PDA

View Full Version : 2010 Election Results Thread


robeiae
11-03-2010, 01:01 AM
Some good spots for results:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/main.results/ (maps and current projections)
http://www.cbsnews.com/election2010/ (maps)
http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/results/senate (maps)
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44256.html (general rolling updates

So far, no results... :D

Gravity
11-03-2010, 01:21 AM
I'm predicting there will be many winners, and quite a few losers. Don't hold me to this, however, as I understand all this is subject to change...

SPMiller
11-03-2010, 01:22 AM
My favorite part of voting is having unopposed candidates on the ballot. Gee, my vote sure counts for a lot there.

MattW
11-03-2010, 01:22 AM
Zombie Dewey Eats Zombie Truman!

robeiae
11-03-2010, 01:28 AM
Breaking News: FoxNews has called all the elections for the Republicans!

Vince524
11-03-2010, 01:30 AM
Wait, wait....... Did I win?

Don
11-03-2010, 02:01 AM
Wait, wait....... Did I win?
I gar-on-tee you, my friend, that whatever the outcome, the answer is no. :D

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 02:36 AM
Breaking News: FoxNews has called all the elections for the Republicans!

Old news. They were calling for the GOP to win today's election, last year. :tongue

Though I could only imagine their reactions if somehow the Dems kept the majority of the house. Somewhere Rupert Murdoch will be shaking his fist, while saying, "Why aren't the people doing what we tell them, like they usually do." :tongue

Don
11-03-2010, 02:41 AM
Old news. They were calling for the GOP to win today's election, last year. :tongue

Though I could only imagine their reactions if somehow the Dems kept the majority of the house. Somewhere Rupert Murdoch will be shaking his fist, while saying, "Why aren't the people doing what we tell them, like they usually do." :tongue
Meanwhile, George Soros will be patting himself on the back for his improved puppeteering.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 02:49 AM
Some tune-age, to get everyone in the mood:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_jUkhEd8co&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJndACLC5qI&feature=related

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 02:55 AM
And some tunes for the more rebellious member of the forum waiting for results:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4xmckWVPRaI&ob=av2n
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mL1kQQbhmY8&ob=av2e

Vince524
11-03-2010, 03:03 AM
I gar-on-tee you, my friend, that whatever the outcome, the answer is no. :D

I just got back from voting. I joked with one of the poll volunteers that I was going to do a write in vote for myself for all races. He laughed and said that happens. Usually they get a Mickey Mouse, a 3 Stoogers and that Sponge Bob Square pants was usually good for 2 or three write in votes.

So from what I understood, if I had voted for myself, good old Sponge Bob would have gotten more votes than me. Considering that, I decided to stick to the people on the ticket. Damn that Sponge Bob!!!

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 03:09 AM
Any candidates in particular that you all are cheering for? For me, it's anyone running against a tea bagger. And I'd like to see Linda McMahon win.

cethklein
11-03-2010, 03:16 AM
I'm predicting there will be many winners, and quite a few losers. Don't hold me to this, however, as I understand all this is subject to change...

The only losers in this election are the American people. We'll either get a few more years of Democratic ineptitude. Or we'll get a Congress run by a new GOP that is all but devoid of any moderate voice and instead infested with people so extreme that we'll be seeing ramifications for years. We've already got an extremely left-leaning Congressional leadership. And tonight we may well replace it with an extremely right-leaning leadership. Fanaticism begets fanaticism.

So now we'll have to parties that are both completely dominated by extremists. Nothing will get done and things will only get worse.

The goo thing is that maybe now we'll get a real moderate third party to come out of all of this. When the GOP wins (which they likely will) they'll be able to accomplish nothing due to the fact no one in Congress in eithe party will want to compromise on anything. So in the next election, I predict the American people will be so sick of fanatics, maybe we can vote them all out. This election the theme was "vote out the incumbents" Next time maybe we'll get "vote out the lunatics".

Wishful thinking anyway. That's the only way the American people can ultimately win. But tonight, we lose either way. You can take that to the bank.

cethklein
11-03-2010, 03:18 AM
Breaking News: FoxNews has called all the elections for the Republicans!

Fair and Balanced.

Williebee
11-03-2010, 03:19 AM
For me, it's anyone running against a tea bagger. And I'd like to see Linda McMahon win.

Would you consider elaborating, telling us why? Don't have to, you understand, I'd just like to know more.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 03:37 AM
Would you consider elaborating, telling us why? Don't have to, you understand, I'd just like to know more.

With Linda McMahon, she's been the CEO of a major business that has been making a prfit during the recession and even with all the negative attention the WWE receives in mainstream media. So I think she's bound to handle economic bills better than most of the career politicians in congress. Also, it's harder for a lobbyist to bribe someone who's already worth nearly a billion.

As for the, "any one running against the tea baggers," comment, they're bigoted theocracy supporters and most of them probably wouldn't be able to tell you anything that's in the constitution. Other than the second amendment of course.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
11-03-2010, 03:56 AM
I am interested in the CA Gov's race (it helps I live here). Six months ago after what seemed years of Whitless, er, I mean Meg Ads, and absolutely nothing from the dems (in fairness, the repubs had an actual primary battle), I supposed Whitman would be a shoe-in, and now apparently it's a contest.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 04:01 AM
CNN has called some of the races. Including a victory for Rand Paul.

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 04:01 AM
I voted.

Don't know who for or what they wanna do.

But I voted!

Because it's important!

I'm told.

Maxinquaye
11-03-2010, 04:07 AM
There will be much gnashing of teeth, and much talk about "mandates" tomorrow, I predict. Some will say they have word from the skydude himself, and others will say they have come to the grounddude's place.

That's my prediction.

The white house dude will say it's all right, and he'll work with anyone.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 04:14 AM
There will be muh gnashing of teeth, and much talk about "mandates" tomorrow, I predict. Some will say they have word from the skydude himself, and others will say they have come to the grounddude's place.

That's my prediction.

The white house dude will say it's all right, and he'll work with anyone.

It's always a mistake for them to feel like they have some big mandate. This is a vote, more or less, against the democrates, not for the republicans.

shawkins
11-03-2010, 04:15 AM
Some tune-age, to get everyone in the mood:


Hmmph (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_U2K1ski728).

Secretly I kind of like Blue Collar Man. But I'm amazed that there were people under 40 in the audience.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 04:31 AM
It's always a mistake for them to feel like they have some big mandate. This is a vote, more or less, against the democrates, not for the republicans.

Very true. Most of the US still like the democrates more than the republicans, but they want to kick out the guys currently in office. Which just happens to be democrates.

