Mid-Term Elections 2010: The Latest

[sharkman]

First, sorry for the title, I couldn't resist the temptation to copy a certain someone's strategy to monopolize a topic with an all encompassing title. Any guesses who it is?

Anyway, things have been really heating up and you just know it's going to be desperate campaigning on both sides like never before. Obama could lose his Dem majorities in one or both houses and would love to keep them. But with his approval numbers so low, many Dems campaigning do not want him appearing with them and even downplay their party affiliation.

No doubt you can think of many angles to this fight as new headlines pop up, but to start off, here's one from late last week. Obama, appearing in Washington, said this:

People are frustrated, they're anxious, they're scared about the future. And they have a right to be impatient about the pace of change.

I'm impatient. But I also know this: Now is not the time quit. Now is not the time to give up. We've been through worse as a nation. We've come out stronger -– from war to depression to the great struggles for equal rights and civil rights.

It took time to free the slaves. It took time for women to get the vote. It took time for workers to get the right to organize.

How about that reference to slavery? Do you think it's appropriate for Obama use slavery to garner support in an election? It cheapens that particular struggle to me.

[punked]

You must have missed the New week poll out today.

[Shady]

How about that reference to slavery? Do you think it's appropriate for Obama use slavery to garner support in an election? It cheapens that particular struggle to me.

Yep, it's completely inappropriate. It goes to show just how desperate he and the Dems are right now.

[punked]

Yep, it's completely inappropriate. It goes to show just how desperate he and the Dems are right now.

Yes so desperate.

[scribblet]

It does seem like a desperate grab. If the Dems. lose their majority I can Obama being a one term president.

[punked]

It does seem like a desperate grab. If the Dems. lose their majority I can Obama being a one term president.

I love this. I love how the bar is high now. So now all Dems have to do is not lose 30 seats in the house and 5 seats in the Senate and they win. Not only do they win it is a crushing defeat to Republicans and Conservatism. Good job guys way to set the bar so high you wont be able to reach it.

News Week have the Dems with a 5 point advantage in the generic ballot. In Iowa and Ohio where early voting has started Dems are returning ballots 5 to 1 compared to Republicans. They will fight hard and lose some seats but for Republicans to set the bar so high they were dumb to do so.

[nicky10013]

It does seem like a desperate grab. If the Dems. lose their majority I can Obama being a one term president.

Since Lincoln, all presidents have lost seats in their first mid-term. Clinton lost the house in a wave election. Look how that turned out for his second term.

[ToadBrother]

Yep, it's completely inappropriate. It goes to show just how desperate he and the Dems are right now.

Almost as desperate as all those moderate Republicans being driven out by the Tea Party hoards.

[ToadBrother]

I love this. I love how the bar is high now. So now all Dems have to do is not lose 30 seats in the house and 5 seats in the Senate and they win. Not only do they win it is a crushing defeat to Republicans and Conservatism. Good job guys way to set the bar so high you wont be able to reach it.

News Week have the Dems with a 5 point advantage in the generic ballot. In Iowa and Ohio where early voting has started Dems are returning ballots 5 to 1 compared to Republicans. They will fight hard and lose some seats but for Republicans to set the bar so high they were dumb to do so.

Well, we'll see how things set up in November, but I feel that the predictions of a number of analysts, that the Tea Party would ultimately be more toxic to the GOP than the Democrats, is coming true. The Republican supporters here and elsewhere love to talk a yarn about how the Tea Party is taking Washington to task, but what it's really doing is making Democrats, at least in some races, maybe enough to make a difference, more competitive than if more moderate, or at least sensible Republicans had been in the running.

The biggest fear the GOP has at this point, from what I understand, is that a lot of Republican voters may not be willing to hold their noses in some of these races and may stay at home, whereas Democrat voters will have every reason to show up at the polls.

