2010 Election Thread - Results

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by Lowbacca_1977, May 17, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. New_York_Jedi Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Mar 16, 2002
    star 6

    I suspect we'll start seeing a stronger recovery over the next two years, which has nothing to do with the Republicans, and more to do with the newest round of monetary policy (QE2) that should be announced today. That will help the freshmen republicans avoid that type of backlash, to be sure, but it will also help Obama.
  2. kingthlayer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2003
    star 4
    Congrats to all Republican and conservative posters on last night's election results.

  3. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Politics tend to be win win for me. If Republicans win and increase the odds of continuing the Bush tax cuts and creating a regulatory and tax environment favorable to small business, then my family wins economically, at least in the short term. If Democrats win, then I win philosophically.

    Long term, I think the economic health of the nation depends on a more left leaning, progressive government that isn't afraid to create large scale national private-public partnerships to help direct our economic activity and promote the kind of education and industry that will provide us with an economically competitive future. We need a national economic and social strategic plan with the goal of creating employment opportunity for all citizens and legal residents who are mentally and physically able to work. Employment opportunity requires a living wage for one or two working parents and a quality of life that includes health care security for themselves and their children, retirement security, and quality educational access at all levels for people of all socioeconomic levels.

    I am more than willing to take on a higher tax burden and shoulder more of the responsibility to fund this kind of society.
  4. Ben_Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2001
    star 5
    I really hope those elected take a more compromising approach and actually work together. If they listen to ole Sarah and her "NO COMPROMISES" rhetoric, it's going to be a long two years.
  5. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I just can't stop being thrilled about Reid's victory: http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2010/nov/02/harry-reid-takes-lead-over-sharron-angle/

    The guy is as tenacious and resilient a politician as anyone has ever seen. Sure, he benefitted from a lot of luck, but you also make your own luck. Any smart Republican out there would do well to see that this could just as easily happen with Obama against whatever challenger the Republicans send against him in 2012.

    Reid was history earlier this year. Left for dead, gone, done, buried. When the new Congress convenes in January, he will still be the senior senator from Nevada. Angle will go back to the obscurity from where she came from. My response: Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
  6. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    No-one here is commenting on the victory margins.

    For a republican "wave", a lot of races were much, much closer than the pundits predicted. I would have expected most GOP wins to be outside the 10-point margin.

    Sestak/Toomey? 2% margin with practically no turn-out in the Philadephia area. With Obama on the ticket in two years, PA could end up one of those states which is red locally and blue nationally.

    Seriously, I would love to see both parties sit down and work together to help solve the nation's problems through compromise, but if the Tea Party filibusters everything, especially any vote on raising the debt ceiling, then we could be in real trouble.

    The days of enduring, permanent majorities are over. Say hello to one-to-two cycle shifts of power, based on a restless electorate...at least for the time being.

    Congrats to my republican friends :).

    Peace,

    V-03
  7. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Except that is often how it is with waves. 538 had a good explanation of this last week (but I can't be bothered to find it right now) when they explained the uncertainty in their projections for the House.

    The simplified version is that if you look at the contested districts, some will be traditional D+4, some D+3, etc, while others will be R+1, R+2, etc. Now, if you have a "wave" that provides a 3-point edge to Republicans, you will get larger margins for some of the traditionally Republican districts, but the actual pickups will come where that 3-point "wave" effect converts the D+1 or D+2 districts into R+2 or R+1. Because a lot of districts tend to group together, a small wave effect can have a broad impact and flip several districts at once.

    As I recall, most of the Democratic pickups in 2006 and 2008 weren't exactly by large margins either.

    Kimball Kinnison
  8. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Yes this was the key to Lowbacca's deadly accurate prediction of a 65 net gain, which fivethirtyeight now supports:

    It was inevitable that a significant percentage of the toss ups would break for Republicans, who would by definition win by very small margins. The Republican majority is not about small margins though. Republicans won the 39 seats they needed to regain the House majority with margins of 3-5 percent on up. The size of their new House majority however depended on a big run of marginal victories in the tossup races.
  9. SithLordDarthRichie London CR

    Chapter Rep
    Member Since:
    Oct 3, 2003
    star 8
    Obama will count himself lucky that he at least has a Democrat majority in the Senate. It won't make it impossible for him to get things done, just a lot harder because he'll have to make his legislation appeal to the Republicans which will probably mean watering things down a lot.

