News US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

[WhoWee]

The real bloodbath is not in the Senate or the House, but in the Statehouses.

In states like Ohio (where Obama/Clinton campaigned very hard) the issue for 2012 and beyond is re-districting.

 

[Astronuc]

My neighborhood sits right on the border of two congressional districts, so we get blasted by two sets of campaigns. Both districts were held by democrats, one was one term, and the other in a second term. Both democrats lost to new republicans. Independents swung away from democrats. Economy and taxes are the big drivers in voter sentiment. Health care is an issue for many, and social security and health care are issues for the elderly and retired.

I want to see where Congress will cut expenditures.

Nobody wants their social security or medicare/medicaid cut, or the unemployment check eliminated - but that's pretty much what has to be done to reduce government expenditures.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Cutting SSI payments, HHS and DOD by 30% would quickly reduce the deficit.

Otherwise - http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

The states have to rein in healthcare and pension costs. An issue in this state is the health care, pension and other benefits enjoyed by State lawmakers (assembly and senate), who actually work part time.

 

[WhoWee]

I listened to msnbc and CNN last evening and this morning. The (rather smug) question being posed isNow what? What will you cut? Who will you target?

It seems to me that if the Republicans "put the car in the ditch" - Obama and company pushed it into the field took it for a joy ride. Now everyone wonders how the Republicans will get the car back on the road? (again IMO)

Therefore, I think the strategy for the new Republican House should be to identify about 1,000 insane/obvious wastes of money and target them with very narrow legislation (Bills that everyone can and will read) - force Reid and Obama to defend their spending. Will this fix the problem - of course not - but it will set the stage for 2012.

On the flip side, the new Republican House also needs to introduce very narrow and specific programs that will help small business and create jobs.

The bottom line is a common sense approach to the problem will be recognized as responsible behavior. The surgical extraction of obvious waste, coupled with job growth (increased tax revenue) will steer us back in the right direction.

 

[Gokul43201]

On the flip side, the new Republican House also needs to introduce very narrow and specific programs that will help small business and create jobs.

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

 

[Astronuc]

"I'd like to get to the bottom of what's really right for this country, and that's kind of hard while they're all calling each other names."
TONY PERELLI, 75, voting in Chicago.

Independents Fueled G.O.P Gains (no surprise there)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03exit.html

Many Voters Find Little Comfort on Ballot
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03mood.html

I believe Reid will step down as majority leader. Too bad it wasn't sooner.

As for bigger or smaller government, one of the problems is that under the republican administrations, the trend was to increase spending, partly because the government starting outsourcing work to expensive contractors (which began under Reagan). So it is quite disengenous for republicans to be claiming they are for less government, when in actuality the function of government is simply passed to private hands. Add to that the failure to appropriately regulate and the failure to enforce regulation (e.g., mine safety, hazardous waste, financial markets, . . . ) which have in part lead to the near economic collapse in the US. Of course, the democrats have been more or less equally irresponsible.

It is certainly fair to ask the republicans what they will cut. Cutting $100 billion in the next fiscal year still leaves more than a $1 trillion deficit. Try cutting $1 trillion is federal expenditures.

The federal deficit is about 10% of the GDP, and the GDP only grew at an annual rate of 2%.

Federal budget deficit to exceed $1.4 trillion in 2010 and 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304101.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ (also has numbers on GDP)
http://www.cbo.gov/

 

[CAC1001]

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

I think it depends. We may see a full-on gridlock for the next few years if Obama tries to continue with his agenda because Republicans disagree with it.

Everyone talks about "bipartisanship," I really don't see how that can work except in a very few limited circumstances. On almost eveyr major issue, Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided on how to go about solving the issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it depends. We may see a full-on gridlock for the next few years if Obama tries to continue with his agenda because Republicans disagree with it.

How specifically do you suggest Obama will try to "continue with his agenda" (whatever that means)? Obama doesn't write legislation, he can only at best veto it. The Republicans have the House, and it's time for them to start writing some legislation.

Everyone talks about "bipartisanship," I really don't see how that can work except in a very few limited circumstances.

However, even in those limited circumstances, artificial differences are created purely for political reasons. Example: Republicans propose a commission to study the budget and deficit issues; later Obama supports this idea and promotes it publicly; immediately, Republican leadership stonewalls the move.

