It’s the first Tuesday in November, and for us Americans, that means it’s election day. So get out there and vote. It might not be a presidential election, but there is always important local stuff going on. And a lot of it will impact your life more then what goes on in Washington.
Your vote counts, but only if you cast that ballot. Even if you don’t like any of the guys running, write-in for chthulu or someone/thing else. Participate in the process.
Plus it lets you post smugly in political threads for another year.
While I still marvel at the oddness of the American political system (I mean, you're 6 seats away from having a Republican majority in both Houses despite having a Democrat president, how the feth does that even work? ), I approve of this post! Political apathy does no one any good, so go and get involved, people!
Although if Cthulu ends up with a majority thanks to this thread, questions will be asked...
Paradigm wrote: While I still marvel at the oddness of the American political system (I mean, you're 6 seats away from having a Republican majority in both Houses despite having a Democrat president, how the feth does that even work? ),
Because our governance is supposed to be difficult. We're still holding strong after all these years.
I approve of this post! Political apathy does no one any good, so go and get involved, people!
Agreed. VOTE!
Although if Cthulu ends up with a majority thanks to this thread, questions will be asked...
Is this the vote to vote for someone to stand in a vote to be voted as someone who can then be voted on to ve voted in to an election to be elected as someone who might be considered to be a person people can vote for?
I still need to turn in my ballot, but I voted more one the issues than I did the people (as in, I only voted for about 4 peopled, but marked one way or another on ALL proposed laws or tax changes)
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I still need to turn in my ballot, but I voted more one the issues than I did the people (as in, I only voted for about 4 peopled, but marked one way or another on ALL proposed laws or tax changes)
So does this vote will the purpose of a referrendum, consulting people on actual legislation/decisions, as well as an election then? Or is it more an opinion poll type thing in that regard?
Now, is wearing my "I Voted" sticker. Does that mean I am helpfully reminding people to vote, or is it me bragging and lording my superiority over you?
I heard a mini-controversy in a couple of media sources about this. LOL.
Now, is wearing my "I Voted" sticker. Does that mean I am helpfully reminding people to vote, or is it me bragging and lording my superiority over you?
I heard a mini-controversy in a couple of media sources about this. LOL.
Hate to say it, but it's the latter rather than the former IMO. Follow Jesus' advice and pray in private, so to soeak.
Now, is wearing my "I Voted" sticker. Does that mean I am helpfully reminding people to vote, or is it me bragging and lording my superiority over you?
I heard a mini-controversy in a couple of media sources about this. LOL.
The two are not mutually exclusive. People need to be reminded, and being an active participant in the electoral process is something to be proud off. Now if you are hanging out with people who can’t vote, just to rub in the fact that you can and did, you might run into some problems. But I doubt that’s the case.
Is it wrong if I'm not really motivated significantly on elections? I just can't really feel motivated on this sort of stuff because I don't know much about the individuals and I really can't help but feel like, unless there's multiple republican candidates for the same thing, my vote will largely be meaningless because it's Texas.
StarTrotter:
Nah, that's about average. Our system has caused a gridlocked, extremest system, where individuals have little say. Gerrymandering, and our FPTP system has made is almost impossible for a third party candidate to win in national, and even state level, elections.
StarTrotter wrote: Is it wrong if I'm not really motivated significantly on elections?
It's not wrong, I'm the same way. I rarely actually vote for people, I vote to vote on issues. I've turned in more than one ballot with absolutely no candidates voted upon.
Co'tor Shas wrote: StarTrotter:
Nah, that's about average. Our system has caused a gridlocked, extremest system, where individuals have little say. Gerrymandering, and our FPTP system has made is almost impossible for a third party candidate to win in national, and even state level, elections.
Yep, Madison specifically designed the system, not to fail, but to be very difficult to get things done. Basically There has to be a significant NEED for something to be done, for it to get done.
I've seen political theorists talk about the reasons we still "only" have 2 parties, and to me, it's pretty interesting stuff. They often cite things like Labour in the UK, and how new parties spring up in the UK, or Germany out of "major" strife that existing parties are incapable of handling at that moment in time. Contrast that with the US, where, let's say we're talking about Abortion. No one was really prepared to talk the subject, or take a stance on it when it first became an issue, however each party/members of each party were "fairly" quick to say "our party stands here on this issue" and each new issue that comes up, the parties tend to be quick to decide where they stand.
Co'tor Shas wrote: StarTrotter:
Nah, that's about average. Our system has caused a gridlocked, extremest system, where individuals have little say. Gerrymandering, and our FPTP system has made is almost impossible for a third party candidate to win in national, and even state level, elections.
Yep, Madison specifically designed the system, not to fail, but to be very difficult to get things done. Basically There has to be a significant NEED for something to be done, for it to get done.
I've seen political theorists talk about the reasons we still "only" have 2 parties, and to me, it's pretty interesting stuff. They often cite things like Labour in the UK, and how new parties spring up in the UK, or Germany out of "major" strife that existing parties are incapable of handling at that moment in time. Contrast that with the US, where, let's say we're talking about Abortion. No one was really prepared to talk the subject, or take a stance on it when it first became an issue, however each party/members of each party were "fairly" quick to say "our party stands here on this issue" and each new issue that comes up, the parties tend to be quick to decide where they stand.
StarTrotter wrote: Is it wrong if I'm not really motivated significantly on elections? I just can't really feel motivated on this sort of stuff because I don't know much about the individuals and I really can't help but feel like, unless there's multiple republican candidates for the same thing, my vote will largely be meaningless because it's Texas.
The only thing add to the choir is a lot of times county commissions try to sneak in levies with little publicity, so it's worth keeping an eye out for that so you can try and avoid taxes you don't think are worth paying for.
The only thing add to the choir is a lot of times county commissions try to sneak in levies with little publicity, so it's worth keeping an eye out for that so you can try and avoid taxes you don't think are worth paying for.
This... One of the "votes" here in WA was about whether or not Marijuana should be able to receive the same tax exemptions as, say... apples, or wheat. In these situations, you REALLY gotta pay attention to the wording. I seriously had to spend 30 minutes online looking at several different websites to attempt to fathom what it was my vote would actually say (the option was maintain or repeal... and the way it was worded, I honestly had no idea what a Maintain would do versus the Repeal, other than the opposite of each other)
Drudge is reporting seven seats in the Senate and the House was never in any danger of changing hands. Even better, Scott Walker beat political polymorph Charlie Crist for re-election as Governor of Florida.
Joni Ernst pulled it off in Iowa for Republicans
Making it 52 to 45
LA going to a run off
Think Tillis going to take North Carolina for the Republicans
Alaska will from what I understand its anyone state
Still though Republicans take over next year
Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue, make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level, and focus their primary efforts on jobs and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation. They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
Obama either works with the Republicans or he's going to be doing a lot of Executive Orders. Which would be stupid on his part since Democrats no longer have control of Senate and House.
So either he becomes a Lame Duck or try to become a actual Leader and work with the parties
make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level,
Meh... this is weird. At most, they'll probably remove the DEA designation and leave it to the states.
and focus their primary efforts on jobs
Agreed.
and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation.
REPEAL! Then pass meaningful, incremental stuff (ie, forbid pre-existing conditions exclusion, accross state lines, etc...)
They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
jasper76 wrote: Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue
This is not going to happen if the last couple of years are any guide. At both the state and federal levels, all I've seen are Republicans run as small-government conservatives, and then immediately once voted in start hammering away at abortion, marriage definitions, and other social issues.
jasper76 wrote: Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue, make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level, and focus their primary efforts on jobs and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation. They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
At least not pick "gay rights issue" fights in Congress - they can only damage themselves. Republicans won't do anything about pot because the President controls enforcement and there's currently no support for nationwide legalization. Another consideration is that people are still waiting to see how things play out in Washington and Oregon (and I suppose D.C. now). Obama will veto anything that touches the ACA so I expect it will stay and wind up being an election issue in 2016. As to your other points, youth voters generally don't vote and beating Hillary depends solely on who becomes the Republican nominee.
I wonder if memories of Bush will still hurt them? Obama wasn't the greatest, but at least he didn't get us into unnecessary wars, and break our economy. And I'm sure people still remember the Clinton years, pretty much constant growth.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I wonder if memories of Bush will still hurt them? Obama wasn't the greatest, but at least he didn't get us into unnecessary wars, and break our economy. And I'm sure people still remember the Clinton years, pretty much constant growth.
The thing about Bush is he wasn't really very bright....at least he didn't seem very bright. If they can get a candidate through that is well spoken and less arrogant, I think the memory of Bush might actually help them in a weird way. Those 8 years were horrid, but they can be dismissed sort of as being the result of an unintelligent and unwise dude, as opposed to the GOP platform itself.
Really the country hasn't been in as good economic shape since Clinton, and most people in Generation X and older are keenly awa're. That's why they have to do something to stand out, because by running against Hillary, they'll really be running against the good memories of prosperous times under Bill Clinton.
Obama wasn't the greatest, but at least he didn't get us into unnecessary wars,
Libya?
Syria?
Dronings?
ISIS?
and break our economy.
Say wut? Data doesn't support that position:
And I'm sure people still remember the Clinton years, pretty much constant growth.
Because he stayed the feth away. He had good sense to not feth it up (keep in mind, that the GOP won the house during is term that forced him back to the center).
Co'tor Shas wrote: I wonder if memories of Bush will still hurt them? Obama wasn't the greatest, but at least he didn't get us into unnecessary wars, and break our economy. And I'm sure people still remember the Clinton years, pretty much constant growth.
The thing about Bush is he wasn't really very bright....at least he didn't seem very bright. If they can get a candidate through that is well spoken and less arrogant, I think the memory of Bush might actually help them in a weird way. Those 8 years were horrid, but they can be dismissed sort of as being the result of an unintelligent and unwise dude, as opposed to the GOP platform itself.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I wonder if memories of Bush will still hurt them? Obama wasn't the greatest, but at least he didn't get us into unnecessary wars, and break our economy. And I'm sure people still remember the Clinton years, pretty much constant growth.
The thing about Bush is he wasn't really very bright....at least he didn't seem very bright. If they can get a candidate through that is well spoken and less arrogant, I think the memory of Bush might actually help them in a weird way. Those 8 years were horrid, but they can be dismissed sort of as being the result of an unintelligent and unwise dude, as opposed to the GOP platform itself.
Makes sense.
I added an edit to my post. EveryBody remembers the prosperity of the Clinton years, whether they liked him at the time or not., except the youngest voters, who are already pretty much a Democratic voting block. That's what the Republicans will be running against versus Hillary....Bill Clinton and better times. They have to do something to stand out.
Co'tor Shas wrote: I wonder if memories of Bush will still hurt them? Obama wasn't the greatest, but at least he didn't get us into unnecessary wars, and break our economy. And I'm sure people still remember the Clinton years, pretty much constant growth.
The thing about Bush is he wasn't really very bright....at least he didn't seem very bright. If they can get a candidate through that is well spoken and less arrogant, I think the memory of Bush might actually help them in a weird way. Those 8 years were horrid, but they can be dismissed sort of as being the result of an unintelligent and unwise dude, as opposed to the GOP platform itself.
Makes sense.
I added an edit to my post. EveryBody remembers the prosperity of the Clinton years, whether they liked him at the time or not. That's what the Republicans will be running against versus Hillary. They have to do something to stand out.
Agreed and it won't matter.
Hillary is actually a horrible campaigner... but, everyone has already made up their minds. So... she's the next Prezzie.
But if the Republicans have the balls to try and legalize pot, they'll get a good chunk of Generation X, and if they show they can create jobs, they'll grab some young voters who might otherwise vote Democratic.
But if the Republicans have the balls to try and legalize pot, they'll get a good chunk of Generation X, and if they show they can create jobs, they'll grab some young voters who might otherwise vote Democratic.
Actually...
I'm watching CNN right now to feed my inner troll... and this chick made a good point.
