, according to the website Illinois Review, "I tried to cast a vote for myself and instead it cast a vote for my opponent." Moynihan also noted his surprise that "the same thing happened with a number of races when I tried to vote for a Republican and the machine registered a vote for a Democrat."
Somehow we're not surprised this could happen in a state where the art of "machine" politics was perfected if not invented. Moynihan was able to recast his ballot, and the errant device was reportedly taken out of service.
But we wonder how many voters might not notice such a "mistake" in a state with an extremely tight governor's race between businessman Bruce Rauner and incumbent Democrat Pat Quinn.
The latter is the successor to the disgraced and now incarcerated Rod Blagojevich, accused of trying to sell the appointment to Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat after Obama became president.
"Clearly, I am concerned that citizens will be unable to vote for the candidate of their choice, especially if they are in a hurry and do not double-check their ballot," Moynihan said.
"This was a calibration error of the touch-screen of the machine," Jim Scalzitti, deputy communications director for the Cook County Board of Elections, told the website Illinois Watchdog. We would like to believe that, but it might not have been.
Clearly there has been much resistance among Democrats to voting integrity measures such as voter ID. We're reminded of the case of Melowese Richardson, the Hamilton County, Ohio, poll worker who was convicted of casting multiple votes for President Obama.
When the Virginia Voter Alliance cross-checked voter rolls in Virginia and Maryland, it announced that it had turned up 44,000 people registered to vote in both states at the same time. The group also identified 31,000 dead voters via the Social Security Administration's Death Master File.
Just this week, an Arizona ballot monitor caught a man wearing a Citizens for a Better Arizona T-shirt stuffing hundreds of early ballots in a ballot box, while guerrilla filmmaker James O'Keefe revealed undercover footage of liberal activists in Colorado urging him to fill out unused ballots, a violation of the law.
Also in Colorado, campaign workers have been going door to door, asking voters for mail-in ballots, a practice some fear could be abused. Meanwhile, in New York City, it's official: There are 850 registered voters who are officially listed as 164 years old or older.
As these shenanigans show, things are getting serious everywhere. Now Chicago demonstrates that vote fraud is not only real, it may now even be automated.
SC Democratic gubernatorial candidate, State Senator Vincent Shaheen, called Republican Governor Nikki Haley a “whore” during a stump speech this week.
SC Democratic gubernatorial candidate, State Senator Vincent Shaheen, called Republican Governor Nikki Haley a “whore” during a stump speech this week.
Not sure I'd agree with this... at least in my neck of the woods. There's a ton of grassroots "millennial" groups heavily involved in this voting season like in '12.
“Millennials could have the definitive impact on the election, and that impact could be from them not showing up,” warned Celinda Lake.
“They look to have the lowest turnout rates right now which would be a disaster for progressive candidates,” she added in an online interview for Harvard University’s Institute of Politics.
Lake, one of the Washington’s top pollsters, said that younger voters are frustrated with the Democrats and feel abandoned by politics.
“That’s the biggest concern right now for Democrats and progressives in particular, is that millennial voters look very, very discouraged. They don’t think that anyone has particularly spoken to them, anyone has been doing anything for them, it’s a bad economy, it’s expensive education, and all the kinds of concerns that millennials have,” said Lake.
Speaking for my state, I'm already resigned to accepting that Joni Ernst is going to win, with the kind of "support" that Bruce BaileyBaileyBailey Braley has gotten.
Washington (CNN) -- Nearly 7 in 10 Americans are angry at the direction the country is headed and 53% of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's job performance, two troubling signs for Democrats one week before the midterm elections, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows.
Democrats are battling to try and save the Senate majority, while hoping to prevent more losses in the House, which the GOP controls by a 234 to 201 margin.
In the Senate, Republicans need a net gain of six seats, and several state polls in the past month of contested races show that Democrats are in danger of losing control of the majority, and thus Congress. Currently, Democrats control the Senate by a 55-45 margin with two of those seats held by independents that align themselves politically with Democrats.
The CNN/ORC poll shows that 30% of Americans are "very angry" and 38% are "somewhat angry" about the way things are going in the country, while 31% expressed "no anger" at all. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes the 31% of "very angry" Americans matches the mood of the country in 2010 when Republicans took back control of the House.
In next week's election, the emotion of anger could be a motivating factor in driving out GOP voters. While 36% of Republican voters said they are "extremely" or "very enthusiastic," about voting this year, only 26% of Democrats use that language to describe themselves, in the CNN/ORC poll.
"That 10 point difference is certain to affect turnout and hurt Democrats' chances in marginal districts," Holland said about the 435 House races on the ballot next Tuesday.
And this enthusiasm gap, coupled with dissatisfaction over how the president is leading the country, is likely to influence the dozen races that will decide which political party controls the Senate for the next two years. A deeper look into the polling data shows that Obama's job performance is only viewed favorably in the Northeast, 51%, and in urban areas, 60%.
All but one of the races that will decide which party controls the Senate in 2015 are located in the three other geographic areas of the country and Obama's approval rating is in the low 40's in each one.
· In the Midwest, where Democrats are trying to hold an open Senate seat in Iowa, Obama has a 56% disapproval rating.
· In the South, where three Democratic incumbents are battling for re-election in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Republicans are trying to hold an open seat in Georgia, as well as protect Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, the president has a 52% disapproval rating.
· In the West where Democratic incumbents are fighting for another six year term in Alaska and Colorado, Obama's disapproval rating is 55%.
Making matters even more difficult for Democrats is that Obama's disapproval rating among rural voters is 70% and the eight states listed above have sizable rural populations.
Nationally, when asked if they agree with Obama on issues that matter most to them, only 42% said yes, while 55% said they disagreed with him, in the poll.
It is no surprise that Obama has purposely stayed away from campaigning for Senate candidates in difficult contests.
It is widely believed that Democratic seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia will be won by Republicans in November. If this were to happen, Republicans will only need a net gain of three more seats to take back the Senate majority.
As for Congress, only 13% of Americans approve of how it is handling its job, while 85% disapprove.
Washington (CNN) -- Nearly 7 in 10 Americans are angry at the direction the country is headed and 53% of Americans disapprove of President Barack Obama's job performance, two troubling signs for Democrats one week before the midterm elections, a new CNN/ORC International Poll shows.
Democrats are battling to try and save the Senate majority, while hoping to prevent more losses in the House, which the GOP controls by a 234 to 201 margin.
In the Senate, Republicans need a net gain of six seats, and several state polls in the past month of contested races show that Democrats are in danger of losing control of the majority, and thus Congress. Currently, Democrats control the Senate by a 55-45 margin with two of those seats held by independents that align themselves politically with Democrats.
The CNN/ORC poll shows that 30% of Americans are "very angry" and 38% are "somewhat angry" about the way things are going in the country, while 31% expressed "no anger" at all. CNN Polling Director Keating Holland notes the 31% of "very angry" Americans matches the mood of the country in 2010 when Republicans took back control of the House.
In next week's election, the emotion of anger could be a motivating factor in driving out GOP voters. While 36% of Republican voters said they are "extremely" or "very enthusiastic," about voting this year, only 26% of Democrats use that language to describe themselves, in the CNN/ORC poll.
"That 10 point difference is certain to affect turnout and hurt Democrats' chances in marginal districts," Holland said about the 435 House races on the ballot next Tuesday.
And this enthusiasm gap, coupled with dissatisfaction over how the president is leading the country, is likely to influence the dozen races that will decide which political party controls the Senate for the next two years. A deeper look into the polling data shows that Obama's job performance is only viewed favorably in the Northeast, 51%, and in urban areas, 60%.
All but one of the races that will decide which party controls the Senate in 2015 are located in the three other geographic areas of the country and Obama's approval rating is in the low 40's in each one.
· In the Midwest, where Democrats are trying to hold an open Senate seat in Iowa, Obama has a 56% disapproval rating.
· In the South, where three Democratic incumbents are battling for re-election in Arkansas, Louisiana, North Carolina, and Republicans are trying to hold an open seat in Georgia, as well as protect Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell in Kentucky, the president has a 52% disapproval rating.
· In the West where Democratic incumbents are fighting for another six year term in Alaska and Colorado, Obama's disapproval rating is 55%.
Making matters even more difficult for Democrats is that Obama's disapproval rating among rural voters is 70% and the eight states listed above have sizable rural populations.
Nationally, when asked if they agree with Obama on issues that matter most to them, only 42% said yes, while 55% said they disagreed with him, in the poll.
It is no surprise that Obama has purposely stayed away from campaigning for Senate candidates in difficult contests.
It is widely believed that Democratic seats in Montana, South Dakota, and West Virginia will be won by Republicans in November. If this were to happen, Republicans will only need a net gain of three more seats to take back the Senate majority.
As for Congress, only 13% of Americans approve of how it is handling its job, while 85% disapprove.
And this was a partisan Congress, so a lot of incumbents voted along party lines. Have they left it too late to suit up?
Prominent Democratic strategists are growing increasingly nervous that the national political environment is not only bad for their side but is moving in the wrong direction in the final days before the election, a trend that could not only cost them control of the Senate but also visit double-digit House losses on the party.
“The environment has settled and it’s bad,” said one senior Democratic party operative closely monitoring the party’s prospects this fall. The source added that Democratic candidates’ numbers among independents and seniors — two critically important voting blocs — have begun to erode; “they are just not as friendly to us as they once were,” the source explained. …
There were lots (and lots) of reasons given for the difficulties facing Democrats. The Senate map. The historic trends of second term, midterm elections — aka the “six-year itch.” Voter apathy. But the one factor that virtually every person I talked to cited as the biggest reason for the party’s current predicament was President Obama.
“This off-year election has become almost entirely a referendum on the president,” said one Democratic consultant involved in a number of closely-fought congressional races. “It’s not just anger at [the Affordable Care Act]. He has become, in my opinion wrongly, the symbol of dysfunction in Washington. That has led to a demoralized Democratic base, energized Republicans and those in the middle have an easy way of venting their frustration, and that is to punish the president’s party.”
