--The media has made quite a big deal of The Tea Party but how did they really do in the last election? Not well. They won just over a third of their races and lost just under two thirds. Essentially, The Tea Party rescued the GOP from oblivion. Had we not seen this social movement, the Democrats would've lost far less seats. Now comes the fun part....governing!
At some point next year, Congress is going to have to vote on raising the debt limit. Normally, this is a pro forma vote and mostly everyone goes along with it. But with Tea Party members in both houses, they are going to have to vote for this. Will they? Would anyone of you?
If they do, they become the governing hypocrites that they foamed at the mouth about for the last year and a half. If they don't, the United States might lose it's AAA credit rating. It's not easy being in charge and these folks are about to find out just how much fun it is making the tough choices.
--Apparently, money does NOT buy everything. Whitman and Fiorina poured millions into their campaigns and lost. The Right spent millions on Sharon Angle. They all lost. But why? Well, California is very blue so you can chalk up those losses to that. In the case of Angle, she was a bad candidate. Each of these losses basically torpedo the notion that money buys elections. And that Americans were fed up with the leftist agenda. Reid won by a much wider margin than most predicted and he was one of the "three heads of doom." Speaking of which....
--I'm very happy that Nancy Pelosi will be out of the limelight. The rage and mouth foaming that went on in regards to her was ridiculous. She had become, in they eyes of many, the fictional character that was created by the Right. Unlike the anger that was directed at George Bush (from parents whose children DIED because of his policies), the anger towards Ms. Pelosi was so irrational it was laughable. "That bitch in the House" as my uncle Bill put it to me never hurt anyone or killed anyone. She wasn't a perfect person (no one is) but she was not a demon.
--VERY happy to see the number of openly gay candidates elected this year. It was, in fact, a record. 164 openly gay candidates across the country won their elections including Jim Gray, the new mayor of Lexington, Kentucky. Kentucky! He also is quite conservative fiscally which gives me hope that the GOP will realize that they can expand their base if they ignore the anti gay crowd. I think I can safely say that this battle is, for all intents and purposes, over. We are still going to have bias some bias to deal with (some of it probably violent) but it's more of a mop up job now.
--A correction....I've been informed by one of my friends who is an election judge here in MN that my totals for the MN-03 race are way off. The same software glitch that added more votes to the governor race added more to the MN-03 race. The problem was in Hennepin County. It was corrected for the governor's race but hadn't been at the time I put up my post cheering voter turnout in my district. The actual numbers for that race are: Paulsen 161, 172, Meffert 100, 240. It's actually lower than in 2006 which was expected.
26 comments:
Pretty good result IMO. R's got the house, which should block any further economic stupidity. At the same time, their win wasn't so outlandish that they could believe that the voting results were a vote for them as opposed to a vote against the D's.
Bet the "loss of control (tm)" burns a little, huh Mark?
I think Haplo hit the nail on the head with the reason why so many people voted for Republicans. It's not that they really like Republicans (polls consistently showed that Republicans were held in lower esteem than Democrats), but they expect that by giving them some responsibility they'll step up to the plate.
The interesting thing about Angle: exit polls found that like 13% of the voters thought that she wasn't conservative enough, even though she thought paying doctors with chickens was a good idea. I think this belies the "mama grizzly" scenario that Palin has been trying to sell.
The old white males who constitute the base of the Republican Party do not like women with power. That may be why they like Palin so much -- they think she's cute and dumb and can be controlled (like Bush, I guess). That was essentially what Bachmann told people before she was first elected: "I always do what my husband tells me because that's what it says in the bible." Similarly, Nikki Haley did not win by all that much in a very conservative state.
I've had discussions with conservative women who say that women simply should not be in office because "they're too emotional."
I don't believe that. Women do seem to be prone to different emotions than men, but men are quite often possessed by rage, anger, lust, pride, jealousy, arrogance, vengefulness and a whole host of emotions that should disqualify them.
And then there are the people who don't like Obama because he doesn't show enough emotion...
Not at all, Haplo9. Being "in control" isn't a big deal for me. If you have a better idea (that works in reality), I'm all for someone else taking the reins. The Dems weren't ever really in control anyway.
blk-that was Lowden not Angle who had the chicken deal. Lowden lost in the primary to Angle.
