Forum Settings
       
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

TEEHEEFollow

#1 Nov 03 2010 at 5:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Living on a Prayer
******
30,114 posts
Screenshot
 
#2 Nov 03 2010 at 6:43 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,240 posts
change iz hard :(
____________________________
Just as Planned.
#3 Nov 03 2010 at 7:02 AM Rating: Good
Timelordwho wrote:
change iz hard :(

Hard is good.
#4 Nov 03 2010 at 7:03 AM Rating: Default
People are pissed at goverment.
#5 Nov 03 2010 at 7:14 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Words are spoken.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#6 Nov 03 2010 at 7:15 AM Rating: Good
******
27,272 posts
Tailmon wrote:
People are pissed at goverment.
People are always pissed at the government.
#7 Nov 03 2010 at 8:13 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,601 posts
I'm trying to find this kind of map for the 2010 elections but a cursory search didn't turn up anything.

http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2006/housevoteslarge.png
____________________________
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
#8 Nov 03 2010 at 1:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
6,543 posts
It's hard to tell looking at a still picture, but the country in that photograph appears to be moving backwards.
____________________________
Galkaman wrote:
Kuwoobie will die crushed under the burden of his mediocrity.

#9 Nov 03 2010 at 1:59 PM Rating: Decent
Kuwoobie wrote:
It's hard to tell looking at a still picture, but the country in that photograph appears to be moving backwards.

It did. That was the year the Democrats took Congress.
#10 Nov 03 2010 at 3:02 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though. A long list of Democrat incumbents were defeated (nearly 40 I think, kinda lost count in the list). There were two GOP incumbents who lost their seats.

This was not about anger at sitting members of congress. It was anger at Democrats and their policies. One would hope that they'd get the hint and change, but you never know.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#11 Nov 03 2010 at 3:12 PM Rating: Good
gbaji wrote:
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though. A long list of Democrat incumbents were defeated (nearly 40 I think, kinda lost count in the list). There were two GOP incumbents who lost their seats.

This was not about anger at sitting members of congress. It was anger at Democrats and their policies. One would hope that they'd get the hint and change, but you never know.


I assumed by "anti-incumbency," they meant the president, who is a Democrat.
#12 Nov 03 2010 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
*****
13,007 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though. A long list of Democrat incumbents were defeated (nearly 40 I think, kinda lost count in the list). There were two GOP incumbents who lost their seats.

This was not about anger at sitting members of congress. It was anger at Democrats and their policies. One would hope that they'd get the hint and change, but you never know.
It was anger that people were told they should have. Because honestly, nothing Congress has done in the last 2 years has really gone into effect yet.
#13 Nov 03 2010 at 3:25 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though.

Well, unless you were one of the GOP "establishment" candidates who was primaried out.

Quote:
It was anger at Democrats and their policies.

It was unemployment around 10%, plain and simple. Anger at the Democrats because unemployment was at 10% but if unemployment was at 6%, you wouldn't have seen the same results based purely on health care reform or the deficit.

The Democrats also faced the same issue the GOP will face now. Once you pick up the low-hanging fruit and get bolstered a bit higher by a wave election, you don't have much room to expand. If a Democrat picked up a seat that's R+6 in 2008, they were going to have trouble holding it no matter what. Likewise, the Democrats who stayed in office during a 55 seat bloodbath are probably secure in 2012 (particularly in the House since now it's Boehner's job to produce and you can't cry about Pelosi any longer). Not that Democrats will retake the House or whatever but you probably won't see an expansion of GOP gains and might even see some contraction if D+ districts that voted Republican this cycle don't keep the same anger. That's just standard political calculus.

None of this is to take away form the fact that the Democrats got trounced hard last night. Ouch.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#14 Nov 03 2010 at 4:20 PM Rating: Good
****
4,901 posts
gbaji wrote:
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though. A long list of Democrat incumbents were defeated (nearly 40 I think, kinda lost count in the list). There were two GOP incumbents who lost their seats.

This was not about anger at sitting members of congress. It was anger at Democrats and their policies. One would hope that they'd get the hint and change, but you never know.


Four years ago wrote:
This was not about anger at sitting members of congress. It was anger at Republicans and their policies. One would hope that they'd get the hint and change, but you never know.
____________________________
Love,
PunkFloyd
#15 Nov 03 2010 at 6:37 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though. A long list of Democrat incumbents were defeated (nearly 40 I think, kinda lost count in the list). There were two GOP incumbents who lost their seats.

This was not about anger at sitting members of congress. It was anger at Democrats and their policies. One would hope that they'd get the hint and change, but you never know.


I assumed by "anti-incumbency," they meant the president, who is a Democrat.


Really? How'd you get that impression? For a couple years now the left's response to all the political activity has been to play it off as being "anti-incumbent", not "anti-liberal". And no, it's been entirely about the mid-term election and the legislature. They played it off that way because they didn't want to acknowledge that it was Democratic Party policies that people were upset at. Nope. It wasn't that at all. They were just generally unhappy about the state of the economy and whatnot and blaming it on anyone sitting in Congress.

Except that they were wrong. Just like some of us have been saying all along. Shocking, I know!
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#16 Nov 03 2010 at 6:49 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I think we can safely put the "It's just anti-incumbency" angle to bed though.

Well, unless you were one of the GOP "establishment" candidates who was primaried out.


You're kidding! You're still trying to make this argument? Crazy!

They were "primaried out" because they were perceived as being too much like a Democrat politically.

Get it? It's a negative response to the Democrat's agenda, not just to people sitting in Congress. Sheesh!

Quote:
Quote:
It was anger at Democrats and their policies.

It was unemployment around 10%, plain and simple.


Yes. Which they blamed on Democrats.