Though, what'd be awesome is if the people decided to vote against the democrates and republicans.

rugcat
11-03-2010, 04:36 AM
With Linda McMahon, she's been the CEO of a major business that has been making a prfit during the recession and even with all the negative attention the WWE receives in mainstream media. So I think she's bound to handle economic bills better than most of the career politicians in congress. If you approve of the way the WWE was run, the product they promoted, and the welfare of their "employees," the wrestlers, then I imagine she indeed would be your preferred candidate.

She did make millions as a CEO -- like many others. You know, the ones who made their companies profitable by outsourcing jobs and laying off thousands of workers.

I'm not sure how you'd outsource The Undertaker, though.

DavidZahir
11-03-2010, 04:37 AM
I voted. 'Nuff said. For now.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 04:43 AM
So far, Rubio is rolling over Crist and Meek. The race has already been called for him, but the final percentages interest me, mostly to see how they mesh with the latest pre-election polls.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 04:56 AM
Does anyone know who takes over in Harry Ried's place should he lose, whether as majority or minority leader in the Senate?

shawkins
11-03-2010, 04:58 AM
CNN is calling Coons over O'Donnell. It's not a huge surprise, but it is a bit of a relief.

rugcat
11-03-2010, 05:06 AM
I walked by my neighborhood polling place in SF, which is in the garage of a private house, the same house every year. There were people from the neighborhood outside, waiting, chatting, mostly about things other than politics. (The Giants and the World Series seemed to predominate as a subject of conversation.) No one was screaming or yelling at anyone.

Apart from the national and statewide races, there were several interesting measures on the ballot, most of which were not a slam dunk for anyone, whatever their political beliefs.

A Sit/Lie ordinance, preventing people from sitting or lying on the sidewalks in business districts during business hours. Many felt it unfairly targeted the homeless, and was the government restricting basic freedoms.

Others, who have found their paths in the Haight blocked by young homeless gutter rats with pit bulls, and intimidated into "donating" money; or businesses who lose 20% of their walk-in business because customers people are afraid to run the gauntlet to reach the store, felt differently about it.

Another would allow noncitizens with children in public schools to vote in school board elections

Another would mandate that police institute foot patrol programs.

Point is, these were everyday people voting on measures that directly impact their everyday lives. Democracy in action, and it reminded me of just how lucky we are to live under the system we do. Strip away the ideological cant, and people just want to have their say about how they believe things should be -- and they consider those things in a serious and responsible manner.

I can't imagine not voting.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:07 AM
Coons wins over o'donnel, Blummenal wins over Linda mchane, Rubio wins over criste and meeks, paul wins over conway, mikulsi wins over wargotz,

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:08 AM
manchin over raise in west virginia

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:09 AM
boozman over lincoln

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:10 AM
Webster over Grayson, looks like dems will keep the senate, unless the gop runs the rest of the seats left there.

Bird of Prey
11-03-2010, 05:14 AM
You know, you'd think the media would learn or at least have the sensitivity to shut up before four percent of precincts are in. PBS was calling Indiana before barely any of the vote were counted. and calling some while the count was still at near zero. The whole thing is bs. It's all bs. And yet, they've been wrong, been embarrassed, but there they are, doing the same thing all over again, doing their best to assure Americans that their vote is immaterial, already accounted for. Screw the whole thing. . . .

robeiae
11-03-2010, 05:19 AM
I agree. They are waiting for polls to close before calling races, but I think they should also wait until a significant percentage of the votes are in, like 35% or more. Even then, they may jump too quick.

SPMiller
11-03-2010, 05:20 AM
I'm sure they have their methodology on their respective sites, and I imagine it includes exit polls, but people sometimes lie in exit polls.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 05:31 AM
I'm sorry to see McMahon losing, but I love that O'Donnell is getting her butt kicked.

darkprincealain
11-03-2010, 06:07 AM
Blunt's not a fan of QLTBAG issues and I find his position on healthcare mystifying. Color me unimpressed by my fellow citizens of Missouri.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 06:29 AM
I'm sure they have their methodology on their respective sites, and I imagine it includes exit polls, but people sometimes lie in exit polls.
Well, they're right more often--far more often--than they're wrong. But I don't think anyone's impressed anymore by news orgs calling races with less than 1% reporting, though I cluld be wrong. I think people--by and large--are happy watching the numbers roll in without the quick call. After all, we tend to get those results pretty damn quick.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 06:31 AM
Dems only need four of the non-projected seats to keep the senate. Though with the house being republican and the senate being democrat, nothing is going to get done for the next two years. So, it'll be just like it was before the election. :tongue

robeiae
11-03-2010, 06:35 AM
Grayson is getting his @ss kicked by "Taliban Dan." That tastes good.

Meanwhile, the SC Governor's race (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/individual/#mapGSC) looks like it's gonna be down to the wire.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 06:42 AM
Grayson is getting his @ss kicked by "Taliban Dan." That tastes good.
He admitted defeat about an hour ago. So, it's now official that he's lost.

And with zero percent of the results in, McCain is projected to win the Arizona senate seat. Though that one isn't much of a surprise.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 06:44 AM
It's never official until the last vote is counted.

shawkins
11-03-2010, 07:06 AM
It's never official until the last vote is counted.

And the Republican-appointed vermin infecting the supreme court have certified the vile lies of the usurper's brother.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 07:07 AM
And the Republican-appointed vermin infecting the supreme court have certified the vile lies of the usurper's brother.
I can hear you sweating.

shawkins
11-03-2010, 07:10 AM
Can you snicker a little more softly? I'm in pain.

whistlelock
11-03-2010, 07:11 AM
Well, it's nice to see that Kentucky, Delaware, and Kentucky went how I called it.

I'm sincerely hope the Tea Party candidates (the real ones like Paul sr and jr) can keep to their roots in Washington. But, since they'll have traditional GOP and the Dem's working against them, I doubt they'll be in politics long.

N. M. Hayden
11-03-2010, 07:33 AM
Democrats got destroyed.

Good job, Barry.

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 08:00 AM
Democrats got destroyed.

Good job, Barry.

I blame the voters, too. :(

Of course, my dissatisfaction with the Dems is that they haven't been nearly socialist enough...... But maybe they'll realize we need radical change, not slow, comfortable change.

Xelebes
11-03-2010, 08:04 AM
Democrats might split the Senate evenly with the Republicans.

Maxinquaye
11-03-2010, 08:07 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/03/gop-democrats-tea-party
Obama, whose staff were still working on drafts of his opening statement yesterday, needs to make conciliatory noises. One of the strongest messages from the election was that voters have little confidence in either the Democrats or Republicans and would like to see them work together in the interests of the nation.


I see this sentiment in several articles I've read. I don't get it. Is it wishful thinking? Delusions? If the voters wanted bipartisanship, why would they vote for overtly partisant candidates? I don't believe in a Voter Master Plan. It doesn't work like that.

