VOTE Election day 11/04/2014

[Bluto]

I am also from California and love to watch you cry. Wonderful night Bluto.

It was. I'm glad Props 1 and 2 passed as well as the junior college bond I voted for (yes I'm a home owner and an extra $250 a year isn't going to sink the ship). Surprised Prop 45 didn't pass but hey. Anyhow, I don't recall crying about anything. As I pointed out in another post the big take away from this mid-term is that the overwhelming majority of Americans can't be bothered to vote and therefore get the government they deserve and gloating by either side is ridiculous.

 

[Bluto]

Yes please on the bolded...

If you think folks on both sides aren't bought and paid for, you're blind, and you like being blind...

Even for a GD independent like me, your tears are sweet and savory.

But please Washington, let's see some common sense work on health care reform and the environment.

I'm have the utmost confidence that the nuttier members of the GOP are going to push that stuff like what I described to the forefront and that will become the legislative agenda for the next two years along with maybe a couple stabs at "personhood" legislation. Therein lies the problem.

 

[Black Irish]

I went to vote yesterday. The lady asked to see my ID and I showed it to her. I voted and left. No problem. My rights weren't violated and I didn't witness any damage being done to our system of government because I had to perform the same action asked of me when I buy a bottle of booze.

 

[T Town Tommy]

Thanks I just had my coffee. What I am pointing out is that the GOP is going to do pretty much nothing when it comes to making good policy decisions. I have the utmost confidence that the main thing this election cycle will result in is delaying appointments to the judiciary and or cabinet positions and that's about it.

Also in terms of the "news" this whole idea of a mandate we hear every election cycle in the media is ridiculous when voter turnout is taken into account. Its comparable to teams beating each other but one side doesn't show up to game.

Crazy Harry and Fancy Nancy... I hope the Dems keep them around for a long, long time.

think I will get another cup of coffee and enjoy the morning.

 

[GoIrish41]

IMO, the Dems deserved to take the hit they took last night. They abandoned the president and his policies and treated him like a pariah. In doing so, they did not talk about the many months of job growth, the expansion of the economy, and health insurance being available to millions of uninsured Americans. They fell into the same old bad habit of letting the GOP set the agenda of issues, so in the days leading up to the election I heard politicians talking about how ISIS and ebola was Obama's fault, instead of having Democrat candidates pointing out how wrong the GOP was when they tried to reverse Obamacare 50 times. Their shameless disloyalty to the president and the priciples of the party almost ensured the losses they suffered last night. And now, the man that they treated as a leaper is the only thing that will prevent all of the progress that has been made from being systematically dismantled. I hope he has his veto pen ready as the GOP tries to roll back banking regulation, force the Keystone pipeline from threatening the environment, reversing the gains in insured citizens, and the gutting of the social safety net.

 

[T Town Tommy]

IMO, the Dems deserved to take the hit they took last night. They abandoned the president and his policies and treated him like a pariah. In doing so, they did not talk about the many months of job growth, the expansion of the economy, and health insurance being available to millions of uninsured Americans. They fell into the same old bad habit of letting the GOP set the agenda of issues, so in the days leading up to the election I heard politicians talking about how ISIS and ebola was Obama's fault, instead of having Democrat candidates pointing out how wrong the GOP was when they tried to reverse Obamacare 50 times. Their shameless disloyalty to the president and the priciples of the party almost ensured the losses they suffered last night. And now, the man that they treated as a leaper is the only thing that will prevent all of the progress that has been made from being systematically dismantled. I hope he has his veto pen ready as the GOP tries to roll back banking regulation, force the Keystone pipeline from threatening the environment, reversing the gains in insured citizens, and the gutting of the social safety net.

Nice try 41 but you are spinning the unspinnable. The Dems shameless loyalty to the president is got them where they are. Have we already forgotten the fact that Crazy Harry blocked almost every piece of legislation from the House from entering the Senate? Have we forgotten that, with the exception of two Dem senators, every other one choose to go lock step with Harry and the Pres?

