January 18, 2010...referendum on Obama

[sideoutshu]

The Kennedy seat goes to the GOP.....wow. OBAMA = FAIL

[TheSphinx 2.0]

Yeah this is a tough one. The killer for Dems is that in VA, NJ and now in MA they lost with independants (and it looks like the margin is getting bigger). It is one thing to say local issues played in each state but the one constant thing throughout each state is the democratic agenda and President Obama. When you keep losing the same group in each state then you have to ask yourself what is going on.

Healthcare is pretty much down the drain unless the Dems are willing to go on a suicide mission...

-TS

[sideoutshu]

Yeah this is a tough one. The killer for Dems is that in VA, NJ and now in MA they lost with independants (and it looks like the margin is getting bigger). It is one thing to say local issues played in each state but the one constant thing throughout each state is the democratic agenda and President Obama. When you keep losing the same group in each state then you have to ask yourself what is going on.

Healthcare is pretty much down the drain unless the Dems are willing to go on a suicide mission...

-TS

I have several liberal relatives in MA. they all voted Brown solely to defeat Health care reform.

[theanalogkid]

I'm glad someone is putting a stop to the Obama agenda. However, there really isn't much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

[sideoutshu]

I'm glad someone is putting a stop to the Obama agenda. However, there really isn't much difference between the Democrats and the Republicans.

Really? Is that how you feel? I hadn't noticed from the other 250000000 times you have written it in the forum.

[sideoutshu]

PS. Scott Brown's daughter is hot!

[YoungVito]

This thread looks familiar. I feel like I've seen it before.

Oh well...matters not. History shows that the only TRUE "referendums" are during the mid-terms, and when it comes time for re-election.

But hey...knock yourselves out gentleman.

[RicoVacilon]

Obama isn't a Senator anymore? WTF? Where was I?

[resnor]

Since one of Brown's main campaign themes was that he would be the 41st vote against the healthcare bill, I think it's safe to say it was a reforendum on Obama. Vito...do you really think the midterms are gonna be different?

Viva le revolution!

[Play Action]

Oh yeah lets go back in time 3 years...:rolleyes:

[sideoutshu]

A friend of mine went to the Coakley rally that Obama spoke at and said there were more Scott Brown supporters there then Coakley.

Most important lesson in this election: If you are a democrat up for re-election in 2010, don't stick you neck out for Obama, because he can't help you. Lesson #2: You don't have to listen to Obama if you are one of said democrats, because he isn't going to help you get re-elected anyway.

[YoungVito]

Since one of Brown's main campaign themes was that he would be the 41st vote against the healthcare bill, I think it's safe to say it was a reforendum on Obama. Vito...do you really think the midterms are gonna be different?

Viva le revolution!

I KNOW, I KNOW. Its so much easier to say "See, I told you. Obams's an idiot and Americans know it", but lets look at this a little deeper shall we.

Since 2006, not 2008, but TWO THOUSAND AND SIX...there has been a HUGE anti-INCUMBENT movement. Its what helped propel the Democratic victory back in '06 as well in '08, and its the SAME thing that will CONTINUE (notice that I'm saying CONTINUE; please take note of this later on when someone calls me a "liberal so-and-so") to happen in the 2010 mid-term elections. AND THIS IS FINE. It happened in '94 after Clinton had a ROUGGGGHHH first two years, and it is what helped the two sided come to the negotiating table FINALLY when we balanced the budget.

As long as the economy stinks and the unemployment rate is high...incumbents will take a hit...regardless of political party. WE INDEPENDENTS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT SUCH MINISCULE THINGS. The only thing that matters to US is that you get the job done. To say that "this is a referendum on Obama" really does minimize the true issue...that THIS IS A REFERENDUM ON WASHINGTON.

If you know ANYTHING about politics, you know that things go in cycles. Yesterday's rock star is today goat (Pres. Obama) true, but keep in mind that when OUR president cannot get ANYTHING through congress because the Republican minority bands together and pretty much shuts the government down (i.e. during the Clinton administration) it will be THEN that the power of the Presidential "bully pulpit" will come into play. Because at the end of the day...the president will be more popular than Congress 9 times outta 10.

So yeah...its a huge victory for the Republican party...for now. But with victories comes responsibility, and accountability. Its a hellava lot easier to be in the minority than it is to be in the majority...as the Democrats are finding out. But when both sides have equal power (as WILL after this Novermber) the president will win in the court of public opinion.

Presidential terms have MANY seasons. And conservatives who remember what Clinton's numbers in '93 and '94 know this better than anyone.

Cycles gentleman, cycles. Lets CALM DOWN and take a breath. 2012 is a LOOOONNNNNGGG time from now.

[YoungVito]

Really? Is that how you feel? I hadn't noticed from the other 250000000 times you have written it in the forum.

So what if he did? The man is making his point...just like yourself. What's wrong with that?

[kevin21boston]

I KNOW, I KNOW. Its so much easier to say "See, I told you. Obams's an idiot and Americans know it", but lets look at this a little deeper shall we.

Since 2006, not 2008, but TWO THOUSAND AND SIX...there has been a HUGE anti-INCUMBENT movement. Its what helped propel the Democratic victory back in '06 as well in '08, and its the SAME thing that will CONTINUE (notice that I'm saying CONTINUE; please take note of this later on when someone calls me a "liberal so-and-so") to happen in the 2010 mid-term elections. AND THIS IS FINE. It happened in '94 after Clinton had a ROUGGGGHHH first two years, and it is what helped the two sided come to the negotiating table FINALLY when we balanced the budget.

As long as the economy stinks and the unemployment rate is high...incumbents will take a hit...regardless of political party. WE INDEPENDENTS COULD CARE LESS ABOUT SUCH MINISCULE THINGS. The only thing that matters to US is that you get the job done. To say that "this is a referendum on Obama" really does minimize the true issue...that THIS IS A REFERENDUM ON WASHINGTON.

If you know ANYTHING about politics, you know that things go in cycles. Yesterday's rock star is today goat (Pres. Obama) true, but keep in mind that when OUR president cannot get ANYTHING through congress because the Republican minority bands together and pretty much shuts the government down (i.e. during the Clinton administration) it will be THEN that the power of the Presidential "bully pulpit" will come into play. Because at the end of the day...the president will be more popular than Congress 9 times outta 10.

So yeah...its a huge victory for the Republican party...for now. But with victories comes responsibility, and accountability. Its a hellava lot easier to be in the minority than it is to be in the majority...as the Democrats are finding out. But when both sides have equal power (as WILL after this Novermber) the president will win in the court of public opinion.

Presidential terms have MANY seasons. And conservatives who remember what Clinton's numbers in '93 and '94 know this better than anyone.

Cycles gentleman, cycles. Lets CALM DOWN and take a breath. 2012 is a LOOOONNNNNGGG time from now.