But I guess Jon Stewart will have a lot to talk about over the coming two years. It will be fun.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 08:08 AM
Angle is losing. I guess she will have to resort to those second amendment remedies after all.

AMCrenshaw
11-03-2010, 08:17 AM
I blame the voters, too. :(

Of course, my dissatisfaction with the Dems is that they haven't been nearly socialist enough...... But maybe they'll realize we need radical change, not slow, comfortable change.

:roll:

That quickly the dems will once again need "radical change"

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 08:17 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/03/gop-democrats-tea-party


I see this sentiment in several articles I've read. I don't get it. Is it wishful thinking? Delusions? If the voters wanted bipartisanship, why would they vote for overtly partisant candidates? I don't believe in a Voter Master Plan. It doesn't work like that.

But I guess Jon Stewart will have a lot to talk about over the coming two years. It will be fun.

Nah, you see that's how America works. When one side isn't right, then the other side must be right!

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 08:20 AM
:roll:

That quickly the dems will once again need "radical change"

Maybe everyone shoulda just written in Mickey Mouse.

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 08:23 AM
I think I'm going to get more drunk and plan the revolution! :e2headban

Follow the tophat!

rugcat
11-03-2010, 08:24 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/03/gop-democrats-tea-party


I see this sentiment in several articles I've read. I don't get it. Is it wishful thinking? Delusions? If the voters wanted bipartisanship, why would they vote for overtly partisant candidates? I don't believe in a Voter Master Plan. It doesn't work like that.
It's delusional thinking. The divide is worse than ever, and we'll remain mired in stasis.

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 08:32 AM
It's delusional thinking. The divide is worse than ever, and we'll remain mired in stasis.

Nah. Vote the tophat for fuhrer and I'll make high-speed wifi free for every city, town, and village, and guarantee a lifetime supply of high quality hentai for everyone!

Masturbation and BDSM may be controversial issues, but everyone loves high-speed internet and tentacle porn. :D

Maxinquaye
11-03-2010, 08:34 AM
I blame the voters, too. :(

Of course, my dissatisfaction with the Dems is that they haven't been nearly socialist enough...... But maybe they'll realize we need radical change, not slow, comfortable change.

Don't worry. Not even the socialists are socialist enough. Been there, done that, got out again.

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 08:46 AM
Don't worry. Not even the socialists are socialist enough. Been there, done that, got out again.

Damn. When I saw you were the most recent post in this thread, I was hoping I could say something about yaoi.

Shadow Dragon
11-03-2010, 10:18 AM
The Dems are very lucky that the republicans are great a shooting themselves in the foot. If it wasn't for them putting up tea party candidates, the Republicans could have taken the senate.

blacbird
11-03-2010, 01:25 PM
Results about as expected and predicted, with Repubs getting a few more seats in the House maybe. Of the four most prominent "TeaParty" Senatorial candidates, only Rand Paul has won. Both Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle got beat, in Angle's case by an extremely vulnerable Dem, Harry Reid. This was probably the worst candidate matchup of any Senate race, and no matter who had won, the losing side would be kicking themselves for nominating such a crappy candidate. Unlikeable and incompetent beat batshit crazy in this one, and that's probably the best outcome, given the situation. Now if the Dems can only oust Reid from that Senate leadership.

The fourth one, Joe Miller in Alaska, is losing to "Write-in", but the real outcome of that won't be known for a minimum of two weeks. The Write-in votes (campaigned for by incumbent Senator Lisa Murkowski) won't get counted officially until November 18, and that effort is expected to take several days. After which the litigation will begin. Sarah Palin, who hates Murkowski and was a big pusher of Miller, is already blaming the media (not a joke; she is).

So there's at least some sign that there is a limit to how insane you can be as a TeaParty candidate, and expect to win.

maggi90w1
11-03-2010, 02:10 PM
Some Americans seem to have a very bad memory... almost as bad as the Italians.

cethklein
11-03-2010, 02:42 PM
I blame the voters, too. :(

Of course, my dissatisfaction with the Dems is that they haven't been nearly socialist enough...... But maybe they'll realize we need radical change, not slow, comfortable change.

Fortunately, the American people don't agree with you. Look at the state of affairs in Europe now to see why. Thank people like yourself for the Tea Party. Fanatical leftist ideology is what spawned it. The Tea Party appeared as a counter to that. Socialism may work (kind of) in nations with smaller populations that have lower birth rates. But America has too many people to sustain a government funded society.

Again though, that's moot. The minimal amount of actual socialist doctrine the Dems have promoted (trust me it's not as bad as fox News would have you think) led to the Tea Party. Imagine what we'd get if things went your way. The majority of us are moderate and we don't want radical leftist ideology any more than we want radical Tea Party ideology. If you want hardline socialism, I hear Greece is nice. Just get someone else to check your mail for you.

darkprincealain
11-03-2010, 03:19 PM
Nah, you see that's how America works. When one side isn't right, then the other side must be right!

Some Americans seem to have a very bad memory... almost as bad as the Italians.

Well, I come in to check this thread and write, only to find kuwi and maggi have written what I would have said better than I would have said it. ;)

Anyway, I'm not sure so much will change. We weren't getting that much accomplished before yesterday, anyway.

citymouse
11-03-2010, 03:53 PM
I voted against Christine O'Donnell. I just hope she doesn't turn me into a toad!:)
C

Diana Hignutt
11-03-2010, 03:56 PM
And...the winner is...and always will be...the homeland security/military/industrial complex...


(and...you know...the reptoids :))

Don Allen
11-03-2010, 04:16 PM
The Republicans had a great night, now we'll see if their obstructionist program of the last two years will serve them as well, cause now they have to make something happen, or look really dumb. The Democrats are just stupid, so basically I see this election as well,,, MORE OF THE SAME....

robeiae
11-03-2010, 04:31 PM
I think the dems did a pretty good job--in choice locations--of motivating people. But a bunch of multi-term, entrenched dems got tossed--as did some repubs in the primaries, let's not forget--and for me, that's a net positive. Too bad Frank wasn't one of them.

So the tea party movement, while putting up some dogs, played a big role here. Was Angle weak? O'Donnell? Sure. But that was part of the play. What are we looking at, 60+ seats in the House, maybe? Historic. And if the new faces really do just act like the old, they'll be out in 2012. Many of them know it, I think.

The Senate is now a different animal, too. We'll see how that plays out.

The dems weren't lucky last night. They got shellacked. And old-guard repubs are nervous right now. Listen to Rubio's victory speech. For a good chunk of these people, it's not over. They think they're just getting started. We'll see if they really keep it going.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:02 PM
Some Americans seem to have a very bad memory... almost as bad as the Italians.


