The US Mid-Term Election Thread

In the real world
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 am

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by SolkaTruesilver »

Mikey wrote:
Tyyr wrote:Even though they will, Republicans shouldn't mistake what happened yesterday for a referendum on Obama and healthcare.
Stephen Colbert did a great tongue-in-cheek spot yesterday, "demonstrating" how it was a referendum on Obama by showing that in one Florida district, Obama got 0% of the vote. :lol:
Country-wide, he got 0% of the vote. He wasn't up for re-election. :lol:

But overall, I have to say I'm happy the most ludicrous Tea Party candidates got beaten, handing some victory over to the Dems
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Mikey »

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Country-wide, he got 0% of the vote. He wasn't up for re-election.
Yeah, that's the gist of the joke.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Tyyr »

SolkaTruesilver wrote:Except if we hit the endgame of a double-down recession. In that case, things will have to be done again, or whatever patchwork done in the past 2 years will simply blow up in our face.
If that's the case there's nothing the government can do about it. You can try to ameliorate the symptoms of what's going on but you can't stop it. The economy is so out of whack right now that it has to be allowed to correct itself. The best thing that can happen is to let it correct itself then look to start implementing regulations to prevent it from going this nuts all over again.
Mikey wrote:You got it. I truly believe that the ground gained by the right yesterday was more of a concession to the idea of "let's try anything, it's got to be better than nothing," rather than any grassroots swing toward the GOP itself. This is borne out by the across-the-board non-compliance of the traditional Dem bulwark of minority voters/inner-city districts.
Obama won with a very excited electorate that pulled in a lot of votes that had never been cast before. All those new voters are amongst those the most disillusioned right now. The Democrats absolutely detached from reality rhetoric prior to the election didn't help. If anything them pretending that they were fine and their core voters were perfectly happy with how things were going probably pissed those people off even more. The Dems need to seriously reconsider how they've been running... everything for the last two years and take a hard turn in any other direction. If they continue down this path they will lose in 2012 and the republicans won't have to do anything but show up.
IDK about Mr. Scott's campaign, but the Senate and Congressional races in the Northeast already employed that idea. Many GOP campaigns involved some concession to Tea Party rhetoric - if not to attract votes from the moderate left, then to at least secure the Republicans that might have gone astray.
Fuck Rick Scott. That asshole ran a company that defrauded the government of hundreds of millions of dollars and no one seems to give a shit. Alex Sink isn't any better. Seriously, we had a crook and an incompetent running for control of the world's 20th largest economy and no one gave a shit. Then again you could probably say that of most political races of the last half century.

But yes, most of the Republican candidates have started to incorporate some of what the Tea Party is yelling about. The thing is that right now the Republicans are spouting off the same empty rhetoric they have for the last twenty years (in some cases they haven't even changed the speeches in the last 14 years) and that's not going to draw in the Tea Party as a whole as they are fed up with the Republican's empty promises.
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 am

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by SolkaTruesilver »

An argument I hear a lot over here is that Obama draws a lot of emnity from the average american population because he's an intellectual, and they kinda resent that, as opposed to Bush's simple public persona.

What's your take?
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by IanKennedy »

Sonic Glitch wrote:
Mark wrote:So, when I went to vote the local news had a reporter out from taking a poll. He was asking everybody if the are a Republican or a Democrat. I told him I was an independant voter. Damn guy looked at me like I'm nuts. :wave:
:lol: Nice.

In PA, you have to be registered with a party otherwise you can't vote in the primary.
I thought that primaries where only to do with within party elections, ie choosing who is going to stand for what. I don't see the point of anyone who's not in the party taking part in one of those. However, I also thought that these elections were for choosing actually who got a seat in the house. As such they should be open to the entire voting population with no respect to any party affiliation.
email, ergo spam
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6026
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Sonic Glitch »

IanKennedy wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:
Mark wrote:So, when I went to vote the local news had a reporter out from taking a poll. He was asking everybody if the are a Republican or a Democrat. I told him I was an independant voter. Damn guy looked at me like I'm nuts. :wave:
:lol: Nice.