I like your list of emotions as they relate to men. It accurately characterizes several who post here:)
(Apparently this needs explaining.) I was making light of your childish "i see a lot of rage on the right stemming from loss of control!" When asked to detail what that control it is that those of us on the right fear losing, you run for the hills.
Since I have similar amounts of evidence for anger on the left being the result of fear of loss of control,(ie, none) that is sufficient evidence in Markadelphia land for an accusation of bad faith. Thus:
I see a lot of fear and rage in your postings Mark. You clearly fear loss of control that would result from a Republican win. You fear the changes that will come, even though they are just trying to help everything get better. I just don't fucking see why. Everyone should be afraid, very afraid, of this rage coming from the left.
What, you don't recognize your own style?
In terms of political oneupsmanship, the gop will have no problem creating conservative legislation if they know Obama is going to veto it...then they will go on the talking head shows and shout to the hills about what they are trying to do.
"Each of these losses basically torpedo the notion that...Americans were fed up with the leftist agenda."
Thanks for the laugh. So a couple wins in California and one in Nevada means THAT to you? Really?
"It's not easy being in charge and these folks are about to find out just how much fun it is making the tough choices."
Yes - voting for the stimulus bill in 2009 was truly a profile in courage.
The problem here, Hap, is that you are looking at me within the context of your own view of the world. Far too often, those on the right make the mistake of thinking that those on the left think like them.
They don't, I assure you.
I make the observations I do based on what the Right says and how they act. When they scream about best interests, entitlements, Ponzi schemes et al, I call it like I see it: fear of loss of control and the completely insatiable need to be right about everything. Any admission of error is seen as weakness which is why they get so angry. They're bullies...simple as that...and the left is nothing like that. But the right sure sees them that way because that's how THEY see the world. Ironically, the right also accuses the left as being weak and wishy washy. That has never made any sense to me. One minute they are power hungry statists forcing them to do things...the next, spineless and whining wimps who won't stand up to anyone. Which is it? I guess it depends on the tantrum of the day.
I don't care if I'm wrong about many things. An openly gay man just got elected to an office in Kentucky. Therefore, my view that hicks hate fags isn't really true, right? Great! Thank God...
The 30 Mosques guys drove across this country and found people were very tolerant in areas where I thought they wouldn't be so I'm wrong there as well. Great! Thank God...
Now, find me a conservative or libertarian that will admit that Social Security helped the elderly out of poverty and is a good program. Not gonna happen, dude. Point out the benefits of the program and that's where the rage begins.
So, last, if the economy was in a better shape, the voters would've still rejected the Democrat's agenda? And the fact that our country wants things yesterday has nothing to do with it?
It's got nothing to do with the Democrat's policies. I know you don't like the stimulus and never will (even though every major economist and expert including the WSJ admitted it worked) but that doesn't mean that's why the Democrats lost.
Mark, the fallacy of that argument is that just because a program is successful doesn't mean it is good. Even if the end result is "good".
Let's say your neighbor steals from the guy across the street. The neighbor is helped, possibly even up out of poverty, but does that make theft a "good" program?
If the economy was in better shape, the democrats would have not lost as many seats as they did on Tuesday.
I know our country has ADD and wants things right away (I used to point this out to you on this blog that stabilization in Iraq would take time).
If the stimulus worked, the economy would have improved and the policy would have spoken for itself. You saw the content of it that I posted on here.
Not one of you can say why the democrats lost without talking about republicans. You keep feeding the folks garbage like the republicans are responsible for the failure of the government they haven't been running.
I think Bill Parcells is responsible for the Minnesota Vikings lousy record this year. Boo-ya.
>Far too often, those on the right make the mistake of thinking that those on the left think like them.
I don't make that mistake with you, trust me. I learned by reading you long ago that you are illogical, irrational, and usually driven more by emotion than anything else.
>When they scream about best interests, entitlements, Ponzi schemes et al, I call it like I see it: fear of loss of control and the completely insatiable need to be right about everything.
You have two problems in your response to the above:
1. You try to highlight conservatives that don't seem to exist in the real world, or, when they do, are the fringiest loons out there.