 

[WhoWee]

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

I said "narrow and specific".

 

[Astronuc]

Advice from republicans to the republicans
Veteran Republicans' Advice To Winners: Don't Blow It
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131033092

Ken Duberstein's comment hits the spot. The election was a referendum on Obama and the democrats, not an indication that the voters are in love with the republican agenda.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The election was a referendum on Obama and the democrats, not an indication that the voters are in love with the republican agenda.

Indeed.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

I can't imagine anything but gridlock with different parties controlling the two chambers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't imagine anything but gridlock with different parties controlling the two chambers.

We already had gridlock because of the Republican use of the fillabuster. Even though the Dems had a majority in the Senate, the Reps were determined to fillabuster every single issue, which meant that Dems needed 60 votes instead of 51. That dodge won't work anymore.

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

 

[jambaugh]

Everyone talks about "bipartisanship," I really don't see how that can work except in a very few limited circumstances. On almost eveyr major issue, Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided on how to go about solving the issue.

Calls for "bipartisanship" is when one party demands the other ignore their own values and side with the one.

And "gridlock" is the ideal situation, where only common sense legislation that most agree as necessary gets passed.

The markets have been climbing in anticipation of Tuesday's result, not because Republicans favor business, but because with gridlock, the companies can actually plan long term and thus risk their capital without the risk that a change of rules will undermine their expectations of return on investment. Sweeping change is the last thing our economy needs right now. That's not a matter of ignorant fear. It is a matter of stability.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just fyi, Strom Thurmond was elected to the Senate on a write-in vote, in 1954. So Murkowski would be the second Senator to win as a write-in.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wow, Bennet [D] won in Colorado!

Edit: Whoops, not official yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One funny comment from last night. How would you like to wake up and realize that you just spent $160 million of your own money for the Calif Governer's race, and LOST!

 

[Astronuc]

I really would like to see more grey or purple or some other color, which represents a true indpendent not beholden to democratic or republican party.

Interesting commentary from the Tech-Ticker

Election Post-Op: Republicans Win, Deficit Hawks Lose
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/election-post-op-republicans-win-deficit-hawks-lose-535564.html

1. Recent History: In the past 20 years, there have been two deficit-reduction deals. But Congressional Republicans weren't a significant party to either one of them. In 1990, Republican president George H.W. Bush and the Democratic Congress agreed to higher taxes and spending cuts -- a deal that was largely denounced by the then-minority Republicans in Congress. In 1993, Democratic Congress and President Clinton passed another package of spending cuts and tax increases over the united opposition of then-minority Congressional Republicans.
. . . .
. . . Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, and John Boehner, the next Speaker of the House, are veterans of last decade's Republican majority that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit with no payment mechanism, funded wars on an emergency basis, and sharply increased discretionary spending.
. . . .

 

[WhoWee]

We already had gridlock because of the Republican use of the fillabuster. Even though the Dems had a majority in the Senate, the Reps were determined to fillabuster every single issue, which meant that Dems needed 60 votes instead of 51. That dodge won't work anymore.

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

Yes Ivan, you've certainly described the events surrounding the passage of health care reform - or have you?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes Ivan, you've certainly described the events surrounding the passage of health care reform - or have you?

Yes, that is why passage required the political maneuvering that was used. The only way to pass the bill was to get the two Independents on board, which made passage fillabuster proof. When it became impossible to pass the desired bill due to the fillabuster, a bill passed previously in the Senate was passed in the House retroactively.

The Republicans called this dirty politics when a clear majority - 58 votes - had supported the abandoned bill in the Senate. This is what killed Universal Health Care and the reason to many liberals are ticked off. The liberals blame Obama when he got the only bill possible.

Everyone is mad for the wrong reasons on both sides of the aisle. It is insanity! And the Tea Party caters to the insanity.

 

[Jasongreat]

We already had gridlock because of the Republican use of the fillabuster. Even though the Dems had a majority in the Senate, the Reps were determined to fillabuster every single issue, which meant that Dems needed 60 votes instead of 51. That dodge won't work anymore.

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

The republicans used the fillibuster, or threatened to use it? Your post seems to say both things. I could be wrong, but to me it seems the dems only used the supposed threat to say that they couldn't do anything because of those damn republicans, a view it doesn't seem the voting public believed.

"Astronuc = As for bigger or smaller government, one of the problems is that under the republican administrations, the trend was to increase spending, partly because the government starting outsourcing work to expensive contractors (which began under Reagan). So it is quite disengenous for republicans to be claiming they are for less government, when in actuality the function of government is simply passed to private hands..."

As I see it the 2006 and 2008 elections were a rebuttal of the big spending, big government Rino's, or progressive republicans. There were huge numbers of independents and republicans who voted for change, too bad, the change was bigger spending and bigger government. Those same independents and republicans are who voted yesterday to give power back to republicans, but looking into my crystal ball, if those republicans now continue big government policies, they won't be in congress long, and as far as that goes if some democrats don't stand by them, they will also be booted next vote. Republicans forgot that the reason they are there is because they were supposed to be conservative, it was why they got over 50 seats in the 94 election, to oppose over-reaching government, and why they got over 50 last night, but I agree with you that that is not what they acted like once in power last time, hopefully they learn from history, or they WILL be taught another lesson next election, imo.

 

[G01]

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

Every senator will need to keep a copy of the local phone book handy, in case they need to filibuster.

 

[WhoWee]

I wonder how many politicians talking about the "donut hole" actually understand how it works or even how many people are actually reaching the catastrophic phase?

A quick overview for PF members:

In 2010 the deductible for a Part D prescription plan can range from $0 up to $310. Most plans offer 3 to 5 tiers of structured co-pays and "standard designs" offer a 25% co-insurance through the "initial coverage phase". The initial coverage phase will be described as ($0 to $310) after deductible the prescriptions purchased at the combined cost the beneficiary pays combined with the amount the insurance company pays up to the cumulative value of $2,830.

For example, if a standard design is in use, (2,830 - 310 = 2,520) 25% co-insurance = $630 cost to beneficiary and 75% $1,890 insurance company cost.
At this point ($2,830 total) the donut hole is reached and the beneficiary pays 100% of the cost until their out of pocket cost reaches $4,550 (4,550 - 630 = $3,920)

At $4,550, the beneficiary has a co-pay of $2.50 to $6.30 or 5% co-insurance.

If the beneficiary has $100,000 worth of prescriptions per year, they would pay $4,550 + (5% of $93,560) $4,678 = $9,228 (less a check for $250) and the insurance company would pay $90.772.

This is an example of a lower premium basic plan with no "gap coverage". A higher premium (typically $45 to $100 per month) might offer a continuation of pre-set co-pays on certain prescription through the donut hole.

In 2011, the donut hole will start at $2,840. The $250 check will still be available. Instead of 100% cost in the donut hole, generics will cost 93% (typically) and some brands will be discounted (estimated at up to 50%) by the manufacturing companies.

Worth mentioning, I've noticed (personal observation and opinion only) a few of the formulaies (list of covered drugs by each filed plan) have changed in the past quarter and for 2011.

For more information, visit www.medicare.gov[/URL].

 

[WhoWee]

Yes, that is why passage required the political maneuvering that was used. The only way to pass the bill was to get the two Independents on board, which made passage fillabuster proof. When it became impossible to pass the desired bill due to the fillabuster, a bill passed previously in the Senate was passed in the House retroactively.

The Republicans called this dirty politics when a clear majority - 58 votes - had supported the abandoned bill in the Senate. This is what killed Universal Health Care and the reason to many liberals are ticked off. The liberals blame Obama when he got the only bill possible.

Everyone is mad for the wrong reasons on both sides of the aisle. It is insanity! And the Tea Party caters to the insanity.

If I recall, the Dems did some back room deal making, there was no deliberation, no time to read or review the 2,000 pages, etc.

 

[vela]

I really would like to see more grey or purple or some other color, which represents a true indpendent not beholden to democratic or republican party.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen any time soon as most people think voting for anyone other than a Republican or a Democrat is a wasted vote since independents are almost always assured of losing an election because of this type of thinking. It's a self-fulfilling prophesy. It's paradoxical as these same people complain how nothing really ever changes in Washington yet send the same people back time after time. It certainly doesn't help that the major parties have stacked the rules to make life difficult for third-party candidates, like requiring more signatures to get on the ballot, excluding them from debates, etc.

 

[Gokul43201]

I said "narrow and specific".

If I recall correctly, the reasoning from Republicans for filibustering the Small Business Bill was that it was too narrow and didn't do enough. I'll look for a reference later tonight.**

I can't imagine anything but gridlock with different parties controlling the two chambers.

Reagan had a split Congress for his first 6 yrs, and my impression of that period is not what I'd describe as gridlock.

Wow, Bennet [D] won in Colorado!

Edit: Whoops, not official yet.

It was as good as official since early this morning. The only precincts not finished were in Dem districts. (The only one remaining now is Boulder, which is doing better than 2:1 for Benett).**Edit: Found http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2010/09/senate-democrats-overcome-gop-filibuster-of-small-business-bill.html from a quick search:

Earlier this month, the top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell even derided the measure as “a little itty-bitty small business bill that no one thinks will have much of an impact on the economy.”

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm calling WA for Murray. The majority of uncounted votes are in King county, where he has a 25% lead so far, with 55% counted there.

With that, the Senate tally comes to D:52, R:48. I had guessed 51-49, and I had four individual mistakes (two offsetting each other, and one irrelevant to the party make-up): NV, WA, AK and PA.

No one else played, so I won!

 

[mheslep]

And with that, one hopes the Alvin Green anomaly will resolve itself and vanish in a puff of sanity.

Well 358 thousand voted for Green none the less. Heck if someone wants to protest DeMint then at least do a write-in.

 

[WhoWee]

If I recall correctly, the reasoning from Republicans for filibustering the Small Business Bill was that it was too narrow and didn't do enough. I'll look for a reference later tonight.**

I would contend that "Mr. Itty-Bitty" has become part of the problem. The notion that legislation has to be 2,000 pages and nobody is responsible for the waste and abuse is unacceptable.

I'm a strong believer in breaking those 3 to 4 massive Bills per year into 1,000 small Bills read and understood by everyone. If the contents are wasteful and abusive - dealt with accordingly. I believe our legislators should spend 8 to 10 hours per day in-session 5 to 6 days per week - for a maximum 2 terms (not on the campaign trail for half their term or on world wide discovery tours or perhaps visiting Castro/trying to help Cuban tourism).
http://www.nydailynews.com/latino/2009/04/03/2009-04-03_congressional_black_caucus_delegation_vi.html
https://nacla.org/node/5812
http://www.afrocubaweb.com/blackcaucus.htm

 

[mheslep]

Another interesting tidbit about a specific group of ballot measures:

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/02/news/economy/ballot_measures/index.htm

Ugh, CNN just can't resists inserting commentary.

So they say ...

Voters in several states defeated major anti-tax measures on Tuesday, acknowledging that their financially-strapped governments need revenue to provide services.

[...]
At the same time, voters were not eager to raise taxes. A high-profile bid to tax millionaires in Washington state failed.

Which could have just as easily been said this way with the exact same fact set:

Voters in several states defeated major anti-tax measures on Tuesday. [Period].

[...]
At the same time, voters were not eager to raise taxes, acknowledging the common sense of holding down taxes in the midst of near record unemployment....

 

[Gokul43201]

As I see it the 2006 and 2008 elections were a rebuttal of the big spending, big government Rino's, or progressive republicans. There were huge numbers of independents and republicans who voted for change, too bad, the change was bigger spending and bigger government. Those same independents and republicans are who voted yesterday to give power back to republicans, but looking into my crystal ball, if those republicans now continue big government policies, they won't be in congress long, and as far as that goes if some democrats don't stand by them, they will also be booted next vote.

You really think the 2008 election result was a call for more conservatism? Have you come across a single person other than yourself that shares this view (just curious)?

In any case, I don't think you are basing this on an examination of the numbers, since they do not easily support your hypothesis. In fact, the exit polls clearly show that there were a lot fewer Republican voters (as a fraction of the electorate) that showed up at the polls in '08 than did yesterday. And there were a lot fewer Dem voters at the polls yesterday. But Independents did swing significantly from Obama in 2008 to the Republican vote this time.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#USP00p1
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/polls/#USH00p1

Other noteworthy differences are in the age distribution and religiosity. The 2008 electorate was much younger than yesterday's, and attended church less often. And these numbers are consistent with reporting I've come across, such as the article below:

Christian conservative voters turn out big on election night

Ralph Reed and his Freedom and Faith Coalition did their best to sway the electorate Tuesday night. Between phone calls, mailings, and knocking on doors, Reed estimated his pro-family, pro-free market group had 58.8 million voter contacts aimed at the conservative faith community.

He described that group as "frequently mass-attending Catholics and evangelicals."

The coalition says it built a list of 7.7 million households before the midterms who fit that mold.

Reed said, "What we were trying to do was ensure those people turned out in the largest number possible and we think that effort was successful."

According to the group's polling information released Wednesday, 32 percent of voters identified themselves as members of the conservative Christian movement. That number represents an increase over their 2006 data. Of those voters in their survey who self-identified as conservative Christians, 78 percent voted Republican.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...vative-voters-turn-out-big-on-election-night/

Unrelated, but interesting, with this election is that among the voters, the opinion of the Dem Party was just as poor as the opinion of the Rep Party.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ugh, CNN just can't resists inserting commentary.

You still get ughed out by this stuff?

 

[mheslep]

You still get ughed out by this stuff?

Heh, good point.

 

[WhoWee]

This might perk you up.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/127597-pelosi-no-decision-yet-on-future-plans

"Pelosi hinted, however, that the decision could hinge most significantly on the sentiments of fellow Democrats.

"In our caucus we always do things by consensus," said the 70-year-old Pelosi. "And when we have that consensus, we’ll have some announcement to make."

Echoing Tuesday's defense of the Democrats' legislative record, Pelosi also indicated that, given the chance, she wouldn't do anything differently.

"No regrets," she told Sawyer. "We believe we did the right thing, and we worked very hard in our campaigns to convey that to the American people."

Speculation about Pelosi's future has swirled around Capitol Hill — and around the country — since it became apparent Tuesday night that Republicans would regain a House majority after just four years of Democratic control. The shift ends Pelosi's historic stint as the first female House Speaker."

 

[Astronuc]

Ugh, CNN just can't resists inserting commentary.

Which is why I don't care to watch them.

Stephen Colbert (11/3) was pointing out the number of analysts in the CNN newsrooms and the number of opinions flying about.

Meanwhile - 'Vanity Fair' Writer: What Will Speaker Boehner Do?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131017915

Interesting insight.

Of Rand Paul, Todd Purdum points out that Paul would have a conflict with republican establishment (assuming he is true to his ideology). Boehner has close ties to lobbyists.

 

[Astronuc]

This might perk you up.
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/127597-pelosi-no-decision-yet-on-future-plans

"Pelosi hinted, however, that the decision could hinge most significantly on the sentiments of fellow Democrats.

"In our caucus we always do things by consensus," said the 70-year-old Pelosi. "And when we have that consensus, we’ll have some announcement to make."

Echoing Tuesday's defense of the Democrats' legislative record, Pelosi also indicated that, given the chance, she wouldn't do anything differently.

"No regrets," she told Sawyer. "We believe we did the right thing, and we worked very hard in our campaigns to convey that to the American people."

Speculation about Pelosi's future has swirled around Capitol Hill — and around the country — since it became apparent Tuesday night that Republicans would regain a House majority after just four years of Democratic control. The shift ends Pelosi's historic stint as the first female House Speaker."

Ugh! She unfortunately got re-elected with 80% of the votes in her district (District 8 in Ca). She seems to be in denial as well as being delusional - like so many in DC.

 

[WhoWee]

Ugh! She unfortunately got re-elected with 80% of the votes in her district (District 8 in Ca). She seems to be in denial as well as being delusional - like so many in DC.

She has no regrets, and clearly nothing to fear, I have to wonder what she'll attempt to push through in her final days.

 

[Astronuc]

She has no regrets, and clearly nothing to fear, I have to wonder what she'll attempt to push through in her final days.

Purdum made an interest comment in the NPR interview I posted above. It's toward the end. Pelosi apparently had iron-fist control on Congress - or rather the democrats.

Anyway - another piece by Purdum - Todd S. Purdum Asks, Can Washington Be Fixed?
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/can-washington-be-fixed.html

 

[WhoWee]

Purdum made an interest comment in the NPR interview I posted above. It's toward the end. Pelosi apparently had iron-fist control on Congress - or rather the democrats.

