Random Post Election Thoughts

[GBBob]

In hopefully an unpartisan way...

1) There HAS to be a better way to conduct an election than how it's currently done. Long lines, antiquated voting machines..please..we can invent I Pads and technology beyond belief but this is how we vote?

2) Ironically, the Tea Party probably cost the Republicans the Senate. I'm not sure if they care about the Republican Party or just their own agenda, but Richard Luger would not have lost Indiana last night and let's not even get started with Missouri.

3) If there was a Liberal bias, then I missed it, but CNN's coverage was pretty amazing last night. Limited advertising and smooth transitions plus John King on the Big Board was pretty compelling stuff no matter who you voted for.

4) If I'm Mitt Romney I run again in 2016. I think he got more human as the campaigning unfolded and was very classy in defeat. Admittedly I thought his desire to be President was intially motivated by ego and greed to attain another level of success, but if he can get the Republican platform to just move into the 21st Century, even the 20th Century for that matter, he will be much more electable in four years.

5) The pollsters are good..really good.

[Danzig]

not sure he'll try again-he'd be vying with henry clay for number of failed runs for prez if he did.

as for #4-the republican party must have the ability to look at itself in a clear, concise way, and concede that all the issues they've encountered are self-inflicted. the party has been taken over by an ever more extreme group. they seem to take every loss as a reason to move that much further right. and they wonder why they continue to shrink?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by GBBob

In hopefully an unpartisan way...

1) There HAS to be a better way to conduct an election than how it's currently done. Long lines, antiquated voting machines..please..we can invent I Pads and technology beyond belief but this is how we vote?

I agree with you, but this is a problem because elections are run by states and the laws and rules and finances for elections vary widely. I don't know how one fixes it, since I can't see the federal government running state elections, but you are absolutely right; there is no reason for anyone to stand in line for hours.

For what it's worth, I miss the old antiquated lever machines, though. #imold

2) Ironically, the Tea Party probably cost the Republicans the Senate. I'm not sure if they care about the Republican Party or just their own agenda, but Richard Luger would not have lost Indiana last night and let's not even get started with Missouri.

I agree. McCaskill is a terrible candidate and is not popular in her state. That race should have been a cakewalk for Akin.

3) If there was a Liberal bias, then I missed it, but CNN's coverage was pretty amazing last night. Limited advertising and smooth transitions plus John King on the Big Board was pretty compelling stuff no matter who you voted for.

We hopped around between CNN, MSNBC and FOX. What I noticed about CNN is that they lagged behind the other networks in calling states. I think they are still smarting from calling Florida too soon in 2000 and are now playing it very cautiously.

4) If I'm Mitt Romney I run again in 2016. I think he got more human as the campaigning unfolded and was very classy in defeat. Admittedly I thought his desire to be President was intially motivated by ego and greed to attain another level of success, but if he can get the Republican platform to just move into the 21st Century, even the 20th Century for that matter, he will be much more electable in four years.

It's going to be up to the GOP voters to get their leaders to shift their platform. I agree with you about Romney's speech; I thought it was quite good, but I don't think he'll run again in 2016.

Watch to see if Chris Christie gets lap band surgery in the next four years. If he does, you'll know he's planning to run.

5) The pollsters are good..really good.

Nate Silver's analysis of the polls certainly is!

Interesting reading, GGBob. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

not sure he'll try again-he'd be vying with henry clay for number of failed runs for prez if he did.

as for #4-the republican party must have the ability to look at itself in a clear, concise way, and concede that all the issues they've encountered are self-inflicted. the party has been taken over by an ever more extreme group. they seem to take every loss as a reason to move that much further right. and they wonder why they continue to shrink?

If you have time, I really recommend reading the very engrossing Nixonland by Richard Perlstein. A very comprehensive look at the roots of the rise of red-blue America. The state of the GOP today is a result of choices made by party leaders back in the 1960s. It worked out very well for the party for awhile, but I think you're right that the GOP must take a look at where it is now and decide whether it wants to shift back toward the center or fade away.

I'm glad Obama won, as I think he was the better of the two candidates, but, as a liberal who really follows policy closely, rather than listening to mass media's breathless headlines, I agree with this Slate article:
Obama: the Moderate Republican

In particular, the conclusion:

Obama’s no right-winger. You might have serious issues with his Supreme Court justices or his moves on immigration or the Bush tax cuts. But you probably would have had similar issues with Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford. Obama’s in the same mold as those guys. So don’t despair. Your country didn’t vote for a socialist tonight. It voted for the candidate of traditional Republican moderation. What should gall you, haunt you, and goad you to think about the future of your party is that that candidate wasn’t yours.

[cal828]

I agree about the long lines. Wonder how many folks just said eff it and went home. Probably too simple a solution, but why couldn't they send out a ballot on line that people could mark and take back and hand to them with their driver's license. Seems like that would have helped a little. There were electronic voting machines where I voted, but most people were just filling out the paper ballots because ironically it was faster than using the electronic voting machines. On second thought, Maybe it takes a special kind of paper for their ballot readers?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

I agree about the long lines. Wonder how many folks just said eff it and went home. Probably too simple a solution, but why couldn't they send out a ballot on line that people could mark and take back and hand to them with their driver's license. Seems like that would have helped a little. There were electronic voting machines where I voted, but most people were just filling out the paper ballots because ironically it was faster than using the electronic voting machines. On second thought, Maybe it takes a special kind of paper for their ballot readers?

A big part of it is the right to secret ballot. Here in NY, I learned yesterday, it's actually illegal to show other people your ballot- a lot of people were taking pictures and posting to Facebook, not knowing it's against the law to do so (The legal thinking is that your vote is your vote, and showing other people how you voted could be interpreted as an attempt to influence other people's votes). Standing in line, filling out a ballot, it would be impossible to keep your vote secret. I waited an hour at 8:30 AM at my place, and there was an issue with where they placed one of the lines of people because it was within sight of the booths where you filled out your ballot and that was violating the voters' right to privacy.

I do think that states where voters are voting on referendums could save time by mailing text of the referendums out to registered voters so that voters could decide what they are voting on before they get there. Or, if the lines are long, hand out the text to people standing in line. I've occasionally gotten to the booth to find out there's a referendum and then had to take the time to read the thing, all the while feeling terrible that I'm holding up the line.

Rachel Maddow ran a piece a month or so ago on how the California ballot was some ridiculous length- several pages- because of all the referendums on it.

[Danzig]

i wonder when we will all be forced to become muslims. that was a dire warning i kept hearing about...that it would happen 'as soon as obama gets a second term'.
i always asked, why not now? funny, never did get an answer.

[Danzig]

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell gave no sign that he was willing to concede his conservative principles, signaling potential confrontations ahead.

"The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control," McConnell said.


yeah, it'll be more of the same. great.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell gave no sign that he was willing to concede his conservative principles, signaling potential confrontations ahead.

"The voters have not endorsed the failures or excesses of the president's first term, they have simply given him more time to finish the job they asked him to do together with a Congress that restored balance to Washington after two years of one-party control," McConnell said.


yeah, it'll be more of the same. great.

Yes let's all hold our breath until we get what we want. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Send the country over the cliff instead of compromise.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

Yes let's all hold our breath until we get what we want. Compromise is a sign of weakness. Send the country over the cliff instead of compromise.

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

A big part of it is the right to secret ballot. Here in NY, I learned yesterday, it's actually illegal to show other people your ballot- a lot of people were taking pictures and posting to Facebook, not knowing it's against the law to do so (The legal thinking is that your vote is your vote, and showing other people how you voted could be interpreted as an attempt to influence other people's votes). Standing in line, filling out a ballot, it would be impossible to keep your vote secret. I waited an hour at 8:30 AM at my place, and there was an issue with where they placed one of the lines of people because it was within sight of the booths where you filled out your ballot and that was violating the voters' right to privacy.

I do think that states where voters are voting on referendums could save time by mailing text of the referendums out to registered voters so that voters could decide what they are voting on before they get there. Or, if the lines are long, hand out the text to people standing in line. I've occasionally gotten to the booth to find out there's a referendum and then had to take the time to read the thing, all the while feeling terrible that I'm holding up the line.

Rachel Maddow ran a piece a month or so ago on how the California ballot was some ridiculous length- several pages- because of all the referendums on it.

the bigger concern is vote buying. if you're paid to vote a certain way the picture could be the proof to collect your payment.

the california ballot wasn't that bad. maddow was probably referencing florida.

btw, after this election the home of ronald reagan has no statewide elected officials who are republican and a 2/3 democratic majority in both the state assembly and state senate. prior to the election there it was thought the senate might possible get a 2/3 majority but the assembly is a complete surprise.

it's been an amazing 18 year decline since the california republican party tied themselves to an anti-immigrant stance with prop 187. they will literally be almost meaningless in statewide politics for the next 2 years.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

How you doing Joey? FWIW you handicapped this election pretty fuking absymally.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

here joey, maybe this will help you out in the 'blame game'.

http://www.harkin.senate.gov/press/column.cfm?i=237366

Q. How does this process start off each year?


A. The President submits a budget to Congress in early February. This lays out the President’s priorities, and includes details as to how much money he wants allocated to each federal program. The budget request also sets forth the President’s wishes with regard to reducing or raising taxes. However, the President’s proposed budget is only a recommendation. Congress has the “power of the purse.” And under the Constitution, it is Congress’s job to actually write and pass the budget.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

You must be very relieved Obama won, then, since Romney was proposing adding another two trillion dollars to the defense budget. Or are deficits only important when the President is a Democrat?

[Calzone Lord]

For the democrats, 2016 will probably come down to Mark Warner of Virgina VS a big name from the north like Hilary, Biden, or Cuomo.

I think Mark Warner has been planning and calculating a president run since 2004...and he's made all of the right moves, especially getting out of the way in 2008 and accepting the keynote speech at Obama's first convention ... Obama had the keynote at Kerry's convention and Clinton had the keynote at the '88 convention.

I would make Mark Warner a big favorite to be the nominee in 2016 unless Obama leaves up insanely popular.


On the republican side -- it's Chris Christie VS the best bible beating candidate that emerges.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

the bigger concern is vote buying. if you're paid to vote a certain way the picture could be the proof to collect your payment.

I hadn't even thought of that, but it makes sense; you're right.

the california ballot wasn't that bad. maddow was probably referencing florida.

Ah, thank you for the correction. You're right; now that I think about it, the piece was tied into early voting being cut, and that certainly wasn't California.

btw, after this election the home of ronald reagan has no statewide elected officials who are republican and a 2/3 democratic majority in both the state assembly and state senate. prior to the election there it was thought the senate might possible get a 2/3 majority but the assembly is a complete surprise.

it's been an amazing 18 year decline since the california republican party tied themselves to an anti-immigrant stance with prop 187. they will literally be almost meaningless in statewide politics for the next 2 years.

Demographics is destiny, for sure. I'll be interested to see what Texas' electoral map looks like in 10 years.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Calzone Lord

For the democrats, 2016 will probably come down to Mark Warner of Virgina VS a big name from the north like Hilary, Biden, or Cuomo.

I think Mark Warner has been planning and calculating a president run since 2004...and he's made all of the right moves, especially getting out of the way in 2008 and accepting the keynote speech at Obama's first convention ... Obama had the keynote at Kerry's convention and Clinton had the keynote at the '88 convention.

I would make Mark Warner a big favorite to be the nominee in 2016 unless Obama leaves up insanely popular.


On the republican side -- it's Chris Christie VS the best bible beating candidate that emerges.

You don't think Rubio will make a play for the GOP nod?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

You must be very relieved Obama won, then, since Romney was proposing adding another two trillion dollars to the defense budget. Or are deficits only important when the President is a Democrat?

You want to play games go ahead. Go smoke some of the newly legalized pot in Colorado.

Party on, dude...

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to play games go ahead. Go smoke some of the newly legalized pot in Colorado.

Party on, dude...

Speaking of:

[cal828]

Originally Posted by joeydb

You want to avoid the cliff? Tell your president to stop spending over a trillion dollars a year more than the tax revenue.

I'm not the most informed person when it comes to taxes for sure, so somebody tell me:

1. Would there be a "fiscal cliff," if the Bush tax cuts had never been been put in place?

2. If tax cuts were the solution to all our problems, then why aren't we up to our necks in jobs, after said tax cuts were put in place?