Hey, as an Italian, I object to that!!!!!!!!!!! :rant:

Wait, what did you say again? :Huh:

Oh, never mind carry on. :e2shrug:

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:05 PM
I voted against Christine O'Donnell. I just hope she doesn't turn me into a toad!:)
C


I think Professor McGonagall had her sorting out the quidditch equipment these days. You're safe.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 05:07 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/03/gop-democrats-tea-party


I see this sentiment in several articles I've read. I don't get it. Is it wishful thinking? Delusions? If the voters wanted bipartisanship, why would they vote for overtly partisant candidates? I don't believe in a Voter Master Plan. It doesn't work like that.

But I guess Jon Stewart will have a lot to talk about over the coming two years. It will be fun.


Well, first off it's not like all of America can get together and divide the election up fairly. You know, say, ok lets take so many dems, so many repubs and throw in a couple of independants, just for flavor.

BenPanced
11-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Splendid. Let the fear-mongering and gridlock continue apace. Gevalt.

GeorgeK
11-03-2010, 05:23 PM
Of the four most prominent "TeaParty" Senatorial candidates, only Rand Paul has won..

Yes, but by less of a margin than I had predicted, considering that Jack Conway basically didn't campaign. His website had plenty of information about how to donate, but scant on any issues, plans, basic philosophy. I think any high schooler could have put together a better website. I only remember one TV commercial for him, whereas there were dozens against him (which by their tone and content were put together by second graders). The only mailings were from his wife and the envelopes were so heavy I didn't bother opening them. (Incidently Paul's website was only slightly more informative, but was full of buzzwords for the people who didn't actually read the content and his commercials were nothing other than ad hominem.)

To any aspiring democrat politicians out there, if you want a spot in D.C., come to Kentucky and actually run a competent campaign.

childeroland
11-03-2010, 05:35 PM
What does this all mean in terms of Obama's healthcare plan? How much, if any, will the Republicans get repealed?

How till the establishment G.O.P deal with their Tea Party siblings over the issue of raising the debt ceiling?

Manuel Royal
11-03-2010, 05:35 PM
Fortunately, the American people don't agree with you. Look at the state of affairs in Europe now to see why. Thank people like yourself for the Tea Party. Fanatical leftist ideology is what spawned it. The Tea Party appeared as a counter to that. Socialism may work (kind of) in nations with smaller populations that have lower birth rates. But America has too many people to sustain a government funded society.

Again though, that's moot. The minimal amount of actual socialist doctrine the Dems have promoted (trust me it's not as bad as fox News would have you think) led to the Tea Party. Imagine what we'd get if things went your way. The majority of us are moderate and we don't want radical leftist ideology any more than we want radical Tea Party ideology. If you want hardline socialism, I hear Greece is nice. Just get someone else to check your mail for you.I must have missed the socialist doctrine. As far as I can tell the Teabaggers are reacting to their own bizarre fantasies.

Socialist measures do just fine in this country once people get used to them. Social Security and Medicare are very successful, and national healthcare would work if we ever tried it.

Greece is simply not comparable; our economies are too basically different. That's a Fox News talking point meant for stupid people.

Here in Georgia, we just elected Nathan Deal governor. In the U.S. House, he introduced H.R. 698, the "Citizenship Reform Act"; so I'm expecting some really, really bad, insultingly stupid policy out of the Governor's Mansion (which I drive past fairly often).

The president could have helped more. He's too damn rational for his own good. It works with people like me, but it would have helped in the midterms if he'd put out a few soundbites. Obama, with a Democratic majority Congress, passed the largest middle-class tax cut in history and prevented a second Great Depression, and we should have been hearing that over and over in campaign ads.

Don
11-03-2010, 05:46 PM
I voted.

Don't know who for or what they wanna do.

But I voted!

Because it's important!

I'm told.
Cool. Now you can disengage from society, go back to sleep for the next two years, and not worry about a thing.

You have been an obedient and faithful citizen, and shall be rewarded. Now lean forward... and bend over.

Those you elected will do their usual bang-up job of running society for you. (...or over you, as the case may be. Gotta break some eggs to make omelets, so they say.)
It's always a mistake for them to feel like they have some big mandate. This is a vote, more or less, against the democrats, not for the republicans.
Rah, Rah, Sis-boom-bah! Another victory for the lesser of two evils!!!
...nothing is going to get done for the next two years.
The divide is worse than ever, and we'll remain mired in stasis.

Anyway, I'm not sure so much will change. We weren't getting that much accomplished before yesterday, anyway.
Splendid. Let the fear-mongering and gridlock continue apace. Gevalt.
Y'all make it sound like gridlock's a bad thing.

For those who think government has already far outreached its mandate, that's a good thing.

Damn, I didn't even vote, and I won!!!!!

Now if someone, somewhere will just repeal at least one tiny little law, we might get headed in the right direction.

Something simple like the subsidies for buggy-whip manufacturers would be a relatively painless place to start.

And...the winner is...and always will be...the homeland security/military/industrial complex...

(and...you know...the reptoids :))
And that's the way it is, Wednesday, November 3, 2010.

JimmyB27
11-03-2010, 05:49 PM
There was an election?

Don
11-03-2010, 05:51 PM
Social Security and Medicare are very successful, and national healthcare would work if we ever tried it.

Well, except for the little fact that both systems are bankrupt and represent trillions in unfunded liabilities, nobody has any clue where the money to pay for those liabilities are going to come from, and millions of people based their golden years on those funds being "paid back" as promised.

But other than that, I guess they're successful.

The politicians are finally figuring out it sucks when they run out of other people's money to spend. (Hat-tip to Maggie T.)

robeiae
11-03-2010, 06:21 PM
RCP has the net repub gain in the House at 61 now, with a few more to still be decided. 65 to 67 looks like it might be about right.

I think that's a big number, though it's also right at the RCP prediction for average gain (pretty good on their part). So, no one--that wasn't in lala-land (left or right versions)--should be shocked. And I guess, since pretty much everyone saw this coming, there's not much to say with regard to how big this was, historically speaking.

Setting aside the tea parties and all that jazz, I can't help but wonder if the circumstances have changed sufficiently--in terms of communication, fund-raising, analysis, and the like--to make this sort of event much more common. Historic now, but maybe the new reality? Because both parties really--really--zoomed in on specific races where they could do or prevent damage. Grayson's race is a good example in Florida for the repubs. So is Ron Klein's (defeated by one of the two new black conservatives elected, Allen West, who is also a tea party type).