I have no idea what the hell is wrong with the Republicans at this point. Even their own pundits were saying after the 2006 and 2008 elections that the party needed to communicate better with undecideds. Instead, they allow a vocal faction to basically wipe off the map some of the very candidates that could have done that. I'm thinking there are at least passingly decent odds that the Republicans will grab defeat from the jaws of victory, and there was every reason to expect eight or nine months ago that the Democrats were going to be spanked very badly.

When I put my tinfoil hat on, I wonder sometimes if the Tea Party was some sort of Frankenstein's monster creation of the Democrats. It's almost too perfect a Democrat stereotype of the unhinged Republican Libertarian.

[punked]

Well, we'll see how things set up in November, but I feel that the predictions of a number of analysts, that the Tea Party would ultimately be more toxic to the GOP than the Democrats, is coming true. The Republican supporters here and elsewhere love to talk a yarn about how the Tea Party is taking Washington to task, but what it's really doing is making Democrats, at least in some races, maybe enough to make a difference, more competitive than if more moderate, or at least sensible Republicans had been in the running.

The biggest fear the GOP has at this point, from what I understand, is that a lot of Republican voters may not be willing to hold their noses in some of these races and may stay at home, whereas Democrat voters will have every reason to show up at the polls.

I have no idea what the hell is wrong with the Republicans at this point. Even their own pundits were saying after the 2006 and 2008 elections that the party needed to communicate better with undecideds. Instead, they allow a vocal faction to basically wipe off the map some of the very candidates that could have done that. I'm thinking there are at least passingly decent odds that the Republicans will grab defeat from the jaws of victory, and there was every reason to expect eight or nine months ago that the Democrats were going to be spanked very badly.

When I put my tinfoil hat on, I wonder sometimes if the Tea Party was some sort of Frankenstein's monster creation of the Democrats. It's almost too perfect a Democrat stereotype of the unhinged Republican Libertarian.

We are seeing the fruits of their Labour. This is the problem with the Rove (get out your base and you will win) strategy and the southern (you only need to win the vote of white people) strategy. They can still win with them but the wins become smaller and smaller every year until in 10-20 years they wont be able to win but will have painted themselves into a corner trying them. Republicans are also dialing back their GOTV because they have no volunteers while Dems are dialing it up big.

It is funny they are two different winning strategies in different elections but I feel the Republicans is very very very short sighted.

Edited October 4, 2010 by punked

[TimG]

I agree the GOP has set itself up for (perceived) failure.

On the other hand, I think democrats and the media spend a little too much time in the echo chamber.

The conventional wisdom says they cannot win on Nov. 2. Theyre too right-wing, too radical or just too weird for mainstream voters in Delaware, Nevada or Kentucky. With four decades of election strategizing behind him, Mr. Russo thinks he knows better.

In another election year, people want to know where you stand on abortion, the environment and same-sex marriage. This year, they dont care, he explains. All they want to know is whether you are going to stop this endless growth in government in Washington.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/how-the-zeitgeist-steers-the-tea-party-express/article1740594/

I can speak personally as long time Liberal voter who absolutely opposes the social policies of GOP extreme on gays or abortion. If I was voting in the US election I would vote for whatever wacko the GOP put up as long as they were committed to reducing the size of government.

Edited October 4, 2010 by TimG

[punked]

I agree the GOP has set itself up for (perceived) failure.

On the other hand, I think democrats and the media spend a little too much time in the echo chamber.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/konrad-yakabuski/how-the-zeitgeist-steers-the-tea-party-express/article1740594/

I can speak personally as long time Liberal voter who absolutely opposes the social policies of GOP extreme on gays or abortion. If I was voting in the US election I would vote for whatever wacko the GOP put up as long as they were committed to reducing the size of government.

An article in the Globeandmail is hardly AMERICAN Media spin. If anything it is outside the Washington echo Chamber. Try the NYT, Washington Post and such next time. As for the Republicans committed to reducing the size of government. Well I got a video for you.