In PA, you have to be registered with a party otherwise you can't vote in the primary.
I thought that primaries where only to do with within party elections, ie choosing who is going to stand for what. I don't see the point of anyone who's not in the party taking part in one of those. However, I also thought that these elections were for choosing actually who got a seat in the house. As such they should be open to the entire voting population with no respect to any party affiliation.
They are. However, I'd like to have a say in who actually runs for the position rather than have a bunch of other guys decided for me. Perhaps there is a candidate in one party or another I prefer over the rest running, but the party seems to be leaning toward another guy, I want the opportunity to pick my candidates.
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by IanKennedy »

Sonic Glitch wrote:
IanKennedy wrote: I thought that primaries where only to do with within party elections, ie choosing who is going to stand for what. I don't see the point of anyone who's not in the party taking part in one of those. However, I also thought that these elections were for choosing actually who got a seat in the house. As such they should be open to the entire voting population with no respect to any party affiliation.
They are. However, I'd like to have a say in who actually runs for the position rather than have a bunch of other guys decided for me. Perhaps there is a candidate in one party or another I prefer over the rest running, but the party seems to be leaning toward another guy, I want the opportunity to pick my candidates.
They're private entities and I don't see any reason why you should have a say in their running, except in what they do if they are elected. If you want a say in the running of their club you can always join it.
email, ergo spam
Sonic Glitch
Rear Admiral
Rear Admiral
Posts: 6026
Joined: Thu May 22, 2008 2:11 am
Location: Any ol' place here on Earth or in space. You pick the century and I'll pick the spot

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Sonic Glitch »

IanKennedy wrote:
Sonic Glitch wrote:
IanKennedy wrote: I thought that primaries where only to do with within party elections, ie choosing who is going to stand for what. I don't see the point of anyone who's not in the party taking part in one of those. However, I also thought that these elections were for choosing actually who got a seat in the house. As such they should be open to the entire voting population with no respect to any party affiliation.
They are. However, I'd like to have a say in who actually runs for the position rather than have a bunch of other guys decided for me. Perhaps there is a candidate in one party or another I prefer over the rest running, but the party seems to be leaning toward another guy, I want the opportunity to pick my candidates.
They're private entities and I don't see any reason why you should have a say in their running, except in what they do if they are elected. If you want a say in the running of their club you can always join it.
I have. {see my 1st post on the subject}
"All this has happened before --"
"But it doesn't have to happen again. Not if we make up our minds to change. Take a different path. Right here, right now."
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Mikey »

SolkaTruesilver wrote:An argument I hear a lot over here is that Obama draws a lot of emnity from the average american population because he's an intellectual, and they kinda resent that, as opposed to Bush's simple public persona.

What's your take?
You'll never hear an Obama opponent explicitly state that their opposition is due to his intellectualism, but there may be some kernel of truth to that. However, he does stand on a populist base rather than an elitist one - as I've said since he delivered the keynote address at the 2004 DNC. I think the objections are based more on his skin color and his stance farther from the center than the last Democratic president.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Tyyr »

SolkaTruesilver wrote:An argument I hear a lot over here is that Obama draws a lot of emnity from the average american population because he's an intellectual, and they kinda resent that, as opposed to Bush's simple public persona.

What's your take?
No, not really. Though if you like to think Americans are idiots I suppose that would be appealing to imagine.
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Deepcrush »

Fact remains that most Americans, along with most Humans, are total idiots so its not surprising that thoughts like Solka's would come up.
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 am

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by SolkaTruesilver »

Tyyr wrote:
SolkaTruesilver wrote:An argument I hear a lot over here is that Obama draws a lot of emnity from the average american population because he's an intellectual, and they kinda resent that, as opposed to Bush's simple public persona.

What's your take?
No, not really. Though if you like to think Americans are idiots I suppose that would be appealing to imagine.
That's an argument I hear over here, but I wasn't sure if I had to buy into it or not.

Point is, I once read a reporting about european politicians like Sarkozy sometimes pay people to write books so they then can add their name over it, in order to gain some public credence as an intellectual, compared to George W. Bush who has done his very best to never have a picture taken of him holding a book that wasn't a Bible.

I never really put much thought into it, but media in Qc are a little wary to blame racism over Obama's defeat, so they seem to try to support that old theory. Your thoughts?
Tyyr
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 10654
Joined: Tue Mar 31, 2009 10:49 pm
Location: Jeri Ryan's Dressing Room, Shhhhh

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by Tyyr »

Obama's defeat? It was the democrats that got their asses kicked yesterday not Obama and I posted why on the last page.
User avatar
SuperSaiyaMan12
Lieutenant
Lieutenant
Posts: 760
Joined: Fri Apr 18, 2008 10:41 pm
Location: Auburn
Contact:

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by SuperSaiyaMan12 »

The GOP are sore, sore winners. Heaven tells what would have happened if they lost the midterms:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101104/ap_ ... _challenge
By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Charles Babington, Associated Press - 2 hrs 33 mins ago

WASHINGTON - Barely an hour after President Barack Obama invited congressional Republicans to post-election talks to work together on major issues, the Senate's GOP leader had a blunt message: His party's main goal is denying Obama re-election.

