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. Alpha-Red Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 25, 2004
    star 5
    Not sure if this article was posted anywhere here before (it was written in March), but according to it obstructionism was a deliberate political strategy so that Democratic legislation couldn't get the bipartisan seal of approval. Then there's this follow-up commentary.
  2. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    The thing is, it's going to take inroads from candidates to change the face of the GOP, and I think it will also affect how the GOP addresses issues, somewhat, when it can see that certain racial groups are not as monolithic as people want it to be.

    I've got a friend that when he registered to vote, his reason for registering as a Democrat was that he's a minority. I think that sort of mindset will be weakening as more minority Republicans gain prominence, and not by tokenism, but by winning elections. Pueto Rican Raul Labrador, who won Idaho's 1st seat, beat the establishment candidate in the primary, but was able to then win in a district that was over 90% white (and, incidentally, charged the Democrat with racial attacks). African-American Tim Scott won a 9 way primary in South Carolina in a district that's 75% white, including beating the son of Strom Thurmond. African-American Allen West won in the Florida 22nd where it was over 80% white and under 4% African-American and cites the Tea Party for part of his support. And the more prominent winners of Rubio, Sandoval, Martinez, and Haley has already been discussed.

    Does this suddenly make the GOP as diverse as the Democrats from a race standpoint? No. But it does make the GOP look more welcoming as these candidates are, for the most part, getting through primaries where white GOP members are apparently not bothered by race and will back them to higher offices. It's not a sudden change in the face of the GOP, but it's certainly the sort of progress the GOP needs to show that they're welcoming of someone of any race that has similar ideology.
  3. KnightWriter Administrator Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Nov 6, 2001
    star 8
    If the 2012 Republican Convention looks noticeably less lily white than it did in 2008, I'll start believing that there are some fundamental changes. Until then, it's just putting a different face on the same problem.
  4. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
    The only other trouble is that according to Gallup, since 2008 the number of self-proclaimed conservatives increased from 37% to 42%, while the self-proclaimed moderates decreased from 37% to 35% and self-proclaimed liberals decreased from 22% to 20%. So, I mean, doing better with self-proclaimed moderates because you've gotten that group to shrink and the number of conservatives to increase isn't great news.

    Although, I'd also question the significance of the label 'moderate', particularly as it relates to the party breakdowns. It would seem that 'moderate' is largely a label used by Democrats, since apparently there's 36% Democrats, but only 20% liberals. On the flip side, there are 36% Republicans, and 41% conservatives. So that really doesn't match up. I mean, if you want to say "well, tea partiers are Republicans" then I think it's also valid to point out that a large portion of moderates are really Democrats, and that group, over all, went to the Democrats only by a 55-42 margin.
  5. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    And I think these are very important issues to discuss. This is the mindset that puzzled me the most as well, and prompted my earlier post-the one where Goodfellas answered back "yeah, it doesn't matter that the only democratic candidates this time around were old, white, rich ones.."

    What percentage of proclaimed Tea Partiers who were elected weren't even Caucasian? Some 60%? The actual number isn't as important as the fact that the Tea Party was painted by critics as representing the pure, concentrated racism within the GOP. But Marco Rubio, Nikki Haley, and all the others mentioned weren't just tokens, (and that's a pretty insulting label in its own right) they had the full support and representation of their party. In fact, Rubio represents a prior discussion we had about the changing face of the parties in general. Rubio was raised Catholic by his Latino parents. (who later switched to Baptist.) But Rubio found more of a personal identity with the GOP, because of his traditional Hispanic background. It's not like he just said "oh, I'm Latino, so I better be a democrat." Even if his family had chosen the democratic party, they would have pulled the party toward the conservative side of many issues. Such identities don't exist in isolation.

    I agree that one election doesn't represent a massive shift in demographics and/or attitudes but on the reverse side of the coin, how long is the democratic party supposed to represent a diverse face, if the candidates who it elects are Reid, Boxer, Leahy, and the like? While it does serve to appease traditional "white man's burden" guilt, it doesn't actually do anything to update such attitudes for the 21st Century. Institutional racial attitudes within the democratic party may have become a crutch to an older way of thinking, which is a traditional barrier to progressiveness.

