# 2014 US General Election Results **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [November 4, 2014, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684 "2014-11-04T23:38:21Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/361 "2014-11-05T19:42:36Z")
> [@JesterX](#): > > Dude, the majority of Americans SUPPORT a minimum wage increase. The majority of America SUPPORT equal pay for equal work. Etc. etc. What specific question was asked? ---
**Author:** ![42fish](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/4/b487fb/32.png) [@42fish](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/42fish)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/362 "2014-11-05T19:51:32Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Maybe. But I think Clinton sensed when he had a winning hand and when he didn’t. Obama just doesn’t ever seem to change his approach. [QUOTE=adaher] I’ll grant that on immigration he [Obama] broke from form. [/QUOTE] So, your analysis is that Obama absolutely never changes, except when he does. Very astute. ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 7:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/363 "2014-11-05T19:51:50Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > And it’s been a crappy thing for millions and millions of other people, people who actually pay for their care and wanted to keep their plans. Many of those people believed Obama’s promises, and then were upset to discover that their plan wasn’t good enough to keep – according to the ACA. > > Ultimately, the ACA was about telling people that can, and have been, paying for their care that they also owed it to the country to pay for a couple of extra people as well. > > Shockingly, some people didn’t like that, especially when they realized they’d been deceived into it. Without nitpicking your various points (a couple of which I find to be unfair, more “truthy” than truth, but that debate is in another thread), I will add that a braver, and possibly effective tactic Pryor could have used would be to sell the point that the ACA benefits greatly outweigh the negative elements for most of his likely voters, rather than hide from his vote. A better incumbent could have used that to get re-elected. Running from the vote I can never see as working for anyone. It looks weak. In a time when people are cynical about incumbents, looking weak is never good. Besides which, it’s hardly the only issue voters care about. Voters listened more to a lot of scare-mongering and cynicism. He could have fought all that with a more positive message, including the benefits that were a result of his own record. ---
**Author:** ![JesterX](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/439d5e/32.png) [@JesterX](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JesterX)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/364 "2014-11-05T20:18:55Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > You know, I actually really agree with this. > > I don’t think Obama is a failure, and I strongly believe that history will look back on him kindly. > > The biggest mistake the Democrats made in my opinion is turning their backs on him. Obama kind of turned his back on himself. Just like in 2010 when he pretty much sat back and let conservatives define ACA, he did the same in this election in sitting back and letting conservatives define him. So while I agree the dems could’ve defended him and his policies better, why should they when he doesn’t seem very interested in doing it himself. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/365 "2014-11-05T20:27:52Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > Without nitpicking your various points (a couple of which I find to be unfair, more “truthy” than truth, but that debate is in another thread), I will add that a braver, and possibly effective tactic Pryor could have used would be to sell the point that the ACA benefits greatly outweigh the negative elements for most of his likely voters, rather than hide from his vote. A better incumbent could have used that to get re-elected. Running from the vote I can never see as working for anyone. It looks weak. In a time when people are cynical about incumbents, looking weak is never good. I’m glad he didn’t. You’re right, of course, but in my view that kind of thinking creates poor social policy. Voters should not be voting for self-interest; they should be voting for policies which are right for the country as a whole. This includes dampening the temptation to stick to the wealthier by demanding that they pay for the stuff you need. But I can hardly deny that this tactic has been effective. ---
**Author:** ![Bridget\_Burke](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7cd45c/32.png) [@Bridget\_Burke](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bridget_Burke)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/366 "2014-11-05T20:37:57Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > So, next time McConnell meets Cruz, who blows who? In a thread full of ugly & upsetting images, this one is the worst. Got any brain bleach? Or tequila… ---
**Author:** ![Knorf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/58956e/32.png) [@Knorf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Knorf)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/367 "2014-11-05T20:42:13Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m glad he didn’t. > > You’re right, of course, but in my view that kind of thinking creates poor social policy. Voters should not be voting for self-interest; they should be voting for policies which are right for the country as a whole. This includes dampening the temptation to stick to the wealthier by demanding that they pay for the stuff you need. > > But I can hardly deny that this tactic has been effective. You can also hardly deny that your negative opinion about ACA is not fact but rather a subjective opinion. There is room for rational disagreement about it. Room for someone like Pryor to stand with validity by his ACA vote and legitimately highlight the good it has done. People like you who disagree that the good outweighs the bad are free of course to vote for the other guy. At least Pryor wouldn’t have been left weakly standing there lamenting the fact that Obama thanked him publicly for his vote. ---
**Author:** ![MemoryLeak](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/6f9a4e/32.png) [@MemoryLeak](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MemoryLeak)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/368 "2014-11-05T21:13:03Z")
> [@BobLibDem](#): > > Piffle. Many of those who had subpar plans are getting better coverage for less money. Many are getting refunds from companies who aren’t spending the required percentage of their premiums on health care. For every person hurt by the ACA, there are probably 20 who have benefitted. 