All the incumbant (D) who lost today had Hillary campaign for them. Maybe the "Clinton" brand name isn't as strong anymore?
jasper76 wrote: Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue, make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level, and focus their primary efforts on jobs and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation. They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
At least not pick "gay rights issue" fights in Congress - they can only damage themselves. Republicans won't do anything about pot because the President controls enforcement and there's currently no support for nationwide legalization. Another consideration is that people are still waiting to see how things play out in Washington and Oregon (and I suppose D.C. now). Obama will veto anything that touches the ACA so I expect it will stay and wind up being an election issue in 2016. As to your other points, youth voters generally don't vote and beating Hillary depends solely on who becomes the Republican nominee.
They're going to have to come up with some left field candidate to beat Hilary without some new platform change. Chris Christie was there best chance, but now he's popularly thought of as a Mafioso thug, whether fairly or unfairly.
Anyone with the name Bush doesn't have much hope....I really don't see any candidates with mass appeal out there.
I'm watching CNN right now to feed my inner troll... and this chick made a good point.
All the incumbant (D) who lost today had Hillary campaign for them. Maybe the "Clinton" brand name isn't as strong anymore?
I'm telling you, people at large care about prosperity more than anything else, and the last time we had it, or at least the perception of it, was under Clinton. That's a tough thing to campaign against. I guess who knows, but it's hard for me to envision a scenario where she loses, unless she implodes on herself somehow.
jasper76 wrote: Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue, make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level, and focus their primary efforts on jobs and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation. They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
At least not pick "gay rights issue" fights in Congress - they can only damage themselves. Republicans won't do anything about pot because the President controls enforcement and there's currently no support for nationwide legalization. Another consideration is that people are still waiting to see how things play out in Washington and Oregon (and I suppose D.C. now). Obama will veto anything that touches the ACA so I expect it will stay and wind up being an election issue in 2016. As to your other points, youth voters generally don't vote and beating Hillary depends solely on who becomes the Republican nominee.
They're going to have to come up with some left field candidate to beat Hilary without some new platform change. Chris Christie was there best chance, but now he's popularly thought of as a Mafioso thug, whether fairly or unfairly.
Anyone with the name Bush doesn't have much hope....I really don't see any candidates with mass appeal out there.
Scott Walker? Maybe?
He did bascially won 3 elections in the last 4 years.
jasper76 wrote: Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue, make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level, and focus their primary efforts on jobs and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation. They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
And then the republican party is swept out of congress and becomes a footnote in history. If they ever stop making a big show of how much they hate the same people Jesus hates they lose the religious right, a group which can provide strong turnout and easy funding. The "rob the poor to feed the rich" element of the republican party isn't enough to win elections, and converting to a slightly redder version of the democrats probably isn't going to help much.
He did bascially won 3 elections in the last 4 years.
That's not mass appeal, that's political suicide. Facing recall elections at all is a giant "DO NOT NOMINATE" sign, and all most people have heard about him has been his "loot and pillage" treatment of the state government. If you want to win elections nationally you have to at least be able to pretend that you aren't a hired representative of your wealthy CEO friends, and Walker can't do that.
jasper76 wrote: Now if Republicans are smart, they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue, make the first real move to legalize pot at the federal level, and focus their primary efforts on jobs and fixing the weaknesses of the ACA with meaningful legislation. They'd completely alter the equation among Generation X and youth voters, and have a real shot against Hillary, barring a candidate that's hung up on women's issues.
And then the republican party is swept out of congress and becomes a footnote in history. If they ever stop making a big show of how much they hate the same people Jesus hates they lose the religious right, a group which can provide strong turnout and easy funding. The "rob the poor to feed the rich" element of the republican party isn't enough to win elections, and converting to a slightly redder version of the democrats probably isn't going to help much.
They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
jasper76 wrote: They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
The religious right doesn't have to go elsewhere, they can just stay home on election day.
jasper76 wrote: They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
The religious right doesn't have to go elsewhere, they can just stay home on election day.
But as long as they perceive the Democrats as worse, they won't.
They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.
They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.
I think once the bottle was uncorked in the late 70's of pandering to the religious right there really isn't any way to put the genie back in that bottle. Someone will always go for the easy votes there.
