Mid Term Elections 2010

The US midterm elections are finally here and despite everything, look like being a vote on the current economic situation that the country finds itself in and the actions of the current POTUS: Barack Obama.

Both houses are currently controlled by the Democrats but it looks like the Republicans can gain control of at least one, or maybe even both of them, putting further electoral progress into jeopardy.

The last poll I saw was 49% Republican, 43% Democrat and the rest undecided. As far as the news here is concerned, Americans are mad at the government and want them to do something about it, they are just not sure what.

So what is going to happen. Will the Democrats keep more seats than the expect or will the Republicans and the Tea-Party take control?

The Mid Terms: Nearly every Mid Term the leading party loses seats. It will not be the huge victory that some on the right and Fox were predicting but I think the Dems will lose the House while retaining the Senate.

The Tea party is already peaking in my opinion and will largely fade away over the next 4 years. A Republican House will actually make it harder for the Republicans to just keeping saying "no" on everything. If things don't get passed to help the country, they will share the blame and quite possibly have a backlash in 2012 when Obama might well generate some coattails again vs. what right now does not look like any great options for the Republican candidate.

The first presidential election I could vote in was Bush vs. Gore and while I was aware of a lot of the hullabaloo during Clinton's administration I wasn't really paying much attention. If there was any strife surrounding Reagan and Bush I, I was completely unaware of it.

Is this sort of RAEG that I've seen over the past eighteen years how things typically work or are things commonly more bipartisan?

It ebbs and flows. I was politically aware as a kid and Nixon was really reviled by those on the left. Ford and Carter were just considered incompetent or un-Presidential. Reagan was reviled by many on the left and you still see it. You know I liked him and the majority of the voters did to. But he was hated by the left leaning the way Bush the lesser was and Clinton was by the Right. I think Bush the Elder was not strongly disliked and suffered also from Perot. To this day I don't hear a lot of good or bad about Bush the Elder. You know about the rest. Partisanship seems to come go though in our history.

What is driving it lately is the Republicans at least have succeeded in being fairly monolithic in there voting in the houses. The work well with their Presidents and against Democratic ones. This started with Newt back around 1994. I think this is terrible for the US and the Dems have not been able to emulate it as you saw recently.

In NY, at least, the Tea Party may have peaked by getting their candidate, Carl "Horse Porn" Paladino, onto the Republican ticket for governor. As someone who talks about breaking the gridlock with the state legislature, Paladino seems far more likely to cause more gridlock, than to clear it out. Further, his campaign promises ("I'll cut taxes by 10% and spending by 20%.") strike me as the sort of pure fantasy that's been generated in an echo chamber without a single dissenting voice being heard. Add to that, he seems to have enough anger control issues to make me seem calm, cool, and collected.

In short, I know several people who voted for him in the primaries who are having serious buyer's remorse over him.

Now, it's clear that he's his own worst enemy, but my unscientific perception is that he's poisoning not only his own chances but the allure of the Tea Party, itself.

ETA: In all honesty, I believe that Andrew Cuomo owes the Tea Party and the Republican Party a great big thank you. There's no way I'd have considered voting for someone whom I believe to be a spineless idiot, mistaking party solidarity for leadership, without the threat of Paladino. Certainly I don't believe that Cuomo will have a gnat's chance of reforming a damned thing in Albany. But I'd far rather see him there than Paladino. I'd rather see Nathaniel Bedford Forrest there than Paladino, even zombie NBF.


As for partisanship... I think that most people who talk about a bipartisan past are looking at history with rose-colored glasses. I think the specific attacks may be more disgusting, but the polarization and the way that people would demonize a specific candidate or party seems to have been pretty universal in my memory. One of the reasons Carter is seen as so much of a failure as President is because much the Congress would refuse to do almost anything he suggested. Obviously, he had other failings, but the sense of 'damn everything else, we're not supporting him!' seems to have played a big part.

I remember in the early 80s hearing people talking casually about the need to assassinate Reagan. (Which stopped like a derailed train after the shooting.) I remember, as a second grader, being punished in school for failing to properly worship at the Church of Kennedy during the 1975 campaign season. Heck, for that matter, my mother talks about wondering why everyone was so heartbroken when Roosevelt died - since she was raised in a household where he was seen as a lesser evil, compared to Hitler, but an evil nonetheless. (Which comparison carries a bit more weight than you might think: Her father left Germany in 1933.)

To continue the riff on past incivilities, I can't think of anything today that's comparable to the actions of the House Un-American Activities Committee. This is not to excuse the current tone that I see. But I don't think it's anything much new.

