Random Post Election Thoughts

[miraja2]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

He is a bully, his temperment isnt going to play well, NJ has major financial issues, he has pissed off a tremendous amount of the GOP and he is fat. That is not a good combination. He is getting a lot of kudos for his appearance of being bipartisan with the Obama love but that is going to hurt him a lot in the primaries.

Everything you say here is correct. I'm sure a lot of Republican primary voters are pretty angry at him right now, but will they still be angry 3 years from now? I'm not so sure. Up until a week ago the Ann Coulter wing of the party loved him, and I think they might be willing to forgive his political "sin."
I do think he'd need to shed a few pounds to have a real chance. People might elect an overweight president, but they aren't likely to elect an obese one.

I made him a lukewarm favorite for two reasons. One is because I think 2016 is more likely to be a Republican year. Obviously a million things could happen between now and then to change that, but Americans are generally hesitant to give one party three terms in a row in the White House. I think he still may qualify as a slight favorite over Ryan and the rest because of his big personality. A big personality rocketed Newt Gingrich to the top of the polls briefly this time around, and Newt had nothing else going for him (no money, lots of baggage, etc.). If he runs, Christie figures to raise a lot of money to go along with his other attributes. I think he could be tough.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by miraja2

Everything you say here is correct. I'm sure a lot of Republican primary voters are pretty angry at him right now, but will they still be angry 3 years from now? I'm not so sure. Up until a week ago the Ann Coulter wing of the party loved him, and I think they might be willing to forgive his political "sin."
I do think he'd need to shed a few pounds to have a real chance. People might elect an overweight president, but they aren't likely to elect an obese one.

I made him a lukewarm favorite for two reasons. One is because I think 2016 is more likely to be a Republican year. Obviously a million things could happen between now and then to change that, but Americans are generally hesitant to give one party three terms in a row in the White House. I think he still may qualify as a slight favorite over Ryan and the rest because of his big personality. A big personality rocketed Newt Gingrich to the top of the polls briefly this time around, and Newt had nothing else going for him (no money, lots of baggage, etc.). If he runs, Christie figures to raise a lot of money to go along with his other attributes. I think he could be tough.

I think that Christie's temperment is going to be his undoing. He comes across as a bully and he is heavy handed about pretty much everything. He does speak plainly and doesnt bullshit but that may not play well nationally because he just isnt that likeable to start with. The other factor is NJ has a lot of financial issues that arent going away but it seems more than ever superficial issues and likeability trump the real issues.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Friend of mine, retired Marine (they are Marines forever) when asked about gays in military said..'i don't give a shiit as long as they can shoot straight'.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You know the old expression, "Be careful what you hope for, you may get it." As you said, the democrats have controlled the California state assembly and state senate for years now. How has that been working out for you? It is beyond mind-boggling that people here in California could keep voting for these clowns. Could they have done a worse job? Look at the condition of our state.

When it comes to national politics, it's a little different story. You could blame either party. You could say that the republican controlled house is to blame. You could say Obama is to blame. You could say that Bush is to blame. It's not like one party has controlled everything. But in California, the democrats have basically had sole control for years. They are the only ones to blame for the condition of our state. How could anyone keep on voting for them? I will tell you how. Many of the people here are so stupid that they just vote for anyone with a "D" by their name. I don't understand it. People see what a terrible job the hacks in the state assembly have done. Why do people even care what party they are in? If they're doing a bad job, vote for someone else.

you can't pass a budget without a 2/3 vote of both the assembly and state senate. republicans have used that to block any attempts at raising state revenue and it's partially (note i said partially) the reason the state has been in such fiscal trouble.

when i take a look at the fact that the state's voters have just passed a tax hike on themselves (prop 30) while also reducing republican members of the legislative branch to a level that they're now virtually inconsequential, i have to wonder why california republican's keep signing grover nordquist's pledge.

you can fairly say that state democrats won't be able to avoid full responsibility for the condition of the state in 2 years. i don't think there will be any argument. but republican intransigence on the revenue side has a lot to do with what conditions are now.

and so long as you view "voter stupidity" as the main reason your side isn't winning elections you've pretty much guarenteed you won't be winning many in the future either.

republican's in california have had to work hard at offending people to lose the proportion of the hispanic vote that now votes democratic. there is no reason that gap wouldn't close if your leaders could put a muzzle on the party xenophobes.

i think republican idea's on fiscal responsibility should to be part of the debate. but your party has forgotten that responsible governence requires compromise. you don't start a good faith debate by saying that revenue increases are off the table and you'll only be discussing cuts to services.