Indiana was pretty much as expected with nothing really unusual to report. Other than an Elvis impersonator winning back a seat they lost in the last election. Incumbents gonna incumbent, center is gooey blue with the outside a crunchy red.
They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.
Exacto.
It's a side effect of the nominating process though. Primaries, especially closed primaries, just make you pander to the fringe. We had so many Republican primary debates that there was plenty of opportunity to shoot yourself in the, and it didn't help that there was no "democrats saying stupid stuff" primary to balance things out. Romney might have gotten slack with his "etch-a-sketch" comment, but it's the truth. The political landscape means that you have to spend months being a crazy conservative pandering to the extreme of your party since that is who decides the primary, and then you have to turn around and try to paint yourself moderate for the general election.
They'll never lose the religious right...They're the only game in town for the religious right, unless a third party emerges, which never happens
That's why I never understand the whole "we have to rally the base" talk in 2012. The republicans will always have "the base". They will vote for the biggest RINO as long as there is not a D beside the name.
Exacto.
It's a side effect of the nominating process though. Primaries, especially closed primaries, just make you pander to the fringe. We had so many Republican primary debates that there was plenty of opportunity to shoot yourself in the, and it didn't help that there was no "democrats saying stupid stuff" primary to balance things out. Romney might have gotten slack with his "etch-a-sketch" comment, but it's the truth. The political landscape means that you have to spend months being a crazy conservative pandering to the extreme of your party since that is who decides the primary, and then you have to turn around and try to paint yourself moderate for the general election.
True enough...all the more reason why Hilary seems so inevitable.
How many here was an adult going through the Clinton years in the 90's eh. He gave us a Surplus in funds when he left office but Bush blew it because 9/11 happen.
As for blaming Bush for getting us into Iraq you might as well blame the Senate for green lighting the Resolution
"But he LIED Jihadin" then show me PROOF he lied to the Senate and to Colin Powell
Obama is doing his best to not involve us with putting Boots on Ground in dealing with ISIS. I back him on that but I also know he pretty much kicked the can down the road. Now its dicey to use Apache's in dealing with ISIS being they have assorted MAN PADS. Still doing airstrikes and giving small arms to the Kurds. We're going to see a Caliphate form within a year
Let's not forget Libya airstrikes he authorized and hand over to NATO but pretty much provided the logistical support on that one.
All I can say is the ball is in the Republican court. They pass a bill authorizing Keystone (Northern Part) is Obama going to Veto it or sign it?
How do you feel having a strong military again at OIF and OEF levels? Clinton and Powell worked the ten division two front capability military that might have worked on short term but long term was not sustainable in the beginning.
All the talk on repealing (screwed up and said appeal at first) ACA is not going to happen. They're going to more likely fine tune it and remove or improve portions of it.
jasper76 wrote: But as long as they perceive the Democrats as worse, they won't.
Sure they will. Remember, US elections often have fairly low turnout and a big part of winning is just getting your people to make the effort and vote. Right now it's very easy to make a big show of hating all of the same people Jesus hates and get strong turnout from the religious right, free advertising from the churches, etc. But if you convince them that you're also hell-bound sinners by supporting gay marriage/abortion/etc you lose that enthusiastic turnout. Sure, some of them will still vote and reluctantly choose the lesser of the two evils, but it doesn't take that much to swing the results a percentage point or two and change an R to a D in a close race (as many are right now).
And of course the religious right staying home on election day is the best-case scenario. The alternative is a split in the republican party where the religious right runs its own candidates and drains votes away into a hopeless cause while the left-leaning vote remains undivided. Sure, everyone who isn't part of the religious right would know it would be a doomed effort, but if you're able to believe in young-earth creationism (and similar nonsense) it should be easy to convince yourself that the Jesus candidate will win as long as you pray hard enough. Or, worse, all of those poor voters who currently set aside their best interests economically to vote against gay marriage/abortion/etc might realize that the democrats are the ones who support government-funded health care and other welfare programs, and hey, if both sides are equally bad on religious issues you might as well make sure your family has enough to eat.
