Jump to content

2010 Election Thread -- discuss results here


Given a Republican House and no 60 seat majority in the Senate, and needing to be re-elected in 2012, how should President Obama proceed?  

4 members have voted

  1. 1. What is the President's best policy for the next two years?

    • Defiance -- fight Republicans at every step
    • Compromise and seek ways to improve in spite of differences
    • Sit back and hope the economy improves
    • Other (post in thread)

Recommended Posts

It wasn't quite the drubbing that some predicted, but it went way past the 1994 "revolution" and actually approached the 1922 record. In addition to taking control of the House, Republicans also picked up 6 seats in the Senate, bringing that body to something a 53-47 balance (several seats have yet to be decided, but it appears unlikely that the GOP will gain control of the Senate).


Many prominent Democrats, such as Russ Feingold were turned out of office, Nancy Pelosi lost the speakership of the House, and even Barack Obama's senate seat went to Republicans. Democrats were not without their victories, however, with Harry Reid keeping his seat and Jerry Brown returning to the governorship of California.


State governors also went more heavily to the GOP. This has more of an impact than many may realize. For example, Arizona governor Jan Brewer has had a huge impact lately on the national immigration issue. Voters in her state returned her overwhelmingly, and continue to support her on that issue.


How do you view the present situation, and what is the President's best path forward?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I predict two years of Democrats trying to compromise with Republicans, and the Republicans complaining that Democrats aren't compromising well enough, while failing to compromise at all themselves. More or less it's probably going to be a political logjam. I'd like to think this will bode poorly for the Republicans, but who knows, the Fox-powered hype machine may manage to make a Republican victory out of this yet.


That said, I live in one of the most "moderate" states in the country (which really means a bunch of conservative independents who will vote Democrat if Republicans are in power and things get bad enough) and we had one of the most hotly contested Senate races in the country. The incumbent, Michael Bennett, was appointed to office after our previous senator Ken Salazar became Secretary of the Interior. He's been accused of taking bribes. His opponent is a total Tea Party loon who wants to abolish the Department of Education, Energy, and anything else that isn't spelled out literally in the Constitution (because like the Bible only a literal interpretation of the Constitution counts). He also opposes the government paying for rape kits, opposes abortion in cases of rape, and when he was a DA refused to prosecute a rape case where a girl invited a friend to sleep over and said friend apparently didn't understand that it's possible for a girl to invite you to sleep over without implying that it's okay to have sex with her. He admitted rape but Buck decided the jury wouldn't go for it and refused to prosecute. Classy.


It's beginning to look a lot like a recount...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with much of the above, and as always your insight into Colorado politics is interesting.


I'm still confused by the argument that Democrats "compromised too much" with Republicans over the last two years, which is frequently combined with an argument that they should not have compromised at all. Given the diverse nature of congress even when they had 60 votes in the Senate, why does it make sense to think that they would have made more progress if they had been less compromising?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems incumbent Alaska senator Lisa Murkowski, who lost the Republican primary to Tea Partier Joe Miller, has won as a write in candidate, defeating Miller and the Democrat Scott McAdams, who came in third. Remarkable news from Sarah Palin's home state.


Christine O'Donnell predictably lost 56% to 40%, a wide margin but not wide enough not to be frightening, frankly.


This election seems like a defeat for the Democrats more than a victory for the Republicans (or the Tea Party!), much like 2006 was a defeat for the Republicans more than a victory for the Democrats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken Buck vs. Michael Bennett now has only a 7,500 vote margin with Buck leading and some 85% of precincts reporting. Mucking up the race was my former home of Boulder County, who despite being predominantly liberal originally showed Buck strongly in the lead. They've since claimed this was a clerical error and the results now show Bennett strongly in the lead there.


In other news, tea party loon Dan Maes got completely slaughtered in the race for governor, getting some 11% of the vote while the more traditional (albeit somewhat crazy) Republican candidate Tom Tancredo who ran on a 3rd party ticket after failing to get the nomination got some 30% of the vote (the good ol' boy Republican candidate, Scott McInnis, who might've actually stood a chance of beating the incumbent didn't pull any such shenanigans).


To quote a tweet I made a few days ago: America is acting like a battered wife who found a decent boyfriend to help her recover but now wants to go back to her abusive husband. And to borrow what a similar quote on Reddit added: "But this time it's gonna be different baby, I swear!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While I am disappointed that Elaine Marshall did not win, I will not throw myself over a cliff because of it. Richard Burr is a moderate Republican who really does try to do the best he can with what he has. My only beef with him is that he hopped on the bandwagon, "I am going to help create jobs in N.C.!", yet voted against a bill to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to create American jobs and to prevent the offshoring of such jobs overseas. (Okay, that is not my only beef with him.)


That just makes me go :blink: .


But he has been consistent with his statements such as this: "I don't think that any American should be critical of an individual that's president...They need to be critical of the policies but not of the individual."


I think Obama will just have to find some way to compromise with the Republicans. I think that the best way to do this will be to take a step back from the green energy regulation agenda and focus more on how to keep corporatism in check. And he should start by looking in his own backyard...as in personal investments as they relate to the policies that he is trying to put forth. *whistles*

Edited by divagreen
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The options were so specific that I didn't feel there was a particularly good one. I vote for "attempt to compromise with Republicans, who will refuse to compromise then turn around and blame the lack of compromise on the Democrats, resulting in a political logjam"

Edited by bascule
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.