PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Entrenched - Republicans make gains in the house...


Taco John
11-07-2012, 12:50 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578101484105928920.html


When all the celebrating is done, America will wake up to the fact that Obama is facing the lamest duck presidency in the history of politics. The House is deeper entrenched, and the Republicans made gains in the Senate, though didn't flip it.

America got caught like a deer in the headlights, and voted for four more years of gridlock.

Brock
11-07-2012, 12:52 AM
Good news!

Taco John
11-07-2012, 01:03 AM
Hmmm... I hate the age of editing already published articles. The WSJ removed the text about 1938... Now it's not clear to me.

In any case, here is an AP snippet:

http://www.kusi.com/story/20022029/boehner-wins-as-republicans-fight-to-keep-house

With almost two-thirds of the 435 House races called by The Associated Press, Republicans had won 209 seats and were leading in 28 more.

A party needs 218 seats to control the House. It seemed likely the party mix in the new House would resemble the current one, which Republicans control 242-193, including two GOP and three Democratic vacancies. The pickups were so evenly divided that it was unclear if either party would add to its numbers overall.

Democrats had taken 155 districts and led in 39 others.

Even before renewed GOP control was clinched, House Speaker John Boehner, R-Ohio - re-elected to his seat without opposition - claimed victory and laid down a marker for upcoming battles against President Barack Obama, who was re-elected to a second term in the White House.

"The American people want solutions, and tonight they responded by renewing our House Republican majority," he said at a gathering of Republicans in Washington. "The American people also made clear there's no mandate for raising tax rates."

One of the top fights when Congress returns for a postelection session this month will be over the looming expiration of income tax cuts first enacted a decade ago under President George W. Bush. Republicans want to renew them all, while President Barack Obama wants the cuts to expire for the highest-earning Americans.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., refused to concede. She told Democrats rallying a few blocks away from the GOP rally where Boehner spoke that by evening's end, Democrats would end up "exceeding everyone's expectations and perhaps achieving 25," the number of added seats Democrats would need to gain House control.

Though seven GOP freshmen were defeated, 65 of them were re-elected by early Wednesday morning in the East. Six others were leading in their races, but four were trailing. An exit poll of voters showed that just 21 percent said they backed the tea party, which had fueled the big GOP House gains in 2010.

The GOP's seemingly inevitable victory in the House was a contrast to how the party was performing elsewhere on the national stage. Obama defeated Republican Mitt Romney for the presidency and Democrats hold onto control of the Senate.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 01:06 AM
I was wondering how long it'd take before the right started calling Obama a lame duck.

I was going to give Fox N Friends a week.

I should have given Taco John a night.

Ebolapox
11-07-2012, 01:07 AM
I was wondering how long it'd take before the right started calling Obama a lame duck.

I was going to give Fox N Friends a week.

I should have given Taco John a night.

well, in all fairness, all second term presidents are lame ducks these days (especially if they don't have both house and senate on their side).

Brock
11-07-2012, 01:08 AM
I was wondering how long it'd take before the right started calling Obama a lame duck.

I was going to give Fox N Friends a week.

I should have given Taco John a night.

Well, isnt' he?

dirk digler
11-07-2012, 01:08 AM
Looking at the latest results and I could be wrong if the Dems win the 3 seats out west tonight they would have picked up 1 seat overall.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 01:09 AM
Well, isnt' he?

Why not.

Direckshun
11-07-2012, 01:10 AM
Looking at the latest results and I could be wrong if the Dems win the 3 seats out west tonight they would have picked up 1 seat overall.

And the Democrats made gains in the Senate.

The OP, essentially, is full of shit.

dirk digler
11-07-2012, 01:10 AM
Also I am liking that Allen West and Joe Walsh got beat, was hoping for Steve King and Bachmann is currently losing.

Honestly if Bachmann loses that will make my week god I hate that fucking cunt

Taco John
11-07-2012, 01:10 AM
I was wondering how long it'd take before the right started calling Obama a lame duck.

I was going to give Fox N Friends a week.

I should have given Taco John a night.


Right? I'm a fiscal conservative, and a civil rights leftist. That's what you call a centrist in this environment, baby...

Don't blame me for being ahead of the political curve. Calling Obama a lame duck is like saying the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I'm not sure what you think he is going to accomplish that he wasn't able to accomplish when the deck was more stacked in his favor.

