Midterm Election Results

[bumblemusprime]

We are so ******.

[Kaylee]

Obama seems unable to control the dialog with the electorate. From here it looks like he's mostly kept his mouth shut and let the Republicans (and their astroturfing tea party) frame the debate exactly to their liking.

Add to that a natural dissatisfaction with the state's handling of the economy and it was never going to turn out well!

It would appear most of the health care reform bill got stripped out anyway, now there's precious little majority to push anything else through. With the republicans vowing to remove what little was passed.

Wow. I despise the Republicans but Obama has truly squandered some good chances: huge majority, massive good will, high expectations.

Bah!

Or not. Most of my US politics knowledge comes from the Daily Show

[Obfleur]

I know nothing about US politics - but I really wanna know what this Midterm Election **** is.
Does this mean that Obama can lose his power after only two years? Seems like a **** system if you ask me.

[Yaya]

Obama seems unable to control the dialog with the electorate. From here it looks like he's mostly kept his mouth shut and let the Republicans (and their astroturfing tea party) frame the debate exactly to their liking.

Add to that a natural dissatisfaction with the state's handling of the economy and it was never going to turn out well!

It would appear most of the health care reform bill got stripped out anyway, now there's precious little majority to push anything else through. With the republicans vowing to remove what little was passed.

Wow. I despise the Republicans but Obama has truly squandered some good chances: huge majority, massive good will, high expectations.

I think that pretty much sums up the reality of things. Obama had his chances, but allowed defeat to be snatched from the jaws of victory.

Despite all that, I still don't understand why those disgruntled with the economy are placing blame squarely on the Democrats who have only been in power for two years, whilst the main cause for the current economic situation came from the Republicans.

We are so ******.

That also pretty much sums things up.

[Hot Shot]

They should give everyone a short, simple quiz on the candidates before they can vote. I swear, most of the voters blindly picked Republicans because certain media outlets talked them into blindly hating the Democrats.


The only good news of the night was that stump-woman O'Donnell lost.

[Yaya]

The only good news of the night was that stump-woman O'Donnell lost.

How could even Republicans vote for her? She's a nut.

[Best First]

The only good news of the night was that stump-woman O'Donnell lost.

i guess pacts with Satan ain't what they used to be.

[Shanti418]

I know nothing about US politics - but I really wanna know what this Midterm Election **** is.
Does this mean that Obama can lose his power after only two years? Seems like a **** system if you ask me.

It's like this. There's a House, a Senate, and a President. President serves 4 years, House members serve 2, and Senate members serve 6.

Three points about this. One, the House is designed to have shorter terms so as to make them accountable to the people more, and the result is that the House is brash, full of whatever's popular (See: Tea Party), and its members are generally scared to have political courage if it will cost them their job next eletion. Two, the Senate has longer terms so they can look at issues and bills with a more objective, longitudinal eye, and the result is that the Senate generally speaking works across the aisle more, but it also means that Senators are more career politicians who are interested in protecting the status quo. Three, our system of government was DESIGNED by the founders to be relatively ineffectual, especially if you want things done fast, and hence the clusterf*** that is our process was supposed to be a cluster*** so the government couldn't overstep its bounds with ease.

The process to get things done in US Gov't, generally, is that the House passes a bill, the Senate approves the bill, and then the President can either sign it or veto it, the latter meaning the process starts all over again. Obviously this isn't the path for EVERY bill, and there are a multitude of tricks and procedures to hold up bills in the House or Senate.

So after 2008, the Democrats had the Presidency, the majority in the House, and the majority in the Senate, the latter two collectively known as Congress. This is more power consolidation by one party than generally occurs, so the thought was that the Dems should get a lot done under a popular Obama. And there are a multitude of reasons why more things didn't get done, among them the Republicans obstructed at an unprecedented level, the moderate Dems that gave the Dems the majority in the House were more concerned about being seen as moderate than about passing Obama's agenda, and the Republicans in the Senate basically said that you need 60 votes instead of the normal 51 to get anything passed due to their ability to filabuster.

Now, the Dems have the Presidency, the majority in the Senate, and the Repubs have the majority in the House. In this sense, Obama/the Democrats HAVE lost power, the power to control the agenda in the House. But as the last two years have shown, just because you have that doesn't mean you can get whatever you want done, and even then, whatever is done still has to go through the Senate and the Presidency, where the Democrats still have control.

ACTUALLY though, this will help Obama because now the Republicans have the responsibility of governing, so they can't just vote no against everything. Obama is much more moderate than their voters believe, and so they will be put in a position where they will either support radical policy that no one outside their base likes, or they will be seen as working with Obama, which is what some new House members have sworn they specifically will NOT do. Yes, childish, I know.

Furthermore, Obama KNEW this was going to happen since he got elected (the economic projections made the "people will be pissed at the gov't because they don't have a job still because our economy is SERIOUSLY f*****" writing on the wall), so he's tried to push forth the most progressive, most controversial, most "no one is going to like this, but it's got to be done, and if I have to be a one term President if that means SOMEONE is going to make the hard choices, so be it" bills and ideas over these first two years knowing he would lose at least the House in these midterms.

To sum, the Dems have lost power, but the amount of power they had was anomalous, and Obama stands to profit more from an honest to goodness foil in the form of the House than controlling the entirety of Congress, which caused people expectations to balloon when in actuality, our system is designed to always be moderately ineffectual.

[Obfleur]

Good job Shanti418! Thank you!

[Yaya]

It's like this. There's a House, a Senate, and a President. President serves 4 years, House members serve 2, and Senate members serve 6.
Three points about this. One, the House is designed to have shorter terms so as to make them accountable to the people more, and the result is that the House is brash, full of whatever's popular (See: Tea Party), and its members are generally scared to have political courage if it will cost them their job next eletion. Two, the Senate has longer terms so they can look at issues and bills with a more objective, longitudinal eye, and the result is that the Senate generally speaking works across the aisle more, but it also means that Senators are more career politicians who are interested in protecting the status quo. Three, our system of government was DESIGNED by the founders to be relatively ineffectual, especially if you want things done fast, and hence the clusterf*** that is our process was supposed to be a cluster*** so the government couldn't overstep its bounds with ease. The process to get things done in US Gov't, generally, is that the House passes a bill, the Senate approves the bill, and then the President can either sign it or veto it, the latter meaning the process starts all over again. Obviously this isn't the path for EVERY bill, and there are a multitude of tricks and procedures to hold up bills in the House or Senate.

Also, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls "hotbox". Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine.

[Kaylee]

Awesome! Can I play?

[Best First]

Kwality post from Shanti.

Can you explain the filabuster bit?

[Professor Smooth]

Kwality post from Shanti.

Can you explain the filabuster bit?

Difficulty: More than three sentences, less than fifty.

I really expected to be worked up about this. But I really don't care. I can't even make myself care. The country's fallen so far, that maybe it's beyond saving. I kind of just want to sit back and watch it burn.

Everybody I talk to back in the US (parents, family, friends, etc) all say the same thing. "Meh, yeah it's bad now, but it'll get better again. It always does."

But when I try to explain that's not necessarily the case, that sometimes once-booming countries do collapse, they just say "Oh, Kevin's being paranoid again."

Ah well. The money in my Japanese bank account is worth more on Amazon every day.

[Shanti418]

Kwality post from Shanti.

Can you explain the filbuster bit?

In a Senate of 100 (2 Senators for each state), 51 votes are needed to pass something. However, if one side doesn't like what's being passed, they can take the podium and talk indefinitely (In the British system, this option is known as "talking out" a bill), and at that point, 3/5ths of the Senate, or 60 votes, are required to make debate come to an end and a vote be forced.

Two points about this. One, for most of the past two years, Republicans have threatened to filbuster, but not actually done so. Most of the time, a threat was enough for the Obama administration to make down, for better or worse.

Two, there's a "constitutional" option, borne out of a different interpretation of the Constitution in the late 1950s, that circumvents filbustering and takes a vote with a simple majority winning. The song and dance around this has two main facets. One, the party threatening to filibuster who is met with this option usually then threatens to "shut down" government by blocking any and all business of the Senate by other procedural means. Two, although both parties have tried to get rid of this (and get rid of the filibuster), they both eventually think better because one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and THEY will need to push/block something when they're on the other side after the next election. At any rate, using the constitutional, or nuclear option is generally derided by the party against it as some sort of back door, procedural mumbo jumbo, and praised by the party for it as a straightforward vote with a majority winning.

[Kaylee]

Very interesting

[spiderfrommars]

Kwality post from Shanti.

Agreed.

Shame I will have forgotten it all again by tomorrow.

[Yaya]

Kwality post from Shanti.

Can you explain the filbuster bit?

In a Senate of 100 (2 Senators for each state), 51 votes are needed to pass something. However, if one side doesn't like what's being passed, they can take the podium and talk indefinitely (In the British system, this option is known as "talking out" a bill), and at that point, 3/5ths of the Senate, or 60 votes, are required to make debate come to an end and a vote be forced.

Two points about this. One, for most of the past two years, Republicans have threatened to filbuster, but not actually done so. Most of the time, a threat was enough for the Obama administration to make down, for better or worse.

Two, there's a "constitutional" option, borne out of a different interpretation of the Constitution in the late 1950s, that circumvents filbustering and takes a vote with a simple majority winning. The song and dance around this has two main facets. One, the party threatening to filibuster who is met with this option usually then threatens to "shut down" government by blocking any and all business of the Senate by other procedural means. Two, although both parties have tried to get rid of this (and get rid of the filibuster), they both eventually think better because one day the shoe will be on the other foot, and THEY will need to push/block something when they're on the other side after the next election. At any rate, using the constitutional, or nuclear option is generally derided by the party against it as some sort of back door, procedural mumbo jumbo, and praised by the party for it as a straightforward vote with a majority winning.

And don't forget, there's three grabbers, three taggers, five twig runners, and a player at Whackbat. Center tagger lights a pine cone and chucks it over the basket and the whack-batter tries to hit the cedar stick off the cross rock. Then the twig runners dash back and forth until the pine cone burns out and the umpire calls "hotbox". Finally, you count up however many score-downs it adds up to and divide that by nine.


You know a lot about governmental proceedings Shantz. Do you teach this or are you in politics somehow? Because I've lived here my whole life and after 38 years still can't get past the concept of the electoral college even.

[Jack Cade]

Some good reading on Transfans tonight.

[Shanti418]

You know a lot about governmental proceedings Shantz. Do you teach this or are you in politics somehow? Because I've lived here my whole life and after 38 years still can't get past the concept of the electoral college even.

Nope, I'm getting my PhD in sociology, and not even political sociology at that (bunch of rational choice theory BS). Just your basic civics/government classes growing up, a healthy curiosity, and a close eye on the news. Admittedly, I probably have learned a lot in between hoping SOMEONE would stop Bush for 8 years and hoping SOMEONE would work with Obama for two.

[Yaya]

You know a lot about governmental proceedings Shantz. Do you teach this or are you in politics somehow? Because I've lived here my whole life and after 38 years still can't get past the concept of the electoral college even.

Nope, I'm getting my PhD in sociology, and not even political sociology at that (bunch of rational choice theory BS). Just your basic civics/government classes growing up, a healthy curiosity, and a close eye on the news. Admittedly, I probably have learned a lot in between hoping SOMEONE would stop Bush for 8 years and hoping SOMEONE would work with Obama for two.

I think I learned more from your two or three posts about government, Shantz, than I have the past twenty years. And from the sounds of it, Congress is even more ****** up that I thought.

And I've come up with some pretty interesting nicknames for you folks. Shantz. Snarlz (or Snarlos depending on the mood). The BeeFster. Sprunkabeemus. Blebis. Jack's, MV's, and Karl's will just be a matter of time. Hell, can't be worse than Jaja. And Smooth's? Well, can't get better than Smooth, so why try?

[bumblemusprime]

Your nickname is "JarJar." Get it right, yousa.

Furthermore, Obama KNEW this was going to happen since he got elected (the economic projections made the "people will be pissed at the gov't because they don't have a job still because our economy is SERIOUSLY f*****" writing on the wall), so he's tried to push forth the most progressive, most controversial, most "no one is going to like this, but it's got to be done, and if I have to be a one term President if that means SOMEONE is going to make the hard choices, so be it" bills and ideas over these first two years knowing he would lose at least the House in these midterms.

Exactly what i keep telling folks. Obama has fulfilled the majority of his campaign promises. Health care reform? Check. Economic stimulus? Check. Out of Iraq? Check. Closed Guantanamo? Well, that one I'm not happy about, because it looks like it will be around indefinitely. Otherwise, check.

But it's okay--a big amorphous stupid political teabag can shout slogans without understanding any of the process, and thereby get elected. This reminds us that the US government is sadly also set up to be only as good as the US people.

[Kaylee]

Exactly what i keep telling folks. Obama has fulfilled the majority of his campaign promises. Health care reform? Check. Economic stimulus? Check. Out of Iraq? Check. Closed Guantanamo? Well, that one I'm not happy about, because it looks like it will be around indefinitely. Otherwise, check.

But you're still in Iraq and doesn't your health care bill now, rather than providing healthcare to the poor, just force them to buy health insurance?

[Shanti418]

Exactly what i keep telling folks. Obama has fulfilled the majority of his campaign promises. Health care reform? Check. Economic stimulus? Check. Out of Iraq? Check. Closed Guantanamo? Well, that one I'm not happy about, because it looks like it will be around indefinitely. Otherwise, check.

But you're still in Iraq and doesn't your health care bill now, rather than providing healthcare to the poor, just force them to buy health insurance?

True, we're still in Iraq on some level. And even when we're "out" of Iraq, we'll still be there in the same way that we're "in" Germany, Vietnam, Korea, etc.

And yes, we don't have universal healthcare. However, "reforming" health care, as bubmle says, DID happen. It's a matter of how you look at it. Supporters of Obama over this will say that 30 million more Americans can now get health care, that there are new regulations on the industry to make them more honest and screw ou over less, and that just passing SOMETHING begins a process whereby we can continue to refine and improve the system in the future, ie we can get back some of the things we left at the bargaining table. Critics of Obama over this will say that unless you have a fair competitor (ie a public option, where risk would be spread over a huge population and thus everyone would have small deductibles like car insurance), then the industry will continue to collude to keep prices high, that too much was left at the bargaining table, too many concessions were made to big health care industries, and as you say, we're just helping their profit margins by forcing everyone to buy healthcare.

[Kaylee]

Well by 'in Iraq' I mean the USA still has a huge military presence there, so saying America has pulled out is at best management speak. The same way 'outsourcing' sounds better than 'layoffs' but equates to the same thing.

It sounds like what bits of the healthcare bill were passed will take years to bed down and show results. That makes it hard to sell to the electorate, which is a shame.

Surely the elephant in the room on all of this is the economy and America's place in a globalised world?

[Impactor returns 2.0]

The rest loves iPhones, the king is dead, long live the east....

[Optimus Prime Rib]

I show my patriotism by never pulling out either!