2010 - U S Midterm Elections - opinions - results - what now?

[MrsSpringsteen]

I think he's toast depending upon the opponent-and the unemployment rate

 

[namkcuR]

I'm worried about 2012, but I think the predictions of Obama losing are way premature. Some of the talking heads last night were saying Obama will still win simply because it's going to be like 1996 where the Republicans have no one who can win.

Romney? Huckabee? Palin? Somebody else? Somebody we haven't heard of yet?

 

[kramwest1]

I'm worried about 2012, but I think the predictions of Obama losing are way premature. Some of the talking heads last night were saying Obama will still win simply because it's going to be like 1996 where the Republicans have no one who can win.

Romney? Huckabee? Palin? Somebody else? Somebody we haven't heard of yet?

2012 is really still his to lose. The economy is still on the slow upswing, and given the results of yesterday, the electorate will probably be annoyed with the tone of congress for the preceding 2 years.

The Republican dark-horses for 2012 are Jeb Bush, Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty--not great candidates, but better than the current leading crop.

 

[Canadiens1131]

That's the thing....McCain was a weak candidate in 2008 and they don't even have anyone in the wings of his calibour.

 

[Jeannieco]

This morning I woke up and heard.....

"Crazy,but that's how it goes
Millions of people living as foes
Maybe it's not too late
To learn how to love
And forget how to hate

Mental wounds not healing
life's a bitter shame
I'm going off the rails on a
CRAZY TRAIN!

Sing it Ozzy!

 

[mobvok]

Once again Republicans get swallowed up by latino voters in the SW.

I bet if Obama makes immigration reform a big issue for 2012, the Republicans only have a marginal amount of room to ramp up intensity. Harry Reid's victory suggests there's a lot of untapped potential there.

 

[deep]

That's the thing....McCain was a weak candidate in 2008 and they don't even have anyone in the wings of his calibour.

McCain was the best possible candidate in 2008.

2008 was all about Bush fatigue. The American people were sick and tired of Bush.

McCain was best positioned to be the anti-Bush in the GOP.

 

[Canadiens1131]

All I know, as someone who would prefer to see the Dems in power, I'm rooting for
Sarah Palin 2012
Republican Presidential
Nominee

Go get em, girl!

 

[deep]

If she is in the GOP primaries, it will be good for the GOP.


I remember when Jessie Jackson ran in the 80s,
he fired up a good portion of the Dem base. Even though he did not get the nomination.

 

[HBK-79]

I think he's toast depending upon the opponent-and the unemployment rate

2012 is really still his to lose. The economy is still on the slow upswing, and given the results of yesterday, the electorate will probably be annoyed with the tone of congress for the preceding 2 years.

What about the youth vote, the black vote, the Asian vote, and the Latino vote?

All I hear from my friends is that Obama will win again as long as the turnout in those demos is strong.

 

[kramwest1]

What about the youth vote, the black vote, the Asian vote, and the Latino vote?

All I hear from my friends is that Obama will win again as long as the turnout in those demos is strong.

I'm sorry I wasn't clearer.

I was saying that I think he will be reelected. The economy should be good by then, and as long as he doesn't fall prey to some Republican bullshit trap in the next 2 years, he'll win. Voters should be sick of hearing crap from Congress, which could/should make Obama the voice of reason for the next 2 years.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

If the economy is on its way back and unemployment is going down , Obama will win. If its the same as today or worse, he will lose.

It sounds fairly simple, because it is.

 

[deep]

other election news

UFOs will continue to go unstudied in Denver.

Initiative 300 is just one of many ballot measures that voters were tasked with deciding on Tuesday, and was also one of many that failed to pass.

The measure, which would have created a seven-member UFO Committee to study the mysterious objects and their extraterrestrial occupants, only managed to pull 16% of the vote.


Read more: Failed ballot measures: Denver won't study UFOs; Rhode Island's name stays the same

Government cover up.

Colorado's second effort to define "personhood" in an amendment which would have banned all kids of abortion, as well as forbidden stem cell research and some kinds of birth control, was also voted down.

The controversial measure lost overwhelmingly, 70% against to just 30% in favor.


