2010 Election Results

Remove all ads!

I was responding to this comment:

Which BTW DID happen in 2006. Thusly, I was challenging the notion that both houses couldn't flip at the same time, which I consider a feeble defense.

No, Aldeth. As was pointed out by pundits this morning, 95 percent of the liberal/progressive caucus won back their seats in Congress in this last election. What that means is that it was the "Blue Dog" Dems -- in those districts that are usually conservative -- are the ones that bit the dust. If more liberal seats had been up for reelection, they still would have won, because liberals and progressives have not decided to vote conservative in those districts. Before you can make that comment you actually have to look at the specific seats that were voted on in specific districts and that in the end flipped parties.

 

Please show me where in my post I stated I knew what the President's agenda was? All I commented on was the fact that Democrats who did vote for his agenda for the past two years didn't fare so well in this election. Anyone in their right mind who wants to be reelected has to have that in the back of their mind at least.

 

Ah, you don't, too bad. In that case, how do you know that anyone will vote against an agenda YOU know nothing about?

"Some" Democrats did not do well. But the next two years will probably see a different agenda than the last two years.

I'm curious to see that agenda myself.

---------- Added 0 hours, 38 minutes and 26 seconds later... ----------

Check out this exchange between liberals on the election.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#40025894

BTW, I'm a liberal who completely agrees with Lawrence. But I'm not for banning any guns. Lawrence is wrong about that.

 

2006 wasn't a complete restructuring of power. Most of the Senate kept their seats. It's just that a critical number switched. The Reps weren't exactly enjoying absolute power before hand.

At the same time, though, many of the reliably Dem states were up for election this year, so many of the Senate seats that weren't up but would be would be on much shakier ground. I think the Reps would have won the Senate majority, but not a supermajority. Maybe not even close.

I think he's presuming that Obama continues his current direction, overall. It seems the next item for him is Energy, and that he's willing to drop Cap-And-Trade from it. We'll see what else he's willing to do. I'm sure health care will come up again, especially if the courts win any of their suits. I'm sure immigration will come up again. Taxes are already here. "The economy" is so nebulous an issue that I'm not sure we'll see anything that's definitively that again, though I'm sure some influences will show here and there.

I'm hoping Obama and the Dems in the Senate will be willing to allow a return of nuclear power in America, as I think that's the only real solution we have to our energy problem now. I'm not at all sure of it, though.

 

Hey, I was only repeating YOUR comment about "restructuring" of power. Sorry, you didn't know.

Like? For instance?

After an election, that's a bad assumption.

Cap and trade did not pass the Senate.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/26/science/earth/26climate.html

It never left. We have one down the freeway from here.

 

Quote:
I'm quite sure the Senate would have fallen to the Reps in massive numbers if it had all been up for re-election, like the House was.
Based on what information?

The percentages of voters who voted red would suggest such an outcome, though it couldn't be certain.

Quote:
Of course, I think that's the point of the Senate terms being what they are: that a whim or urge of voters can't restructure the entire power structure of the US.
Well, can you explain how the Dems did it in 2006 then? They took both the house and the senate....

This was because there were a very large number of red senators who were up for re-election who had come in with Bush. In the next two elections, the blues have a roughly 40-20 majority in senators up for re-election. It wasn't a good year for a Senate grab by the reds because the Senate was something close to 19-19.

Quote:
In short, the best way they can make sure Obama doesn't win again is by doing a good job on everything else.
More than likely it will depend on the job Obama does, rather than the nitwits in Congress.

No one is going to be able to get anything major passed or repealed before 2012. Obama has the veto and the Republicans, who are voting as a bloc, have the House. Compromise is possible, but it will obviously be on Republicans' terms. Cutting spending is basically the only interest of the Right this time, I think...

 

Not all states are "red states" though.

Thank you for making my point. Nevertheless, this is a pointless conversation, since the election is what it is. This isn't a sports game where the losing side, says "if only we had, blah, blah, blah."

I am willing to say that if there were a few more decent republicans running for the Senate, the "Rs" my have taken both houses, like the Dems did in 2006. Unfortunately for them, they ran a few very weak Tea Pot candidates that cost them. But the only thing I wanted to prove was that the Congress CAN flip on one election. Besides that point, I really don't give much of a flip about, "If only...."

You are right. The prez should set the agenda, but he may just let it appear that the Republicans are running most of the show, which may help him 2012. The Republicans have no interest in cutting spending. They are already saying that if they cut taxes, it will fix the deficit. Cutting taxes always get votes, if you can get people to notice that they were actually CUT in the first place. So many Repubicans lied about Obama rasing taxes that a lot of ignorant people really believed that Obama had rasied their taxes. Still, Obama will have to have something to show at the end of the next two years, so he will have to do more than just win the "message war" this time.

