Thread: Why the massacre?

Originally Posted by Maddox

However, on another note, having a shift in Congress might not be a bad thing for Obama. Now the Republicans will have to share the burden in 2012, they cannot say "Well, we got no influence". Now they have to start coming up with results, so it´s not all bad, seen from a Presidential perspective.

Just my two cents.

False. The Republicans still can come out looking great w/o any changes. This can be done by them pushing out agendas that has popular sentiment. Even if it's something the Republican establishement doesn't really want because they know that the Democrat senate will block everything they do. So now they can make it appear as if they are taking the high road and are trying to bring responsibility to the gov while making the Dems look like reform obstructionists.

It's an easy win-win for Reps. Of course, they are pretty good at screwing up a sure thing, so who knows.

Originally Posted by ThorHammer

You're right, he wasn't wrong because he never really explained his ideas. He won on hope and change, without ever really having to explain to the population what he really meant (even if he knew). The American public was wrong to buy it and elect him without pressing for concrete answers/explanations. Just like the American public is wrong now if they think the GOP has a clue how to get us out of this mess. I don't trust the GOP to fix this any more than I trust the Dems to fix it.

Ok, I can agree with your take on Obama, as he really never went into details. Although I do believe he did indeed initially push for a single payer system for health care. Which he did not get, of course. We got Bob Dole's bill or something very close to it, instead. The day that he had closed door meetings with the insurance industry, I feared for the worse, as it seemed his vows of transpariency went down the tubes, early on.

But then again, being older than dirt, these campaign promises being broken is so predictable. I think Americans wanted big changes, and Obama did not deliver. Then he came into office during a time that no man in his right mind would want to serve. I know I sure as hell would not want to, in dire economic times. FDR was re-elected because he gave the perception of addressing the G. D. whether what he did helped or not. It was the perception. What perception has the Obama Admin. portrayed? When it was said we were in the summer of recovery, no one could see the recovery he spoke of. That was a goof up, IMO.

But with all of this said, I still believe the major factor to be, the unemployment issue, and the economy. And I believe if not for this economic mess, the results from yesterday would not be the same. You have to do more, than simply throw money at the economic mess, you actually have to appeal polcies set up by the Repubs that are keeping any recovery from happening. But at least the Dems got rid of the tax breaks for offshoring! That was a start, but they stopped moving in the right direction.

Yet the TP movement played some role in the Dems losing the House. Let us pray these folks never get any substantial say so in D.C. If so, I think they will be even worse than the Pubs, in addressing the most important issue that we have today, JOBS. INCOME. I only see them as re-incentivising offshoring, by giving business tax breaks once again, a reward, for offshoring. HOW in the hell does that benefit the majority of Americans? It doesn't. It benefits only the elites in this Nation, who are the puppeteers that pull the strings that make the politicians dance to their chosen tune.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

False. The Republicans still can come out looking great w/o any changes. This can be done by them pushing out agendas that has popular sentiment. Even if it's something the Republican establishement doesn't really want because they know that the Democrat senate will block everything they do.

Wait -- you mean you expect the Republican House to pass progressive legislation, confident that the Senate will block it?

That's kind of weird, man. I would like to see it happen, but I don't smoke dope any more.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

False. The Republicans still can come out looking great w/o any changes. This can be done by them pushing out agendas that has popular sentiment. Even if it's something the Republican establishement doesn't really want because they know that the Democrat senate will block everything they do. So now they can make it appear as if they are taking the high road and are trying to bring responsibility to the gov while making the Dems look like reform obstructionists.

It's an easy win-win for Reps. Of course, they are pretty good at screwing up a sure thing, so who knows.

Yeah, the GOP will pander, and in the meantime the country suffers.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

Well, here it is November 3rd 2010 and the GOP has taken control of the US House of Representatives and has made substantial gains in strength in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi has lost the Speakership and the President's Senate seat has even fallen to the GOP.
Now I would ask the liberals here to blow your noses and wipe away your tears long enough to tell us why this has happened.
Was it that:
1.Democrats were discouraged by the media telling us that the GOP would make huge gains.
2.Americans are idiots
3.Bush's fault
4.Obama's policies are too far to the right, causing disillusionment in his base, or
5.The American people see obama Reid and Pelosi's policies as bad for the country and sent a message that the President's vision of “hope and change” is taking America in the wrong direction.


Feel free to offer any other excuses you might have for the massacre you witnessed last night.

Jobs.

The lack thereof.

There were two jobs issues facing the voters: 1) illegal immigration (speaheaded by Democrats) and 2) off-shoring jobs (spearheaded by Republicans).

