Did the Republicans win the midterms...

obvious Child said:

No. As polls show, the American public has the same contemptuous view of the Republicans as they have of the Democrats. Furthermore, the public has made it explicitly clear they want compromise, not the Republicans to enforce their agenda alone. Not to mention that the largest bloc of voters want more jobs, not deficit cutting.

The Republicans did not "win" this election, the Democrats gave it to them. The Republicans did not provide actual solutions as their Pledge is incredibly fuzzy math that when calculated is impossible to meet their goals. Furthermore, the Republicans don't even have a cohesive overall strategy, claiming Obamcare will cut Medicare and then turning around to want to cut medicare themselves.

In terms of numbers, yes the Republicans won. But in terms of ideology, public support and actual plans, they are just as lost, hopeless and flailing around without direction as the Democrats aside from blocking any bill that may help Obama despite the damage to America. Case in Point: Russian nuclear agreement.

Click to expand...

This is essentially true. Republicans won in numbers, but not necessarily in any sort of battle ideology.

repeter said:

Ahhh no. For a decisive win, the GOP would have had to take back Congress, both houses, not just the HR. They can basically do the same thing they could do before the election: they can block cloture, and make sure the federal government does nothing. The only difference now is they control half of Congress and are going to get blamed for whatever government does/doesn't do.

Click to expand...

Well, as you know that as long Barack Obama is president of the United States of America the Republican can't get blamed. Even-though things get worse and worse the president represents a shield for the president. If things get better the Republican are going to get credit for that. But, on the other hand if things get worse the president and his party are going to pay the price in 2012. Just think about when the Democrats took over congress back in 2006, things did get worse. My question is did they get blamed for that? Instead what happened it made things worse and worse for the Republicans and the ended up losing more seat in both houses.

greatar4 said:

Well, as you know that as long Barack Obama is president of the United States of America the Republican can't get blamed. Even-though things get worse and worse the president represents a shield for the president. If things get better the Republican are going to get credit for that. But, on the other hand if things get worse the president and his party are going to pay the price in 2012. Just think about when the Democrats took over congress back in 2006, things did get worse. My question is did they get blamed for that? Instead what happened it made things worse and worse for the Republicans and the ended up losing more seat in both houses.

Click to expand...

No. America is pissed at government in general. The moment they got a majority in the HR, the GOP painted a target on its back for the media and public to take aim at. They were really better off not holding a majority in anything because they really couldn't get blamed. Now, they destroyed the supermajority the Dem's had, and we can't blame the Dem's for not having balls enough to get what we wanted done. Now we can legitimately say the Republicans are stopping everything from happening.

You're also not taking into effect the Tea Party. I'd say in the next 6 years, we're going to see the Tea Party become an official political party, running third party candidates. When that happens, they're going to split the GOP's vote, and the Democrats are already goign to be weak so we're going to end up with a hung Congress. That will radically change the political environment, and I don't want to say how, because I'm not entirely sure.

Yes and no..

Yes they won more seats, so guess that is winning.. but they did not win enough seats to take power.

zimmer said:

Did the Republicans win the midterms... "decisively"?

Yes.
No.

.

Click to expand...

The republicans didnt 'win' decisively, the democrats 'lost' decisively. There was absolutely no steam, no impetus, no motivation for democrats to be enthused about or excited about. They lost the middle ground...the independent voters, and they have lost the productive working democrats. If there is not effective, decisive and positive impact on unemployment and the economy they will lose in 2012 as well.

repeter said:

No. America is pissed at government in general. The moment they got a majority in the HR, the GOP painted a target on its back for the media and public to take aim at. They were really better off not holding a majority in anything because they really couldn't get blamed. Now, they destroyed the supermajority the Dem's had, and we can't blame the Dem's for not having balls enough to get what we wanted done. Now we can legitimately say the Republicans are stopping everything from happening.

You're also not taking into effect the Tea Party. I'd say in the next 6 years, we're going to see the Tea Party become an official political party, running third party candidates. When that happens, they're going to split the GOP's vote, and the Democrats are already going to be weak so we're going to end up with a hung Congress. That will radically change the political environment, and I don't want to say how, because I'm not entirely sure.

Click to expand...

