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. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    There will be a mix of ideas, yes, but it's like matter and anti-matter. Very little is going to get done between now and November of 2012, and even less will get done from January of 2012 until election day of that year. Republicans aren't going to compromise, because they can't. So many of them were sent into office by people who want them to stand against everything Democrats do, and those people will withdraw their support if they see their elected officials compromising with Democrats.
  2. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    Why am I the only one talking about Mike Lee? Yes Senator Bennett was ranked as one of the most conservative, but he was ousted for being too liberal because he supported a Republican President's bailout and proposed a bipartisan bill on health care that went nowhere. Oh and he helped keep military bases in the state and bring back federal dollars.

    Basically anything that you will need a unanimous consent on, I can see Mike Lee standing up for the Constitution to fight it.

    Hatch and Bennett may have been some of the most conservative members of the Senate, but they still believed in getting things done. Lee, and soon to be Senator Chaffetz two years from now, will have the sole focus on reducing the size and scope of the federal government except with respect to the military industrial complex and border security. All that prime federal land in the state of Utah is just dying to be sold off to their rich friends, and if the state likes the national parks so much it can buy them.

    Lee was elected because the extreme right wing was very motivated to send the message that there was too much compromise going on in Washington, and they want the feds to leave them alone. If we want to turn our state into a strip mine for oil shale and coal and the nuclear waste dump of the world, our largest landowners have the right to do that.
  3. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    If not for you, Espy, I'd never have heard of Mike Lee. So, in that way, I think it's mostly just ignorance.
  4. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Because I think no one knows much about him. (unless, of course you're from Utah.) Until this election, I didn't know that half of Utah's land is managed by various agencies of the federal government. That's an interesting dynamic for the state. Besides maybe the size of the atomic test sites, White Sands Range, etc.. in New Mexico does any state have a larger share of land manged by the feds?

    Mike Lee's first choice for committee assignments is going to the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee, but I don't know specifics of what energy policy is going to be discussed.
  5. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Wikipedia has a nice list of all the freshmen in the new Congress. A few are still missing real articles, but it'll fill in soon enough. There's about 15 new Senators and 72 new Representatives, a pretty significant turnover. Manchin and Coons were elected in special elections, so they'll be seated this month instead of January and aren't listed.

    Just going over the list, it looks like Aaron Schock will still be the youngest person in the House. The youngest Senator will be our Mike Lee, who's less than a week younger than Marco Rubio.

    Most of the new Representatives (34) are former state legislators, although that doesn't necessarily mean they're career politicians or the "establishment" choice. Aside from that, there looks to be about 13 businessmen, a few doctors, 4 mayors, and various government and private attorneys. There are six former Representatives; five are winning back their old seats, one moved into his brother's old district. There are also 8 people without listed professions, because they were not considered notable on Wikipedia prior to the election. Those people are almost certainly new to political office.

    Religion stats are too incomplete to be useful thus far.

    Also, apparently a record number of gay candidates were elected.

    Edit: Espy, another thing you may not know about Lee is that he's the scion of an old political family of the West, with ancestors in the Utah territorial legislature. He's a second cousin to Senators Tom and Mark Udall.
  6. GenAntilles Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 24, 2007
    star 4
    I made this post 3 days after the 08 election.


    Huh, what do you know? Can I call em or can I call em. I remember vividly all the talk here about 'The end of the Republican Party.' The 'Death of Regan Conservatism'. 'America had embraced Liberalism and was moving towards the social polices of Europe'. 'The Democrats would have a 1,000 year rule'. 'The Republicans are the Tories now, they'll be out of power for decades'. 'Democrats will win more seats in 2010! Obama will campaign with them and his popularity will bring in more votes for them. 'Something like 1994 happening is only for the deranged and insane.'

    I remember how when I said the Republicans would take back the House and possiblly the Senate all the incredulous looks I got. I remember how many people said that was an impossibility. How many people told me to forget a 1994 come back and look at the Tories.

    Well I've been waiting quietly for 2 years to finally say this...
    We did it! They did it! :D

    Do I expect America is going to get out of the ditch? No. But at least now the Republicans can stop Obama from trying to fix it by hitting it with a sledgehammer.
  7. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    Don't get too smug too quick, my friend.

    I've been around long enough to say the following with confidence: everything cycles.

    What we have seen this cycle is a magnification of the extremes due to the unusually long and deep recession, but if history tells us anything, it's that self-correction tends to be built into American politics.

