US Politics: Election Day 2014

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'd love to see some exit polls, but I would be willing to guess that self-identified "liberals" were the far more crucial demographic in approving marijuana legalization than self-identified "libertarians" or "conservatives."

[1918me]

What's the over/under on how long it takes alt_daskool to resurface under a different handle now that he's been banned?

Wait, daskool was banned? That'll teach me to skip chunks of this thread, I guess.

[MerenthaClone]

Like a baby. A baby who knows that in two short years, the check is going to be laid on the table and the GOP will actually have to pay it this time. They can't blame Obama, because Obama isn't running for anything. They can't blame it on Democrats, because they'll have had two full years of total congressional control.

...Yes, they can. "If only those Democrats would have stopped filibustering and Obama had stopped vetoing our Freedom to Work for Everyone Bill and our Guns and Ammo bill and our End Terrorism Forever bill and etc etc we would have everything be perfect!"

[peterbound]

I'd love to see some exit polls, but I would be willing to guess that self-identified "liberals" were the far more crucial demographic in approving marijuana legalization than self-identified "libertarians" or "conservatives."

Hmm, that would be interesting. Most people I know that identify as conservative are pretty hip to legalizing the weed and letting whomever marry whomever they want.

Saying that though, they aren't usually constrained by religious bias. The one's I tend to socialize with.

[awesome possum]

...Yes, they can. "If only those Democrats would have stopped filibustering and Obama had stopped vetoing our Freedom to Work for Everyone Bill and our Guns and Ammo bill and our End Terrorism Forever bill and etc etc we would have everything be perfect!"

They can try, but the truth of the matter is they're now "in charge" of congress. Of course, it would take a Democratic party with an actual spine to take advantage of the damage the Republicans are going to cause/try to cause. Which reminds of this quote from the West Wing, relevant as ever:

We all need some therapy, because somebody came along and said, "'Liberal' means soft on crime, soft on drugs, soft on Communism, soft on defense, and we're gonna tax you back to the Stone Age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to!" And instead of saying, "Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary, xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave It To Beaver trip back to the Fifties...!", we cowered in the corner, and said, "Please. Don't. Hurt. Me."

[Suttree]

Wait, daskool was banned? That'll teach me to skip chunks of this thread, I guess.

Yup. Noticed it in the #garblegabble thread.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Hmm, that would be interesting. Most people I know that identify as conservative are pretty hip to legalizing the weed and letting whomever marry whomever they want.

Saying that though, they aren't usually constrained by religious bias. The one's I tend to socialize with.

Here's what I found for Alaska:

Liberal 22% 74% 26%

Moderate 41% 60% 40%

Conservative 37% 29% 71%

and Oregon:

Liberal 34% 83% 17%

Moderate 34% 57% 43%

Conservative 32% 24% 76%

The first column is percentage of the electorate, second is yes voters, third is no voters. Obviously this doesn't quite account for libertarians, but I'm assuming they're falling under conservatives, and account for what the percentage of conservatives who supported legalization.

So it looks like while there is a significant group of libertarian-conservatives who support legalization by percentage of overall conservatives, liberals are more supportive by percentage of all liberals, and in absolute numbers.

[BloodRider]

Wait, daskool was banned? That'll teach me to skip chunks of this thread, I guess.

I think the relevant chunk may have been excised.

[1918me]

I think the relevant chunk may have been excised.

Ah yes, that would probably be the case.

[Inigima]

ETA: here's a Forbes (fairly conservative source) article about it. Like gay marriage, I think this is an issue that conservatives have pretty much ceded to the left.

I keep having to say this: anything on forbes.com at a /sites address isn't a fucking Forbes article. It's just Some Guy On The Internet. Please stop citing them.

[alguien]

I posted it to show that it was being reported from all spectrums. Was the the info there inaccurate?

[Mudguard]

I'm really curious about what approach the Republicans are going to take in Congress. Are they going to try ramming legislation through Congress unilaterally? Or will they attempt to involve the Democrats so that things can actually get passed rather than getting filibustered or vetoed? Are they really going to continue to try and repeal the ACA?

[sToNED_CAT]

I saw this somewhere else earlier, but can't be arsed to go find the link. Basically, last night showed that people want liberal policies (higher minimum wage, legal marijuana, abortion access, gay rights) but picked Republicans to represent them on those issues.

That doesn't mean those voters believe Republicans will better represent them on those issues. It means that people believe GOP will better represent them on other issues, that are far more important to them.

[Shryke]

I'm really curious about what approach the Republicans are going to take in Congress. Are they going to try ramming legislation through Congress unilaterally? Or will they attempt to involve the Democrats so that things can actually get passed rather than getting filibustered or vetoed? Are they really going to continue to try and repeal the ACA?

McTurtle has already said he's going to try and repeal the ACA.

This will basically be the same bullshit we've seen in the House for the past 4 years. Except it'll die by veto instead of in the Senate.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I'm really curious about what approach the Republicans are going to take in Congress. Are they going to try ramming legislation through Congress unilaterally? Or will they attempt to involve the Democrats so that things can actually get passed rather than getting filibustered or vetoed? Are they really going to continue to try and repeal the ACA?

My prediction: There is still too much fear of their base and challenges from the right in primaries for them to risk being seen agreeing or compromising with Obama on anything. They may try to push through legislation with Democratic support (by putting red-state Democrats in uncomfortable positions), but it will be nothing Obama will sign. And they will definitely vote on repealing the ACA, knowing full well it will fail. If there were a real chance of repeal, they couldn't do it, because too many voters are now covered through the exchanges and subsidies.

[awesome possum]

That doesn't mean those voters believe Republicans will better represent them on those issues. It means that people believe GOP will better represent them on other issues, that are far more important to them.

Like what? This election clearly wasn't about issues, or Republicans would have run on them. It was little more than the norm for two-term presidents. I believe every single president (except Clinton and maybe one other) going back to 1918 has seen their party lose on a wave in the 6-year midterms.

[aceluby]

Yeah, based on the ads I saw the 'issues' that the GOP was presenting were "my opponent is basically Obama" and "I'm not Obama".

Riveting policy discussion.

[kuenjato]

I never let Smashing Young Man forget his "Hillary will steal the nomination from Obama at the convention and the blacks will riot" predictions in 2008. It must have shamed him so badly he vanished for a while before resurfacing as daskool.

SYM is daskool?

I don't think theprincethatwasn'tpromised is really aware that these political threads have been going on for a long time (as far back as 2000, from my lurking standard) and there are always one or two trolls that come in and post talking points and give the regular posters the opportunity to utterly destroy them.

[SkynJay]

To be fair the Dems in my area were no better at talking about even one single issue. Udall's campaign was truly horrible at only bringing up birth control. Never saw what he was actually for in any ads.

[TrackerNeil]

To your first point, how can you seriously say the electorate is moving to the left. If anything liberalism was most certainly rejected. How do the two issues you mention negate the huge losses in solid blue states?

A serious question, so here's a serious answer. if you read the article, you'll see that social policy has been moving left for decades: Social Security, Medicare, AFDC, food stamps, the ACA -- the list goes on and on. Even when Republicans are in ascendance these programs tend to expand, and the voters by and large like them. So I don't think you always can draw a line between how people vote and what specific programs they support.

I'm really curious about what approach the Republicans are going to take in Congress. Are they going to try ramming legislation through Congress unilaterally? Or will they attempt to involve the Democrats so that things can actually get passed rather than getting filibustered or vetoed? Are they really going to continue to try and repeal the ACA?

I would be surprised if Republicans mounted a serious attempt to repeal the ACA.** That would mean 1) taking benefits away from white people; and 2) coming up with something to replace it, and there's no constituency for either in the current GOP. Even if they did repeal, what would they offer in exchange? The ACA already contains most of the ideas they could come up with.

I suspect what is more likely is that, should the Republicans keep Congress and take the White House in 2017, they'll trim subsidies, scale back regulations, and then go back to cutting taxes. It's easy, and it's what they are good at.

** I think it's entirely possible they'll pass a repeal (or three) in 2015, when it's useless because Obama will bring out the veto pen. That would not qualify as a serious attempt.