“It is not ALL Obama but a lot of it is,” said another Democratic strategist knee-deep in the 2014 midterms and granted anonymity to speak candidly. “[People] are very upset with government and people think Democrats are in charge, so they are taking it out on Democrats more than Republicans.”
According to this...the problem for Democrats is the incompetence of the Democrats™ running the federal government and foreign policy.
According to this...the problem for Democrats is the incompetence of the Democrats™ running the federal government and foreign policy.
Well, not really, the argument presented was that people have decided to blame the Obama Administration for the perceived failures of the state. That's a far cry from a claim to incompetence.
And I think that (not incompetence) is a major factor as many people pay no attention to the actions of their state representatives beyond what they hear in campaign commercials*; which are usually about nothing more than riling up the base and the angry.
That being said, extreme anger often correlates highly with extreme disenfranchisement, something the CNN article you posted earlier failed to address. Granted, it is CNN's (or "insert news network's*) analysis of its own poll, so that isn't surprising.
*Especially during mid-terms, when people tend to pay less attention to politics in general.
On a more serious note, it does seem that there was more animosity towards Obama from the get go on account of his race, but they are people who would be against him even if he was white, so it shouldn't effect polls much.
Will a GOP senate reinstate the time-honored tradition of the filibuster? Or will they enjoy the very thing they complained about (and will a democrat minority bitch about their own invention)?
I can't see any reason a GOP majority would want to bring back the filibuster and hand it to a Democratic minority.
I have no problems with the filibuster in theory - a legislator who feels so strongly about some outrageous thing they need to stand up reading pages of a phone book, acting on principle and sheer will.
I'm very unhappy with how the filibuster was used in practice, though - an arbitrary number to overcome votewise, and anything within that range, you can just threaten one and have it be just as good as actually doing it.
I can't see an easy way to avoid that sort of laziness, so it's probably best that it's gone.
d-usa wrote: Will a GOP senate reinstate the time-honored tradition of the filibuster? Or will they enjoy the very thing they complained about (and will a democrat minority bitch about their own invention)?
What filibuster rule?
You mean, when Reid "nuked" the rule to overcome a filibuster by simple majority for political positions (minus the SC)???
if it's good for the goose... it's good for the gander,
You mean, when Reid "nuked" the rule to overcome a filibuster by simple majority for political positions (minus the SC)???
if it's good for the goose... it's good for the gander,
Yes, for all those republican nominees the president will be putting out there!
Wait...
I'm in Maryland, so the battle between Brown and Hogan is kind of interesting. The papers all keep touting how close the election is because Hogan has support in Western (read: rural conservative) Maryland, while Brown has the I-95 corridor and Baltimore. 538 has Brown with a sizable lead though, which I find way more likely than Maryland suddenly going red. Guess we'll see tomorrow though!
You mean, when Reid "nuked" the rule to overcome a filibuster by simple majority for political positions (minus the SC)???
if it's good for the goose... it's good for the gander,
Yes, for all those republican nominees the president will be putting out there!
Heh...
They'll probably move it back to the original 60. Then, *if* a Republican wins the WH (which I seriously doubt), then if the Rs still has control over the Senate, then knock it down as an "Ace" card.
Wait...
Looks like political positions will be year-to-year then.
I'm in Maryland, so the battle between Brown and Hogan is kind of interesting. The papers all keep touting how close the election is because Hogan has support in Western (read: rural conservative) Maryland, while Brown has the I-95 corridor and Baltimore. 538 has Brown with a sizable lead though, which I find way more likely than Maryland suddenly going red. Guess we'll see tomorrow though!
I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...
I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...
Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?
As to the Reid nuke, I could see the Rs striking it as a matter of principle spite. I'm sure they'd love to use it themselves, but like you said, it's doubtful that they'll be seeing an R president any time soon. It's worth wondering if they'll still control Congress when an R does become president again.
I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...
Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?
Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.
As to the Reid nuke, I could see the Rs striking it as a matter of principle spite. I'm sure they'd love to use it themselves, but like you said, it's doubtful that they'll be seeing an R president any time soon. It's worth wondering if they'll still control Congress when an R does become president again.
Agreed. It's better long term tactic for the Rs to go back to the original 60 to overcome filibuster imo.
I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...
Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?
Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.
As to the Reid nuke, I could see the Rs striking it as a matter of principle spite. I'm sure they'd love to use it themselves, but like you said, it's doubtful that they'll be seeing an R president any time soon. It's worth wondering if they'll still control Congress when an R does become president again.
Agreed. It's better long term tactic for the Rs to go back to the original 60 to overcome filibuster imo.
538 has Brown with a 97% chance of victory, so yeah, I agree with you.
And yeah, better longterm since wouldn't they have enough votes in the Senate to Filibuster any nominees anyway? Even with the Reid nuke in place?
The 60 person filibuster vote could end up being an interesting political play.
On one hand I would imagine that the republicans would like to have the same option that the democrats gave themselves, although it would be of very limited benefit during the next two years. It would be nice to have during a republican administration, but there is no guarantee that the GOP will keep the senate in 2016 if they win it now.
So do they get rid of it now, while it is useless to them, to make a show of restoring the old traditions of the senate and to get rid of shenanigans started by Democrats? It would make for nice "we gave a voice back to the minority because we love the principles of the Republic" sound bites in the next elections.
But if they end up with a GOP senate and WH they would probably like to change it back to what the democrats had. That would open them up to democrats telling everyone "they complained, but look at them snatching power now".
But if it gets rolled back and the Democrats end up with the Senate and White House in 2016 they would have to change the rules again, which would give Republicans the opportunity to say "they took the power once and we graciously gave it back. Now they want that power again to silence the minority!"
It's all politics, and I wouldn't fault a GOP senate for using the same tools that the democrats gave themselves. But it will be interesting how it plays out in the talking points.
Yeah... we'll see where it goes. To me, they really don't gain much of anything by keeping it a simply majority now. Remember, we're only talking about non-Supreme Court nominees.
The biggest reason for gridlock is the abandonment of federalism and the elevation of the solution to every problem we face to the federal level.
If the Democrats/Progressives truly wanted to reduce gridlock(as alluded in that opinion piece), then they should embrace a restoration of federalism so Blue/Read states can make stupid decisions unimpeded by other Blue/Red state legislators.
However, the far Right/Left (the extremes! throw in the entrenched establisment too!) will never advocate for this, because the goal of "their team" is the accumulation and centralization of as much power as possible. Federalism decentralizes power and thus weakens statism.
The best way to end gridlock is to restore federalism and enact further limits on the federal government. (probably the only way is via an Article V Convention of the States, which has about absolute zero chance of happening).
EDIT: and really, this is another argument for repealing the 17th amendment too.
Unless the Ds take control of both houses, we will see exactly the same amount of gridlock (and the chances of that are pretty darn low), so I don't think this election will change anything.
My personal hope is that a wave of moderate 3rd party canditates overtake the established group, working with both sides to bring about what is best for America. But in our current system, that's about a million to one.
Election-wise I'm very interested in my state representatives race, it's the same people running against each-other as last year, and the current one only won by 18 votes. Should be interesting. Also, it's my first time voting, so that's cool.
I honestly doubt that they will actually get rid of it. They will kill it once for show, it will get vetoed, then they can say they tried and move to the center-right to try and repair the GOP brand before the 2016 elections.
Despite all the noise, ObamaCare is fairly popular. The window to get rid of it has long passed. They might be able to get rid of stuff that needs to go (aka, actually fix the thing), but getting rid of it won't happen. There is too much on the line for the GOP and screwing with the ACA will hurt them too much in 2016.
Joni Ernst is projected to win Iowa. From the fawning media coverage she's gotten (along with her avoidance of interviews with press likely to be critical), I suspect a lot of Iowans are going to be surprised when they discover she is likely to be one of the most conservative senators in the country.
d-usa wrote: Despite all the noise, ObamaCare is fairly popular. The window to get rid of it has long passed. They might be able to get rid of stuff that needs to go (aka, actually fix the thing), but getting rid of it won't happen. There is too much on the line for the GOP and screwing with the ACA will hurt them too much in 2016.
You know... I don't buy that. (that ACA is very popular)
However, I think the what's going to happen is that instead, the market/regulation environment will be changed to encourage healthcare organizations (Medical Offices + Hospitals) to band together to offer "insurance" to regional areas. But, it's a different sort of insurance...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote: Joni Ernst is projected to win Iowa. From the fawning media coverage she's gotten (along with her avoidance of interviews with press likely to be critical), I suspect a lot of Iowans are going to be surprised when they discover she is likely to be one of the most conservative senators in the country.
Ouze wrote: Joni Ernst is projected to win Iowa. From the fawning media coverage she's gotten (along with her avoidance of interviews with press likely to be critical), I suspect a lot of Iowans are going to be surprised when they discover she is likely to be one of the most conservative senators in the country.
No, not at all. She has all the same extremist positions as Michele Bachmann, but is much more polished - she has learned well the lessons from Sarah Palin.
No, not at all. She has all the same extremist positions as Michele Bachmann, but is much more polished - she has learned well the lessons from Sarah Palin.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
That's how it works.
Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.
Ya know... how it's supposed to work?
In other news... the Govenorship... this is insane:
d-usa wrote: Despite all the noise, ObamaCare is fairly popular. The window to get rid of it has long passed. They might be able to get rid of stuff that needs to go (aka, actually fix the thing), but getting rid of it won't happen. There is too much on the line for the GOP and screwing with the ACA will hurt them too much in 2016.
You know... I don't buy that. (that ACA is very popular)
I think it's one of those deals where almost every individual part of the ACA is popular, but if you present "the ACA" people don't like it. But there are too many tangible benefits to where "repeal and replace" just wouldn't be popular, not that it is feasable anyway with the power of the veto. I still think they will do it at least once to pander to the base and they will probably do it early, but I really don't think they will push it much after that.
Fixes will probably happen, even though the GOP resisted them im public although they quietly made some key fixes with the Democrats already, but they will focus on being "good" to make a favorable impression for 2016.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
That's how it works.
Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.
Ya know... how it's supposed to work?
They did that in the first 2 years. "Compromise" turned into rolling over for what the GOP wanted.