2. When you try to make your points against real conservative-ish people, ones that argue back, you fail miserably in being able to point out problems with their reasoning. Thus, you are left up with nebulous, unprovable assertions:
"Loss of control!"
What control is being lost Mark? Why can't you be specific?
"completely insatiable need to be right about everything."
Pointing out how you are wrong does not stem from some deep seated desire to be right about everything. It stems from you being wrong. It might not matter except that
a. you seem to be proud of being wrong
b. you presumably teach this to young people
c. you are an amazingly good example of the thought processes that have utterly rotted the left's intellectual core - that being that you embrace nice sounding principles without considering whether implementing those principles is likely to work, or will actually accomplish what you are setting out to do. Thus, a great deal of the pushback you get is along the lines of "explain why you think such and such thing will work given problem 1 2 and 3." Suffice it to say, your responses indicate that you don't really know or care about such problems - all that matters is that you can advocate for some nice sounding principle. Presumably, that makes you feel good about yourself; I can't come up with another reason that someone would otherwise be so oblivious or uncaring as to the real world consequences of what they advocate.
>They're bullies...simple as that...and the left is nothing like that.
Ha ha, right. That is some fresh smelling bs. The term "race card" was made up for a reason.
>Now, find me a conservative or libertarian that will admit that Social Security helped the elderly out of poverty and is a good program.
Once again, your irrationality comes into the picture. Social Security helping the elderly out of poverty and being a good program are entirely mutually exclusive things. For the record, I would agree that Social Security does help some elderly out of what would otherwise be poverty. I would not agree that it is a good program, because it is already running in the red. And by the way, I would once again invite you to tell us what we have wrong about Social Security. You might even learn how Social Security is funded, since you have given no evidence thus far that you understand that.
Both Democrats and Republicans are responsible for the economic mess we are in. That's been quite evident over the last 30 years. But the specific policies of the 111th Congress and Barack Obama? No. It's too soon to lay that blame on them but the voters did it anyway. And why?
Because they are angry and frustrated which means cue the GOP. They know how to manipulate people into believing anything. It's Alinksy's prediction in crystal clarity.
The reality is that President Obama saved capitalism. And the people he saved shit all over him because they want to make even more money.
"I would not agree that it is a good program, because it is already running in the red. And by the way, I would once again invite you to tell us what we have wrong about Social Security."
I have told you and you refuse to listen. You've taken a few things here and there and molded it to fit your belief. Your (i.e Michelle Bachmann) statement about it being the "in the red" were proven to be a combination of misleading and flat out wrong. It's quite a fine example of confirmation bias and a vain effort to "win."
I'm not inclined to repeat myself over and over again, Haplo. You don't agree with my argument? That's fine. I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that even if Social Security was absolutely rock solid perfect, you would still hate it. Anything that proves you to be wrong...well...it must be bad, right?
I'm going to be putting up a post soon on three very simple ways to fix Social Security. Let's see how capable you are of engaging in critical thought and not being emotional about your beliefs.
They know how to manipulate people into believing anything.
But of course you, and a few other enlightened souls, are immune.
What kills me is how people can say that kind of shit totally unselfconsciously. Just like the whole money thing - all that political advertising persuades other people, but of course it doesn't affect me.
Kudos for realizing that money doesn't buy elections, now please shut the fuck up about it for the rest of your life.
>The reality is that President Obama saved capitalism.
A nice sounding talking point, but it means absolutely nothing. (Yet again showing how you like pretty words with no substance.) How does one save an idea? How does one go about saving it? And what specific steps were taken to "save" it? I don't know why i'm bothering to ask you - you'll respond with some meaningless generality, and asking you to be specific probably means i'm trying to "win the argument" or somesuch.
>I have told you and you refuse to listen.
Where? You have simply asserted that Social Security is what you say it is. You made no response when pointed out that your understanding is wrong.
>You've taken a few things here and there and molded it to fit your belief.
Where? What have I said about Social Security that is wrong? Here's the important part: why is it wrong?
>Your (i.e Michelle Bachmann) statement about it being the "in the red" were proven to be a combination of misleading and flat out wrong.
Where? And how were they proven to be wrong? I pointed you to the Soc Sec administrations statements and the OMB's statements on the subject. Are they biased? Are they wrong? If so, how?
