Wednesday, November 03, 2010
A few wrap-up observations
Michael Barone's quick postmortem is well-worth reading, including this:
As I write, the House results indicate that Republicans have gained a net 61 seats (64 gains minus 3 losses) and are leading in 6 races currently undecided and trailing closely in 6 other races currently undecided. So the Republican net gain will be something like 67 seats—more than any party has won in any single election since 1948 (my Examiner column actually looks at the big seat gains for the Republicans in 1946 and the Democrats in 1948).
The upshot is that Speaker-to-be John Boehner will have a workable House majority, larger than the Republicans had during the 12 years they controlled the House from 1994 to 2006, larger than Republicans have enjoyed since the 80th Congress elected in 1946 which enacted laws which resulted in enduring public policies in 1947 and 1948. The sweet spot in the House, I would argue, is around 250 seats, enough so that you can let a fair number of your member dissent on a particular vote but not so many that dozens of members feel free to ignore party discipline because the party’s majority is so large. A 67-seat Republican gain would mean a House with 246 Republicans and 189 Democrats—a smaller number of Democrats than in any House since the one elected in 1946. The popular vote for the House is not yet available. California takes five weeks to count all its votes, a vivid contrast with Brazil, which voted on Sunday, where all the votes were counted within five hours (what is wrong with this picture?). But the popular vote appears to be a near-reversal from the Democrats’ popular vote 2008 majority in the popular vote for the House which was 54%-43%; the Republicans’ majority is likely to be greater than in 1994 and the largest since 1946 (54%-44%) and perhaps since 1928 (57%-42%). We are, as I wrote in the first sentence of my Examiner column, in uncharted territory.
There is, though, a warning in the West for the GOP.
My own reaction is that this is a rebuke to the Democrats, not an affirmation of the Republicans. Beyond that, I am actually glad that the GOP did not secure notional control of the Senate, because it will make it that much more difficult for President Obama to blame the Republicans for the no doubt still sluggish economy in 2012. And, anyway, I am a fan of divided government. The lesson of my lifetime is that Washington gets exponentially more asinine if one party controls all three of the House, the Senate, and the White House.
As a right-of-center blogger, I am also at least a little relieved that the Tea Party's goofier candidates -- Paladino in New York, McMahon in Connecticut, O'Donnell in Delaware, and Angle in Nevada -- all lost. I was not looking forward to spending the next two years explaining how their every gaffe was really literally true or not moronic in some technical sense. Like it or not, in today's world public leaders of any sort -- including high profile corporate executives, university presidents, the managers of NGOs, and of course candidates for office -- require a measure of professionalism. The right would do well to groom and nominate their candidates even at the cost of some authenticity.
Finally, it remains to be seen whether the state elections have significantly tipped the upcoming round of decennial redistricting. That could make a big difference in 2012. [UPDATE: See this for an early report on the GOP's "historic" sweep of state governments: "Republicans haven’t enjoyed this much power in state capitals since the 1920s."]
I'm adding to GDP today. Talk amongst yourselves. I'll expect to see spot-on analysis when I surface at the end of the day.
39 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Nov 03, 08:31:00 AM:
In my own opinion the voters have tried consistently to send a clear message to both parties these last several elections, even if- until now, perhaps?- the parties have refused to listen. When Bush decided America was to create a democracy in the middle east by force of arms, the voters said "no!". We should be more modest in our goals, no matter how noble. When he and Teddy Kennedy contrived to expand Medicare to cover prescription drug costs in yet another expensive new entitlement, voters (at least Republican voters) were disgusted. So too when Bush refused to veto any spending initiative. The GOP suffered losses.
Now it's the Democrats turn, and like the Bush Republicans they have taken a massive defeat as payback for the sin of growing governmen too big and committing us to even more debt fueled spending in the future. Just wait-- when the average voter understands how much trouble we are really in, when the perfidy of the Fed in undermining our currency and intentionally building inflation becomes well known-- voters will be even more angry.
