Reading through this thread has been perfectly surreal. A rational individual, heretofore unexposed to the election-cycle circus, would be pulling his hair out by the tuft if he tried to fit all the responses together in a coherent way.
To those who lean left yesterday was a success; to those who lean right yesterday was not only a success, but an unmitigated disaster for those who lean left. The fact that each side judges success and failure by different criteria, from different contexts and with different priorities, seems completely lost on everyone as the barbs fly back and forth. Yes, the democrats lost the house and some more than their share of gubernatorial elections; this is bad for them and good for conservatives. Yes, the democrats kept the senate and did so more handily than predicted by most; this is good for them and bad for conservatives.
From the standpoint of “Are the democrats worse off now than before?”, we have success for conservatives! From the standpoint of “Did the democrats do as well or better than they could possibly have expected?” we have success for democrats! Objectivity is impossible, of course, but let’s be honest: arguing success or failure without putting those terms into context isn’t doing the discussion here any favors and it would be ridiculously easy.
My take on the results: Christine O’Donnell lost! Although this wasn’t really a referendum on the tea party, I continue to have some faith in the prospects of humanity nevertheless.
What’s your angle, here? The recession technically ended last year, but it was a long one – a bad one – from which recovery has not occurred in the traditional way. In particular unemployment remains ridiculously high, which is the same thing as “in a recession” to the average person.
But what if “doing something” actually makes things worse? If the electorate thinks that this new program or that new program or this new set of rules or this new tax or that new spending or this more debt, etc, doesn’t help (or even makes things worse) then wouldn’t a Party obstructing these things be seen favorably?
Depends on your point of view. If you are a hard liner, then yes, it would probably be seen that way. If you are independent, moderate, or even just open to the idea of needing to do something, then no. It is viewed as nothing more than refusing to get to work.
Then it means the death of our civilization. Hope you enjoy having to scuba dive to get to your Manhattan job (assuming such outdated things like that exist 50 years from now).
Honestly, I don’t see what the big deal is. Democrats weren’t able to get anything done with 59 Senate seats and control of the House, and they’re going to get just as little done with 53.
Republicans don’t care about getting anything done, so it doesn’t matter how many Senate seats they have, or whether they control the House.
On the other hand, Pam Bondi, who had even less substance as a candidate than O’Donnell and whose main qualification is a magnificent rack, won the Florida AG job handily.
Marco Rubio began his acceptance speech by thanking god for his win, raising the eternal question of whether he’d have blamed god if he lost.
With 10% unemployment, the voters expect Congress to do something about it. If they don’t, they will turn right around and return the Democrats to power. The Republicans haven’t got the luxury of doing nothing, and the things they are likely to do (tax cuts for the rich, spending cuts), will make the economy worse.
Wait a second. Are you actually saying you’re at war with Rove over–what issue? On immigration, yeah, Rove is less of a racist xenophobe than most of the party; is that it? Or are you scapegoating Rove & W Bush for the Rumsfeld/Cheney push to war with Iraq? Or are you one of these fantasist ideologues who just think spending on pensions, Medicare, & war should be cut without cutting pensions, without cutting Medicare, & without cutting war?
Exactly. The American people have spoken, and apparently what they want is to pay a bunch of elected officials to sit on their hands for the next few years. Hope that works out great for y’all. Me, I think it’s a general loss for everyone.
At least I can take some comfort in seeing some of the more egregious wack jobs went down to defeat. I’m looking at you, Sharron Angle, Christine O’Donnell, John Raese, and Art Robinson.
This. The only difference will be political. Now it very well might be possible to paint the Democrats even more effectively as ineffective when they fail to pass Republican-passed House legislation in the Senate. But if the Democrats can successfully paint the legislation they are blocking as “too extreme” it will backfire on the GOP.
Well, the narrative, as you say, might. The voters seem to have enjoyed the previous one, which was that the administration and Democratic majority were pushing things down their throats.
Obviously, it’s going to be much harder for Republicans to complain about what’s in their throats with a House majority.
It’s funny, when W Bush was renominated for President, I swore off the GOP as ridiculous. I became a straight-ticket Dem & waited for the party to die. But apparently the ability of a twit like W to win so handily reflected the deep-seated love of the GOP in my country. And apparently now many Americans see the election of a mulatto to the White House as the sign of Democratic ridiculousness, & have abandoned that party. It really was the case that the Dems could have nominated a diseased monkey in 2008 & won, & that’s what they did in many eyes–Obama barely won even then, & now having a black President hurts the Democratic Party.
Oh good lord you merry “Austrian” fool. Double-dip, here we come?
No, as President he will get the blame & be voted out. Dem Prez, Dem Senate, Dems get the blame. If the House can block the recovery, this is an ideal setup for the GOP in 2012. Dio’s just wrong here. But if the economy improves, Obama can be reelected.
But I don’t know. Obama won on being shiny & new, & because of Bush fatigue. Now he’s less shiny & new, & Pawlenty can be shiny & new.
This. I’m sorry, I really have no choice but to see the American people as the problem, as the threat to life on Earth. For several years, I thought there was a Green bargain–social democracy, universal health care, & in return a commitment to sustainability. It’s now clear that those things I thought would sell Americans on the left were themselves rejected. Perhaps humanitarian leftism is wrong for the times we live in. Looks like I’m back to being a misanthropic Malthusian now.
What the hell is wrong with the election apparatus in Washington? It looks like three Senate contests are still undecided, Alaska, Colorado, and Washington. Alaska has to count write-in votes. Colorado is close with 88% of the precincts reporting. The latest info I can find from Washington shows only 62% of the precincts reporting. The WA Secretary of State website has a results page; doesn’t say what percent have been counted (but the counts match the other page with the 62% figure) and says it was last updated at 11:57 p.m. C’mon, folks, the polls have been closed almost 12 hours. Were you trying to save on overtime by sending all the vote-counters home at midnight?
The results won’t be certified for a while yet, and the Senate doesn’t get seated until a while after that, so I suppose we don’t need the results right this second. But an election is kind of a big deal, and it’s not like you didn’t know it was coming. Would it be that much trouble for you to figure out who won?
“our system”? I have read a lot of these ‘checks and balances’ on this forum and yet have little idea what they actually entail. How does this US system differ to other countries?
Washington votes almost entirely by mail, and elections only have to be postmarked by Election day. It is entirely possible for a lot of ballots to simply not have arrived yet - and it’s reasonable to assume that some precincts might wait until then to release numbers.
How long have they been doing that? I grew up there. I remember one day a year, part of my school used to be blocked off and big, gray, mechanical voting machines were rolled in. I even voted once in the same place I went to kindergarten.
It’s “our” system because it’s our system. That does not imply that no other country has a separation of powers. If I say “It’s like the indoor plumbing we have in our house” that doesn’t mean that no one else has indoor plumbing.