Nope 41... the Dems decided to back Harry and the Pres. And once they found out that was not the right choice, they tried to distance themselves as quickly as possible. But it didn't work.One can't vote 95-99% of the time with the Pres and then say they didn't.

People voted out of anger. They voted against the Pres and the economy. Job growth? yeah... those minimum wage jobs went a long way in closing the income gap. Obamacare? Millions of Americans also LOST their insurance. And LOST their personal doctor as well. And the true effects are still not known as the Pres keeps delaying the most controversial parts of it - the employee mandate. That's gonna cost a lot more people their insurance. Foreign Policy? What exactly is the Pres' foreign policy? Every thing he has touched in that area has gone to hell.

The American people don't need anyone to frame anything for them. They are living it, breathing it, dealing with it every day. Time to admit that this President will go down as the worst modern day President in history. And I didn't think that was possible with the Carter Presidency has horrible as it was.

 

[Black Irish]

At this day and age it is crazy to me at the amount of people that don't/wont vote.

I'm surprised how many people still do. Think about what we've seen in this thread in last 2 days; lots of anger, cynicism, fatalism, finger-pointing. And I'm not above it myself. It's mind-boggling to me how many people will spew a stream of negativity about the current political system then turn around and chastise a person for not voting.

"Awww, the system is so corrupt, the game is rigged, the corporations/unions/banks/special interests/military-industrial complex have the whole thing bought and paid for. The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems, neither can be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody cares about the little guy, the working joe. Nothing gets done in D.C. because of greed, self-interest, and red tape. It's all hopeless."

"Yeah, sounds pretty hopeless. That's why I didn't bother to vote."

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DIDN'T VOTE?! Now you don't get to bitch!"

Come on. It's ridiculous that people paint this bleak picture of a broken and corrupt system then turn around and give someone an earful for refusing to participate in said system. The non-voters out there aren't all just apathetic morons. Some of them do not want to participate in the sham, the distasteful choice between the Feces Sandwich and the Cleaning Implement for Female Nether Regions. It's not that those people don't care, or aren't informed, or don't want to see things change. It's that they know that you can't change the status quo if you continually vote for its existence. I was a member of the non-voter class for quite some time. It wasn't laziness, it was protest. If I really wanted to see things change, I knew there had to be a better way. Now I do vote, but it doesn't create any feelings of goodwill or accomplishment. I feel like I made an empty gesture; I punched my "civic duty" card, that's it.

If people want to vote, good for them. But I won't look down on those who abstain because they feel like it's pointless or beneath them. And I won't hector someone to do it, because you should do it, even if you don't know why you're doing it. There are better and more effective ways to make change happen if one cares enough. I'll get off my soapbox now and go make myself a sandwich.

 

[ACamp1900]

The country is fed up regardless... things won't improve... everyone will be pissed again in two years and the republicans will take the hit next... and around the wheel will keep turning.

 

[GoIrish41]

Nice try 41 but you are spinning the unspinnable. The Dems shameless loyalty to the president is got them where they are. Have we already forgotten the fact that Crazy Harry blocked almost every piece of legislation from the House from entering the Senate? Have we forgotten that, with the exception of two Dem senators, every other one choose to go lock step with Harry and the Pres?

Nope 41... the Dems decided to back Harry and the Pres. And once they found out that was not the right choice, they tried to distance themselves as quickly as possible. But it didn't work.One can't vote 95-99% of the time with the Pres and then say they didn't.

People voted out of anger. They voted against the Pres and the economy. Job growth? yeah... those minimum wage jobs went a long way in closing the income gap. Obamacare? Millions of Americans also LOST their insurance. And LOST their personal doctor as well. Foreign Policy? What exactly is the Pres' foreign policy? Every thing he has touched in that area has gone to hell.

The American people don't need anyone to frame anything for them. They are living it, breathing it, dealing with it every day. Time to admit that this President will go down as the worst modern day President in history. And I didn't think that was possible with the Carter Presidency has horrible as it was.

On the bolded, that is exactly what I said.

