• 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

Last act of the night, adding Reid to the win column.

Good night folks.
 
We'll have to see I guess.

I think people realize that its unlikely that you'll have health care reform removed this go round, or the Bush Tax cuts extended as a whole. However, I think people want these republicans to push for that and fight for that rather than go in and immediately give up and "compromise" on those things. Those are some fundamental things that were pushed by Republicans in this election and I can sure as hell tell you that most people voting for them weren't voting for them to go in and immediately compromise on those things and lose a spine with it. I'd rather see them try to repeal the health care law, and fail because of Obama vetoing it or the Senate stopping it, then I would to see them "compromise" and keep it in place with a few minor tweaks. If they don't push this issue then they're likely not getting my support in 2012 like they did in 2010, and I dare say there are many people who voted for them that feel that way. If they "compromise" on the things that were the MAIN reason they were voted in then they're no better than those we voted out.

To each his own, I guess.

I think if the Republicans spend the next two years tilting at windmills trying to repeal health care, instead of doing useful things where they can actually impact policy (e.g. education, trade, payroll taxes), they'll be tossed right back out again.
 
Gotta say, the Tea Party candidates that frankly SHOULD'VE been focused on by the media more than Angle and O'Donnell and who I liked far, far more are the ones that actually seemed to do well. Paul, Rubio, Johnson, those are the Tea Partiers that I was most interested in and are great representations...but then, they didn't make as stupid of comments to focus on and make for great ratings grabs.
 
House:

Republicans - 217
Democrats - 146

Good night everyone... See you in the trenches tomorrow.

Almost forgot... Thanks for the relative civility tonight everyone. It was refreshing and very enjoyable.
 
To each his own, I guess.

I think if the Republicans spend the next two years tilting at windmills trying to repeal health care, instead of doing useful things where they can actually impact policy (e.g. education, trade, payroll taxes), they'll be tossed right back out again.

Oh, I absolutely think they need to take steps on things they can find a common ground on....COMMON ground, ground where BOTH sides are legitimately compromising, REAL compromise, with both sides getting legitimate things they want and the balance is rather down the middle.

I just don't think they need to compromise on any issues where by compromising they're going back on the values and principles that were the focus of getting them elected.

Work together where legitimate working TOGETHER can be done, don't go out of your way to compromise on things where you'd be compromising on your principles, and while you go about all this take action "tilting at windmills" that your voters want you to do even if its not likely to actually work in the end.

Compromise on education? Sure. Compromise on another stimulus? No. Compromise on energy policy, REAL compromise? Sure. Compromise on the Obama health care plan? No.

The Dems won a majority in 2006 mostly on the back of fiscally conservative or moderate individuals and socially moderate individuals who were anti-war...and ignored that fact and acted as if it was a mandate to push a left wing agenda across the board. They got thrown out.

The republicans didn't win this by going moderate. They won this by going against health care, against raising taxes, against spending and stimulus, for fiscal responsability, for reducing the size of government, for reducing the welfare state, for loosening restrictions on the private sector. Like the democrats, if they diagnosis this incorrectly and act in a way counter to how they were elected they're going to get thrown out. They were NOT elected to compromise in such a way that Obama can do what he and the democrats want done, just "not as much" like the status quo for what "compromise" has been as of late.
 
Last edited:
Michael Bennett is still clinging to a very narrow lead in Colorado. Of all the close races, this is probably the one where I most hope the Democrat wins. Michael Bennett is a great leader, and Ken Buck is a complete moron.
 
Buck is now leading according to the data I'm seeing.

And Bennett is a complete moron.
 
We had some possible mixed results in our state. North Dakota, unlike most states in the country, is doing completely fantastic. So much so, that I can laugh at any state that typically makes fun of us for being, I don't know..backwards hicks or something (I'm looking at you, California-who whined about this revelation later). We have a surplus, we have a strong economy, a strong energy sector, and once again, we are doing great. Some, even a small amount, does have to do with our mixed representation. In state, we have a strong Republican, strictly-budget-minded Republican base (perhaps to their own detriment) while putting Democrats out in Washington. Now, Dorgan dropped out, after a really bad poll made him think twice about running to keep his Senate seat, and our Governor stepped up. North Dakotans generally like what Hoeven has done in the state-liberals and conservatives alike. However, what concerns me is Berg's success. Pomeroy was apart of our power base of influence that was able to put the cherry on top of our already good situation. Influence, moderation, and long-standing power is what Pomeroy had. In a rush to get rid of Democrats, I think we have forgotten what helped make our state strong, and furthermore, future political controversy. Berg might run up against the strong agriculture lobby. In North Dakota, we are both (trust me, this actually exists) socialist at the same time as very conservative. The agriculture lobby, which even though may have exaggerations, has served us well, and is also a *strong* *strong* presence in our state. Ever since getting screwed over by the railroads, this populist uprising against the railroads has existed. Berg doesn't necessarily mesh well with this political presence in our state. Also, another ridiculous thing was the "votes with Pelosi" such and such percentages. Well, consider the amount of legislation that comes out day after day. It is not hard to vote with so-and-so no matter their party, about 50% of the time. Match that with a party, and you have easily 70%. This isn't surprising, but of course, it was capitalized on.