This is just one more electoral loss for the big government party that has governed for forty or so years, both Democrat and GOP. We will see if Boehner and other House Republicans, who need to face voter again in just two short years (460 days until Iowa caucases, as Nate Silver reminds us), understand. Do they understand that spending of all sorts needs to be reined in? We shall see:
By 
pam, at
Wed Nov 03, 08:47:00 AM:
Funny, TH, Joe Scarborough said the same thing re: rebuke vs. affirmation....
I think this election should be a wakeup call, but we shall see....
Here in MA, I would have loved to have seen Barney Franks endless reign ended--because it has been endless. But Bielat was not the candidate....
Oh well, let's hope there is some real, civil debate on the Federal and State levels in the next two years because changes are definitely needed....
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 09:03:00 AM:
Right on Anon. With the CBO projecting that 60% of the deficit in 2018 will be due to the Bush tax cuts if they are made permanent, it will be fascinating to see what the Republicans propose cutting.
By Christopher Chambers, at
Wed Nov 03, 09:13:00 AM:
Now that you've "taken" "your" country "back," what is your first command, master? De-fund Rush Holt's old particle accelerator? Seriously...now that middle-aged white America, which will wane based on simple demography, has spoken, what will you do?
Here's my allegory: South Florida-based petite porn star Mimi Allen says she voted for Crist because Meek was duped by Republicans and her family members who voted for Meek were "silly and throat-cutting." Sad for Dems when this chick is more eloquent and showed more, er, backbone than they did. Book her on Charlie Rose...or this Bil Maher's THIRD light skinned black girlfriend in the sex industry? Only in America...
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 09:25:00 AM:
"taken" "your" country "back,"...
oh please...
we endured years of this from the left during Bush. Spare us.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 09:45:00 AM:
I'm depressed about California. Texas is already getting crowded.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 10:11:00 AM:
Don't forget the lesson shoved down the throats of the establishment Republicans during their primaries.
Some of them just didn't survive that step; others had to actually think about what constituents wanted (to hear, anyway - which forced them to at least get a handle on why they even had a big fight on their hands.)
It's all good.
Plus, out of 12 incumbent Dem Senate races, nearly/at least 2/3 lost to Republicans. that's a gigantic win, put into perspective.
Now, we just have to keep up the pressure re: forget this bi-partisan crap. it's like a law-abiding citizen compromising with a serial murderer - what are they going to compromise on? when, how, or with what the victim will be dispatched?
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 10:36:00 AM:
Duh! The reason Brazil has final results in five hours while California takes five days is because Brazil doesn't have democrats, black racists and union thugs making post-election adjustments.
By Dawnfire82, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:37:00 AM:
"When Bush decided America was to create a democracy in the middle east by force of arms, the voters said "no!"."
Not only did he win re-election in 2004, but the Republicans gained seats in Congress. Does that sound like a no, to you? Because it sure as hell didn't then.
"With the CBO projecting that 60% of the deficit in 2018 will be due to the Bush tax cuts"
This, that deficits are caused by taxes not being high enough, is a remarkably twisted way to look at public finances. Debts do not invent themselves. Money must be borrowed and spent. Deficits come from such borrowing and spending. If you collected NO taxes, you still wouldn't have a deficit; that requires borrowing and spending. That is, 100% of the deficit in 2018 will be because of government spending. Likewise, if the government collected every conceivable tax (maximum revenue, only achievable in the wet dreams of statists) they could still run up a deficit by spending more than they collect.
This is so elementary, I feel dumber for having to explain it.
If you want lower deficits, stop spending. Because raising taxes (which depresses economic activity) during a period of economic slowdown is not only unhelpful, but counterproductive.
By Progressively Defensive, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:37:00 AM:
Eugene Robinson wrote a W.Post column befuddled by what people could possibly want to take government back from; it's amazing the blind spot hard-core big government anti-wealthy Democrats have on this issue. They cannot conceive of large government being a threat to people's civil liberties including the right to "pursue happiness," which includes working and earning more and more wealth to spend on ... fun ... and not Crackhead Joe's deal-on-the-stree, snack, get-busy, and sleep-it-off nook in Baltimore.
But anyway; the challenge short term is that the old Republicans were spend-toward personal power types and not Tea Partiers. It's going to take another cycle or 3 for guys like Christie who have the clean records to rise up. I wonder if even the Ryan in Wisconsin can boast limited spending bona fides.