    I was hopeful for some real compromise yesterday and early today, when Obama announced his summit meeting with the new and old congressional leadership to look for areas where the agenda of the American people can be moved forward. Boehner hit the right notes (no pun intended), and then today, Mitch McConnell basically reiterated that the GOP's primary focus will be to "Carterize" Obama (word mine :D).

    I'm going to take a stand here today on that approach. We'll find out in two years whether or not it holds true, but here it is:

    It won't work. Independents, as quickly as they abandoned Obama and the GOP in '08 to elect him, could easily swing back. Even a 50-50 split in 2012, combined with what is sure to be much higher democratic base turnout (and youth as well), could easily propel him back to a second term. For all the talk about triangulation and compromise, only one number is going to matter in the lead-up to 2012, and that is unemployment. If it below 9% and dropping, I think he will win a second term.

    What we all need to remember is that the new norm has become rapidly shifting majorities in Congress and a much shorter-tempered electorate, coupled with no real ability for either side to claim a mandate. This election, as Rand Paul correctly put it, was "not a wholesale embrace of the GOP". It was a protest vote, and it could easily turn the other way in two years if things get better. Both the President and the Congressional leadership have a limited but real ability to at least attempt to work on economic and fiscal issues, and if the tone is "no no no", then whomever can successfully grab the bully pulpit and paint the other side in a worse light will win.


    My advice to Obama? Get some people from the Clinton White House in there, at least to help deal with all the upcoming oversight investigations, as well as bring in some fresh new ideas on how to triagulate. You're gonna need 'em.

    Also, I would say this environment parallels 1938 most, when FDR lost bigtime after passing some major New Deal legislation, yet won re-election, followed by 1982, when a 10.8% unemployment rate cost the White House in the midterms. Reagan's "stay the course" message led the outcome which we all remember.

    It will be very interesting, indeed, but I am taking all of this with a shaker of salt. The older one gets, the less impressive this all looks. It's even money right now on Obama 2012.

    Peace,

    V-03
  8. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Right now there is no momentum whatsoever toward higher employment. I don't see anything in the private sector that will cause a turnaround quickly enough to help Obama win reelection.

    The real estate crisis and the private debt crisis, combined with the widespread state government crises. The primary economic project of the American consumer right now is deleveraging from revolving credit, home equity and mortgage debt. This implies a wholesale capitulation and retreat from spending and a slow retooling of the economy as we improve our ability to export. Consumer deleveraging is a multiyear project.

    What's ahead is an extended process of major bank restructuring, a long malaise in housing prices and home construction, and a significant downsizing of the retail sector. After that, we can start creating jobs.

    A massive public works jobs program would help, but getting it started in time to help the president, and without the help of the House of representatives, very unlikely. That should have gone into hyperplanning mode in Obama's first 150 days of office, and should have been moving toward implementation right about now.
  9. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    Well, let's look:

    Nope.

    [image=http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/Unemployment%20Chart310.JPG]

    Nope. Combat troops out, Iraq still as stable as it's ever been (not saying much, admittedly, but hasn't "slipped back into chaos").

    Not so far.

    Taxes went down for those making less than $250,000/year.

    $250k+/year IS "The Rich."

    Bit like saying "Water will get Obama wet."

    July of this year.

    The Republicans won a majority, "landslide" is quite subjective.

    So out of everything, you managed to foresee (if overstate) a Republican Congressional win in the House of Representatives, and not much else. Talk about counting the hit and ignoring the misses.
  10. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Except Dorkman, V, we all know that Antilles is reacting to the sheer absolutism that was displayed back then, even if he is now rather exuberant in his response.

    All of regulars, both right and left, remember those claims- that the GOP was going to dry up and disappear, that the democrats are going to remain in power for a 100 year reign..and so on... I don't expect anyone is going to reference those claims now, and they'll certainly be forgotten, but the fact remains that they were reactionary then, and honestly, rather silly. To DS77's credit, he was one of the few, if any, left aisle regulars who actually questioned those claims when they were made, even as he remained critical of the GOP.

    Sure, everyone knows things are cyclical, and the political process naturally ebbs and flows. It's just funny to see this accepted now, because for a time, "ebbing and flowing" and a "natural cycle" were the farthest things from some people's minds.
  11. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    This phenomenon can most probably be attributed to post-'08 left wing dopamine rushes, in much the same way as quite a few commentators on the right (Not on this board in so far as I can tell, mind you, but I've certainly seen them about) are saying this a harbinger of a full return to long-term Republican control akin to the Reagan era.
  12. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I don't remember ANYONE claiming a "100 year reign." PPOR.