My feelings on the elections in Oklahoma, copied from my Facebook post:
The real voting results for Governor in Oklahoma based on registered voters: Fallin 22.7%, Dorman 16.7%, Willis 0.01%, Prawdzienski 0.004%. Not voting: 60%. I might not be happy that Fallin won, but I would feel a lot better if enough people would actually bother to vote so that a candidate actually gets the support of a true majority of the people they represent. We have a governor that 1 out of 4 Oklahomans voted for, and that shouldn't make anybody feel good no matter what letter they had next to the name on the ballot.
@Peregrine: Perhaps you're right about them staying home for a moderate candidate. I have noticed that many young Evangelicals seem much more tolerant than the Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell generation. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that they could become more moderate and diverse in politics as, say , Catholic voters. I doubt that would show itself by 2016 though.
Jihadin wrote: All I can say is the ball is in the Republican court. They pass a bill authorizing Keystone (Northern Part) is Obama going to Veto it or sign it?
Veto it, I'd imagine. Veto and demagogue the issue. It might get passed in 2016 if the Democrats pressure him enough.
Jihadin wrote: All the talk on repealing (screwed up and said appeal at first) ACA is not going to happen. They're going to more likely fine tune it and remove or improve portions of it.
I said earlier that Obama isn't going to let them touch the ACA. It's his legacy. His "New Deal" if you will. I think he'd see the Democrats out of power for 50 years before he'd give an inch on the ACA.
On the other hand, Congress (eventually) forced Clinton into balanced budgets so I guess anything is possible.
Ugh.... Just looked on the "official" ballot counting website for the state of Washington... some people are seriously fething stupid, ESPECIALLY when it comes to firearms.
jasper76 wrote: @Peregrine: Perhaps you're right about them staying home for a moderate candidate. I have noticed that many young Evangelicals seem much more tolerant than the Pat Robertson / Jerry Falwell generation. I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that they could become more moderate and diverse in politics as, say , Catholic voters. I doubt that would show itself by 2016 though.
I think that's the very long term outcome, once the older generations start to die off. But right now those older voters are too important to risk driving them into apathy, and the republican party has little room to back off from its conservative religious agenda. And who knows what the situation elsewhere in politics will be like by the time the trends change enough to make dumping the religious right a viable strategy.
I don't know. People were saying Hillary was a lock in 2008 as well and she still lost. I think she is very popular among certain Democrats but all, it gets murkier the more we move away from Primaries. There is a good chance she wins one but not the other. I'm not sold on Hillary being a certainty yet.
I'm a person who's only concern is ecological and social issues, so I'd vote for repubs if they were more liberal with that. It seems to me that if they focus soley on the economic, where (when not being stupid about it) they often have the upper hand in debates against dems.
Lousiana has to do a completely unnecessary runoff because of that loser Rob Maness who had no chance in hell of winning and took votes away from Cassidy. I swear to God, Tea Party types are their own worst enemies.
@Jihadin: I live in West Virginia....Manchin was probably the last Democrat you'll see come out of here into the Senate (although he'll likely keep his seat til he retires).
Once the words "clean" and "coal" were put together in the Democratic lexicon, people saw their livelihoods threatened, and that's what caused the flip.
I'm fairly certain the R is going to win Louisiana and Alaska, putting them at a comfortable 54 to 46. I don't see them winning Virginia. It was a lot closer than I thought it would be, that's for sure.
jasper76 wrote: @Jihadin: I live in West Virginia....Manchin was probably the last Democrat you'll see come out of here into the Senate (although he'll likely keep his seat til he retires).
Once the words "clean" and "coal" were put together in the Democratic lexicon, people saw their livelihoods threatened, and that's what caused the flip.
Yeah, you won't see a dem there until the mines run dry, and probably not for a while after that either. It's funny, if it wasn't for the eco side of things, the dems might be quite popular, with things like employee protection, and saftey standards often pushed more by dems than repubs.
Jihadin wrote: Think the Republicans put IRS, NSA, EPA, and some other ,latey, idiotic agencies in check and back in line?
I doubt it. Last time they were in office the republicans were quite happy to abuse the NSA and the current administration just followed their lead. Though I guess they might try to do something about the IRS and EPA, at least in the cases where those agencies are interfering with all of their rich friends with large bribes to offer. Obviously this won't provide any benefit to any of the people posting here though.