But if the newbies fail to deliver, it seems to me that targeted dem action in 2012 could lead to a 50 to 60 seat reversal (assuming a general dem/Obama victory in 2012, of course).

whistlelock
11-03-2010, 06:26 PM
What does this all mean in terms of Obama's healthcare plan? How much, if any, will the Republicans get repealed?
Nothing. With control of just the house they'll have to get bills past the senate. Good luck with that. And then they'd have to somehow get it past the veto power of the President.

And since the GOP leadership promised no compromise on anything, pretty much we're looking at a deadlocked do-nothing congress.

How till the establishment G.O.P deal with their Tea Party siblings over the issue of raising the debt ceiling? Welcome to political junkieism.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 06:30 PM
And since the GOP leadership promised no compromise on anything, pretty much we're looking at a deadlocked do-nothing congress.
Time to buy stocks!

Don
11-03-2010, 06:37 PM
So now that the election's over, we can ask that all-important question:

Who won? Rupert Murdoch or George Soros?


In other news, California nixed proposition 19 and passed proposition 25. The political class should be ecstatic.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 06:41 PM
Some early morning humor:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/upbeat_pelosi_were_on_pace_to_maintain_the_majorit y.html

That was from yesterday morning. :ROFL:

Don
11-03-2010, 06:54 PM
Some early morning humor:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/11/02/upbeat_pelosi_were_on_pace_to_maintain_the_majorit y.html

That was from yesterday morning. :ROFL:
More proof they're all delusional. :D

Vince524
11-03-2010, 07:17 PM
Nothing. With control of just the house they'll have to get bills past the senate. Good luck with that. And then they'd have to somehow get it past the veto power of the President.

And since the GOP leadership promised no compromise on anything, pretty much we're looking at a deadlocked do-nothing congress.

Welcome to political junkieism.


True enough. I don;t know if they could even defund it like they had thought to. But the Dems won't have that much power in the Senate, so you never know if the GOP can get a couple to switch over theymay be able to at least send an repeal of the bill to Obama's desk. Not that he'll sign it. But if in two years the majority of the electorate still want it repealed it will be in play for the next election.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 07:32 PM
Well, there are a bunch of dem Senators up for re-election in 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012

Twenty-one to be exact, plus Lieberman and Sanders. The question is, what do some of these folks believe in more: Obama or their own political careers.

Hallen
11-03-2010, 08:04 PM
I must have missed the socialist doctrine. As far as I can tell the Teabaggers are reacting to their own bizarre fantasies.
Using the term "teabaggers" diminishes your position to one of a child calling others names. That term was basically invented by liberal bloggers and got picked up, to everybody's shame, by major national news. If you truly cared about other people, had an open mind, and a sense of tolerance, you wouldn't use that term.


Socialist measures do just fine in this country once people get used to them. Social Security and Medicare are very successful, and national healthcare would work if we ever tried it.
You say you missed the socialist agenda, yet you go on to say that socialism is the way to go, once people get used to it. So, you think that the Democrat agenda for the last two years has been a move towards a free market system?

To say that social security is successful is to completely misunderstand what a ponzi scheme is. That is what our social security is. It is a shambles and forces those of us who are productive to pay for those who are not. It is also been turned into a social justice system and flat-out welfare. It, like Obamacare, is an untenable entitlement.

Greece is simply not comparable; our economies are too basically different. That's a Fox News talking point meant for stupid people.
It is very comparable. It is a smaller state and it obviously does not have the resources we do, yet it is a prime example of what happens when wealth redistribution is applied wide-scale and the government tries to control the means of production.


The president could have helped more. He's too damn rational for his own good. It works with people like me, but it would have helped in the midterms if he'd put out a few soundbites. Obama, with a Democratic majority Congress, passed the largest middle-class tax cut in history and prevented a second Great Depression, and we should have been hearing that over and over in campaign ads.
Every candidate that Obama stumped for lost. Those he didn't stump for, asked him not to.

Thanks so much for insulting more than half the population of the United States by calling us irrational. That kind of argument is demeaning to yourself. Belittling your opposition is a sure sign of an insubstantial argument .

I'm sure your heart is in the right place. It's perspective that is important. I also understand the burning, frustrating feeling of betrayal when an election doesn't go the way you want. It's exactly how I felt two years ago. Calling others names is not the way to defeat your opposition, it isn't rational.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 08:17 PM
The wall street journal posted this:

http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/ED-AM503_1repud_NS_20101102232502.gif

It gives you a historical refernce to what happened last night.

Also, it seems like all exit polls indicate that this was in essence a vote of no confidence in the current goverment, not to be taken as a blank check to the newbies. Im interested in what President Obama will say about all of this today. I'll miss his press conference. I'll have to read it later.

Maxinquaye
11-03-2010, 08:21 PM
The only "exceptional" thing about the election is - since every win or loss is described as a rout by the winning side - is this. Keynesianism is dead again. Both on your side of the Atlantic, and on our side.

Thank whatever deity you might believe in (or not) for that. Can someone tell Kruegman about it?

Don
11-03-2010, 08:46 PM
The only "exceptional" thing about the election is - since every win or loss is described as a rout by the winning side - is this. Keynesianism is dead again. Both on your side of the Atlantic, and on our side.

Thank whatever deity you might believe in (or not) for that. Can someone tell Kruegman about it?
I wouldn't count on it. It would be shortsighted to believe than an economic theory that has maximum pragmatic appeal to nearly every political group in every country on earth won't be resurrected as rapidly as humanly possible. Keynesianism is as fundamental to the survival of the Empire/Welfare state as the myth of the social contract.

Diana Hignutt
11-03-2010, 08:50 PM
. Keynesianism is as fundamental to the survival of the Empire/Welfare state as the myth of the social contract.

I'm still trying to get someone to show me where I signed a social contract...

rugcat
11-03-2010, 08:58 PM
Using the term "teabaggers" diminishes your position to one of a child calling others names. That term was basically invented by liberal bloggers and got picked up, to everybody's shame, by major national news. If you truly cared about other people, had an open mind, and a sense of tolerance, you wouldn't use that term.Actually it was apparently coined by a tea party member himself, who was unaware of the sexual connotation. “It is as useful to remind them anew of how the term originated and with whom. A TV news report aired last March 14 in which a correspondent described the original protest act, ‘take a teabag, put it in an envelope, and mail it to the White House.’ He added, ‘reteaparty.com has a headline Teabag the Fools in D.C. on tax day.’ Thus the verb to teabag was invented by the teabaggers themselves, and the correspondent who put it on TV was a Griff Jenkins of Fox News. Send your complaints to him.”http://www.politicususa.com/en/olbermann-teabagger

However, it is true the term was picked up and promulgated with glee by liberal commentators, and is indeed, childish and uncalled for.

AMCrenshaw
11-03-2010, 09:01 PM
I'm still trying to get someone to show me where I signed a social contract...