30 year old individual Bronze plan is $3,156 with $6,350 out-of-pocket (but, of course, you get a free physical thrown in). ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/369 "2014-11-05T21:18:53Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > You’re right, of course, but in my view that kind of thinking creates poor social policy. Voters should not be voting for self-interest; they should be voting for policies which are right for the country as a whole. This includes dampening the temptation to stick to the wealthier by demanding that they pay for the stuff you need. > > But I can hardly deny that this tactic has been effective. On the contrary, I think that policies that are right for the country as a whole tend to involve asking wealthier people to pay more of the share of maintaining public policy than poorer people, since they can pay more. Wealthier people should dampen the temptation to complain about being asked to pay more; they should not vote their self-interest but instead should vote for the best social policy. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/370 "2014-11-05T21:25:21Z")
> [@Knorf](#): > > You can also hardly deny that your negative opinion about ACA is not fact but rather a subjective opinion. There is room for rational disagreement about it. Room for someone like Pryor to stand with validity by his ACA vote and legitimately highlight the good it has done. People like you who disagree that the good outweighs the bad are free of course to vote for the other guy. At least Pryor wouldn’t have been left weakly standing there lamenting the fact that Obama thanked him publicly for his vote. Oh, absolutely. That’s a basic opinion about what the proper role of government is. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/371 "2014-11-05T21:28:46Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > On the contrary, I think that policies that are right for the country as a whole tend to involve asking wealthier people to pay more of the share of maintaining public policy than poorer people, since they can pay more. Wealthier people should dampen the temptation to complain about being asked to pay more; they should not vote their self-interest but instead should vote for the best social policy. “From each according to his ability?” I am convinced that such an approach is ruinous. But that’s an opinion, too. ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/372 "2014-11-05T21:33:54Z")
Only in the modern GOP does progressive taxation become socialism. I wish the GOP would run openly on _that_ position. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/373 "2014-11-05T21:37:40Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > On the contrary, I think that policies that are right for the country as a whole tend to involve \*\*asking \*\*wealthier people to pay more of the share of maintaining public policy than poorer people, since they can pay more. First of all, it’s not asking them to pay more, it’s making them pay more. Secondly, they already are paying more. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > they should not vote their self-interest but instead should vote for the best social policy. Should poor or middle class people vote their own self interest? ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/374 "2014-11-05T21:40:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > “From each according to his ability?” Ask not what your country can do for you, perhaps. Or, let’s get a little more specific: > [@FDR](#): > > “The movement toward progressive taxation of wealth and of income has accompanied the growing diversification and interrelation of effort which marks our industrial society. Wealth in the modern world does not come merely from individual effort; it results from a combination of individual effort and of the manifold uses to which the community puts that effort. The individual does not create the product of his industry with his own hands; he utilizes the many processes and forces of mass production to meet the demands of a national and international market … Social unrest and a deepening sense of unfairness are dangers to our national life which we must minimize by rigorous methods. People know that vast personal incomes come not only through the effort or ability or luck of those who receive them, but also because of the opportunities for advantage which Government itself contributes. Therefore, the duty rests upon the Government to restrict such incomes by very high taxes.” Or, if you prefer a different Roosevelt: > [@Teddy Roosevelt](#): > > No man should receive a dollar unless that dollar has been fairly earned. Every dollar received should represent a dollar’s worth of service rendered — not gambling in stocks, but service rendered. The really big fortune, the swollen fortune, by the mere fact of its size acquires qualities which differentiate it in kind as well as in degree from what is possessed by men of relatively small means. Therefore, I believe in a graduated income tax on big fortunes, and in another tax which is far more easily collected and far more effective — a graduated inheritance tax on big fortunes, properly safeguarded against evasion, and increasing rapidly in amount with the size of the estate. There’s no reason to shout BOOGA BOOGA MARX! to make your point; you can do it perfectly well by referring to American presidents. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/375 "2014-11-05T21:41:34Z")