On the rest, you are living in LaLa Land. People voted, as they always do, based on who convinces them that the other guy sucks. And, when you ignore that fact that there were some accomplishments to hang your hat on -- those, in many cases, in which you as a candidate had a vote on and a role in helping get done -- you leave yourself with the conversation that the other party wants to have. We've heard for the past two years, through something like 50 attempts to roll it back, that Obamacare was going to be a central issue in this election. It wasn't. Why? Because it worked. The GOP didn't want to talk about it. I've heard almost nothing about it for months (that is about to change very soon, I think). The Dems didn't capitalize on the fact that the GOP was dead wrong on the topic and that they had a hand in doing something that has helped millions of people. People are angry about the economy? The stock markets are all at near record highs. Jobs have been created. Housing markets are bouncing back. IF they are angry about it, they are angry because they were led to anger. Why do you think that soooo much money is spent during these elections? .... to buy advertising. If these ads didn't work, do you think political parties would keep throwing money into them. They are used to shape the perceptions of people -- to lead them in one direction or the other. If you make all of your accomplishments moot and allow the opponent to control your message, you are constantly playing defense. The Dem in the Ky. Senate race looked pathetic because she could not bring herself to say she voted for Obama. Do you think there is a single person who saw her stammering nonsese who didn't know she voted for Obama? Hell no. But instead of defending the positive strides the administration has made, she ran from him and everything he touched. How'd that work out. On top of it, she gave a classless, un-consessional consession speech that was every bit as disprespectful to her opponent as she had been to the president. The underlined portion of your post is both baseless and ingorant of the most recent adminsitration before Obama. It was an adminstration that provoked a war based on lies resulting in the deaths and maming of thousands of Americans and the crippling of the economy and the stripping of regulations that enabled bankers to swindle the public for personal financial gain. Indeed, the Bush administration dug the hole that Obama has helped the nation crawl out of, against the odds of the opposition party playing the role of obstructionist for the whole ride.

 

[irishff1014]

I'm surprised how many people still do. Think about what we've seen in this thread in last 2 days; lots of anger, cynicism, fatalism, finger-pointing. And I'm not above it myself. It's mind-boggling to me how many people will spew a stream of negativity about the current political system then turn around and chastise a person for not voting.

"Awww, the system is so corrupt, the game is rigged, the corporations/unions/banks/special interests/military-industrial complex have the whole thing bought and paid for. The Repubs are just as bad as the Dems, neither can be trusted to do the right thing. Nobody cares about the little guy, the working joe. Nothing gets done in D.C. because of greed, self-interest, and red tape. It's all hopeless."

"Yeah, sounds pretty hopeless. That's why I didn't bother to vote."

"WHAT DO YOU MEAN YOU DIDN'T VOTE?! Now you don't get to bitch!"

Come on. It's ridiculous that people paint this bleak picture of a broken and corrupt system then turn around and give someone an earful for refusing to participate in said system. The non-voters out there aren't all just apathetic morons. Some of them do not want to participate in the sham, the distasteful choice between the Feces Sandwich and the Cleaning Implement for Female Nether Regions. It's not that those people don't care, or aren't informed, or don't want to see things change. It's that they know that you can't change the status quo if you continually vote for its existence. I was a member of the non-voter class for quite some time. It wasn't laziness, it was protest. If I really wanted to see things change, I knew there had to be a better way. Now I do vote, but it doesn't create any feelings of goodwill or accomplishment. I feel like I made an empty gesture; I punched my "civic duty" card, that's it.

If people want to vote, good for them. But I won't look down on those who abstain because they feel like it's pointless or beneath them. And I won't hector someone to do it, because you should do it, even if you don't know why you're doing it. There are better and more effective ways to make change happen if one cares enough. I'll get off my soapbox now and go make myself a sandwich.

Very true. Good point.

 

[ND NYC]

so is it really gonna be Hillary vs Jeb in 2016.

good grief...

 

[ab2cmiller]

On the bolded, that is exactly what I said.

On the rest, you are living in LaLa Land. People voted, as they always do, based on who convinces them that the other guy sucks. And, when you ignore that fact that there were some accomplishments to hang your hat on -- those, in many cases, in which you as a candidate had a vote on and a role in helping get done -- you leave yourself with the conversation that the other party wants to have. We've heard for the past two years, through something like 50 attempts to roll it back, that Obamacare was going to be a central issue in this election. It wasn't. Why? Because it worked. The GOP didn't want to talk about it. I've heard almost nothing about it for months (that is about to change very soon, I think). The Dems didn't capitalize on the fact that the GOP was dead wrong on the topic and that they had a hand in doing something that has helped millions of people. People are angry about the economy? The stock markets are all at near record highs. Jobs have been created. Housing markets are bouncing back. IF they are angry about it, they are angry because they were led to anger. Why do you think that soooo much money is spent during these elections? .... to buy advertising. If these ads didn't work, do you think political parties would keep throwing money into them. They are used to shape the perceptions of people -- to lead them in one direction or the other. If you make all of your accomplishments moot and allow the opponent to control your message, you are constantly playing defense. The Dem in the Ky. Senate race looked pathetic because she could not bring herself to say she voted for Obama. Do you think there is a single person who saw her stammering nonsese who didn't know she voted for Obama? Hell no. But instead of defending the positive strides the administration has made, she ran from him and everything he touched. How'd that work out. On top of it, she gave a classless, un-consessional consession speech that was every bit as disprespectful to her opponent as she had been to the president. The underlined portion of your post is both baseless and ingorant of the most recent adminsitration before Obama. It was an adminstration that provoked a war based on lies resulting in the deaths and maming of thousands of Americans and the crippling of the economy and the stripping of regulations that enabled bankers to swindle the public for personal financial gain. Indeed, the Bush administration dug the hole that Obama has helped the nation crawl out of, against the odds of the opposition party playing the role of obstructionist for the whole ride.

Pot meet Kettle.

 

[Irish YJ]

Thanks I just had my coffee. What I am pointing out is that the GOP is going to do pretty much nothing when it comes to making good policy decisions. I have the utmost confidence that the main thing this election cycle will result in is delaying appointments to the judiciary and or cabinet positions and that's about it.

Also in terms of the "news" this whole idea of a mandate we hear every election cycle in the media is ridiculous when voter turnout is taken into account. Its comparable to teams beating each other but one side doesn't show up to game.

It will be interesting to see the figures on turnout, but either (a) more R turned out, (b) less D turned out, (c) D and on the fence people changed their minds, or a combination.

Sounds like you are saying B happened. So why? Just lazy? Not happy? Got their victory 2 years ago and feel they didn't have to participate?

 

[magogian]

I went to vote yesterday. The lady asked to see my ID and I showed it to her. I voted and left.

And by "asked to see my ID" you mean she donned a KKK outfit and started burning a cross?

 

[T Town Tommy]

On the bolded, that is exactly what I said.

On the rest, you are living in LaLa Land. People voted, as they always do, based on who convinces them that the other guy sucks. And, when you ignore that fact that there were some accomplishments to hang your hat on -- those, in many cases, in which you as a candidate had a vote on and a role in helping get done -- you leave yourself with the conversation that the other party wants to have. We've heard for the past two years, through something like 50 attempts to roll it back, that Obamacare was going to be a central issue in this election. It wasn't. Why? Because it worked. The GOP didn't want to talk about it. I've heard almost nothing about it for months (that is about to change very soon, I think). The Dems didn't capitalize on the fact that the GOP was dead wrong on the topic and that they had a hand in doing something that has helped millions of people. People are angry about the economy? The stock markets are all at near record highs. Jobs have been created. Housing markets are bouncing back. IF they are angry about it, they are angry because they were led to anger. Why do you think that soooo much money is spent during these elections? .... to buy advertising. If these ads didn't work, do you think political parties would keep throwing money into them. They are used to shape the perceptions of people -- to lead them in one direction or the other. If you make all of your accomplishments moot and allow the opponent to control your message, you are constantly playing defense. The Dem in the Ky. Senate race looked pathetic because she could not bring herself to say she voted for Obama. Do you think there is a single person who saw her stammering nonsese who didn't know she voted for Obama? Hell no. But instead of defending the positive strides the administration has made, she ran from him and everything he touched. How'd that work out. On top of it, she gave a classless, un-consessional consession speech that was every bit as disprespectful to her opponent as she had been to the president. The underlined portion of your post is both baseless and ingorant of the most recent adminsitration before Obama. It was an adminstration that provoked a war based on lies resulting in the deaths and maming of thousands of Americans and the crippling of the economy and the stripping of regulations that enabled bankers to swindle the public for personal financial gain. Indeed, the Bush administration dug the hole that Obama has helped the nation crawl out of, against the odds of the opposition party playing the role of obstructionist for the whole ride.

