Random Post Election Thoughts
 

In hopefully an unpartisan way...

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

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

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

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

5) The pollsters are good..really good.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Nate Silver's analysis of the polls certainly is!

Interesting reading, GGBob. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

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

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

In particular, the conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:rolleyes:


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

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

Q. How does this process start off each year?


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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

Party on, dude...

Speaking of:

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

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

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

paul ryan did a lot to distinguish himself during the campaign. i'd make him the early favorite over christie as the "moderate" republican choice.

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

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

1:The tax cuts were the biggest contributor to the deficit, but starting two wars and Medicare Part D didn't help. The big problem is, the tax cuts were passed on the condition that they were temporary, but when it came time to repeal them, the economy was in a deep recession and it was political poison to do so.

And there was no sound reasoning for passing them. Originally it was, "We have a surplus and the economy is going great guns! Ergo, tax cuts!" Then, after the tech market crashed and the projected surplus vanished, it became, "The economy is in trouble! Ergo, tax cuts!"

2: Tax cuts don't create jobs. Demand for products and services creates jobs. I don't understand how the entire nation has been hornswaggled by the tax cuts create jobs ridiculousness. And to create enough demand, you need a large middle class with income to spend.

Cuomo would make Mark Warner all the more inevitable.

Why?

{I don't understand how the entire nation has been hornswaggled by the tax cuts create jobs ridiculousness. And to create enough demand, you need a large middle class with income to spend.}

Well, maybe not the entire nation.:) And I think your last sentence hits the nail on the head. Middle class has been decimated by the shipping of jobs to China, Mexico, Guatemala, et al by the corporate crowd. So not only does Obama have to deal with a recalcitrant Congress, but probably more importantly, also figure out how to bring jobs back to the U.S. What a daunting task.

Life goes on albeit with higher taxes, healthcare costs etc. etc.

But at least gays are able to be open in the military, women have abortion and contraceptive coverage, and millions of illegals will be able to search for work.

Maybe we should throw a couple more billion to destroy cars or maybe this time run down homes. And let's not forget our friends in Egypt and Pakistan. We simply need to raise the debt limit to a zillion and forgetaboutit!

Our grandkids at least the rich friends of our grandkids will cover it.

My 2016 odds:

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

GOP will go with knee jerk reaction and nominate a Latino. My money is on Rubio.

considering you put this in a sentence with two other things you obviously dont support.

What is wrong with gays serving open in the military?

Have you ever been in the military?

if you have, thank you. if you havent, then you can gtfo with that bullcrap.

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

I don't think Jeb Bush has a chance unless he changes his last name.

Biden will be 74, no chance.

tim pawlenty just took a job as a wall street lobbyist. he's done with elective office.

if i could get 12-1 as a "field" bet on either nomination i'd be tempted.

The troops, you know the guys and girls fighting for us didn't support it and my support for them led to me writing the above.

BTW I have also stated my support for abortion. As long as it doesn't require someone else, especially the catholic church to pay for it.

And as far as the illegals, aren't they now allowed in the same employment line with returning troops? That's a dirty shame.

god bless you, dell. from your mouth to republican party ears.

better for all of us democrats if they continue listening to you rather than pay any attention to marco rubio who said today: “The conservative movement should have particular appeal to people in minority and immigrant communities who are trying to make it, and Republicans need to work harder than ever to communicate our beliefs to them.”

keep banging away at immigrants. you're doing the lord's work.

it's because people like you that republicans dont get elected lately. you fuel the extremest position.

you hate muslim laws, yet you want religious policies in America.

Until the Republican party stops pandering to people like you, they are going nowhere.

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

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

as usual, you are wrong about that too.

http://militarytimes.com/news/2012/0...ected-031212w/


why dont you read up on some fact once and awhile.


here's another one from BEFORE the repeal... which again shows how you are again factually incorrect. 70% of troops supported the repeal of DADT. Dont assume the brave folks who fight for us are as close minded as you are.

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2010...tor-fehrenbach

keep up the good fight, anti. maybe you can get some of that to sink in.

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

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