• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

2010 Midterm Results Discussion

Folks are so busy arguing over who did what first, whos fault this and that problem is...that nothing gets fixed. Our problems dont lay at the Republican's feet, they don't lay at the Democrat's feet, and they certainly don't lay at President Obama's feet... It's everyones fault. It is our own greed, our selfishness, and our inability to work together to solve a problem that has landed us in this mess. The only way any of it is ever going to get fixed is if we all work together, democrats and republicans and independents.

I am definitely not President Obama's biggest fan, but I will say one thing for him. HE DID SOMETHING. Yes, he also did his fair share of laying blame and hiding behind that; but he did SOMETHING to try and fix what he saw as the problems we face. The people elected him to do what he stated he wanted to do as he was running for office, and that is what he did. You can pretty much go down the list of his campaign promises and see that he has worked to fulfill at least partially almost every one of them...is that not why we elect folks????? We get mad at politicians for not doing what we elected them to do, but now we are mad at President Obama for trying to do exactly what he said that he would do. And the fact that republicans dont like Obama really has little to do with what color he is, and a lot to do with the fact that he has a D next to his name. Wouldn't matter if he were a blond haired, blue eyed, high powered white executive type, so long as he is a democrat, republicans wont like him and wont support him. Wow, no wonder we have issues.

The only thing this election says to me is this... Many Americans are still out of work and struggling, and right or wrong they feel that it is Obama's fault, so they voted for the other guys. I think all we got from this election is more of the same. It was exciting to watch, but unfortunately I don't really expect to gain anything. Republicans will still be blaming democrats and democrats blaming republicans ... but I certainly hope I am wrong. I hope that we as a country and our leaders have had enough bickering and pandering and decide that it is time to actually come together and do something to fix the issues our country and our people face. But I am not holding my breath.
 
I get that. I totally realize that people do not like the direction things are going in and that is why they voted for the Republicans. All I am saying is this. The people elected him to do what he said he wanted to do, he did what he said he was going to do (some areas, some areas not, some still to come im sure)...and now folks are mad. We do it all the time. We vote for one side, wait we dont like them, we vote for the other side, wait we dont like them. I am just saying its frustrating to want to see actual things done that are good for our country as a whole, and getting the same ole BS after every election, thats all.
 
I'm actually pretty happy with the way things turned out. Each party has control of one house of congress now, so hopefully we'll see some actual bi-partisan politics. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up though.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm actually pretty happy with the way things turned out. Each party has control of one house of congress now, so hopefully we'll see some actual bi-partisan politics. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up though.
Click to expand...

I would love to see that happen. Actual bi-partisan politics. Unfortunately, if our history is any indication, I really don't see that happening.
 
molten_dragon said:
I'm actually pretty happy with the way things turned out. Each party has control of one house of congress now, so hopefully we'll see some actual bi-partisan politics. Maybe I shouldn't get my hopes up though.
Click to expand...

I voted Buck (R) for senate and Markey (D) for house, and what do you know, both lost! It split the other way in colo though, with bennet (D) for senate and Gardner (R) for the house, which I was at least happy about. Its always good to have a mixture of views.
 
Kandahar said:
The Democrats are probably poised to lose more Senate seats in 2012...but not because of anything that happened last night, or because I think the economy is still going to be bad, or because I think that Obama is still going to have approval ratings in the mid-40s, or any other such nonsense. Two years is a long time in politics or economics. It's impossible to predict what the economy will be like in 2012, or what the political scene will be like in 2012.

However, the Democrats probably WILL lose more Senate seats, purely for structural reasons that have nothing to do with policy, ideology, or the state of the nation. This class of senators was last elected in 2006...a Democratic wave year. As a result, Democrats are defending 23 seats and the Republicans are defending only 10. As a result, the Republicans will have more pickup opportunities. Furthermore, since it's a presidential election year, Democrats are probably more likely to win in blue states and Republicans are more likely to win in red states...whereas that trend is less pronounced in midterms. Unfortunately for the Dems, they are defending three seats in solid red states (ND, NE, MT) whereas the Republicans are defending only two in solid blue states (ME, MA). Additionally, ALL of the swing states with a senatorial election in 2012 have Democratic incumbents (except for Nevada).