Some article said if the entire Senate were up, over 66 would be Republican - wow. That's better than the House majority. Still, what a system, eh? It's good that the Senate is on a different pace even though those of us who don't like Obama's agenda are frustrated by it today.
By Viking Kaj, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:44:00 AM:
I hear Obama is leaving for Indonesia tomorrow. Do you suppose we could pay them to keep him?
By Cassandra, at
Wed Nov 03, 11:18:00 AM:
OMG. That wins comment of the day :)
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 11:39:00 AM:
As a Connecticut reader, I just want to make a slight correction to your post. Linda McMahon running in Connecticut was not a "Tea Party" candidate.
If anything, I figured she would act very RINO-like in the senate, and seemed to be a carbon copy of our outgoing governor, Jody Rell, who was very much in favor of nanny-state initiatives.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 11:42:00 AM:
Paladino in New York, McMahon in Connecticut, O'Donnell in Delaware, and Angle in Nevada were not "well-groomed"...okaayyyyy
...and those who beat them are more "well groomed" ????
pfft please.
although the above candidates were/are not perfect how come when the left's candidates act "less groomed" the excuse by everyone is "they are just being human" but when its candidates on the right they are termed"not well groomed" or not "qualified" for office.
the gaffs and corruption that cuomo!!!, blumenthal!!!, reid!!!! and coons!!! GOT AWAY WITH is/was astounding. and yet voters re-elected them. amazing.
all i have to say to DE, NY, NV, and CT is you get what you vote for. NV is going down the drain in unemplyment, NY and CT taxes at all time highs...
hey but these politicians get re-elected so they must be doing something right. right????
again pfft.
Odonnell and Angele both had the national media pounding them on every word they ever said. if the same happened to Reid and Coons it would have been alot diff.
its scary the power the leftwing as well as RINOs can wield when the unify against candidates neither likes. sadly they ruin the chances for more human candidates from winning.
the loses in DE and NV are especially sad. if those had been democrat women i am sure the results would have been ALOT dif. lets face it, the dem male challengers got away with calling their opponents "dangerous" "mentally unbalanced" and "whore" but hey they "were "well groomed"
pfft
By Deuce ☂, at
Wed Nov 03, 11:50:00 AM:
I agree with all your points and would add that the Democrats being stuck with Harry Reid should be worth at least 5 more turnovers in 2012
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 12:15:00 PM:
Feels like we've seen this movie before. This is the third election in a row (2006, 2008, and 2010) where the polls show that the the electorate overwhelmingly believes that the country is headed in the wrong direction (73% on '06, 81% in '08 and 62% in '10) and they vote to to "throw out the bums" who are in office.
Maybe the results are less about Republican/Democrat and more about disillusionment with voters' own lives, which obviously can't be fixed by an election.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 12:50:00 PM:
Barone writes: "So the Republican net gain will be something like 67 seats—more than any party has won in any single election since 1948"
Yes, that was the year that the Dems won 75 seats bringing the total to 263. Of course, that was only two years after the 1946 mid-year elections when the Democratic Party under Truman lost control of both houses (55 seats in the House) to the Republican party. What's old is new again....
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 01:35:00 PM:
PELOSI IS NOT LONGER SPEAKER !
Outstanding...
"Like it or not, in today's world public leaders of any sort -- including high profile corporate executives, university presidents, the managers of NGOs, and of course candidates for office -- require a measure of professionalism. The right would do well to groom and nominate their candidates even at the cost of some authenticity."
So well said. The TEA PARTY EXPRESS and the Palin Franchise, gave us weaker candidates. We could have taken the Senate as well and probably should have, except for some terribly poor selections.
It isn't a matter of 'pure conservatism' some are peddling as a fashionable Identity movement.
It is about soundness, ability, reasoning, accomplishment, etc. There are ugly stereotypes Democratic Partisans have exploited for years, and will continue to do so - we simply cannot play to them.
I have great regret to see Rush Limbaugh today, double down on the fashionable push. He is even sounding now like he is demeaning Karl Rove. This is about as bright as waging war on two fronts at the same time. We don't need it, don't want it, and it will only weaken our essential political challenge.
We need to grow as a team, and the Republican Party is not the real problem or the priority. Definitely not the target of overt demonizing, and the mindless 'cabal' conspiracies are far from Conservative or Reagan Conservatism.
Rush actually associated Whitman and Fiorina with McCain's run in 2008, saying moderates lose. He rebuke the obvious pretend offerings of 'working with each other' which all politicians provide in an effort in positive political imagery. But Rush ignores that the big Celebrity Icon he advertises to signal to all he is in with the fashion - Sarah Palin, also expressed similar 'time to compromise - reach out' expression last night on FOX. And she was THE VP Nominee with McCain which embraced the Maverick Platform and lost so dramatically in that Presidential Election.
Rush's contradictions are growing, being stuck on a narrative, almost as big of a stretch as some Democrats. The reality is, Hannity, Malkin, Rush, Levin, the Tea Party Express, the Palin Franchise, etc., were proved to be utterly wrong with a number of efforts in this Midterm. They lose credibility. Mr. Levin lost the most, distorting the expression of Mr. Mirengoff of Powerline, who was quite correct.
Delaware was not only a gift for Democrats, Biden's former Seat for another 6 years because of the O'Donnell selection. It was a drag on all the Candidates in a way.
We simply cannot afford to do this again, especially with 2012 being so important.
If a so-called Conservative Superhero cannot be honest about it, then they simply are not Conservative. Reagan's legacy is one of strength, seriousness, brilliance, logic, reason, etc., not fashionable hype.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 02:23:00 PM:
A great offering from the ANCHORESS:
"The Perils of the Echo Chamber: This should be a warning to the Tea Partiers: don’t forget how disorienting things can be in the echo-chamber. Even if “everyone you know” in the forums you frequent thinks as you think, that still isn’t many people. A couple of thousand feels like a million when you’re in the echo chamber, and weak candidates are run, and races are lost, on such delusions."
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 02:24:00 PM:
Congress had an 8% approval rating.
All 453 seats were up for grabs.
And 60-65 seats change hands.
That's 13% turnover in a body with 8% approval. I think it is really diheartening that a "wave election" of "tsunami" proportions only results in 13% turnover. The powers of incumbency and gerrymandering are way, way too powerful. I still oppose term limits, but I'm getting closer.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 02:47:00 PM:
Echoing Anon 1:35pm: Ding Dong the Witch is Dead! Other losers yesterday: Sarah Palin and Chuck Schumer.
Too many of Palin's endorsees were wacky ... and lost. Earlier today Rush was defending Christine O'Donnell as having moved the Conservative ball forward. Rush has jumped the shark. At least we still have Harry Reid to kick around.
The 2012 election cycle already started. Last night, Boehner framed Election 2010 as a clear message to Obama: Change course! I just listened to Obama's press conference. Obama still insists we need to put it in Drive ... "D" for Democrat. He's willing to have the Republicans chip in for gas.
Obama's presser will get chopped into soundbites. But you really have to see the whole hour to understand it. Obama got beaten up by the end. Earlier on he refused to give direct answers but instead tried to spin. But even on the second question the Hot Chick from NBC gave a come back question to the literal effect of "You just don't get it, do you." That was NBC! It got worse from there, although Obama got a few "reflective" moments.
Next up: Road Trip ! Wrong time to skip town.
MSM press is turning on Obama. They're starting to call him out on his bullshit. This will get ugly when the pattern of lying and manipulation is revealed and amplified.
There's hints that the Republicans will use subpoena power to run investigations on Obama & Co. Were I they, I'd focus on what went on during the adoption of Healthcare. I'm a nobody, but could build the case on Peter Orzag and the CBO alone. Developing ...
By Kurt, at
Wed Nov 03, 03:07:00 PM:
I'd concur with Ignoramus's observation with respect to Palin. She did better with her house endorsements than her senate endorsements. The fact that it looks like even Miller isn't going to win in Alaska ought to raise doubts about some of her choices.
Don't get me wrong, I like Palin very much, but I really don't think she should be seriously considered as a presidential candidate--at least not in 2012. If the Republicans are paying attention, they will look at what happened here in Nevada and conclude that the same thing could happen on a national basis if Palin were to be the nominee. Angle was seen as too polarizing a figure to defeat a widely-hated incumbent (who could count on the support of unions, minorities, and other core Democrat constituencies).