You pay taxes?

Don
11-03-2010, 09:02 PM
I'm still trying to get someone to show me where I signed a social contract...
I sign a social contract every time I check into a new campground. The rules are actually listed there, on a single page, and if I don't like one I can get it initialed out based on my specific requirement or pick a different campground.

Now if a dozen parties could offer me alternative social contracts, and I could pick the government I wanted, we might be onto something. The various governments would just need a big building like the UN to argue out their disputes and those between their clients.

It's the inverse of "One World Government": multi-government countries.

Anyone who hates monopolies should see the appeal of this idea. :)

Yeah, there are a lot of cooperative details to work out, but that's what politicians have staffs for.

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 09:11 PM
Now if a dozen parties could offer me alternative social contracts, and I could pick the government I wanted, we might be onto something. The various governments would just need a big building like the UN to argue out their disputes and those between their clients.

One can just emigrate...

rugcat
11-03-2010, 09:28 PM
But if the newbies fail to deliver, it seems to me that targeted dem action in 2012 could lead to a 50 to 60 seat reversal (assuming a general dem/Obama victory in 2012, of course).Indeed.

I think people are making too much of the election results as the sign of an ideological wind of change. Basically, the economy is in the worst shape since the great depression, and many people have lost their jobs. Those who still have jobs are afraid they will lose them. People are fearful, and the Dem policies have not turned the economic situation around.

It matters not whether expecting a recovery in a short time span is rational or not. It doesn't matter whether the policies have made things worse, or kept them from getting worse. Bottom line is that people are scared and unhappy, and when that's the case, they want whoever is in charge to be removed and new people to be installed.

I absolutely believe (somewhat cynically) that the GOP is well aware of this basic truth, and their policies of obstructionism stemmed more from this than from ideological beliefs. If they could help prevent the country from recovering during a Dem controlled administration, they would surely be swept back into power in two years. Had things gone well, the GOP would have been made irrelevant.

Now the shoe's on the other foot. The economy does seem to be recovering slowly. If that continues, the GOP will get the credit, and Dems will slip further from control. If things get worse, or stay the same, the new guys will get the blame and Dems will probably retake the house, and once again gain control.

Will the Dems work to improve the state of the country, knowing that it will result in an extended power loss for them -- or like the GOP before them, try to ensure gridlock in an attempt to regain the upper hand.

I'd like to think they will put country first, but that's not at all clear to me. And on the other side, will the GOP try to work with dems, or will they use their power to open investigations of Dems, repeal Dem legislation (impossible as a practical matter with the dems control of the senate and oval office) or even go so far as to push for impeachment of the president?

I'm betting on the latter. So I don't see much good coming out of the new lineup, for either side.

shawkins
11-03-2010, 09:28 PM
RCP has the net repub gain in the House at 61 now, with a few more to still be decided. 65 to 67 looks like it might be about right.

I think that's a big number, though it's also right at the RCP prediction for average gain (pretty good on their part). So, no one--that wasn't in lala-land (left or right versions)--should be shocked. And I guess, since pretty much everyone saw this coming, there's not much to say with regard to how big this was, historically speaking.

Setting aside the tea parties and all that jazz, I can't help but wonder if the circumstances have changed sufficiently--in terms of communication, fund-raising, analysis, and the like--to make this sort of event much more common. Historic now, but maybe the new reality? Because both parties really--really--zoomed in on specific races where they could do or prevent damage. Grayson's race is a good example in Florida for the repubs. So is Ron Klein's (defeated by one of the two new black conservatives elected, Allen West, who is also a tea party type).

But if the newbies fail to deliver, it seems to me that targeted dem action in 2012 could lead to a 50 to 60 seat reversal (assuming a general dem/Obama victory in 2012, of course).

What he said.

Time to buy stocks!

Ditto.

Well, there are a bunch of dem Senators up for re-election in 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_elections,_2012)

Twenty-one to be exact, plus Lieberman and Sanders. The question is, what do some of these folks believe in more: Obama or their own political careers.

Well said.

dageezer
11-03-2010, 09:32 PM
RCP has the net repub gain in the House at 61 now, with a few more to still be decided. 65 to 67 looks like it might be about right.

That's before the game of musical chairs starts.

The Republicans took a lot of Governor seats that will play havoc when redistricting starts. I gotta check again, but the states that will gain and/or lose seats will have a Republican Governor. That could give the Dems ulsers for the next ten years.

I can see Obama and the Dems taking a turn to the center like Clinton did, but still, I think the Dems will find it tougher in 2012 than they would like to think.

darkprincealain
11-03-2010, 09:37 PM
Y'all make it sound like gridlock's a bad thing.

For those who think government has already far outreached its mandate, that's a good thing.

Damn, I didn't even vote, and I won!!!!!

Now if someone, somewhere will just repeal at least one tiny little law, we might get headed in the right direction.

I don't disagree. I hope Iowa gets hopelessly gridlocked. I have friends who are married there that perhaps someday soon might not be, otherwise.

Williebee
11-03-2010, 09:39 PM
The Week (http://theweek.com/article/index/202620/the-evolution-of-the-word-tea-bagger) ran a bit on the evolution of the term "Teabagger", back in May. Apparently there was some moves made to try and "reclaim" the term.

More to the point, Google is your friend. Google the phrase. Weed out the direct sexual links, (insert joke here), and see how the internet public at large is using the term. Go check the various Tea Party organization sites. See if they are using it.

Not so much, btw.

alleycat
11-03-2010, 09:41 PM
DENVER -- Denver residents have jettisoned a plan to officially track space aliens. The proposal defeated soundly Tuesday night would have established a commission to track extraterrestrials. It also would have allowed residents to post their observations on Denver's city Web page and report sightings. Early results show Denver residents voted 106,776 - 20,162 against the proposal.

http://www.wsmv.com/politics/25617281/detail.html

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 09:43 PM
DENVER -- Denver residents have jettisoned a plan to officially track space aliens. The proposal defeated soundly Tuesday night would have established a commission to track extraterrestrials. It also would have allowed residents to post their observations on Denver's city Web page and report sightings. Early results show Denver residents voted 106,776 - 20,162 against the proposal.

http://www.wsmv.com/politics/25617281/detail.html

That's disappointing. :(

Williebee
11-03-2010, 09:44 PM
Crap, now we're never gonna find out where Jimmy Hoffa and Elvis are.

Maxinquaye
11-03-2010, 09:46 PM
Early results show Denver residents voted 106,776 - 20,162 against the proposal.

http://www.wsmv.com/politics/25617281/detail.html

So, about 20 percent voted for it? Nice. Got to keep those space aliens in line.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 10:06 PM
What he said.



Ditto.



