The Mid-Terms Results Thread [W:517]

[Juanita]

"A joke is a very serious thing".

I was just thinking about compromises, and was just curious if it was one of those things like a line in the sand, or more like Obama's line in the sand.

OK, to be honest I was angry about that as well, but you have to admit that he has bent over backwards to keep us out of a full scale war.

 

[Juanita]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Nah Obama doesn't hate gun owners

he blocked the import of thousands of highly desirable militarily obsolete MI Garands claiming they would be MILITARY WEAPONS ON THE STREETS OF AMERICA even though the US GOVERNMENT sold us citizens over a MILLION of these same rifles and the number used in crimes is about the same as the number of people killed by escaped zoo polar bears

he appointed two justices to the Supreme court who are hard core gun haters

he wanted the "assault weapon ban" reinstated

so you are wrong

I don't hate the coal industry. and I can afford higher electrical rates

can you?

Highly desirable? By whom? You? Well geez, no wonder you are so mad at him!

 

[Juanita]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

I doubt it.

Calling me a liar, are you?

 

[Linc]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

I agree with most of that...The Dems did a ****ty job around the board!

Locally here in IL, GOP winners are acting like the ass and DEM losers are behaving with class.
As we picked up signs today, I wasn't bothered as some of my GOOD Dem friends were with GOP signs left up.
Or their petty poll watching games yesterday.

We got our asses kicked on every possible level with a better ground game, more money, better ads and a better message from leaders.
But worst of all for me, we had a chance in IL compared to your OK, but our people didn't vote again, just as in 2010 and 1994.

 

[Fiddytree]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Highly desirable? By whom? You? Well geez, no wonder you are so mad at him!

Older rifles are collectors items and are pretty fun to shoot.

 

[Juanita]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Locally here in IL, GOP winners are acting like the ass and DEM losers are behaving with class.
As we picked up signs today, I wasn't bothered as some of my GOOD Dem friends were with GOP signs left up.
Or their petty poll watching games yesterday.

We got our asses kicked on every possible level with a better ground game, more money, better ads and a better message from leaders.
But worst of all for me, we had a chance in IL compared to your OK, but our people didn't vote again, just as in 2010 and 1994.

Well I know you worked your ass off in this election, so I understand how let down you feel. but it is time to look forward not backwards as 2016 will be here before you know it and we get to try again. I don't know why we even bother to vote here in OK, but enough people voted Democratic to send a message to Gov Fallin and her cronies.

 

[Linc]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Well I know you worked your ass off in this election, so I understand how let down you feel. but it is time to look forward not backwards as 2016 will be here before you know it and we get to try again. I don't know why we even bother to vote here in OK, but enough people voted Democratic to send a message to Gov Fallin and her cronies.

But what messaging did we hear today--Rand Paul bashing Hillary and silence from Hillary--more of the Dukakis behavior.
McConnell looking great and Obama mediocre.

Same as last November with the multi-million ads against ACA while the Dems were silent but could have hammered on government shutdown.
Priebus is trashing DWS in the messaging--GOPs never stop working--we do .

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

While I'd agree that Cruz wouldn't be a good choice for majority leader, I can't agree that he should be marginalized. What really needs to be done is that his voice be added to the chorus, but moderated to some extent, as he does speak for some of the electorate. Marginalizing him is only going to make him speak louder and in more extreme terms. incorporating that strong voice, and moderating the message a bit, if possible, would be a better outcome, IMHO. After all, the Republican party is a big tent of many voices.


Eeww. Can't stand Grayson. You think Crist is slimy? Grayson is just worse than that by 10 times.

Cruz tends to marginalize himself - he's too ego driven and self-important to ever be a leader and a person who can bring divergent forces together. That makes him dangerous to the Republicans moving forward and getting anything serious accomplished. Cruz isn't wrong on all or most of his policy positions - it's just his style and approach is incredibly off-putting and he just drives away people who might support him otherwise. If he had the temperament and style of a Rand Paul, as an example, with the same policy positions, he'd be far more effective.

In my view, the Republicans have less than two years to make a statement that they can move government forward in a reasonable and adult manner and they don't have time to groom Cruz, even if he could be groomed, or have any of the stunts that have plagued them in the past few years. If they want to get the White House and retain both sides of the House they need to be serious. 2016 is going to be a year when a lot of Republicans in the Senate are up for reelection - they can't have a troubled 2 years now if they want to retain and perhaps build on those seats.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

I have to say, what an astounding election. The Republicans did not do anything special, no real national issue. They just were not Democrats. I don't think there has ever been an election where the American people so soundly rejected one party. I mean there were even left leaning ballot initiatives that passed, but the voter still voted for the Republican!

