Random Post Election Thoughts

[cal828]

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?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by cal828

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.

[Danzig]

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.

[Danzig]

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by jms62

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.

[jms62]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

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

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

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?

[Calzone Lord]

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.

[cal828]

Originally Posted by joeydb

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

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?

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by GenuineRisk

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.

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.

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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.

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.

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rupert Pupkin]

Originally Posted by hi_im_god

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[hi_im_god]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

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

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

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

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

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