I should say, now that I've had a night's sleep on it... that of the 3 issues in Washington I actually gave a damn about, all 3 went the "wrong" way, and honestly.... only one of them surprises me.
As mentioned, there were two "gun control" measures, which both went the "wrong" (one basically reconfirmed that due process of the law had to be followed in order to confiscate firearms... failed, the other "closed" the gun show loophole, but apparently went so far as to now make quite a few safety classes illegal, passed. Well, when the next person gets killed by someone who illegally acquired a firearm, they'll realize the legislation did nothing)
But, the one that surprised me was a measure on making classroom sizes smaller. This failed. And it seriously boggles my mind why people WOULDNT want smaller classrooms. I'll admit, I voted for this one for rather self serving reasons as I am currently in school to become a teacher, having smaller classes can help make the pool larger and make it "easier" for me to get work once I'm done . BUT, as a parent, and I've already seen a classroom broken up as my daughter entered Kindergarten this year, and there was an influx of minions. The school and district deemed that there were too many students in the K classrooms, so fairly quickly hired a 3rd K teacher to bring the numbers a bit under control.
Ensis Ferrae wrote: I should say, now that I've had a night's sleep on it... that of the 3 issues in Washington I actually gave a damn about, all 3 went the "wrong" way, and honestly.... only one of them surprises me.
As mentioned, there were two "gun control" measures, which both went the "wrong" (one basically reconfirmed that due process of the law had to be followed in order to confiscate firearms... failed, the other "closed" the gun show loophole, but apparently went so far as to now make quite a few safety classes illegal, passed. Well, when the next person gets killed by someone who illegally acquired a firearm, they'll realize the legislation did nothing)
But, the one that surprised me was a measure on making classroom sizes smaller. This failed. And it seriously boggles my mind why people WOULDNT want smaller classrooms. I'll admit, I voted for this one for rather self serving reasons as I am currently in school to become a teacher, having smaller classes can help make the pool larger and make it "easier" for me to get work once I'm done . BUT, as a parent, and I've already seen a classroom broken up as my daughter entered Kindergarten this year, and there was an influx of minions. The school and district deemed that there were too many students in the K classrooms, so fairly quickly hired a 3rd K teacher to bring the numbers a bit under control.
For the amount of time the media spends discussing gun control they do a horrific job on explaining what the laws already are and how they work, leading to severe misconceptions being held by the general public which allows pointless counter productive measures like the one in WA to pass. It's a depressing level of ignorance.
In regards to the class size measure I would think that competent principals would make sure that they don't overwhelm teachers with classes that are too big without needing to codify class size into state law. Nobody wants classes that are detrimental because of the student teacher ratio but if you make a legal limit then you create the problem of having no flexibility when you hit the magic number and have 21 or 26 or whatever X+1 is for students. You wouldn't want to lose control of your budget because you have to hire a teacher for only a couple of students and need additional classroom space for them too.
My thoughts on the elections themselves are:
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 gakload of purple states go either slightly lighter or darker.
If the Republicans are smart, they will put forward a bunch 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.
For the amount of time the media spends discussing gun control they do a horrific job on explaining what the laws already are and how they work, leading to severe misconceptions being held by the general public which allows pointless counter productive measures like the one in WA to pass. It's a depressing level of ignorance.
I will say this about the campaigns though. From the absolutely TINY amount of "local network" TV that I watch, and thus, the tinier amount of local political ads that I see, the Anti-Gun crowd did a very good job playing on the emotions of the issue, their main ad featured a story in which, undoubtedly the seller was heavily fined, if not jailed for his/her role (the story of the ad goes that a "crazy, violent ex-husband, who already had committed crimes previously and could not pass NICS, went onto Craigslist or some such, and bought a firearm from a random somebody. He then went to where his Ex-wife lived and killed her)
On the flip side, the Pro-Gun crowd played on "facts" and "logical reason" using the Sherriff's Council and Police Unions or whatever to "help" you decide how to vote.