Well said.It's good to see that you've finally come to terms with reality.

Williebee
11-03-2010, 10:55 PM
Yeah, that's what Rob needs. A running mate.

shawkins
11-03-2010, 11:01 PM
...whimper...

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 11:06 PM
Palin/O'Donnel 2012, anyone?

robeiae
11-03-2010, 11:09 PM
Palin/Bachmann is more likely.

Bachmann-Palin Overdrive!

Maxinquaye
11-03-2010, 11:13 PM
Wouldn't that be like a ticket of the Witches of Eastwick? Complete with the "mysoginist"-criticisms leveled at the Updike-original?

kuwisdelu
11-03-2010, 11:13 PM
Palin/Bachmann is more likely.

Bachmann-Palin Overdrive!

Palin/O'Donnel would amuse me, though.

Palin/Bachmann would just terrify me.

Next thing you'll tell me they're hiding under my bed at night.

Vince524
11-03-2010, 11:26 PM
I think in 2012, I'm voting for Don, and giving him SpongeBob as a running mate.

clintl
11-03-2010, 11:27 PM
The best thing that happened in this election is that Meg Whitman spent $150 million of her own money, and still lost.

robeiae
11-03-2010, 11:29 PM
Helped the economy, right?

But that's a helluva a price to pay for...well, nothing.

Don
11-03-2010, 11:32 PM
I think in 2012, I'm voting for Don, and giving him SpongeBob as a running mate.
That's not really an appropriate nickname for robovowels, you know. And I don't think he'd run as my vice, anyway. :D

rugcat
11-03-2010, 11:40 PM
The best thing that happened in this election is that Meg Whitman spent $150 million of her own money, and still lost.Yes, that amused me to no end. Imagine what that money could have done for the less fortunate -- grants for indigent writers, for example.

On a more serious note, I was heartened by the passage of the budget amendment here in CA, so that now passing a budget now is a simple majority and no longer requires a 2/3 plurality. ( Like almost every other state. And no other state in the union requires that both budgets and tax increases be passed with a supermajority.)

Maybe now a budget can get passed before the year actually ends. And minority views, whatever their political beliefs, can no longer block the process indefinitely.

blacbird
11-03-2010, 11:54 PM
Yes, that amused me to no end. Imagine what that money could have done for the less fortunate -- grants for indigent writers, for example.

Actually, for the most part, American political campaigns provide one positive example of traditional Republican trickle-down economics. The money is almost entirely spent domestically, and goes to pay all kinds of businesses and workers. Carly Fiorina just bought a lot of groceries and paid a lot of mortgages and rents, a hell of a bunch more directly than she does in her non-political activities.

And that goes for all the rest of them, too. Now, if they'll just drive around and pick up all those goddam signs along the sides of roads.

SPMiller
11-04-2010, 12:11 AM
I know just enough about Whitman to be glad she lost.

Sad to say, can't say the same thing about the TX gov race. Same asshole won that one.

Gretad08
11-04-2010, 12:18 AM
And that goes for all the rest of them, too. Now, if they'll just drive around and pick up all those goddam signs along the sides of roads.

Or better yet, pay someone else to do it...preferably someone who is currently unemployed.

Vince524
11-04-2010, 01:08 AM
Those signs do dissappear up where I live. Wonder who takes them away here. Maybe there's a sign fairy? :e2fairy:(I've always wanted to use that one!)

blacbird
11-04-2010, 01:28 AM
We have a law mandating that political signs must be removed after some short period of time, but it's probably the least-enforced law on the books.

SPMiller
11-04-2010, 01:32 AM
I've seen trucks pulling trailers like those used to hold new-housing-development signs.

robeiae
11-04-2010, 02:06 AM
Meanwhile, on the lower end of the pole:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/03/biggest_gop_gains_in_statehouses_107826.html


The National Conference of State Legislatures estimates that Democrats had the worst night in state legislative seats since 1928. With races outstanding in New York, Washington and Oregon, Republicans have flipped at least 14 chambers, and have unified control of 25 state legislatures. They have picked up over five hundred state legislative seats, including over 100 in New Hampshire alone. [my boldface]

Don
11-04-2010, 02:32 AM
Meanwhile, on the lower end of the pole:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/11/03/biggest_gop_gains_in_statehouses_107826.html
Let's see (http://www.tenthamendmentcenter.com/the-10th-amendment-movement/#realid). Twenty-five states basically killed Real ID through benign neglect. Fifteen states have told FedGov to shove it over medical marijuana, and twenty more have legislation pending. Twenty-seven states are considering or have nullified the Health Care Freedom Act. Twenty-four states are redefining the relationship between their gun manufacturers and the ATF. Well, the list goes on and on. And now there are 500 more seats filled by folks who are in the opposition party to the President, many of whom have ridden into their positions based on a cry of no more business as usual.

And I wonder how many of those 100 in New Hampshire are Free Staters? I'll have to go look.

Interesting times, indeed.

ETA (http://www.freestateproject.org/content/free-staters-win-nh-state-elections): A least 12 Free State Project Participants and many more pro-liberty allies won elections to the NH House of Representatives on Tuesday. More details to come.

kuwisdelu
11-04-2010, 02:57 AM
Hmm. And sometimes I agree with a state and sometimes I agree with FedGov. What to do, what to do.

JohnnyGottaKeyboard
11-04-2010, 04:40 AM
DENVER -- Denver residents have jettisoned a plan to officially track space aliens. The proposal defeated soundly Tuesday night would have established a commission to track extraterrestrials. It also would have allowed residents to post their observations on Denver's city Web page and report sightings. Early results show Denver residents voted 106,776 - 20,162 against the proposal.

http://www.wsmv.com/politics/25617281/detail.html

The Venusian subculture breathes a sigh of relief. The invasion continues...

Ken
11-04-2010, 04:58 AM
... the results of the election seemed to come in quicker this year. Anyone else have that impression?

Vince524
11-04-2010, 05:02 AM
... the results of the election seemed to come in quicker this year. Anyone else have that impression?

Probably depended on what races you were watching. Here in NY, I knew that they would call the election for Andrew Cuomo as soon as the poll closed. The margin there would be so big it was just a formality.

defcon6000
11-04-2010, 05:02 AM
We're still counting votes over in sunny ole Arizona. Curse those late ballots. Saturday we'll know for sure on a couple of close, close races.

Ken
11-04-2010, 05:18 AM
Probably depended on what races you were watching. Here in NY, I knew that they would call the election for Andrew Cuomo as soon as the poll closed. The margin there would be so big it was just a formality.

... you're probably right about that. Nationwide things also seemed to move quicker than usual. Some years the results seem to take forever to trickle in.

blacbird
11-04-2010, 05:36 AM
... the results of the election seemed to come in quicker this year. Anyone else have that impression?

