sexiest_hero wrote:WOOT! Long live Mother russia!

dogma wrote:Interesting mid-term, and it basically played out how I expected.

The big surprises were the Kirk win in Illinois, and the Sestak loss in PA. I expected both to be close, but with alternate outcomes. I was also surprised by the margin of Reid's victory, thought it would be far, far closer.

My guess is that, despite quite a few losses, the Dems will rally around Reid's victory in Nevada while retargeting their message for a populist audience.

dogma wrote:As of now Politico is calling it for Reid by 5 points with 66% reporting.

And now Angle has conceded.

Ahtman wrote:Sadly, our little friend Christine did not win. We must wait till the next election to hear from her again.

Other good news for the Democrats came in from West Virginia, where Joe Manchin won a Senate seat for the party, and Connecticut, where Richard Blumenthal also won a seat, beating Linda McMahon, a former World Wrestling Entertainment chief executive

In California, Democrat Jerry Brown defeated Republican Meg Whitman, the former CEO of eBay

sexiest_hero wrote:So nobody thinks nobody will do anything ever? We might as well have let Stalin or Hitler win, geez..

The voter coalition that elected President Obama and fortified Democratic congressional ranks just two years ago — independents, women, young people, blue-collar workers and more — fractured in the midterm elections Tuesday, either swinging to Republicans or staying home.
Economic angst, conservative opposition to the landmark health care law and independents' disappointment with Obama's failure to deliver on promises to change Washington all contributed to a dramatic political reversal.

The result: A Republican takeover of the U.S. House and a narrowed Democratic majority in the Senate, a rising anti-government Tea Party movement and the third tumultuous U.S. election in a row. It was the first time in more than a half-century that political power in the USA has swung so significantly in three consecutive elections.


HOUSE: Voters' frustration showed nationwide
MAJORITY: GOP gains in Senate unlikely to be enough
2010 ELECTION: Full coverage
PHOTOS: Americans headed to the polls

It was a good night for a feisty movement that didn't exist in 2008. Rand Paul, a Tea Party favorite, won the Senate race in Kentucky. In Florida, Tea Party hero Marco Rubio won a Senate seat after a campaign in which he pushed Gov. Charlie Crist from the GOP to run as an independent.

Even so, Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid hung on after a knock-down drag-out battle in Nevada against Tea Party favorite Sharron Angle. Democrats also scored two big victories in California, where Jerry Brown regained the governorship he left nearly three decades ago and Sen. Barbara Boxer won re-election.

Election Day may have done more to fuel the nation's biggest policy debates than resolve them.

In surveys of voters as they left polling places, sponsored by the TV networks and the Associated Press, two-thirds of Democratic supporters said the government needs to do more to address issues facing the nation. Eight in 10 Republicans said it needs to do less.

Six in 10 Democratic voters called for the health care law, which imposes new regulations on insurance companies and requires most Americans to buy coverage, to be expanded. Eight in 10 Republicans wanted it repealed.

The results set the stage for confrontation in a more polarized Congress and an unpredictable re-election campaign for Obama in 2012. The president scheduled a news conference at the White House for 1 p.m. ET today that is sure to be dominated by queries on whether he will change strategy and staff in response to new political realities.

Obama no longer will be able to count on the big Democratic majorities in the House and Senate that have enabled him to push through the health care bill and an $814 billion stimulus bill over almost solid Republican opposition. And Republicans, in a new position of sharing power, will face increased pressure to advance their own proposals.

GOP leaders vowed to use their electoral gains to cut federal spending, extend the Bush-era tax cuts and alter the country's direction. Many Republican House and Senate challengers also campaigned on a pledge to repeal the health care law that Obama signed with fanfare in March.

"The course we set in this election unites us," Mississippi Gov. Haley Barbour, chairman of the Republican Governors Association, said in an interview, describing the disparate groups of voters casting ballots for Republicans. "They want an economic growth plan and job creation at the top of the list. They oppose this wildly excessive spending, skyrocketing deficits and $3 trillion worth of new debt being piled on our children."

A voter earthquake

Big swings by some key groups reflected a voter earthquake that shook some assumptions about the partisan landscape:

•Independents nationwide supported Republicans by a 15 percentage-points margin, according to the exit polls. Four years earlier, they had backed congressional Democrats by 18 points — a swing of a stunning 33 points.

"The angry independents" went to the polls, says GOP pollster Ed Goeas, calling their votes "a rejection of the Obama solutions" on the economy.

•Women, traditionally a mainstay for Democrats, were equally likely to vote for GOP candidates for the first time in at least three decades. Four years ago, they had backed Democrats by 12 points.