Read more: Failed ballot measures: Denver won't study UFOs; Rhode Island's name stays the same

frozen embryos are persons and have rights, isn't that in the 14th amendment?

Rhode Island, meanwhile, will keep its name.

In a battle that's lasted nearly two decades, efforts to get "State of Rhode Island and Providence Slave Plantations" shortened to just Rhode Island failed to gain enough support from the electorate, earning just around 71,000 votes.

More than 250,000 opposed the measure.


Read more: Failed ballot measures: Denver won't study UFOs; Rhode Island's name stays the same

They should change the name to "Rhode" it is not an island.

California's Proposition 19, which would have legalized the sale of marijuana, lost by nearly 500,000 votes. Efforts to okay cannabis use for medical purposes may join it, with measures in Arizona, South Dakota and Oregon all failing.

Read more: Failed ballot measures: Denver won't study UFOs; Rhode Island's name stays the same

all three pot measures fail
it's in the Bible, people have been getting stoned, like for eva.

Oklahoma also passed a measure that would keep judges from using Islamic law when deciding cases. The iniative was meant as a "pre-emptive strike" to keep activist judges from "legislating from the bench or using international law or Sharia law," according to its sponsor, Republican Rex Duncan.

Read more: Failed ballot measures: Denver won't study UFOs; Rhode Island's name stays the same

so I can't stone my wife of myself?

 

[2861U2]

Once again Republicans get swallowed up by latino voters in the SW.

I haven't looked at those numbers, but the GOP elected two Hispanic governors in the SW yesterday.

 

[2861U2]

Voters should be sick of hearing crap from Congress, which could/should make Obama the voice of reason for the next 2 years.

Which is why I think Nevada last night might be a blessing in disguise. Reid (still very unpopular) will continue to be the face of the Democratic Party in Congress. If he lost, the Dems would have Angle to demonize every other moment, and they'd have some new blood in the leadership spot. We'll have to see how much damage, if any, Reid does to Obama's numbers. If nothing else, his unpopularity may put Nevada in play for 2012.

 

[yolland]

Once again Republicans get swallowed up by latino voters in the SW.

I bet if Obama makes immigration reform a big issue for 2012, the Republicans only have a marginal amount of room to ramp up intensity. Harry Reid's victory suggests there's a lot of untapped potential there.

And also in NV, Sandoval fared quite poorly with Latino voters, despite winning overall. But on the other hand, Martinez (NM) and Rubio (FL) each won about half the Latino vote in their races, despite being highly conservative on immigration. (That's based on polling late last week in Martinez's case, since NM didn't run exit polls.) So the Dems can't and shouldn't take this constituency for granted.

 

[yolland]

Wall Street Journal, Nov. 3

One quirky statistic that’s being retweeted today: “Of the 9 freshman Democrats elected this year, just two are straight white males.”

That may be so, but it has little bearing on overall congressional diversity. Here’s what we found:

Democrats lost nine female incumbents in the House in Tuesday’s elections and one in the Senate. Two more House races with female Democratic incumbents haven’t been called yet, nor has Democratic Sen. Patty Murray’s race, or Alaska Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski’s write-in bid for re-election. Democrats will, at most, have 50 women in the House, and Republicans will have 20. That’s a total of 70—fewer than in either the current or the previous Congress. It’s also not an all-time-high for Republicans—they’ve had as many as 25 women in the House in the past, according to figures provided by the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers. In the Senate, the loss by Arkansas Democrat Blanche Lincoln was offset by Republican Kelly Ayotte’s win in New Hampshire. If Sens. Murkowski and Murray both hold on to their seats, there will be 17 women in the Senate--no change from the current Congress.

The Congressional Black Caucus lost three members: Sen. Roland Burris of Illinois (who didn’t run again), Rep. Artur Davis of Alabama (who was defeated for other office) and Rep. Diane Watson of California (who retired.) African-American Democrats won the seats held by Mr. Davis and Ms. Watson, while Sen. Burris’s seat will go to Mark Kirk, a white Republican. Republicans gained two African-American House members: Tim Scott in South Carolina and Allen West in Florida.

In Louisiana, Cedric Richmond, an African-American Democrat, beat Joseph Cao, an Asian-American Republican. And in Hawaii, Democrat Colleen Hanabusa will be an additional Asian-American in Congress.

At least two Hispanic Democrats lost--and two more may yet. Two additional Hispanic Republicans have been elected.

All three openly gay members were re-elected, and Tuesday’s election of David Cicilline of Rhode Island brings their total to four.

In sum: Little overall change. More members of minority groups are Republican. But the overwhelming majority of the incoming freshmen--and Congress as a whole--are straight white males.

There were 14 African-American GOP candidates for the House this year--the most for the party since Reconstruction. The majority ran in primarily African-American districts and were soundly defeated; Scott's and West's victories came in primarily white districts (northern/eastern metro Charleston and the Boca Raton area, respectively). While this confirms that African-American voters overwhelmingly lean Democrat regardless of the candidate's race, it also shows greater readiness among white Southern conservatives to vote for an African-American candidate than *some* commentators assumed.

 

[mobvok]

And also in NV, Sandoval fared quite poorly with Latino voters, despite winning overall. But on the other hand, Martinez (NM) and Rubio (FL) each won about half the Latino vote in their races, despite being highly conservative on immigration. (That's based on polling late last week in Martinez's case, since NM didn't run exit polls.) So the Dems can't and shouldn't take this constituency for granted.

That's why I think they should do the right thing and press on immigration. Likely won't pass the Republican House, but it would make a clear distinction between the parties. And this is part of the general background re: Latinos that I've been hearing about:

Link

Latino Voters Choose Democrats in Key Races

Latino voters seem to have tipped the scales in favor of Democrats like governor-elect Jerry Brown and Sens. Harry Reid, Barbara Boxer and Michael Bennet, according to poll results from Latino Decisions. Democratic candidates were preferred in almost every race by Latino registered voters from Arizona, California, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas.

“The Latino firewall in the west actually saved the election for Democrats,” Frank Sharry, executive director of the immigration reform group America’s Voice, said on a conference call. “Latino voters played a significant role in Senate races.”

Although it is still unclear how many Latinos turned out to vote, the poll taken the night before the election indicates strong support for Democrats. On a generic ballot, 76 percent of the Latino voters polled picked the Democratic candidate over the Republican. Preferences were particularly strong in California, which has the country’s largest Latino population. About 86 percent of Latino voters in the state preferred Democrat Jerry Brown for governor over Republican Meg Whitman, and the same number preferred Democrat Barbara Boxer for Senate over Republican Carly Fiorina.

A majority ranked the economy, jobs and immigration as their top issues for choosing candidates, and most said they wanted to see immigration reform that included paths to citizenship for illegal immigrants already in the country.

In Nevada, where Reid faced a tough race against Republican Sharron Angle for his Senate seat, Latinos seem to have made the difference between winning and losing for the majority leader. Latinos preferred Reid by large margins to Angle, who has run an aggressively anti-illegal immigration campaign that many perceived as anti-Latino.

Latino groups said harsh rhetoric against illegal immigration by Republican candidates mobilized Latino voters, many of whom said anti-Latino or anti-immigrant sentiment influenced their vote. Because Latinos are the fastest-growing minority group in the country, rights groups said this year’s results could spell bad news for Republicans in 2012 and beyond as Latino voters become more influential.

“Political parties that demonize or take Latinos for granted are doing it at their great risk,” Clarissa Martinez de Castro of National Council of La Raza said on the call.

One exception was in Florida, where the Latino Decisions poll found majority Latino support for Republicans Rick Scott for governor and Marco Rubio for Senate. Florida, though, is generally an exception to most trends in Latino voting due to the large number of Cubans, who are often Republican, and Puerto Ricans, who are born U.S. citizens and therefore less involved in immigration issues. Although Rubio received 62 percent of the vote among Latinos polled Monday, Democrat Kendrick Meek had the advantage among non-Cuban Latino voters.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

So, yeah, Tea Party; some decent ideas, but the "I don't give a shit about my fellow man" stink really turns me off to them. That and the vague Christian / racist undertones.

the Tea Party is to American politics what Westboro Baptist Church is to religion.

 

[BVS]

 

[2861U2]

the Tea Party is to American politics what Westboro Baptist Church is to religion.

Wow. That's uncalled for.

 

[the iron horse]

the Tea Party is to American politics what Westboro Baptist Church is to religion.

I disagree with that statement Mrs. Garrison.


Take care
God Bless
and please remember to check out the Libertarian Party!
We have a lot in common with the Tea Party folks

 

[coolian2]

and please remember to check out the Libertarian Party!
We have a lot in common with the Tea Party folks

wouldn't piss on a poor person if they were on fire?

 

[BVS]

and please remember to check out the Libertarian Party!
We have a lot in common with the Tea Party folks

You mean lies, uninformed notions, and selfish agendas?

No thanks then...

 

[the iron horse]

You mean lies, uninformed notions, and selfish agendas?

No thanks then...

You are the one who said lies.

I am not offended or angry with other points of view.
I like a real discussion and debate.

I just don't understand these blanket statements.



If you like....

Please feel free to post all the lies of the Libertarian Party.

And, of course, the uninformed notions

And don't leave out the Libertarians selfish agenda.

 

[financeguy]

the Tea Party is to American politics what Westboro Baptist Church is to religion.

In my view this is a hyperbolic statement.

 

[financeguy]

wouldn't piss on a poor person if they were on fire?

Come on, comments like this are just childish ad hominems.

There are different ways of organising economic systems and different countries organize their systems using different methodologies.

I live in a relatively statist one, and as far as I can see it doesn't work. Welfare makes people into something much worse than poor, it makes them dependent.

In Ireland, and much of Europe, we patronise the poor with welfare, heroin, and methadone. Then, unsurprisingly, the next generation grows up equally dependent.

 

[BVS]

You are the one who said lies.

I am not offended or angry with other points of view.
I like a real discussion and debate.

I just don't understand these blanket statements.



If you like....

Please feel free to post all the lies of the Libertarian Party.

And, of course, the uninformed notions

And don't leave out the Libertarians selfish agenda.

You say you like real discussion but I and many others are still waiting on answers to our questions. I'm still waiting on evidence of who has not followed the constitution.

Lately you've been manipulating the facts a lot, or just flat out lying, and I've pointed all this out to you. And you don't engage. I'm not angry at your point of view, I just think your point of view is often misguided by something you don't understand and when someone tries to engage you run. You've been going on for weeks about how the federal government has banned whole milk and that's a lie. But if you were to acknowledge that you would have to acknowledge that many of your beliefs are based on you being fed propaganda or you just not understanding the issues.

As far as selfish agendas both libertarians and tea partiers are the same; they want government to interfere in certain things but want them to butt out when it effects them.

Some want legalized drugs but want government to outlaw gay marriage. Some want no regulations, but want government to place religion into public schools. The list of hypocrisies go on and on.

 

[PhilsFan]

the Tea Party is to American politics what Westboro Baptist Church is to religion.

Eh. I can't agree with this at all. The Westboro Baptist Church wants you to hate them because of their hate. They don't recruit, they just want attention. There's a big difference. The Tea Party isn't dedicated to turning people away just for attention. The Tea Party is at its core still just a billion dollar political machine, nothing more, nothing less. Hate is a mechanism of politics, not a core value. WBC is built around hate in a way no political movement has ever really been. There's a reason WBC has less than a hundred members.

The Tea Party is tough to have a comparison with, I'd say. Usually it's pretty transparent when a large group of people follow corporations in political strategy. I've never seen a group of people with the wool pulled so far over their eyes, believing their movement to be "grassroots." The Koch Brothers have pulled off something quite incredible here, that much is true.

 

[yolland]

A good wrap-up of the exit polls, from National Journal:

The portions of the electorate that remained loyal to President Obama and Democrats--particularly minority voters and young people--did not show up in anywhere near the numbers they did in 2008. And among the voters who did show up, Democratic candidates suffered crippling defections among white voters, particularly independents, seniors, and those without a college education, according to the national network exit poll of House elections.

The long-anticipated enthusiasm gap manifested itself in force Tuesday: The exit poll found that Republicans equaled Democrats as a share of the electorate; just two years ago, Democrats outnumbered Republicans as a share of all voters by 40% to 33%. That shift reflected the declining participation of some of the Democrats’ best groups and a surge among those favoring Republicans.