Chocolate Hog
11-07-2012, 01:30 AM
Right? I'm a fiscal conservative, and a civil rights leftist. That's what you call a centrist in this environment, baby...

Don't blame me for being ahead of the political curve. Calling Obama a lame duck is like saying the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I'm not sure what you think he is going to accomplish that he wasn't able to accomplish when the deck was more stacked in his favor.

Yup the 4 liberty candidates who ran all won tonight. Fiscal conservative left leaning on civil liberties is a winning formula.

sd4chiefs
11-07-2012, 01:49 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578101484105928920.html


When all the celebrating is done, America will wake up to the fact that Obama is facing the lamest duck presidency in the history of politics. The House is deeper entrenched, and the Republicans made gains in the Senate, though didn't flip it.

America got caught like a deer in the headlights, and voted for four more years of gridlock.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=fqcn_TPu4qQ#t=22s

alnorth
11-07-2012, 01:50 AM
The dems got killed, overall, in 2010 redistricting due to the 2010 wave election. They'll have problems taking the house without a very large majority of the national vote.

2020 will be a presidential election year, if the GOP doesn't get its act together this house advantage may last for just 8 more years.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:51 AM
So let them have that branch and apply the full force of the Constitution. America likes divided govt for a reason. Nothing new to see here. They're catching on that it's better than one party rule.

Now, get a letter campaign going to defund Obamacare despite Fox news declaring that fix is in.

"This power over the purse may, in fact, be regarded as the most complete and effectual weapon with which any constitution can arm the immediate representatives of the people, for obtaining a redress of every grievance, and for carrying into effect every just and salutary measure." - Federalist Papers, No. 58, 1788

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 06:57 AM
I was wondering how long it'd take before the right started calling Obama a lame duck.

I was going to give Fox N Friends a week.

I should have given Taco John a night.

So far what I've read Obama only has a plurality of the vote. He has no mandate. Google's numbers are better than the msm.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:11 AM
The House success in keeping a majority is more reflective of the state by state redistricting of Congressional Districts. It is not so representative of across state deliberations. As such it is an area that the Republican ground game is still working. The question is what happens in two years. That is when a referendum of the House will take place without a Presidential race. Republicans are under political pressure then.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:16 AM
The House success in keeping a majority is more reflective of the state by state redistricting of Congressional Districts. It is not so representative of across state deliberations. As such it is an area that the Republican ground game is still working. The question is what happens in two years. That is when a referendum of the House will take place without a Presidential race. Republicans are under political pressure then.

It's a result of Obama's lurch to the hard left his first term especially Obamacare.

Polls showed a desire for different and better candidates.
Polls showed people thought Mitt was better on jobs.
Polls showed the public is war weary.
Polls showed people think the govt is doing too much.
Polls showed people think the country is on the wrong track.

This was not so much a vote for someone as much as against the other. The left is reading this election wrong especially with the lack of mandate and closeness of the results. The country is still divided and did not like the choices.

tiptap
11-07-2012, 08:18 AM
That would be the 2010 success certainly.

dirk digler
11-07-2012, 08:23 AM
I can't believe Bachmann won. Damn.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 08:24 AM
I can't believe Bachmann won. Damn.
Americans like divided govt.

Ugly Duck
11-07-2012, 09:26 AM
Democrats so far have knocked off 12 GOP House members — including 10 wackadoodle members of the tea party freshman class of 2010.

Republis picked up nine previously Democratic seats.

Republis gained no ground in the Senate & may end up losing some seats.

Tough to spin that as Republi gains.

SNR
11-07-2012, 09:50 AM
Did that fuckhead Alan Grayson get beat?

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 09:52 AM
Democrats so far have knocked off 12 GOP House members — including 10 wackadoodle members of the tea party freshman class of 2010.

Republis picked up nine previously Democratic seats.

Republis gained no ground in the Senate & may end up losing some seats.

Tough to spin that as Republi gains.

The House will still remain Republican. :clap: One party rule is never good.

Dave Lane
11-07-2012, 10:01 AM
Right? I'm a fiscal conservative, and a civil rights leftist. That's what you call a centrist in this environment, baby...

Don't blame me for being ahead of the political curve. Calling Obama a lame duck is like saying the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I'm not sure what you think he is going to accomplish that he wasn't able to accomplish when the deck was more stacked in his favor.

No you are an anarchist that is slightly sympathetic to the persons you abandon. At least be honest.

DaveNull
11-07-2012, 10:04 AM
Did that ****head Alan Grayson get beat?