>It's quite a fine example of confirmation bias and a vain effort to "win."
Oh, yes, of course. Pointing out that my understanding of Social Security is supported by the government itself while yours is not, is confirmation bias and a vain effort to win. Right.
>I'm not inclined to repeat myself over and over again, Haplo. You don't agree with my argument?
The score here is: You have an assertion that was rebutted. You simpley repeated the same assertion again. Hint: that doesn't make the rebuttal not exist anymore.
>I'm fairly comfortable with the fact that even if Social Security was absolutely rock solid perfect, you would still hate it.
It's ok Mark. Go ahead and think that. At the end of the day, pointing out that you don't know what you are talking about isn't for you. It's for any readers of this blog that want to get themselves educated.
>Anything that proves you to be wrong...well...it must be bad, right?
Anything that proves me wrong is valuable, because it shows that my thinking is wrong. The problem is that your definition of "proves" seems to be nothing more than "Mark said something or linked to something." I'm sure that works great for kids in your class, but appeals to authority don't work in the real world. You have to actually explain why something is wrong (or right.)
Is it the teaching that makes you this intellectually flabby? You actually seem to think that saying something, just because you said, carries some extra weight behind it.
Where do you teach? Your Principal needs to know you fart around on here while you're "working". I bet you can't even focus on your job when the posters piss you off during the school day.
Pointing out that my understanding of Social Security is supported by the government itself while yours is not, is confirmation bias and a vain effort to win.
And don't forget that trusting the Social Security Administration's numbers more than Politifact's numbers shows an unreasoning fear and distrust of government.
I giggled about that one for most of the day.
But the specific policies of the 111th Congress and Barack Obama? No. It's too soon to lay that blame on them but the voters did it anyway. And why?
Not to make you look like a fool, again, but the specific policies and irresponsibility of the 110th Congress and the 111th continuation are in stark detail for all to see:
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/march/what-unsustainable-looks-like
The 110th and 111th have been dominated by Democrats, spending has been pushed by Democrats, and it rides on their shoulders as the majority. Now Barack Obama was part of 110th Congress and now cheerleading and exasperating the spending which is a major problem. Seriously, upwards of 2 billion for a 4 day trip to an ally, India?!
Now, read this about Social Security and get an understanding of what reality looks like:
http://www.american.com/archive/2010/may/in-the-red-state/
The key portion:
In practice, however, the trust fund and interest payments it receives are simply accounting fiction. For years, the federal government has been borrowing the Social Security Trust Fund assets for its daily spending. The fund has nothing left in it except IOUs from the federal government. In fact, even the interest is paid in IOUs.
Hence, the only way Social Security will not go into the red this year and in future years is if the federal government pays back Social Security.
But since the money has long ago been consumed, it must borrow money from the public or raise taxes to pay its Social Security debts.
I would personally love to be wrong about the doom and gloom and be wrong about our leadership being stupid but I am not. There are warning signs flashing everywhere and yet the administration and congress, dominated by idiot Democrats, continue on their merry way. They needed this wake up call.
Obama saved capitalism, hmm? I think I know where Mark is going with this one. Sure is going to be interesting.
"No."
Well that settles it - you've declared that it is too soon, so it must be too soon.
Could you give us a timetable as to how long we see the benefits of an administrations super great policies? You've had congress since Jan 2007 (aka "being in charge") and a president signs no law that doesn't go through congress first.
On October 20,2008, you said...
"The year is 2008, folks, and I have to say that it warms my heart to see the tactics of the right, long discussed on this blog, falling completely flat. The American people aren't listening. They aren't listening to the conservative douche bag machine as they play the fear and race card simultaneously.
Just like with Joe McCarthy, the American public is starting to wake up. Thank God. There was awhile there when I wondered if we had it in us. The polls haven't changed. The donations keep rolling in for Senator Obama and Democrats around the country. And, although the election is still two weeks away, I think it is safe to say that we have seen the end of Rovian politics. When our country is as divided as it is, things get really fucked up. Guess what? Things are pretty fucked up right now and the American people are sick of the negativity.
