US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

[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.