The voters realized that amnesty for 20 million illegals would drastically drop wage levels and prevent the scores of millions of always legal citizens and immigrants who are now un- and under- employed from getting back to living-wage work, permanently .. and they realized that the Democrats' amnesty was the greater of the two evils.

By putting the Republicans in charge of the House, amnesty thereby dies .. for now ..

.. And although a GOP majority in the House also makes it less likely that the individual citizen bailout so greatly needed to stimulate private sector growth and recovery from the recession is also unlikely .. for now ..

.. No additional harm was done ..

.. And that buys time for the centrist-moderate uprising reflected in my signature to build and come to power in 2012, and then recovery can begin.

Hopefully we can keep the starvation to a minimum in the meantime.

Originally Posted by goober

Such a cynic, you really believe elections can be bought?

I prefer to think of it as being a realist. Of course, elections can be bought especially in a country where tv rules all culture and existence. Pay more money for advertising...

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

It couldn't have anything to do with the massive amounts of money the GOP and their support groups put into winning this. News outlets are reporting out spendings in the ranges of 5-to-1 and 10-to-1. At least, the people in power now can treat the populace like prostitutes. After all they paid for it.

At least some people somewhere had some sense. Meg Whitman in California spent $150,000,000 to try and buy her way into an election but it didn't work.

Yeah this is a bunch of crap that the facts clearly show to be wrong:

Midterm Spending Nearly Split Between Dems, GOP - Political Hotsheet - CBS News

Democrats getting outspent? Not so fast - Jeanne Cummings - POLITICO.com

"
So far, the latest figures show that the Democratic Party machinery has outraised its Republican counterpart in this campaign cycle by almost $270 million.

And even when outside spending on television advertising and direct mail is added to the mix, Republicans still haven’t closed the gap.

The money race totals come to $856 million for the Democratic committees and their aligned outside groups, compared to $677 for their Republican adversaries, based on figures compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/27/us...s/27money.html


So, it looks like, based on the results, that the Dems bought several races themselves. I love how liberals always say "big corporations are buying the races for Republicans" or "corporations aren't people and they shouldn't be able to donate money to candidates", but COMPLETELY ignore the millions in BIG LABOR money going ONLY to Democrats. Like the roughly $220 million given by the major labor unions nationally in this election ONLY for Democrats. Liberals don't seem to care about all the George Soros money floating around (wow a billionaire liberal - damn I thought he cared about the little man). So, unions can buy an election, but a corporation can't - do I have that about right? Wanna talk about money buying elections and other weird shit check out the electoral map of Nevada from last night:

State Results - Election Center 2010 - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Now somehow, despite every district and county breaking for the Republicans in Nevada last night in the governor's race and House races, magically around the big cities (Clark County included) Harry Reid pulls a win out by 5%, despite also trailing in the polls the day before by 5%. Somehow, voters, the same ones who voted Republican in House races and the governor's race, switched their vote on the ballot and said "yeah I like Harry Reid". Bullshit. His son Rory Reid lost the governor contest by 11-12 points, every county and district (except one I think) went Republican in House and governors races and somehow he magically hangs on by 5%? Bullshit. You can't tell me SEIU money and trickery wasn't all over that shit. I mean come on, numerous reports of "I voted for Angle and the machine says Reid". Even if voter fraud isn't an issue in NV, these results seem aweful strange and at the very least is an example of "buying an election" you supposedly hate - well when it's Republicans that is.

Originally Posted by pramjockey

Yeah, the GOP will pander, and in the meantime the country suffers.

I don't know man. I truely don't. They could pander and come out smelling like roses. But you know, as well as I do, that either of the parties are supremely capable of screwing up anything they put their hands on. I really don't trust the Republican part to have changed that much from their normal irresponsibility.

The only point I was trying to make is the there "should" be no way for the Republicans to not look good in 2012. Have a finger on the pulse of the people and play to it knowing the Dems will never agree.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Wait -- you mean you expect the Republican House to pass progressive legislation, confident that the Senate will block it?

That's kind of weird, man. I would like to see it happen, but I don't smoke dope any more.

No, not progressive legislation but conservative legislation. They could pass repealing the HCR, which would be a populous move, but the Senate would block it. They could push legislation to control our boarders and crackdown on illegals, another populous opinion, but the Senate would block it. They could pass massive cuts to federal government spending and power, a populous sentiment, and the Senate would block it. They could pass any of a number of things that the Senate would block and they would be clear of responsibility in 2012.

Originally Posted by fishjoel

No, not progressive legislation but conservative legislation.

