To All The Liberals

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The people on drugs didn't vote, that's what's scary

I heard everyone lit up to celebrate and forgot to go vote.

[Monkeydad]

After electoral drubbing, Democrats must now deal with ethics trials - TheHill.com

[GMScud]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

It makes total sense, man. Things are rough and people aren't happy. I'm not sugar coating the results, I'm saying let's just take a deep breath and look at everything. This crap flying around today isn't based in reality or historical fact. The balance of power usually shifts during midterms. Bill Clinton and Ronald Reagan went through the same thing, yet they went on to get re-elected and enjoyed prosperous terms.

Well, this Ego (Obama, not matty), seems pretty thin skinned and hasn't really dealt with losing. Lets see if he reacts like Clinton did in '94 and reach out across the aisle after mid-term defeats. If I recall Clinton did that and worked on things like welfare reform, etc.

[Monkeydad]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, this Ego (Obama, not matty), seems pretty thin skinned and hasn't really dealt with losing. Lets see if he reacts like Clinton did in '94 and reach out across the aisle after mid-term defeats. If I recall Clinton did that and worked on things like welfare reform, etc.

Absolutely won't. He acts like a petulant child when he doesn't get his way. I fully expect the President to push back HARDER to push his plans.

He now has more "enemies" than he knew. (the American people)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Harry Reid won because the unions bussed in as many votes as possible. They're intimidators. Casino Bosses stood to loose a fortune if Angle got elected.

Oh heavens

[12thMan]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, this Ego (Obama, not matty), seems pretty thin skinned and hasn't really dealt with losing. Lets see if he reacts like Clinton did in '94 and reach out across the aisle after mid-term defeats. If I recall Clinton did that and worked on things like welfare reform, etc.

You don't he's reached out? And why do you say he's never dealt with losing?

[mlmpetert]

Originally Posted by saden1

So did Harry Ried win because he campaigned for him and Russ Feingold lost because he campaigned for him?

You really are an idiot if you think 200 million dollars are being spent a day. Perhaps they're Indian Rupees?

Obama's '$200m-a-day' India visit picked up by US taxpayers | Mail Online

I hope its not pounds!

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by GMScud

Well, this Ego (Obama, not matty), seems pretty thin skinned and hasn't really dealt with losing. Lets see if he reacts like Clinton did in '94 and reach out across the aisle after mid-term defeats. If I recall Clinton did that and worked on things like welfare reform, etc.

He really has no choice but to reach out to the back of the bus. Clinton had no choice and after it seemed welfare reform was popular he took the credit for it.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by 12thMan

That's one way to look at it, but with all due respect I think your analysis, while partially correct, is still a little short sighted of what happened last night.

Midterms are ALL about voter turnout and which side has the most energy. Less than 50% of Americans are registered to vote. And less than 50% of THOSE people turned out yesterday. So, from state to state, you had between 23% and 30% of the population of those states determining who was going to govern the entire population of those states. This year it was unquestionably the GOP energized by the Tea Party and other right wing elements.

The spin that this was a referendum on Obama sounds good, but support for Obama's agenda, for him as a president, and for him as a person, are all fairly decent, when you ask ALL Americans. Republicans and the Tea Party failed miserably at making any real inroads in reliably blue districts, couldn't unseat a vulnerable Harry Reid, didn't make a dent in either race in California despite all the money they threw around. So the message against HOPE and CHANGE wasn't as resounding as some would like to portray it. Still the White House didn't like waking up to a Republican majority this morning. Things just got harder.

I count lack of voter turnout as disillusionment with our fair messiah. He turned out the vote in '08 because people who don't like what the system has become got off their asses and voted for his high and mighty BS about hope and change. That's what happened. Whether those same people abandon him by either voting the other way or not voting at all it is still a referendum on his agenda. Republicans swung some independents their way and Obama left a great amount of his independent base on the bench last night. That's his fault for the way he has governed. I wholeheartedly believe that unless he moves back towards actually doing something about the culture in DC and at least presenting the perception that he is trying to change it then he will be rather susceptible in 2012.

[FRPLG]

Originally Posted by Mattyk

The people on drugs didn't vote, that's what's scary

I've read a few opinions that the people on drugs don't want the system changed. There is quite a cottage industry in CA for weed and the system works pretty well. I have no idea why any of the obvious drug proponents would actually endorse the Prop 19 stuff. It brought weed under MORE control rather than less. And in the end there is still the rather pesky issue involving the federal laws against weed sales.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by FRPLG

I've read a few opinions that the people on drugs don't want the system changed. There is quite a cottage industry in CA for weed and the system works pretty well. I have no idea why any of the obvious drug proponents would actually endorse the Prop 19 stuff. It brought weed under MORE control rather than less. And in the end there is still the rather pesky issue involving the federal laws against weed sales.

I don't smoke but I would like to see it get over turned on a federal level.

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by GMScud

I am SOOOO happy I don't have to look at her anymore.

Someone said to me that, even if the dems were to win back the house, Pelosi would not come back as Speaker (in which case, it would be Hoyer). Anyone know if this is true? First I'd ever heard about something like that.

[Lotus]

Originally Posted by firstdown

I have to say that I respectfully disagree with you but I enjoy reading your post without the name calling. I don't think SP is going to run.

Are you kidding? Governor Quitter is already running for Pres.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by mlmpetert

Obama's '$200m-a-day' India visit picked up by US taxpayers | Mail Online

I hope its not pounds!

I believe The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper. Sources said indeed. I am curious, do you guys really lack the necessary analytical skills to see how absurd this claim is? Has it also occurred to you that it is incumbent upon the host nation to pay for most of the security costs?

You guys are amazing.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by JoeRedskin

Someone said to me that, even if the dems were to win back the house, Pelosi would not come back as Speaker (in which case, it would be Hoyer). Anyone know if this is true? First I'd ever heard about something like that.

I don't know why it would be true but she does have to run for minority speaker position. If I saw Boner as minority speaker all the time I am sure you guys will see Pelosi all the time (if she wins and she probably will win).