2014 U.S. Mid-term Elections

[cybercoma]

There's a continuum of paranoia. This shall pass.

What do you even mean by this?

[sharkman]

Billions of dollars in advertising? Gerrymandering to the point where basically ANYONE who's Republican will be elected, and politics which for a large part of the electorate particularly the Republican part consists almost entirely of God Guns and Gays.

If you love God and guns and hate taxes, fags, and abortion, you can basically get elected in most Republican strongholds no matter how wacky your other views are. Cheat on your wife, beat your kids, steal from the government, commit arson, it really doesn't matter.

These are whole communities which simply do not think like us. You know, there was a documentary on gays in Russia last night. Really wierd to look at. But the salient point was that, as the commentator says in showing one particular guy obsessed with getting gays or anyone sympathetic to them fired, his views are not considered extreme in Russia. Gays are widely despised and hated, period. If gangs beat them up, even kill them, well, the Russian man on the street will just shrug without a care. Pretty much serves thenm right, will be his view.

Wrong.

Democrats were right along side, outspending Rep in many races. They lost because Obama sucks. And the same thing can be said of the Dem strongholds. Your wackjob views don't matter, if you're a Dem, you're in.

[Michael Hardner]

What do you even mean by this?

Kimmy noted that the paranoid folks are ascending but it comes and goes, perhaps as media changes occur

[Argus]

Wrong.

Democrats were right along side, outspending Rep in many races. They lost because Obama sucks. And the same thing can be said of the Dem strongholds. Your wackjob views don't matter, if you're a Dem, you're in.

I will concede that Obama sucks. I will also conceded that the Democrats gerrymander too, but most of the governorships are in Republican hands which means most of the gerrymandering is done by Republicans. And while there are a few Dems with screws loose their views are at least generally as bought and paid for by moneyed interests simply because the moneyed interests tend to want things that Republicans have already committed to, like low taxes and freedom for the rich and corporations to do anything they want. And if you need to raise $100 million for a senate race, you're going to have to get it from moneyed interests.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

Kimmy noted that the paranoid folks are ascending but it comes and goes, perhaps as media changes occur

I would disagree except in that certain topics are embraced in order to scare the base into supporting candidates.

I don't think most Republican are all that afraid of what gay marriage would do, for example, nor about hordes of Mexicans crossing the borders. They're primarily concerned with the welfare of their financial backers, which means low taxes and regulations. They simply use these hot button issues to rope in the suckers. Telling people that you'll work day and night to lower taxes for rich people isn't likely to get as much support as promising to protect them the evil government which wants to steal their guns or foist homos on their helpless children or make them pay for health care they clearly don't need.

Edited November 9, 2014 by Argus

[bush_cheney2004]

And while there are a few Dems with screws loose their views are at least generally as bought and paid for by moneyed interests ...

Nonsense of course...just ask the trial lawyers, labour unions, and ActBlue:

https://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php

[Michael Hardner]

They simply use these hot button issues to rope in the suckers.

This works for both sides. Otherwise known as 'politics'.

[sharkman]

I will concede that Obama sucks. I will also conceded that the Democrats gerrymander too, but most of the governorships are in Republican hands which means most of the gerrymandering is done by Republicans. And while there are a few Dems with screws loose their views are at least generally as bought and paid for by moneyed interests simply because the moneyed interests tend to want things that Republicans have already committed to, like low taxes and freedom for the rich and corporations to do anything they want. And if you need to raise $100 million for a senate race, you're going to have to get it from moneyed interests.

You make some good points, I think one has to be skeptical of elements in both sides.

[Bonam]

How does this even happen in a civilized society? It's inconceivable. Especially considering these people don't even hide their idiocy.

1. Obama sucks.

2. Democrats apparently suck horribly at politics. Seriously, their campaign message was "we don't like Obama either, please don't be mean to us on election day". When it should have been pointing to the recovering economy, lowest unemployment in years, all time highs in the stock market, dropping deficits, impending energy independence, and claiming success.

3. About half the US population still believes the Earth is flat and that dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside humans 6000 years ago, or other stuff that's just as dumb.

4. There really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on the federal level. Oh, they'll spew different flavors of idiocy in campaigns and speeches, but the end result in Washington will be exactly the same either way.

Edited November 12, 2014 by Bonam

[cybercoma]

1. Obama sucks.

But more than kooks like the front runner for Lieutenant Governor of Texas who thinks God speaks to him through The Robertson Family of Duck Dynasty fame?

2. Democrats apparently suck horribly at politics. Seriously, their campaign message was "we don't like Obama either, please don't be mean to us on election day". When it should have been pointing to the recovering economy, lowest unemployment in years, all time highs in the stock market, dropping deficits, impending energy independence, and claiming success.

So that's a reason to vote for people that hold dangerous and irrational ideas? I'm sorry, but I would take a monkey that's wearing a fez and banging cymbals over someone who believes in Agenda 21 nonsense or that ISIS is going to invade the US through Mexico. I mean, it's not my country, so ultimately I don't care. However, I'm baffled that intelligent people would elect individuals who are clearly incapable of governing responsibly. Maybe my assumption about people being intelligent is wrong.

3. About half the US population still believes the Earth is flat and that dinosaurs roamed the Earth alongside humans 6000 years ago, or other stuff that's just as dumb.

Yup. I'm definitely making a faulty assumption. Do you have a cite for this? I find it hard to believe that half the population believes utter idiocy.

4. There really is no difference between Democrats and Republicans on the federal level. Oh, they'll spew different flavors of idiocy in campaigns and speeches, but the end result in Washington will be exactly the same either way.

I don't know that it will be exactly the same. You get enough Agenda 21 crazies in there and I'm willing to bet it would be a vastly different experience.

Perhaps it comes down to this. Voter turnout here was 36.4%. That means a sweep was theoretically possible with only 18.2% of the represented population voting for the representatives.

What was that you were saying about 50% of the population believing complete nonsense?

[GostHacked]

Which criminal gang does one vote for? Republicans or Democrats. Such a hard choice.

Edited November 12, 2014 by GostHacked

[bush_cheney2004]

Senior Democrat Senator Chuck Schumer argues that his party got nothing for all their Obamacare trouble:

Obamacare was a mistake, because it favored the interests of the poor ahead of Democrats' electoral fortunes. Harder is dismissing it, because other Democrats are probably thinking the same thing: What did Obamacare gain them?

Schumer, the senior Democratic senator from New York, argued that his party should have used its mandate in 2009 to pursue something that more plainly benefited the middle class -- a group that wasn't really hurt by the dysfunction of the health-care system. By contrast, focusing on those without coverage "made no political sense," especially because "only a third of the uninsured are even registered to vote."

You can quibble with the ethics of that point: Are the needs of the poor less important because they're less likely to vote? As Brian Beutler writes, you can also quibble with Schumer's premise: What other policy should Democrats have pursued first? And would it

really have helped the middle class more than health-care reform, whose effects reach far beyond the poor?

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-11-26/democrats-do-have-an-obamacare-problem?cmpid=yhoo