This indicates to me that Democrats would lose Senate seats in a NEUTRAL political environment. In order to not lose any seats in 2012, they're probably going to need another big wave year like 2006.
Click to expand...

Obama's out in 2012. Unless we went through a golden age, unprecedented in American history, he's gone and even then, he's going to have a helluva time hanging on.

In his speech today, he refused to admit that his Socialist agenda has been rejected by the American people. He still thinks we just don't understand what he's trying to do. As long as he has that attitude, this will be his only term as president.
 
I'm glad to see that Charlie Melancon's lie'n ass went down, hard. With a little luck, this is the end of his political career.

I was disappointed to see Joe Cao go down, but not at all surprised, since La 2 is a Section 5 district and Richmond is black. The only reason Cao got elected, to begin with, was because most of the residents from the district were scattered across the south and didn't get to vote.
 
apdst said:
Obama's out in 2012. Unless we went through a golden age, unprecedented in American history, he's gone and even then, he's going to have a helluva time hanging on.
Click to expand...

:roll:

apdst said:
In his speech today, he refused to admit that his Socialist agenda has been rejected by the American people. He still thinks we just don't understand what he's trying to do. As long as he has that attitude, this will be his only term as president.
Click to expand...

:yawn:
 
apdst said:
Obama's out in 2012. Unless we went through a golden age, unprecedented in American history, he's gone and even then, he's going to have a helluva time hanging on.

In his speech today, he refused to admit that his Socialist agenda has been rejected by the American people. He still thinks we just don't understand what he's trying to do. As long as he has that attitude, this will be his only term as president.
Click to expand...

Maybe he along with his 3000 entourage and 40 aircraft going to India will stay there although India doesn't appear to be interested in the Obama style economics
 
apdst said:
Obama's out in 2012. Unless we went through a golden age, unprecedented in American history, he's gone and even then, he's going to have a helluva time hanging on.

In his speech today, he refused to admit that his Socialist agenda has been rejected by the American people. He still thinks we just don't understand what he's trying to do. As long as he has that attitude, this will be his only term as president.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt count on it.I would say the current republicans are gonna nominate someone who has no chance of winning.
 
Kandahar said:
:roll:

:yawn:
Click to expand...

Kandahar, looks to me like you are in the only city in the country that isn't affected by the Obama economic policy, D.C. thus out of touch with reality. Apdst got it right, Obama still doesn't get it and probably never will. He either changes or is a one term President.
 
mikhail said:
I wouldnt count on it.I would say the current republicans are gonna nominate someone who has no chance of winning.
Click to expand...

They could nominate anyone to run against the Obama record and win but regardless anyone they run has more experience than Obama has even after 2 years in office. He has played a lot of golf and gone on a lot of vacations however. Why is he taking 3000 people in 40 aircraft to India and taking over the entire Taj Mahal hotel of 576 rooms. You are probably right the Republicans probably cannot come up with someone who has as much experience taking vacations.
 
Conservative said:
Kandahar, looks to me like you are in the only city in the country that isn't affected by the Obama economic policy, D.C. thus out of touch with reality.
Click to expand...

Actually I just posted a fairly non-partisan, objective read of the 2012 Senate landscape, based purely on structural factors, without even pretending I could predict the mood of the electorate in 2012. Apdst responded with the latest infantile talking points he heard from Glenn Beck.

Conservative said:
Apdst got it right, Obama still doesn't get it and probably never will. He either changes or is a one term President.
Click to expand...