Explain to me just how the Republicans in the Senate obstructed anything? Have you already forgotten that it was Crazy Harry that held up every piece of legislation coming from the House that did not fit the President's agenda. You can't cry obstruction 41... when it was the Democratically controlled Senate holding up everything. No debate, no vote, no nothing. That's on Harry and the President.

As far as why people voted... I will take their word on it over yours. Exit polling shows that the number one issue was the economy. Why? people are no better off today than they were six years ago. Obama has had six years to "fix" whatever he wanted to - and had four years of majority in both houses to do so. what did he do? Passed Obamacare - which again, we don't really know the true effects of it as he has delayed the parts of it that WILL cause a tremendous amount of people to lose their insurance and countless others that will have to pay much more for coverage - which BTW - will not be with their doctor. Obamacare effects won't be known for years. But even the CBO states it will be such a burden on taxpayers to pay for it. So Obamacare - you can't talk out of both sides of your mouth there.


A two term President in his sixth year mid terms typically takers it on the chin. Obama was no different. But he didn't learn his lesson from 2012 when he should have pulled a B. Clinton and come more to the middle. Obama chose to ride his warped ideology and it basically ran the Democratic party in the ground. That's on him. And nobody else.

 

[IRISHDODGER]

The country is fed up regardless... things won't improve... everyone will be pissed again in two years and the republicans will take the hit next... and around the wheel will keep turning.

This^. It's not like the GOP won anything, it's that they are the lucky recipients of the backlash towards the Dems (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Dems will dismiss this by saying this happens in every mid-term of a sitting POTUS 2nd term & they'd be correct (at least since Reagan), but no one bothers to investigate why that tends to happen every mid-term

My state had a huge Senatorial election that swung towards the GOP. I didn't vote for either as they're both douchebags & I was sick and tired of the relentless ads bashing each other. I wrote in my brother-in-law's name.

My hope EVERY national election is that the White House is represented by one party & that Congress is controlled by the opposite party. That way, it'll hopefully remain gridlocked and the special interestes won't get their pet projects passed that end up costing the taxpayer. If we had term limits, I'd be thrilled. Government is way too overreaching & both sides are to blame.

I'd rather let the sweet old men & ladies at the polling stations run the country than the narcissistic, greedy, soul less bastards that currently reside in Congress. BTW, they politely asked for my ID and I handed it over like I was paying to go visit Field of Dreams in Iowa. How is that supposed to be offenseive!?

 

[GoIrish41]

Explain to me just how the Republicans in the Senate obstructed anything? Have you already forgotten that it was Crazy Harry that held up every piece of legislation coming from the House that did not fit the President's agenda. You can't cry obstruction 41... when it was the Democratically controlled Senate holding up everything. No debate, no vote, no nothing. That's on Harry and the President.

As far as why people voted... I will take their word on it over yours. Exit polling shows that the number one issue was the economy. Why? people are no better off today than they were six years ago. Obama has had six years to "fix" whatever he wanted to - and had four years of majority in both houses to do so. what did he do? Passed Obamacare - which again, we don't really know the true effects of it as he has delayed the parts of it that WILL cause a tremendous amount of people to lose their insurance and countless others that will have to pay much more for coverage - which BTW - will not be with their doctor. Obamacare effects won't be known for years.

