[USA] Congressional Elections 2012 - Page 5

On September 25 2012 03:55 WTFZerg wrote:
The House seat for my district is up for election but there's only one dude running.

Kinda made me laugh.

On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.

Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.

In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.

In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.

In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.

In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.

In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.

In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.

In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.

In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]

Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.

On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.

Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.

On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Republicans won't pass ANYTHING with a tax increase in it, while Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases, otherwise only very minor cuts. Democrats represent a rather varied set of voters and ideologies, which makes it much harder to pass legislation even with a majority. Even with the "Super Majority" in the Senate, you had Democrat Senators that simply would NOT vote for a bill without a Republican endorsement of it. Only so much can get done when one party is solidified in denying the other party any "victories."

On the other side, you have Republicans that have only a winner-take-all approach to compromise. We saw this during the debt ceiling fiasco, where an extremely huge chunk of Congressmen would rather default on debt payments than come together on long term debt solutions. In the health care reform debate, you had Senators that supported a great number of the proposals in the bill back in the 90s, turn around and piss all over them 10 years later.

It's nice when your platform revolves around breaking government then complaining that government doesn't work, eh?

On October 02 2012 01:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
One more month till election day.

Those ads are really getting vitriolic now. Five ads in one commercial break, all of them contradicting each other. And all five talking shit about candidates. No positives.

On October 02 2012 02:02 cLAN.Anax wrote:


Still waiting for my absentee ballot. Brother already got his and we go to the same school. How did that work out, lol? X-D I know who I'm voting for though, so at least I can send it in quickly once it arrives in the mail.

I was at a Buffalo Wild Wings this past weekend, and since there are a bajillion TVs, of course I was gonna see some political ads. Both/all sides' commercials looked terrible, I can't believe they're so effective on the populace when they're 30-second blurbs dispersing totally misconstrued falsities of their opponent. Honestly, none of them change my mind on the candidates at all. >_<

On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.

Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements.

On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.

Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements.