US Politics: The Day After The Political Earthquake

[Summah]

Can't believe a Republican won in the Maryland gubernatorial race. :(

Eastern Shore, Western Maryland, the Pensatucky border. Also the guy before O'Malley was a Republican. What would be really shocking is if Baltimore City elected a Republican mayor or PG County elected a Republican to some major office. But yes it is quite disappointing, even though I don't like Brown much either.

[karaddin]

The political threads are pretty hostile to Republican/conservative posters, so it's not surprising that those types of posters eventually get fed up with all the abuse. There are numerous posts that allege or characterize that Republicans/the GOP are sexists and racists. That's got to be deeply insulting to non-sexist and non-racist Republicans. The name calling also adds nothing to the discussion, but it comes up so frequently that it's more or less allowed, at least in the political threads.

See, my point demonstrated almost instantly. Thanks Shryke.

The policies of the Republican party are blatantly sexist and homophobic, and only very very thinly veiled racist if veiled at all. Just because they say it politely with "we don't mean to be offensive, we don't disrespect you, we just have no respect for you" doesn't mean that it's not racist or sexist or homophobic. That's not saying everyone who votes Republican is those things, but it's part of the party platform and if you have a substantial objection to it, then at the very least you need to be doing something to try change it.

ETA:

Don't remember that happening.

Most of it happened in PMs I think, although there was at least one nasty thread too.

[Suttree]

I don't really appreciate what he said about me.

To be fair calling you a troll is the charitable interpretation.

[Durckad]

And what do your posts say about conservatism, then?

That it kicked your ass!

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

It's such a juvenile remark. I'm willing to believe you are not actually a troll and are posting what you actually think, but really -- your posts are poorly informed, you can't construct a good argument, you can't recognize a good argument, and the sentiments you express are incredibly puerile.

And shryke's wasn't? Because you agree with one poster, they can post whatever. When I snipe back I'm the troll, I'm childish. Apparently, you fail to see the double standard.

As far as my arguments, I'm pretty sure you were another one claiming I couldn't back up my argument about Chicago and Detroit. After I did, you had nothing to say. Good arguments aren't accepted by you people, they're ignored when it conflicts with your ideology.

[davos]

*Mod Hat* Evening, folks. Personal attacks need to stop. No one has quite crossed the line yet and normally I would let things carry on as they are. The few days after an election, though, feelings are amplified, both for those who identify with the winners and those who identify with the losers. While the election results provide us with plenty of material to discuss, if you can't do so without personal snipping, I would suggest stepping away for a few days until you can. For those of you who can neither control their emotions enough to have a productive discussion and can't take a short hiatus to cool off the option exists to compel you to do so. This is something I, and the other mods, do not want to do. Or to put it more bluntly: Stop the personal attacks or we will stop them.

Additionally, we generally discourage discussion of current or past moderator decisions on the board itself. If you have concerns, contact one of the moderating team. If you feel the need to discuss such issues with other boarders, please keep it off the open board. Please also be aware that there are often aspects to a decision that are not known outside of the moderating team and those directly involved.

Above all keep it civil. Liberals, remember that conservatives have some cause to strut today and may forget themselves while doing so. And Conservatives, please remember that liberals had a very bad day yesterday. Keep things civil. */mod hat*

[Mudguard]

The policies of the Republican party are blatantly sexist and homophobic, and only very very thinly veiled racist if veiled at all. Just because they say it politely with "we don't mean to be offensive, we don't disrespect you, we just have no respect for you" doesn't mean that it's not racist or sexist or homophobic. That's not saying everyone who votes Republican is those things, but it's part of the party platform and if you have a substantial objection to it, then at the very least you need to be doing something to try change it.

I have no problem at all with people discussing how a Republican policy negatively and/or disproportionately affects minorities, women, etc. I think that type of discussion is great. But a post that simply alleges that the GOP and Republicans are racist and sexist (and many posts fall into this category) adds nothing useful to the discussion whatsoever. All a post like that does is to make the environment hostile to opposing viewpoints.

[TrackerNeil]

Karaddin asked about the possibility of a SCOTUS seat being left open by a Republican Senate who refused to confirm an Obama nominee, and I'd like to address that. Some (like Jonathan Bernstein, whom I respect) have said that's a real possibility, but I don't see it. Blockading the DC court is one thing, because that's a story that's going to interest only the most politically minded Americans. Blockading the Supreme Court is another matter altogether; that would be front-page news and Americans would definitely pay attention. (I can just see the headlines: "Supreme Court: The Constitution in Crisis.")

The longer such a stand-off goes on, the worse it's going to be for Senate Republicans, because I think most Americans are going to think (correctly) that it's Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans are trying to take that away from him. The whole affair will be a disaster on the scale of the government shutdown. Worse, every single Republican angling for the 2016 presidential race is going to have to take a position on that foolishness -- something they most certainly won't want to do -- and I suspect most of them will side against the Senate. (Sure, the clown-show candidates might approve of that kind of stunt, but since those folks aren't serious candidates anyway, who cares?)