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

you can't pass a budget without a 2/3 vote of both the assembly and state senate. republicans have used that to block any attempts at raising state revenue and it's partially (note i said partially) the reason the state has been in such fiscal trouble.

when i take a look at the fact that the state's voters have just passed a tax hike on themselves (prop 30) while also reducing republican members of the legislative branch to a level that they're now virtually inconsequential, i have to wonder why california republican's keep signing grover nordquist's pledge.

you can fairly say that state democrats won't be able to avoid full responsibility for the condition of the state in 2 years. i don't think there will be any argument. but republican intransigence on the revenue side has a lot to do with what conditions are now.

and so long as you view "voter stupidity" as the main reason your side isn't winning elections you've pretty much guarenteed you won't be winning many in the future either.

republican's in california have had to work hard at offending people to lose the proportion of the hispanic vote that now votes democratic. there is no reason that gap wouldn't close if your leaders could put a muzzle on the party xenophobes.

i think republican idea's on fiscal responsibility should to be part of the debate. but your party has forgotten that responsible governence requires compromise. you don't start a good faith debate by saying that revenue increases are off the table and you'll only be discussing cuts to services.

You make some good points. Maybe things would be better if the dems had been able to raise taxes like they wanted to. But on the other hand, taxes are already very high in this state. I think they really need to cut back on spending. If the democratic legislature had total control to do whatever they want, would they ever cut spending? I'm thinking they would probably just keep raising taxes.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

You make some good points. Maybe things would be better if the dems had been able to raise taxes like they wanted to. But on the other hand, taxes are already very high in this state. I think they really need to cut back on spending. If the democratic legislature had total control to do whatever they want, would they ever cut spending? I'm thinking they would probably just keep raising taxes.

and if they do they'll be voted out in two years.

i'm hopeful the message received by democrats isn't that the locks are off the candy store. if they act the way you suggest, they'll be just as irresponsible as republican's have been for decades where they would only discuss 1 side of the fiscal problem.

republican's could have been part of the solution but chose to stick by a pure ideology rather than make reasonable compromises. so they're out of the conversation entirely now.

i wish it were different. i don't think it's good when either side has the kind of power democrats will have. but i think it's minimally preferable to the permanent state of crisis that the republican abdication of legislative responsibility has brought on.

[Danzig]

But he (Obama) will be venturing back into a Congressional environment similar to that of his first term, with the Senate under the control of Democrats and the House under the control of Republicans, whose leaders have hinted that they will be no less likely to challenge him than they were during the last four years.

that's from a ny times article.

challenge or be completely unwilling to work with him, or find compromise or solution?
i recently read 'america's great debate" that is about clay, douglas and others finding a solution to the many issues (cali statehood, slavery, texas threatening civil war over land that is now part of new mexico just to name a few) that were tearing the country apart. it would be nice if we could get people willing to work together now. but i'm not sure we have people similar to clay, douglas, benton, webster and the others involved.

[Riot]

Agree with most of the comments here.

Regarding the voting, don't forget that most of the problems (outside of the hurricane areas) where in states where Governors deliberately shorted hours, eliminated polling places, and made voting more difficult for people. That disaster was a feature, not a bug.

Solution - vote for governors that believe every American deserves the franchise, and expand voting hours and make it easier and more accessible.

I do think it's time to make Election Day a national holiday, simply so everybody has it off. Only about half of eligible Americans vote now, anyway. I don't think the entire country should go vote-by-mail, leave that up to states.

Fiscal cliff? Go off it. Jump. It's not a disaster. It's the plan of Reid Senate right now, I believe. Let all the Bush tax cuts expire. Every single one.

Then in January, get bills passed to give the tax cuts you want to middle class. The GOP will not be able to fight against giving tax cuts. The Dems already have them over the barrel on this, and the Dems know it. The Dems know that McConnell won't compromise. Boehner lost about seven of his crazies, and may be able to compromise now. You simply make new tax cuts retroactive to January 1 so folks don't pay even a week of higher taxes. Not rocket science.

The federal spending has been cut. The deficit has been cut. People refuse to acknowledge reality. You can't pay off massive debt with only cutting the budget. You have to increase revenue, which means losing tax loopholes, the rich paying more, etc. Lots of little things. Eliminate the 10 largest corps in this country paying zero taxes.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

Agree with most of the comments here.

Regarding the voting, don't forget that most of the problems (outside of the hurricane areas) where in states where Governors deliberately shorted hours, eliminated polling places, and made voting more difficult for people. That disaster was a feature, not a bug.

Solution - vote for governors that believe every American deserves the franchise, and expand voting hours and make it easier and more accessible.

I do think it's time to make Election Day a national holiday, simply so everybody has it off. Only about half of eligible Americans vote now, anyway. I don't think the entire country should go vote-by-mail, leave that up to states.

Fiscal cliff? Go off it. Jump. It's not a disaster. It's the plan of Reid Senate right now, I believe. Let all the Bush tax cuts expire. Every single one.