Well, I do believe that Barack Obama is going to have a tough time with the Republicans. Because the Republicans are going to try to push the same old ideas in the past. You probably will see more gridlock in congress and less compromise. But, I do believe that no matter what may happen the President is more likely to get blamed not the GOP. The Tea Party itself is not a movement that the Republican leaders really appreciate because what it does it takes down electable candidate and elect those who are unelectable.

In this election, I did not really see the impact of the Teat Party.

no here is my proof

gottmilk said:

no here is my proof
Runescape Pin Generator

Click to expand...

Moderator's Warning:

You have two minutes to explain this to me before you're banned for commercial spam.

Hey, Gottmilk you have just joined that forum and somehow you get yourself in trouble by spamming. It is a political forum what we have been discussing is about the 2010 election. Your post has nothing to do with the topic we've been discussing.

How can anyone vote no lol?

Although I'd like an other, because it was win/win either way. Still, a yes from me.

Nothing unusual about these mid-terms.

Kev316 said:

Nothing unusual about these mid-terms.

Click to expand...

Apart from my slight objection above, I don't see how you can see this as anything but a decisive victory, at least in terms of partisan politics, where people don't care about outcomes, just affiliations.

Hatuey said:

Show me what is even remotely ideologically different between 'Neo-Conservative Republicans' and 'Tea Partiers' and maybe you'd be somewhat right.

Click to expand...

Since the Tea Party is largely a loose organization of libertarians and right-wing populists, the ideas Neoconservatives can embrace are loosely those of limited government, God, and country. Neoconservatives and libertarians rarely see eye-to-eye, so the idea they can embrace loosely is pulling back government in comparison to what exists now. Neoconservatives and right-wing populists can see eye-to-eye on a number of social issues. Right wing populists are going to call for limited government, but are also more likely to embrace social notions, such as God in the nation, overt embrace of American Exceptionalism (though, like I said earlier, most groups in this country embrace American Exceptionalism, even if they do not see it), and an every-man impact on public policy. Now, many neoconservatives may see populists as untamed citizens, they can also see them as materially useful for curbing the effects of technocrats in government-which many neoconservatives came to see as having severe limitations in being able to implement public policy in a moral and successful way. This is why, for instance, Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote "The Professionalization of Reform", noting the problems that began to take shape in the 1960s. Nathan Glazer took a similar approach. That is also why Thomas Sowell recently published a book heavily criticizing his own intellectual class for being able to mold society in a better way than the average citizen could. Whether or not any of these men are actually neoconservatives is not quite relevant, because the ideas that molded neoconservatism in domestic policy took great heed in those nuggets of what they saw as golden truths. Thus, Neoconservatism is largely an intellectual's movement, further, typically an intellectual already embedded in the political system (though, this does not mean they are the ones in the driver's seat). The Tea Party prides itself as an outsider's club. Neoconservatives had a similar identity, but many of them were academics who had in one form or another already contributed towards the execution and measurement of public policy implementation.

Decisively? I don't know. Overall? I'd say so.

repeter said:

Ahhh no. For a decisive win, the GOP would have had to take back Congress, both houses, not just the HR.

Click to expand...

For a decisive win, the GOP would actually have to have a cohesive plan. When you are taking actions that directly hurt America purely because you don't want Obama getting political points with the voters, you are lost.

Perfect response. Totally despicable where conservatives and their unwitting minions are concerned. Funny thing is, I heard a poll today that said Bill Clinton is 3ed most popular president of the last 50 presidents, behind Kennedy and Reagan. They tried to destroy Kennedy at the time and as for Clinton - well, we all know what happened there.

When you let fools and dropouts teach you history, science, religion and civics, I guess you can't expect much more.

I guess I'm looking at the history of the first mid-terms following the election of the president during a time of crisis. I wasn't speaking to the, um, unusual (but not unprecedented), tone politics has taken over the past 40 years or so.

I agree with you, though. The problem with this election is that it had NOTHING to do with the country and everything to do with utter selfishness and greed - and a 24 hour media wing with millionaires that create no jobs telling hard working folk to support tax cuts for millionaires that create no jobs. There is also the elephant in the room, but that's a different story. Couple of elephants, I think.

Top 10 Historic Midterm Elections | History & Archaeology | Smithsonian Magazine