Quote:
Anger at the Democrats because unemployment was at 10% but if unemployment was at 6%, you wouldn't have seen the same results based purely on health care reform or the deficit.


No. They just wouldn't also have been blaming them for 10% unemployment. See. It's not just one failure Joph. Also, you seem to be missing the fact that the reason we're at 10% unemployment instead of 6% is because the Democrats went on a spending spree on things like the stimulus bill, pushing ridiculous mandates into energy and budget bills, and then following it up with a massively costly health care bill.

You can dance around and deny it all day long, but the perception is that the reason the jobs haven't come back (and to some extent the reason they left in the first place) is because those who might otherwise have put money into expanding businesses and hiring workers held their money instead when they saw how much money the Dems were spending. It's not rocket science either. Massive borrowing means either higher taxes down the line and/or significant inflation (most likely both btw).

You don't want to be the guy who lent money right before an inflationary period, do you? That's why lenders didn't lend and the jobs started drying up. And a whole lot of people place the blame squarely on the Democrats and their agenda.

Quote:
The Democrats also faced the same issue the GOP will face now. Once you pick up the low-hanging fruit and get bolstered a bit higher by a wave election, you don't have much room to expand. If a Democrat picked up a seat that's R+6 in 2008, they were going to have trouble holding it no matter what. Likewise, the Democrats who stayed in office during a 55 seat bloodbath are probably secure in 2012 (particularly in the House since now it's Boehner's job to produce and you can't cry about Pelosi any longer). Not that Democrats will retake the House or whatever but you probably won't see an expansion of GOP gains and might even see some contraction if D+ districts that voted Republican this cycle don't keep the same anger. That's just standard political calculus.


Sure. Because the largest single shift in house seats in 80 years happens every 2 years, doesn't it? Oh wait! It doesn't. This is not "normal" calculus Joph. It's a massive yell from the masses telling the Democrats that they don't like what they've been doing. It's a rejection of the spending of the last 2 years. It's a cry out for a return to sane fiscal and monetary policy.


And you know what it really is? It's the people realizing that all the stuff they were told to hate and fear during the Bush years and when the GOP was in control have only gotten worse under Democrats. They're realizing something I've harped on you about in the past, that when you attack something in a vacuum, without comparing it fairly to a real alternative, you sometimes will make the mistake of rejecting a better thing for one that is far far worse.


That's the the voters realized. The Democrats reminded them why the people should never put them in charge of the nations purse strings. The unfortunate thing is that it appears like we have to re-learn this lesson every 15 years or so. People forget, they get caught up in the GOP bashing, and they vote in Democrats. Then they learn what *real* fiscal irresponsibility is.

Quote:
None of this is to take away form the fact that the Democrats got trounced hard last night. Ouch.



Yeah. Let's hope that the GOP can undo as much of the damage as possible.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#17 Nov 03 2010 at 7:25 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,564 posts
Quote:
Yeah. Let's hope that the GOP can undo as much of the damage as possible.


You mean the damage caused by Bush? lololololololololololololololol
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#18 Nov 03 2010 at 7:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Sure. Because the largest single shift in house seats in 80 years happens every 2 years, doesn't it? Oh wait! It doesn't.

No one said that it does but nice strawman. I said that after a large wave election, the winning party has a harder time holding seats to begin with because they picked up seats in districts unusual for them.

You're pretty upset that I'm not viewing the wins last night as magical or or proof of ideological purity or something but they're not. They were quite large and exacerbated by several factors but I was saying a long time ago that this would be an issue, long before the election season got underway.
Back in early December 2009, I wrote:
It's virtually guaranteed -- hell, strike "virtually" -- that the Democrats will lose seats in November. They picked up all the low hanging fruit in 2006 and then used the wave of Obama support to grab other seats in red districts in 2008. There's a reason why the Blue Dog coalition in the House is as large as it is: Democrats have picked up a significant number of "red" seats using centrist candidates. There just aren't any more spots left for them to make inroads until there's some demographic changes (age, race, education, whatever).

The only question is "how bad will it be".


It's not rocket science, it's simple political calculus. Why do you think I didn't spend the past year saying "Just you wait! Those polls are wrong! You're gonna be soooooo surprised!" like you did all through 2006 and 2008? I know better.

Edited, Nov 3rd 2010 8:29pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#19 Nov 03 2010 at 8:04 PM Rating: Excellent
I blame Usagi for what this thread has become.
#20 Nov 03 2010 at 8:15 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
NixNot wrote:
I blame Usagi for what this thread started as.
#21 Nov 03 2010 at 8:17 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Bardalicious wrote:
NixNot wrote:
I blame Usagi
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#22 Nov 03 2010 at 8:29 PM Rating: Excellent
****
5,684 posts
It's not often I get quoted by THE Jophiel.

I just came a little.
#23 Nov 03 2010 at 9:44 PM Rating: Excellent
*****
10,564 posts
Quote:
I just came a little.
----------------------------
Show me your teeth.


This amused me far more than it should have.
____________________________
◕ ‿‿ ◕
#24 Nov 03 2010 at 10:39 PM Rating: Good
This delivers thread.
#25 Nov 03 2010 at 10:48 PM Rating: Decent
Gave Up The D
Avatar
*****
12,281 posts
Usagi wrote:
TEEHEE


Screenshot


What? Y'all want some chicken?
____________________________
Shaowstrike (Retired - FFXI)
91PUP/BLM 86SMN/BST 76DRK
Cooking/Fishing 100


"We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary."
— James D. Nicoll
#26 Nov 04 2010 at 5:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Living on a Prayer
******
30,114 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Bardalicious wrote:
NixNot wrote:
I blame Usagi
What Jophiel said.
« Previous 1 2
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 274 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (274)