What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Kepler said:
I don't think we're any more SOL now than we've ever been. Democracy means always being about to slide into the abyss. Or alternately, it's the terror that your neighbor who can't even remember trash day does remember Election Day.

The parents* of the people on 16 and Pregnant vote. If you think about that for more than a full minute you'll go crazy.

(* actually, that's probably a great Critical Test for whether you're liberal or conservative. Whatever you assume those people vote, you're the opposite. I'm personally dead solid certain that the vast majority of those people are Palinites. :) )
Click to expand...
The fact that there's a show with that name is a good illustration of why I don't have a TV in my house. ew.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

geezer said:
You're absolutely right. The biggest "serious problem" being the size of the debt/deficit, which isn't going to be solved by tax cuts. We're looking for politicians serious about cutting spending, and I fear they're not in the offing. The carnage will therefore continue, and I'm no longer sure Obama will serve two terms (even assuming a continued slow recovery, I give him a 50-50 chance; a double dip in 2011 -likely if the Bush tax cuts expire- will probably end his chances).
Click to expand...

I think the "no one is serious about cutting spending" card is a little overplayed. Look at some of the candidates Republicans have put forward this cycle. Paul Ryan, who will (Lord willing) head the Budget committee, has a plan to dramatically cut spending. Mike Lee, Republican candidate in Utah, wants to slash 40% off the budget. Joe Miller and Rand Paul are committed to weaning their pork loving states off the pork.

Now, you might not like these particular plans, but you can't say they don't have plans.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

WeWantMore said:
I think the "no one is serious about cutting spending" card is a little overplayed. Look at some of the candidates Republicans have put forward this cycle. Paul Ryan, who will (Lord willing) head the Budget committee, has a plan to dramatically cut spending. Mike Lee, Republican candidate in Utah, wants to slash 40% off the budget. Joe Miller and Rand Paul are committed to weaning their pork loving states off the pork.

Now, you might not like these particular plans, but you can't say they don't have plans.
Click to expand...

The only way it's possible is if they aren't interested in being re-elected. You could have a bunch of Senators and Congressmen unilaterally disarm --simply, not make requests for their states. They can't influence their peers because they have no leverage and because they won't be around long, but for a brief moment they could materially affect spending.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Kepler said:
I don't think we're any more SOL now than we've ever been. Democracy means always being about to slide into the abyss. Or alternately, it's the terror that your neighbor who can't even remember trash day does remember Election Day.

The parents* of the people on 16 and Pregnant vote. If you think about that for more than a full minute you'll go crazy.

(* actually, that's probably a great Critical Test for whether you're liberal or conservative. Whatever you assume those people vote, you're the opposite. I'm personally dead solid certain that the vast majority of those people are Palinites. :) )
Click to expand...

"I was watching a television program before, with a kind of roving moderator who spoke to a seated panel of young women who were having some sort of problem with their boyfriends - apparently, because the boyfriends had all slept with the girlfriends' mothers. And they brought the boyfriends out, and they fought, right there on television. Toby, tell me: these people don't vote, do they?"
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

geezer said:
When Americans are surveyed, far more claim to be conservative than liberal. Conservatism is relatively politically inactive by definition. So among voters, about equal numbers are conservative and liberal because of the large numbers of conservative people that aren't interested in voting. So the government always has been and always will be more liberal ("activist"/"progressive") than the population.
Click to expand...

I think kep made the point. The left just isn't hung up on labels. They don't go around pronouncing themselves as liberals nearly the way conservatives do. Upon election, how many on the right referred to Obama as 'socialist'? Lots. How many on the left referred to W as a Nazi? Few. They're equally untrue...but the right somehow is drawn to labels whether accurate or not.

geezer said:
You might be arguing about the US having a liberal government (true) vs. a conservative populace (also true) in general.
In years like this when legislation swings way over to the left and 3 trillion is added to the debt for a negative benefit, it brings out a slightly more accurate representation of the people's wishes in the election, because a larger overall percentage of voters will get off their butts.
Click to expand...

At least spending has a reason now...to stimulate the economy. When legislation swings way to the right and the deficit baloons...there's far less upside.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Kepler said:
People who favor liberal causes don't think they're being "progressive" unless they're obnoxious college students. They think it's just ordinary common sense.
Click to expand...

I know a few of those...

Seriously, is there any word more overused by the left than "progressive"? I know it's a way to try to get around the stigma associated with "liberal," but for god's sake, I hear people talk about their "progressive" platform on everything from bike paths to health-care reform to the military.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

unofan said:
I know a few of those...

Seriously, is there any word more overused by the left than "progressive"? I know it's a way to try to get around the stigma associated with "liberal," but for god's sake, I hear people talk about their "progressive" platform on everything from bike paths to health-care reform to the military.
Click to expand...

I hear it a lot less than conservative, or contructionist. So, yeah that ones overused by the left but they don't overuse terms at the same rate the right does. Once the right grabs a label they ram it down your throat til you bleed.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Did anyone start a prediction thread or should we just whip 'em out here?;)
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

ScoobyDoo said:
I hear it a lot less than conservative, or contructionist. So, yeah that ones overused by the left but they don't overuse terms at the same rate the right does. Once the right grabs a label they ram it down your throat til you bleed.
Click to expand...

Not around here. Here it's either liberals ramming the term 'progressive' down your throat, or conservatives talking about getting government spending and taxes under control and getting government out of our personal lives. Around here the right is being very careful to not use any labels on themselves.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Dems odds on holding on to the Senate are dropping on Intrade and with UK bookmakers.

So long as we're playing the prediction game, I'd like to hear what level of gains you liberals feel like the GOP would have to achieve to admit that a tiny bit of this may have to do with Obama?
 
Last edited:
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

WeWantMore said:
Dems odds on holding on to the Senate are dropping on Intrade and with UK bookmakers.
Click to expand...
That's a great buy at $43! Too bad I'm not a gambler.
WeWantMore said:
So long as we're playing the prediction game, I'd like to hear what level of gains you liberals feel like the GOP would have to achieve to admit that a tiny bit of this may have to do with Obama?
Click to expand...
I feel like it's a referendum on a single-party government more than anything. If Republicans use a house majority to increase their influence on legislation that Obama signs, I think it'll improve his reelection chances.

Starting to see an interesting setup from some liberal columnists and bloggers, saying that the GOP is poised to pick up 70 or more seats. That way a more likely 50-55 pickup can be called a disappointing loss on Wednesday. lol
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

WeWantMore said:
Dems odds on holding on to the Senate are dropping on Intrade and with UK bookmakers.

So long as we're playing the prediction game, I'd like to hear what level of gains you liberals feel like the GOP would have to achieve to admit that a tiny bit of this may have to do with Obama?
Click to expand...

From my perspective this years election has always been a referendum on Obama. But more than that it is a referendum on two extremes pulling at both ends to the point that the middle is so frayed it moves back and forth never finding a home.

If the GOP wins both Houses there may not be any legislation at all the next 2 years. If the GOP wins the House and gets closer to equal in the Senate there may be some ability to compromise. We'll see.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

WeWantMore said:
Dems odds on holding on to the Senate are dropping on Intrade and with UK bookmakers.

So long as we're playing the prediction game, I'd like to hear what level of gains you liberals feel like the GOP would have to achieve to admit that a tiny bit of this may have to do with Obama?
Click to expand...

Honestly very little. The top issues are jobs, debt, jobs, terrorism, and jobs. No matter how much crap people get for saying so, people are running scared this time around. They don't want to hear it, but it's true.

Considering heads of state, like quarterbacks and/or head coaches, get too much credit for successes and too much blame for failures, it's only Obama's fault to the extent that he picked a ****ty time to be President. Short of getting a 21st century New Deal/PWA through Congress (good luck with that), there's very little Obama can do about the jobs.

So in this instance, I think the blame is correctly falling on Congress. People gave the Dems a huge house advantage and a fillibuster proof Senate, and they couldn't get jack done. So the default of gridlock is going to be restored.
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

unofan said:
Honestly very little. The top issues are jobs, debt, jobs, terrorism, and jobs. No matter how much crap people get for saying so, people are running scared this time around. They don't want to hear it, but it's true.

Considering heads of state, like quarterbacks and/or head coaches, get too much credit for successes and too much blame for failures, it's only Obama's fault to the extent that he picked a ****ty time to be President. Short of getting a 21st century New Deal/PWA through Congress (good luck with that), there's very little Obama can do about the jobs.

So in this instance, I think the blame is correctly falling on Congress. People gave the Dems a huge house advantage and a fillibuster proof Senate, and they couldn't get jack done. So the default of gridlock is going to be restored.
Click to expand...

Right, that's what I'm asking. Even if we agree on all that you've just typed, is there a point at which you think people are actually moving past being mad at Congress and are mad at Obama?
As discussed in the Obama thread, when the economy is bad, the President's party loses seats. I guess a better way of asking is: At what point does Democrats being voted out go beyond just the economy? 60 seats? 70 seats?
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

Although, let's be honest everybody. Tell me you're not rooting for 50-50 in the Senate. IT'S BIDEN TIME!
 
Re: Death to the Incumbent! Part Two: Now with more Death.

WeWantMore said:
Right, that's what I'm asking. Even if we agree on all that you've just typed, is there a point at which you think people are actually moving past being mad at Congress and are mad at Obama?
As discussed in the Obama thread, when the economy is bad, the President's party loses seats. I guess a better way of asking is: At what point does Democrats being voted out go beyond just the economy? 60 seats? 70 seats?
Click to expand...

I couldn't tell you because i think this election is entirely about the economy. I also can't empathize with the "my life sucks, and it's [x's] fault" crowd on any sort of personal level, so I admittedly have no way of gauging just how strong that particular brand of derp is. Although I do recognize that derp is strong enough that several Iowa judges from the trial level to the supreme court are going to find themselves jobless come Wed. for no good reason.

I guess I'll put it this way.
In my head, the Dems will lose probably 20 seats just because its an off-year (non-presidential) election. The rest i attribute solely to the economy. I realize that's probably not accurate, but I have no basis for gauging any "Obama" effect that can't otherwise be lumped into one of the first two categories.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top