Sure, because we all know that no president has ever recovered from a 45% approval rating, and no recession has ever ended. That would just be unthinkable. :roll:

My advice to Republicans today would be the same advice I had for Democrats in 2008: Don't think that this is a permanent change, or you will become complacent. The Democrats (and some Republicans) who were proclaiming a generational realignment and/or the death of the GOP in 2006/2008 were, of course, being ridiculous. The Republicans who today are proclaiming that the American people hate Obama and will never reelect him are just as ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
Actually I just posted a fairly non-partisan, objective read of the 2012 Senate landscape, based purely on structural factors. Apdst responded with the latest infantile talking points he heard from Glenn Beck.



Sure, because we all know that no president has ever recovered from a 45% approval rating, and no recession has ever ended. That would just be unthinkable. :roll:

My advice would be the same advice I had for Democrats in 2008: Don't read too much into it. The Democrats (and some Republicans) who were proclaiming the Death of the GOP in 2006/2008 were, of course, being ridiculous. The Republicans who today are proclaiming that the American people hate Obama and will never reelect him are just as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I think you, like Obama, don't have a clue what the American people said yesterday. I heard no one claim they hated Obama, it is his policies that most people hate and it doesn't do the President any good when the people are told that they are just impatient and really don't understand the good things "I" have done for them. That is liberal arrogance and someone out of touch with reality. It was a historic defeat and rejection of the Obama economic agenda based upon actual results. Now I know you are inside the beltway and probably do very little research but the American people get it, Obama passed the stimulus plan in February 2009, the recession ended in June 2009 according to NBER and since that time we have 4 million more unemployed, on a month to month basis unemployment is higher this year than last year, and we have 3 trillion added to the debt. That is what people outside the beltway see. Maybe those inside should open their eyes.
 
mikhail said:
I wouldnt count on it.I would say the current republicans are gonna nominate someone who has no chance of winning.
Click to expand...

My dog could beat Obama in 2012. The people are going to vote for whomever isn't Obama.

Whether it's a Republican that kicks his ass out, or Hillary, he's gone. Period.

Any president that is actually stupid enough to go on a $2 billion trip to India, for absolutely no worthwhile reason, right after his party members got their asses handed to them, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected for a second term.

What's his platform going to be? Fiscal responsibility? :rofl
 
Kandahar said:
Actually I just posted a fairly non-partisan, objective read of the 2012 Senate landscape, based purely on structural factors, without even pretending I could predict the mood of the electorate in 2012. Apdst responded with the latest infantile talking points he heard from Glenn Beck.
Click to expand...

You must not have a job, nor pay taxes, if you think that you made a non-partisan and objective comment about Obama's chances in 2012.



Sure, because we all know that no president has ever recovered from a 45% approval rating, and no recession has ever ended. That would just be unthinkable. :roll:

My advice to Republicans today would be the same advice I had for Democrats in 2008: Don't think that this is a permanent change, or you will become complacent. The Democrats (and some Republicans) who were proclaiming a generational realignment and/or the death of the GOP in 2006/2008 were, of course, being ridiculous. The Republicans who today are proclaiming that the American people hate Obama and will never reelect him are just as ridiculous.
Click to expand...

It may not be a permanent change for the Republicans, but it's damn sure a permanent change for the Liberals.

Yesterday's election made me fall in love with The United States all over again. It's a great day, when Liberalism gets smacked down the way it did yesterday!
 
Remember, Democrats want to take all of your money and give it to unemployed poor people. Republicans want to make sure you have more money in your pocket so you can give it to Halliburton. And then they will push policy that will ensure that you spend your whole life in debt and so you must give it to Halliburton to survive.

How is this an improvement?

If Republicans actually did the things they talk about, and reduced government power and spending, that would be great. But instead they turn the reins over to corporate interests whose sole purpose is profit, not prosperity.

I am, of course, speaking about the leadership of these parties, not the individual members. The people we vote into and out of office.

The reason Republican leaders don't want to subsidize health care is so that insurance companies (for whom many of these politicians worked for before entering office, and still continue to receive stipends) can continue to dictate the finances of the medical profession and continue to reap an exorbitant profit.

Even if they're a bit misguided, at least Democratic leaders haven't literally sold their allegiance to businessmen whose only goal is to increase their own wealth. At least not as much as Republicans have.
 