I suppose I shouldn't underestimate the ability of the GOP to engage in political sabotage, but this just seems beyond the pale even for them.

[karaddin]

Karaddin asked about the possibility of a SCOTUS seat being left open by a Republican Senate who refused to confirm an Obama nominee, and I'd like to address that. Some (like Jonathan Bernstein, whom I respect) have said that's a real possibility, but I don't see it. Blockading the DC court is one thing, because that's a story that's going to interest only the most politically minded Americans. Blockading the Supreme Court is another matter altogether; that would be front-page news and Americans would definitely pay attention. (I can just see the headlines: "Supreme Court: The Constitution in Crisis.")

The longer such a stand-off goes on, the worse it's going to be for Senate Republicans, because I think most Americans are going to think (correctly) that it's Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans are trying to take that away from him. The whole affair will be a disaster on the scale of the government shutdown. Worse, every single Republican angling for the 2016 presidential race is going to have to take a position on that foolishness -- something they most certainly won't want to do -- and I suspect most of them will side against the Senate. (Sure, the clown-show candidates might approve of that kind of stunt, but since those folks aren't serious candidates anyway, who cares?)

I suppose I shouldn't underestimate the ability of the GOP to engage in political sabotage, but this just seems beyond the pale even for them.

I hadn't even considered that it might play that way, although I have more faith in the GOPs messaging machine than I do in the Dems (also true for the parties here in Aus). Thanks for the answer!

[Shryke]

Karaddin asked about the possibility of a SCOTUS seat being left open by a Republican Senate who refused to confirm an Obama nominee, and I'd like to address that. Some (like Jonathan Bernstein, whom I respect) have said that's a real possibility, but I don't see it. Blockading the DC court is one thing, because that's a story that's going to interest only the most politically minded Americans. Blockading the Supreme Court is another matter altogether; that would be front-page news and Americans would definitely pay attention. (I can just see the headlines: "Supreme Court: The Constitution in Crisis.")

The longer such a stand-off goes on, the worse it's going to be for Senate Republicans, because I think most Americans are going to think (correctly) that it's Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans are trying to take that away from him. The whole affair will be a disaster on the scale of the government shutdown. Worse, every single Republican angling for the 2016 presidential race is going to have to take a position on that foolishness -- something they most certainly won't want to do -- and I suspect most of them will side against the Senate. (Sure, the clown-show candidates might approve of that kind of stunt, but since those folks aren't serious candidates anyway, who cares?)

I suppose I shouldn't underestimate the ability of the GOP to engage in political sabotage, but this just seems beyond the pale even for them.

The question is whether McConnell can wrangle the crazy fuckers in his caucus enough to pull that off. Alot of the problems in Congress right now can be traced back to Boehner's inability to do this in the house. Cause Boehner is easily one of the worst Speaks of the House in recent times. (based on ability, not policy)

[davos]

Karaddin asked about the possibility of a SCOTUS seat being left open by a Republican Senate who refused to confirm an Obama nominee, and I'd like to address that. Some (like Jonathan Bernstein, whom I respect) have said that's a real possibility, but I don't see it. Blockading the DC court is one thing, because that's a story that's going to interest only the most politically minded Americans. Blockading the Supreme Court is another matter altogether; that would be front-page news and Americans would definitely pay attention. (I can just see the headlines: "Supreme Court: The Constitution in Crisis.")

The longer such a stand-off goes on, the worse it's going to be for Senate Republicans, because I think most Americans are going to think (correctly) that it's Obama's constitutional right to appoint Supreme Court justices, and the Republicans are trying to take that away from him. The whole affair will be a disaster on the scale of the government shutdown. Worse, every single Republican angling for the 2016 presidential race is going to have to take a position on that foolishness -- something they most certainly won't want to do -- and I suspect most of them will side against the Senate. (Sure, the clown-show candidates might approve of that kind of stunt, but since those folks aren't serious candidates anyway, who cares?)

I suppose I shouldn't underestimate the ability of the GOP to engage in political sabotage, but this just seems beyond the pale even for them.

Logically, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, experience teachers a completely different lesson. There was anger at the Republicans over the shutdown. They certainly took hits in the polls for several months afterwards and the overall ratings for congress have never recovered. Despite this, Republicans faced zero electoral consequences for the shutdown In fact, they gained significant seats on both houses. The lesson from yesterday is that they can get away with this kind of stunt and not only not hurt themselves come election time but possible improve their position. They just need sufficient time to recover from the initial fall-out. If their is a limit to what extremes they can go without the electorate punishing them for it, we have not found them yet.

[awesome possum]

The whole affair will be a disaster on the scale of the government shutdown.

Like the government shutdown they forced just one year ago?

I don't disagree with most of what you say, but one thing we know for certain: Americans have short term memories.

