How did the 2010 election affect politics in individual states?

[pkbites]

2010 changed Wisconsin significantly. From an extremely liberal Democratic Governor with a large Democratic majority in both the state Assembly and state Senate, to an extremely conservative Republican Governor with a large Republican majority in both the Assembly and state Senate. The Governorship in Wisconsin is a very, very powerful position. Our Governor may have more power than most, if not all other Governors are granted in any of the cheeseless 49.
The issues and agendas this state will take on are completely 180 degrees from it's direction the last 8 years and the liberals/democrats are completely powerless to stop any it for at least 2 years, probably much longer.

On top of this, we had significant changes in our representation in Washington. 2 Democratic Congressional seats were taken by Republicans, and 3 term Democratic U.S. Senator Russ Feingold was booted out for Republican Ron Johnson.

Are there any other states in the union where the 2010 election changed the political landscape this much?

[pkbites]

Can I take that as a "no" ?

[ElvisL1ves]

Massachusetts - before the election, it was entirely plausible that the Republicans were finally resurging. BUt it was a clean sweep for the Democrats in all statewide offices, they lost a couple of insignificant seats in the House but further reduced the GOP's numbers in the Senate to 4 (out of 40). IOW the Scott Brown election meant nothing other than that Martha Coakley can't campaign worth shit. She did reelected AG.

Or it could mean, once again, that Mass is ahead of the rest of the nation politically.

[gonzomax]

Michigan is just as fucked as Wisconsin. It is redistricting time and we will be screwed for a long time.

[Zakalwe]

We've yet to see how Florida changed. The Governorship moved farther right (sort of, it actually moved Tea Party), the Cabinet lost it's only Democrat and the House & Senate gained Republican seats (they already had clear majorities, they now have veto-proof majorities).

BUT. And it's a big one. We also passed redistricting reform amendments to the Constitution. Without the gerrymandering that's been going on, it's unclear what kind of majority (if any) the Republicans would/will have in the Legislature.

Of course, that stuff won't take effect for 2 years, but it could represent a watershed moment in Florida politics.

[pkbites]

Michigan is just as fucked as Wisconsin. It is redistricting time and we will be screwed for a long time.

What does this mean?

I see 2010 as a reprieve against a party that ran Wisconsin into the ground. Scott Walker and the Republicans have a lot to fix.

[Diogenes the Cynic]

Wisconsin will be a charred hellscape in less than six months.


Minnesota flipped from a moderate Dem legislature and conservative Republican governor to an ultra-right wing teabagger legislature and an ultra-liberal Governor who ran on promises to raise taxes on the rich (he actually ran commercials saying, "it's time for the rich to pay their fair share").

We are, as always, a very schizophrenic state.

[pkbites]

Wisconsin will be a charred hellscape in less than six months.

It's already that. The last administration did everything it could to chase existing businesses out of state. The only business it brought in was a foreign company on a no bid contract to build a train that most here don't want.

[Cyberhwk]

If a Republican with name recognition (even due to being a 2 time loser) couldn't take a seat in Washington State in this election cycle, I'm really not sure what it would take. IMHO, you could see a direct correlation between the rise of the Tea Party and Patty Murray expanding her lead. The Tea Party was polarizing, and WA is digging in on the left.

My $.02 anyway.

[Nametag]

California, barely a quiver. Not a single incumbent in the state legislature was defeated, and no seats changed parties; the Democrats retains a 65% majority. Of the Republican winners, only one was visibly aligned with the Tea Party. (he was also a Minuteman!) The executive branch remains in Democratic hands, and Jerry Brown is the new Governor, which will be interesting. There were some ballot propositions that may have some powerful effects (mostly bad, IMHO), but we'll see how that shakes out.

[Kevbo]

Susanna Martinez won the Governorship of New Mexico. She is crowing about it being a referendum on her conservative policies.

It's all bullshit of course. Martinez won because the Dems fielded a juera, Martinez garnered enough out of state funding to outspend Denish, and Richardson pulled enough shady crap that any name recognition Denish had was all negative. Martinez would have lost to any hispanic male Democrat you pulled off the street, except maybe unless he was a convicted child molester. (and maybe even then)

She is still faced with a mostly democratic, (and mostly bought)state legislature. She can veto to her heart's content, so can block what she doesn't want, but the only way she can get what she does want is by dealing, and signing bills she'd rather veto.

