Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Easy E wrote:
It is 2010 all over again.

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.

 d-usa wrote:

 whembly wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
That's true.

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.

 streamdragon wrote:

 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.

Here here

 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.

 streamdragon wrote:

 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.

Show me where he tried... ie:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17862.html

His favorite word is "No".

But no, totes on Obama. He should just shut his damn kenyan mouth and sign papers like a good little communist atheist muslim.

Erm... he should take remedial training on "how to compromise".

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".

Reid: "No".

Then... the shut down happened.

 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.

How do you negotiate with:
"I won"

???

 Ahtman wrote:

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.

For anyone wanting a more detailed explanation of the process:
http://votesmart.org/education/how-a-bill-becomes-law

 whembly wrote:

 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.

How do you negotiate with:
"I won"

???

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".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

How do you negotiate with:
"I won"

???

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?

 whembly wrote:

 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".


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 agnosto wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 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.

How do you negotiate with:
"I won"

???

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.

Dude... dualing Congressional members should be on PPV!

We'd balance the budget in no time.

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 Democratic supermajority 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.

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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 Democratic supermajority 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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

Prestor Jon wrote:

 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 Democratic supermajority 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.

 whembly wrote:
Dude... dualing Congressional members should be on PPV!

We'd balance the budget in no time.

I'd be throwing money at the TV for that. Imagine the bookie action....talk about stimulating the economy.

Prestor Jon wrote:

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!

 RivenSkull wrote:

 whembly wrote:

Honestly? I wouldn't know...

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?

Just wanted to update this that (R)s did have a plan to replace it:
BURR, COBURN, HATCH UNVEIL OBAMACARE REPLACEMENT PLAN

Here's the details in this proposal:
The Patient CARE Act

Establish sustainable, patient-centered reforms:

-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?