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Nov 03, 03:15:00 PM:
"Too many of Palin's endorsees were wacky ... and lost."
I'm not positive of the numbers, but I seem to remember something like 30 of 35 of her House endorsements and 5 of 7 of her Senate endorsements won. If correct, that's a pretty good record there, don't 'cha know.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 05:33:00 PM:
It's not the total batting average on Sarah's picks.
(1) Alaskan Joe Miller,
(2) Holler Roller Moralist Christine O'Donnell, and
(3) Gun-toting Sharron Angle.
Put the three of them together in a blender with a dash of MILF Secret Sauce and you have ... Sarah Palin!
The three base elements in this brew are electorally challenged in a general election, as we just saw. Ergo ...
I like Sarah but high odds she can't win in 2012.
"A man's got to know his limitations"
****
In 2006 in House voting, Independents went for Democrats 57% to 39%.
In 2008, Independents went for Obama 52% to 44%.
Yesterday in House voting, Independents went for Republicans 55% to 40%.
.... all while Republicans and Democrats voted for their candidates over 90%.
So, as Independents go, so goes the nation. You can listen to Rush and/or Olbermann 24/7/365 and miss this. Ignore it at your electoral peril.
Normally American voters are forward-looking -- whoever's better at selling optimism wins. Over the last several years however Independents have been looking backward. In 2006 and 2008 they were anti-Bush ... mostly over Iraq.
Yesterday was a rebuke of Obama by Independents, not an endorsement of the Republicans. Obama tried to deny this in today's press conference -- trying to put the blame on the economy -- but he's wrong.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 05:43:00 PM:
To the following:
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 08:31:00 AM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 09:03:00 AM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 09:25:00 AM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 10:11:00 AM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 10:36:00 AM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 11:39:00 AM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 12:15:00 PM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 12:50:00 PM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 02:23:00 PM
Anonymous @ Wed Nov 03, 02:24:00 PM
It is difficult to keep track of what is being said with all these anonymous comments. It makes it easier to read the comments if the different "anonymous" comments are distinguished by unique blog names.
All you have to do is to click on Name/URL and write in some blog name.John Doe, Jane Doe, Giants Fan, what have you. Adding a URL is opitional.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 06:15:00 PM:
Except that this lousy blog platform makes you do that three times before, maybe, signing you in. For my own part I'll at least try to remember to sign my comments from now on.
MTF
By Georg Felis, at
Wed Nov 03, 06:29:00 PM:
Found the article on Townhall I was thinking of.
"Palin's bottom-line, though, had Tuesday night as a win for her. In races called, her backed candidates won 37 of 52 House contests. She backed seven victorious gubernatorial candidates. In the Senate, she went six for 10 in races"
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 08:19:00 PM:
Georgfelis, do you know how many of the other big named GOP players endorsements were elected?
I mean, how many Republicans of some standing, did NOT have above 30 endorsements win in the HOUSE. Republicans won huge.
Also, aren't the numbers you are citing POST PRIMARY Numbers? Meaning after the primary in a General? How many did well, percentage wise via an endorsement in the Primary?
I do know her offering in the Primaries was overtly hyped in terms of volume, as the Wall Street Journal compared her endorsements with other GOP Elites. Besides some sincere upsets in the Primaries of Alaska, Delaware, etc., her picks were simply on par -basically the same average as compared to Pawlenty, Romney, Gingrich, etc., in the Primary (meaning the win-loss totals).
She definitely can turn the attention from a no name, to being considered the 'it' candidate for many in a certain fashionable devotion. Meaning the Tea Party Express supporters (I participated in the Tea Party Protests early on, but the Tea Party Express is a different orgarnized group from the overall movement).
But a number of Candidates she embraced, perhaps due to this very fashionable offering of the Tea Party Express (which she Keynoted an odd Convention after selling her book) and what looked like a personal vendetta in Alaska, turned out to hurt the entire Party as a whole - even weakening the effort for a potential Majority gain in the Senate.