Obama, totally and completely rejected. Too bad he wasn't on the ballot. He may have lost worse that Carter and Dukakis did against Reagan! I wonder how he feels? The worst, most rejected president in history. Six years of incompetence and blunders, one after the other. You really have to be pretty bad to be so rejected, but the democrats managed to do it.

This is absolutely true. In my view, if Obama hadn't been the first black American President he would have been completely rejected in 2012. Racial guilt on one side and racial pride on the other both worked in conjunction to save him from a resounding defeat then. He is easily the most incompetent, ineffectual President in modern times.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Certain areas had large turnouts, but you are right, because the majority of voters are misinformed and pay little attention to politics until the last week or so and then only to watch the TV ads. A candidate has to make them understand how their own lives could be personally affected, otherwise they have no interest.

I appreciate your undying support for President Obama but you have to remember that a lot of the vulnerable Democrat Senators this election cycle were in/from states that voted for Romney in the 2010 Presidential election. They got elected in the Obama 2008 sweep and were seriously vulnerable as Obama's luster dulled. States like North Carolina, Louisiana, Montana, etc. would not have returned Democrat Senators if their campaign was based on undying support of President Obama and his administration. Their only hope for reelection was to marginalize Obama and try to convince voters that Obama would be gone soon and they could still serve their constituents despite Obama. They failed, but they would have been completely blown out of the water had they paraded Obama and his Presidency around their states.

 

[Perotista]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Until you see the McConnell press conference in full, you haven't got a clue as to how good he can be.
He will squash any of the little GOP bugs like Paul, Cruz or Rubio.

McConnell will work out deals within his own caucus with normals like Cornyn, Thune, Alexander, Collins, Portman and the rest of the GOOD Republicans.
They will then simply hand the deal to Boehner and tell him to sign off.
Too bad you're stuck in this ridiculous mindset that the two parties won't work together.

As a newly ordained Son of the American Legion,
my now dead Father would expect no less of me than to support Majority Leader McConnell at this very important time in our Nation's history .

Mindset, maybe. But what I seen so far the two parties haven't work together for the last 6 years. That could change as you say, but I doubt it very much. At this juncture going on past history, experience, I fully expect McConnell to be a Republican version of Harry Reid. Party over country.

But time will tell, I have been wrong before and will be wrong again. Rhetoric is cheap, most politicians always say the right things in a speech. That doesn't count, it is their actions that count. Time will tell.

 

[Conservative]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

I actually disagree with you. The President's agenda was not defeated as most of the Democratic candidates did not run on the President's agenda, which is why they lost. Distancing themselves from the President hurt them instead of helping them.

Better tell that to Obama

Obama to Voters: Hell Yes, My Agenda is On the Ballot This Fall - Guy Benson

 

[Conservative]

Clown? That is disrespectful to the max! Yes, I am angry, but not at Obama! Not that I agreed with everything that he did, but for the most part I thought he was doing a pretty good job..

A pretty good job? Over 7 trillion added to the debt, 20 million unemployed/under employed/discouraged workers, the same number of people working today as were working when the recession began, stagnant GDP, Debt exceeding our yearly GDP, Foreign policy disasters? Guess you were referring to his golf handicap? Must be lonely for a progressive in Oklahoma!

 

[Conservative]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Locally here in IL, GOP winners are acting like the ass and DEM losers are behaving with class.
As we picked up signs today, I wasn't bothered as some of my GOOD Dem friends were with GOP signs left up.
Or their petty poll watching games yesterday.

We got our asses kicked on every possible level with a better ground game, more money, better ads and a better message from leaders.
But worst of all for me, we had a chance in IL compared to your OK, but our people didn't vote again, just as in 2010 and 1994.

No, what you need are better economic and foreign policy results. It does appear that not everyone is a hard core Democrat and do look at actual results which they feel daily.

 

[j-mac]

No. Why would it be?

I just wondered because of the wording of the post I responded to...Made it sound like as long as you support thae liar at the moment that was fine.

 

[donsutherland1]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

I don't care. I disagree.

The Slate story reflects the exit polls. According to the exit polls 45% of voters said the President was not a factor, but 52% said that they voted either to express opposition to the President (33% of voters) or to express support for the President (19% of voters). Those who voted to express opposition supported Republicans by a 92%-6%. Those who voted to express support for the President supported Democrats by a 93%-6% margin. For Democrats, it was devastating that the cohort voting to express opposition to the President was about 70% larger than the cohort voting to express support for the President. To illustrate just how damaging that disparity was, the 45% of voters who said that the President was not a factor voted for the Democrats by a 55%-42% margin.

 

[j-mac]

Geez you can't possibly hate him that much! Don't you have any money in the stock market?

I do through my 401k and the phoney money digitized to prop this President up scares me to death.

 

[Zyphlin]

The President acknowledges his policies were essentially on the ballot. In a number of states where the President took action (Like North Carolina and Maryland) you saw a candidate who polls were suggesting should win (in some cases win easily) end up losing. Every poll you look at has the President wildly unpopular. Every single exit poll and other type of poll shows voter disatisfaction with Obamacare, and every Republican that won in a battle ground race did so by at least partially, if not primarily, campaigning AGAINST Obamacare. Various aspects of the administrations mishandling of different issues or policies were routinely shown on exit polls as some of the top things that weighed on voters minds.

Yet somehow, beyond all reason (which is a stalwart trait of hyper partisans), we have people banging the delusional propoganda drum that the Democrats lost becuase they weren't liberal enough and didn't embrace Obama enough.

Based on what? There's PLENTY of evidence to point to as a means of supporting an assertion that Obama was a negative on the Democrats this time out. I accept the notion that said assertion may be wrong, but I've yet to see ANYONE put forward any kind of compelling argument to the contrary other than what amounts to "umm...umm.....PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA!" Please, provide some kind of hard evidence that would lend a reasonable and logical person whose not a rabid hyper partisan liberal to believe that the reason the Democrats lost this election was because they didn't embrace Obama ENOUGH?

 

[tres borrachos]

The President acknowledges his policies were essentially on the ballot. In a number of states where the President took action (Like North Carolina and Maryland) you saw a candidate who polls were suggesting should win (in some cases win easily) end up losing. Every poll you look at has the President wildly unpopular. Every single exit poll and other type of poll shows voter disatisfaction with Obamacare, and every Republican that won in a battle ground race did so by at least partially, if not primarily, campaigning AGAINST Obamacare. Various aspects of the administrations mishandling of different issues or policies were routinely shown on exit polls as some of the top things that weighed on voters minds.

Yet somehow, beyond all reason (which is a stalwart trait of hyper partisans), we have people banging the delusional propoganda drum that the Democrats lost becuase they weren't liberal enough and didn't embrace Obama enough.

Based on what? There's PLENTY of evidence to point to as a means of supporting an assertion that Obama was a negative on the Democrats this time out. I accept the notion that said assertion may be wrong, but I've yet to see ANYONE put forward any kind of compelling argument to the contrary other than what amounts to "umm...umm.....PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA!" Please, provide some kind of hard evidence that would lend a reasonable and logical person whose not a rabid hyper partisan liberal to believe that the reason the Democrats lost this election was because they didn't embrace Obama ENOUGH?

Not only did he acknowledge that his policies were on the ballot...prior to the election, he emphatically stated that his policies were on the ballot.

Here's one example. Barack Obama, in a speech at Northwestern University in October:

President Obama said, “I am not on the ballot this fall. Michelle’s pretty happy about that. But make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot. Every single one of them.”

President Obama Sees the Mid-Term Election Results Coming – And He’s Already Making Excuses

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

Cruz tends to marginalize himself - he's too ego driven and self-important to ever be a leader and a person who can bring divergent forces together. That makes him dangerous to the Republicans moving forward and getting anything serious accomplished. Cruz isn't wrong on all or most of his policy positions - it's just his style and approach is incredibly off-putting and he just drives away people who might support him otherwise. If he had the temperament and style of a Rand Paul, as an example, with the same policy positions, he'd be far more effective.

In my view, the Republicans have less than two years to make a statement that they can move government forward in a reasonable and adult manner and they don't have time to groom Cruz, even if he could be groomed, or have any of the stunts that have plagued them in the past few years. If they want to get the White House and retain both sides of the House they need to be serious. 2016 is going to be a year when a lot of Republicans in the Senate are up for reelection - they can't have a troubled 2 years now if they want to retain and perhaps build on those seats.

So moderate his 'off-putting' and moderate his marginalization and have a powerful ally? Seems like a good strategy to me.

 

[donsutherland1]

Yet somehow, beyond all reason (which is a stalwart trait of hyper partisans), we have people banging the delusional propoganda drum that the Democrats lost becuase they weren't liberal enough and didn't embrace Obama enough.

