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.

The wife and I voted after she got off work.


And then I got the chance to pull an "I Voted" sticker out of my three year-old daughter's nose with a pair of tweezers. Democracy in action.

 jasper76 wrote:


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)

Saying ten seats to be gained by Republicans in the Senate.

House is retained by the Republicans

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.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:
The wife and I voted after she got off work.


And then I got the chance to pull an "I Voted" sticker out of my three year-old daughter's nose with a pair of tweezers. Democracy in action.

I remember when one of my daughters discovered braclet charms fit up her nose. Magical!

CNN now reporting GOP has gained a majority in the Senate.

Obama might as well gather his veto stamp and take up residence at his favorite golf course. Nothings getting done for 2 years.

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

 jasper76 wrote:
Now if Republicans are smart,

Don't hold your breath...

they'll immediately drop the gay rights issue,

I can actually see that happening.

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.

The millienials are wising up...

BUT, if Hillary runs, she'd win. Simple as that.

 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.

That's some amazingly selective memory you have there, Co'tor Shas.

Is pointing out that Bush got us into the Iraq war, and that it was unnecessary, now considered selective? Fascinating.

 Breotan wrote:
That's some amazingly selective memory you have there, Co'tor Shas.

How so?

 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.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
I wonder if memories of Bush will still hurt them?

Huh?

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).

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 Ouze wrote:
Is pointing out that Bush got us into the Iraq war, and that it was unnecessary, now considered selective? Fascinating.

Well... it's his opinion.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 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.

Most likely.

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.

 jasper76 wrote:
Most likely.

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?

 Breotan wrote:

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

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:

 Breotan wrote:

 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.

Never even heard of Scott Walker.

 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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:
Scott Walker? Maybe?

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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.