Oh. Well, you said stuff the GOP establishment wouldn't want. Are you now saying they're a bunch of hypocrites? :tongue:

They could pass repealing the HCR, which would be a populous move

Well, actually, it wouldn't. I refer you to a post I made on another thread, citing a recent poll of likely voters -- which leans Republican of course -- that showed only 37% of respondents would want the act repealed. Another 36% want it expanded so that it does more. Both of these groups may respond that they "disapprove" of the act, but the expand-it bunch wouldn't want it repealed. It's not proper to combine those two groups into a majority that "disapproves" of the ACA as it exists, as if they agreed with each other, or as if all of them want it repealed, but of course that's what a lot of dishonest conservative ideologes and Republican talking-point generators have done.

Repeal plays well with the Republican base, but certainly not with the American people as a whole.

They could push legislation to control our boarders and crackdown on illegals, another populous opinion, but the Senate would block it.

That's a bit more complicated. Whether the Senate would block it depends on what was in it. If the bill merely beefed up border security and cracked down on employers who hire illegals, I'm sure the Senate would pass it.

They could pass massive cuts to federal government spending and power, a populous sentiment, and the Senate would block it.

So what spending cuts are you actually talking about, in specific? The problem there is that while people may say they're for cutting government spending, especially if you bias the poll by calling it "wasteful" spending or some such, actual spending cuts have to target actual, specific programs. That's much harder, and likely to be a minefield in terms of popularity.

Originally Posted by CDavidNeely

Meg Whitman in California spent $150,000,000 to try and buy her way into an election but it didn't work.

Meg Whitman lost because she spent her money foolishly as directed by the stoically uncreative Pete Wilson.

In California, a predominantly liberal-Democrat state, Jerry Brown merely had to preach to the choir.

Wilson thought that the best approach for Whitman was to find pieces of Jerry's choir and pander to them while at the same time incessantly denigrate the choir director.

That, of course, was doomed to failure, and her grave was all but dug when Brown "hired" Gloria Allred to create the philosophically irrelevant maidgate which cemented the previously undecided Latino voice for Brown.

The correct approach for Whitman would have been to come out strong against both illegal immigration-amnesty and off-shoring jobs to other countries.

That would have appealed to the great majority of Californians -- centrists-moderates -- to come out to the polls and vote for Whitman.

Because Whitman was panderingly soft on illegal immigration and silent about off-shoring jobs to other countries, she did not win over the great majority of Californians who are neither liberal Democrat or conservative Republican.

So the race was largely decided along party lines .. demographically favoring the choir director Brown from the get-go.

Anyone on the right who hires Pete Wilson in the future to run their campaign should be voted against for lack of intelligence reasons alone.

Originally Posted by Dragontalk

Oh. Well, you said stuff the GOP establishment wouldn't want. Are you now saying they're a bunch of hypocrites? :tongue:

Yeah man, that's exactly what I'm saying. But where else am I going to go? You made the point, yourself, in another thread (or maybe it was this one) that we got two parties, like it or love it. My only choice is to hope that the Republicans take some kind of hint and actually change. My only hope is to remake the party that does a poor job representing me. Where else can I go man?

So what spending cuts are you actually talking about, in specific? The problem there is that while people may say they're for cutting government spending, especially if you bias the poll by calling it "wasteful" spending or some such, actual spending cuts have to target actual, specific programs. That's much harder, and likely to be a minefield in terms of popularity.

This is a very tough question. The easiest, temporary, solution is to cut everything by a certain %. It's about as fair of a quick fix as you can get. This would give us time to look into real solutions. Government workers already get paid well above the public average.

Originally Posted by Ernie S.

Well, here it is November 3rd 2010 and the GOP has taken control of the US House of Representatives and has made substantial gains in strength in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi has lost the Speakership and the President's Senate seat has even fallen to the GOP.
Now I would ask the liberals here to blow your noses and wipe away your tears long enough to tell us why this has happened.
Was it that:
1.Democrats were discouraged by the media telling us that the GOP would make huge gains.
2.Americans are idiots
3.Bush's fault
4.Obama's policies are too far to the right, causing disillusionment in his base, or
5.The American people see obama Reid and Pelosi's policies as bad for the country and sent a message that the President's vision of “hope and change” is taking America in the wrong direction.


Feel free to offer any other excuses you might have for the massacre you witnessed last night.

I remember saying long before the '08 election that whomever was elected President would be a one-termer. My reasoning was that the country was in such a state (particularly economically) that it would take some drastic legislating to try and turn it around - legislation and action which would not be electorally popular.

In all honesty Obama has two paths to face now: he can try to do a Clinton and win re-election in 2012, or he can forget about doing what's popular and instead do what's right for the country. In some respects this is why in quite like Virginia's one-term limit on governors - they're not focused on re-election, and instead can devote a full four years to doing their job.