Page 70 of 113 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... LastLast
Results 691 to 700 of 1129

Thread: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

  1. #691
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by mikhail View Post
    I wouldnt count on it.I would say the current republicans are gonna nominate someone who has no chance of winning.
    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?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  2. #692
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.
    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.

    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.
    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!
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #693
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    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.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  4. #694
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    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

  5. #695
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    I think you, like Obama, don't have a clue what the American people said yesterday.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    I heard no one claim they hated Obama, it is his policies that most people hate
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    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.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    It was a historic defeat and rejection of the Obama economic agenda based upon actual results.
    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.

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    Now I know you are inside the beltway and probably do very little research
    How about you discuss the issue instead of attacking my place of residence?

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative
    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.
    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 by Kandahar; 11-03-10 at 08:50 PM.
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  6. #696
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    dimensionally transcendental
    Last Seen
    08-15-11 @ 04:31 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    7,153

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    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?
    $2 billion dollar trip to India? When did this happen. Link to costs please?

  7. #697
    Sage

    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Last Seen
    05-16-15 @ 02:32 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,537

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by BamaBrat View Post
    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.
    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 [I]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

  8. #698
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,520

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale View Post
    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.
    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.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  9. #699
    Sage
    Conservative's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Houston, TX
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 08:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    67,293

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    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.



    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.
    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.

  10. #700
    User
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Last Seen
    11-04-10 @ 12:29 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    24

    Re: 2010 Midterm Results Discussion

    Quote Originally Posted by Conservative View Post
    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!
    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.

Page 70 of 113 FirstFirst ... 2060686970717280 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •