|
Tomorrow, Nov 2nd, voting begins in the U.S. midterm elections. This thread is for live report and opinions on what the results will mean for the country moving forward.
Current state of the House of Representatives:
255 Democrat
178 Republican
Republicans need a +39 seat net gain for control.
Current state of the Senate:
59 Democrat
41 Republican
Republicans need a +10 net to gain control, 50/50 results in VP Biden giving control to Democrats.
In the newspapers, professional estimates have settled on about a 55+ seat gain in the House for Republicans and a 6-8 seat swing in the Senate. RealClearPolitics averages are a whopping ~68 seats in the House and 7.5 in the Senate if you split the tossups equally among the parties. If the predictions are accurate, Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
I think this is an absolute recipe for total gridlock in Washington. I know it is the common opinion that Congress is "do-nothing", but there have been major legislative bills passed in the 2 years Obama enjoyed a sizable Democratic majority such as the Stimulus Bill, Health Care Reform, and Financial Regulatory Reform. Republicans opposed these almost unanimously, but simply did not have the votes to stop them. That won't be the case after this election. Some of the open Senate seats are filled immediately by the victors, instead of waiting for January like most seats, meaning Democrats won't have the lame duck session to pass legislation without Republican support either.
My question to you is what kinds of bills do you think the President and a new Republican Congress can work on together? It seems like big-ticket progressive legislation such as an energy bill with cap and trade in it are completely dead. The only thing I've heard commentators talking about are smaller items like free trade deals which Republicans are more likely to support.
Discuss, speculate, report!
|
This is the first year that I can vote. I'm so excited to stand outside for an hour when it's thirty degrees!
But really, I'm excited to vote.
Edit: Why should we get all the Democrats out and put in Repubs? Doesn't that kind of fuck everything up to get totally new people in there?
|
I can guarantee that no matter what happens, nothing will be different for the next 2 years. It'll just be constant partisan BS that stops Washington cold.
|
United States24482 Posts
On November 02 2010 09:30 Ferrose wrote:
Edit: Why should we get all the Democrats out and put in Repubs? Doesn't that kind of fuck everything up to get totally new people in there?
This is the logic someone used to disagree with me when I suggested that we replace George W Bush in 2004. There's a time and a place for this type of logic, and I don't think my case or your case is it.
I'll be voting, although new york educators are really screwed this year in the governor race.
|
On November 02 2010 09:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
Discuss, speculate, report!
The senate is already below a working level. You need 60 votes to oppose a filibuster.
|
During the great depression the predominant players in economic policy are what we would today describe as libertarians (the main unifying theme of the tea party). Things got progressively worse until liberal economists, led by John Maynard Keynes, came in and cleaned up their mess.
It amazes me how short American's memories are. Not 2 years ago there was HUGE backlash against the Republicans for, without any uncertainty, breaking the economy. So much that they looked done. Now they are going to get all that back?
In some countries, people use voting to get back at each other for shit that happened hundreds of years ago, but in America everyone just forgot that a (and I have to be very specific with my language here) less shitty version of the tea party platform blew up the world's single largest economy.
Ive been able to vote for several years now but don't. The second I see a candidate I think is on the right track, I will leap out of my chair. Unfortunately, the career of John Edwards appears to be more done than one of those rotisserie chickens left at the grocery store at 10pm.
|
The question isn't about what the republicans will do when they control the house /and senate, but what will Obama do. This would be the first time as president that he actually would need to have republicans support his policies to get them passed. If we go by what he's said, he thinks that republicans will need to move left and work with him, instead of the 1994 Clinton way of moving right. Assuming nothing happens (because Obama and republicans refuse to budge), the blame falls on Obama (just like how the blame fell on Bush even though democrats controlled congress). Obama either moves right, or faces even more losses in 2012 (with Nancy Pelosi quitting when she loses speakership and about 20 other house members following her, and republicans taking control of congress, even a reelected Obama would face extensive problems with his agenda).
On November 02 2010 09:43 red_b wrote:
During the great depression the predominant players in economic policy are what we would today describe as libertarians (the main unifying theme of the tea party). Things got progressively worse until liberal economists, led by John Maynard Keynes, came in and cleaned up their mess.
And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself).
|
On November 02 2010 09:38 _Darwin_ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 09:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
Discuss, speculate, report! The senate is already below a working level. You need 60 votes to oppose a filibuster.
You are correct that you need 60 to break a filibuster, but quite often the parties can pick off a moderate or two like Snowe or Lincoln (if Republicans had control) to agree to end the filibuster but vote against the bill later to cover their political ass if there is consideration in the bill for them. 59 is still what I consider a working majority. 52 definitely is not. There will have to be considerable bipartisan compromise to get anything passed with 52, with 59 you just have to pay off one defector.
|
On November 02 2010 09:45 NovaTheFeared wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 09:38 _Darwin_ wrote:On November 02 2010 09:27 NovaTheFeared wrote:
Republicans will gain control of the House by a significant margin and will cut the Democratic majority in the Senate to below a working level with the filibuster rules.
Discuss, speculate, report! The senate is already below a working level. You need 60 votes to oppose a filibuster. You are correct that you need 60 to break a filibuster, but quite often the parties can pick off a moderate or two like Snowe or Lincoln (if Republicans had control) to agree to end the filibuster but vote against the bill later to cover their political ass if there is consideration in the bill for them. 59 is still what I consider a working majority. 52 definitely is not. There will have to be considerable bipartisan compromise to get anything passed with 52, with 59 you just have to pay off one defector.
and the Ben Nelsons in your own party
|
Ugh I am not excited to vote tomorrow. I'm probably going to vote Democrat for my congressional district and for governor since I don't really agree with the message of these tea party endorsed republicans. I don't think there's much to this "movement" but I won't support it. Locally I will vote Republican as always. We're an oddly conservative county.
I would rather see a Democrat majority in the house/senate so the Democrats have the next 2 years to prove they can further along change, otherwise it's going to be a tough call to vote in 2012 for president. You know it's going to be a nightmare if the Republicans just halt EVERYTHING.
|
I think I might not vote for the Democrat or Republican for anything, except House of Representatives. It seems like everyone else sucks.
|
I want Republicans to win and get majority, just because I think the government will only succeed if both parts work together, i.e. Clinton (the last good president).
Yet, I'll be voting Democrat for my local rep. He seems to be real, while the Republican is constantly calling him unpatriotic and is running a pretty bad campaign.
|
if there's room to write a name in, i'll be putting arnold schwarzenegger for governor again. honestly, i'm pretty pessimistic about the candidates we have to choose from in california
|
well at least now the republicans will be partially to blame in the bs they conjure up against Obama.
|
|
|
So, we need a bunch of left-wing liberal democratic former pot smokers-turned-politicians to get weed legal in at least one state?
Please correct me if wrong.
|
On November 02 2010 10:06 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself). You are demonstrably wrong: ![[image loading]](http://www.urbandigs.com/great-depression-gdp.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/images/avgimages/graph1930-1939.gif) ![[image loading]](http://www.economicshelp.org/uploaded_images/Gdp-us-20-40-767020.jpg) FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong. Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics. Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school? When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
GDP has nothing to do with unemployment, or wealth creation. GDP =CGI, consumer spending, government and investment. Decrease consumer spending and investment and increase government, the population is poorer, but GDP goes up. Amazing how math works. What you demonstrated is absolutely nothing.
I never said that Hoover did anything right. But if you want to explain how Keynes didn't create 10 year of unemployement and depression when his policy was used, that is entirely up to you.
|
+ Show Spoiler +On November 02 2010 10:06 red_b wrote:Show nested quote +On November 02 2010 09:43 SnK-Arcbound wrote:
And by clean up their mess you mean create unemployment that lasted for 30 years after the depression ended, and extended the great depression by 7 years. It's your memory that is extremely short.
Einsteins definition of insanity is repeating the same thing and expecting different results. If Obama wants to do the same as FDR, I expect the depression to last longer and for unemployment to extend into the far future (2050 assuming history repeats itself). You are demonstrably wrong: FDR took over in 1933. Get the fuck over it, you're wrong, period, end of story. Take a look at reality and reevaluate how you can be so utterly wrong. Hoover and his bunch of idiot libertarians did nothing and it blew up spectacularly in their faces. Keynesian economics was so right it is STILL the predominant economic theory, albeit it has at this point basically merged with neoclassical economics. Where the fuck did you learn economics? Your dad? Your basketball coach in high school? When I talk to libertarians, it is like my own personal version of Heart of Darkness. I come face to face with pure, unadulterated idiocy and stare it in the face.
its the whole damn (political) teaching agenda, more liberal teachers i have known put more and more credit to FDR for solving the whole damn depression while more right wing teachers take shit away from his credit and some just blatantly state that he made it worse and that had the economy been left alone it would have gotten "better" than it would have done without him and keynes etc.
btw i liked how many times you said face in your last sentence :3
|
Consumer spending reflects incomes and ease of credit, so yeah, GDP does have something to do with employment.
|
i hope the republicans sweep the house and senate, literally obliterate what remains of our functioning democracy(that term barely applies), and we can all jump ship and move on with our lives.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