Easy E wrote: After his victory in Wis, I'm calling Walker as a strong contender for President.
I like him... a lot.
I mean, the Democrats, Big Labor, the teachers’ unions…they have thrown everything they possibly can at Walker three times, and three times he has beaten them. He now has a real reform record and a record of smoking the Democrats in what was a blue state. That’s a formidable record.
But, I seriously doubt he can over come the Clinton name-brand behemoth.
Easy E wrote: After his victory in Wis, I'm calling Walker as a strong contender for President.
I like him... a lot.
I'm shicked to hear that you like Scott Walker so much.
However, there is no denying that he has somehow managed to survive politically, do some union busting, and continue to carry the water for Republican Ideology. Paul Ryan is nothig and a nobody compared to this guy. Plus, he is a Governor, and they are much more likely to get elected to an Executive branch office than a Legislator.
I am also not convinced the Hilary will be the nominee, don't count out Biden, or some other Politicians with less baggage that don't even have National name recognition yet.
Easy E wrote: After his victory in Wis, I'm calling Walker as a strong contender for President.
I like him... a lot.
I'm shicked to hear that you like Scott Walker so much.
However, there is no denying that he has somehow managed to survive politically, do some union busting, and continue to carry the water for Republican Ideology. Paul Ryan is nothig and a nobody compared to this guy. Plus, he is a Governor, and they are much more likely to get elected to an Executive branch office than a Legislator.
I am also not convinced the Hilary will be the nominee, don't count out Biden, or some other Politicians with less baggage that don't even have National name recognition yet.
People like Walker and Christie can win in blue states and push back against unions because of the fiscal realities. States forced to balance their budgets need to be able to control their public sector spending. Public service employees shouldn't even be allowed to unionize, even FDR spoke out against it because it's never made sense fiscally. Everyone pays taxes and everyone wants to see their taxes spent appropriately and not go up every year. That's how fiscal conservatives can win elections in blue states, because math.
Sigvatr wrote: Hah, take that dems. Liking it. I do hope for dems to push Clinton.
Both parties are certainly going to do a lot of pushing. Billions of dollars of political advertising is coming our way and it's going to be inescapable. We don't even have cable or satelite tv anymore and I still got bombarded with flyers in the mail, phone calls, volunteerscanvasing the neighborhood and ads on the radio during my commute. $100,000,000 spent in NC just for one senate seat in a midterm election. From what I've heard about 3 quarters of it was spent by outside groups not the candidates.
Easy E wrote: After his victory in Wis, I'm calling Walker as a strong contender for President.
I like him... a lot.
I'm shicked to hear that you like Scott Walker so much.
However, there is no denying that he has somehow managed to survive politically, do some union busting, and continue to carry the water for Republican Ideology. Paul Ryan is nothig and a nobody compared to this guy. Plus, he is a Governor, and they are much more likely to get elected to an Executive branch office than a Legislator.
True dat.
I am also not convinced the Hilary will be the nominee, don't count out Biden, or some other Politicians with less baggage that don't even have National name recognition yet.
I find it weird that moi, a South Park Conservative, is bullish on Clinton's chances than my liberal friends...
Co'tor Shas wrote: And the Clintons are moderate liberals at best. Other than the fact that she's a woman, there is nothing for progressives to get exited for.
Do they need more?
Just read that some republicans now loudly think about going against Obamafail...awesome. We're excited.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And the Clintons are moderate liberals at best. Other than the fact that she's a woman, there is nothing for progressives to get exited for.
Do they need more?
Just read that some republicans now loudly think about going against Obamafail...awesome. We're excited.
Well... they did *Run* against Obama's Policy and the ACA.
Co'tor Shas wrote: And the Clintons are moderate liberals at best. Other than the fact that she's a woman, there is nothing for progressives to get exited for.
Do they need more?
Just read that some republicans now loudly think about going against Obamafail...awesome. We're excited.
I really, really hope they do. The more the merrier.
However, I think the R establishment has managed to rope in most of the Goat show this election, and they will do it again for the Presidenial Primaries.
), I approve of this post! Political apathy does no one any good, so go and get involved, people! 
Cthulu=Republicans 