Paschendale said:
Remember, Democrats want to take all of your money and give it to unemployed poor people. Republicans want to make sure you have more money in your pocket so you can give it to Halliburton. And then they will push policy that will ensure that you spend your whole life in debt and so you must give it to Halliburton to survive.

How is this an improvement?

If Republicans actually did the things they talk about, and reduced government power and spending, that would be great. But instead they turn the reins over to corporate interests whose sole purpose is profit, not prosperity.

I am, of course, speaking about the leadership of these parties, not the individual members. The people we vote into and out of office.

The reason Republican leaders don't want to subsidize health care is so that insurance companies (for whom many of these politicians worked for before entering office, and still continue to receive stipends) can continue to dictate the finances of the medical profession and continue to reap an exorbitant profit.

Even if they're a bit misguided, at least Democratic leaders haven't literally sold their allegiance to businessmen whose only goal is to increase their own wealth. At least not as much as Republicans have.
Click to expand...

Historic defeat last night for the Obama agenda. You need to get out of D.C. more and see what is going on in the rest of the country. The American people seem to disagree with your statement and the results make you look foolish. this isn't going to help much either, What deficit?

American Thinker Blog: Obama India trip to cost taxpayers $200 million a day
 
Conservative said:
I think you, like Obama, don't have a clue what the American people said yesterday.
Click to expand...

I think the American people (at least the ones who turned out) said that they wanted to elect some Republican congressmen rather than Democratic congressmen.

Conservative said:
I heard no one claim they hated Obama, it is his policies that most people hate
Click to expand...

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Partisans have a remarkable capability to ascribe their own political views to "most people" or "the voters." There's not much evidence at all that most people hate Obama's policies. His approval rating is around 45%, which isn't great but not terrible. In fact, it's about what George Bush's approval rating was when he won reelection in 2004.

I typically use Ockham's Razor here, because the simplest explanation makes more sense than all the partisan theories: The economy sucks, voters are pissed off, so they're going to vote for the out party. Not because they've suddenly discovered the joys of conservatism and have suddenly come to despise Obama's policies.

Conservative said:
and it doesn't do the President any good when the people are told that they are just impatient and really don't understand the good things "I" have done for them.
Click to expand...

I agree. Obama shouldn't say that (if he did). It doesn't change the fact that, generally speaking, people are going to have a favorable view of him when the economy is good, and an unfavorable view of him when the economy is bad.

Conservative said:
It was a historic defeat and rejection of the Obama economic agenda based upon actual results.
Click to expand...

Yes, every election the partisan idiots come out and shriek about how it was a historic defeat and rejection of something or other. And then the next election comes along, and the partisan idiots on the other side shriek about how it was a historic vindication of something or other. Repeat ad infinitum. :roll:

Conservative said:
Now I know you are inside the beltway and probably do very little research
Click to expand...

How about you discuss the issue instead of attacking my place of residence?

Conservative said:
but the American people get it, Obama passed the stimulus plan in February 2009, the recession ended in June 2009 according to NBER and since that time we have 4 million more unemployed, on a month to month basis unemployment is higher this year than last year, and we have 3 trillion added to the debt. That is what people outside the beltway see. Maybe those inside should open their eyes.
Click to expand...

I'm well aware that the Democrats lost this election because the economy is bad. That tends to be the defining matter in most elections, unless there's some other major crisis at hand. The Democrats lost because the economy was bad; if the economy had been better, they probably would not have lost as badly.

Want to predict the winner in a given congressional election? It's pretty simple:
1. The party defending more seats is probably going to lose more seats.
2. If the economy sucks, the incumbent party will be blamed. If the economy is booming, the incumbent party will be rewarded.
3. If there are other major immediate crises (war, political scandals, etc) those can play a role as well...typically against the incumbent party.
4. If the president is popular, his party will probably do better than expected. If the president is unpopular, his party will probably do worse than expected.