We are not Alaska, but NM has a low population, a bit of oil revenue, and lots of federal money coming via military bases and Los Alamos and Sandia labs...so the recession didn't hit nearly as hard here as elsewhere. Hell, with the stimulus funds, we hardly felt it. We'll be in the shit if the teabaggers gain much traction in DC...which is part of the reason they won't.

If the price of oil stays high, then the state will stay solvent, and Martinez will credit her conservative policies. If the Saudis open their taps wide, the state will be in trouble, and Martinez will blame the Democrats in the roundhouse.

[hajario]

The executive branch remains in Democratic hands, and Jerry Brown is the new Governor, which will be interesting. There were some ballot propositions that may have some powerful effects (mostly bad, IMHO), but we'll see how that shakes out.

We went from a moderate Republican Governor to a solid Democrat. Legislation will go through a lot more easily, especially ones having to do with budgets since they only need a simple majority now.

[gonzomax]

What does this mean?

I see 2010 as a reprieve against a party that ran Wisconsin into the ground. Scott Walker and the Republicans have a lot to fix.

If you are aware of what Delay did in redistricting Texas, you would know he redrew the districts to seal off pockets of Dems in single districts, while creating as many Repub districts as possible. That way he increased lock Repub districts by 5 or 6 allowing the Repubs to control the state for a long time to come.
Michigan has had that in the past ,so even with a Dem majority the Repubs have more votes in state politics. It will get worse after the Repubs Gerrymander the State again.

[Duckster]

What does this mean?

I see 2010 as a reprieve against a party that ran Wisconsin into the ground. Scott Walker and the Republicans have a lot to fix.

Yes, like saying no to federal tax dollars to build a high speed rail line. Seems the new governor prefers low skilled, minimum wage, powerless jobs over highly skilled labor jobs.

[hajario]

If you are aware of what Delay did in redistricting Texas, you would know he redrew the districts to seal off pockets of Dems in single districts, while creating as many Repub districts as possible. That way he increased lock Repub districts by 5 or 6 allowing the Repubs to control the state for a long time to come.

It was also a huge factor in allowing the GOP to take over the House in the Gingrich era.

[pkbites]

Yes, like saying no to federal tax dollars to build a high speed rail line.


And after it was built the state would have spent millions subsidizing a train hardly anyone will ride. You are aware that a majority of people in this state did not want that train built, correct?

[Nametag]

We went from a moderate Republican Governor to a solid Democrat. Legislation will go through a lot more easily, especially ones having to do with budgets since they only need a simple majority now.

That's true, but passing budgets is only half the job in the California economy; taxes (and now local fees) still have a higher hurdle, and even Brown can't balance the budget without more revenue. I understand he intends to roll out a special election just on that one issue, but he's got a big PR job on his hands.

[Duckster]

And after it was built the state would have spent millions subsidizing a train hardly anyone will ride. You are aware that a majority of people in this state did not want that train built, correct?

So the Nine-state Midwest Regional Rail system (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/pdfs/MWRRIOverallMap.pdf) (PDF) is dead because the love of the car and cheap air travel (for the moment) is more important than long-range energy problems when air travel and private vehicle travel just won't cut it in the future? Another case of Silly Americans more concerned about the here and now, but will pay for it later at an exorbitant price.

[pkbites]

So the Nine-state Midwest Regional Rail system (http://www.dot.state.mn.us/passengerrail/pdfs/MWRRIOverallMap.pdf) (PDF) is dead because the love of the car and cheap air travel (for the moment) is more important than long-range energy problems when air travel and private vehicle travel just won't cut it in the future? Another case of Silly Americans more concerned about the here and now, but will pay for it later at an exorbitant price.


No! What it is about is the tax payers of Wisconsin did not want to get stuck having to pay to maintain a train that hardly anyone was going to ride. A line from Milwaukee to the Madison airport is ridiculous. No one in Milwaukee is going to the Madison airport, and if they need to it's barely an hours drive. All the stops they had planned would have made the rail trip twice as long as the trip by car and twice as expensive for the passenger and the taxpayers who would have had to supplement the fare.

Milwaukee does not have the population base to support any form of rail like larger cities do.

[What the .... ?!?!]

The election doesn't appear to have knocked any sense into the Illinois Democrats. They either did or are poised to raise taxes by about 2/3.

Indiana, Wisconsin and Michigan are looking forward to the people and businesses that Illinois will drive away.