And when the Dems wanted to negotiate and did give ground last year, they didn't give "enough" and the budget wasn't passed and a government shut down happened.
And that's not counting the endless filibusters the GOP Senate did for things like appointees.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
That's how it works.
Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.
Ya know... how it's supposed to work?
Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
That's how it works.
Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.
Ya know... how it's supposed to work?
They did that in the first 2 years. "Compromise" turned into rolling over for what the GOP wanted.
And when the Dems wanted to negotiate and did give ground last year, they didn't give "enough" and the budget wasn't passed and a government shut down happened.
The GOP House passed bills to fund the government.
Reid/Obama had no interest in negotiating.
Speaking of which... Cruz and all are pretty much vindicated.
Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.
And where was this fething mindset between '08 and '10?
The fething ACA? Not one Republican voted for it, nor were given opportunity to be "at the table".
After tonight, the memo should be:
Dear Democrats: Your asses? They have been kicked.
So maybe that'll humble the current (D)s a bit.*
*not holding my breath
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
That's how it works.
Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.
Ya know... how it's supposed to work?
They did that in the first 2 years. "Compromise" turned into rolling over for what the GOP wanted.
And when the Dems wanted to negotiate and did give ground last year, they didn't give "enough" and the budget wasn't passed and a government shut down happened.
The GOP House passed bills to fund the government.
Reid/Obama had no interest in negotiating.
Speaking of which... Cruz and all are pretty much vindicated.
Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.
And where was this fething mindset between '08 and '10?
The fething ACA? Not one Republican voted for it, nor were given opportunity to be "at the table".
After tonight, the memo should be:
Dear Democrats: Your asses? They have been kicked.
So maybe that'll humble the current (D)s a bit.*
*not holding my breath
Because the bill defunded massive parts of the ACA. The ACA was signed into law and the GOP continued to push to repeal/defund it. They wanted to re-negotiate things that had already been signed and passed. The GOP was trying to renegotiate things in the past. I mean if they want to do that, than can the Dems renegotiate the Iraq and Afghanistan war debt?
Oh yes, because that works so well. Just throwing bills back and forth gives us some of the ridiculous stuff we have today. Let me reiterate, I'm talking about designing each bill with representatives from both sides, not some sort of passive-aggressive re-wright war. And not passing the same redicoulus things over and over.. Herry Reid is a moron, I'll agree on that, Those bills should have been reviewed, but the republicans have been blatantly obstructionist. This does not exonerate the Ds, and vise-versa. If it was a R president and a D senate+house, I'd be saying the same thing The reason I am talking about the R's is
1. They have taking their obstructionist tactics to a new low, suing the president for no reason
2. They have been out to stop him from day one
3. As of yet, President Obama has not been obstructionist, he hasn't had the chance, and I don't want to assume.
And where was this fething mindset between '08 and '10?
The fething ACA? Not one Republican voted for it, nor were given opportunity to be "at the table".
After tonight, the memo should be:
Dear Democrats: Your asses? They have been kicked.
So maybe that'll humble the current (D)s a bit.*
*not holding my breath
Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.
No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?
Because the bill defunded massive parts of the ACA. The ACA was signed into law and the GOP continued to push to repeal/defund it. They wanted to re-negotiate things that had already been signed and passed. The GOP was trying to renegotiate things in the past. I mean if they want to do that, than can the Dems renegotiate the Iraq and Afghanistan war debt?
Newsflash buddy...
It's not unheard of to repeal/change previously passed laws.
And yes, they'll try to but a "repeal" bill on Obama's desk to force him to veto it.
Then, what'll likely happen is to incrementally repeal the onerous parts of the ACA (ie, device tax, employer mandate, HHS regulations, etc...)
Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.
Wait... back up.
The GOP took over the House. They were duly elected too... right?
So, they passed bills galore and yet, Reid wouldn't floor it on the Senate... and yet it's the GOP's fault?
Me thinks you don't know the meaning of obstructionist.
You just accused Obama of being obstructionist for passing the ACA (which is just passing a controversial law, pretty much the oppiste). The Ds are being obstructionist, I will agree, but so are the Rs. They have been against Obama from day one, It's what the tea party ran on. They have been against things that they actually support, just because Obama is the one putting them out there. If that's not obstructionist, I don't know what is.
No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?
Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.
Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.
Deal with it.
Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?
Well then, apparently you don't know the meaning of obstructionist . They passed that with a D house and senate IIRC.
Wait... back up.
The GOP took over the House. They were duly elected too... right?
So, they passed bills galore and yet, Reid wouldn't floor it on the Senate... and yet it's the GOP's fault?
Me thinks you don't know the meaning of obstructionist.
You just accused Obama of being obstructionist for passing the ACA (which is just passing a controversial law, pretty much the oppiste). The Ds are being obstructionist, I will agree, but so are the Rs. They have been against Obama from day one, It's what the tea party ran on. They have been against things that they actually support, just because Obama is the one putting them out there. If that's not obstructionist, I don't know what is.
Actually, I accused Reid of being obstructionist (likely at the behest of Obama).
The Democrats got spanked largely because of the ACA and other Obama/Democrat's policies.
No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?
Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.
Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.
Deal with it.
Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?
How could I? The were largely excluded from the drafting.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
RivenSkull wrote: The only times the House made any bill that involved the ACA was one of the 54 times they voted to fully repeal or openly gut the law.
So... a duly elected GOP House can't do anything to any existing laws?
And then the GOP Senators filibustering judge and other position appointees to the point where we've not had a Surgeon General for well over a year.
Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?
But no, it's been the Dem's who have been obstructionists.
No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?
Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.
Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.
Deal with it.
Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?
How could I? The were largely excluded from the drafting.
What? That has nothing to do with it. I want to know what changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it. It has nothing to do with whether or not they were allowed to participate.
No republican was ever going to vote for it because it is evil socialism. What changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it Whem'?
Sure, they wanted "a say". But, we won't know because Pelosi/Reid woudn't engage them.
Hence, the Democrats "owns" the ACA.
Deal with it.
Could you answer the question instead of talking about something entirely different?
How could I? The were largely excluded from the drafting.
What? That has nothing to do with it. I want to know what changes to the ACA would have made the Rs support it. It has nothing to do with whether or not they were allowed to participate.
Honestly? I wouldn't know...
I wanted the Canadian Model. (in conjunction to reforming tax laws)
So you have no idea how the R's would "improve" it?
The House bills they were passing had in writing what they wanted to do to "improve" the bill. How could you know if they were trying to bring reasonable things to the table if you didn't know the contents of the bills?
whembly wrote: Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?
I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.
whembly wrote: Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?
I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.
Sad thing is Reagan had further left policies than Obama
So you have no idea how the R's would "improve" it?
The House bills they were passing had in writing what they wanted to do to "improve" the bill. How could you know if they were trying to bring reasonable things to the table if you didn't know the contents of the bills?
Dude... last fall, right before that "shut down", the house passed several variations of the budget.
ONE had it to simply delay the Employer Mandate. Result? Reid refused to floor it. Several months later? Obama unilaterally delayed the Employer Mandate.
whembly wrote: Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?
I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.
Wut?
You know it didn't matter once Reid et. el. instituted the Nuke Option™ for non-SC nominee...right?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
chaos0xomega wrote: Wow, the Rust Belt went VERY red... I wonder if thats a sign of things to come in 2016?
whembly wrote: Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?
I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.
Wut?
You know it didn't matter once Reid et. el. instituted the Nuke Option™ for non-SC nominee...right?
You mean when he invoked it in 2013; after 5 years of shenanigans? Again, lets not pretend we don't know the things we do.
whembly wrote: Maybe Obama should've taken the Senate's "Advise & Consent" actions more seriously and nominated folks less extreme?
I think this stance is a little disingenuous - I doubt you truly believe this. If Obama had tapped the corpse of Zombie Reagan for a cabinet position, he would be denounced as Obama kowtowing to the extremist left fringe of the party.
Wut?
You know it didn't matter once Reid et. el. instituted the Nuke Option™ for non-SC nominee...right?
You mean when he invoked it in 2013; after 5 years of shenanigans? Again, lets not pretend we don't know the things we do.
So you have no idea how the R's would "improve" it?
The House bills they were passing had in writing what they wanted to do to "improve" the bill. How could you know if they were trying to bring reasonable things to the table if you didn't know the contents of the bills?
Dude... last fall, right before that "shut down", the house passed several variations of the budget.
ONE had it to simply delay the Employer Mandate. Result? Reid refused to floor it. Several months later? Obama unilaterally delayed the Employer Mandate.
Because... politics.
Please read H.J.RES.59. There were several aspects aimed at defunding the ACA, not just a delay which had already been implemented.
The Democrats may join in to overturn the veto, because they'll remember this happened today:
Because when the exact same thing happened to the Republicans and they lost the White House, the Senate, and the House they turned and embraced Democratic principles?
All the Democrats have to do is wait and see if the Republicans manage to get themselves back to the fringe in 2 years. The biggest thread to the Red Wave is the Red Wave.
whembly wrote: If they don't prove to the American people that they can Govern, it'll be a Blue Wave in '16.
So Blue Wave in '16 it is. If anything, I expect it to be worse than it is now: more posturing and grandstanding, less of anything else. Of course I kind of wanted the House and Senate to flip flop just to keep myself amused.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Well now that the Rs have no excuse, maybe they will try and work with the Ds.
You do realized that the House passed a feth ton of bills... it's just that Harry Reid refused to floor them for debate/vote.
Now? It'll be easier to put the bill on Obama's desk and dare him to veto it. Then, we'll all know who's the "obstructionist" will be.
By working with, I mean actually working with them, designing bills with them, making compromises, not all getting their own way. Just passing bills and dumping them on the president's desk is not working with.
That's how it works.
Had Reid could've put it on the floor... that ALLOWS debate and compromise. If the Senate changed the House's bill, and pass it... it'll go BACK to the house for more debate and passage.
Ya know... how it's supposed to work?
In other news... the Govenorship... this is insane:
I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...
Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?
Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.
Well... both of us were wrong.
Looks like Hogan is the next MD's governor! o.O
Red Wave™ indeed.