Don't overanalyze it. Here are the numbers that matter:


Obama won Massachusetts in a landslide 62% - 36%. No surprise there.

There were ZERO Republicans from Massachusetts in Congress until yesterday.

The last time Massachusetts elected a GOP Senator was 1972.

According to George Stephanopolous (sp) Coakley was up 30 points in the polls three months ago.


To say that Obama's failing presidency has nothing to do with Coakley's loss is laughable.

[TheRealist]

Going along with the economic cycles argument...

What makes everyone believe the Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them in November?

We all know elections are dictated by economic conditions. (unless we're in a state of war) What is it...there's only been like 3 of the last 17..18..19 presidential elections where a bad economy did not oust the party in power when the economy was in a decline? Seems clear cut to me. First and foremost, people vote with their pockets...and should. (imo)

It also makes sense in hindsight that a John Kerry or Bob Dole isn't going to talk about economics, they're going to detract from that issue because abstract economic theory in a time of low unemployment is political suicide.

Under this economic context...all I'm saying is...everyone thinking the Republicans got this might be in for some bad news. Especially considering that the Democrats have an ace in the hole.

Around 60% of the stimulus passed last year will be spent this year...which is around the tune of about 400+ billion. (factoring in money budgeted for this year and money that was not spent last year) That's one hell of a way to make a situation seem a whole lot rosier than it actually may be...

As much as I'd like to see them ousted...don't count out the Democrats in '10. And to that extent...Obama in '12. Just sayin'.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Wait a sec, was this a vote for "change"?

What's going to change? No healthcare reform? That's nothing different than we've already had for decades. So we'll have to deal with the same old crap we've always dealt with on that end..... overpriced everything.

But if is to be considered a "referendum" then I guess it's normal to concede they happen a lot and is nothing new to American politics lately with our instant-gratification society.

Unrelated but curious, does the GOP have anyone lined up for the 2012 POTUS yet?


.

[YoungVito]

Don't overanalyze it. Here are the numbers that matter:


Obama won Massachusetts in a landslide 62% - 36%. No surprise there.

There were ZERO Republicans from Massachusetts in Congress until yesterday.

The last time Massachusetts elected a GOP Senator was 1972.

According to George Stephanopolous (sp) Coakley was up 30 points in the polls three months ago.


To say that Obama's failing presidency has nothing to do with Coakley's loss is laughable.

I don't recall ever saying that.

You say don't overanalyze it, I say don't get too excited.

Those who do not learn from their history are doomed to repeat it. So if you want to hail this as some big conservative upswelling, be my guest. You'll only be left in 2012 saying much of the same things you were saying back in '08.

Cyles gentleman...cycles.

[resnor]

Wait a sec, was this a vote for "change"?

What's going to change? No healthcare reform? That's nothing different than we've already had for decades. So we'll have to deal with the same old crap we've always dealt with on that end..... overpriced everything.

But if is to be considered a "referendum" then I guess it's normal to concede they happen a lot and is nothing new to American politics lately with our instant-gratification society.

Unrelated but curious, does the GOP have anyone lined up for the 2012 POTUS yet?


.

Given that the MAJORITY of America doesn't want this healthcare bill, I don't see the point. The change that Obama is trying to do with healthcare is opposed by the majority. The "change" Americans wanted was the transparency in government Obama promised (remember the CSPAN promises??), the doing away of lobbyists, and the doing away with backroom deals. I would say that MA electing a Republican senator for the first time in THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS to speak to something more than you're giving credit for, Nevada.

[Gtrght77]

Since one of Brown's main campaign themes was that he would be the 41st vote against the healthcare bill, I think it's safe to say it was a reforendum on Obama. Vito...do you really think the midterms are gonna be different?

Viva le revolution!

It doesn't take 60 votes to pass that HC bill.

[YoungVito]

Going along with the economic cycles argument...

What makes everyone believe the Democrats are going to get their asses handed to them in November?

We all know elections are dictated by economic conditions. (unless we're in a state of war) What is it...there's only been like 3 of the last 17..18..19 presidential elections where a bad economy did not oust the party in power when the economy was in a decline? Seems clear cut to me. First and foremost, people vote with their pockets...and should. (imo)

It also makes sense in hindsight that a John Kerry or Bob Dole isn't going to talk about economics, they're going to detract from that issue because abstract economic theory in a time of low unemployment is political suicide.

Under this economic context...all I'm saying is...everyone thinking the Republicans got this might be in for some bad news. Especially considering that the Democrats have an ace in the hole.

Around 60% of the stimulus passed last year will be spent this year...which is around the tune of about 400+ billion. (factoring in money budgeted for this year and money that was not spent last year) That's one hell of a way to make a situation seem a whole lot rosier than it actually may be...

As much as I'd like to see them ousted...don't count out the Democrats in '10. And to that extent...Obama in '12. Just sayin'.

I see what you're saying, and I recognize that you do have a point about the economy. That being said, I'm just going off the historical fact that the president's party usually loses a considerable amount of seats in the mid-terms. ITS JUST FACT.

Now, I will give you this. If the economy does pick up (and I sure do hope it does, NOT BECAUSE I'M SOME "LIBERAL OBAMA LOVER", BUT BECAUSE I'M AN AMERICAN WHO WANTS TO SEE US PROSPER then the President and his party will be able to claim some sort of politcal credit. But they will STILL lose some seats though. Book it.

[Gtrght77]

The Dems will win, the GOP will win, THe Dems will win, the GOP will win, the Dems will win the GOP will win.


And it will go on and on and on and on as long as we all follow the Democans and Republicrats.

[resnor]

It doesn't take 60 votes to pass that HC bill.

It does unless the Dems break the rules and use reconciliation in a manner that does not apply to it. Of course, if the vote was TODAY, the Dems wouldn't have the votes to get it done. There's at least 6 Dems who wouldn't vote for it.

Simple question: a year into Obama's presidency, are you better off than you were in Bush's last year? He hasn't done anything to make anything better.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Given that the MAJORITY of America doesn't want this healthcare bill, I don't see the point. The change that Obama is trying to do with healthcare is opposed by the majority. The "change" Americans wanted was the transparency in government Obama promised (remember the CSPAN promises??), the doing away of lobbyists, and the doing away with backroom deals. I would say that MA electing a Republican senator for the first time in THIRTY-EIGHT YEARS to speak to something more than you're giving credit for, Nevada.

And like I said, nothing is going to change. First GOP Gov in 38 years.... doesn't matter. GOP came out in mass... where were they in Nov 2008? Just an abomination of the instant-gratification society we have these days. "Give us what you promised TODAY! We want it NOW!"

It's a recurring theme in today's American politics and voters. A proverbial revolving door at the Congressional level right now.

What's really interesting is that "majority of Americans" who don't want healthcare reform really don't even know what it's about. They carve their opinions out of hearsay from others (media/politicans who throw out absurd remarks like "death panels") because they are too lazy to investigate it for themselves.

Safe to say the "majority of Americans" have no idea what the hell is going on a majority of the time. Why? They don't give a crap and just jump on bandwagons whenever it suits a particular need they have or simply "sounds good to me".

.

[Nevada_Ballin]

It does unless the Dems break the rules and use reconciliation in a manner that does not apply to it. Of course, if the vote was TODAY, the Dems wouldn't have the votes to get it done. There's at least 6 Dems who wouldn't vote for it.

Simple question: a year into Obama's presidency, are you better off than you were in Bush's last year? He hasn't done anything to make anything better.

The real question is: Would McCain have done any better since that was the alternative.

[YoungVito]

The Dems will win, the GOP will win, THe Dems will win, the GOP will win, the Dems will win the GOP will win.


And it will go on and on and on and on as long as we all follow the Democans and Republicrats.

Pretty much.

Now I'm sure there will be a fair share of hardcore conservatives on here who will respond with "I love how 'Liberals' try to minimalize a Repulican victory...etc", but I do recall those same conservatives doing the SAME thing back in '08.

Cycles...

[sideoutshu]

Wait a sec, was this a vote for "change"?

What's going to change? No healthcare reform? That's nothing different than we've already had for decades. So we'll have to deal with the same old crap we've always dealt with on that end..... overpriced everything.

But if is to be considered a "referendum" then I guess it's normal to concede they happen a lot and is nothing new to American politics lately with our instant-gratification society.

Unrelated but curious, does the GOP have anyone lined up for the 2012 POTUS yet?


.

What I think is interesting is that MA already has a version of universal healthcare. So you have the people who have experienced it firsthand shooting it down.

[sideoutshu]

On a side note, after hearing his speech last night, I like this guy Scott Brown. A true man of the people, still driving around a pickup with 200000 miles on it. Not afraid to take a hard line on issues he believes in, and it looks like he has a very good relationship with his family.

Best quote: "I think taxpayer dollars should be spent on guns to kill the terrorists, not on lawyers to defend them."

Booyaa!

[sideoutshu]

Cyles gentleman...cycles.

But how long is a "cycle"? This isn't the result of a "cycle" it is the American people having got a sniff of the bullsh*t Obama is shoveling and kicking him to the curb immediately. It would be a "cycle" if it happened in 8 years, not one.

[sideoutshu]

It doesn't take 60 votes to pass that HC bill.

LOL, good luck trying to force the Senate version through as is. That will gaurantee that 20+ democratic congressmen lose thier jobs in 2010. Further, Obama no longer has the clout to strongarm these guys as the results have shown he is not a help to re-election. They actually might score points with voters for OPPOSING Obama.

[sideoutshu]

What's really interesting is that "majority of Americans" who don't want healthcare reform really don't even know what it's about. They carve their opinions out of hearsay from others (media/politicans who throw out absurd remarks like "death panels") because they are too lazy to investigate it for themselves.

Safe to say the "majority of Americans" have no idea what the hell is going on a majority of the time. Why? They don't give a crap and just jump on bandwagons whenever it suits a particular need they have or simply "sounds good to me".

.

I think that the attitude of the majority of Americans who don't want healthcare reform is (1) that we work hard and have insurance already; (2) the government getting involved in private industry never works; (3) we don't want to pay more in taxes to benefit those who are lazy; (4) why should people in labor unions, or in Nebraska be entitled to special treatment because of political corruption when I am busting my butt every day?

And oh ya, (5) don't sit home playing your $70 games on XBOX 360 on your 52 inch Plasma Screen and then complain that the government should pay for your healthcare.

[sideoutshu]

The real question is: Would McCain have done any better since that was the alternative.

Yes. At the very least, all of the time and money being spent on healthcare reform could have been put into creating jobs.

[theanalogkid]

Yes. At the very least, all of the time and money being spent on healthcare reform could have been put into creating jobs.

Wasn't John McCain the one who wanted the US government buy up bad mortgages (which would have cost trillions to do)? Didn't he also run to Washington to vote for TARP? Also didn't he talk about stabilizing housing prices? This of course would have been done through inflating the money supply even more than it has considering there is an overwhelming supply of houses. This stabilization would be cosmetic since whenever you print more dollars, the value of each existing dollar is diminished.

So not only did John McCain fail to acknowledge the real reasons for the causation of the housing bubble, his solution was to paper over it. Just like what Obama is doing now.

He called for government interventionism just like Obama is doing now. The government can't create jobs just by dumping money into the system. Jobs are created by real savings and productivity, not consumption like Obama and McCain were both promoting as their solution to the recession. Since the US doesn't make a lot of stuff any more and all that we really have is intellectual property, it's going to be very difficult to make a quick exit out of this recession.

So the point being, is that while John McCain would have not spent money on health care reform, he would have funneled it into other equally bad ideas.

[sideoutshu]

Wasn't John McCain the one who wanted the US government buy up bad mortgages (which would have cost trillions to do)? Didn't he also run to Washington to vote for TARP? Also didn't he talk about stabilizing housing prices? This of course would have been done through inflating the money supply even more than it has considering there is an overwhelming supply of houses. This stabilization would be cosmetic since whenever you print more dollars, the value of each existing dollar is diminished.

So not only did John McCain fail to acknowledge the real reasons for the causation of the housing bubble, his solution was to paper over it. Just like what Obama is doing now.

He called for government interventionism just like Obama is doing now. The government can't create jobs just by dumping money into the system. Jobs are created by real savings and productivity, not consumption like Obama and McCain were both promoting as their solution to the recession. Since the US doesn't make a lot of stuff any more and all that we really have is intellectual property, it's going to be very difficult to make a quick exit out of this recession.

So the point being, is that while John McCain would have not spent money on health care reform, he would have funneled it into other equally bad ideas.

So what you are saying is that democrats and republicans are the same? Ok, glad we cleared that up.:p

[kevin21boston]

Sideout makes a great point that everybody conveniently ignored. What does it say about government-run healthcare when the state has has it knowingly votes for a person that will kill national healthcare?

Please Dems, stop acting like this isn't a big deal. The trail derailed. The party is over.

[Coach Stag]

I have several liberal relatives in MA. they all voted Brown solely to defeat Health care reform.

Thought some facts might be needed here:

I do as well.

Lived there for a decade as well.

They don't NEED health care reform because their state already got it done. Next to Hawaii, Massachusetts has the best system in the nation. 98% of their citizens, compared to 60% here in my new home of Texas.

The people of Mass don't want to help create and pay for health care reform because they already have it!

Scott Brown voted FOR the Massachusetts health care reform bill, so did many other Republicans....the governor fought for it too, MITT ROMNEY. The people of Mass already got their Health Care Reform, and they are happy and successful with it. They don't want to help the rest of the nation get theirs and I don't blame them, why pay to help the backwards a-holes here in Texas?

[YoungVito]

But how long is a "cycle"? This isn't the result of a "cycle" it is the American people having got a sniff of the bullsh*t Obama is shoveling and kicking him to the curb immediately. It would be a "cycle" if it happened in 8 years, not one.

Clinton in '93 and '94. Reagan in '82 and '83. Those are just two examples of presidents taking HUGE hits in the polls and in the voters booth which resulted in losing a lot of seats.

Both of them won by a landslide come re-election.

But hey, by al means...get giddy. Throw a big friggin party for what its worth. More seats in congress mean more responsibility of the present state of affairs. NOW we'll see what REAL Bipartisanship is.

You thought you were unhappy before, wait til you get a load of a paralyzed goverment. ;-)

[Coach Stag]

Sideout makes a great point that everybody conveniently ignored. What does it say about government-run healthcare when the state has has it knowingly votes for a person that will kill national healthcare?

Please Dems, stop acting like this isn't a big deal. The trail derailed. The party is over.

Answered above.

The peoples of Massachusettes and Hawaii have reported in polls they are VERY happy with their state regulated plans.

They don't want to pay more taxes to help the rest of us. Simple enough.

And the proper term isn't "government run" or "socialist", the current health care bill leaves the programs entirely in the hands of private companies....that's not socialism. What is socialism? The post office, public schools, state universities like Minnesota, the US MILITARY, Interstate Highways, Publi Water treatment and waste management.......I could go on.

I roll my eyes each time someone uses "government run" and "socialist" on this topic...they're totally wrong and used to scare the ignorant and easily fooled.

Bidggest socialist discretionary spending program in the world is the US Military Budget.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Yes. At the very least, all of the time and money being spent on healthcare reform could have been put into creating jobs.

You mean channeling more stimulus packages?

.

[Coach Stag]

Bush's poll numners were bad until 9/11.

Saved his presidency. Americans don't like their taxes going to care for people, but bombing people?? Spend as much of our tax dollars on war as you want!!!! Woohoo! Trillion dollar deficit for Afghanistan and Iraq.

Matthew 19: 20-24. That crazy socialist liberal Jesus, wonder how he would feel about spending tax dollars to help people.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Thought some facts might be needed here:

I do as well.

Lived there for a decade as well.

They don't NEED health care reform because their state already got it done. Next to Hawaii, Massachusetts has the best system in the nation. 98% of their citizens, compared to 60% here in my new home of Texas.

The people of Mass don't want to help create and pay for health care reform because they already have it!

Scott Brown voted FOR the Massachusetts health care reform bill, so did many other Republicans....the governor fought for it too, MITT ROMNEY. The people of Mass already got their Health Care Reform, and they are happy and successful with it. They don't want to help the rest of the nation get theirs and I don't blame them, why pay to help the backwards a-holes here in Texas?

Coach!

You know your post will be conveniently overlooked, right?

:)

.

[Coach Stag]

Sideout makes a great point that everybody conveniently ignored. What does it say about government-run healthcare when the state has has it knowingly votes for a person that will kill national healthcare?

Please Dems, stop acting like this isn't a big deal. The trail derailed. The party is over.

ALSO:

Why do all the other capitalist democracies voters continue to VOTE FOR keeping their "socialist" and "nationalized" sytems? Hmmm, because they are better?

Japan, Germany, Switzerland, England, Taiwan, Hong Kong, France, and on and on....for more facts on how these systems work and how well they are received and defended watch this "Sick Around the World" on PBS Frontline.com:


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/sickaroundtheworld/view/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_medium=proglist&utm_source=proglist

Will take 45 minutes and you'll be more educated on health care then 95% of Americans.
Will

[Coach Stag]

Coach!

You know your post will be conveniently overlooked, right?

:)

.

True. And I am sure no one will watch the PBS documentary or research systems like Japan, France, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland, Sweden, etc...

Facts don't matter.

Scott Brown and the people of Mass pushed for and got their own health care reform. The ignorant scare mongers won't dwell on that, they'll just say that the people of mass don't want 'national health care reform'.....which is accurate but misleading...since they already demanded and got their OWN reform.

Scott Brown supported and voted for state health care reform and he stated today he thinks we need a national plan and that all Americans should be guaranteed care (like all other capitalist democratic countries) but he doesn't support the current bill and what it will cost Mass, which already pays for it's own.

Facts. sorry..

Nothing more to add. The facts speak for themselves. No time to argue, especially when the facts are doing all my work for me.

[resnor]

Germany is a completely different model. I believe thebgovernment funds private hospitals, or something like that.

[theanalogkid]

Spend as much of our tax dollars on war as you want!!!! Woohoo! Trillion dollar deficit for Afghanistan and Iraq. .

When did the government levy any taxes to pay for the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq? I don't think they did. If citizens were directly taxed to pay for wars, I don't believe the government would be so quick to turn to guns to settle disputes.

What they do instead is they print money to cover the costs, which devalues the currency, but since most people don't realize it or know about it, they don't get all up in arms over it.

Deficits don't get created if tax dollars are covering the costs of everything.

This is why the Federal Reserve is a dangerous organization, and allows the government to grow bigger, and finance wars that they would have otherwise been unable to pay for.

[Nevada_Ballin]

True. And I am sure no one will watch the PBS documentary or research systems like Japan, France, Germany, Taiwan, Switzerland, Sweden, etc...

Facts don't matter.

Scott Brown and the people of Mass pushed for and got their own health care reform. The ignorant scare mongers won't dwell on that, they'll just say that the people of mass don't want 'national health care reform'.....which is accurate but misleading...since they already demanded and got their OWN reform.

Scott Brown supported and voted for state health care reform and he stated today he thinks we need a national plan and that all Americans should be guaranteed care (like all other capitalist democratic countries) but he doesn't support the current bill and what it will cost Mass, which already pays for it's own.

Facts. sorry..

Nothing more to add. The facts speak for themselves. No time to argue, especially when the facts are doing all my work for me.

Coakley deserves a bit of blame for the loss as well, evidently she got pretty lazy near the end and that was a big turn off that Brown took advantage of.

.

[YoungVito]

Year President's Party House Election Results Senate Election Results

2006 R R-30 R-6
2002 R R+8 R+2
1998 D D+5 0
1994 D D-54 D-8
*1990 R R-8 R-1
1986 R R-5 R-8
1982 R R-26 0
*1978 D D-15 D-3
*1974 R R-48 R-4
1970 R R-12 R+1
*1966 D D-48 D-3
1962 D D-4 D+2
1958 R R-48 R-12
1954 R R-18 R-2
*1950 D D-28 D-5
1946 D D-54 D-12
1942 D D-45 D-8

* Incumbent President lost the next election.

Notice any patterns? Especially in the last 30 years?

[YoungVito]

Coakley deserves a bit of blame for the loss as well, evidently she got pretty lazy near the end and that was a big turn off that Brown took advantage of.

.

Good point. She sucked. No way anyone can argue that one. Especially when she's going up against a guy who posed naked when he was in college. If that isn't "Kennedy-style" politics, I don't know what is.

Dude LOOKS like a Kennedy. (No Homo)

[Nevada_Ballin]

Good point. She sucked. No way anyone can argue that one. Especially when she's going up against a guy who posed naked when he was in college. If that isn't "Kennedy-style" politics, I don't know what is.

Dude LOOKS like a Kennedy. (No Homo)

Correct me if I'm wrong but did I just hear on TV that Brown is a Pro-Choice Republican? Looking for the right answer... i was in another room and may have not heard that right.


.

[TheRealist]

And like I said, nothing is going to change. First GOP Gov in 38 years.... doesn't matter. GOP came out in mass... where were they in Nov 2008? Just an abomination of the instant-gratification society we have these days. "Give us what you promised TODAY! We want it NOW!"

It's a recurring theme in today's American politics and voters. A proverbial revolving door at the Congressional level right now.

What's really interesting is that "majority of Americans" who don't want healthcare reform really don't even know what it's about. They carve their opinions out of hearsay from others (media/politicans who throw out absurd remarks like "death panels") because they are too lazy to investigate it for themselves.

Safe to say the "majority of Americans" have no idea what the hell is going on a majority of the time. Why? They don't give a crap and just jump on bandwagons whenever it suits a particular need they have or simply "sounds good to me".

.

But the portion of the population that wants health reform DOES know what it's about?

Come on...why omit these idiots as well? I've heard this same "don't even know what it's about argument" from a million people including the President today.

But screw us, the minority, right? Who is John Galt?

[Nevada_Ballin]

But the portion of the population that wants health reform DOES know what it's about?

Come on...why omit these idiots as well? I've heard this same "don't even know what it's about argument" from a million people including the President today.

But screw us, the minority, right? Who is John Galt?


If you stood on any street corner and asked passers-by, I'd venture to say that those who do want it could probably speak factually more about why they want it than those who can speak about why they don't.

But I can't prove it so no point in pursuing it, it's cold, snowing and windy here today, I ain't doing it... lol


.

[TheRealist]

If you stood on any street corner and asked passers-by, I'd venture to say that those who do want it could probably speak factually more about why they want it than those who can speak about why they don't.

But I can't prove it so no point in pursuing it, it's cold, snowing and windy here today, I ain't doing it... lol


.

I don't blame you for that...lol

Agree to disagree. I think the opposite.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I don't blame you for that...lol

Agree to disagree. I think the opposite.

Agreed .... lol

.

[kevin21boston]

Next to Hawaii, Massachusetts has the best system in the nation.


Those are the only two programs in the nation, are they not?

And what about Hawaii's failed plan to insure children? Why no comment on that?


What is socialism? The post office, public schools, state universities like Minnesota, the US MILITARY, Interstate Highways, Publi Water treatment and waste management.......I could go on.

This is my exact problem with anything government run. Do you want your healthcare run by the same organization that runs the post office, DMV, public schools, and water treatment plants? Because anytime I go to the post office there are long lines and horrible customer service, the DMV is hell and I won't even go into how horrible it is to spend one second in there, most (not all) public schools are jokes and glorified daycare centers. Go to most major cities and see what is going on. I'm sure you know people who teach at sh1t schools and want to get out. And public water systems are a joke. Dirty water to be had for all.


Why do all the other capitalist democracies voters continue to VOTE FOR keeping their "socialist" and "nationalized" sytems? Hmmm, because they are better?

I am not against national healthcare. I'm against such a large country having it because it will be miserably inefficient.

I hate this argument that Germany/Sweden/UK/Canada etc have great systems...

A.) No they don't. They are not universally acclaimed. They have major flaws just like any system will.

B.) My largest gripe is that people do not fully understand how large this country is. 300,000,000 people is a lot. A LOT. It is easy to insure a country like Sweden, England, or Canada. They are either small (Sweden) or dense (England, Japan). Density inherently makes social programs far more cost effective and efficient.

Take a look at the countries you listed and their rank in the world in population density:

Japan- 36th
Germany- 55th
Switzerland- 66th
UK- 51st
Taiwan- 16th
Hong Kong- 4th
France- 93rd


Massachusetts if it were a country: 38th

Hawaii if it were a country: 125th


United States: 178th


See a problem? Hawaii can barely do it and they are more than twice as dense as the rest of the United States. We can give care to Los Angeles, New York, Philidelphia, etc but the hardest and costliest will be giving it to Laramie, WY; Baker, CA; and Eldorado, TX, etc.


It should be a state by state issue. Everything should be.

[Nevada_Ballin]

This is my exact problem with anything government run. Do you want your healthcare run by the same organization that runs the post office, DMV, public schools, and water treatment plants? Because anytime I go to the post office there are long lines and horrible customer service, the DMV is hell and I won't even go into how horrible it is to spend one second in there, most (not all) public schools are jokes and glorified daycare centers. Go to most major cities and see what is going on. I'm sure you know people who teach at sh1t schools and want to get out. And public water systems are a joke. Dirty water to be had for all.



Couldn't one say that most of those issues are related to the people serving you, i.e., the poor customer service? Hate the playa not the game! lol


.

[kevin21boston]

Couldn't one say that most of those issues are related to the people serving you, i.e., the poor customer service? Hate the playa not the game! lol


.

Absolutely not. I've moved five times in the last three years. I've been all over. DMVs and Post Offices are all the same.

Public schools are more variable. There are some schools in LA that are basically prisons. Nobody wants to teach there and nobody wants to learn there. And unfortunately that is a common theme not only in LA but all over the nation.

[theanalogkid]

Couldn't one say that most of those issues are related to the people serving you, i.e., the poor customer service? Hate the playa not the game! lol


.

I think it just illustrates the inefficiency that government provides. There's just no incentive to do a great job. Why should someone who has union backing, and in a civil service position work harder when they gain nothing out of it? So if government managed even more into health insurance then they do already it would somehow magically change right? I don't think so. I'm all for cheaper health care, but I don't think the government is able to provide it. We've seen the result of the past 30 years at their attempt to with HMO/PPOs, and it's failed miserably.

Look at Amtrak which is subsidizes heavily by the government, there are always break downs, the tickets are really expensive, and trips are way longer. Without government subsidies, Amtrak wouldn't exist, because long distance passenger rail transportation in the US is obsolete. It's just another example of how government is not capable of providing services in a better capacity than private company. Why do you think there are always layoffs when the government privatizes something, because most of those jobs were redundant or not even needed in the first place.

[kevin21boston]

I think it just illustrates the inefficiency that government provides. There's just no incentive to do a great job. Why should someone who has union backing, and in a civil service position work harder when they gain nothing out of it? So if government managed even more into health insurance then they do already it would somehow magically change right? I don't think so. I'm all for cheaper health care, but I don't think the government is able to provide it. We've seen the result of the past 30 years at their attempt to with HMO/PPOs, and it's failed miserably.

Look at Amtrak which is subsidizes heavily by the government, there are always break downs, the tickets are really expensive, and trips are way longer. Without government subsidies, Amtrak wouldn't exist, because long distance passenger rail transportation in the US is obsolete. It's just another example of how government is not capable of providing services in a better capacity than private company. Why do you think there are always layoffs when the government privatizes something, because most of those jobs were redundant or not even needed in the first place.

My feelings exactly. Great post.

[resnor]

Spot on Analog.

[YoungVito]

Year President's Party House Election Results Senate Election Results

2006 R R-30 R-6
2002 R R+8 R+2
1998 D D+5 0
1994 D D-54 D-8
*1990 R R-8 R-1
1986 R R-5 R-8
1982 R R-26 0
*1978 D D-15 D-3
*1974 R R-48 R-4
1970 R R-12 R+1
*1966 D D-48 D-3
1962 D D-4 D+2
1958 R R-48 R-12
1954 R R-18 R-2
*1950 D D-28 D-5
1946 D D-54 D-12
1942 D D-45 D-8

* Incumbent President lost the next election.

Notice any patterns? Especially in the last 30 years?

[YoungVito]

I hope you same characters are on here in '10 and in '12. Because when history repeats itself, all I'll ask from you 'hardcores" is that you from then refer to me as

VG-DAMUS.

That is all.

[TheRealist]

All we're touting (in today's political context) is that:

Democrats are idiots...their economic policy inherently sucks.

and

Republicans are hypocrites...their economic policy rarely coincides with what they preach.

Just think of the repercussions of providing poor customer service in the competitive private sector. If customers have choice and you're treated terribly then you're going to do business elsewhere albeit at a higher price if it means that much to you. (Walmart vs. Target maybe?...cuz they sure aren't competing solely on price)

However, if the government treats you bad you're just going to have to swallow it. What alternative is their to the DMV or Post Office? All I can do is thank the people at FedEx for seeing how terrible the government was at handling stuff to thus provide us with significantly better service. However, the problem with introducing the government even as a competitor is that it can dictate the entire industry by the barrel of a gun...which is bs that affects everyone.

This is why pure capitalism (which encourages competition) provides more choice and individual freedom. Competition leads to maximum allocative (people who want the goods get them) and productive (provided at the lowest cost) efficiency...there is no argument in that.

[YoungVito]

All we're touting (in today's political context) is that:

Democrats are idiots...their economic policy inherently sucks.

and

Republicans are hypocrites...their economic policy rarely coincides with what they preach.

Just think of the repercussions of providing poor customer service in the competitive private sector. If customers have choice and you're treated terribly then you're going to do business elsewhere albeit at a higher price if it means that much to you. (Walmart vs. Target maybe?...cuz they sure aren't competing solely on price)

However, if the government treats you bad you're just going to have to swallow it. What alternative is their to the DMV or Post Office? All I can do is thank the people at FedEx for seeing how terrible the government was at handling stuff to thus provide us with significantly better service. However, the problem with introducing the government even as a competitor is that it can dictate the entire industry by the barrel of a gun...which is bs that affects everyone.

This is why pure capitalism (which encourages competition) provides more choice and individual freedom. Competition leads to maximum allocative (people who want the goods get them) and productive (provided at the lowest cost) efficiency...there is no argument in that.

So I guess you're saying that since there are only two REAL choices in our political system, then in fact it in its own way is actually socialist?

[Nevada_Ballin]

I think it just illustrates the inefficiency that government provides. There's just no incentive to do a great job. Why should someone who has union backing, and in a civil service position work harder when they gain nothing out of it? So if government managed even more into health insurance then they do already it would somehow magically change right? I don't think so. I'm all for cheaper health care, but I don't think the government is able to provide it. We've seen the result of the past 30 years at their attempt to with HMO/PPOs, and it's failed miserably.

Look at Amtrak which is subsidizes heavily by the government, there are always break downs, the tickets are really expensive, and trips are way longer. Without government subsidies, Amtrak wouldn't exist, because long distance passenger rail transportation in the US is obsolete. It's just another example of how government is not capable of providing services in a better capacity than private company. Why do you think there are always layoffs when the government privatizes something, because most of those jobs were redundant or not even needed in the first place.

Maybe these are truly the "lazy people" sideout talks so much about. There's a lot of people who would love to simply have a job right now, let alone a job like those.

.

[resnor]

Maybe these are truly the "lazy people" sideout talks so much about. There's a lot of people who would love to simply have a job right now, let alone a job like those.

.

Or maybe the jobs foster laziness. Being that I work for the state of NH, and am in the union, I can tell you, there really is zero incentive to work hard. I work hard, but I was brought up to have a good work ethic, but there are plenty of people in my office who don't work hard, and it really makes me angry, cause we get paid the same. Unions destroy, for most workers,the desire to always get better.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Or maybe the jobs foster laziness. Being that I work for the state of NH, and am in the union, I can tell you, there really is zero incentive to work hard. I work hard, but I was brought up to have a good work ethic, but there are plenty of people in my office who don't work hard, and it really makes me angry, cause we get paid the same. Unions destroy, for most workers,the desire to always get better.

Getting a paycheck and being able to house, cloth and feed your family isn't incentive enough to work hard?

I do agree that unions have been bad news for this country.


.

[TheRealist]

So I guess you're saying that since there are only two REAL choices in our political system, then in fact it in its own way is actually socialist?

I think that people only believe there are two choices in our political system. When in fact, there are only really two parties that can raise a lot of hell (from contributions) to get more exposure for their candidates.

The latter does not necessarily guarantee the former.

[resnor]

Getting a paycheck and being able to house, cloth and feed your family isn't incentive enough to work hard?

I do agree that unions have been bad news for this country.


.

Uh...what aren't you understanding? Government job, wih union backing, means that THE UNION negotiates everything. That means that THE UNION decides what the pay will be for whatever position you occupy. In a normal job, the better your work is, and the harder you work, will determine your worth to a company, and thus, will determine raises, bonuses, etc. With a union, those things don't matter. For example: I do data entry. I could bust my butt and enter 120 cases a day, or I could slack off and enter 60 cases a day. Either way, I'm going to get paid THE SAME. So, if you have several people doin the same job, and two are entering 60 a day, two are entering 85 a day, and one is entering 120 a day, but they are all getting paid the same, what do you think is going to happen? Do you think the ones doing 60 a day are going to decide to push themselves and get up to 85 a day, much less 120 a day? And what incentive is there for them to do that? Will the 85 a day push himself to get to 120 a day? Or is it more likely that the 85 and 120 people are going to take it easy, and move more towards the 60 per day people?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Providing for one's family. To act like it is, is to completely no understand the situation.

[Nevada_Ballin]

Uh...what aren't you understanding? Government job, wih union backing, means that THE UNION negotiates everything. That means that THE UNION decides what the pay will be for whatever position you occupy. In a normal job, the better your work is, and the harder you work, will determine your worth to a company, and thus, will determine raises, bonuses, etc. With a union, those things don't matter. For example: I do data entry. I could bust my butt and enter 120 cases a day, or I could slack off and enter 60 cases a day. Either way, I'm going to get paid THE SAME. So, if you have several people doin the same job, and two are entering 60 a day, two are entering 85 a day, and one is entering 120 a day, but they are all getting paid the same, what do you think is going to happen? Do you think the ones doing 60 a day are going to decide to push themselves and get up to 85 a day, much less 120 a day? And what incentive is there for them to do that? Will the 85 a day push himself to get to 120 a day? Or is it more likely that the 85 and 120 people are going to take it easy, and move more towards the 60 per day people?

It has absolutely nothing to do with Providing for one's family. To act like it is, is to completely no understand the situation.


Oh no, i get it, the unions make people lazy and not give a damn. I used to belong to the iron workers union back in the late 70s/early 80s, I know how it goes. It's that sense of "protectionism" that makes it all inbalanced.

And i do equate not giving a damn to not wanting to work harder (or smarter) to provide better for one's family. If your output is better than those around you, do you think your odds of promotion to a better paying position increases? In most cases, of course it does. Whether you want to effort that or not is up to you.

All employment in this country should be under "at-will employment". Unions have really messed up this country in a lot of ways for the reasons you mentioned but also for allowing people to sit on their aszes at their "protected" jobs and not having the drive to do better for themselves and their families.

.

[resnor]

Oh no, i get it, the unions make people lazy and not give a damn. I used to belong to the iron workers union back in the late 70s/early 80s, I know how it goes. It's that sense of "protectionism" that makes it all inbalanced.

And i do equate not giving a damn to not wanting to work harder (or smarter) to provide better for one's family. If your output is better than those around you, do you think your odds of promotion to a better paying position increases? In most cases, of course it does. Whether you want to effort that or not is up to you.

All employment in this country should be under "at-will employment". Unions have really messed up this country in a lot of ways for the reasons you mentioned but also for allowing people to sit on their aszes at their "protected" jobs and not having the drive to do better for themselves and their families.

.

I can only speak for my situation, but no, harder work isn't going to be what gets you a promotion. Applying for positions in other departmemts that habe higher pay grades is how you get promoted...and those jobs aren't looking at your work, but rather your qualifications.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I can only speak for my situation, but no, harder work isn't going to be what gets you a promotion. Applying for positions in other departmemts that habe higher pay grades is how you get promoted...and those jobs aren't looking at your work, but rather your qualifications.

Wouldn't your qualifications be your body of work? I mean, one would have to work hard at something to be qualified for something higher, even if it meant educational. To work and go to school at the same time would show me someone "working" hard for their own betterment.

I do understand what you are saying, that's how most state jobs go.

.

[kevin21boston]

Getting a paycheck and being able to house, cloth and feed your family isn't incentive enough to work hard?



In a Utopia, yes.

In reality, no.

[kevin21boston]

So nobody wants to address the points I made about this country not being able to support national healthcare?

[YoungVito]

Year President's Party House Election Results Senate Election Results

2006 R R-30 R-6
2002 R R+8 R+2
1998 D D+5 0
1994 D D-54 D-8
*1990 R R-8 R-1
1986 R R-5 R-8
1982 R R-26 0
*1978 D D-15 D-3
*1974 R R-48 R-4
1970 R R-12 R+1
*1966 D D-48 D-3
1962 D D-4 D+2
1958 R R-48 R-12
1954 R R-18 R-2
*1950 D D-28 D-5
1946 D D-54 D-12
1942 D D-45 D-8

* Incumbent President lost the next election.

Notice any patterns? Especially in the last 30 years?

Couldn't help but notice that you guys are CHOOSING to completely ignore the obvious. So yes...allow me to retort.

[Gtrght77]

I think it is funny listening to the GOP say that Mass has spoken out about Health Care and they have spoken for the American People?

Really?

Doesn't Mass have their own health care and since when does Mass speak for all America?

[YoungVito]

I'm gonna keep saying it...

The Cons wanted another seat, and they got it. They'll get more in Novermber too.

And right along with that, they'll get all the political scrutiny that comes along with it. More accountability and of course...more blame when things don't go as the American people expected. Hell, I hope there ends up being a republican majority in BOTH houses, so the American people can see how legislation REALLY works.

You get what you pay for. ;-)

[theanalogkid]

I'm gonna keep saying it...

The Cons wanted another seat, and they got it. They'll get more in Novermber too.

And right along with that, they'll get all the political scrutiny that comes along with it. More accountability and of course...more blame when things don't go as the American people expected. Hell, I hope there ends up being a republican majority in BOTH houses, so the American people can see how legislation REALLY works.

You get what you pay for. ;-)

See if people actually voted in small government Republicans (there aren't many but they do exist), they would act as a check against a Big Government Obama. Unfortunately the Republican Party has been big government with its own agenda these past few years.

[YoungVito]

The American people want instant gratification, especially in the era of the 24 hour news cycle. That's the point I was trying to make when I REPEATEDLY posted the mid-term results and the result that followed two years after. Whoever gets elected president, Americans have all these lofty expectations and set themselves up to be disappointed.

Hence the loss of the President's party seats two years later.

Then, something funny usually happens. In year three the fruits of the foundations that the administration come to pass. And what do you know...the president's party rides those strides all the way into the election year. In '82, you could not have told the Democratic party that Reagan would survive...

He won in '84 by a landslide.

In '94, Conservatives were all pumped after gaining control of Congress, and then they did what ALWAYS happens when they got some power...they overplayed their hand. Which resulted in the Clinton Administration diggin in their heels just like the Republican controlled Congress did. The result was the temporary shut-down of the government. Clinton used this as a way to blame Congress for "twarting" everything he was trying to do, and from the position of the bully pulpit...he won the argument in the eyes of the American people. Now, I'm sure some Cons on here will say "Well, that's what Obama tried to do this year", true...but its a little bit different in the eyes of the American people when he DOESN'T HAVE THE MAJORITY.

More seats...more culpability.

[resnor]

The Dems don't have a majority?

[YoungVito]

Clearly you haven't been paying attention to what's being said Res.

Get your head in the game. There will be a test at the end of class. LOL

[YoungVito]

Soooo I guess we're all in agreement then that the present political state of affairs is nothing more than a snapshot in time?

I only ask because ever since I presented the empirical evidence, no one has commented.

[SUPDOG]

Soooo I guess we're all in agreement then that the present political state of affairs is nothing more than a snapshot in time?

I only ask because ever since I presented the empirical evidence, no one has commented.

I think the reason people aren't commenting on your "empirical evdence", is because your "evidence" is irrelevant when looked through the lense that dems have won the Mass. senate seats for THE PAST 40 YEARS! So, you "enlightening" us to NATIONAL political ebbs/flows is silly, and has no meaning in this discussion.

Obama's change is garbage. That is why Coakley lost. End of story. Even libs in massachusetts can see that. Why can't you?

[YoungVito]

I think the reason people aren't commenting on your "empirical evdence", is because your "evidence" is irrelevant when looked through the lense that dems have won the Mass. senate seats for THE PAST 40 YEARS! So, you "enlightening" us to NATIONAL political ebbs/flows is silly, and has no meaning in this discussion.

Obama's change is garbage. That is why Coakley lost. End of story. Even libs in massachusetts can see that. Why can't you?

empirical
1 : originating in or based on observation or experience

I figured I'd make note of the definition in light of your attempt to mock me.

But at any rate...stats don't lie. You're all "willy-nilly" over the fact that the Dems lost that seat like...idk TED KENNEDY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT EQUATION.

If your theory is correct, then you're also saying that if Ted Kennedy had lived long enough to run for re-election he would've lost as well.

Highly doubtful.

But hey, you believe whatever you want to believe. Just make sure you're on here at this time in 2013. That should be JUST around the time of OUR president's re-election inauguration.

Cycles gentlemen...politics goes in cycles.

Dems win, and Cons like yourself try to marginalize it. Rebpublicans win, and liberals do the same. And EACH winning side tries to spin their victory as "A win for the American people". Not sure how old your are SUP, but I'm sure if you stop ingraciating your soul to one political party...you'll find out that the two parties are just two sides of the same coin.

[SUPDOG]

empirical

But at any rate...stats don't lie. You're all "willy-nilly" over the fact that the Dems lost that seat like...idk TED KENNEDY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT EQUATION.

If your theory is correct, then you're also saying that if Ted Kennedy had lived long enough to run for re-election he would've lost as well.

Highly doubtful.

.


So, you are saying is that if Ted Kennedy would have lived long enough to run again for the Senate seat, he would have won. Well, this would kind of blow your "Political Cycles" theory out of the water then, now wouldn't it? :eek:

LOL!

[YoungVito]

Whatever man. Look, it's gonna go like this. In November...your boys will win some more seats, after which you'll rattle your saber again about "The Demise of Obama", only to be disappointed in '12 when he wins re-election. Followed by your myriad of excuses as to why he won.

See you in '12 SUP.

[resnor]

What happens if Obama loses in 12? IF Americans wake up, and start to elect people who want to help the country rather than themselves or their party, we can get out of this political circle jerk we're in right now. I think people are starting to wake up.

[Nevada_Ballin]

I think the reason people aren't commenting on your "empirical evdence", is because your "evidence" is irrelevant when looked through the lense that dems have won the Mass. senate seats for THE PAST 40 YEARS! So, you "enlightening" us to NATIONAL political ebbs/flows is silly, and has no meaning in this discussion.

Obama's change is garbage. That is why Coakley lost. End of story. Even libs in massachusetts can see that. Why can't you?


Coakley lost because she got lazy in the last 2-3 weeks of the campaign. She allowed herself to be outdone in the field.

.

[YoungVito]

What happens if Obama loses in 12? IF Americans wake up, and start to elect people who want to help the country rather than themselves or their party, we can get out of this political circle jerk we're in right now. I think people are starting to wake up.

If history is any indicator...he won't. Pay attention to the unemployment rate. That's all you need to know about '12.

"Its the economy stupid"

[YoungVito]

What happens if Obama loses in 12? IF Americans wake up, and start to elect people who want to help the country rather than themselves or their party, we can get out of this political circle jerk we're in right now. I think people are starting to wake up.

You sound like you're in the "circle jerk" yourself.

People said the SAME thing after the '94 mid-terms. (See the amount of seats that the Democrats lost in Congress)

People said the SAME thing after Bush won a controversial victory in '00.

People said the SAME thing after the '06 mid-terms and the '08 presidential election.

And people (like yourself) are saying the SAME thing now.

If you've followed politics long enough, you'd realize that "marrying" yourself to one "side of the isle" pretty much just makes you politically irrelevant. Candidates only come around when during primary season when they need to "fire up their base", but in the end...its the independents who decide elections. We could really care less what party is in power as long as our needs are met. And as history tells us, our feelings about those in office can change with the weather.

'10...Republicans take back Congress, followed by a HUGE victory by Obama and the Democrats in '12. I know its not what some of you on either side of the ideological spectrum want to hear. But if past is prologue...

[YoungVito]

You want to know the REAL funny thing about it?

Its the combination of Congress being controlled by one party and the administration being controlled by the other that keeps the government honest. And just like the consumer market, when the two parties compete its the consumer (American people) who win out.

Unfortunately, it not both parties who win out politically. Whoever is in office will reap the benefits of this "compromise" (See Clinton in '96, and Reagan in '84) this because no matter how bad the president's poll numbers are, their party members in Congress will have worse numbers. So when things get better...the "bully pulpit" will garner the credit.

See you in '12.

[SUPDOG]

Coakley lost because she got lazy in the last 2-3 weeks of the campaign. She allowed herself to be outdone in the field.

.

Yes, because bringing in the President of the United States to campaign for you right before the election is a clear indication that you have been sleeping at the wheel. Wow.


Your spin is beyond laughable. :eek:


Bobble-bobble. :)

[YoungVito]

Yes, because bringing in the President of the United States to campaign for you right before the election is a clear indication that you have been sleeping at the wheel. Wow.


Your spin is beyond laughable. :eek:


Bobble-bobble. :)

Soooo, what are you sayin?

[resnor]

You sound like you're in the "circle jerk" yourself.

People said the SAME thing after the '94 mid-terms. (See the amount of seats that the Democrats lost in Congress)

People said the SAME thing after Bush won a controversial victory in '00.

People said the SAME thing after the '06 mid-terms and the '08 presidential election.

And people (like yourself) are saying the SAME thing now.

If you've followed politics long enough, you'd realize that "marrying" yourself to one "side of the isle" pretty much just makes you politically irrelevant. Candidates only come around when during primary season when they need to "fire up their base", but in the end...its the independents who decide elections. We could really care less what party is in power as long as our needs are met. And as history tells us, our feelings about those in office can change with the weather.

'10...Republicans take back Congress, followed by a HUGE victory by Obama and the Democrats in '12. I know its not what some of you on either side of the ideological spectrum want to hear. But if past is prologue...

This is what I mean...I think people vote without understanding issues. Invote based on who I believe has the best plan for changing things. I don't simply vote for a party.

[YoungVito]

This is what I mean...I think people vote without understanding issues. Invote based on who I believe has the best plan for changing things. I don't simply vote for a party.

If what you say is true, then why is it that I have yet to see you post any disparaging remarks about any Republicans? (Unless they've sided with a Democrat)