    Seems the people chose to punish Obama for the failings of the Bush administration, hopefully he can make them happier by 2012.
  10. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    People are punishing the Democrats for the same reason they punished Republicans in 2008 - they feel that not enough is being done to actually fix the economy. Whether or not you agree with that assessment, that's the prevailing general attitude.
  11. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    I see a mixed bag on these results. There's been a lot of Tea Party defeats--including several prominent ones that saved the Democrat Senate--but just as many wins for them. New Hampshire may well be emblematic here: we have an establishment moderate in Charlie Bass, but then in the other district, we have a Tea Party favorite. What does that mean? I'm not sure. I'm rather concerned that the presence of the Tea Party candidates--and the narrow victory margins of the moderates--will force them into an obstructionist alliance. I mean, I adore Snowe and Collins but we've already seen how they aren't as willing to work with the administration as they might naturally be inclined to, because the party as a whole is entrenched in opposition.

    I hope the GOP decides to be a gracious winner and work with the president--they won, they don't need to obstruct. I can't see that happening. I'm pleased to see the GOP back in New England (esp. moderates like Bass) and I'm very happy that the Tea Party didn't do as well as it fondly imagined it would, but I don't know. I'm glad Chafee won his gubernatorial election, but I feel somebody like him would be more helpful in the Senate: he was a Republican who was the definition of bipartisan.

    So we'll see. I'm not holding out hope. I am no fan of the administration or the Democrat Party as a whole, but I like to see good government and bipartisanship in the national interest. We're not getting it.

    ramza: Obama may be right of center on that scale, but remember that political compass is centered as an international chart. Obama is certainly left of center in the US (and yes, center in the US is more to the right and top than it is in Europe) and I feel left-wing is a fair term applied to him. He's perhaps of the new Clintonian mode (can we still call it new) but more to the left, and I wouldn't call him a "moderate" per se. What I think you're highlighting, really, is that he's pragmatic (not the impression one would get from the campaign) and doesn't move as fast as people wold want.

    I think he shares the same goals as many further on the left than he is, but he doesn't dare push for them either for political or practical reasons. But I definitely think he'd like it if he could.
  12. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The last thing we need in an ongoing economic crisis is legislative gridlock, but that's what we're going to get. And the continuing economic misery amplified by the gridlock will line up 2012 perfectly for Republicans.
  13. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    I like to keep things in a global perspective, particularly when folks start throwing around blatantly untrue accusations - a socialist would be left, even on the political compass, and that's simply not the case with Obama.

    I suppose I agree that pragmatic is the better term, but really, he's not anywhere near as extreme as he gets made out to be by the other side of the aisle.
  14. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Congrats to the new Republican house which will surely **** things up for the immediate future. Speaking of which, they were elected last night and the economy is still in the crapper, what are they waiting for?! I kid, of course. Surely such an inane notion would be unrealistic and in no way used by the GOP. Still, I do like that their majority is less than they'd hoped for. So, while last night will sting Democrats; the Republicans actually still wield less power than they wanted. Good jerb, suckers.

    I do also love that Angle nor O'Donnell won. At least it shows that while the voters are pretty much stupid, they aren't too stupid.
  15. GrandAdmiralJello Moderator Communitatis Litterarumque

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Sure, I agree with you about the misuse of the word socialist and a global perspective is helpful for, mirabile dictu, some perspective. For instance, the Republicans should be blue and Democrats red, to conform to international expectations. :p

    That said, it is also useful to consider the domestic spectrum because that's the context our politicians are operating view. Broad view, narrow focus, if you will. The former is for awareness and context, the latter for deep analysis.

    Are you sure? The GOP lost the Senate majority and took (slight) losses in the House after the last gridlock, culminating in Election 2000--and this was gridlock in a good economy. I have to think voters would punish them for misbehaving in a bad economy, this year's backlash against Obama (against incumbents, really) aside. I mean, I feel the Democrats were punished for not doing enough to help the economy: with a GOP House, they'll be punished too.
  16. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    They won't be punished. The GOP has spread around so many lies and so much fear that I'm pretty sure these jackholes who elected the GOP to take over the House will keep them in power.
  17. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Aside from that for a wave, it's expected to be the smaller gains, not the larger ones, I'd also point out some of the other Senate races, then.
    GOP pickups also included Arkansas (+21%) and Indiana (+15%).
  18. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    It's also worth noting that out of the 6 Republican gains in the Senate, only 2 were defeats of Democratic incumbents (Blanche Lincoln and Russ Feingold). Also out of those 6, none of those Republicans are "Tea Party."

    They're now calling Colorado for Bennet.
  19. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    Well, California just decided to have a committee and not the state legislature redistrict. The current delegation is 34 Democrats and 19 Republicans, although if you were to expect it to break down the same way that, say, the gubernatorial election went (just a general assumption to approximate what redistricting might do), you'd expect something more like 29 Democrats and 24 Republicans. So, will see how it goes, but that might hurt the Democrats in 2012.

    The other thing is how many state legislatures changed hands this election. All of these are Republican gains:
    gained both chambers this election: Alabama, Maine, Minnesota, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Wisconsin
    gained one chamber, having already controlled other chamber: Indiana, Michigan, Montana, Ohio, Pennsylvania
    gained one chamber, now leading to divided state control: Colorado, Iowa

    That represents 19 chambers that the GOP won, and depending on results, the GOP could win the State Senates in Washington and New York, and in Oregon, the State House is evenly split and a single undecided seat will determine if the Senate is split as well, or controlled by the Democrats with a 16-14 majority.
  20. DarthKarde Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2002
    star 5
    At House level it is perfectly normal for the seats that changed hands to have small margins. It stands to reason that swing districts will for the most part be close.

    As for The Senate, some races were close but others were not. At the start of the campaign Ohio and New Hampshire were considered competitive but we have GOP wins by 18 and 23 points.

    I must admit PA surprised me. Sestak came closer than I thought but the GOP picked up 5 House seats which was better than expected.
  21. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Yea, PA is a tough loss if you're a Democrat. Toomey, like Rand Paul, is such a tool (I can't think of a better word off the top of my head).

    I can certainly deal with a Kirk or Portman victory for the GOP. Both are decent, smart guys who just happen to have a different set of political beliefs than I. Chris Matthews made a good point about Ohio, they are repped in the Senate by Portman and Sharrod Brown...two people who are so different on many issues.

    What should be mentioned is that for all of the tea party talk, they probably cost the GOP the Senate. They should've easily won Colorado, Nevada and even Delaware. Thanks G-d that Sharon Angle lost. Going back to my comments about Toomey and Paul, being a tool is much better than being insane.
  22. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    There's a good chance that this election saw the high water mark of the Tea Party, and that as economic stagnation and high unemployment continues, populist discontent will start to tadopt a more practical form that actually takes into account the economic self interest of the middle class.
  23. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    It'll be interested to see how they mix with the rest of the Republicans.

    Chuck Todd touched on, but I'm not sure if he followed up, on how there were a few hundred thousand less voters in the various Senate races in Ohio, PA, etc. than in 2008. It would be interesting to see the composition, if possible, of who stayed home.
  24. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    What should be mentioned is that for all of the tea party talk, they probably cost the GOP the Senate. They should've easily won Colorado, Nevada and even Delaware. Thanks G-d that Sharon Angle lost. Going back to my comments about Toomey and Paul, being a tool is much better than being insane.

    I think that isn't all a bad thing though. First off, I think the country got it right with regards to which Tea Party candidates got elected, and which didn't. O'Donnell had no chance of winning. But I think it was the absolutely proper thing to do to let her run. Sharon Angle would have been interesting turn-over for Reid, but I'm glad Reid held on. Second, I'm not sure how much you can quantify the effects in other races. Would the GOP have taken some much in the house without the influence? How about Governors? I'm sure every political strategist in the country realizes the value of such scale.

    I certainly think that we both agree that you want a mix of ideas in government instead of complete swings of the pendulum.
  25. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    O'Donnell had no chance of winning. But I think it was the absolutely proper thing to do to let her run.

    Right, to be clear I wasn?t saying she shouldn?t be allowed to run. In fact I defended her against Meghan McCain?s idiocy.

    Regarding House or Governor...you tell me. I?m too lazy to look it up. And since I already gave such a good argument regarding the Senate, I think it?s only fair you should handle the House and/or Governor?s races vis-a-vis the tea party. :p :)

    But to reiterate, I think it is painfully obvious that the tea party cost the GOP the Senate. Just as us Democrats have to accept a Ben Nelson or Mary Landreiu in conservative states, even in a wave election, you can?t run someone far to the right in a state like Delaware, and apparently even in swing states like Colorado and Nevada, without paying a price.

    I certainly think that we both agree that you want a mix of ideas in government instead of complete swings of the pendulum.

    Definitely, but everything has it's limits. I wouldn't vote for a Cindy Sheehan in a million years. And as I said, I can certainly accept a Mark Kirk or Rob Portman. Even in more conservative states, it's hard to argue that Thad Cochran is a bad Senator. He's certainly a bright guy.

    But I'm not high on Rand Paul or Pat Toomey. I think they belong in the Jim Demint column for being smug, self-satisfied tools (I'm beginning to like this word) who are the mirror-image of some hippies that I meet out here in Cali...they don't understand that there is something called 'the rest of the country' that may not agree with you.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.