Nope. Sounds like the guy running against him must have been a real winner.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 10:13 AM
No you are an anarchist that is slightly sympathetic to the persons you abandon. At least be honest.

No he's a mini-anarchist—not an anarchist. Get it right!

Taco John
11-07-2012, 11:44 AM
No you are an anarchist that is slightly sympathetic to the persons you abandon. At least be honest.

Who am I abandoning? As far as I know, I've got my ducklings accounted for.

jettio
11-07-2012, 12:58 PM
Considering that the expiration of tax cuts and sequestration is looming, and that Obamacare is not getting repealed and those factors together make it very likely that tax and entitlement reform happens within a year, it is premature to call Obama a lame-duck President.

I think a lot of people realize that the GOP went all-in on thwarting progress to make Obama look bad, and Obama won re-election anyway. I think Obama and the Dems will offer them a face-saving way to start exercising their governing responsibilities and deals will get done.

BucEyedPea
11-07-2012, 01:04 PM
Second term presidents usually are lame ducks. That and a Republican House, if they do their job, helps it more. His coattails were too short.

jettio
11-07-2012, 01:26 PM
Second term presidents usually are lame ducks. That and a Republican House, if they do their job, helps it more. His coattails were too short.

Oh well if it usually happens that way then there must be little chance that something else would happen in extraordinary circumstances.

If you want to talk about lame-ducks, I think the lame duck congress might get something done because the GOP is afraid of Elizabeth Warren.

The GOP is as afraid of her as I am of you.:usa:

whoman69
11-07-2012, 03:03 PM
Whoever wrote this really jumped the gun. While Republicans will hold the House, their majority has gone down as Democrats have already won 193 seats with several races uncalled they are leading in. Democrats have also picked up 2 seats in the Senate.

whoman69
11-08-2012, 02:25 PM
At latest count the Democrats have 193 in the House for races called. They are ahead in six of the nine uncalled races.

KCTitus
11-08-2012, 05:20 PM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204349404578101484105928920.html


When all the celebrating is done, America will wake up to the fact that Obama is facing the lamest duck presidency in the history of politics. The House is deeper entrenched, and the Republicans made gains in the Senate, though didn't flip it.

America got caught like a deer in the headlights, and voted for four more years of gridlock.

I disagree...the house, since 2010, has been irrelevant and frankly has been Obama's foil for the reason why the economy has been so bad since 2009. Both houses are pretty much irrelevant at this point. There hasnt been any serious legislation since Obamacare to come out of the houses. The President has pretty much done everything by executive order the last 2 years.

Expect more of the same. The voters wanted it. They get it.

tiptap
11-08-2012, 06:12 PM
House Seats are still capable of being moved with a big influx of money. They are also helped by smart Mapping of Congressional Districts. That is still where Republicans have a better game in winning. That is why Norquist is all about the House.

alnorth
11-08-2012, 06:15 PM
Looks like the GOP will lose about 7 or 8 seats. They would have lost the house (more votes for dems than for republicans in house races) except for the 2010 wave right before redistricting. 2020 is ominously a presidential election year.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:15 PM
I disagree...the house, since 2010, has been irrelevant and frankly has been Obama's foil for the reason why the economy has been so bad since 2009. Both houses are pretty much irrelevant at this point. There hasnt been any serious legislation since Obamacare to come out of the houses. The President has pretty much done everything by executive order the last 2 years.

Expect more of the same. The voters wanted it. They get it.

Everything by EO? Can you document that? I know he's abused that but so did his predecessors.

That no serious legislation hasn't come out of Congress is not really a bad thing. That makes the House relevant. The worst of the left's legislation was Obama's first two years.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:16 PM
Looks like the GOP will lose about 7 or 8 seats.

When? This election?

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 06:20 PM
At latest count the Democrats have 193 in the House for races called. They are ahead in six of the nine uncalled races.

I didn't know there were that many uncalled races. That is besides West calling for a recount in WPB FL.

Per this the balance of power remains unchanged.
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/11/07/balance-of-power-remains-unchanged-in-us-congress-2/

With nearly all the House races called, projections indicate little will change in the 435-seat chamber. Republicans have 233 seats, while Democrats so far have won 192. Boehner will retain his post.

alnorth
11-08-2012, 07:50 PM
When? This election?

yeah, this election.

whoman69
11-08-2012, 08:33 PM
I didn't know there were that many uncalled races. That is besides West calling for a recount in WPB FL.