It is the Candidate, and the voters who are ultimately responsible, but even Krauthammer accurately called the Delaware choice as extremely misguided.
We see a certain 'defense' being provided, which is hardly objective from our own side, and facts, reason, logic are the real strength of conservatism - not fan far or denial.
There really are no moral victories. And no, the State's of Alaska, Delaware, etc., are not more conservative after a Primary win within the GOP.
We have seen the folly throughout history of fighting a war on all fronts. The Tea Party Express openly advertised they were targeting Republicans in the Primaries, but it doesn't help when you empower cannot win the General Election. Enabling Democrats is about as foolish as nominating John McCain.
Mrs. Palin was the number 2 on that Maverick Ticket peddling Cap and Trade taxation. It was a disaster. Back then, some tried to place all the blame on McCain, who was indeed awful. But Mrs. Palin shares that burden of failure.
Today we see some try to blame the predictable O'Donnell loss on the NRSC - it is nonsense. She was going to lose big, never had a chance, and it was utter sophistry to run her for the Senate Seat in Delaware. Mrs. Palin should have known better, if she was really trying to empower a check to the Obama-Pelosi-Reid folly. We needed all the Seats possible, and Delaware was wide open for a GOP pickup, more than worthwhile with a Republican with a 50% ACU Rating willing to caucus with the Conservative Republicans in the Senate. This is for 6 long years, and immediate seating. O'Donnell was a silly fantasy, which is simply not by definition "sound conservatism".
By Bomber Girl, at
Wed Nov 03, 08:20:00 PM:
The unpopular Democratic agenda - as well as a continued tough slog on the economic front - clearly cost the Dems in many places, although two key states, CA and NY, (with Boxer/Brown and anti-Paladino vote) didn't seem to veer from business as usual. As Ignoramus points out, independents remain the swing vote. But if all you GOP stalwarts can do is flaunt Palin's scorecard as the most salient feature of the election, the future sure ain't rosy for claiming the independent vote in the next big election cycle.
By , at
Wed Nov 03, 10:05:00 PM:
I never get it all in an election. This one was pretty good.
The House:
Spending bills originate with Paul Ryan imprint.
Committee's can probe DOJ on voting rights.
A good solid, workable majority.
No more Nancy. Gawd I just love that one.
The Senate:
Schumer, a truly talented politician and a threat to Republicans is still number 2 and much less likely to ever be no. 1.
Reed wins. Talk about a big target. A dream come true for 2012.
Rubio.
But then there is still my home state, CA.
What we have here, thanks to a proposition that lets the legislature approve a budget by a 50% vote, is a green light for Democrats to balance the budget the way they always wanted to, by raising taxes.
We are about 5 years behind New Jersey. If you are going to invest in California, it had better be long. Or maybe shorting is not such a bad idea.
That's the bad news. What made Reagan possible, though, was high taxation. Now it's true that we do not have a Reagan yet, but we will soon have the high taxation. There's 35 million of us now and undoubtably we're not all hopeless. Nothing will rebuild the Republican Party, or conservatives, better than high taxation.
There is a light at the end of this tunnel. Ok, it's one hell of a tunnel.
M.E.
By Progressively Defensive, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:11:00 PM:
The headline:
The Republicans won about 72% of available Senate seats, particularly Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida and plus kind-of West Virginia; and like-wise governorships and state houses. What hope could Obama have of wining those states in 2012?
Obama did well to get the urban vote out in the crucial Senate battles, but that is the high-water mark for this approach to government. I have to say, it reminds me of a non-violent Pickett's charge. The tide will turn hard now in this technological age. Maybe the Republicans will be as effective at communicating as Reagan was going forward; they could not be worse.
USA! USA! USA!
By Progressively Defensive, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:23:00 PM:
Bomber Girl:
Those are welfare states, NY and CA, and as quasi-corrupt as they come. They are like giant Detroits; that's what these Democrats would turn the USA into.
In CA and NY, as long as the pigs outnunmber the teets there, they'll remain Democratic. That is what I think drives this lately; the Democrats must take over Federal government along the same lines as NY and CA (and Detroit and Europe) in order to survive, i.e., to cut off the escape routes of capital within the USA. But they can't. They only thought they had because of the fluke dynamics of 2008 and McCain's horrible running mate selection and campaign. Had he picked and moderate other Senator, a decent General, Giuliani, Romney, Pawlenty, or Lieberman he would have won. I think Quayle would have done it. Why, other than Reagan and W. the geniuses, do Republicans keep selecting the pretty dumb running mates. The job of VP is the same job description as President, not apprectice briefcase holder and fawning twit ... learn it, devote yourselves to the notion ... and select accordingly.
And New Jersey, Maine, and Illinois. The only swing state they won is Nevada, right? Dumb, dumb, dumb, dumb ... the drum beats against the Democrats.
USA!
By lumpy, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:29:00 PM:
I hear Obama is leaving for Indonesia tomorrow. Do you suppose we could pay them to keep him?
I'm trying to trade him to my German friends for Merkel.
By Progressively Defensive, at
Wed Nov 03, 10:37:00 PM:
And Tennessee.
And factor in the loonies who ran as Tea Partiers and lost. Moderate Republicans with some credentials would easily have won Delaware and Nevada.
USA!
By Gary Rosen, at
Thu Nov 04, 04:11:00 AM:
"what is your first command, master"
I didn't know Chrissy was such a raaaaaaaacist!! Whatever happened to BO being "large and in charge" bwahahaha.
By , at
Thu Nov 04, 05:54:00 AM:
Only in America could someone like Chris Chambers believe himself aggrieved.
By Bomber Girl, at
Thu Nov 04, 06:36:00 AM:
PD - I think we are agreeing. the GOP made some poor choices, at least from the POV of an independent voter, in several states mentioned, and for the VP candidate last time around. Democrats do not seem to be playing any new cards so there is an opportunity but it is not clear the GOP is going to completely capitalize on it going forward unless they find on some credible leadership.
By , at
Thu Nov 04, 06:44:00 AM:
We had a bad day locally in New York.
Palladino ran the worst campaign ever. I wouldn’t want him on my local school board. He dragged down the Republican candidates for Attorney General and Comptroller who otherwise would have won – they lost close. The Democratic winners are Shelly Silver’s cronies. Thus, expect the new AG Schneiderman to start “investigating” Andy Cuomo to thwart any reform effort Andy might muster.
We have an alarming pattern in New York of the AG’s office being used to make political hits. Spitzer did so, but as soon as he moved into the Governor’s chair the new AG Andy Cuomo went after Spitzer. Before he was revealed as Client #9, several prior abuses of office by Spitzer were under investigation. Later, Spitzer’s successor as Governor – David Patterson – was charged by Cuomo’s AG office with taking two free Yankee tickets to the 2009 World Series.
Just Because I’m Paranoid Doesn’t Mean I’m Wrong:
Expect Schneiderman to do unto Cuomo as Cuomo did unto Spitzer and Patterson, at Shelly Silver’s behest.
There are many internet sites where you can find high-end prostitutes. Charlie Sheen uses them all the time. I just googled “porn star escort” … the first one up offers 109 “porn stars” in New York alone … including perennial favorite Nina Hartley. I’d be surprised if any of these sites are the target of a federal investigation … but Eliot’s Empire Escorts was …. hmmmm? I can infer what happened, but don’t know who was behind it, as Eliot had a lot of enemies, some deserved.
Andy Cuomo ran on a great platform of specific reforms. None of it will get effected. One of the proposals is to extend the disclosure requirements applicable to all state employees to those in the legislature. Were that to happen we’d know how Shelly Silver gets his bribes – it all flows through his law firm … dollar to a donut Shelly makes millions for a 100 billed hours each year.
I go into this because states like California, Illinois and New York will only reform by first going broke. We need a big sobering example for the rest of us. With a Republican-controlled House there won’t be a bailout. There’s a reason California’s debt trades wider than Mexico … or Portugal … or Spain. I saw this movie before in 1976 … New York Daily News headline: Ford to City … Drop Dead. Wait through the credits for the surprise happy ending.
By , at
Fri Nov 05, 11:52:00 AM:
Pelosi's gone, yay! Now who else expects her to run off with the gavel? "Ahem, sorry, I lost it, you'll need to get another one for the new guy."?