If I'm not mistaken, Ted Cruz led the successful effort to shut down the government last year to try to force the hand of the President to repeal Obamacare. Sounds like a pretty key obstructionsit role to me. But then I didn't say anything about the Senate specifically. I said Dems in general were running from their accomplishments and those of the party -- there were state house elections, governor's races, house races, too. Dems got clobbered across the board in most of these races.

If we don't know what the effects will be, why should I listen to your dire predictions about what WILL happen. That, Tommy, is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[T Town Tommy]

This^. It's not like the GOP won anything, it's that they are the lucky recipients of the backlash towards the Dems (the enemy of my enemy is my friend). Dems will dismiss this by saying this happens in every mid-term of a sitting POTUS 2nd term & they'd be correct (at least since Reagan), but no one bothers to investigate why that tends to happen every mid-term

My state had a huge Senatorial election that swung towards the GOP. I didn't vote for either as they're both douchebags & I was sick and tired of the relentless ads bashing each other. I wrote in my brother-in-law's name.

My hope EVERY national election is that the White House is represented by one party & that Congress is controlled by the opposite party. That way, it'll hopefully remain gridlocked and the special interestes won't get their pet projects passed that end up costing the taxpayer. If we had term limits, I'd be thrilled. Government is way too overreaching & both sides are to blame.

I'd rather let the sweet old men & ladies at the polling stations run the country than the narcissistic, greedy, soul less bastards that currently reside in Congress. BTW, they politely asked for my ID and I handed it over like I was paying to go visit Field of Dreams in Iowa. How is that supposed to be offenseive!?

There is plenty of bipartisan support in both houses for some things to get done the next two years. One of the biggest complaints from Dems who were up for reelection this time was the fact that they could not get Harry to allow amendments in the Senate. The Keystone Pipeline, eliminating the tax on medical equipment under Obamacare, and several other pieces of tax reform all have enough bipartisan support to pass. Harry held each and every one up - much to the outcry of several soon to be unemployed Dem Senators.

I would hope both parties take up those pieces of legislation and puts them on the President's desk. Harry can't block the vote now. If the President doesn't work with Congress now and refuses to sign a lot of those bipartisan bills, then 2016 may be even more dismal for Democrats. I, for one, am hoping Obama realizes his warped ideology is not what most Americans want and chooses to move to the middle. But knowing him - and his lack of compromise - he will refuse to sign many of these bills. It will be interesting in a few hours to hear what he says in his press conference - will be even more interesting to see exactly what he does the last two years.

 

[IrishLax]

At this day and age it is crazy to me at the amount of people that don't/wont vote.

Why? Voter's paradox is a very real thing. Your individual choice to vote or not vote is irrelevant to election results.

I worked from 7 AM to 2 AM yesterday. No way I was wasting my time to wait in a 30 minute line.

 

[T Town Tommy]

If I'm not mistaken, Ted Cruz led the successful effort to shut down the government last year to try to force the hand of the President to repeal Obamacare. Sounds like a pretty key obstructionsit role to me. But then I didn't say anything about the Senate specifically. I said Dems in general were running from their accomplishments and those of the party -- there were state house elections, governor's races, house races, too. Dems got clobbered across the board in most of these races.

If we don't know what the effects will be, why should I listen to your dire predictions about what WILL happen. That, Tommy, is talking out of both sides of your mouth.

Why do you think Obama has repeatedly delayed the employer mandate? He knows what the effects will be because every expert - including those employed by him - have told him. Have you not watched the news and seen all these employers already cutting hours for their employees down to below 30 a week in order to escape the provisions of the mandate? No need to predict what will happen when it is ALREADY happening in adnavce of the mandate.