 

I think "if only we had blah, blah, blah" is very relevant ... especially the "blah, blah, blah" part.

 

T2 -

Speaking of that, thank Goodness I only work part-time. You should hear the Republicans at work, atm. And the worst one is a complete conservative Republican, who is African-American AND gay. Texas, go figure.

 

Ok, that's just funny.

If he's claiming the Grand Republican Revolution is upon us, point out to him that the last two elections were wave elections for the Dems, and that unless he thinks this nation is schizophrenic as a whole (I wouldn't entirely argue this point), this election was not a 'victory' for anyone. I've heard a lot of Republican 'winners' making this point recently. That's the sole reason I still have hope. Boehner not withstanding, some of them really get it.

 

Mitch McConnell yesterday reaffirmed that his central goal is to ensure that Barack Obama does not get a second term. No comment necessary.

 

He's just pissed off. He's one of the old guard, establishment Republicans, who is trying to hang on, just like the a few of the Dems.

 

It's one of the hazards of being in politics too long. Eventually, it's about keeping your hand on the levers of power instead of passing a certain agenda or platform. It may yet take a while but the republicans will pay and pay dearly if they don't start to jettison the old guard. Obstruction may have been the best strategy for the last two years, but it will eventually wear thin. Americans may be a bit slow on the uptake, but they eventually figure it out when politicians place electoral strategy on a higher pedestal than the act of governing. Now that they control the house, obstructionism will be a losing strategy for the republicans.

 

Drew,
I think if you assume that obstructionism is a characteristic only of the old guard you are mistaken. The new breed, the product of meticulous litmus and purity tests, is probably even worse in that regard.

Old guard, new breed - to unseat Obama is their common goal, even when they don't have much else in common. Obstructionism doesn't require partisan consensus among the GOP, it's simply the least common denominator. It'll do for the next two years.

 

Don't get me wrong, Ragusa. I fully expect to see continued obstructionism from the republican party. My contention is that, now that they have control of the house, that strategy will backfire if they choose to continue it. I fully expect to see the house pass poison pill after poison pill for the senate, while refusing to pass or negotiate on any of the inevitable senate counter-proposals -- and to attempt to label the democratic senate as obstructionist for failing to rubber stamp their legislation. Since we are now bringing 2 years of republican obstructionism to a close, I am convinced that voters would see through this with a little help from a few well-timed campaign ads.

If they're smart (and the dems usually aren't), the democrats will turn the tables by passing some poison pills of their own. They should pick up the mantle of tax cutting in the name of economic growth for themselves, recommending that we let the Bush tax cuts for the top tier expire and instead use that revenue to create incentives for corporations and small businesses to expand. By offering it as an amendment to the bill to extend Bush's cuts, they would ensure that voters see the issue as an either/or proposition rather than a refusal on the part of Democrats to extend tax cuts for the top bracket. While small business auspiciously employs 52% of Americans, this is a deceptive figure. Three quarters of our small businesses have no payroll whatsoever -- and non-employer firms are growing faster than employer firms. Non-employer small businesses don't need a tax cut -- and they wouldn't use one to hire employees.

Large businesses, who employ 38% of Americans, actually could use the revenues from such tax incentives to create jobs. Any measure that cuts taxes for small business while leaving big business out in the cold shouldn't rightly be called a job creation measure -- especially if the measure doesn't incentivize expansion. When republicans try to fight this counter-proposal (they've already fought a similar proposal from the Obama administration, so this is not a stretch), it could be made extremely embarrassing for them -- the Democrats would be able to go on the attack, branding republican opposition as evidence that republicans are more interested in passing tax cuts for their wealthy donors than they are in creating jobs. If republicans go along with the counter-proposals, the democrats still win -- this not only proves the democrats' ability to competently govern and opens the door to further bipartisan negotiations, but it also gives the republicans one less weapon to bring to bear in 2012.

There has been talk from some of the newly elected tea partiers about investigating the Obama administration. fishing for dirt they can use to bring up articles of impeachment as Gingrich's house did with the Clinton administration. If such a measure ever gets out of committee and sees the floor, it will cost the republicans their shiny new majority and all but guarantee Obama's reelection. The next two years are going to be a lot of fun.

 

Drew - The Republicans have never given a damn about job creation. Their main goal has always been the preservation of American instutionalism (and yes, Exceptionalism) against outside forces - no matter how you slice it - communists, facists, Isalmists, gays, atheists, Euoro-proto socialists, THE INTERNAL LIBERALS, whatever you care to name or add to the list, it doesn't matter what the "threat" is. Indeed, there are times that this is a constructive agenda, because they do manage to "conserve" certain princples and vital institutions to a useful degree. For that we should be thankful for them. Yes, it would be helpful if a few of them had a better understanding of the institutions they wish to "conserve" for us.