Anyway - another piece by Purdum - Todd S. Purdum Asks, Can Washington Be Fixed?
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2010/08/can-washington-be-fixed.html

Interesting piece - one size fits all, coupled with every decision made in haste? This is why experience matters.

It makes me think of how I rationalized Bush (I was not a supporter) - I took comfort in knowing he could always call dad.

 

[CAC1001]

How specifically do you suggest Obama will try to "continue with his agenda" (whatever that means)? Obama doesn't write legislation, he can only at best veto it. The Republicans have the House, and it's time for them to start writing some legislation.

By "Obama's agenda," I mean his plan to push for carbon cap-and-trade through the EPA, union card check, reforming the educational system, etc...he got the first parts of his agenda passed (healthcare and financial reform), although you are right, he needs the House and then Senate to write the bills first.

 

[BobG]

The real bloodbath is not in the Senate or the House, but in the Statehouses.

Eh, local stuff.

In 2000, having control of state legislatures netted Republicans over 30 seats in the US House of Representatives for the next election.

Redistricting affects more than just one election. It sets a bias towards one party or the other for next decade. Toss in that pro-Dem rust belt states are losing seats and pro-Rep states are gaining seats and the bloodbath in the state houses sets the '10's up to be a good decade for Republicans in the US House of Representatives.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ugh, CNN just can't resists inserting commentary.

So they say ...


Which could have just as easily been said this way with the exact same fact set:

You consider that commentary? Please, I have see much worse in the Wall Street Journal.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Ugh! She unfortunately got re-elected with 80% of the votes in her district (District 8 in Ca). She seems to be in denial as well as being delusional - like so many in DC.

She isn't in denial. She is standing on principle.

What exactly is she allegedly in denial about?

You think CNN introduces too much commentary but you cite Colbert? I am so confused!

 

[CAC1001]

You really think the 2008 election result was a call for more conservatism? Have you come across a single person other than yourself that shares this view (just curious)?

Do you think people actually voted for Obama for big government? I would be interested in the numbers you refer to, not saying you are wrong on those at all, but I mean, I remember during the Bush years all sorts of railing about the deficits and debt and excessive spending done by the Bush administration. Was all of that for nought? Maybe the numbers show differently, but I think very much the people wanted more conservatism, because we didn't have conservatism during the Bush years. Bush governed more like a socially-conservative Democrat, not any fiscally-conservative Republican.

In 2006, many of the Democrats elected ran on center-right platforms. This was a strategy the Democrats used to build up their numbers.

Part of the reason for the reaction against Obama is because he and the Democrats saw the '08 election as a mandate for him to change America over to a European-style model. The "Era of Reagan" was declared as over.

But the reality it seems is that all of this was not true. The country did not shift to being center-left. So Obama gets elected and immediately seeks to change America. This leads to the Tea Party movement because America isn't like France or Germany.

 

[Gokul43201]

Do you think people actually voted for Obama for big government?

What's the alternative? People had a choice between Obama and McCain, and they picked Obama because they thought he (the militant socialist/communist/most liberal Dem in the Senate/etc.) was more likely to bring back Conservatism?

I would be interested in the numbers you refer to, not saying you are wrong on those at all, but I mean, I remember during the Bush years all sorts of railing about the deficits and debt and excessive spending done by the Bush administration. Was all of that for nought?

Most of those people would have voted for McCain.

Maybe the numbers show differently, but I think very much the people wanted more conservatism, because we didn't have conservatism during the Bush years. Bush governed more like a socially-conservative Democrat, not any fiscally-conservative Republican.

Some segment of the electorate wanted more Conservatism. That was not the segment that showed up in record numbers to vote in Obama.

I've provided links to the exit polling numbers in the post you quoted.

But here's another set of numbers to consider: at least as many people think the healthcare bill doesn't go far enough as those who think it goes too far. And it's that first group that are much more likely to be people that voted in Obama.

[PLAIN]http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/cbshealth3.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_obama_011110.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

 

[Astronuc]

She isn't in denial. She is standing on principle.

What exactly is she allegedly in denial about?

You think CNN introduces too much commentary but you cite Colbert? I am so confused!

CNN is supposed to be a news organization, as opposed to an entertainment organization. Colbert's program is entertainment.