[Chronos]

The election doesn't appear to have knocked any sense into the Illinois Democrats. They either did or are poised to raise taxes by about 2/3. So they just ignored all of those Tea Partiers saying that the deficit was the #1 problem, and instead are trying to pay off the deficit?

[Zakalwe]

So they just ignored all of those Tea Partiers saying that the deficit was the #1 problem, and instead are trying to pay off the deficit?Please try to keep up. You're supposed to pay off the deficit by cutting taxes. Everyone knows that.

[pkbites]

Please try to keep up. You're supposed to pay off the deficit by cutting taxes. Everyone knows that.

And by cutting spending. And by not incurring more expenses, like the upkeep on a train nobody will ride.

[What the .... ?!?!]

So they just ignored all of those Tea Partiers saying that the deficit was the #1 problem, and instead are trying to pay off the deficit?

Since you are invoking the Tea Party platform...such that there is one, I don't know, you seem to be the expert....... where do they stand on taxes vs spending?

Both equally? Or maybe that taxes are enough already and government spending is the main problem?

[Chronos]

Well, considering that they go crazy whenever anyone tries to lower their taxes, I'd say that they're in favor of high taxes, and considering that they also go crazy whenever anyone tries to take away their pork, they don't have a problem with high spending, either.

[Zakalwe]

Since you are invoking the Tea Party platform...such that there is one, I don't know, you seem to be the expert....... where do they stand on taxes vs spending?

Both equally? Or maybe that taxes are enough already and government spending is the main problem?Great! What is their plan for cutting $13B out of the Illinois budget? SPECIFICALLY. None of this "fraud and waste" crap. I want line-items that add up to $13B.

Until they give that, it's just a bunch of hot air.

[What the .... ?!?!]

As long as you asked ...... Warning: If you work for the government you ain't gonna like it. (http://www.illinoispolicy.org/?utm_source=Illinois+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=7ba6f0dc8e-Dec+16%2C+2010+E-letter&utm_medium=email)

[Zakalwe]

As long as you asked ...... Warning: If you work for the government you ain't gonna like it. (http://www.illinoispolicy.org/?utm_source=Illinois+Policy+Institute&utm_campaign=7ba6f0dc8e-Dec+16%2C+2010+E-letter&utm_medium=email)You want to narrow that down a bit? I see that they oppose the tax hike, but I'm not going to go digging through their website for their solutions.

[What the .... ?!?!]

You want to narrow that down a bit? I see that they oppose the tax hike, but I'm not going to go digging through their website for their solutions.

Sorry about that.... here's a link:

http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=2284

Aside from that, what did you think of the organization?

[Zakalwe]

Sorry about that.... here's a link:

http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=2284

Aside from that, what did you think of the organization?Thanks!

As for what I think of the organization, typical think tank (right or left - I generally have little use for think tanks - particularly when they all seem to start from conclusions and work backwards from there).

As for their proposed budget, while I haven't had time to review all the details what I can see boils down to two major things:
1. Cut personnel costs - primarily through staff/salary/pension cuts.
2. Avoid any future investment.
a. Massive cuts to infrastructure investment
b. Massive cuts to educational support programs (which can be characterized as investments)

Of the two, the lack of investment is the one that bothers me the most. For infrastructure, major construction will never be cheaper than now (with private construction down and thus not competing for limited resources), not to mention it's desperately needed.
The cuts to educational support are also troubling. As a minor example, is Illinois not suffering from the general shortage of nurses that the rest of the country is? If they are, why cut Nurses Tuition ($80M - Line 1220 in the spreadsheet available at your link)? Nurses are not something you can go to Nurses Depot and buy when you need them. You have to start training them a minimum of two years before you think they'll be needed. You can, of course, just raise nurses' salaries until other states' nurses come to Illinois, but don't you think that, at a minimum, that works out net zero (although realistically I would guess it's net negative - you end up paying more that way). As I said, that's just a small example, but many of the other programs seem similar (i.e., the complete cutting of Agricultural Education).

In short, no investment and less education. Sure it balances the current budget without additional taxes, but at what future cost?

[Chronos]

To be fair, one could call not borrowing money (by closing the budget gap) an investment. But of course, then you have to look at what the respective rates of return are. If you ever find yourself in a situation where you can both borrow money and invest it, but can get more return on the investment than the interest you pay on the loans, then you should be borrowing as much as you can get your hands on.