Then in January, get bills passed to give the tax cuts you want to middle class. The GOP will not be able to fight against giving tax cuts. The Dems already have them over the barrel on this, and the Dems know it. The Dems know that McConnell won't compromise. Boehner lost about seven of his crazies, and may be able to compromise now. You simply make new tax cuts retroactive to January 1 so folks don't pay even a week of higher taxes. Not rocket science.

The federal spending has been cut. The deficit has been cut. People refuse to acknowledge reality. You can't pay off massive debt with only cutting the budget. You have to increase revenue, which means losing tax loopholes, the rich paying more, etc. Lots of little things. Eliminate the 10 largest corps in this country paying zero taxes.

16 T-T-T-TRILLION dollars. Yeah, spending was cut. 6 trillion more was spent under your beloved president than when his predecessor, also to blame for all Obama's shortcomings, left office.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

16 T-T-T-TRILLION dollars.

You keep repeating this like a parrot, yet the multiple times I've asked you why you blame Obama for the 14.6 trillion that he didn't create you ignore me.

Why don't you stop repeating it?

Why do you blame this president for money taken from the Social Security trust fund 20 years ago?

Yeah, spending was cut. 6 trillion more was spent under your beloved president than when his predecessor, also to blame for all Obama's shortcomings, left office.

Yes, spending was cut, Joey. Fact. Obama's cost to our country has been 1.4 trillion dollars in Obama policies. We are the lowest federal spending since Eisenhower. Spending is LOWER than during Bush. The deficit has narrowed.

You repeatedly have shown you lump everything together, and don't understand the concept that spending that occured under Bush - and not paid for - keeps happening with interest no matter who the president is.

And I think you do it deliberately. You simply refuse to acknowledge reality.

And he's your president, too. No matter what you "believe", he's cut federal spending, narrowed the deficit, extended the life of Medicare 8 years, and given you massive healthcare insurance protections. Keep suffering.

[Riot]

The scene on FOX News during election night was a remarkable admixture of rage, denial, and ultimately, not too much acceptance. The Excluders have lost, the Includers have won.

http://davidkeithlaw.wordpress.com/...

In the hunger for information on Election Night, it never occurred to me to watch FOXNews. It was only late in the game, when the result was certain, that I allowed myself the luxury of flipping first to Jon Stewart, and then FOX, for some light entertainment.

What a mistake I made, not tuning in earlier to the FOX coverage, which by midnight EST, resembled an Oklahoma football squad, complete with cheerleaders, sitting shiva. The anchor man, someone named “Shep” who does not at first blush sound like a fool, was hissing and fuming about Romney’s ridiculous refusal to come out and concede. Ed Rollins, warhorse for the ages, mumbled about “uniting behind the President” (the first time, perhaps, that sentence has been uttered there since November 2008). A sharp edged blonde lady, in the customary red suit, carried the demeanor of a Dallas real estate agent who had just discovered her husband canoodling with another woman in the back of the Escalade. We need a word in English that means “glum anger”.

As my friend Steve wrote to me, these people were watching their world collapse – the magic realist 1950s world so artfully constructed in the minds of the FOXAmerican public, and apparently, in the brains of those who feed them the propaganda. Nowhere was this process better described than in Andrew Sullivan’s DailyDish blog, last night a luxurious mix of haughteur, glee and tearful relief.

Many good things happened last night. The President was returned with a strong majority of the vote; the Senate will see many new, smart, liberal Democrats where they were never expected to win; Maryland, Maine, Minnesota and Washington each passed referenda recognizing some form of marriage equality for gay Americans, and on and on. All shocking to the true believers of FoxAmerica and their mental fortress

There is much more to be said about the phenomenon of FoxAmerica, but what we can see this morning is this: there was for two centuries in America, an ascendant and dominant class of white, heterosexual men. For a time it literally enslaved blacks, disenfranchised women, marginalized minorities and tormented gays. This patriarchy, largely in the service of the rich, exploited and manipulated the people of America, through a process and philosophy of exclusion.

Members of that same class, and I count FDR their patron saint, opened the doors of power to people who were different. That same class of Americans laudably gave birth to the New Deal, the Marshall Doctrine, the War on Poverty and a strongly liberal sentiment which began to dissolve the walls of the old patriarchy. The 1960s saw a social revolution based on material wealth and psychological liberty, the 1990s saw the emergence of a new normal where inclusion, not exclusion, became the rule, and 2012 saw the congealing of a broad popular sentiment endorsing modest forms of collective action, social equality and inclusion.

This morning, the Includers are ascendant, and the Excluders are in the minority. The challenge for the winners, will be how to remain “inclusive” towards a rabid and wounded pack of hounds.

I mean foxes.

[bigrun]

Originally Posted by Riot

The scene on FOX News during election night was a remarkable admixture of rage, denial, and ultimately, not too much acceptance. The Excluders have lost, the Includers have won.

http://davidkeithlaw.wordpress.com/...