Nevertheless, it is almost exactly as Jon Stewart once pointed out: Conservatives are like the white blood cells in our body; some of it is a good thing, but too many of them is as bad as having the disease, which is sometimes what happens. Once it becomes clear that they have no plan for job creation, or for the deficit, beyond tax cuts, people will wise up once again. Given enough time, most everything is evident in the light of day.

The REAL argument is still between Jefferson and Hamilton - What kind of nation? Hamilton envisioned a mighty nation-state, one that would rival those of Europe, and become a powerful empire in its own right (does anyone REALLY believe that is possible with "less" govenment?); Jefferson envisioned an inward turning nation, more modest, but free of "foreign entanglements," that would really mean "less government."

Americans are at a crossroads: They have been down the path of Hamilton, which many American historians have pointed out has seem to won out over Jefferson's. But where are they headed now? "Is there still time to change the road we're on?" as someone once commented. Probably not. At least that is how I see it. In the end Americans want their "big government," because they want to be the "big kid on the block." That plays to the "establishment" and entrenched agendas of both parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-interventionism

 

Last I looked Reagan is dead and it isn't 1981 anymore

One thing that I find extremely disconcerting among Republican anti-tax crusaders: is that they reiterate the anti-tax mantra ad nauseam, never mind the economical circumstances - tax cuts are always great because they always result in more tax revenue because they stimulate the economy, and that tax breaks for rich people are even better since these industrialists reinvest their money and create jobs, so that the benefits trickle down (for instance, in the age of outsourcing, to China). That appears to describe the current Republican orthodoxy.

It is almost as if a child has grown fond of it's favourite cake and now demands to have it for breakfast, lunch and dinner. This prayer mill like 'let's cut taxes' is as childish as it is irresponsible and stupid.

Yes, nobody likes to pay taxes, and tax cuts are nice, but so what, taxes are necessary. Government, to govern and to pay off its mounting debt, needs revenue, and that is necessarily tax revenue. There is no way around it. Inflation is not a sensible alternative to tax revenue. To my relief there are still some Republican grown-ups around who are aware that cake all day makes tummy troubles (in particular: David Stockman, Reagan's budget director)

... but then which child wants to hear such kill joy talk? Just ... listen to Mike Pence response ... and that guy is an elected representative

PS: Stockmann also gave this interview on 60 minutes, in which he called for the Bush tax breaks to expire for everyone, rich or otherwise. Also, fascinating backgrounder 'The Education of David Stockmann'.

Key quote: [Reagan's 1981 tax cut] was always a Trojan horse to bring down the top rate.... It's kind of hard to sell 'trickle down.' i.e. it was a gift for the top earners, and that it would trickle down was the rationalisation for the top earner's desires to pay less taxes. For corporations, it was straightforward to call for it (less taxes more profits), as it would increase shareholder value and bonuses for executives. The Mike Pence's are simply serving the same business interests that called for and got the Reagan and Bush tax cuts. It's just that want makes good business sense for individual companies may well be poison for the economy. Let that be someone else's problem.

 

And yet, I have seen some cracks in this orthodoxy. Years ago, it would have been not just orthodoxy, but unchallengable edict from the Pope of Finance . Now, I've seen several Republicans challenging that, even going as far as to say we need to raise taxes (though they haven't specified which taxes need to be raised). Admittedly, that was durring campaign mode, so it remains to be seen how they'll actualy vote, but the cracks are there.

 

NOG,
I'll believe that when I see R's proposing tax increases to directly fund the purchase of favourite items in the defence budget. Alas, that will not be. These fools blather about saving and axing programs - but exclude from that the military budget, which I recently heard, makes iirc up 54% of discretionary spending*. That is a holy cow that must not to be touched. Rather cut entitlements, but never ever strike an aircraft carrier or two. Obviously, to only have a eightfold numerical (never mind qualitative) superiority spells imminent doom.

Ron Paul has afaik called to cut the defence budget, but Ron Paul is not Republican mainstream, not by a long shot. His Republican colleagues would rather drink hemlock than to join him in this.

Spoiler

*Discretionary spending is a spending category about which government planners can make choices. It refers to spending set on a yearly basis by decision of Congress and is part of fiscal policy. This spending is optional, in contrast to entitlement programs for which funding is mandatory.

 

The real attack will come on Medicare and Social Security, but not untill after they fight over the new health care law. As I heard one conservative talking head comment this morning, "this election [last week] may finally be the reversal of the "creeping tide of socialism" in American government and the "socialist agenda of Nancy Pelosi." The thing is, that's not just rhetoric, some conservatives truly believe that.

Ragusa has it right:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-waldman/heads-they-win-tails-you_b_136565.html