Official FFA 2014 Midterms- GOP wins Senate, victories everywhere (1 Viewer)

[Slapdash]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

according to what I heard on the radio you're being flooded with commercials?

By Tillis and Hagan, yes. Not by a libertarian supporting legalization. That may have actually impacted my vote, but would have been hard considering the abject disaster Tillis has been in state gov't.

 

[Juxtatarot]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

Whining can also be a good strategy.

 

[The Ref]

God bless Florida. My precincts ballot collecting machine was broken this afternoon. They needed to call someone in who would be there "in about an hour". If you wanted to leave your ballot in a box to be counted later you needed to wait around for ten minutes for a member of the Democratic Party could keep an eye on the holding box (a GOP member was already on site).

 

[BassNBrew]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

according to what I heard on the radio you're being flooded with commercials?

By Tillis and Hagan, yes. Not by a libertarian supporting legalization. That may have actually impacted my vote, but would have been hard considering the abject disaster Tillis has been in state gov't.

Of course at least I had heard of Tillis, 6 years and her name was new to me.

 

[Slapdash]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

according to what I heard on the radio you're being flooded with commercials?

By Tillis and Hagan, yes. Not by a libertarian supporting legalization. That may have actually impacted my vote, but would have been hard considering the abject disaster Tillis has been in state gov't.

Of course at least I had heard of Tillis, 6 years and her name was new to me.

I'm sure you'll get some use out of that toll-lane

 

[jonessed]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

Not necessarily. Obama will have to get his hands dirty with vetoes which may force him to work with Congress. A Republican Senate will be more moderate than the Republican House and may be able to get more moderate bills out of them.There's at least a chance here with some change. If Democrats retain the Senate it will be status quo.

Or what?

 

[The Commish]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

Nor have I All I know is that I wrote in Mickey Mouse here in Rock Hill as the alternate to Lindsay Graham. How that idiot is in office is beyond me.

 

[TobiasFunke]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

Not necessarily. Obama will have to get his hands dirty with vetoes which may force him to work with Congress. A Republican Senate will be more moderate than the Republican House and may be able to get more moderate bills out of them.There's at least a chance here with some change. If Democrats retain the Senate it will be status quo.

Or what?

My bad, wasn't clear.

What's the negative consequence if he "gets his hands dirty" with vetoes rather than being "forced to work with Congress"? He's in the back half of his second term and he's exercised his veto power less than any president in history to date. Why can't he just veto legislation he doesn't like? The GOP is already blocking appointments at an unprecedented rate so it's not like that's suddenly gonna get worse, and the public has shown that it'll blame Congress if there's a shutdown, something that's even worse for the GOP when it controls both houses.

 

[Slapdash]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

Nor have I All I know is that I wrote in Mickey Mouse here in Rock Hill as the alternate to Lindsay Graham. How that idiot is in office is beyond me.

Is Graham favored down there? Going up against Ravenel is truly Giant ##### vs. Turd Sandwich.

 

[The Commish]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

Nor have I All I know is that I wrote in Mickey Mouse here in Rock Hill as the alternate to Lindsay Graham. How that idiot is in office is beyond me.

Is Graham favored down there? Going up against Ravenel is truly Giant ##### vs. Turd Sandwich.

I guess I don't know the politics down here that well. All I can go on is how they present themselves nationally and what they write down on paper...I get all the CLT TV stations So I get to hear the whining between Tillis and Hagan.

 

[Willy]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

according to what I heard on the radio you're being flooded with commercials?

In Wisconsin, I haven't heard any commercials on the radio, but on youtube the pro-weed candidate commercials are playing constantly. Not sure that qualifies as "flooded".

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Based on the last year of Obama's presidency I'd say there's next to no chance that he rolls over and does the bidding of Republicans in Congress going forward.

Think it'll be two more years of gridlock and grandstanding. Dems probably have a small edge going in since the crazy wing of the party isn't running things, but who knows if they'll make anything out of it.

 

[CBusAlex]

Republicans have long demonstrated that gaining power by any means necessary is their sole concern by their continued efforts to prevent as many "undesirable" voters as possible from casting their ballots. It looks like this will pay off for them this cycle, but if they fail to capture the senate expect them to just cast aside all pretense of support for democratic government and just take control in a violent coup.

the force is strong with this one

WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING AT ME MY POST IS REASONABLE

 

[Slapdash]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

They're obviously not doing a good job promoting them because I have seen nothing on this in NC.

according to what I heard on the radio you're being flooded with commercials?

In Wisconsin, I haven't heard any commercials on the radio, but on youtube the pro-weed candidate commercials are playing constantly. Not sure that qualifies as "flooded".

Haven't got anything on youtube either....can't they see the music videos I watch? Upset I didn't know about this one.

 

[jon_mx]

I welcome our new gridlock overlords. Now if we could get some people in who actually wanted to shrink the size of government.

 

[humpback]

Hopefully the Democrats have been learning from the GOP's tactics in the Senate.

Can't wait for the sides to switch up arguments.

Glad you find my sarcasm amusing.

I'm sure you'll still be standing around contributing nothing regardless.

WTF are you talking about?

When I say it, you make a lame post about it. When two other posters say it, you backtrack and basically agree with them.

Perhaps you misinterpreted my post?

Nope

Hope your day gets better!

 

[timschochet]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

 

[timschochet]

I welcome our new gridlock overlords. Now if we could get some people in who actually wanted to shrink the size of government.

Do you give President Obama any credit at all for the reduction in annual spending during his Presidency? The deficit has shrunk every year that he's been in office.

 

[Bucks]

Walking Boot, do you have a link for your statement that Democrats win 75% of all close elections?

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/do-democrats-always-win-close-statewide-elections/

Misspoke, they defined "close" as within 1%.

To get a sense of the answer, I took a look at all the statewide Senate and governors races from 1998 through 2013 (thanks to Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics for a big assist with the data) as well as all the statewide results in the presidential elections during that period. Lets begin with the very closest races, those decided by less than one percentage point. There have been 27 such races since 1998, and Democrats have won 20 out of 27:

Thats a truly impressive showing, and proof of how very unusual George W. Bushs victory in Florida in 2000 was. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races

so your sample size is 20 out of 27 races, and from that you conclude that the Democrats are cheating??If you flipped a coin 27 times and it happened to come up heads 20 times, would you automatically assume the coin was weighted?

Yes, because the probability of 20 or more wins is just 0.96%, less than 1 in a 100.

 

[timschochet]

Walking Boot, do you have a link for your statement that Democrats win 75% of all close elections?

http://thefederalist.com/2014/10/22/do-democrats-always-win-close-statewide-elections/

Misspoke, they defined "close" as within 1%.

To get a sense of the answer, I took a look at all the statewide Senate and governors races from 1998 through 2013 (thanks to Sean Trende of RealClearPolitics for a big assist with the data) as well as all the statewide results in the presidential elections during that period. Lets begin with the very closest races, those decided by less than one percentage point. There have been 27 such races since 1998, and Democrats have won 20 out of 27:

Thats a truly impressive showing, and proof of how very unusual George W. Bushs victory in Florida in 2000 was. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races

so your sample size is 20 out of 27 races, and from that you conclude that the Democrats are cheating??If you flipped a coin 27 times and it happened to come up heads 20 times, would you automatically assume the coin was weighted?

Yes, because the probability of 20 or more wins is just 0.96%, less than 1 in a 100.

I haven't done the math. But even if you're right, an .05 chance of something happening wouldn't ever convince me of foul play.

Now, on the other hand, if you flipped a coin 100 times and it came up heads 99 times, then I'd be convinced there was something wrong, obviously. But in this instance that Walking Boot linked, the sample size is way too small.

 

[Slapdash]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

These trade deals are little more than corporate welfare as currently constructed. Wish the GOP was actually against that.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on...

If they could do a real "Reset", man, that would be nice.

Hope springs eternal.

 

[timschochet]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

These trade deals are little more than corporate welfare as currently constructed. Wish the GOP was actually against that.

I think you're wrong on this. We need free markets to be able to export more of our goods. That's the key to more jobs. It's as simple as that. The unions don't like it, have never liked it because it creates economic disruption. But there's no good alternative to promoting free trade.

 

[Slapdash]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

These trade deals are little more than corporate welfare as currently constructed. Wish the GOP was actually against that.

I think you're wrong on this. We need free markets to be able to export more of our goods. That's the key to more jobs. It's as simple as that. The unions don't like it, have never liked it because it creates economic disruption. But there's no good alternative to promoting free trade.

There is nothing free about the pending trade agreements. They are all about enforcing US IP laws and placing corporations above national laws, not about reducing tariffs and restrictions. That makes markets less free, not more.

 

[timschochet]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on...

If they could do a real "Reset", man, that would be nice.

Hope springs eternal.

Following the Democratic victory in 2006, George W. Bush was chagrined, and did an about face on a lot of issues. He spent his final two years in office trying to work with Democrats (to the anger of many conservatives.) Personally, I never admired Bush more than I did at that point- he recognized that the American people, his bosses, had chosen a different direction for the country and he tried to make it work. Obama did a LITTLE of the same in 2010, but perhaps because he was running for re-election, he almost immediately became more confrontational. (Then again, he was facing the extremist Tea Party, and not the Rob Portmans of the world.)

We'll see if Obama behaves like Bush, or if he succumbs to the partisan left of his party which would like nothing more than for him to fight on every issue. If it's the latter, I'll lose a lot of respect for him.

 

[timschochet]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

These trade deals are little more than corporate welfare as currently constructed. Wish the GOP was actually against that.

I think you're wrong on this. We need free markets to be able to export more of our goods. That's the key to more jobs. It's as simple as that. The unions don't like it, have never liked it because it creates economic disruption. But there's no good alternative to promoting free trade.

There is nothing free about the pending trade agreements. They are all about enforcing US IP laws and placing corporations above national laws, not about reducing tariffs and restrictions. That makes markets less free, not more.

That's not my understanding. But in truth I haven't studied them in detail and I am relying on what I am hearing from Republicans like Portman and Democrats like Obama. I will try and study the details more and if it turns out that they are indeed not about reducing tariffs or trade restrictions, I will likely change my mind.

 

[Slapdash]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

These trade deals are little more than corporate welfare as currently constructed. Wish the GOP was actually against that.

I think you're wrong on this. We need free markets to be able to export more of our goods. That's the key to more jobs. It's as simple as that. The unions don't like it, have never liked it because it creates economic disruption. But there's no good alternative to promoting free trade.

There is nothing free about the pending trade agreements. They are all about enforcing US IP laws and placing corporations above national laws, not about reducing tariffs and restrictions. That makes markets less free, not more.

That's not my understanding. But in truth I haven't studied them in detail and I am relying on what I am hearing from Republicans like Portman and Democrats like Obama. I will try and study the details more and if it turns out that they are indeed not about reducing tariffs or trade restrictions, I will likely change my mind.

This explains why you're parroting the same nonsense. Shocking.

 

[jon_mx]

"Dems rise above politics"

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I just listened to a radio interview with Senator Rob Portman of Ohio. I've never really paid attention to him before, but at least in this interview he seemed quite reasonable, knowledgeable and well spoken. Not sure how much national name recognition he has, but if he were to run for the GOP nomination he might have a decent chance simply because he is conservative but obviously not "out there."

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on: specifically trade agreements (which Reid has put aside bowing to union pressure, but which Obama has indicated he is in favor of), and possibly the Keystone pipeline. (Obama has been relatively silent on this issue.) Portman also wanted to push for tax cuts but suspected that Obama would be less willing. Still, he kept making the point that Congress should try to work with the President, rather than immediately playing the partisan in your face card (such as repealing Obamacare, like Cruz wants to do.) I really liked hearing this and I hope that Portman's POV takes precedence.

I want to add to that I criticized the Republican party in 2009 for basically declaring that they would oppose ANYTHING that President Obama initiated. I think that this obstinacy has led to many of the problems we have today. If the Republicans win the Senate, it would of course be quite natural for the Democrats to take a similar stance and return the favor. But I'm hoping they don't. I would like to see the Dems rise above politics and try to work with the majority in terms of getting things done- my hopes, however, are not real high...

Portman proposed that if the Republicans win tonight, they should immediately move towards some issues that they can hopefully get Obama's agreement on...

If they could do a real "Reset", man, that would be nice.

Hope springs eternal.

Following the Democratic victory in 2006, George W. Bush was chagrined, and did an about face on a lot of issues. He spent his final two years in office trying to work with Democrats (to the anger of many conservatives.) Personally, I never admired Bush more than I did at that point- he recognized that the American people, his bosses, had chosen a different direction for the country and he tried to make it work. Obama did a LITTLE of the same in 2010, but perhaps because he was running for re-election, he almost immediately became more confrontational. (Then again, he was facing the extremist Tea Party, and not the Rob Portmans of the world.)

We'll see if Obama behaves like Bush, or if he succumbs to the partisan left of his party which would like nothing more than for him to fight on every issue. If it's the latter, I'll lose a lot of respect for him.

We will never know about Bush if there had been no 9/11/01 attacks. he ran on education reform and setting national standards, on sending social security money back to the owners (the employees who paid in), and he ran on having worked with Democrats in the Texas statehouse. Imagine that.

 

[timschochet]

"Dems rise above politics"

I get your cynicism, but why not? They have before. (Granted, it's been a while...)

 

[jonessed]

So if the Republicans take the Senate this current government is still in gridlock correct?

Not necessarily. Obama will have to get his hands dirty with vetoes which may force him to work with Congress. A Republican Senate will be more moderate than the Republican House and may be able to get more moderate bills out of them.There's at least a chance here with some change. If Democrats retain the Senate it will be status quo.

Or what?

My bad, wasn't clear.

What's the negative consequence if he "gets his hands dirty" with vetoes rather than being "forced to work with Congress"? He's in the back half of his second term and he's exercised his veto power less than any president in history to date. Why can't he just veto legislation he doesn't like? The GOP is already blocking appointments at an unprecedented rate so it's not like that's suddenly gonna get worse, and the public has shown that it'll blame Congress if there's a shutdown, something that's even worse for the GOP when it controls both houses.

He won't have Reid around to block bills that would be popular from reaching his desk. He doesn't need to veto anything because nothing he would veto ever makes it to his desk. Right now he can simply blame Congress for everything.He will simply have to own up to part of the gridlock if compromise can't be achieved.

 

[Courtjester]

So what hasn't been talked about tonight is what if the Dems hold on and control the Senate. I mean it seems like everyone (including the President has just conceded this) , but what if?

Do the Dems take this as a mandate and continue the status quo? What effect does this have on them in the next round of elections if the economy continues to struggle?

I think this is going to be a fun night....

 

[jon_mx]

"Dems rise above politics"

I get your cynicism, but why not? They have before. (Granted, it's been a while...)

I don't remember that ever happening. Dems and Reps use whatever tactics they think they can get away with.

 

[jon_mx]

So what hasn't been talked about tonight is what if the Dems hold on and control the Senate. I mean it seems like everyone (including the President has just conceded this) , but what if?

Do the Dems take this as a mandate and continue the status quo? What effect does this have on them in the next round of elections if the economy continues to struggle?

I think this is going to be a fun night....

I am not sure it makes a difference. Whether gridlock happens at point A or point B is nothing but talking heads fodder,

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Democrats are whining today about conservative groups funding independent libertarian candidates in North Carolina and Wisconsin promoting legalizing marijuana in commercials, with the goal of siphoning off some young voters from the Democrats.

I have no idea if the charge is true, but if it is true, so what? It's a brilliant strategy, IMO, and you can't tell me liberals haven't done similar stuff in the past.

Shame on Democrats for not picking up the marijuana issue and running with it. If they lose some races because of this, #### 'em.

I used to worry about voting Libertarian if I thought that block might result in a seat swinging from R to D. Any more, I just don't care. I voted for every Libertarian I could today, and undervoted in my state's governors race since there was no L on the ballot. I did vote for Mike Rounds but that was mainly a vote against Larry Pressler, who seriously rubs me the wrong way.

 

[Courtjester]

So what hasn't been talked about tonight is what if the Dems hold on and control the Senate. I mean it seems like everyone (including the President has just conceded this) , but what if?

Do the Dems take this as a mandate and continue the status quo? What effect does this have on them in the next round of elections if the economy continues to struggle?

I think this is going to be a fun night....

I am not sure it makes a difference. Whether gridlock happens at point A or point B is nothing but talking heads fodder,

I understand, but what I am hearing from about every news source is the Dems are going to lose, but it is no big deal because it actually is the best thing for them. So that is why I wonder if it doesn't happen, then what?

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

So what hasn't been talked about tonight is what if the Dems hold on and control the Senate. I mean it seems like everyone (including the President has just conceded this) , but what if?

Do the Dems take this as a mandate and continue the status quo? What effect does this have on them in the next round of elections if the economy continues to struggle?

I think this is going to be a fun night....

I am not sure it makes a difference. Whether gridlock happens at point A or point B is nothing but talking heads fodder,

I understand, but what I am hearing from about every news source is the Dems are going to lose, but it is no big deal because it actually is the best thing for them. So that is why I wonder if it doesn't happen, then what?

Hey I think the Dems can hold serve but the GOP probably picks up seats no matter what. We could see something closer to 50-50.

I think the answer to this "What If" is the imperial presidency grows stronger, and not just for Obama but for future presidents.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I welcome our new gridlock overlords. Now if we could get some people in who actually wanted to shrink the size of government.

Do you give President Obama any credit at all for the reduction in annual spending during his Presidency? The deficit has shrunk every year that he's been in office.

I've never blamed Obama for starting out with sky-high deficits and I give him no credit for being in office while they fell. He came into office during a massive economic downturn, which naturally causes the deficit to spike. As the economy has improved (not due to anything Obama has done), the deficit has naturally fallen.

I've said this before, but people who credit or blame the president for economic performance is roughly equivalent for crediting or blaming the president for the weather. Unless the president steps up and does something manifestly stupid, the state of the economy during his tenure should be a non-factor.

 

[Courtjester]

I guess I am channeling my inner Tim here with my What If, but so many of the Dems running have done all they can to distance themselves from Obama, but if they win, they now have that uncomfortable task of saying "Oh, we agreed with you all along."

It is kind of like when one of your friends breaks up with a girl that you didn't like. You spill the beans after the breakup and say well we didn't like her anyway. Then two weeks they get back together and you have to hang out with her. That's uncomfortable.

 

[timschochet]

I welcome our new gridlock overlords. Now if we could get some people in who actually wanted to shrink the size of government.

Do you give President Obama any credit at all for the reduction in annual spending during his Presidency? The deficit has shrunk every year that he's been in office.

I've never blamed Obama for starting out with sky-high deficits and I give him no credit for being in office while they fell. He came into office during a massive economic downturn, which naturally causes the deficit to spike. As the economy has improved (not due to anything Obama has done), the deficit has naturally fallen.

I've said this before, but people who credit or blame the president for economic performance is roughly equivalent for crediting or blaming the president for the weather. Unless the president steps up and does something manifestly stupid, the state of the economy during his tenure should be a non-factor.

i agree. But I also get tired of hearing people like Jon say that we need to put people in office who are going to cut spending. That's just useless rhetoric. Either the deficit will shrink or it won't, based on how fast the economy grows.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

So is this going to be the official election night thread? Just want to know where to hang out...

 

[ArbyMelt]

Exit polls have Virginia extremely close, not a good sign for Democrats tonite

 

[Courtjester]

So is this going to be the official election night thread? Just want to know where to hang out...

looks like it---got my beer and pizza and

Tim--get in here and change the title.....

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I welcome our new gridlock overlords. Now if we could get some people in who actually wanted to shrink the size of government.

Do you give President Obama any credit at all for the reduction in annual spending during his Presidency? The deficit has shrunk every year that he's been in office.

I've never blamed Obama for starting out with sky-high deficits and I give him no credit for being in office while they fell. He came into office during a massive economic downturn, which naturally causes the deficit to spike. As the economy has improved (not due to anything Obama has done), the deficit has naturally fallen.

I've said this before, but people who credit or blame the president for economic performance is roughly equivalent for crediting or blaming the president for the weather. Unless the president steps up and does something manifestly stupid, the state of the economy during his tenure should be a non-factor.

i agree. But I also get tired of hearing people like Jon say that we need to put people in office who are going to cut spending. That's just useless rhetoric. Either the deficit will shrink or it won't, based on how fast the economy grows.

And besides, why would anybody think that "people who are going to cut spending" = Republicans. They were total #### when it came to spending the last time they had the wheel.

 

[GoBirds]

Exit polls have Virginia extremely close, not a good sign for Democrats tonite

This convenient malfunction across the area should help the Dems.

http://wavy.com/2014/11/04/rigell-campaign-demands-paper-ballots-in-va-beach/

 

[timschochet]

McConnell won!

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Exit polls have Virginia extremely close, not a good sign for Democrats tonite

This convenient malfunction across the area should help the Dems.

http://wavy.com/2014/11/04/rigell-campaign-demands-paper-ballots-in-va-beach/

Wow, that's horrible.

That happened down here a few years ago.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

McConnell won!

Man the Dems threw some money down that rabbit hole.

 

[Dexter]

What's the best site for state results?

 

[timschochet]

I'm a little surprised Franken didn't get more of a challenge. After he won in 2006, conservatives claimed it was a fluke, and that they would target him. Yet he appears to be a shoo in.