> [@MemoryLeak](#): > > 30 year old individual Bronze plan is $3,156 with $6,350 out-of-pocket (but, of course, you get a free physical thrown in). Man, that’s crazy - what state are you in? Here in MO you can get a Gold-level plan for that, and a really good one for only $600 bucks more a year. That’s with no subsidy whatsoever. ---
**Author:** ![Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/left_hand_of_dorkness/32/7156_2.png) [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Left_Hand_of_Dorkness)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/376 "2014-11-05T21:44:52Z")
> [@Velocity](#): > > First of all, it’s not asking them to pay more, it’s making them pay more. If it makes you quiver with glee, substitute “sticking a gun up their nostril and demanding all their cash from the poor little rich boys” for “asking,” I don’t mind. > [@](#): > > Secondly, they already are paying more. Do you need me to spell it out? Okay, here we go: t-h-e q-u-e-s-t-i-o-n i-s i-f t-h-e-y’-r-e --goddammit, that’s annoying, if they’re paying enough more. Obviously. > [@](#): > > Should poor or middle class people vote their own self interest? When their own self interest **contradicts** good public policy? No. When it aligns with good public policy? Like everyone, they should. Referring to “self interest” is generally a red herring. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/377 "2014-11-05T22:04:07Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I’m glad he didn’t. > > You’re right, of course, but in my view that kind of thinking creates poor social policy. Voters should not be voting for self-interest; they should be voting for policies which are right for the country as a whole. This includes dampening the temptation to stick to the wealthier by demanding that they pay for the stuff you need. Frankly I’m not so sure that’s such bad social policy. In the days when labor had more clout in the marketplace, earned income alone was an effective means of distributing income in an optimal way through the community. You know the drill–workers brought their wages home and spent them in their communities, saved a little in the bank, and so on. Today labor has no clout and unions are basically done. In the global marketplace the market value of work–the activity of those who perform tasks for others–has been going south for many years. There will have to be some redistribution unless the wealthy actually do want to live in fortified compounds to keep the impoverished mobs at bay. ---
**Author:** ![Velocity](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/velocity/32/18006_2.png) [@Velocity](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Velocity)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 10:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/378 "2014-11-05T22:05:52Z")
> [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > if they’re paying \*\*enough \*\*more. “Enough” is entirely subjective. There are those who think they’re paying significantly less than enough and there are those who think they’re paying significantly more than enough. With “enough” undefined, tax rates on the wealthy could go up almost continuously - “Still not enough. Still not enough. Still not enough. Still not enough.” ---
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/379 "2014-11-05T22:08:11Z")
> [@Richard\_Parker](#): > > If you say, “Obama did not use enough bipartisan rhetoric and his proposals were centrist as measured by 1995 or 2005, but not 2010” then at least you’re making a criticism within the bounds of reality, even if reasonable people can disagree. If one says, “Obama did not make enough effort to reach across the aisle,” then at best one is being misleadingly vague about what Obama has and has not done, and what he does and does not have the power to do as President–and at worst they are suggesting that Obama has introduced a bunch of far left proposals without consideration of conservative objections, which isn’t true for any of the legislation he has championed or signed. I disagree with this (with the exception of the “far left” terminology). Obama’s idea of biprtisanship is Republicans and Democrats coming together to vote for bills that the Republicans oppose and which the Democrats support. From my recollection, to the extent that he offers a compromise, it’s generally in the form of a bill that doesn’t go as far as he wants, not something that actually goes against his principles as he is demanding from the Republicans. If you have any examples of meaningful bipartisanship on his part I would be interested to hear what they might be. ---
**Author:** ![Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spectre_of_pithecanthropus/32/12343_2.png) [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spectre_of_Pithecanthropus)\ **Post date:** [November 5, 2014, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684/380 "2014-11-05T22:11:20Z")
> [@Spectre\_of\_Pithecanthropus](#): > > I don’t know about the weed, but I’m sure the new gun law will be the subject of a lawsuit by the NRA, and will eventually be overturned by the SCOTUS. Obama really never had a chance to change the Court’s composition, and it certainly doesn’t look like he’ll ever be able to, now. > > Has any President had less opportunity in six years to change the Court? I really want to know. As it stands, the SCOTUS is still stacked with appointments by Reagan and the Bushes. ETA: Of course, on reconsideration, it’s rarely if ever straightforward to predict how the Court will rule, so there’s that. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/2014-us-general-election-results/703684.md?page=20)