Re: MD's governor. I'm still in a bit of shock, but yeah, bad things ahead for MD.
Re: "Obstructionism". I can't tell if you're being facetious or you actually believe it; I've been leaning towards the latter lately. I'm not fully awake to discuss. Just know that the fact that there are people who actually believe that, doesn't speak well of education or political acumen in this country.
streamdragon wrote: Just know that the fact that there are people who actually believe that, doesn't speak well of education or political acumen in this country.
Well when a good chunk of people drink the Ailes and Murdock coolaid, can you expect any different?
Well crap, no one I voted for won. I swore the Green Party Libertarian wave was going to take it this year. Voting 3rd party is always difficult in the US.
Frazzled wrote: Well crap, no one I voted for won. I swore the Green Party Libertarian wave was going to take it this year. Voting 3rd party is always difficult in the US.
Voting 3rd Party is like giving a dollar to the homeless person at the street corner. Makes you feel good, but won't make a difference.
Frazzled wrote: Well crap, no one I voted for won. I swore the Green Party Libertarian wave was going to take it this year. Voting 3rd party is always difficult in the US.
Voting 3rd Party is like giving a dollar to the homeless person at the street corner. Makes you feel good, but won't make a difference.
Its way more fun when you take a dollar from the homeless. Oh they hate that!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: With Republicans controlling both houses and Obama being the President, is this two more years of deadlock?
Pfft. My guess is at least 8 more years.
I'm banking on 2 years of gridlock leading us to another Democratic sweep in 2016. The next two years are politically meaningless for both parties, but the situation favors the Dems going into 2016 when 33 Republican senators go up for reelection (and going up likely having achieved nothing, and do lots of shoe in mouth). I'm putting money down that 2016 will be a repeat of 2008.
I can't believe Brown is even close... I didn't think he had a snowball's chance...
Wait... you didn't think Brown had a chance? Or you didn't think Hogan had a chance?
Whoops... good catch... I didn't think Hogan had a chance.
Well... both of us were wrong.
Looks like Hogan is the next MD's governor! o.O
Red Wave™ indeed.
Re: MD's governor. I'm still in a bit of shock, but yeah, bad things ahead for MD.
Whoa, seriously! I love in MD and didn't think he stood a chance! "Bad things", though? Our last republican governor, ehrlich, was just fine. It's such a blue state, there won't be any extreme right wing agenda going on. I was so sick of O'Malley and didn't want his right hand man, even though I liked Brown okay otherwise. Looks like a lot of folks felt the same!
O'Malley was basically doing pre-presidential campaigning the last 2 years, even though he stands no chance. I'm sure that hurt Brown quite a bit...
Frazzled wrote: Well crap, no one I voted for won. I swore the Green Party Libertarian wave was going to take it this year. Voting 3rd party is always difficult in the US.
Voting 3rd Party is like giving a dollar to the homeless person at the street corner. Makes you feel good, but won't make a difference.
Its way more fun when you take a dollar from the homeless. Oh they hate that!
Also, again regarding Anthony Brown vs Hogan in the Maryland governors race - wow, Brown got crushed, 53% to 44%!
I saw this comment from someone: "O'Malley took the state from the 13th highest taxed state to the 6th."
I mean seriously... what was there prompting us to vote for a Democratic governor, other than most of us in this state generally like Democratic policies on social issues? His tax raising was insane, his presidential aspirations were totally transparent, and Brown just couldn't separate himself from all of that.
This seriously gives me hope that we're more than a "one party state"... as an independent voter myself, who was hoping to vote for Doug Gansler (who didn't make it out of the democratic primary - which as an independent in MD, I'm not allowed to vote in EITHER primary) this makes me very, very happy for our state.
Now, if we can just avoid the super right wing agenda, and just focus on getting some balance in the state - focusing on fostering a more business friendly climate, for instance, since we can only get jobs off of vicinity to DC for so long until we need to do some other things to put people in the state to work.
Man... again, as an independent voter who twice voted for Obama, this makes me very excited! I sat out this voting day, mostly due to time commitments, but also slightly because I just wasn't enthused by either choice, and I thought it was going to be a Democratic sweep. Having our state be able to swing the other way makes me interested in the whole process again - no "one party state" here!
So yeah, sweet, sweet to finally have a little bit of balance at the state level in MD. Hopefully, both parties work across the aisle and get things done for the good of the state. It's still the day after the election, so I'm allowed to hope (and as stated, our last Republican governor seemed to do that fine, at least that was my take, since our legislature is always going to remain largely democratic).
As a final, more general note, this is how the democratic process works - hopefully, it sends a clear message that there are some things voters are unhappy with about the way the Democrats have conducted themselves (in Maryland specifically, raising the feth out of our taxes ). A little bit of balance at the state level is a very good thing. On the national level, I don't have nearly as much hope for compromise, but there's always a chance. Let's see if both sides make the most of it, or fail to do so and continue as they have been.
RiTides wrote: Whoa, seriously! I love in MD and didn't think he stood a chance! "Bad things", though? Our last republican governor, ehrlich, was just fine. It's such a blue state, there won't be any extreme right wing agenda going on. I was so sick of O'Malley and didn't want his right hand man, even though I liked Brown okay otherwise. Looks like a lot of folks felt the same!
O'Malley was basically doing pre-presidential campaigning the last 2 years, even though he stands no chance. I'm sure that hurt Brown quite a bit...
Apparently Brown's campaign was beyond awful, I'll grant you that. A lot of people saw him as more years of O'Malley, which I don't really see as a bad thing. We have the #1 schools in the nation. The Bay is bouncing back after serious damage from corporate dumping. Are our taxes high? Sure. But do you really think Hogan plans to cut personal or property taxes? Hah!
Look on his site. His first bullet point is practically "trickle down" in a nutshell.
MD has a law requiring a balanced budget. When he cuts taxes, where do you think that money is going to come from?
The man was a crook, through and through. Attempting to sell off protected land, at cost, to a political buddy as being in the state's interest? Come on now.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm a bit bleary eyed having sat up all night watching the results roll in and I'm still no surer what the dakka is going on!
Can I get a straight answer from somebody on this question, because I've been listening to soundbites and Charles Krauthammer all night!
With Republicans controlling both houses and Obama being the President, is this two more years of deadlock?
By virtue of copious amounts of Obama's veto pen... possibly.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm a bit bleary eyed having sat up all night watching the results roll in and I'm still no surer what the dakka is going on!
Can I get a straight answer from somebody on this question, because I've been listening to soundbites and Charles Krauthammer all night!
With Republicans controlling both houses and Obama being the President, is this two more years of deadlock?
By virtue of copious amounts of Obama's veto pen... possibly.
Let's be clear: The republicans are on record saying that their plan is to pass a bunch of gak that they KNOW is going to be vetoed purely to make a political statement.
But yeah, totally going to be the President's fault.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I'm a bit bleary eyed having sat up all night watching the results roll in and I'm still no surer what the dakka is going on!
Can I get a straight answer from somebody on this question, because I've been listening to soundbites and Charles Krauthammer all night!
With Republicans controlling both houses and Obama being the President, is this two more years of deadlock?
By virtue of copious amounts of Obama's veto pen... possibly.
Let's be clear: The republicans are on record saying that their plan is to pass a bunch of gak that they KNOW is going to be vetoed purely to make a political statement.
But yeah, totally going to be the President's fault.
Or... ya know... Obama could work with the Republicans.
Meanwhile, in China, the quest for world domination continues...
America, I love your food, I love your women (some of them anyway) I love your film and TV programmes, and I love Sherman tanks and P-51 Mustangs
BUT
If America is going to be crippled by deadlock for the next 8 years, then I'm jumping ship. As America gets weaker, China, unhindered by all this democracy nonsense, gets stronger.
I've already ordered my copy of Das Kapital, so farewell America, and thanks for the memories.
I'm interested in understanding why the Dem coalition is so demotivated in Mid-term/Non-presidential elections.
Moderates and young voters tend not to vote in Mid-Term elections, which are often swung in favor of older/more radical voters. Probably because the mid-terms are lower key, so turn out is low to begin with, and the more fickle parts of the voting population feel less inclined to participate.
The Democrats may join in to overturn the veto, because they'll remember this happened today:
Because when the exact same thing happened to the Republicans and they lost the White House, the Senate, and the House they turned and embraced Democratic principles?
All the Democrats have to do is wait and see if the Republicans manage to get themselves back to the fringe in 2 years. The biggest thread to the Red Wave is the Red Wave.
True.
I always sort of puzzle at how get such big bold statements about an event like last night. Tidal wave, stampede, resurgence...
In many cases, the big votes in contested areas were still by low single digit margins. All we saw were moderate/swing voters going the other way in limited numbers, in mid-terms that have very different voter demographics from presidential election years. I blame the stupid red/blue graphics every station uses. It's like that 1 vote that tips it from Blue to Red is somehow a huge shift. All we saw were a bunch of purple states go either slightly lighter or darker.
If the Republicans are smart, they will put forward a crap load of moderate bills, focused on immigration, privacy, the pipeline, with reasonable popular support. They make the dems live with Obama's vetoes of bills he doesn't want Republicans to take credit for.
But they aren't.. They are fething idiots who will believe their own hype. They will go all big government, social conservative and tick off a lot of people that just put them in office with a very slight tip of the scale.
If they don't prove to the American people that they can Govern, it'll be a Blue Wave in '16.
Might still happen if Hillary runs...
Hillary will probably run, she might even win. If she is the Democrats' candidate it won't look anything like 2008. There's just no way that Hillary Clinton with all of her baggage can be as inspiring as Obama in 2008 and get 69,000,000+ people to turn out and vote Democrat. When you look at some of the incumbents that lost yesterday they were Democrats that rode Obama's wave in 2008 but couldn't convince voters that they did enough in office to warrant re-election.
If we're lucky we won't have Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush campaigning against each other for POTUS in 2016.