Watched ABC coverage till they declared the winner..flip to Fox, was like a morque..couple of guys and Rove...the guys were moaning and Rove says 'hold on a minute not so fast, there's a few counties in northern Ohio that haven't reported in'..lol...not like 2000 eh Rove...what, $360mil his superpac blew...yikes...

[mclem0822]

Originally Posted by miraja2

My 2016 odds:

Chris Christie (R) 4/1
Paul Ryan (R) 5/1
Andrew Cuomo (D) 6/1
Hillary Clinton (D) 6/1
Mark Wrner (D) 8/1
Martin O'Malley (D) 10/1
Marco Rubio (R) 12/1
Jeb Bush (R) 12/1
John Thune (R) 15/1
Bob McDonnell (R) 15/1
Joe Biden (D) 20/1
Tim Pawlenty (R) 20/1
Brian Schweitzer (D) 30-1
Rick Santorum (R) 75-1
Field (12/1)

I am not sure bout odds, but a couple more names might be Duval Patrick, and today I heard Elisabeth Warren's name as a possible candidate. Great that she won

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Riot

You keep repeating this like a parrot, yet the multiple times I've asked you why you blame Obama for the 14.6 trillion that he didn't create you ignore me.

Why don't you stop repeating it?

Why do you blame this president for money taken from the Social Security trust fund 20 years ago?



Yes, spending was cut, Joey. Fact. Obama's cost to our country has been 1.4 trillion dollars in Obama policies. We are the lowest federal spending since Eisenhower. Spending is LOWER than during Bush. The deficit has narrowed.

You repeatedly have shown you lump everything together, and don't understand the concept that spending that occured under Bush - and not paid for - keeps happening with interest no matter who the president is.

And I think you do it deliberately. You simply refuse to acknowledge reality.

And he's your president, too. No matter what you "believe", he's cut federal spending, narrowed the deficit, extended the life of Medicare 8 years, and given you massive healthcare insurance protections. Keep suffering.

Your math is way off. Obama added 6 trillion to the national debt. That debt is the accumulation of the unpaid yearly deficits.

How do you get $1.4T? Give me the executive summary answer and not a thousand graphs.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

Hillary and Biden will be too old. Cuomo has to be considered the fav at this point as he is a skilled politician, is a popular Gov (at this point) in a Democratic stronghold with plenty of old guard support.

Christie started running the day the hurricane hit but he is a flawed candidate who has really pissed off many in the GOP with his over the top praise of Obama in the Hurricane aftermath. That won't be forgotten by the GOP.

Oh, God, please no. Please, please, please no. Can someone get RH10 to say he's a shoo-in? Please?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by miraja2

That's right. I totally forgot about him quitting as co-chair of the Romney campaign awhile back to go to work as a lobbyist.
You're absolutely right. He's done.
I never could quite figure out why he couldn't get more traction in Iowa this time around. He seems like the type of Republican that conservatives would like but independents and moderates wouldn't fear. The lack of charisma is obviously a problem, but that didn't stop John Kerry or Mitt Romney from getting nominated.

I guess because while money won't get you the Presidency, it can go a long way towards getting you the nomination.

[Riot]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Your math is way off. Obama added 6 trillion to the national debt. That debt is the accumulation of the unpaid yearly deficits.

How do you get $1.4T? Give me the executive summary answer and not a thousand graphs.

Just as an aside to reality intruding on conservative dogma, #natesilversongs is trending on Twitter ...

Joey - if you would actually READ the graph I have posted multiple times, it details "how I get to $1.4T"

[bigrun]

Ten right-wingers who got the election hilariously wrong.

3. Karl Rove: Party ID

In the Wall Street Journal, Bush’s Brain wrote, “It comes down to numbers. And in the final days of this presidential race, from polling data to early voting, they favor Mitt Romney.”

Desperate Democrats are now hanging their hopes on a new Quinnipiac University/New York Times/CBS News poll showing the president with a five-point Ohio lead. But that survey gives Democrats a +8 advantage in turnout, the same advantage Democrats had in 2008. That assumption is, to put it gently, absurd.

Yup, Democrats only had a 6-point turn-out advantage according to the exit polls.

9. Dick Morris: The Pollsters in My Head Say…

Morris is arguably the wrongest person in the universe with a mainstream platform, and he didn’t dissapoint in 2012.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/ten_...riously_wrong/

[Riot]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Ten right-wingers who got the election hilariously wrong.

They have confused religion for reality. They ignored this simple fact - that the middle line is 270 electoral votes and Romney has never been near it - for months:

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by bigrun

Ten right-wingers who got the election hilariously wrong.








http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/ten_...riously_wrong/

newt gingrich should have at least gotten honorable mention.