In a sign that combat and the 2012 elections rather than compromise could mark the next two years, Sen. Mitch McConnell on Thursday called for Senate votes to repeal or erode Obama's signature health care law, to cut spending and to shrink government.

[Related: Midterms are over: What happens now?]

"The only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things," McConnell said in a speech to the conservative Heritage Foundation.

The Senate Republican leader's confrontational tone was in sharp contrast to the posture Obama took Wednesday in the face of a new GOP-controlled House and Republican gains in the Senate. Obama followed up Thursday morning by inviting Republican and Democratic congressional leaders for talks on Nov. 18 and challenging his own Cabinet to make Washington work better.

"I want us to talk substantively about how we can move the American people's agenda forward," Obama said of the upcoming meeting with lawmakers. "It's not just going to be a photo op."

The meeting in two weeks will be watched for any indication of compromise between Obama and Congress' Republican leaders, House Speaker-in-waiting John Boehner and McConnell. They will be joined by the top Democrats in Congress, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Obama said Thursday, "It's clear that the voters sent a message, which is that they want us to focus on the economy and jobs."

Still, there are major differences between the two parties, including the GOP emphasis on tax-cutting, and Obama made that clear on Wednesday.

"From 2001 to 2009, we cut taxes pretty significantly," Obama said, "and we just didn't see the kind of expansion that is going to be necessary" to create jobs.

Obama and, to some degree, Republican leaders did signal they might reach accords on a few issues, such as energy. Obama has abandoned his proposed cap-and-trade system for trying to reduce greenhouse gases, which Republicans sharply opposed. But he said the two parties might reach compromises on other fronts, such as promoting electric cars, nuclear power, energy efficiency and "energy independence."

But McConnell on Thursday indicated that the road to agreements is more like a one-way street.

"If the administration wants cooperation, it will have to begin to move in our direction," McConnell said.

And he spelled out a strategy for undermining Obama's health care law, calling for repeated votes to repeal the measure.

"But we can't expect the president to sign it," he said. "So we'll also have to work, in the House, on denying funds for implementation, and, in the Senate, on votes against its most egregious provisions."

Obama said there should be bipartisan agreement on a plan to give businesses a tax break by letting them accelerate the depreciation of some equipment.

But those are relatively minor issues in the federal universe. The array of Republican and Democratic postelection news conferences Wednesday gave virtually no hint about how Obama and the next Congress might tackle major issues such as immigration or Medicare's long-term viability.

Leaders in both parties talked about cutting spending. But there was barely a word about cutting big programs that consume so much of the federal budget, such as Social Security, Medicare and the military.

Obama hinted that he might be willing to extend Bush-era tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans for a year or two but not make them permanent, as Republicans have advocated.

Republicans, meanwhile, spoke of working with Democrats only in vague terms. Mostly, they seemed defiant.

McConnell was unapologetic for the unified resistance of the Republican Party to Obama initiatives over the past two years.

"By sticking together in principled opposition to policies we viewed as harmful, we made it perfectly clear to the American people where we stood," he said. "And we gave voters a real choice on Election Day."

He also vowed to continue to keep the administration in check by using congressional hearings to oversee executive branch actions.

"Through oversight we'll also keep a spotlight on the various agencies the administration will now use to advance through regulation what it can't through legislation," he said.

Reid, D-Nev., said that in light of the election, "Republicans must take the responsibility to solve the problems of ordinary Americans," although he added, "people expect us to work together."

Big clashes seem inevitable.

On the health care law, Boehner, R-Ohio, told reporters, "We have to do everything we can to try to repeal this bill and replace it with commonsense reforms that'll bring down the cost of health insurance."

Obama, whose veto powers would seem to make repeal impossible, defended the law's main provisions at length.

"When I talk to a woman from New Hampshire who doesn't have to mortgage her house because she got cancer and is seeking treatment, but now is able to get health insurance; when I talk to parents who are relieved that their child with a preexisting condition can now stay on their policy" until age 26, "or the small businesses that are now taking advantage of the tax credits that are provided, then I say to myself, this was the right thing to do," Obama said.

He also rejected claims that he spent too much money to stimulate the economy, bail out banks and shore up automakers at the recession's height. Republicans hammered all those programs in the elections.

"We've stabilized the economy," Obama said. "We've got job growth in the private sectors. But people all across America aren't feeling that progress. They don't see it."
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 am

Re: The US Mid-Term Election Thread

Post by SolkaTruesilver »

Why change a winning strategy? They just won by doing fucking nothing, blocking the President and whining Obama is responsible for all the troubles of this country. They are gonna do the same thing again, but now with more influence and power.
Post Reply