It's that simple. It doesn't really require lots of grand political theories about the voters rejecting health care reform (as if they even understood it), or cap and trade, or gays in the military, or whatever else happens to be pissing YOU off. Most voters are concerned about the economy. Period. Anything else you hear on TV is typically from gasbags who need to talk about something to fill the airwaves, or from partisans who are pushing their own agenda.

The broad strokes of politics are pretty simple though.
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
My dog could beat Obama in 2012. The people are going to vote for whomever isn't Obama.

Whether it's a Republican that kicks his ass out, or Hillary, he's gone. Period.

Any president that is actually stupid enough to go on a $2 billion trip to India, for absolutely no worthwhile reason, right after his party members got their asses handed to them, doesn't have a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected for a second term.

What's his platform going to be? Fiscal responsibility? :rofl
Click to expand...

$2 billion dollar trip to India? When did this happen. Link to costs please?
 
BamaBrat said:
I get that. I totally realize that people do not like the direction things are going in and that is why they voted for the Republicans. All I am saying is this. The people elected him to do what he said he wanted to do, he did what he said he was going to do (some areas, some areas not, some still to come im sure)...and now folks are mad. We do it all the time. We vote for one side, wait we dont like them, we vote for the other side, wait we dont like them. I am just saying its frustrating to want to see actual things done that are good for our country as a whole, and getting the same ole BS after every election, thats all.
Click to expand...

thanks, but he lost touch with all those people he promised

he went a whole lot farther than they thought he would, and he did it in open defiance of his full awareness that they fervently did not want him to

indeed, mere hours before his CRAM he was all prepared to DEEM the damn thing

then he viciously attacked his own base for bellyaching, even suggested they be drug tested

White House unloads anger over criticism from 'professional left

he's simply completely incompetent

he did it today at his 1pm presser

he refused to take responsibility for his lamentable lack of leadership, prompting the second questioner (msnbc's savannah guthrie) to ask---you blame the voters' frustration, you indicate it's not you, could it be you're still not getting it?

i made the decisions that had to be made in an emergency, he answered, all that stuff coming at folks so fast and furious so that it felt [his emphasis] as if govt was becoming too instrusive, it's understandable people would come to see these actions as evidence of an agenda instead of emergency measures forced on us, we knew the danger, it could look like an overreach, we were in such a hurry to get things done we didn't change how[/] they got done

asked by abc's jake tapper how it feels to be in the spot he finds himself, obama offered a very odd opus---it feels bad, all these great public servants gone, i question my role, they've been gracious, they've expressed no regrets, they might just be doing that to make me feel better which also shows their great character...

and then---there's an inherent danger in being in the white house, in the bubble, no one had any trouble with my leadership when i was running around iowa, my story was theirs, in the white house it's hard not to seem removed, a lot of hours, a lot of work, but i need to make time to get outta here, travel around the country, give people confidence i'm listening, no one films me reading those letters each nite, reagan and clinton were considered great communicators and they were in the same position i'm in, every president needs to go thru this, tho not the shellacking...

chris matthews came on immediately afterward on msnbc---he's talking to DAVID BROOKS (nytimes), chrissy commented, those arguments about emergency action being misread as agenda are straight outta brooks' columns, he doesn't mention how rahm saw those same emergencies as "opportunities..."

his reference to the 1099's, chrissy continued, are also straight outta brooks, all in all it's a superficial diagnosis (ie, obama still doesn't really get it), he thinks that talking to the american people is reading the ny times

chrissy failed to note that obama's getting outta the white house and traveling the country, the campaign made clear, meant going to DELAWARE, CHICAGO, PHILLY and VERMONT

ie, he can't SET FOOT in florida, ohio, virginia, michigan, wisconsin, missouri or anywhere in the south or west except for the coast

he simply doesn't get it, he just has no clue how to BE a president of the american people, especially in difficult times

it's wall to wall, it's his every move

you'll see---ALL the professional left is commenting

take care, stay up
 
Paschendale said:
Remember, Democrats want to take all of your money and give it to unemployed poor people. Republicans want to make sure you have more money in your pocket so you can give it to Halliburton. And then they will push policy that will ensure that you spend your whole life in debt and so you must give it to Halliburton to survive.

