U.S. Politics, 12

[Old Nan]

putting [his] testicles in an unwilling participants mouth

Barack Obama will be reelected

What's the difference?

[awesome possum]

What's the difference?

Trolls will be shamed back to hiding under their rocks for a little while?

[Old Nan]

Obama has ludicrously little in the way of Rule 34 imagery. All I've got to say is, well said.

[Inigima]

They needed those votes though. They needed 60 votes in the Senate and they did not have it. So they had to appease either Republicans or capitulate to Lieberman and Nelson.

This is true, which is why I said they lack party discipline. The Republicans are able to toe the party line more or less on command, and the Democrats are not. Partly this is because Democratic leadership is weak -- more in the Senate than in the house -- and partly it is because the Democrats like to have a lot of members with (D) after their names regardless of their politics, so their caucus is all over the map ideologically. The Democrats "had" 60 votes, but they didn't really because huge swathes of them -- the Blue Dogs, Joe Lieberman -- aren't in line with party ideology. 60 Republican votes and 60 Democratic votes just aren't the same thing.

I'm not saying the Democrats should be the Borg, but the way they currently operate, they cannot govern effectively in the face of concerted opposition.

Even if you didn't think that the Democrats have to compromise with the Repubs and teabaggers on the legislations passed, the reality is that they still have to reach compromise with other Democrats. You can't run away from the fact that not all Democrats are far-left liberals who wants the investment banks nationalized and single-payer healthcare system.

Wake up, or let teabaggers like zap and flow decide who will sit on Congress.

They had to compromise with the Republicans because of the above. And they wasted a lot of time doing it, and each time they supposedly had a deal someone would torpedo it, wasting more time and wringing ever more concessions out of the Democrats. And still they went back for more punishment. We ended up with a bill no one is really happy with that was used to bludgeon Dems electorally on Tuesday.

We don't gain anything by dividing ourselves this much ideologically -- we're not really much better off with some Democrats in office than we would be with Republicans in office, and in some ways it's worse because "Democrats have x votes" so of course this is their fault. I don't want to go on a "purify the party" streak, god knows that doesn't end well, but it's unbelievably frustrating watching my party welcome with open arms people who are going to be just as much of a pain in the ass as the opposition party.

[Lightning Lord]

Obama has ludicrously little in the way of Rule 34 imagery. All I've got to say is, well said.

The British are going to start running their parties in our system? Sweet. The uneducated will vote for their conservative party and we'll still move left.

(Old Nan and your sign: Liberal =/= Democrat)

[ThinkerX]

What just about everybody in this thread seems to have missed is that people were not so much voting for Republicans as they were against the status quo. Consider - congress has something like an 80% disaproval rating - and that includes *BOTH* parties. There is an immense amount of anger amongst the populace - enough anger to potentially bring down the entire system.

[Swordfish]

The budget will be very interesting, both to see if the GOP will submit one that is balanced, and whether Reid can convince enough Dems (Nelson/Manchin/Webb/Conrad are all up in 2012) to vote against it.

Wouldn't you really need to know how it gets balanced before you decided whether you wanted the dems to vote against it?

[Shryke]

This is true, which is why I said they lack party discipline. The Republicans are able to toe the party line more or less on command, and the Democrats are not. Partly this is because Democratic leadership is weak -- more in the Senate than in the house -- and partly it is because the Democrats like to have a lot of members with (D) after their names regardless of their politics, so their caucus is all over the map ideologically. The Democrats "had" 60 votes, but they didn't really because huge swathes of them -- the Blue Dogs, Joe Lieberman -- aren't in line with party ideology. 60 Republican votes and 60 Democratic votes just aren't the same thing.

I'm not saying the Democrats should be the Borg, but the way they currently operate, they cannot govern effectively in the face of concerted opposition.

They had to compromise with the Republicans because of the above. And they wasted a lot of time doing it, and each time they supposedly had a deal someone would torpedo it, wasting more time and wringing ever more concessions out of the Democrats. And still they went back for more punishment. We ended up with a bill no one is really happy with that was used to bludgeon Dems electorally on Tuesday.

We don't gain anything by dividing ourselves this much ideologically -- we're not really much better off with some Democrats in office than we would be with Republicans in office, and in some ways it's worse because "Democrats have x votes" so of course this is their fault. I don't want to go on a "purify the party" streak, god knows that doesn't end well, but it's unbelievably frustrating watching my party welcome with open arms people who are going to be just as much of a pain in the ass as the opposition party.

We are better off though.

Complain as much as you want about a guy like Lieberman (he did essentially kill the public option's last chance), he voted YES on Health Care and someone like Olympia Snow (considered a "liberal" Republican) didn't. And that's what really counted.

The prevailing philosophy back when alot of these guys got elected (and still arguably to this day) was that only a Blue Dog could win those seats, otherwise they'd go to the GOP. And a Blue Dog is better then a Republican. Their most important vote is to give Democrats control of the House/Senate.

Now sure, they do undermine the Democrats credibility to some extent as the Dems look more powerful then they actually are. But still, Health Care passed, even if they didn't get credit for it. And that's a hell of alot better then the nothing that would have gotten passed if they hadn't had those Blue Dogs on board.

Which isn't a defense of the way the Democrats run their party of course. They really need to crack the whip more. But the thing is, the only way to do that is Message Control. You need to get your message out there because that provides your weaker members with the political cover they need to support you.

And it sometimes works bottom up instead of top down, where a candidate gets enough public support on their own to force the party to acknowledge them. But either way, you get the voters to swallow your message and that gives you the ammo to twist arms and get shit done. You need that strong message control and message delivery. That's what Republicans do.

Well that and they have a much tighter hold on the party purse strings. They practically grab your balls in a vice and make you vote. I remember one vote where the party whip was literally standing over certain members shoulders making sure they voted properly. One, as I remember, was crying while doing it because he didn't really want to but had no choice.

[Shryke]

Speaking of the Budget, here's a really nice graph of the 2010 one and the propsed 2011 one: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/02/01/us/budget.html

The deficit, btw, was ~$1.171 trillion in 2010 and ~$1.267 trillion in 2011 I believe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_United_States_federal_budget

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_United_States_federal_budget

Just to give you an idea if you wanna try and balance that.

Hide Mandatory Spending for maximum lolz. :)

[alguien]

I was too busy celebrating that I almost forgot to ask the resident Obama supporters a couple of questions.

Did you enjoy being teabagged last night?

Looking forward to another round in two years?

Hope! Change!

Meh. Instead of political commentary, why don't you fantasize about making out with Hitler? That seems to be your strong suit.

[Zap Rowsdower]

/looks at Delaware, Nevada, Alaska, Colorado...

I think you are confused about who got Tea Bagged here. :lol:

I dunno, will this be in your warped fantasy world where being an adult and putting your testicles in an unwilling participants mouth is still considered not just funny but a valid political platform... or in reality, where Barack Obama will be reelected for a second term as president?

Meh. Instead of political commentary, why don't you fantasize about making out with Hitler? That seems to be your strong suit.

Awwwwww, too bad. People like you are perfectly happy to throw out the insulting term "teabagger," but you get all huffy when the term is thrown back at you. Well, you know what they say about people who can't stand the heat, and about shoes being on different feet.

Hey, I just remembered- didn't Obama's Senate seat go Republican as well? Didn't the GOP candidate lie horribly about his military record? And the Democrat still lost? Wow, talk about an amazing display of utter failure. Why, you might say Obama himself was teabagged on Tuesday.

Haw. Haw.

Here's some more salt that I hope will act as a soothing balm on your raw wounds:

The Impact of the 2010 Elections on the Impending Redistricting Process

1. Republicans have more state legislative seats than at any point since 1928.

2. The Alabama House and Senate, Indiana House, Iowa House, Maine House and Senate, Michigan House, Minnesota House and Senate, Montana House, New Hampshire House and Senate, North Carolina House and Senate, Ohio House, the Pennsylvania House, and the Wisconsin Assembly and Senate all have flipped from Democrat to Republican. See results and a map from the National Conference of State legislatures.

3. Although a few House races remain too close to call, it appears that since 2002 about 105 congressional seats (24% of total) have had a Republican and a Democrat representative at some point in the redistricting cycle. I don't know how this compares to previous cycles, but the number of "switches" over the course of the decade gives a sense as to how successful the 2002 gerrymanders were. As far as I can tell, one cannot say that incumbents in states with bipartisan or incumbent-protecting gerrymanders were safer than those in partisan gerrymandered states. I think this is true even accounting for the fact that "in-party" members might have been placed a greater risk than "out party" members in partisan gerrymandered states. In other words, although in some states partisans spread their supporters to thinly and therefore lost seats as a result, that was not uniformly true (compare Pennsylvania with Florida). Nor was it consistently the case that incumbent-protecting gerrymanders were equally successful (compare California with New York).

4. My best guess, however, from the lessons learned this redistricting cycle is that we should expect even greater incumbent protection in the upcoming redistricting as Republicans cement their gains, particularly in the Midwest where they will control the process, rather than seek out new opportunities. (As many have written, bipartisan gerrymanders are sometimes the most rational and successful form of partisan gerrymandering.) New opportunities will come their way, in any event, when the census reveals reapportionment totals that transfer seats from the Northeast and Midwest to the South and Southwest. Texas, for example, may gain four new congressional seats. (Note, however, Florida passed a redistricting initiative that, by its terms, attempts to constrain the use of partisanship or incumbency in the linedrawing process.)

What Tuesday Means for Redistricting

As the red-eye flights of recount lawyers touch down Wednesday morning, attention will inevitably flow to the federal races still in overtime. But there is a bloody redistricting cycle just ahead with the potential to lock down Tuesday's gains for the GOP. And for those looking for ripples from yesterday's elections, there are a few state races, still too close to call, that deserve more attention for their impact on redistricting than they normally receive.

A little context to convey the magnitude of Tuesday's political shift -- and the stakes of the elections still undecided -- for the coming redistricting cycle:

In 2001:

- 121 Congressional seats were drawn in states where Democrats controlled the redistricting process;

- 95 seats were drawn in states where Republicans controlled the redistricting process; and

- 212 seats were drawn in states with divided control. (7 states have one district apiece.)

In 2011, based on the preliminary unofficial returns thus far from Tuesday's elections (nice summary here), and projections for the size of each state's 2012 Congressional delegation (contesting sources here and here):

- 189 Congressional seats will be drawn in states where Republicans are likely to control the redistricting process;

- 26 seats will be drawn in states where Democrats are likely to control the process;

- 145 seats will be drawn in states with divided control . . . and

- 68 seats, more or less, await the results of races that were too close to call early Wednesday morning.

Tuesday's other big results for redistricting

So much for the races with lingering uncertainty. Tuesday also brought some very conclusive elections -- with some immense consequences for redistricting.

California: Though Democrats retook unified control of the political process, the voters took redistricting out of that equation. Absent a big change in Prop 20's preliminary returns, California's independent commission -- originally established to draw state legislative lines -- will now draw the 53 Congressional districts for the state.

Texas: By staving off a gubernatorial challenge and taking commanding control of the state House, Republicans will have unified control over the drawing of what will likely be 35 Congressional districts.

Florida: Though Prop 6 sets some additional standards for Congressional redistricting, we won't have to wait for the outcome of the Governor's race to determine political control of the redistricting process: by my count, the Republican legislative supermajorities are now veto-proof.

Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania: By retaking control of the state Houses and Governor's mansions, Republicans have unified control of the process in all three big states. Even though each is likely to lose Congressional seats based on the census, there will still probably be at least 48 seats to be redrawn here.

North Carolina: Here, the Governor is not formally involved in redistricting: by retaking the state legislature, the GOP will have complete control of the redistricting process.

And here is a pretty, pretty map for your delectation:

Republicans Make Historic Gains

Gee wizz, goshers, and golly. After only two years in office Obama and his corrupt cronies have managed to not only reenergize the GOP but to hand it all the tools it needs to fortify and strengthen itself for a decade to come. That's what I call quality leadership.

Haw. Haw.

Once again, I hope all Obama supporters enjoyed their teabagging experience on Tuesday.

Here's to many more of the same!

Hope! Change!

[Shryke]

Apparently Zap loves gerrymandering. Who knew?

[The Marquis de Leech]

Then again, the crosstabs say it all: Fuck. Old. People.

The thing about old people these days is that most of them aren't actually old enough to have an adult memory of the Depression. Old people these days are the sort of people who came of age in the 1950s, thus you're getting a more right-wing brand of elderly than you were twenty or thirty years ago.

[Shryke]

Hey, found this little gem about everyone's favorite, Rand Paul:

http://www.randpaul2010.com/2010/04/ky-right-to-life-%E2%80%93-rand-paul-100-pro-life-%E2%80%93-see-for-yourself/

Guess who wants to jail any of those sluts who abort the babies they got from incestuous rape?

Come on, guess.

[Altherion]

Seriously? You are saying this with a straight face?

Absolutely. Everybody favored some sort of reform. You seem to be under the impression that the Republicans are an extension of Wall Street whereas the Democrats are champions of the people, but this is very far from the truth. Wall Street gives a lot of money to both parties and both parties reward it accordingly. Again, look at Obama's economic team.