RiTides wrote: Whoa, seriously! I love in MD and didn't think he stood a chance! "Bad things", though? Our last republican governor, ehrlich, was just fine. It's such a blue state, there won't be any extreme right wing agenda going on. I was so sick of O'Malley and didn't want his right hand man, even though I liked Brown okay otherwise. Looks like a lot of folks felt the same!
O'Malley was basically doing pre-presidential campaigning the last 2 years, even though he stands no chance. I'm sure that hurt Brown quite a bit...
Apparently Brown's campaign was beyond awful, I'll grant you that. A lot of people saw him as more years of O'Malley, which I don't really see as a bad thing. We have the #1 schools in the nation. The Bay is bouncing back after serious damage from corporate dumping. Are our taxes high? Sure. But do you really think Hogan plans to cut personal or property taxes? Hah!
Not cutting taxes is at least better than raising them
I'm really happy about the bay. I'm all for education funding (as a former Baltimore City Teaching Residency teacher, myself). However, we were on track for both of those things before O'Malley, and he raised taxes significantly.
Not only that, but Hogan at least is pledging to form a bipartisan government, and have a bipartisan transition committee (one of the co-chairs of it also headed up a transition committee for a democrat). This state will always be very blue, but a little balance would be a Very good thing, and clearly most Marylanders thought so, too! Hogan won by almost 10%
whembly wrote: Or... ya know... Obama could work with the Republicans.
Ya know... like when President Bill Clinton did?
Obama like to say "I won" a lot...
Guess what? Republican won too.
Ah yes, that worked out so well every other frelling time he tried. Face it, this has been a "Obama takes a step forward, Pubs take 2 steps back" system of "compromise" since the beginning. This isn't news. This has been happening since day 1 of Obama's first term in office. They have almost literally clapped themselves on the back for this.
But no, totes on Obama. He should just shut his damn kenyan mouth and sign papers like a good little communist atheist muslim.
At least we can agree, that Michelle Bachman being replaced by a bland, ordinary, mainline Republican Congressman (Tom Emmer) will finally end our long National nightmare.
Easy E wrote: At least we can agree, that Michelle Bachman being replaced by a bland, ordinary, mainline Republican Congressman (Tom Emmer) will finally end our long National nightmare.
RiTides wrote: Not cutting taxes is at least better than raising them
I'm really happy about the bay. I'm all for education funding (as a former Baltimore City Teaching Residency teacher, myself). However, we were on track for both of those things before O'Malley, and he raised taxes significantly.
Not only that, but Hogan at least is pledging to form a bipartisan government, and have a bipartisan transition committee (one of the co-chairs of it also headed up a transition committee for a democrat). This state will always be very blue, but a little balance would be a Very good thing, and clearly most Marylanders thought so, too! Hogan won by almost 10%
I don't know what to say if you think the public will make out under a follower of Trickle Down. Time will tell, to be sure.
We were on track, right before the recession, yes. O'Malley kept us there. O'Malley's education policies in a recession kept the train going. Without him, keeping in mind Maryland's budget HAS to be balanced, education in Maryland would have taken the same hit that many if not all other states suffered from. Only BECAUSE he raised taxes did we stay #1 in the nation. Contrast with Fairfax county that dropped to like, #23 or something. I think they're down around the 90s now. Maryland, still #1.
I'm not some huge O'Malley pundit or anything. Everything I hear about the guy makes him sound like a douche canoe. But there is no denying he did good things for Maryland. I also agree he should have kept focusing on Maryland, instead of pretending his last 2 years as Governor were as President-elect.
Hogan won by 10%; voter turnout also the lowest it's been in 4 elections now (still at a whopping 45% though, go MD!). I personally find him being able to win Baltimore County absolutely bizarre. Not saying he didn't earn his win, like I said apparently Brown's campaign was beyond terrible. I still find his domination in areas that are staunchly democratic and liberal to be extremely bizarre.
streamdragon wrote: Hogan won by 10%; voter turnout also the lowest it's been in 4 elections now (still at a whopping 45% though, go MD!). I personally find him being able to win Baltimore County absolutely bizarre. Not saying he didn't earn his win, like I said apparently Brown's campaign was beyond terrible. I still find his domination in areas that are staunchly democratic and liberal to be extremely bizarre.
I think "bizarre" is the wrong word. It's clear that, in a very democratic state, O'Malley's administration had alienated the voters. I'm not saying all of his policies were bad, but I literally couldn't find anyone to talk to who liked him the last year (and keep in mind, I spend a lot of time in Baltimore city... it's not like I'm out on the panhandle).
It's possible to have some policies that are OK, but simply lose touch with the base. A lot of people are concerned about jobs/economy/etc in Maryland still, but it felt like O'Mally was just setting up his very left-wing positions for a Democratic primary presidential run in 2016. I would've been very interested, as I said, in voting for Doug Gansler, or many other democrats... but O'Malley's #2 in command? Definitely not . And as I said, it looks like lots of folks felt this way, so there is nothing "bizarre" about the outcome at all...
I actually think you and I might see eye to eye on quite a few things (I do generally vote democratic, after all). Would be interesting to have an in-person conversation sometime, as despite my brief foray in here I do really hate talking about politics on the internet . Anyway, as you say, will be interesting to see how things turn out for Maryland with a mixed governance (Republican governor and Democratic legislature). Personally, mixed governance is my favorite, rather than letting either party have a "monopoly" and be able to pass anything they like, so I'm pretty excited for the prospects here!
RiTides wrote: I think "bizarre" is the wrong word. It's clear that, in a very democratic state, O'Malley's administration had alienated the voters. I'm not saying all of his policies were bad, but I literally couldn't find anyone to talk to who liked him the last year (and keep in mind, I spend a lot of time in Baltimore city... it's not like I'm out on the panhandle).
It's possible to have some policies that are OK, but simply lose touch with the base. A lot of people are concerned about jobs/economy/etc in Maryland still, but it felt like O'Mally was just setting up his very left-wing positions for a Democratic primary presidential run in 2016. I would've been very interested, as I said, in voting for Doug Gansler, or many other democrats... but O'Malley's #2 in command? Definitely not . And as I said, it looks like lots of folks felt this way, so there is nothing "bizarre" about the outcome at all...
I actually think you and I might see eye to eye on quite a few things (I do generally vote democratic, after all). Would be interesting to have an in-person conversation sometime, as despite my brief foray in here I do really hate talking about politics on the internet . Anyway, as you say, will be interesting to see how things turn out for Maryland with a mixed governance (Republican governor and Democratic legislature). Personally, mixed governance is my favorite, rather than letting either party have a "monopoly" and be able to pass anything they like, so I'm pretty excited for the prospects here!
I'd buy that, if O'Malley was on the ticket. He wasn't. Now, I'm not naive enough to say "how people feel about O'Malley has nothing to do with Brown!". We both know that's crap. I can point out plenty of people in my area that were quite happy with O'Malley's work though, so it's sort of a moot anecdotal. Like I said, I agree that Brown's campaign was bad, that O'Malley spent his last governor years trying to be president (which won't happen; rumor is he wants on Hilary's ticket, that will also probably not happen...). None of that speaks to agreeing with Hogan's positions though. Guess too many were really voting against O'Malley which meant voting for Hogan. Sad really.
Anyway, some interesting exit polls from the NY Times.
whembly wrote: Or... ya know... Obama could work with the Republicans.
Ya know... like when President Bill Clinton did?
Obama like to say "I won" a lot...
Guess what? Republican won too.
Ah yes, that worked out so well every other frelling time he tried. Face it, this has been a "Obama takes a step forward, Pubs take 2 steps back" system of "compromise" since the beginning. This isn't news. This has been happening since day 1 of Obama's first term in office. They have almost literally clapped themselves on the back for this.
Whembly, I'm going to pass a law that requires you to give me everything, I give you something you don't care about, and also, you have to let all of the East Side of (insert whatever town you live in) run trains on your mouth and butt.
You'll say yes to that, right? Or we can work out a deal?
Exaggerated example, obviously, but I know you're smart enough to realize that is exactly what has been happening in Congress. Even and especially with the budgets you like to point to.
"B-b-b-but the House passed three budgets!"
All of which were complete non-starters, that defunded everything D and handed out corporate subsidies like candy. But you know that.
streamdragon wrote: Whembly, I'm going to pass a law that requires you to give me everything, I give you something you don't care about, and also, you have to let all of the East Side of (insert whatever town you live in) run trains on your mouth and butt.
You'll say yes to that, right? Or we can work out a deal?
Exaggerated example, obviously, but I know you're smart enough to realize that is exactly what has been happening in Congress. Even and especially with the budgets you like to point to.
"B-b-b-but the House passed three budgets!"
All of which were complete non-starters, that defunded everything D and handed out corporate subsidies like candy. But you know that.
It's a shared responsibility to make compromise work. Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush43 managed to pass meaningful legislation with a congress controlled by the other party. It's not some impossible divide to cross. A case can be made that Obama never switched over from campaigning to governing. Once you're in the WH it's not about fighting the other party it's about finding a way to organize a coalition to enact a legislative agenda. Even when Obama had a supermajority in 2008 all he managed to do with it was struggle mightily to pass the ACA which cost Democratic party in the 2010 midterms and it went downhill from there. Both parties are guilty of putting politics first, there's plenty of Republicans that care more about scoring political points, getting re-elected and advancing their careers and influence instead of doing their job. I don't see how somebody can think that Obama or the Republicans have made an honest attempt to find middle ground solutions and not just tried to score points by only pushing party line politics.
I'm fine with deadlock as I believe that most of what the govt does is interfere where it's not needed in a way that almost always has negative consequences. Publically castigating your opponent can help you win elections but it's not going to help you govern effectively in a representative republic with checks and balances that force you to build coalitions to pass legislation. We have a govt full of career politicians primarily concerned with having a political career instead of fulfilling their constitional responsibilities and then going home.
So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's a shared responsibility to make compromise work. Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush43 managed to pass meaningful legislation with a congress controlled by the other party. It's not some impossible divide to cross.
It was also a very different Congress with different people in it. It isn't 'shared compromise' to hold a gun to someone's head and demand they agree, which is essentially what was happening.
streamdragon wrote: Whembly, I'm going to pass a law that requires you to give me everything, I give you something you don't care about, and also, you have to let all of the East Side of (insert whatever town you live in) run trains on your mouth and butt.
