dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Whose? Because I know you're not talking about Obama...
Whose? Because I know you're not talking about Obama...
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.
Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
- Thread starter dxmnkd316
- Start date
- Status
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I think the argument is most clear on stimulus. If they had gone after a bigger stimulus (like many suggested would be necessary), they'd be facing the same negative aspect of the deficit/spending issue - the political difference between an $800 billion stimulus and a $1.3 trillion stimulus is negligible - you're going to get hammered either way. However, if they had passed a bigger bill and avoided caving to the Republicans on some of the rather worthless tax cuts that were in it (that didn't win any votes, by the way), you can make the argument (as Krugman et al have) that the bigger stimulus would have stopped the bleeding, just as the current stimulus did, and also kick-started the economy.
That vote would be a much easier pill to swallow if unemployment were at 7.6% right now... That's the point. And if unemployment were at that point, the Republicans still make some gains but not nearly as much and the Dems still have a chance to hold the House - but barely.
That's the argument. You can buy it or leave it.
I think the argument is most clear on stimulus. If they had gone after a bigger stimulus (like many suggested would be necessary), they'd be facing the same negative aspect of the deficit/spending issue - the political difference between an $800 billion stimulus and a $1.3 trillion stimulus is negligible - you're going to get hammered either way. However, if they had passed a bigger bill and avoided caving to the Republicans on some of the rather worthless tax cuts that were in it (that didn't win any votes, by the way), you can make the argument (as Krugman et al have) that the bigger stimulus would have stopped the bleeding, just as the current stimulus did, and also kick-started the economy.
That vote would be a much easier pill to swallow if unemployment were at 7.6% right now... That's the point. And if unemployment were at that point, the Republicans still make some gains but not nearly as much and the Dems still have a chance to hold the House - but barely.
That's the argument. You can buy it or leave it.
Foxton
Banned
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Yes, actually, I am.
Yes, actually, I am.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delusions
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Really? I've written on this subject. Have you?
Really? I've written on this subject. Have you?
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Low Democrat turnout is a myth. Voter breakdown in 2006, when the Democrats took 31 seats and re-claimed a majority in the House and Senate: 38% Dem, 36% Rep, 28% Ind. This year? 36/36/28. And in both years, the Democrats who did vote voted extremely heavily for Democrats (93% in 2006, 92% in 2010). The only significant difference in the elections is the behavior of Independents, who broke heavily for the Dems in 2006 and for the GOP in 2010.
Low Democrat turnout is a myth. Voter breakdown in 2006, when the Democrats took 31 seats and re-claimed a majority in the House and Senate: 38% Dem, 36% Rep, 28% Ind. This year? 36/36/28. And in both years, the Democrats who did vote voted extremely heavily for Democrats (93% in 2006, 92% in 2010). The only significant difference in the elections is the behavior of Independents, who broke heavily for the Dems in 2006 and for the GOP in 2010.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Wow. You've "written on this subject"? Teach us more!
Wow. You've "written on this subject"? Teach us more!
unofan
Well-known member
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I was shocked that Iowa's ballots have an option to fill one circle for a straight party line vote. Because lord knows it's too much effort to actually go through each race individually.
Thankfully, I think only about 2% or so actually used that option.
I was shocked that Iowa's ballots have an option to fill one circle for a straight party line vote. Because lord knows it's too much effort to actually go through each race individually.
Thankfully, I think only about 2% or so actually used that option.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I have. I addressed the "ideologue" concept elsewhere. However, it's quite apparent that a fair number here aren't concerned with reality, but their own contrived dream world.
I have. I addressed the "ideologue" concept elsewhere. However, it's quite apparent that a fair number here aren't concerned with reality, but their own contrived dream world.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Last edited:
bigblue_dl
Armed
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I've written about quantum string theory before, therefore I'm an expert on it. I have the McDonald's napkin to prove it.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Of course, any national average of voter turnout by party is a rather useless stat, since each individual house or senate race is far more important - particularly in the House, where the smaller districts mean slight advantages can swing in big ways.
While I get that article's desire to compare one midterm election (2006) to another (2010), I'm not sure that's the right way to frame this - particularly for the House, since everyone in the House was up for election last year.
This was the most interesting chart I've seen on the changes in the House:
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/11/back_to_basics_districts_and_d.html
Was Dem turnout down compared to '06? Maybe not, but it most certainly was compared to '08, and that's when a lot of these guys won their seats. You can see all those bright red dots of Democrats who lost their seats in districts that only voted for Obama marginally in '08.
Lower turnout in midterm elections is a fairly common pattern for both parties, and it's a big part of the reason why the sitting President, regardless of party, tends to lose seats in midterms - when members of your party in swing districts can't ride your coattails on the ballot, things get dicey.
Of course, any national average of voter turnout by party is a rather useless stat, since each individual house or senate race is far more important - particularly in the House, where the smaller districts mean slight advantages can swing in big ways.
While I get that article's desire to compare one midterm election (2006) to another (2010), I'm not sure that's the right way to frame this - particularly for the House, since everyone in the House was up for election last year.
This was the most interesting chart I've seen on the changes in the House:
http://www.themonkeycage.org/2010/11/back_to_basics_districts_and_d.html
Was Dem turnout down compared to '06? Maybe not, but it most certainly was compared to '08, and that's when a lot of these guys won their seats. You can see all those bright red dots of Democrats who lost their seats in districts that only voted for Obama marginally in '08.
Lower turnout in midterm elections is a fairly common pattern for both parties, and it's a big part of the reason why the sitting President, regardless of party, tends to lose seats in midterms - when members of your party in swing districts can't ride your coattails on the ballot, things get dicey.
dxmnkd316
Lucia Apologist
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
I think I wrote a paper on South Africa back in middle school. I'm on the phone with Obama demanding I be made ambassador.
I think I wrote a paper on South Africa back in middle school. I'm on the phone with Obama demanding I be made ambassador.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Please don't give up on them, sir. This is highly "informative".
Please don't give up on them, sir. This is highly "informative".
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
The point is that I've heard lots of pundits (on both sides) speculate about the enthusiasm gap between the parties. I can only think of two ways to interpret an "enthusiasm gap." Either they expected a greater percentage of the electorate to be Republicans than would normally be expected for a midterm election (didn't happen) or they expected the Republicans to be more loyal to their party's candidates than the Dems were (also didn't happen). There was no enthusiasm gap among the bases - it all comes down to the independents. The fact that there are two midterm elections so close in time with identical breakdowns and wildly opposite results illustrates this quite nicely.
It would be nice (from my point of view as a fiscal conservative and social libertarian) if BOTH parties got this message, stopped pandering to their bases, and moved to the middle.
So you're saying that swing districts are the ones that swing? Wow - could never have predicted that without a pretty graph!
The point is that I've heard lots of pundits (on both sides) speculate about the enthusiasm gap between the parties. I can only think of two ways to interpret an "enthusiasm gap." Either they expected a greater percentage of the electorate to be Republicans than would normally be expected for a midterm election (didn't happen) or they expected the Republicans to be more loyal to their party's candidates than the Dems were (also didn't happen). There was no enthusiasm gap among the bases - it all comes down to the independents. The fact that there are two midterm elections so close in time with identical breakdowns and wildly opposite results illustrates this quite nicely.
It would be nice (from my point of view as a fiscal conservative and social libertarian) if BOTH parties got this message, stopped pandering to their bases, and moved to the middle.
Re: Obama XVII: Do You Take Your Tea Party with One Sugar or Two?
Obvious, I know - but the pretty graph really helps!
Well, I don't tend to count on pundits for deep, insightful analysis - but there is something to the enthusiasm gap narrative when you compare to '08. Again, it's nothing unique, really. Nor was it unexpected for those that observe the trends and tune out the narrative explanations. I think we're in agreement there.
Sure, that would be nice - but you know that's not really possible given the set-up of our political systems. We have two parties because of that system, and those parties will take their positions based on what wins elections.
Given that we have single member districts with winner-take-all elections based on only needing a plurality of votes, this shouldn't be a surprise. Voters have to take the party agenda or leave it. There is no opportunity to pick and chose.
If we want more centrist parties, perhaps we should consider some sort of change to how we elect Congress. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, etc.
So you're saying that swing districts are the ones that swing? Wow - could never have predicted that without a pretty graph!
Obvious, I know - but the pretty graph really helps!
Well, I don't tend to count on pundits for deep, insightful analysis - but there is something to the enthusiasm gap narrative when you compare to '08. Again, it's nothing unique, really. Nor was it unexpected for those that observe the trends and tune out the narrative explanations. I think we're in agreement there.
Sure, that would be nice - but you know that's not really possible given the set-up of our political systems. We have two parties because of that system, and those parties will take their positions based on what wins elections.
Given that we have single member districts with winner-take-all elections based on only needing a plurality of votes, this shouldn't be a surprise. Voters have to take the party agenda or leave it. There is no opportunity to pick and chose.
If we want more centrist parties, perhaps we should consider some sort of change to how we elect Congress. Proportional representation, instant runoff voting, etc.
- Status