I don't care for infotainment or entertainment disguised as news. I want the facts, not somebody's opinion of what they think the facts are.

 

[CAC1001]

What's the alternative? People had a choice between Obama and McCain, and they picked Obama because they thought he (the militant socialist/communist/most liberal Dem in the Senate/etc.) was more likely to bring back Conservatism?

I would say they picked him because:

1) He didn't run as a hardcore liberal during the General, he ran that way during the Primary

2) McCain looked and sounded like a clueless idiot when the economy was on the verge of collapse (during the campaign, he had even said he "doesn't understand the economy")

3) The Republican party and Bush were hugely unpopular from corruption to people blaming Bush for the financial crises and seeing McCain as more of Bush.

4) Obama seemed like something truly fresh and new to many people

I do not think the people elected Obama in for big government.

Most of those people would have voted for McCain.

Would have to disagree. Plenty of Democrats railed about Bush's spending, Democrats railed about Ronald Reagan's spending as well during the 1980s as well. Many said Bush's Medicare program was unfunded.

That said, quite a few people did still vote for McCain. Obama won solidly, but it was not a smashing landslide victory.

Some segment of the electorate wanted more Conservatism. That was not the segment that showed up in record numbers to vote in Obama.

By "conservatism," were these people thinking more of George W. Bush and the Republicans or the literal definition of fiscal conservatism and limited government? Also not everyone who voted for Obama wanted big government. Many when asked why they were voting Obama said they didn't buy the Republican claim that Obama was some massive big-government guy or anything like that, center-left, sure, but not hard left.

But here's another set of numbers to consider: more people think the healthcare bill doesn't go far enough than those who think it goes too far. Moreover, it's that first group that are much more likely to be people that voted in Obama.

[PLAIN]http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/cbshealth3.jpg

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/poll_obama_011110.pdf?tag=contentMain;contentBody

I think it depends on what poll you look at:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2825202/rasmussens_health_care_poll_shows_55.html?cat=9

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...112143-poll-majority-favors-healthcare-repeal

http://www.examiner.com/political-b...h-care-reform-bill-with-contradictory-results

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

 

[Astronuc]

I was looking for some numbers on what the US government spends on medicare. Here's a reference:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

I wanted to see what the government spends in relation to the nearly $2 trillion spent on health care. Health care is supposed to be a growing field (more jobs), but who is supposed to pay for it if people can't afford it? Or do we just ration it to those who can afford it?

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it depends on what poll you look at:

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2825202/rasmussens_health_care_poll_shows_55.html?cat=9

http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatc...112143-poll-majority-favors-healthcare-repeal

http://www.examiner.com/political-b...h-care-reform-bill-with-contradictory-results

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2010-03-23-health-poll-favorable_N.htm

How many of those links provide a comparison between people that believed the bill didn't go far enough with those that believe it went too far?

While the numbers I cited show the "not far enough" group as exceeding the "too far" group by anywhere from 3% to 16% depending on the aspect of bill in question, I specifically used the words "at least as many" to cover any differences between polls. But that's just supplemental and not the direct answer to the question.

The direct answer is very clear in the exit polls. Despite asking for the numbers, it seems you've not looked at them yet. Let's make it easier:

Here's the link to the relevant page (pg 3) of the exit poll: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/polls/#val=USP00p3

And here's the specific table:

To summarize, among the group that voted for Obama, about 77% wanted Govt to "do more" and about 23% believed it was "doing too much". I hope that's clear enough.

 

[mheslep]

I was looking for some numbers on what the US government spends on medicare. Here's a reference:
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/TRSUM/index.html

I wanted to see what the government spends in relation to the nearly $2 trillion spent on health care.

About http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy10/pdf/summary.pdf" next year for Medicare alone. The government's total health care tab, including Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans, is about half of the total medical dollars spent in the US.

Health care is supposed to be a growing field (more jobs), but who is supposed to pay for it if people can't afford it? Or do we just ration it to those who can afford it?

Seems to me that the answer is the same as it is for every other important product of our society - food, transportation, housing, entertainment - get the government out of the way and let the market do what it always does - produce an inexpensive product that nearly every American can afford.

 

[Gokul43201]

If I may remind posters (including myself), this thread is about the elections. Let's try to keep discussion close to that topic.