Temporary political passions may make North Dakotans rethink their positions in a few years. We are a very complicated state, and much of the time, it is incredibly difficult for us to really feel as if the nation's worries are our own.
 
CNN is showing off their stupid high-tech toys again.

Yeah, a big reason why I switched to Fox News. What can I say, I'm a God damned Luddite.
 
Election Update: Democrat Harry Reid wins U.S. Senate race in Nevada.
 
Reid and Pelosi keeping their seats makes 2012 much easier all across the country for conservatives.
 

people that vote for things they know their constituents don't want don't deserve to retain office.

But to openly state you will vote for something regardless of what the people want? That is an idiot. Refreshing for a politician, but idiotic nevertheless.
 
Election Update: Democrat Harry Reid wins U.S. Senate race in Nevada.

God, I hate Harry Reid...but I've never been happier for someone I hate to win. It's such a smack in the face to those who wanted this race to be a symbolic victory. Seriously, I was hoping that Dems would hold the Senate, but he would lose...but after the way things went tonight, I'm so glad he held.

Now, I hope Dems will replace him as leader of the Senate. I also hope that the Republicans in charge of the House will choose someone else other than Boehner for Speaker. Because he's a bigger douche than Reid.
 
So it's official the Dems keep the Senate majority. I was holding out hope they would lose it but no dice. Now I'm certain nothing is going to get done by this Congress.
 
people that vote for things they know their constituents don't want don't deserve to retain office.

So in other words, you want a candidate who will blatantly pander for votes instead of doing what he thinks is right.

ARealConservative said:
But to openly state you will vote for something regardless of what the people want? That is an idiot. Refreshing for a politician, but idiotic nevertheless.

No. Maybe a bit impolitic, but not idiotic. Michael Bennett is a very smart guy, and seems to be one of the few senators of either party who is truly interested in good governance.

Looks like Ken Buck is going to win, which is a shame.
 
I'm calling it for Buck. 38k lead with 75% reporting.
 
people that vote for things they know their constituents don't want don't deserve to retain office.

But to openly state you will vote for something regardless of what the people want? That is an idiot. Refreshing for a politician, but idiotic nevertheless.

So, since 80% of Americans are for the overturn of DADT, you think those who vote against it should be thrown out of office?
 
Reid and Pelosi keeping their seats makes 2012 much easier all across the country for conservatives.

"We tried, but the ________, _________, _________ coalition is keeping us from ______________" is indeed an attractive message, even if it is thought as an alternative message to the desired one.
 
So, since 80% of Americans are for the overturn of DADT, you think those who vote against it should be thrown out of office?

DADT is stupid, but I question that 80% of the people even understand the ramifications.

His constituents didn't want Obamacare and they wanted to audit the fed, with a real audit, not the wimpy Bernie Sanders version.

giood riddance to bad rubbish.
 
DADT is stupid, but I question that 80% of the people even understand the ramifications.

His constituents didn't want Obamacare and they wanted to audit the fed, with a real audit, not the wimpy Bernie Sanders version.

giood riddance to bad rubbish.

I see. So Bennett is an idiot not because you actually know anything at all about him, but merely because you don't like his votes on a couple issues. For some reason, I thought you had something useful to say instead of just partisan garbage. I'll not make that mistake again. :roll:

Looks like Ken Buck is gonna win Colorado. Too bad; this is the best example in the country tonight of the superior leader losing to an inferior leader.
 
I see. So Bennett is an idiot not because you actually know anything at all about him, but merely because you don't like his votes on a couple issues. For some reason, I thought you had something useful to say instead of just partisan garbage. I'll not make that mistake again. :roll:

Looks like Ken Buck is gonna win Colorado. Too bad; this is the best example in the country tonight of the superior leader losing to an inferior leader.

I love eating sour grapes.

the partisan idiot lost. deal with it.
 
So, since 80% of Americans are for the overturn of DADT, you think those who vote against it should be thrown out of office?

Let me also add, this isn't about what American's want.

This is a republic. You do what your constituents want. A senator in Colorado is supposed to a voice of people in Colorado, not a voice of elitist egomaniacs in DC, and certainly not a voice to protect bankers and banking interests.
 
Back
Top Bottom