[karaddin]

The question is whether McConnell can wrangle the crazy fuckers in his caucus enough to pull that off. Alot of the problems in Congress right now can be traced back to Boehner's inability to do this in the house. Cause Boehner is easily one of the worst Speaks of the House in recent times. (based on ability, not policy)

That actually prompts another question for me, does Boehner continue to have the House Majority Leader position or does someone finally take it off him? Taking the Senate and holding the house could be read as them being ascendant enough for someone to decide it's worth their while, but I still don't even know who would try? Cantor is gone after all...

Logically, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, experience teachers a completely different lesson. There was anger at the Republicans over the shutdown. They certainly took hits in the polls for several months afterwards and the overall ratings for congress have never recovered. Despite this, Republicans faced zero electoral consequences for the shutdown In fact, they gained significant seats on both houses. The lesson from yesterday is that they can get away with this kind of stunt and not only not hurt themselves come election time but possible improve their position. They just need sufficient time to recover from the initial fall-out. If their is a limit to what extremes they can go without the electorate punishing them for it, we have not found them yet.

Yeah I couldn't believe that not only did the voters not punish them, there seemed to be such certainty that no one would even care about it that from over here I didn't even hear it brought up as an issue? Did the Dems mention it at all?

[DanteGabriel]

And shryke's wasn't? Because you agree with one poster, they can post whatever. When I snipe back I'm the troll, I'm childish. Apparently, you fail to see the double standard.

As far as my arguments, I'm pretty sure you were another one claiming I couldn't back up my argument about Chicago and Detroit. After I did, you had nothing to say. Good arguments aren't accepted by you people, they're ignored when it conflicts with your ideology.

If you seriously think that you backed up your assertion about "all the liberal policies" and their effects on Chicago and Detroit, then I have no choice but to conclude that you are not cognitively capable of making a good argument.

But yeah, "my party kicked your asses" is stupid and puerile for the very reasons Social Justice Darkstar laid out. I notice you didn't respond to his well-reasoned and not-trolly post. Seems like you ignore the substantive responses to your posts, react only to the negative ones that allow you to maintain this fiction of yourself as a martyred conservative in a sea of mean liberals, and walk away with your cognitive dissonance and highly inflated self-worth intact. Selah.

[theprincethatwasntpromised]

That actually prompts another question for me, does Boehner continue to have the House Majority Leader position or does someone finally take it off him? Taking the Senate and holding the house could be read as them being ascendant enough for someone to decide it's worth their while, but I still don't even know who would try? Cantor is gone after all...

Yeah I couldn't believe that not only did the voters not punish them, there seemed to be such certainty that no one would even care about it that from over here I didn't even hear it brought up as an issue? Did the Dems mention it at all?

I don't know about the shutdown. But I heard somewhere that most exit polls showed voters were frustrated with both Obama and congress. Americans don't like gridlock but it doesn't seem to matter what combination of politicians we elect, that's what we get. Lately, the only way to get anything done is for one side or the other to get full power. IMO, Americans don't like that either.

[TrackerNeil]

Logically, I would agree with you. Unfortunately, experience teachers a completely different lesson. There was anger at the Republicans over the shutdown. They certainly took hits in the polls for several months afterwards and the overall ratings for congress have never recovered. Despite this, Republicans faced zero electoral consequences for the shutdown In fact, they gained significant seats on both houses. The lesson from yesterday is that they can get away with this kind of stunt and not only not hurt themselves come election time but possible improve their position. They just need sufficient time to recover from the initial fall-out. If their is a limit to what extremes they can go without the electorate punishing them for it, we have not found them yet.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Republicans gained seats because of structural factors, nothing more. Not messaging, not Democratic ineptitude. Those factors will in 2016 favor the Democrats.

[Shryke]

That actually prompts another question for me, does Boehner continue to have the House Majority Leader position or does someone finally take it off him? Taking the Senate and holding the house could be read as them being ascendant enough for someone to decide it's worth their while, but I still don't even know who would try? Cantor is gone after all...

Well, there might be another attempted coup like last time. Personally, I don't see it going any better. No one else wants the job while simultaneously having enough support to get it. Hell, I don't even think Boehner wants the job. :P

Yeah I couldn't believe that not only did the voters not punish them, there seemed to be such certainty that no one would even care about it that from over here I didn't even hear it brought up as an issue? Did the Dems mention it at all?

Voters have short memories or didn't vote this midterm. They knew this when they did it.

[TerraPrime]

[mod hat]

Take a hint from the posts that were deleted and lay off the personal stuff for a bit, yes?

[/mod hat]

[Shryke]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Republicans gained seats because of structural factors, nothing more. Not messaging, not Democratic ineptitude. Those factors will in 2016 favor the Democrats.

I don't think it's that simple. The Democrats also made alot of mistakes. Their national campaigning system is some combination of corrupt and incompetent. The left in America has always been 20 steps behind the right when it comes to seizing political power.

The Republican party may be a collection of bigoted contemptible shitbags, but they know that power rests at all levels and they work hard to grab it at all those levels and organize across the entire US to do so.

The only comparable thing on the left is Obama and his campaign mastery of the presidential primary and electoral system that let him spank Hillary, McCain and Romney handily.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't think it's that simple. The Democrats also made alot of mistakes.

Those mistakes being?