"Men are angry, rebellious; women are more disappointed" by economic policies pursued by the White House and Congress, said Democratic pollster Celinda Lake. "Women feel the policies helped the banks and Wall Street more than they helped families at their kitchen table."

•Seniors, the age group most skeptical of the health care law, moved to the GOP. Those 65 and older split between the two parties in 2008 but backed Republicans by 19 points this time.

Older voters also turned out, boosting their clout in a year in which turnout was down. Two years ago, 16% of the electorate was 65 and older. This year, the age group made up about 25% of voters.

•Middle-class Americans turned toward Republicans. Those with family incomes of $50,000 to $75,000 a year had supported congressional Democrats by 5 points in 2008; now they backed Republicans by 6.

Voters with only a high school education did the same. In 2008, they supported Democrats by 12 points. Tuesday, they backed the GOP by 6.

Democrats suffered setbacks across the Rust Belt, states from Pennsylvania to Minnesota that backed Obama in 2008 but have been hit hard by the faltering economy. Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold lost in Wisconsin and Republican Pat Toomey won a Democrat-held Senate seat in Pennsylvania. Democrats dropped five congressional seats in Ohio, five in Pennsylvania, three in Illinois, two in Indiana and one in Michigan.

Almost every voter group agreed on the issue driving their vote: The economy. Six in 10 said in exit polls the economy is the most important issue facing the nation, and for many, it was personal. Four in 10 said their families were worse off financially than they were two years ago, and one in three said someone in their household had lost a job in the past two years.

"They all share a common problem, and that's the economy, the concern about jobs, the concern about making mortgage payments," said Andrew Kohut, director of the non-partisan Pew Research Center. "The frustration with the lack of progress is a commonly shared experience, and that's why you see such an across-the-board Republican tide."

Democrats continued to claim strong support among some groups, including the young people who were a signature component of the Obama coalition in 2008. They supported Democratic candidates by 19 points this year.

Many of the first-time voters who turned out two years ago — including young people, African Americans and Hispanics — didn't show up Tuesday.

"This is a different electorate," Goeas said. Two years ago, voters under 30 made up 18% of the electorate. This year, they made up just 11%.

The voters who cast ballots this time also were older, less racially diverse and more conservative. The percentage of white voters ticked up, compared with 2008. In 2006, three in 10 voters called themselves conservative. This time, four in 10 did.

Only three times in the past century has the nation seen such significant turnover in Congress for three elections or more in a row: The tumultuous period before and after World War I, including the Democratic realignment consolidated by Franklin Roosevelt in 1932, and the partisan turmoil after World War II. Then, control of the House switched back and forth.

In 1952, Republicans won control of the House only to lose it two years later. Forty years would pass before they would get it back again in 1994.

A vote against, not for

The turbulence in U.S. politics today isn't because Americans are changing their minds about which party they prefer, said William Galston, a White House adviser to President Clinton now at the Brookings Institution.

It's because they don't like either one.

"What you have right now is a highly polarized system of political parties, more polarized than at any time since the 1890s, and many Americans feel unrepresented," Galston said. "One party will take over and then overshoot, overinterpret its mandate, go too far, suffer a rebuke. The next one comes in and does the same thing."

Many voters said their vote was a message against Obama, not in favor of Republicans. In fact, the GOP's standing remains as dismal as that of the Democrats. In the exit polls, each party was viewed unfavorably by a majority of those surveyed.

"We make a great mistake is we believe that tonight these results are somehow an embrace of the Republican Party," Rubio told a jubilant celebration of supporters in Coral Gables, Fla., late Tuesday. "Our nation is headed in the wrong direction and both parties are to blame."

"This is not a time for celebration," House Republican leader John Boehner told a Washington ballroom when it was nearly midnight. "It's a time to roll up our sleeves and go to work."

Even so, it was a good night for the GOP and a sobering one for Democrats, particularly Obama.

In the exit polls, more than half of those surveyed said the president's policies were hurting the USA. In his home state of Illinois, Republican Mark Kirk won the Senate seat Obama used to hold, defeating a friend, Alexi Giannoulias.Obama stayed out of sight Tuesday night, a contrast to his triumphant appearance in Chicago's Grant Park on Election Night in 2008. Then, some Democratic strategists argued he had forged a majority coalition that might prevail for a generation.

"The 2008 election set the table for 2010," said John Pitney of Claremont-McKenna College in California who once worked at the Republican National Committee. "Expectations for the president were sky-high, and no mortal could fulfill the expectations that a lot of people had ... about what (Obama) could do — about healing American politics, reversing global warming, bringing about economic prosperity. So that was a problem."

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:You may be flippant now, but just you wait until the dragon eats you.

NOMNOMNOM!

Avantegarde, you may think anbother Dakka poster is crazy, but under the terms of your account, you are not permitted to post such. Dakka Rule #1 is simple: be polite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then when his policies turn out to be complete failures or wildly successful he'll be assassinated by people with a interest in returning to the status quo resulting in social unrest in the US for years. Allowing the Chinese to consolidate their power in Asia and the Middle East while Americans turn inwards to focus on domestic issues.

Now I understand, it's because this is crazy.

Modquisition on:
Politeness is required Shuma. You need to ratchet it down and remember Rule #1

Oh come now, he's espousing a future of apathy led populist revolution followed by inevitable assassination which would then allow the chinese to take power in europe and the middle easy while the erstwhile guardians of the world (the US) stay at home and shoot themselves allowing the giant red dragon to eat continents. If I'm not allowed to call that crazy then why don't you just put the word into the wordfilters.

You are not allowed to call another poster crazy. If you continue you will be suspended. Is that clear enough?

This is a warning to all posters on this thread. Dakka Rule #1 applies, even here. Make derogatory comments about other posters is not permitted. If you cannot abide by that, then refrain from posting in the thread or put that person on ignore.

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Da Boss wrote:You may be flippant now, but just you wait until the dragon eats you.

NOMNOMNOM!

Avantegarde, you may think anbother Dakka poster is crazy, but under the terms of your account, you are not permitted to post such. Dakka Rule #1 is simple: be polite.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

Then when his policies turn out to be complete failures or wildly successful he'll be assassinated by people with a interest in returning to the status quo resulting in social unrest in the US for years. Allowing the Chinese to consolidate their power in Asia and the Middle East while Americans turn inwards to focus on domestic issues.

Now I understand, it's because this is crazy.

Modquisition on:
Politeness is required Shuma. You need to ratchet it down and remember Rule #1

Oh come now, he's espousing a future of apathy led populist revolution followed by inevitable assassination which would then allow the chinese to take power in europe and the middle easy while the erstwhile guardians of the world (the US) stay at home and shoot themselves allowing the giant red dragon to eat continents. If I'm not allowed to call that crazy then why don't you just put the word into the wordfilters.

You are not allowed to call another poster crazy. If you continue you will be suspended. Is that clear enough?

This is a warning to all posters on this thread. Dakka Rule #1 applies, even here. Make derogatory comments about other posters is not permitted. If you cannot abide by that, then refrain from posting in the thread or put that person on ignore.

I didn't break a rule. You banned me for no reason.

Devilsquid wrote:Well, it's put up or shut up time for the Republicans. They rolled this election, so let's see what they can do with it.

In his time in office, Whitlam and his government implemented a large number of new programs and policy changes, including the elimination of conscription, institution of universal health care, and implementation of legal aid programs. He won the 1974 election with a reduced majority. Subsequently, the Opposition, which controlled the Senate, was emboldened by government scandals and a flagging economy to challenge Whitlam. In late 1975, there was a weeks-long deadlock over the passage of appropriation bills, which was resolved by Kerr's dismissal of Whitlam and commissioning of Opposition leader Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. Labor lost the subsequent 1975 election in a landslide.
Whitlam resigned from the leadership after the ALP lost again at the 1977 election, and left Parliament in 1978.

sexiest_hero wrote:this are shaping up like so:

Dems 51 senate seats

Republicans to have a 10-15 house seat lead.

Dems down to 19 Governors.

I won't rage about how we have to have a civil war or how the northern states should leave the union.

I'll just leave this warning. The tides of politics are fickle, and I don't think Republicans have learned anything from their last sweep out of power. You will actually have to put up real ideas. Stopping health care will not create jobs, Asking for green cards will not create jobs, and protesting Islamic buildings will not create jobs. Nor will barring gays from Military service or wedlock. Corporations cant be trusted with any more tax cuts, and Saying people don't have jobs because they are lazy, or have forclosed homes because they are stupid will wear thin. Enjoy your win but be ready to play ball!

Frazzled wrote:
And I just suspended you again. Banned is permanent. Suspension is temporary, but you're making your way to that.
Protip. Posting that a mod has the reading comprehension of a child as soon as you get off suspension is not the smartest move...
Toodles!

Well, it's put up or shut up time for the Republicans.

Phryxis wrote:

Well, it's put up or shut up time for the Republicans.

While I'm sure the public will generally have that attitude, don't forget that while the Republicans have a majority in the House, they don't have the Senate, and they don't have the White House.

They're still, really, the party out of power. They're just LESS out of power, and they also have a "mandate" for what that's worth.

For example, when the Democrats were given the "mandate" of having a massive majority in both houses, PLUS the White House, when they went ahead and did what they said they'd do, everyone got all upset and had a hissy at them.

So, "mandates" are not really of any merit.