This seems to be a common phenomenon following electoral defeats. From the Republican side, one heard the argument that recent losses were due to the Party's having put up "RINOs." It's sometimes difficult in the immediate aftermath of an election to objectively and honestly try to understand what happened, especially when one has poured emotion, time, effort, and money into the race. There's an almost inherent impulse to rapidly retreat to familiar core principles (conservatism for the Republican Party or liberalism for the Democratic Party) in the wake of defeat. There is, at a minimum, disbelief or unwillingness to reexamine core assumptions e.g., the notion that some previously appealing principles might have lost some relevance.

The reality is that the world is a changing place. Even very solid, good principles might grow less relevant as the world changes, just as successful business models can become unprofitable as industries evolve, substitutes emerge, customer preferences change, etc. For example, in the past, one might have argued that certain public investments were wasteful (low returns on investment for the public). Yet, in a high-tech, knowledge-intensive world in which innovation has become a more important factor for sustainable robust economic growth, that argument might be less relevant (returns on scientific research can be quite high). One might have argued that Defense spending offered a sizable savings opportunity. Yet, in a world where risks to U.S. interests have grown, that argument is far less relevant, as Defense spending needs to fit the national security environment not the other way around.

 

[CanadaJohn]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

So moderate his 'off-putting' and moderate his marginalization and have a powerful ally? Seems like a good strategy to me.

If McConnell or somebody could take him aside and convince him to do so, yes he could be a powerful ally. Can anyone do it? Big question, no answer at this point. If he continues to just be a flame-thrower, he does more harm than good. I liken Cruz to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on the left - guys their party loves to see skewer the opposition because of the entertainment value but guys they'd never trust to lead them anywhere.

 

[CanadaJohn]

The President acknowledges his policies were essentially on the ballot. In a number of states where the President took action (Like North Carolina and Maryland) you saw a candidate who polls were suggesting should win (in some cases win easily) end up losing. Every poll you look at has the President wildly unpopular. Every single exit poll and other type of poll shows voter disatisfaction with Obamacare, and every Republican that won in a battle ground race did so by at least partially, if not primarily, campaigning AGAINST Obamacare. Various aspects of the administrations mishandling of different issues or policies were routinely shown on exit polls as some of the top things that weighed on voters minds.

Yet somehow, beyond all reason (which is a stalwart trait of hyper partisans), we have people banging the delusional propoganda drum that the Democrats lost becuase they weren't liberal enough and didn't embrace Obama enough.

Based on what? There's PLENTY of evidence to point to as a means of supporting an assertion that Obama was a negative on the Democrats this time out. I accept the notion that said assertion may be wrong, but I've yet to see ANYONE put forward any kind of compelling argument to the contrary other than what amounts to "umm...umm.....PEOPLE LIKE OBAMA!" Please, provide some kind of hard evidence that would lend a reasonable and logical person whose not a rabid hyper partisan liberal to believe that the reason the Democrats lost this election was because they didn't embrace Obama ENOUGH?

There can be no logical rationale for claiming those who lost didn't sufficiently embrace Obama and his policies. That's because those Democrats who lost were primarily in States that Obama carried in 2008, even though they were traditionally more conservative, and States that Obama lost to Romney in 2012 as the luster/novelty of voting for the first black President wore off and reality of his disastrous first term set in. Senate Democrats who got swept into Washington on the Obama wave, six years ago, got washed back out to sea this year.

This is compounded by the fact that several States that are traditionally left leaning, such as Maryland and Massachusetts, elected Republican governors. Obama policies, embraced by these Democrats, were rejected even by left leaning electorates. Leading into the election, most pundits on the left were claiming that the Democrats would pick up a couple of governorships and yet they ended up losing a total of three, I think. That tells you as well that the left totally misread the mood of the electorate this time.

This could be a very significant election moving forward if the Republicans who gained office and power don't blow it - not a sure thing.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I do through my 401k and the phoney money digitized to prop this President up scares me to death.

I think maybe you've been listening to too many "buy gold" ads on talk radio.

 

[eohrnberger]

Re: The Mid-Terms Results Thread

If McConnell or somebody could take him aside and convince him to do so, yes he could be a powerful ally. Can anyone do it? Big question, no answer at this point. If he continues to just be a flame-thrower, he does more harm than good. I liken Cruz to Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton on the left - guys their party loves to see skewer the opposition because of the entertainment value but guys they'd never trust to lead them anywhere.

True and agreed. However, the flames that he throws seem to be far more factual based than Sharpton and Jackson, so I'd not equate them in that comparison.