You'll say yes to that, right? Or we can work out a deal?
Exaggerated example, obviously, but I know you're smart enough to realize that is exactly what has been happening in Congress. Even and especially with the budgets you like to point to.
"B-b-b-but the House passed three budgets!"
All of which were complete non-starters, that defunded everything D and handed out corporate subsidies like candy. But you know that.
Right... remember that last government shut down?
Reid kept saying no.
Republicans said: "Fine, here's the CR that you wanted but, let's repeal the ACA medical device tax".
Reid: "No".
Republicans said: "Okay fine, here's another CR that you wanted but, let's delay the Employer Mandate".
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Its like politics only started in 2008, yea sure...
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Prestor Jon wrote: It's a shared responsibility to make compromise work. Reagan, Bush41, Clinton and Bush43 managed to pass meaningful legislation with a congress controlled by the other party. It's not some impossible divide to cross.
It was also a very different Congress with different people in it. It isn't 'shared compromise' to hold a gun to someone's head and demand they agree, which is essentially what was happening.
No it wasn't. The House can't hold a gun to the president's head in our system. The House can pass a bill, it then goes to the Senate. If it passes the Senate unchanged then it goes to the President's desk to be signed into law or vetoed, if the Senate changes the bill it has to pass a vote by the House and Senate and then go to the president's desk. The Republicans only controlled the House, it was literally impossible for legislation passed by the Republicans in the House to reach Obama's desk without first passing through Harry Reid and the Democrat controlled Senate.
Obama could talk to Reid and other senate democrats, get bills through committees and onto the floor for votes, send altered bills back to the House and find common ground to get things passed. The Republican House can only pass legislation that it can enough votes for, then it's up to the Senate to carry the process forward. Yes, both sides were spending for too much time demagoging and taking the stance of our ideas are right yours are horribly wrong making compromise harder than it should be but if the Senate doesn't participate in the process nothing happens. There is no gun held to anyone's head, just House Republicans passing bills that appeal to their base and then Obama and senate Democrats telling their base that the bills are terrible and letting the legislation die in the Senate without alterations or votes.
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Look. If your point is that all politicians are crap, I'll readily agree with anything that you say. If you're trying to blame Obama for everything that has happened in Congress since before his election, I'll just stop talking to you now since there is no reasoning with you. The President has a great deal of authority but, contrary to popular belief he is unable to cause either party to act like a bunch of 8 year olds who couldn't get their way. Behavior is a concious decision and holding the nation's Ina stranglehold because you don't like a law on the books is just silly. Yay, they won, now let's see what they do with it.
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Uh...
Reid has ran the US Senate for the past eight years like a dictatorship, steadily eroding minority privileges to the point where Republicans couldn’t offer amendments or put up any significant resistance to Barack Obama’s radical appointments, unless Democrats forced Reid’s hand on either score.
IMO, the Democrats are the "Party of No™"
The actual message in this election was entirely a repudiation of the shove-it-down-your-throat approach and demagoguery exemplified by Reid’s leadership ("Koch! KOOOOOOOOCH!") and Barack Obama’s "I won" attitude.
If McConnell wants to play hardball, all he needs to do is insist that Democrats shun Reid entirely... no leadership position, no ranking-member position on committees... for the next two years, in exchange for returning to the pre-Reid Senate environment.
If not, McConnell can promise that Republicans will follow the Reid precedent in suppressing minority participation, all the while reminding Senate Democrats that they enthusiastically supported those rules when they enjoyed the majority. Democrats may grumble, but in the end they’ll cave.
Besides, there's really no benefit in maintaining the "Reid Senate environment".
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Look. If your point is that all politicians are crap,
They're either a smidgeon, or full blown mobsters.
I'll readily agree with anything that you say.
YEAH! Agreement! :fist bump:
If you're trying to blame Obama for everything that has happened in Congress since before his election,
He's a big player... sure. But, definitely NOT the only reason. Reid antics, ACA, and general governance played a bigger part IMO.
I'll just stop talking to you now since there is no reasoning with you.
I can haz opinion... no?
The President has a great deal of authority but, contrary to popular belief he is unable to cause either party to act like a bunch of 8 year olds who couldn't get their way.
Really? Seems to me he's doing fine...
-Drone policies
-Unilateral changes to ACA
-etc...
Behavior is a concious decision and holding the nation's Ina stranglehold because you don't like a law on the books is just silly. Yay, they won, now let's see what they do with it.
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Uh...
Reid has ran the US Senate for the past eight years like a dictatorship, steadily eroding minority privileges to the point where Republicans couldn’t offer amendments or put up any significant resistance to Barack Obama’s radical appointments, unless Democrats forced Reid’s hand on either score.
IMO, the Democrats are the "Party of No™"
The actual message in this election was entirely a repudiation of the shove-it-down-your-throat approach and demagoguery exemplified by Reid’s leadership ("Koch! KOOOOOOOOCH!") and Barack Obama’s "I won" attitude.
If McConnell wants to play hardball, all he needs to do is insist that Democrats shun Reid entirely... no leadership position, no ranking-member position on committees... for the next two years, in exchange for returning to the pre-Reid Senate environment.
If not, McConnell can promise that Republicans will follow the Reid precedent in suppressing minority participation, all the while reminding Senate Democrats that they enthusiastically supported those rules when they enjoyed the majority. Democrats may grumble, but in the end they’ll cave.
Besides, there's really no benefit in maintaining the "Reid Senate environment".
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Look. If your point is that all politicians are crap,
They're either a smidgeon, or full blown mobsters.
I'll readily agree with anything that you say.
YEAH! Agreement! :fist bump:
If you're trying to blame Obama for everything that has happened in Congress since before his election,
He's a big player... sure. But, definitely NOT the only reason. Reid antics, ACA, and general governance played a bigger part IMO.
I'll just stop talking to you now since there is no reasoning with you.
I can haz opinion... no?
The President has a great deal of authority but, contrary to popular belief he is unable to cause either party to act like a bunch of 8 year olds who couldn't get their way.
Really? Seems to me he's doing fine...
-Drone policies
-Unilateral changes to ACA
-etc...
Behavior is a concious decision and holding the nation's Ina stranglehold because you don't like a law on the books is just silly. Yay, they won, now let's see what they do with it.
erm... I asked this earlier.
So, "The Law of the Land" can never be repealed?
It can be, and that's my point; instead of wasting time and goodwill and risking the nation's credit rating trying to defund "Obamacare", they should have been campaigning on a repeal or *gasp* come up with some amendments that benefit all involved...you know, go through the process instead of stamping their feet and marching around shouting "shut down the government!" Yes, Reid's a tool, Pelosi's a harpy and Obama is the anti-christ; we've been hearing this crap for 8 years now, get over it. Congress needs to put their collective big girl pants on and start doing the work that we hired them for. I don't care which party started it, I want it stopped and these yahoos to get to work.
I vote R just as much as I vote D; hell, I live in a state where the two parties are virtually indistinguishable so the only dog I have in this fight is the general willfulness of supposed adults and the only people getting hurt are people on the street. I think they should bring back duelling as a way settle differences in Congress, at least then we might see people be more agreeable with each other.
streamdragon - I guess I'll just leave it at this, regarding Maryland. When you only have 2 real choices on a ballot (with the other choices being to not vote, or vote for someone without a chance of election) there isn't much recourse left to voters other than to vote against the successor to an administration that they don't approve of. A significantly larger number of Marylanders disapprove of O'Malley than approve of him. There is nothing "bizarre" or "sad" about voters then not rushing to embrace his lieutenant, it's just common sense... and more than anything, the only choice left to them.
As I said, Hogan has at least said he'll be appointing a bipartisan group, and with how democratic Maryland's legislature is, there will be no sweeping right-wing policies here - nor does he seem to want to do so. I'm very interested to see what Maryland does with a mixed governance.
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Obama took office in 2008 with a Democraticsupermajority in Congress and all he managed to do with it was turn the passage of the ACA into such a disgusting spectacle that the Democrats lost the House and multiple senate races in the 2010 midterms. How is that the fault of the Republicans? It also makes it difficult for the Tea Party conservatives in the House to compromise when the Senate won't move on bills and Obama holds press conferences specifically to tell the public that Republicans are evil. Again, there's a massive difference between governing and campaigning.
Personally, I enjoy deadlock and wished it happened more often. The govt that governs least governs best.
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Obama took office in 2008 with a Democraticsupermajority in Congress and all he managed to do with it was turn the passage of the ACA into such a disgusting spectacle that the Democrats lost the House and multiple senate races in the 2010 midterms. How is that the fault of the Republicans? It also makes it difficult for the Tea Party conservatives in the House to compromise when the Senate won't move on bills and Obama holds press conferences specifically to tell the public that Republicans are evil. Again, there's a massive difference between governing and campaigning.
Personally, I enjoy deadlock and wished it happened more often. The govt that governs least governs best.
You mean when it causes damage to our economy by not paying it workers or debts because it's shut down? Yeah, I completely agree .
RiTides wrote: streamdragon - I guess I'll just leave it at this, regarding Maryland. When you only have 2 real choices on a ballot (with the other choices being to not vote, or vote for someone without a chance of election) there isn't much recourse left to voters other than to vote against the successor to an administration that they don't approve of. A significantly larger number of Marylanders disapprove of O'Malley than approve of him. There is nothing "bizarre" or "sad" about voters then not rushing to embrace his lieutenant, it's just common sense... and more than anything, the only choice left to them.
Let me clarify that. What I find sad isn't that they voted for Hogan. If they genuinely believe in his policies and what he's running on, good, vote away. What I find sad is that that didn't happen a lot of places. People didn't vote FOR anything. They voted against O'Malley, who wasn't even running. That, to me, is sad. Because that's not what voting should be about. It's like trying to decide where to go for dinner and just saying "I don't like Thai food", which besides being crazy because Thai food is delicious, doesn't really add anything to the discussion. In this case, it doesn't add anything to the Maryland legislature. They didn't support Hogan's policies; but voted for him anyway. And when those policies go into effect, they deserve what they get I guess.