Per this the balance of power remains unchanged.
http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/11/07/balance-of-power-remains-unchanged-in-us-congress-2/

With nearly all the House races called, projections indicate little will change in the 435-seat chamber. Republicans have 233 seats, while Democrats so far have won 192. Boehner will retain his post.

233 + 192 = 425

You're short 10 seats.

whoman69
11-08-2012, 08:48 PM
Here's some recently updated info.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83607.html?hp=r2

As of Thursday afternoon, The Associated Press had called 194 seats for Democrats, and had them leading in another six races that remain uncalled. The AP had called 234 seats for Republicans, and had them leading in one uncalled contest.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83607.html#ixzz2Bgpp9kCr

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 09:29 PM
Oh well if it usually happens that way then there must be little chance that something else would happen in extraordinary circumstances.

If you want to talk about lame-ducks, I think the lame duck congress might get something done because the GOP is afraid of Elizabeth Warren.

The GOP is as afraid of her as I am of you.:usa:

Of course, no one likes a commie except for Massholes.

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 09:31 PM
Here's some recently updated info.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83607.html?hp=r2

Looks to me like they still wind up ahead even with some seats lost.

alnorth
11-08-2012, 09:34 PM
Looks to me like they still wind up ahead even with some seats lost.

The GOP had 242

BucEyedPea
11-08-2012, 09:38 PM
The GOP had 242

I knew they had lost some seats but that they still had their majority. The senate switched out some for others but essentially remained the same.

oldandslow
11-09-2012, 08:09 AM
I knew they had lost some seats but that they still had their majority. The senate switched out some for others but essentially remained the same.

Dems plus 8 or 9 (depending on Allen West) in the house, +3 in the Senate (up to 55 counting the independents who caucus with the dems)

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 08:48 AM
Dems plus 8 or 9 (depending on Allen West) in the house, +3 in the Senate (up to 55 counting the independents who caucus with the dems)

Democrats would have needed to pick up 25 Republican seats to regain control.That's what they were hoping for. They did not regain control of the House despite lying about Medicare cuts which were the same as they were under ACA. Not a bad hold when you consider that.

whoman69
11-09-2012, 10:16 AM
Of course, no one likes a commie except for Massholes.

You really need to get off the hyperbole tree, stop taking a trip down propaganda lane, and empty out your garbage bag of rhetoric.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:18 AM
You really need to get off the hyperbole tree, stop taking a trip down propaganda lane, and empty out your garbage bag of rhetoric.

Are you engaging in censorship? She's well known as a Marxist. They don't call it Marxachusetts for nothing. BTW I am from Mass as is my family. There's a reason half of us got out of there. And they even call themselves Massholes.

DaveNull
11-09-2012, 10:30 AM
Rhetoric like this is why the conservative movement is shrinking.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:32 AM
Rhetoric like this is why the conservative movement is shrinking.

Then you don't know Warren's views or Massachusetts. Mass voters get mocked around the country as being too far left.

Also, I did not vote R in 2004 or 2008 and even voted D for congress in 2006. This shifting of parties in office shows a general dissatisfaction with both parties and not getting desirable candidates. Polls bear it out too.

DaveNull
11-09-2012, 10:36 AM
Doesn't change the fact that running around labeling those who don't agree with you as Marxists, socialists or communists is driving people away from right leaning candidates.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:39 AM
http://i.usatoday.net/_common/_notches/1a435008-4a9e-42e7-976b-0b879dfb7541-non-voters-online.gif

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 10:40 AM
Doesn't change the fact that running around labeling those who don't agree with you as Marxists, socialists or communists is driving people away from right leaning candidates.

I don't label them that simply for disagreeing with me. I disagree with them because they are socialists.

BTW polls show that 80% think Obama is a socialist. Currently, people don't like the choices for presidential candidates and are voting against the other as much as for. Polls still show they think the country is on the wrong track.

bsp4444
11-09-2012, 10:56 AM
Considering that the expiration of tax cuts and sequestration is looming, and that Obamacare is not getting repealed and those factors together make it very likely that tax and entitlement reform happens within a year, it is premature to call Obama a lame-duck President.

I think a lot of people realize that the GOP went all-in on thwarting progress to make Obama look bad, and Obama won re-election anyway. I think Obama and the Dems will offer them a face-saving way to start exercising their governing responsibilities and deals will get done.

This...I pray this.