    I don't even think skin color should be the issue that trumps all other issues. That's reminiscent of Sotomayor's "wise old Latina" gaffe. The country shouldn't be looking at strict formulas- "X amount of minorities means that you're not racist." Rather each person should be held up to their own merits, abilities, and backgrounds. That's how the GOP won quite a few positions this time around, and it might actually have a long term positive effect on racial attitudes in the country.
  6. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Clearly, the solution is to put the Puerto Rico and Guam delegations front and center.
  7. Ben_Skywalker Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 20, 2001
    star 5
    Ironically, the delegate from Guam is caucasian.
  8. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    So, basicly Obama thinks that the Republicans won not because we rejected his policies. Oh no, it was because of his (Obama's) failure to communicate. He's kinda stupid. We used to think that he was smart and an excellant communicator. Guess neither turned out to be true (BTW...Told you so)

    And Barry? Keep thinking that it wasn't your policies. It will only make 2012 that much easier for us as you try to enact your 1% banking fees, your environmental legislation that's based on flawed science, and your bad ideas about immigration and amnesty.

    Go ahead. We await 2012.
  9. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    The Dems lost the house because the unemployment rate maxed out at 10%, closer to 20% in terms of underemployment and discouraged workers and has stuck there. Doing something about that would have required a massive government intervention unlike anything seen since the Great Depression. Obama lacked the courage or foresight, or both, to undertake such a crash program. Ironically of course, the Republicans would have opposed such a program much more vigorously than they ever opposed health care reform, which in any case and just as ironically, virtually everyone in the country agreed was critically necessary.

    What's missing in this discussion is any effort to acknowledge Republican culpability in Obama's failure. I'm trying to remember the point where Republican leadership said "We will work with the president to do everything necessary to keep Americans working during an unprecedented economic crisis. Now is not the time for partisanship."

    Some might call the massive level of Republican obstructionism during a national economic emergency treason, but Kimball Kinneson just calls it political gamesmanship. Republicans were shrewd and clever, cunning and wily to use the worst recession since the Great Depression as a means of clearing Democrats out of Congress. Their reasoning was that by the time they shifted all the blame onto the democrats and took power, the worst of the recession would be over and they could claim credit for getting people back to work.

    Unfortunately, full success means obstructing economic stimulus for another two years to get Obama out of office, which Mitch McConnell has vowed to do. Not treason, mind you, but political gamesmanship.
  10. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    These are the policies in debate here. The trouble is his health care bill, fear over his environmental policiy and his wavering over Bush's rax cuts that turned out to not by just for the rich.

    But as with Obama, keep thinking what you're thinking. It'll make 2012 that much easier. But for the record I would rather that the Dems take some courses in economics and succeed in restoring us to world prominace and get a second term. But they are a little too thick in the head for that.
  11. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    J-Rod, that's kind of true. At least somewhat. And what you people were rejecting were the GOP's ideas of what his policies were. Soo...yeah...
  12. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    If J-Rod can accurately describe "Obama's policies," and not the fantasy versions that the GOP/Fox (same thing) have been claiming, I'll eat my hat.
  13. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Of course I can. The question is, can you?

    He wants a "pathway to citizenship" for a large segment of people who snuck into America illegaly. Which amounts to amnesty for these criminals.

    He wants to continue to strengthen gas mileage regulations, which are already unrealistic.

    He wants to add a 1% "transaction tax" to all bank transactions.

    He wants us to think that alternative fuels are somehow magicly good for the economy.

    Similarly he wants us to think that by making health care more expensive for us it'll magicly be easier to pay for.

    He wants to increase welfare services, such as unemployment benifits, beyong the already unsustainable levels that they've been allowed to reach.

    I can go on.
  14. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    I'm sure you can, but I said "accurately." Can you do that?

    I.E. can you point to actual policy, as proposed? Legislation, introduced bills, speeches with the plans laid out? What does the pathway to citizenship entail? What are the mileage regulations and where is the proposal? Where is this transaction tax proposed, when would it be applied, what would it be for? Do you know where, when, and how these policies would be implemented? Or did you just "hear it somewhere"? Details. Accuracy.

    Or are vague references to the right's Pavlovian fear-words "taxes" and "regulation," and snide editorializing on what you imagine Obama's opinions (not even policies) to be, all you've got?

    In short, citation needed.
  15. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    J-Rod, if unemployment benefits were suddenly ceased, what do you think the outcome of that would be? We don't produce much anymore and not everyone has a college degree. So, use your brain for a second and think.
  16. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    Brady conceded in Illinois. After I've spent a majority of my lifetime watching Illinois politics, Quinn's win is still a complete surprise. I should have remembered that in a state where gubernatorial success is measured by the ability to stay out of jail, almost anything is possible.

    I've always believed that Illinois needs a Republican governor to function properly, but I guess the caveat is moderate Republican.
  17. Ramza JC Head Admin and RPF Manager

    Administrator
    Member Since:
    Jul 13, 2008
    star 6
    As we all know, only hippy liberals like Ronald Reagan want that!
  18. Ghost Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Oct 13, 2003
    star 6
    Here's some 2012 election news:

    The Tea Party is already planning to kick out the following incumbent GOP Senators in their primaries...
    *Orrin Hatch
    *Olympia Snowe
    *Richard Lugar
    *Bob Corker
    *Scott Brown

    That's half of the incumbent Republicans up for re-election in 2012. Strange they aren't targeting John Ensign, after all his scandals and perceived vulnerability.

    Will the Tea Party be stronger, or weaker, in 2012?

    Will the losses of Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle (and probably Joe Miller), who overthrew more moderate Republicans in their primaries but then lost the general election, lead to more caution?



    In other news, Nancy Pelosi announced she will run for Minority Leader.

    And Keith Olbermann is indefinitely suspended from MSNBC.



  19. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    Brady conceded in Illinois. After I've spent a majority of my lifetime watching Illinois politics, Quinn's win is still a complete surprise. I should have remembered that in a state where gubernatorial success is measured by the ability to stay out of jail, almost anything is possible.I've always believed that Illinois needs a Republican governor to function properly, but I guess the caveat is moderate Republican.

    Ironically, I think social services are going to take even more of a huge hit under Quinn. One of Quinn's last, and most effective campaign ads was when he looked right in the camera and said I won't cut police and teachers...If he stays true to that, the largest state agencies are welfare services, DCFS, and the like.

    I expect to see a modest increase in state taxes, cuts in those agencies, and Quinn's multi-billion dollar borrowing plan will now go through.
  20. J-Rod Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2004
    star 5
    Give this a look. I have a response for everything but no time. So here's just a prime example of why you guys are wrong, always have been wrong, and just can't see it. You'll continue to say that I must be a biggot.

    Fine.

    But you are wrong. So read the link.
  21. DorkmanScott Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 26, 2001
    star 6
    So now you're citing AARP's policies. We're asking about Obama's policies, which according to the article is a "small part" of AARP's actions, and which you still seem incapable of accurately describing. My hat remains quite uneaten.
  22. Lord_Hydronium Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 11, 2002
    star 5
    LOL.

    (For those who don't want to click the link, J-Rod's basically reiterating an e-mail forward about a pet bill of one Congressman who's been trying to ram it through since 2004, and has never even gotten out of committee, much less been endorsed by anyone near Obama.)
  23. kingthlayer Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 7, 2003
    star 4
    That is most certainly not what I said, you shouldn't be using quotation marks like that if you are going to poorly paraphrase my post. You wrote that the victors of 3 Senate races in CA, CO and NV showed a demographic shift, and I said that it was a ridiculous claim. I never made any statements about the rest of the candidates or races across the country, in either party.
  24. LtNOWIS Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    May 19, 2005
    star 4
    Wait, which "tea party" is this? There isn't one national leadership here.

    I can see getting rid of Hatch at the Utah convention, but any primary challenges would be a wasteful, counterproductive distraction.
  25. Lowbacca_1977 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 28, 2006
    star 6
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.