How is this an improvement?

If Republicans actually did the things they talk about, and reduced government power and spending, that would be great. But instead they turn the reins over to corporate interests whose sole purpose is profit, not prosperity.

I am, of course, speaking about the leadership of these parties, not the individual members. The people we vote into and out of office.

The reason Republican leaders don't want to subsidize health care is so that insurance companies (for whom many of these politicians worked for before entering office, and still continue to receive stipends) can continue to dictate the finances of the medical profession and continue to reap an exorbitant profit.

Even if they're a bit misguided, at least Democratic leaders haven't literally sold their allegiance to businessmen whose only goal is to increase their own wealth. At least not as much as Republicans have.
Click to expand...

At least the folks at Halliburton have jobs. Better they get my money, than a buncha dead beat mother****ers who are too lazy to get off the porch and go to work.

It's alot easier to punk Halliburton out of their money, than it is to punk the government out of it's money. The IRS is the SA of the Democrat party.

Coporate interests are, at least, in the business to make money. The government is only in the business to take money.

If I'm poor, I can't spend money on the products that those corporations produce, however, the government see's it as a good thing, if I'm poor.
 
Kandahar said:
I think the American people (at least the ones who turned out) said that they wanted to elect some Republican congressmen rather than Democratic congressmen.



This is exactly what I'm talking about. Partisans have a remarkable capable to ascribe their own political views to "most people" or "the voters." There's not much evidence at all that most people hate Obama's policies. His approval rating is around 45%, which isn't great but not terrible. In fact, it's about what George Bush's approval rating was when he won reelection in 2004.

I typically use Ockham's Razor here, because the simplest explanation makes more sense than all the partisan theories: The economy sucks, voters are pissed off, so they're going to vote for the out party. Not because they've suddenly discovered the joys of conservatism and have suddenly come to despise Obama's policies.



I agree. Obama shouldn't say that (if he did). It doesn't change the fact that, generally speaking, people are going to have a favorable view of him when the economy is good, and an unfavorable view of him when the economy is bad.



Yes, every election the partisan idiots come out and shriek about how it was a historic defeat and rejection of something or other. And then the next election comes along, and the partisan idiots on the other side shriek about how it was a historic vindication of something or other. Repeat ad infinitum. :roll:



How about you discuss the issue instead of attacking my place of residence, you Texan hillbilly? ;)



I'm well aware that the Democrats lost this election because the economy is bad. That tends to be the defining matter in most elections, unless there's some other major crisis at hand. The Democrats lost because the economy was bad; if the economy had been better, they probably would not have lost as badly.
Click to expand...

Please give me the last election where one party took 65 House seats as that is what makes it historic.

I only attack your city of residence because you live in a recession proof area of the country and appear to be out of touch with reality. You could learn a thing or two from us Hillbillies in TX.
 
Conservative said:
Way to go, divert back to Bush and ignore that Obama has put Bush spending on steroids adding 3 trillion to the debt. You must be so proud!
Click to expand...

The first thing is that there is a difference between the individual and the economy. If there wasn’t, economics would be accountancy.

If an individual is living beyond his means, then yes, cut back on spending. But a country is not an individual. An individual’s income comes from an external source (an employer, customers or the dole) but a country’s income comes from itself mainly. Because of this, when a country cuts spending, it ends up cutting its own income.

This might sound like a contradiction, but it can be explained by a simple bit of economics called the multiplier.

In a normal functioning economy, when people have money they spend it. The people they give it to when they spend, also spend it, and so on. The money is shunted on throughout the economy.

When you cut, the opposite occurs. The more we cut, the more the economy will shrink because there is in tandem with the cuts a credit crunch — the banks are bust and interest rates are going up, not down.

So Obama has to spend More not less it's economics.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom