Random Post Election Thoughts

[Danzig]

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?

[GenuineRisk]

Originally Posted by Danzig

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?

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:

Obama’s no right-winger. You might have serious issues with his Supreme Court justices or his moves on immigration or the Bush tax cuts. But you probably would have had similar issues with Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, or Gerald Ford. Obama’s in the same mold as those guys. So don’t despair. Your country didn’t vote for a socialist tonight. It voted for the candidate of traditional Republican moderation. What should gall you, haunt you, and goad you to think about the future of your party is that that candidate wasn’t yours.

[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.

[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.