I saw somewhere that said Obama said out a mass email to all the Democrats on their list asking them to get out and vote and not to allow the Republicans and Tea Party to take over.

Is that true?

I have not received such an email, and believe you me if there was one, I'd have gotten it.

I can't say one way, or the other.

The problem is that there's a difference between what I consider a normal Get-Out-The-Vote email, and the sort of thing you're describing. But it's only a very fine line. A normal GOTV circular will suggest that voting will help prevent the other people from 'winning' or ruining something, but it's not strident, nor desperate. What I think you're describing is something with an emphasis beyond that, which is hinting at desperation.

One thing to remember is that in the US, especially with off-Presidential year elections, the fraction of eligible voters who actually cast ballots is often pretty damned low. (And I believe that the push to increase voter registration concurrent with motor vehicle licensing has lowered the voting rate among eligible voters - since those people who, in the past, had been too lazy to deal with the BOE bureaucracies are among those most likely not to vote in the first place.) Elections often get decided by the fraction of the electorate that shows up for a given party or position. In effect that's what happened with NY's Republican gubernatorial primary election: Since most people weren't all that excited by the so-called front-runner, they stayed home and didn't vote in the primary. And so the Tea Partiers got their candidate, Carl "Horse Porn" Paladino, onto the ballot today.

ISTM that the way you're wording your question you're of the opinion that the sort of mailing that you heard President Obama send out was the cry of a failed politician, whereas I hear it more as a normal way of doing business. (Again, all this is without seeing the exact wording of the email - specific details could change my opinion one way or the other.)

There isn't really anything similar in British politics, so I was curious to know about it. I can't even find the link again, so I don't even know if it was true.

What is the voter turnout likely to be in these elections?

Well, here in NY the NY Times ran this article yesterday predicting a *good* turnout - around 46% of eligible voters casting ballots.

And this is considered a high turnout for a non-presidential election year.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by CatInASuit

I saw somewhere that said Obama said out a mass email to all the Democrats on their list asking them to get out and vote and not to allow the Republicans and Tea Party to take over.

Is that true?

---

I'm a registered Democrat and have received mass emails before. I haven't received this one.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Peeta Mellark

I'm a registered Democrat and have received mass emails before. I haven't received this one.

---

Then consider it one of those false rumours that gets put around. :(

The only real person we have being elected is already republican and the incumbent. He's up against a libertarian and an independent. He hasn't even campaigned this season. Unlike his opponents his website doesn't even mention the election. Which I find pretty amusing.

He's a good guy though and on all the cool kid committees so we have no reason to get rid of him.

The pattern for many decades has been to "punish" the sitting president/president's party. Reagan and Clinton actually had lower approval ratings at the end of their second years in office than Mr. Obama has now. And the Republicans were hammered hard at that midterm election (1982?) Likewise the Democrats at the end of Mr. Clinton's second year.

Well, it looks like the Republilcans have taken control of the House of Representatives but the Democrats still likely to control the senate. Christine O'Connell failed in her bid as did Linda McMahon, the ex-CEO of the WWE.

I guess Obama will have to learn to get along with the GOP in order to pass legislation now, but the big question will be what impact will this have on the new Healthcare Reforml, which the Republicans want to stop, "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and if QE2 will go ahead and how much it will be.

The Repubs can't stop the Healthcare. They will attempt it as a show and the Senate will then stop their bills.

Which means they'll be wasting time doing shell games.

The first thing they're going to learn, other than which is the best restaurant nearest teh office, is that they aren't going to do very much of what they "promised" to do. And by 2012 the electorate will know that - and then the merry-go-round starts spinning again. I think Mr. Obama will be re-elected in 2012. His personal approval rating is surprisingly high.

People are scared and angry, and I don't blame them. Only - I don't think there is a "fix".

There you go being sensible again. We can't have that! You'd turn us all into *gasp* Canadians!

Well the fix is a choice of two evils.

Either print more money and pump it into the economy to try and kick start growth. But this creates more debt.
Or cut the deficit and remove some of that debt. But no-one wants to see their benefits cut.

You're screwed really. :popcorn:

*sneaks over to CIAS's side of the pond.*

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Inner Stickler

*sneaks over to CIAS's side of the pond.*

---

It would be easier to just head north. Especially for you, Minnesotan.

Hey vison! Any chance you're hiring? I can learn to be a mink farmer.

Hiring? You betcha.

Pretty soon we will be "pelting", which is one way of saying "harvest time" which is one way of saying "peeling mink". It's hard work, but you can make good money at it. :)

Send me your resume, including video of you using very sharp knives.