Obama didn't "keep it below what it could have been" firstly because Obama is the President and thus not part of the legislature. And secondly because popular sentiment only has so much effect on what is passable in the Senate. The GOP fought any financial reform every step of the way.

The GOP fought everything every step of the way -- that was their strategy. The point is that a real leader would have found a way. The GOP is not monolithic; there were 40 individuals with whom Obama could negotiate with and at least 3 have bases that are not that different from the Democrats. Presidents that we remember somehow managed to deal with Congress. Obama either failed or didn't really try.

[Zap Rowsdower]

Apparently Zap loves gerrymandering. Who knew?

I can see why you would think that. Its so very easy to assume that since I choose to support the GOP this election season I'd support extensive gerrymandering. It is, after all, exactly what you and others like you would do if the situation were reversed and the Democrats had won. You may deny it, but forgive me if have cause to doubt that someone who expresses the sentiment that everyone who didn't vote for upholding the corrupt status quo should be killed, would be unwilling to gerrymander each and every state into a topsy turvy wonderland. Of late it has became painfully obvious that liberals hold a deep and abiding love of hypocrisy; spitting venomous hatred at conservatives when they wage dishonest wars abroad and curtail freedoms at home yet happily clicking their heels and goosestepping into line whenever their president does the exact same thing. Why, these liberals become almost caricatures of human beings, howling and braying at anyone who has the utter gall to suggest that authoritarianism is just as bad when Democrats do it. So, as I said, I can see why you would think that.

But no.

My actual position on gerrymandering is that is is unhealthy for democracy. Ideally, I would prefer that right and left leaning states come to some sort of agreement or exchange. If one state were to agree to nonpolitical redistricting another state would agree to the same thing.

But that is neither here nor there. Under the current system of every politician for himself it is to be expected that the GOP will try to make their seats "safer". Just as the Democrats would if they had won this election cycle.

I had a twofold purpose in posting those links regarding redistricting and how the Republican tsunami will influence it.

First of all, I frankly wanted to again stress how abysmally Democrats had failed.

You haven't forgotten that you guys lost and lost badly, have you?

Every Obama supporter and Obama himself metaphorically teabagged?

If you look up failure in the dictionary you'll see a picture of Obama himself?

It hasn't slipped your mind yet, has it, that you've just been teabagged?

I'm just preserving the historical record. Nothing personal against all you folks who have been so recently teabagged. It's just the sort of guy I am. Think of it sort of as a memory aid, red ribbon around your finger, courtesy of good old uncle Rowsdower.

Secondly, those links and quotes were meant to be a rebuttal to the post in which you seemed to imply that the Democrats hadn't been thrashed soundly and that the Tea Party had nothing to do with the thrashing. These assertions are farcical. Only the dimmest of the dim or the most dishonest would fail to comprehend that reviving the GOP, which was moribund after Hurricane Bush, in just two short years is a remarkable accomplishment.

Large majorities in Congress are difficult to maintain for the simple reason that there are more seats to defend. Even if Obama hadn't been a corrupt douchebag he would have lost some seats. Just not as many. The Senate has always been more difficult to change, so in this alternate dimension where Obama wasn't an empty suit, maybe one or two senate seats might have been lost. The GOP might have jumped closer to parity in the House but they'd probably fall short of the majority.

But that didn't happen, did it?

You guys fucked up and were fucked up in turn.

I know you're probably having a hard time remembering it, what with your recent traumatizing teabagging experience overshadowing all other thoughts, but can you recall two years ago when the Democratic Party seemed invincible and president unassailable? And the conservatives were outcasts, shunned, reviled? Richard III could have run against a Republican and won.

Hell, the GOP is still shunned and reviled by the electorate and you still lost.

You went from that to this in just two years.

From the bottom of my heart, sincerely, and with love:

Congratulations on your massive failure.

God Almighty, this was a fun post to write.

[Shryke]

Absolutely. Everybody favored some sort of reform. You seem to be under the impression that the Republicans are an extension of Wall Street whereas the Democrats are champions of the people, but this is very far from the truth. Wall Street gives a lot of money to both parties and both parties reward it accordingly. Again, look at Obama's economic team.

Find me these Republicans for real financial reform then.

They were "for it" the way they were for the stimulus. (ie - they didn't want real reform or real stimulus, they just viewed it as a platform to push their own agenda)

The GOP fought everything every step of the way -- that was their strategy. The point is that a real leader would have found a way. The GOP is not monolithic; there were 40 individuals with whom Obama could negotiate with and at least 3 have bases that are not that different from the Democrats. Presidents that we remember somehow managed to deal with Congress. Obama either failed or didn't really try.

Except this ignores the changing face of congress. Specifically, changing towards more and more obstructionist with every year. You can easily find the stats to see the trend. The GOP is extremely monolithic these days. The voting records and filibuster numbers and such say it all on that front.

And the really funny thing here is you can't seem to put 2 and 2 together. The two things you are complaining about are mutually exclusive. Negotiating to get those extra Republican votes is why the financial reform was less then it could have been. That's how they got them on board.

You can't simultaneously complain that the reform wasn't good enough while also complaining that Reid/Obama/etc should have negotiated with the GOP more (or with the fiscally conservative Dems more). One is a result of the other.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Ormond,

Although it's the first time both haven't flipped at a midterm election since 1930. They had a little segment about that on NPR's All Things Considered tonight. Considering what happened after 1930 (the Depression got much worse) that sounded a bit ominous.

When you say "flipped" do you mean control of both houses changed? Because if you do that is, again, incorrect. The 40 years prior to 1994 the HoR was exclusively controlled by the Democratic Party. From 1994-2006 the HoR was controlled by the Republican Party. Therefore, for any number of midterms both the Senate and the House did not have party control change. Either I'm not understanding the meaning of the word "Flipped" or someone really screwed up their fact checking on this story. You can't even say at least one house of Congress has flipped in every midterm election considering the Senate was controlled by the Republicans from 1994-2001 covering several midterms while they were in control of the House of Representatives from 1994-2006. Not to mention a 25 year period of Democratic control of the Senate during the 4 decade period of Democratic control over the HoR.

Where is this misinformation coming from?

Here's a Wiki with a graph that illustrates my point:

http://en.wikipedia....rol_of_congress

It's moderately unusual, in the last 60 years, for control of the HoR to change. Now in the last 15-20 years it's gotten more volatile. However, what you say NPR said is clearly not true.

[Guest Raidne]

Hey, I just remembered- didn't Obama's Senate seat go Republican as well? Didn't the GOP candidate lie horribly about his military record? And the Democrat still lost? Wow, talk about an amazing display of utter failure. Why, you might say Obama himself was teabagged on Tuesday.

I could be crazy, but I'm pretty sure Obama's senate seat always favored Republicans, but when he ran, Jack Ryan's political career imploded in that less-than-savory sex club scandal (nothing like your wife crying in divorce court about being "forced" to attend such clubs to "save the marriage" to make you look good to conservative voters). Then they picked up that perpetual also-ran, Alan Keyes, to fill the void. Who was from Maryland. Uh huh.

So, I'm not surprised that the seat went Republican as soon as the party could drum up an actual Illinois resident that's not a pervert.

And I'm not the slightest bit worried. In fact, man am I looking forward to watching the Republican-led house implode over the next two years. Does better things for Obama's chances at re-election than anything the Democrats could possibly do.

I wish I could archive this and throw it back it up here in 2 years because, mark my words, this is precisely what's going to happen.

[Altherion]

Except this ignores the changing face of congress. Specifically, changing towards more and more obstructionist with every year. You can easily find the stats to see the trend. The GOP is extremely monolithic these days. The voting records and filibuster numbers and such say it all on that front.

It's only obstructionist for people who are not good at persuading others. For example, G.W. Bush had only the slightest of advantages in the Senate in 2002 (it was split 50-50), but he managed to get the majority of Democracts (29 Senators) to join with Republicans in giving him carte blanche for the war with Iraq. The premises of the argument for war were false and the exit strategy was not clear (if it existed at all...), but Bush managed to get strong bipartisan support for it anyway.

And the really funny thing here is you can't seem to put 2 and 2 together. The two things you are complaining about are mutually exclusive. Negotiating to get those extra Republican votes is why the financial reform was less then it could have been. That's how they got them on board.

You can't simultaneously complain that the reform wasn't good enough while also complaining that Reid/Obama/etc should have negotiated with the GOP more (or with the fiscally conservative Dems more). One is a result of the other.

You are missing the point. The complaint is that they failed at negotiation and they failed at promoting their ideas. Both the scope of the legislation and the bare minimum by which it passed are direct consequences of that. They could not get the GOP (or even some of their own!) to play along without paying a high price and even that did not bring anyone else onboard. At least one of the reasons for both is that they did not get people to accept their ideas -- one of the main planks of the GOP's platform this year was the repeal of the health care law.