Young people, who cast 18% of the ballots in 2008, dropped to just 11%. That was a slightly larger falloff than is typical in midterm elections. Likewise, the falloff between the minority share of the vote in 2008 and Tuesday night was the largest decline between a presidential and the subsequent midterm election in at least the past two decades. Two years ago, minorities cast 26%of all ballots in the presidential election; this year that number fell to 22%. Both groups largely stuck with Democrats--but their impact was severely diluted by their declining turnout.

Meanwhile, seniors, who represented one-sixth of voters in 2008, soared to fully 22%--their largest share since at least 1992. And nearly three-fifths of them backed Republican House candidates. Among white seniors, that number rose to over three-fifths.

Overall, the national exit poll measuring preferences in House races put the Republican vote among whites at a jaw-dropping 60%, up sharply from 53% in 2008. Democratic candidates attracted only about 35% of the vote among white men and women without a college education and college-educated white men. Following patterns evident in Obama’s approval rating, the only segment of the white electorate that didn’t collapse for Democrats were college-educated white women. But even they tilted slightly toward the GOP.

The stampede toward the GOP among blue-collar whites was powerful almost everywhere. In heartland states such as Arkansas, Ohio, Indiana, and even Illinois, Democrats were routed among college-educated whites, too, the exit polls found. But along the coasts--in such states as Delaware, California, and Connecticut--Democrats did a better job of holding college whites, especially women. That was critical to their Senate victories in those states. The exception to that coastal pattern was in Pennsylvania. Republican Pat Toomey attracted more of those suburban voters and, crucially, remained competitive in the Philadelphia suburbs (which two years ago gave Obama a crushing margin of nearly 200,000 votes); that helped power Toomey’s narrow victory over Democrat Joe Sestak. In Colorado, which shares many cultural characteristics with the coastal states, strong support among college-educated whites in metropolitan areas such as Denver and Boulder allowed Democratic Sen. Michael Bennet to remain in a tight race with Republican challenger Ken Buck despite Buck’s massive advantage among noncollege whites, especially in the state’s rural areas.

Overall, Tuesday had the feel of a parliamentary election in which individual candidates had only limited ability to separate themselves from the national tide. Put another way, the name on the back of the jersey mattered less than the color on the front.

Particularly in the House, Democrats from all segments of the party were swept away. The Democratic House losses were greatest in the sorts of places that have been most skeptical of Obama from the outset. [e.g., almost one-third of all GOP gains were in the South. ~y.] Democrats representing districts that voted for John McCain in 2008 were routed: Republicans appear to have gained at least three-fourths of the 48 seats now held by Democrats in that category.

In a geographic reflection of Obama’s weakness among blue-collar white voters, a partial count showed that Republicans captured the seats of at least 35 House Democrats in districts where the percentage of whites with a college degree lags the national average of 30.4%. House Democrats elected in 2006 and 2008, when George W. Bush’s weakness allowed the party to expand deep into traditionally Republican terrain, also suffered heavy losses. Geographically, Democrats were especially hard hit through the border states and industrial Midwest: The party lost five House seats in Ohio, five in Pennsylvania, three in Tennessee, two in Indiana, and at least three in Illinois. Meanwhile, Republicans captured governorships in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ohio, flipped Senate seats in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois, and easily held an open Republican seat in Ohio.

But the election’s blast radius extended well beyond those highly-vulnerable categories. Besides the freshman and sophomore Democrats, the election also claimed veteran House leaders such as Ike Skelton of Missouri, Paul Kanjorski of Pennsylvania and John Spratt of South Carolina. While the House losses were greatest in downscale blue-collar districts, Democrats also lost white-collar suburban seats in New Jersey, New Hampshire, and the Philadelphia suburbs, and failed to carry the suburban seat vacated by Mark Kirk, the successful GOP Senate challenger in Illinois. Those losses also extended the Democrats’ vulnerability beyond swing states to reliably blue states that have been cornerstones of the party’s coalition since the 1990s, including New York. There, the party dominated statewide races, but lost a stunning five House seats, mostly through economically squeezed upstate districts. Few Democrats anywhere Tuesday night could feel entirely sheltered from the storm.