It is bullshit. The government grows under Republicans all that happens with that growth is tax cuts. So the deficit grows more under republicans then Democrats. If you are ok with that then yes. If you want to pay for the growth that is going to happened (because it will happen) then you got to vote another way.

[TimG]

The government grows under Republicans all that happens with that growth is tax cuts. So the deficit grows more under republicans then Democrats. If you are ok with that then yes. If you want to pay for the growth that is going to happened (because it will happen) then you got to vote another way.

The fact is the democrats created a new trillion dollar entitlement and no one knows how to pay for it. They also allowed the EPA to move forward with creating a CO2 bureaucracy and have plans to introduce a huge number of new regulations in the energy sector that will only increase costs for the average person . I don't agree with the GOP tax cuts given the deficit situation but they are infinitely preferable to the expansion of government being pushed by the Dems. In the long term the Dems will do more harm. Edited October 4, 2010 by TimG

[punked]

The fact is the democrats created a new trillion dollar entitlement and no one knows how to pay for it. They also allowed the EPA to move forward with creating a CO2 bureaucracy and have plans to introduce a huge number of new regulations in the energy section that will only increase costs for the average person. I don't agree with the GOP tax cuts given the deficit situation but they are infinitely preferable to the expansion of government being pushed by the Dems. In the long term the Dems will do more harm.

Sounds like you are talking about Republicans. BTW repealing health care would cost the US 200 Billion extra then the plan right now according to the CBO. Talking points only get you so far in this world. Like it or not we are where we are. They both spend you into the ground. Did someone say 3 trillion dollar war? Just one wants to pay for what they spend and the other doesn't. That is the fact of the matter.

[TimG]

BTW repealing health care would cost the US 200 Billion extra then the plan right now according to the CBO.

The act is a job killer because of the coverage mandates put on employers. It has to be gutted.

In any case, this is not about what you think. This is about the attraction of the tea party and why the nuttiness that drives the MSM and Dems mad does not necessarily bother the average right of center independent voter.

Edited October 5, 2010 by TimG

[punked]

The act is a job killer because of the coverage mandates put on employers. It has to be gutted.

In any case, this is not about what you think. This is about the attraction of the tea party and why the nuttiness that drives the MSM and Dems mad does not necessarily bother the average right of center independent voter.

I think you want to talk to Nixon about putting health care on employers sorry you lost that fight 50 years ago. Again Talking points with out facts only get you so far.

You are right it does not bother the average right of center voter because as you have shown they are misinformed on many many things.

Edited October 5, 2010 by punked

[TimG]

I think you want to talk to Nixon about putting health care on employers sorry you lost that fight 50 years ago.

This bill compounds the problem by making it mandatory AND set mimumum coverage requirements. This will cause the cost to employers to explode.

You are right it does not bother the average right of center voter because as you have shown they are misinformed on many many things.

As opposed to the typical left wing voter who is completely ignorant of how the economy works.

[punked]

This bill compounds the problem by making it mandatory AND set mimumum coverage requirements. This will cause the cost to employers to explode.

As opposed to the typical left wing voter who is completely ignorant of how the economy works.

Ohhhhh I understand someday you have to pay for what you spend and costing a country 200 Billion because you don't "like" an idea isn't the way to get yourself out of hole. Again things cost money. Republicans Love things as to Democrats (or did you forget that Bush EXPANDED Medicare and Medicaid?) seems the only difference between the two is one wants to hand out tax cuts to the super rich that no one can afford and the other wants to not do so.

I got it you are a right wing voter who wants to vote for the party who expanded government more over the last 40 years then the other guy. I get it you are a talking point machine with no substance. Gotcha. You Betcha and all that.

[theliberation]

we do not acknowledge the sham political system...

[August1991]

First, sorry for the title, I couldn't resist the temptation to copy a certain someone's strategy to monopolize a topic with an all encompassing title. Any guesses who it is?

First, thread proliferation is unsightly, and the moderators discourage it.