In all honesty, it may be the end of the Republican Party as we know it. Party leaders hitched their wagon to a volatile and decaying star. Much of the base are ignorant, bitter, and angry people..."
They were just starting to wake up in 2008, now they are angry and frustrated again. But it has nothing to do with your policies, nothing at all, please move along, must be something else. I thought the Rovian policies were ending?
He was right. It is the end of the Republican Party as we know it. They have been taken over by the far right and the civil war is about to begin. Can't you see the writing on the wall? How can they win a sustainable majority with this strategy? I'm also amused at this progression of events: Mark claims that the Right is only interested in winning the argument and proving people wrong. You howl. And then you proceed to try to win the argument and prove him wrong. Amusing.
I'd like to see how GOP strategy is going to work for them in the long term. It can't. They don't offer any real solutions and only prey upon people's ignorance and anger. President Obama did indeed save our economy and capitalism. People are still angry because of the lack of jobs and that's what this election was about. The Democrats didn't deliver quickly enough and so people were frustrated. What do you think is going to happen when the GOP doesn't deliver?
We'll just add you to the group of lefties who are, all of a sudden, excited about seeing republicans govern. After doing all you could just 2 years ago to avoid such a situation...you expect people to believe this idiotic argument that you folks are starting to push forth? That you are excited about such a situation?
It's not howling toots. I asked a couple (basic) questions and you ducked both of them because you don't know the answer to them.
Hey - being in control of congress is now "being in charge" and you've been in charge since 2007.
It wasn't "lack of communication" either folks. How many speeches did Obama give on Obamacare? People can only say that around people who don't pay attention to politics. Perhaps the poor communication came from statements like "Well, we have to pass the bill so you can find out what is in it". Sooooo, what were YOU ALL afraid if?
Tess,
This country is divided, right down the middle. It's been that way for quite a while now.
It's not a minor disagreement over details either. We're not trying to decide on what color to paint the house. The divide is more fundamental. One side wants to paint the house and the other does not.
So when one side says the other won't work with them on deciding color they're ignoring that the other side still doesn't even want to paint the house.
And then when that first side say's the other won't compromise by painting half the house they for some reason can't understand that painting half the house is still painting the damn house. And that is ignoring the past experience that the second side has in compromising with the first. That after giving in and painting half the house, the next year they come back and want to paint the other half. Then the argument that they won't compromise start all over again.
I think that is a gross simplification of the electorate. If that were the case, were do the ever shifting independents fit in?
Uh, those who don't want to paint the house, but do want new furniture but don't want to plant flowers but do want to re-sod but don't want a big screen tv but do want surround sound but don't want different colored drapes but do want new mini-blinds.........
--The media has made quite a big deal of The Tea Party but how did they really do in the last election? Not well. They won just over a third of their races and lost just under two thirds.
From an organization that didn't exist 2 years ago, competing very much with one and even somewhat with both major parties that have been around decades or centuries.
But no, they didn't do well. Nothing to see here, move along...
I'm also amused at this progression of events: Mark claims that the Right is only interested in winning the argument and proving people wrong. You howl. And then you proceed to try to win the argument and prove him wrong. Amusing.
I find it amusing as well. You offer a binary choice of either agreeing with everything you say, or "you only care about winning", and then blandly assume no one is smart enough to notice.
And actually I wasn't howling, I was clearing my throat. Yeah, that's it. No, really.
I'm also finding it highly amusing how when the Dems had the Presidency, both houses and a filibuster-proof majority, Republicans were "obstructing" everything (even though that wasn't actually possible), but now that the Dems only have the Presidency and a simple majority in the Senate, "What do you think is going to happen when the GOP doesn't deliver?", as if the Republicans are in charge.
Sometimes you guys are like preschoolers, I swear.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WEbzM2FUP9s
I have told you and you refuse to listen.
No M all you did was harp on what that idiot Bachmann had to say AND what a 'journalist' website interview of a journalism professor cum author had to say. I have to say this post-election, its too bad we won't have Alan Grayson to kick around like you kick around Michelle Bachmann. Quality of intellect wise they are non-distinguishable.
You haven't said a damn thing about the fundamentals of SS, let alone WHY the worker-beneficiary issue is NOT an issue (even when it is mentioned on the SSA website).
Post a Comment