Believe me, if he's the best thing for MD since statehood, I will happily eat crow on this. But given his stances and actions prior to becoming governor, I doubt very much that is a meal I will be eating.
agnosto wrote: So it's somehow Obama's fault that Republicans stated from day 1 that they were not going to work with him and then went on to bring the Nation into default over partisan squabbling about a law, on the books and would not consider a budget that did not include AHCA being defunded. Just curious. Normally you'd be right in that it takes two to tango but there is no dance if the other side banned the band from the outset and did everything it possibly could to demonize the opposition. I'm not saying Dems in the Senate couldn't have tried harder but you can only be slapped in the face by Tea Party nut jobs so often before you give up.
Obama took office in 2008 with a Democraticsupermajority in Congress and all he managed to do with it was turn the passage of the ACA into such a disgusting spectacle that the Democrats lost the House and multiple senate races in the 2010 midterms. How is that the fault of the Republicans? It also makes it difficult for the Tea Party conservatives in the House to compromise when the Senate won't move on bills and Obama holds press conferences specifically to tell the public that Republicans are evil. Again, there's a massive difference between governing and campaigning.
Personally, I enjoy deadlock and wished it happened more often. The govt that governs least governs best.
You mean when it causes damage to our economy by not paying it workers or debts because it's shut down? Yeah, I completely agree .
A government shutdown is neither catastrophic nor unusual. Six shutdowns occurred between 1977 and 1980, and 11 more shutdowns occurred through 1996.
If the workers weren't working then they didn't need to get paid. The whole concept of "nonessential govt workers" is pathetic. If they're not essential then they should be let go and we can find a better way to spend tax dollars. Of course in every instance of a federal govt "shutdown" furloughed workers were given back pay for the duration of the shutdown.
Even during the shut down our debts were paid. The most essential services continue, such as: (1) providing for national security, (2) conducting foreign affairs, (3) providing for the continuity of mandatory benefit payments, and (4) protecting life and property. These services include military, law enforcement, veterans care, and others. Social Security checks are still mailed and self-funded agencies like the Postal Service would continue operating. Permanent entitlement programs like medicare also kept running because they aren't dependent on annual funding by Congress.
If the workers weren't working then they didn't need to get paid. The whole concept of "nonessential govt workers" is pathetic. If they're not essential then they should be let go and we can find a better way to spend tax dollars. Of course in every instance of a federal govt "shutdown" furloughed workers were given back pay for the duration of the shutdown.
Fun fact: Almost all civilian branches of the military, such as research and development, are all "non essential". It's only about 10% that are labeled essential.
If fact we could do that. Completely cut out most of the R&D defense budget, inject a few hundred billion dollars that would be used for things like schools, infrastructure, etc. It would balance the budget easily.
You've done it: You've solved the economy problems. We need to get you to Washington so you can tell them right away!
So you have no idea how the R's would "improve" it?
The House bills they were passing had in writing what they wanted to do to "improve" the bill. How could you know if they were trying to bring reasonable things to the table if you didn't know the contents of the bills?
-Adopt common-sense consumer protections;
-Create a new protection to help Americans with pre-existing conditions;
-Empower small business and individuals with purchasing power;
-Empower states with more tools to help provide coverage while reducing costs; and
-Expand and strengthen consumer directed health care.
Modernize Medicaid to provide better coverage and care to patients:
-Transition to capped allotment to provide states with predictable funding and flexibility; and
-Reauthorize Health Opportunity Accounts to empower Medicaid patients
Reduce unnecessary defensive medicine practices and rein in frivolous lawsuits.
-Medical Malpractice reforms.
Increase health care price transparency to empower consumers and patients.
[whembly: huge need] -Requiring basic health care transparency to inform and empower patients.
Reduce distortions in the tax code that drive up health care costs:
[whembly: will help immensely] -Capping the exclusion of an employee’s employer-provided health coverage.
Can we drop this idea that no one has any plans to replace it with anything?
If the workers weren't working then they didn't need to get paid. The whole concept of "nonessential govt workers" is pathetic. If they're not essential then they should be let go and we can find a better way to spend tax dollars. Of course in every instance of a federal govt "shutdown" furloughed workers were given back pay for the duration of the shutdown.
Fun fact: Almost all civilian branches of the military, such as research and development, are all "non essential". It's only about 10% that are labeled essential.
If fact we could do that. Completely cut out most of the R&D defense budget, inject a few hundred billion dollars that would be used for things like schools, infrastructure, etc. It would balance the budget easily.
You've done it: You've solved the economy problems. We need to get you to Washington so you can tell them right away!
If the federal govt is going to paying for the schools then my state better stop collecting property taxes. They already misallocate millions of dollars in the education budget which to me, makes giving them more money to burn a bad idea.
I'm fine with cutting non essential military R&D employees as long as we also get rid of the department of education, FTC, EPA, DOA, and most every other department whose existence is just a textbook example of Pournelle's Iron Law.
If the workers weren't working then they didn't need to get paid. The whole concept of "nonessential govt workers" is pathetic. If they're not essential then they should be let go and we can find a better way to spend tax dollars. Of course in every instance of a federal govt "shutdown" furloughed workers were given back pay for the duration of the shutdown.
Even during the shut down our debts were paid. The most essential services continue, such as: (1) providing for national security, (2) conducting foreign affairs, (3) providing for the continuity of mandatory benefit payments, and (4) protecting life and property. These services include military, law enforcement, veterans care, and others. Social Security checks are still mailed and self-funded agencies like the Postal Service would continue operating. Permanent entitlement programs like medicare also kept running because they aren't dependent on annual funding by Congress.
ITT, people demonstrate a startling lack of understanding how their government actually works.
I'm fine with cutting non essential military R&D employees as long as we also get rid of the department of education, FTC, EPA, DOA, and most every other department whose existence is just a textbook example of Pournelle's Iron Law.
If science fiction writers are now the epitome of political discourse, I suppose we need to all go read some L. Ron Hubbard and get on the crazy train with Travolta. Besides, I don't think I would hold up Jerry as a golden example of what works for everyone when he self-described, on multiple occasions, his political ideology as "somewhere to the right of Genghis Khan." I don't want to Godwin the thread but I think you might see where this sort of thinking leads.
Getting rid of the alphabet agencies would result in "freedom" and by freedom I mean anarchy because without the FTC you've got unregulated airwaves with AT&T blowing up or blocking every other carrier. No EPA? I hope you don't breath air or drink water. I am always in awe of people who think that unregulated industry results in companies doing good things for people and the environment. You want to witness that, move to Seoul. I lived there for 4 years and I'm still blowing black crap out of my nose due to all of the pollution.
I view the agencies as bumbling do-gooders; the Don Quixotes of the nation with the windmills being the various fires that crop up and threaten to burn the union to a cinder. I know some people hate being told what to do but try letting your kids do anything you want in your house and see how that works out for you...and please don't think that most adults are any more responsible than 3 year olds; less so, I'd say especially when their second billion dollars might be on the line.
I view the agencies as bumbling do-gooders; the Don Quixotes of the nation with the windmills being the various fires that crop up and threaten to burn the union to a cinder. I know some people hate being told what to do but try letting your kids do anything you want in your house and see how that works out for you...and please don't think that most adults are any more responsible than 3 year olds; less so, I'd say especially when their second billion dollars might be on the line.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And getting rid of education is the opposite of more freedom, an uneducated populous is a complacent populous.
The US Department of Education has only been operating since May of 1980. For the first 204 years of our country's existence we managed to grow from 13 colonies to a continent spanning superpower, educate hundreds of millions of people, assimilate millions of immigrants, and develop the largest economy in the world without the Dept of Ed existing. Our parents, grandparents, etc. all those previous generations managed to get educated without any help from a federal Dept of Ed. The current annual budget for the Dept of Ed is $69,000,000,000 and they don't operate a single school or educate anyone. The primary focus of the dept is redistributing tax money.
We already have municipal and state oversight of public schools and universities and municipal and state revenue streams to fund them. All the Dept of Ed does is redistribute tax money in a counterproductive manner that isn't cost effective. Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.
Prestor Jon wrote: Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.
While I agree the DoE is really really bad at what it does, destroying it will not solve any of this country's struggles with education. If anything a massive reform of the department and its practices is what we really need.
Also, the DoE started in the 1860's. It didn't become a Department (and thus a Cabinet member) until 1980. In 1953, its job was managed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (deactivated in 1980 when Carter pushed for a full blown Education Department). All the agencies that make up the DoE existed in some form prior to 1980, but they were spread across other agencies and departments. The DoE was formed to centralize all those functions, most of them dating back to the 19th century. So yeah. DoE didn't exist until 1980, but it's not like it popped out of thin air. Someone just took all the education cards and put them in the same deck.
Prestor Jon wrote: Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.
While I agree the DoE is really really bad at what it does, destroying it will not solve any of this country's struggles with education. If anything a massive reform of the department and its practices is what we really need.
Also, the DoE started in the 1860's. It didn't become a Department (and thus a Cabinet member) until 1980. In 1953, its job was managed by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (deactivated in 1980 when Carter pushed for a full blown Education Department). All the agencies that make up the DoE existed in some form prior to 1980, but they were spread across other agencies and departments. The DoE was formed to centralize all those functions, most of them dating back to the 19th century. So yeah. DoE didn't exist until 1980, but it's not like it popped out of thin air. Someone just took all the education cards and put them in the same deck.
Which of the agencies in the DoE that existed before 1980 actually ran any schools or educated people? What does the DoE do with it's $69,000,000,000 annual budget that makes any difference on the quality and efficiency of the public education system in the US?
Prestor Jon wrote: Which of the agencies in the DoE that existed before 1980 actually ran any schools or educated people? What does the DoE do with it's $69,000,000,000 annual budget that makes any difference on the quality and efficiency of the public education system in the US?
A lot of that money is tied up in our student loans, which the department manages. A fair bit probably also is in the federal aid to state education system. I know it sounds bizarre, but money doesn't move itself. Someone has to move it. I imagine that lacking that money, fewer people could go to college, and public schools would have less money.