Second, no one "owns" a thread. A poster can only monopolize a thread through repeated postings.

Third, the US mid terms are in early November. This thread makes sense now, and has an obvious expiry date.

Fourth, thanks for creating it.

we do not acknowledge the sham political system...

I love (new) posters who claim that the US is not a democracy.

theliberation, go live in a dictatorship for awhile (even as a tourist, you can try Burma) and then come back and post your informed opinions.

Edited October 5, 2010 by August1991

[punked]

First, thread proliferation is unsightly, and the moderators discourage it.

Second, no one "owns" a thread. A poster can only monopolize a thread through repeated postings.

Third, the US mid terms are in early November. This thread makes sense now, and has an obvious expiry date.

Fourth, thanks for creating it.

I love (new) posters who claim that the US is not a democracy.

theliberation, go live in a dictatorship for awhile (even as a tourist, you can try Burma) and then come back and post your informed opinions.

Just want to point out just because other countries are less democratic doesn't make another country a Democracy. This is a terrible argument which has been used for years to justify the support of many terrible rulers because "they were better and more democratic then the alternative." It is a poor argument.

[Michael Hardner]

theliberation, go live in a dictatorship for awhile (even as a tourist, you can try Burma) and then come back and post your informed opinions.

It didn't help bjre, though.

[August1991]

So now all Dems have to do is not lose 30 seats in the house and 5 seats in the Senate and they win.

Correct, Punked.

The incumbent party/president invariably loses in mid-terms. In the midst of a severe recession, double that. (eg. Reagan 1982. Clinton in 1994 is a weak comparison.)

----

In this midterm, I am amazed by the weakness of the Republicans. They are divided between Tea Partiers and RINOs. They are far from the Contract With America of 1994.

Do American voters really want Republicans back in power? As Obama rightly says, these guys put the car in the ditch and now they want they keys back.

Don't say that the Congress controls things, and a Democratic Congress drove the car into the ditch. It was Bush, Bernanke and Paulsen who ran the show in 2008 - and anyway, the President is held ultimately responsible. George W. Bush was president, like Herbert Hoover, when the Great Recession started.

In the 2010 midterms, the Republicans will benefit by default. But the Republicans in fact have little response to the Democrats. Republican response so far? The Tea Party movement reminds me of Hoover pleading for sound money in 1931 - or William Jennings Bryant talking of a Cross of Gold. Populism. And then RINOs desperately trying to pull strings. IOW, a mess.

Edited October 5, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

It is a poor argument.

No, it's a good argument.

Punked, go and live in a real dictatorship for awhile and come back and post here. You can try Burma or North Korea, if you can get a visa. (Thank God for America: Truman, Korea, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Vietnam, Reagan - and many ordinary Americans who went to farflung places. Thanks to all of them, there are not many dictatorships around the world nowadays.)

So, a visit to Burma (or Cuba on a bad day) is a trip down memory lane to what much of the

the world used to be like.

----

Sorry for the thread hijack/rant.

Edited October 5, 2010 by August1991

[punked]

No, it's a good argument.

Punked, go and live in a real dictatorship for awhile and come back and post here. You can try Burma or North Korea, if you can get a visa. (Thank God for America: Truman, Korea, Nixon, Kennedy, Johnson, Vietnam, Reagan - and many ordinary Americans who went to farflung places. Thanks to all of them, there are not many dictatorships around the world nowadays.)

So, a visit to Burma (or Cuba on a bad day) is a trip down memory lane to what much of the

the world used to be like.

----

Sorry for the thread hijack/rant.

Another country being terrible does not make one country anymore a democracy. Don't get me wrong I am not arguing that the US is not a Democracy I am saying, because Burma is terrible that does not make anyone else more an Democracy. That creates a race to the bottom. Burma can always get worse which means that US can get worse by that much in your book and remain a democracy. We must measure what is democratic independently not on a sliding scale compared to the worse of the worse.