    What I remember is the right making a lot of straw man arguments, CLAIMING that the left said/expected this, that, or the other of the Obama Presidency, and then going "See? Ha!" when the expectations nobody was holding went unfulfilled.

    I say "remember," of course, as though the exact same thing isn't happening this very week...
  13. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I don't remember ANYONE claiming a "100 year reign." PPOR.

    Ramza's reply pretty much summed up the point, as he illustrated the overall feeling, which applies to both sides, so sure. Considering the totality of the claims, this sure is a whopper of a comeback. It might have been 20 year reign or whatever time frame was specified. I'll freely admit that I'm not going to go back and review all the old posts, so if you care, I'll give you this one.

    However, your reply is a bit like hanging around a horrible multiple vehicle traffic crash, and as someone is describing the sheer amount of casualties and wreckage, interjecting "No! I just want to clarify...the one car wasn't black, it was dark blue.."

  14. Vaderize03 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Oct 25, 1999
    star 5
    44, if you look at my posting history overall, I have consistently hit the theme of "everything cycles".

    I have not now, nor have I ever, boasted of a permanent democratic majority.

    Neither did the dems, IIRC. It was Karl Rove who crowed from every hill he could climb up on about the new Republican majority that would last for decades.

    The idea of such from either side is a joke. I have always maintained as such.

    Peace,

    V-03
  15. kingthlayer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2003
    star 4
    I think the best way for the administration to combat McConnell's obstructionism is to simply not send a lot of stuff his way. I think Americans have had enough of a big agenda for now. Focus on "small ball" stuff that the House will want to negotiate on, like taxes, education reform, figuring out ways to reform/build upon the health care bill and making small steps towards energy reform. If Boehner manages to strike compromises with Democrats in the House, it will likely encourage McConnell to play along in the Senate. Republicans will want to be able to tout a few accomplishments on the campaign trail in '12, after all.

    The Federal Reserve will do what it can to stimulate the economy, and Obama can continue to use recess appointments to get people he needs into his administration, instead of dealing with countless, pointless filibusters. I agree with Vaderize that getting some Clinton-era people into the WH is going to be very important, because Congressional investigations are going to be a huge, time-consuming headache headache.

    An extra word about McConnell: he is likely to become SML in 2012 (the Democrats have 23! seats to defend versus the GOP's 9), and I very much doubt that he will appreciate the Democrats filibustering his every action. [face_devil]
  16. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Just go back to the first page of the Future of the Republican Party thread. It starts with the idea that there's no way the GOP will recover in 2010, and that the GOP would need to make some big changes and develop real solutions to get back into power. That wasn't the case, and it's more or less the same party it was in 2008.

    People, here and in the media, were saying that the GOP was at risk of becoming a "regional, Southern party." That was never a plausible scenario for either party, not since desegregation anyways.
  17. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    You and Antilles both brought up the "X year reign" comment as though it was a real thing. It was a very specific (and, on Antilles' part especially, evocative, i.e. "Thousand Year Reich"), which made it sound like something that stood out or happened frequently. Two years on, I'm becoming quite tired of having people on the right of the spectrum making wild claims and putting words in the mouths of those on the left, so I asked you to give an example or retract it, and you chose to backpedal and then retract.

    No, it's more akin to hearing two people blaming one of the drivers for running a red light and pointing out that there aren't any lights nearby to run.

    You think so? I think they've made a clear swing even further to the right and become more obstructionist than they've ever been. While they haven't given any real solutions, they've got a very good plan of pandering to their base by stroking all the xenophobic hot-buttons they can reach (socialist! Muslim! euphemism-for-black-without-saying-black-outright!) and making it sound like the solution is to get rid of Obama.