Radar Chief
11-09-2012, 11:01 AM
Doesn't change the fact that running around labeling those who don't agree with you as Marxists, socialists or communists is driving people away from right leaning candidates.

Right cause, like, “tea baggers” has so much more flair to it.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 11:10 AM
Right cause, like, “tea baggers” has so much more flair to it.

Tea Bagger is a slur. Marxist, socialist, and communist are the names of ideologies.

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 11:57 AM
Spare me.

Now, as for the "working together" stuff......Scott Brown, the second most bipartisan Senator in the country, was replaced with an unwavering partisan democrat.

That's fine, but it just goes to show how fallacious the claim of wanting bipartisanship really is. Complete crap, as it always was.


This was a point made by a friend on another board.

vailpass
11-09-2012, 11:58 AM
Dems plus 8 or 9 (depending on Allen West) in the house, +3 in the Senate (up to 55 counting the independents who caucus with the dems)

Makes no difference does it?

BucEyedPea
11-09-2012, 12:01 PM
Makes no difference does it?

My point. I can't fathom how it's taken this long to see it.

whoman69
11-09-2012, 03:18 PM
Spare me.




This was a point made by a friend on another board.

Scott Brown was not bi-partisan until Warren called him out on voting with his party more than 90% of the time despite his claim of being an independent. He was as bi-partisan as Mitt Romney who vetoed over 800 bills in Massachusetts and had over 700 overturned, many of those unanimously.

How bi-partisan are you really when you co author the Veterans Jobs bill and vote to block it after Obama came out in support of it?

bandwagonjumper
11-10-2012, 04:35 AM
Are you engaging in censorship? She's well known as a Marxist. They don't call it Marxachusetts for nothing. BTW I am from Mass as is my family. There's a reason half of us got out of there. And they even call themselves Massholes.

What happened to other halve? The clever halve.

Der Flöprer
11-10-2012, 05:39 AM
Right? I'm a fiscal conservative, and a civil rights leftist. That's what you call a centrist in this environment, baby...

Don't blame me for being ahead of the political curve. Calling Obama a lame duck is like saying the sun is going to rise tomorrow. I'm not sure what you think he is going to accomplish that he wasn't able to accomplish when the deck was more stacked in his favor.

Yup the 4 liberty candidates who ran all won tonight. Fiscal conservative left leaning on civil liberties is a winning formula.

Now if the rest of the Republicans can come around to this way of thinking, they may have a chance to run things again sometime this century.

Comrade Crapski
11-10-2012, 06:31 AM
Come now. He's doing a bang up job:

1 in 5 on Medicaid:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/reco...ry-5-americans

So, what was the reason for obastardcare again?

whoman69
11-11-2012, 09:45 AM
Anyone heard when the other House race will be called?

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 10:32 AM
Scott Brown was not bi-partisan until Warren called him out on voting with his party more than 90% of the time despite his claim of being an independent. He was as bi-partisan as Mitt Romney who vetoed over 800 bills in Massachusetts and had over 700 overturned, many of those unanimously.

How bi-partisan are you really when you co author the Veterans Jobs bill and vote to block it after Obama came out in support of it?
She's far more partisan. The Rs are not that far right currently, despite how the socialist left paints them.

BucEyedPea
11-11-2012, 10:37 AM
Scott Brown was not bi-partisan until Warren called him out on voting with his party more than 90% of the time despite his claim of being an independent. He was as bi-partisan as Mitt Romney who vetoed over 800 bills in Massachusetts and had over 700 overturned, many of those unanimously.

How bi-partisan are you really when you co author the Veterans Jobs bill and vote to block it after Obama came out in support of it?
She's far more partisan. The Rs are not that far right currently, despite how the socialist left paints them.

As to the left overriding a moderate R's vetoes in Mass. So healthcare costs rose I think around 27%, it runs red ink and requires federal Medicaid funds to bail it out. So much for Romney saying it was a state program only. Plus, I recently read he was going to still usher other states to go this route, even if he repealed Obamacare by EO ( which is the same thing the R accuses Obama of using to by pass congress.)

The good news is there is another challenge to Obamacare going to the courts because the SC failed to address a main point in the original case. Robert's claim of it being a tax also doesn't hold since it did not originate in the House, but the Senate. It also lacks a funding mechanism. Then there are about ten states refusing to set up healthcare exchanges. Mine is one of them.
Lots of R governors won too. You have NO mandate.