I may be wrong, but it didn't join until after the war started.
They were the most reluctant to join, but Delaware reps did sign the Declaration of Independence (George Reed, Caesar Rodney, and Thomas McKean), and people from the colony served in the Continental Army. By all rights Delaware was rebelling. Though this probably leads into the morality of the Founding Fathers to declare independence in the first place, which is a messy debate.
I may be going massively OT here, but if the DoE was created in 1980, then it was created UNDER REAGAN'S WATCH (apologies for the capitals )
What happened to Reagan taking on big government, what happened to Reagan being the scourge of red tape and bureaucracy, what happened to Reagan cutting back the deficit? Now it seems the guy was creating departments left right and centre and throwing money on the fire!
Damn this thread for destroying the Ronald Reagan myth!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: I may be going massively OT here, but if the DoE was created in 1980, then it was created UNDER REAGAN'S WATCH (apologies for the capitals )
What happened to Reagan taking on big government, what happened to Reagan being the scourge of red tape and bureaucracy, what happened to Reagan cutting back the deficit? Now it seems the guy was creating departments left right and centre and throwing money on the fire!
Damn this thread for destroying the Ronald Reagan myth!
The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.
Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.
I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.
Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.
I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!
Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.
Why is there this obsession with getting rid of public education. The only thing it does is (sometimes badly) improve the education system. People seem to assume that government=bad, when education is the one thing that is most important for a free and open society.
And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general.
The US Department of Education has only been operating since May of 1980. For the first 204 years of our country's existence we managed to grow from 13 colonies to a continent spanning superpower, educate hundreds of millions of people, assimilate millions of immigrants, and develop the largest economy in the world without the Dept of Ed existing. Our parents, grandparents, etc. all those previous generations managed to get educated without any help from a federal Dept of Ed. The current annual budget for the Dept of Ed is $69,000,000,000 and they don't operate a single school or educate anyone. The primary focus of the dept is redistributing tax money.
We already have municipal and state oversight of public schools and universities and municipal and state revenue streams to fund them. All the Dept of Ed does is redistribute tax money in a counterproductive manner that isn't cost effective. Please name one national public education accomplishment in the last 34 years that couldn't have been done without the DoE.
Yep. Less than 4% of the national budget, let's just shut it down, that'll solve all kinds of problems....not really. I'll leave aside that a large part of this spending is for Veteran's Education Programs and federal student loan support (which helps poor students who would otherwise not be able to attend college, you know, attend college). The amount of Title I, II, III, V, VII and X funds that gets allocated to states (and ultimately schools) amounts to about 1% of the national budget. The benefits of all of that money are far-reaching. USDE may not have been around very long in its current form but it did exist previous, as the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare and federal involvement in Education goes all the way back to 1787 with the Northwest Ordinance Act; there were educational land grants in the 1800s and the original Department of Education was founded in 1867..I can't remember when but this agency was also in charge of all of the land grant schools (yes, the federal government ran schools) until the nation became too populous for one small agency to do the work. You can look on Wikipedia for the rest but there has been a federal education agency since 1867.
yadda yadda yadda.
Look, I know nothing I can type here will make you think that the tax payer's money is being put to good use; you've already made up your mind that every federal agency is the devil. Let me put it to you this way. Education is currently massively underfunded by states across the country. Some states like Kansas and Oklahoma think it's a better idea to give rich people tax breaks than fund the education of their children which is why Oklahoma has cut education spending 23% since 2008 and teachers in the state are the lowest paid in the region. So, yeah, leave it all up to states, I'm sure they'll make great decisions on education. Meanwhile, US students continue to perform poorly compared to their peers in other countries with national education systems and proper supportive educational mechanisms. I've taught in the US, Japan and S. Korea and I bet you can guess which two countries had the better educational systems and adequate funding for schools....a hint is that neither begins with a "U". You can compare education to the US of 200 years ago or even 50 years ago all you like but every other country has progressed since then, why shouldn't we? Oh, conservative values, yeah, those will really make our work force more competitive in a global market... Federal education funding has been around since the ESEA was first founded under Johnson's War on Poverty in 1965.
The states seem to be really good at funding education, huh?
Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote: The DoE was created under Carter in 1979 and officially started working several months later in May of 1980. Reagan promised to abolish the DoE during his campaign but never actually did it once he was in office. Reagan was a mixed bag, he did a good job of selling conservative priniciples to the public and sometimes he governed in concert with them but there were plenty of instances where he compromised or violated conservative principles. Depending on where you fall on the political spectrum you can find various aspects of Reagan's terms to like or dislike.
Conservativism can not fail. It can only be failed.
I would like to hear how decentralizing education will help us improve the overall education process? I mean, how would we hold anyone accountable without centralized, annual testing!
Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.
To be fair, that's a result of No Child Left Behind, that concept didn't exist under previous iterations of the ESEA.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why is there this obsession with getting rid of public education. The only thing it does is (sometimes badly) improve the education system. People seem to assume that government=bad, when education is the one thing that is most important for a free and open society.
And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general.
Public education and the Department of Education are the opposite of the same.
Co'tor Shas wrote: Why is there this obsession with getting rid of public education. The only thing it does is (sometimes badly) improve the education system. People seem to assume that government=bad, when education is the one thing that is most important for a free and open society.
And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general.
Public education and the Department of Education are the opposite of the same.
That's why I said "And I don't mean specifically this, I mean in general." but the confusion is understandable.
Delaware isn't always considered a colony as it didn't have it's own Government until 1776; it was essentially an outcropping of Pennsylvania and under their rule.
Because the "one-size-fits-all" mantra in Federal Education policies is asinine.
I think setting standards is good, but the way we're trying to do it is really brain dead. The way we test for it is even more brain dead. As someone taking a test, multiple choice rocks because it's easy. We need more written exams, especially in English and History. And yes. No Child Left Behind is moronic. How anyone ever expected that to work is beyond incomprehensible.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote: Delaware isn't always considered a colony as it didn't have it's own Government until 1776; it was essentially an outcropping of Pennsylvania and under their rule.
d-usa wrote: The 60 person filibuster vote could end up being an interesting political play.
On one hand I would imagine that the republicans would like to have the same option that the democrats gave themselves, although it would be of very limited benefit during the next two years. It would be nice to have during a republican administration, but there is no guarantee that the GOP will keep the senate in 2016 if they win it now.
So do they get rid of it now, while it is useless to them, to make a show of restoring the old traditions of the senate and to get rid of shenanigans started by Democrats? It would make for nice "we gave a voice back to the minority because we love the principles of the Republic" sound bites in the next elections.
But if they end up with a GOP senate and WH they would probably like to change it back to what the democrats had. That would open them up to democrats telling everyone "they complained, but look at them snatching power now".
But if it gets rolled back and the Democrats end up with the Senate and White House in 2016 they would have to change the rules again, which would give Republicans the opportunity to say "they took the power once and we graciously gave it back. Now they want that power again to silence the minority!"
It's all politics, and I wouldn't fault a GOP senate for using the same tools that the democrats gave themselves. But it will be interesting how it plays out in the talking points.
...
Specifically, the new Senate must begin by restoring the twin pillars of the institution’s deliberative character: full debate and an open amendment process. Sen. Robert C. Byrd described those two institutional safeguards—open debate and amendment—as bulwarks that ensure “the liberties of the people will remain secure.” In the end, the Senate’s procedural safeguards exist not to protect individual senators, but to preserve Americans’ liberty.
But that fundamental goal—protecting liberty—counsels against blindly returning to the prior status quo. Some bells cannot be unrung. Chief among these is Sen. Reid’s decision to invoke the “nuclear option” to strip minority senators of their ability to filibuster judicial nominees.
The nuclear option allowed President Obama and his allies to reshape the judicial branch dramatically to suit their far-left agenda. And the Democrats were not shy in boasting of their achievement. This summer, after a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the administration’s efforts to extend subsidies to the federal ObamaCare exchange—in clear violation of the plain words of the Affordable Care Act and the stated intent of its architects—the newly minted majority of Democratic appointees on that court voted to rehear the case “en banc.” Sen. Reid announced that the “simple math” of the D.C. Circuit’s new majority of Democratic-appointed judges would serve to “vindicate” Democrats’ use of the nuclear option, presumably by preserving the administration’s signature legislative achievement. …
It will fall to the next Republican president to counteract President Obama’s aggressive efforts to stack the federal courts in favor of his party’s ideological agenda. But achieving such balance would be made all the more difficult—if not impossible—if Republicans choose to reinstate the previous filibuster rule now that the damage to the nation’s judiciary has already been done.
...
Ugh... they do need to make Democrats pay someprice for abusing their majority power over the past several years, and especially since last November.
The thing is... Republicans won’t always be in the majority, after all, one way to prevent further abuses is to make sure that those who conduct them have to endure the same abuses themselves, at least for a while, or pay some otherwise significant penalty for them. (besides the electoral spanking they just received).
However... it’s in the nation’s best interest to restore effectiveness and professionalism to the Senate, and in the best interest of the GOP, imo, to provide the obvious contrast between governance and Reid’s antic of the upper chamber.
Restore it to pre-Reid environment... because, it's the long game that's worthwhile.
Easy E wrote: Can someone explain to me the following points since I am not familiar with the Rightwing Blog-o-sphere; except through Whembly.
1. The number one thing on voters mind during Exit polls was the Economy?
2. The Economy is considred to be recovering?
3. What were these Economy voters concerned about?
4. Why did this lead to them voting for Republicans?
Poor people rely on low paying jobs. In the past we were able to get low-paying but full time jobs. But now, thanks to the ACA, we can't get full time jobs and only multiple part time jobs because businesses don't want to have to pay health insurance for all their full time employees. This creates a larger burden on the poorer people and makes it harder to find enough work.
So, yes. There are still a lot of economic issues that the "recovery" hasn't recovered.
the polls.
)
). A little bit of balance at the state level is a very good thing. On the national level, I don't have nearly as much hope for compromise, but there's always a chance. Let's see if both sides make the most of it, or fail to do so and continue as they have been.