    The Republican party in 2008 was running around like a chicken with its head cut off, without a single clear goal, and if that hadn't changed they'd still be floundering. But, as it turns out, blaming everything short of the sky being blue on Barack (HUSSEIN!) Obama and standing against everything he even thinks of has turned out to be probably a far better political plan, at least in the short term, than actually standing for something.
  18. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    The Republican Party of today is still doomed if it doesn't change in a fundamental way. It relies heavily on white voters, particularly lower income and older white voters. This is unsustainable over the long term if it wants to win national elections.
  19. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Politics isn't about demographics, it's mostly about ideology and who can best sell their policy. After a few generations, the Hispanic population could split half-and-half between Republicans and Democrats. Only a few years ago the majority of Hispanics went for the Republicans. One of George W. Bush's main goals was to bring the Hispanic community into the Republican Party coalition (Bush did support the liberal McCain-Kennedy Immigration reform bill, that would have created a guest-worker program, and unfortunately failed in 2006). Another could do it again. There's George P. Bush, Jeb's son (who's Hispanic), who will likely enter politics in a decade or so. And more relevant to today, there's Senator-Elect Marco Rubio in Florida. There's also the Republican Governor-Elect of New Mexico and she'll be the first Latina Governor in American history, and the Republican Governor-Elect of Nevada (who beat Harry Reid's son) is also Hispanic. We also have two Indian-American governors now, Nikki Haley and Bobby Jindal, both young and Republican.
  20. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    You're right that politics can be more ideological than demographic. However, when a large part of the ideology can be characterized as essentially race-baiting, there's a problem. The results on the West Coast suggest that Hispanics may find Republicans as toxic as African-Americans do. Prominent faces like Bush and Rubio can help counteract that impression, but that also means stopping the fear-mongering from the likes of Tancredo, Angle, Buck and Brewer. Otherwise, whatever minority candidates the GOP is able to field will be seen--rather correctly--as tokens that can't excuse the party's generally hostile policy stances.
  21. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    I wouldn't say it's the party, just the fringe candidates. Tancredo, Angle, and Buck all lost their elections. There may still be some hostility with the fringes of the Tea Party, as well as discomfort with some of the older Republican establishment figures, but the 2010 elections show it was not a majority of the Republican Party. A lot of the fear around immigration, and around a growing Hispanic population, is that they won't integrate into American society. Those three I mentioned, Rubio in Florida and the Governor-Elects of Nevada and New Mexico, will just show the wary that their fears may be overblown. That sentiment will probably continue for a few more election cycles, but it will probably diminish, not increase.
  22. Espaldapalabras Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 25, 2005
    star 5
    You guys have to admit that post 2008 most of you went obviously overboard on downplaying the Republican chances for this year and the near future.

    Yes the far right wing risks alienating Mexican voters, but that is more of a medium term problem. In the long term the parties will adjust, and for the moment race baiting mostly works. It will be interesting to see how things play out because Republicans in bluish areas will probably move away from those tactics quicker than the ones in super conservative states, and how voters react to that divergence. Did northern voters punish all the Democrats for racist southern Democrats? Maybe now with less barriers between states they won't be able to tell the difference.

    I did just become aware of Lee's family background. Former Senator Smith from Oregon is also part of that family.

    I think it is interesting that so many people here complain about the federal government controlling all the land. Personally I think it is what makes this state so great. None of it is really where people have any business living anyways, and then we just fight about land use policies. Handing it over to the state would be a complete disaster. There is no real environmental interest in this state, so the federal government is largely the one telling the state that it can't convert the entire public wilderness into ATV trails.

    And even my super conservative hick friends love public land even if they resent the federal government because they get to use it, where in other states like Texas you simply can't do the amount of outdoor activities you can here because most of the land is private.
  23. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Senator-Elect Lee of Utah is also cousins with two current Democratic Senators, the Udall's of New Mexico and Colorado.
  24. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    Mr44

    To DS77's credit, he was one of the few, if any, left aisle regulars who actually questioned those claims when they were made, even as he remained critical of the GOP.

    Thank you, especially considering I was giving you a hard time the past few posts. And to defend V, he has talked about politics being cyclical for a while.

    But a bigger thank you is for not also reminding people that I think I also said that Mark Sanford would emerge as a leader for the GOP, which proves that while I like to think I can express my opinions honestly and offer decent analysis...my predictions can completely suck.

    Esp

    It will be interesting to see how things play out because Republicans in bluish areas will probably move away from those tactics quicker than the ones in super conservative states, and how voters react to that divergence. Did northern voters punish all the Democrats for racist southern Democrats? Maybe now with less barriers between states they won't be able to tell the difference.

    Agreed. I said something similar a few days ago, but it didn?t sound as succinct.

    Likewise, I also think I said back in 2008 that Obama did well amongst wealthy voters, my theory* being that wealthier Republicans/right-leaners in blue states got tired of being told they weren?t ?real Americans? by the Sarah Palins of the world. That while they may be fiscally moderate-to-conservative, the social issue focus on the right was too much. That, and I don't think it's just conservative voters that want someone 'they can have a beer with'.

    *note it was a theory, not a prediction, so while one can easily dismiss my predictions, I ask that they not be so quick with my theories.
  25. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    I would like to note that Democrats still did terrifically with self-proclaimed moderates in this election. The only trouble is that a lot of moderates stayed home or were overwhelmed by heavy Republican turnout (sorry folks, tea partiers are Republicans).

    They won't stay home in 2012.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.