Many Dems have complained loudly about the obstructionist Harry in not allowing amendments to key pieces of legislation. Amendments that had enough bipartisan support to pass. Keystone, tax relief on medical equipment under Obamacare, several key tax proponents such as EIC. These same Dems who were pushing for these amendments were left out in the cold by Harry and the President because they couldn't vote on what they wanted. That left many of them with a rubber stamp voting record for Obama and his policies. And that cost them their Senate seat in the end. The real question is whether the President moving forward will get behind some of the bipartisan efforts of Congress and sign them in to law. or will he continue to push his warped ideology and cost Dems in both houses even more seats in 2016. Guess we will see.

 

[tussin]

Why? Voter's paradox is a very real thing. Your individual choice to vote or not vote is irrelevant to election results.

I worked from 7 AM to 2 AM yesterday. No way I was wasting my time to wait in a 30 minute line.

Depends on state and district.

I am a Republican in PA's District 2. I voted yesterday, but went in realizing it was essentially meaningless.

 

[Bluto]

It will be interesting to see the figures on turnout, but either (a) more R turned out, (b) less D turned out, (c) D and on the fence people changed their minds, or a combination.

Sounds like you are saying B happened. So why? Just lazy? Not happy? Got their victory 2 years ago and feel they didn't have to participate?

Beats me. Probably a combination of all those. Just a hunch I think people are genuinely ignorant about how the legislative process works on the federal level (hence all the blaming and or overpraising of Presidents from either party for bad legislation and or budgetary issues) and if a President is not being elected people sit out the election.

For what it's worth I can't stand that Latino groups piss and moan about immigration reform only to see Latinos consistently sit out mid-term elections.

 

[GoIrish41]

There is plenty of bipartisan support in both houses for some things to get done the next two years. One of the biggest complaints from Dems who were up for reelection this time was the fact that they could not get Harry to allow amendments in the Senate. The Keystone Pipeline, eliminating the tax on medical equipment under Obamacare, and several other pieces of tax reform all have enough bipartisan support to pass. Harry held each and every one up - much to the outcry of several soon to be Dem Senators.

I would hope both parties take up those pieces of legislation and puts them on the President's desk. Harry can't block the vote now. If the President doesn't work with Congress now and refuses to sign a lot of those bipartisan bills, then 2016 may be even more dismal for Democrats. I, for one, am hoping Obama realizes his warped ideology is not what most Americans want and chooses to move to the middle. But knowing him - and his lack of compromise - he will refuse to sign many of these bills. It will be interesting in a few hours to hear what he says in his press conference - will be even more interesting to see exactly what he does the last two years.

It will also be interesting to seen how the GOP handles their newfound power. Smart money says they will overreach to accomodate the crazy wing of their party. I'm not going to debate this with you, but Obama is already in the middle. His signature legislation was a conconction of the republicans during the Clinton administration. He's given ground during budget debates time and again and the GOP has refused to give an inch. The GOP needs to give up some real estate on the right if anything is going to get done in the next two years. The majority leader made the most consiliatory remarks I've heard from him since Obama took office during his acceptance speech, noting that there is middle ground and there is no reason why the two parties can't work together. Where was all of that talk for the past six years? Now that he will control the Senate agenda he is all of the sudden willing to work with the president. Just a tad transparent.

 

[IrishLax]

Depends on state and district.

I am a Republican in PA's District 2. I voted yesterday, but went in realizing it was essentially meaningless.

Actually, it doesn't, because it's exceedingly improbable that in a population of this size that an election would ever be decided by a singular vote.

Paradox of voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most people tend to think that voters vote because they derive some sort of other intrinsic personal utility from the experience of voting regardless of the potential impact of their vote in deciding an outcome... or alternatively, they're simply illogical or uninformed, which is a trump card for all logical processes.

 

[T Town Tommy]

It will also be interesting to seen how the GOP handles their newfound power. Smart money says they will overreach to accomodate the crazy wing of their party. I'm not going to debate this with you, but Obama is already in the middle. His signature legislation was a conconction of the republicans during the Clinton administration. He's given ground during budget debates time and again and the GOP has refused to give an inch. The GOP needs to give up some real estate on the right if anything is going to get done in the next two years. The majority leader made the most consiliatory remarks I've heard from him since Obama took office during his acceptance speech, noting that there is middle ground and there is no reason why the two parties can't work together. Where was all of that talk for the past six years? Now that he will control the Senate agenda he is all of the sudden willing to work with the president. Just a tad transparent.

If you think Obama is in the "middle" then you are correct. No need for us to debate as we disagree at complete ends of that spectrum. He is anything but in the middle. As far as working together, I have posted several examples of bipartisan support that can be passed quickly. We will see if Obama really wants to work together - even with members of his own party - and sign the bipartisan bills in to law.

The biggest obstacle to Congress working with the President will be the President. If he chooses to still push his ideology then he will have some tough sledding. Right now I have zero faith in his ability to compromise. I hope he proves me wrong for the sake of our country.

 

[tussin]

Actually, it doesn't, because it's exceedingly improbable that in a population of this size that an election would ever be decided by a singular vote.

Paradox of voting - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Most people tend to think that voters vote because they derive some sort of other intrinsic personal utility from the experience of voting regardless of the potential impact of their vote in deciding an outcome... or alternatively, they're simply illogical or uninformed, which is a trump card for all logical processes.

I don't think you can defend the voter's paradox to every single state and district.

Yes, I knew my vote was meaningless and I voted because I enjoy voting.

But there were Senate races that were determined by less than 10,000 votes. Every vote mattered in those races. Large swabs of individuals feeling apathetic about the relative importance of their vote is damaging in those situations and could swing a race.

 

[IrishLax]

I don't think you can defend the voter's paradox to every single state and district.

Generally, you can. The only time voter's paradox does not apply is when you can reasonably believe that your vote will impact the result. Since there has never ever been a Federal election in the US that has been decided by a singular vote, it tends to be applied globally.

There have been two very close shaves... New Hampshire senate race in 1974 was 2 votes, and the Indiana 8th was a 4 vote race in 1984. Besides that you have to go back well before the civil war to find even a state election that was a single digits race.

In other countries (mainly Canada where voting populations in some places are much smaller than the US, but also some other places around the world) there have actually been some ties.

These examples don't defeat the voter's paradox though, because you can reasonably expect in a population of less than 10,000 that there's a legitimate chance that the race could be decided by a vote. So there IS logical incentive to believe that your vote may impact the result, and that your act of voting may have an ultimate impact on your life, etc.

Yes, I knew my vote was meaningless and I voted because I enjoy voting.

But there were Senate races that were determined by less than 10,000 votes. Every vote mattered in those races.

No, they didn't.

Large swabs of individuals feeling apathetic about the relative importance of their vote is damaging in those situations and could swing a race.

This is the part that makes it a paradox. Your vote doesn't matter, but if everyone who believes what you do and would vote for a certain candidate also accepted that their individual vote doesn't matter, then this large swath of people all becoming apathetic and not voting COULD make a difference.

Social science is a fickle beast... favorite classes I took at ND were on this kind of subject matter. Strategy in Society and American Congress. Awesome professor, better subject matter.

 

[pumpdog20]

I went to vote yesterday. The lady asked to see my ID and I showed it to her. I voted and left. No problem. My rights weren't violated and I didn't witness any damage being done to our system of government because I had to perform the same action asked of me when I buy a bottle of booze.

No, this is the single worst thing to have happened to you.

 

[tussin]

This is the part that makes it a paradox. Your vote doesn't matter, but if everyone who believes what you do and would vote for a certain candidate also accepted that their individual vote doesn't matter, then this large swath of people all becoming apathetic and not voting COULD make a difference.

Social science is a fickle beast... favorite classes I took at ND were on this kind of subject matter. Strategy in Society and American Congress. Awesome professor, better subject matter.

We are on the same page. I was trying to make the point that collective apathy is damaging and could swing elections.

 

[irishff1014]

Why? Voter's paradox is a very real thing. Your individual choice to vote or not vote is irrelevant to election results.

I worked from 7 AM to 2 AM yesterday. No way I was wasting my time to wait in a 30 minute line.

Ok that's your choice. I work 12 hour shifts and still made it so that i could vote. I guess its all about your beliefs.