Not in my state, home to the most entertaining of Senate races. It ain't gonna be settled for weeks, and maybe even months. See the new thread on the AK Senate contest for more details.

Vince524
11-04-2010, 05:47 AM
I think I read, or heard, or something that in DC, the only way to vote is via mail in ballot. So that might be awhile. We live in an age where we want everything right now, this second, this instant. So all the stations try & guess based on exit polls. At least their now waiting till the polls are closed.

DavidZahir
11-05-2010, 01:04 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fj9MfP9cBaw

nighttimer
11-05-2010, 10:06 AM
With Linda McMahon, she's been the CEO of a major business that has been making a prfit during the recession and even with all the negative attention the WWE receives in mainstream media. So I think she's bound to handle economic bills better than most of the career politicians in congress. Also, it's harder for a lobbyist to bribe someone who's already worth nearly a billion.

Right, because someone who became a billionaire on the bodies of dead steroid gobbling rasslers really can empathize with a working class family trying to pay their bills, afford a pizza on Saturday night and avoid foreclosure.

Oh wait...maybe not. :rolleyes

Besides anyone who burns through cash the way McMahon did doesn't know jack about being fiscally responsible.

Sometimes, despite spending big money, politicians were rejected at the polls.

The House candidate who spent the most but was not favored by voters Tuesday was Rep. Ron Klein (D-Fla.), who spent $4.8 million as of mid-October.

Republican Linda McMahon of Connecticut holds that distinction among Senate candidates. McMahon spent more than $41 million in her failed Senate bid, as of mid-October. News reports since then have noted that the total now exceeds $50 million.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/11/bad-night-for-incumbents-self-finan.html

But McMahon looks like a cheapskate compared to Moneybags Meg Whitman.

If you want to find something to feel good about in Tuesday's election results, look to the fact that money isn't everything.

As of Oct. 16, according to the secretary of state's office, Meg Whitman spent almost $107 million on TV and radio advertising to Jerry Brown's $21 million.

She spent $11.7 million on campaign consultants to Brown's $167,000.

She spent $10.5 million on campaign literature and mailings to Brown's $2.5 million.

She spent $5.9 million on campaign worker salaries to Brown's $157,000.

She spent $2.3 million on office expenses to Brown's $132,000.

Total expenditures? Whitman spent six times as much, or $160 million -- $141 million of it her own -- to Brown's $24.8 million.

You'd think the former EBay exec would know a good deal when she sees one, but she ended up paying roughly $50 for each of her 3 million-plus votes, and got trounced.

Maybe it wasn't too bright, after all, to outspend Brown by more than six times while trying to cast herself as a cost-cutter and Brown as a big spender.

But did Whitman lose because voters were turned off by her outrageous extravagance at a time when unemployment is in double-digits? Or did she lose because she didn't have the goods on policy?

I'd say both things did her in, as did her cold-fish personality and the revelation that as a student, she had apparently skipped classes on both civics and suffrage, having gone decades without stepping inside a polling booth.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/11/steve-lopez-meg-whitman-spent-50-for-each-vote-she-got-is-that-an-outrageous-extravagance.html

Guess $160 million doesn't buy what it used to. :Shrug:

robeiae
11-06-2010, 03:22 AM
Update (http://politics.usnews.com/news/washington-whispers/articles/2010/11/05/gop-gains-even-bigger-in-state-legislatures.html).


So far, the Republicans have picked up a total of 680 seats in state legislatures, a 50 percent gain over what the party did in 1994...

Big number. Real big.

childeroland
11-06-2010, 05:11 AM
What does it mean in terms of new policy? Are these all tea party types? Are their aims primarily social or fiscal?

milly
11-06-2010, 05:17 AM
Florida sucks. That is all.

:(

Vince524
11-06-2010, 05:26 AM
What does it mean in terms of new policy? Are these all tea party types? Are their aims primarily social or fiscal?

Originally, the Tea Party was based on fiscal concerns. But the Tea Party isn't an organization like others where they have a set agenda. So many have social agenda's as well.

I read a quote from one Tea Party person that said something like that "If people look at (They mentioned a politician here, can't remember who but I know it wasn't Palin.) and think they represent me, then they just don't get the Tea Party."

I'm quoted from from memory here. But the idea is that we should all be free to have our own idea's and our own way of life. The Government shouldn't intrude re regulations and stuff.

You can never judge any group by one or two of it's members. The same goes for the Tea Party, including the ones just elected. So we'll just have to wait and see.

ColoradoGuy
11-06-2010, 05:42 AM
Guess $160 million doesn't buy what it used to. :Shrug:

Yeah, but think of all the jobs that 160 million created. She's a one-woman stimulus package!

blacbird
11-06-2010, 05:52 AM
You can never judge any group by one or two of it's members. The same goes for the Tea Party, including the ones just elected. So we'll just have to wait and see.

First, the "Tea Party" isn't even really a "group", in the normal sense of that word. It's little more than a catchy slogan that a lot of people of disparate sorts latched onto. But over the course of this last political campaign, a disproportionate number of social conservatives directly descended from Jerry Falwell's old "Moral Majority" (which was neither of those things) found it seamlessly easy to embrace that slogan and move forward their essentially repressive social agenda. And it worked electorally, because they disguised it well behind the banner of fiscal conservatism and because the Dems did a horrible job of holding up their end. We ain't gonna have no same-sex marriages or civil unions, legalization of marijuana, or Fed-funded embryonic stem-cell research any time soon now. But we might just get theology-based creationism mandated in high-school science classes.

Stick around.

Don
11-06-2010, 06:03 AM
First, the "Tea Party" isn't even really a "group", in the normal sense of that word. It's little more than a catchy slogan that a lot of people of disparate sorts latched onto. But over the course of this last political campaign, a disproportionate number of social conservatives directly descended from Jerry Falwell's old "Moral Majority" (which was neither of those things) found it seamlessly easy to embrace that slogan and move forward their essentially repressive social agenda. And it worked electorally, because they disguised it well behind the banner of fiscal conservatism and because the Dems did a horrible job of holding up their end. We ain't gonna have no same-sex marriages or civil unions, legalization of marijuana, or Fed-funded embryonic stem-cell research any time soon now. But we might just get theology-based creationism mandated in high-school science classes.

Stick around.
Yep, what goes around comes around. Stripping a long list of ceded powers from the Imperial Presidency might be a great idea during this lame duck session. It may be the last chance before Queen Sarah takes the throne. :D

I get the feeling we'll hear about Vermont and California discussing nullification and secession before we hear it again from the states where it's been popular the last few months.

It'll be nice to see the anti-war movement resurrect itself in Jan, 2012, though.