Dear Right Wing

Vulchor

I cant wait to get up in the morning and hear the excuses, the insults of other people, the silver linings, the good news spin, ect. I also cant wait to hear 4 more years of how bad the world is and that its all going to hell. I also wanna hear how it has nothing to do with race or birth certificates or religion. What I certainly hope I do not hear however is a simple admission that even as bad as the economy, jobs, and confidence is----the idea and the man they put forth is even a worse idea than what we already have.

JDH

Vulchor:

I cant wait to get up in the morning and hear the excuses, the insults of other people, the silver linings, the good news spin, ect. I also cant wait to hear 4 more years of how bad the world is and that its all going to hell. I also wanna hear how it has nothing to do with race or birth certificates or religion. What I certainly hope I do not hear however is a simple admission that even as bad as the economy, jobs, and confidence is----the idea and the man they put forth is even a worse idea than what we already have.

"If we don't run Chris Christie, it will be Mitt Romney and we'll loose." Ann Coulter

Glock1975

Obama Care here we come. Get ready people.

Rain

Vulchor:

I cant wait to get up in the morning and hear the excuses, the insults of other people, the silver linings, the good news spin, ect. I also cant wait to hear 4 more years of how bad the world is and that its all going to hell. I also wanna hear how it has nothing to do with race or birth certificates or religion. What I certainly hope I do not hear however is a simple admission that even as bad as the economy, jobs, and confidence is----the idea and the man they put forth is even a worse idea than what we already have.

As often as I see political postings...do any of you really think it matters? I mean this seriously and honestly, not in jest. Who among us does not think that corporations run America? That if Romney won he'd come in and change things overnight. He'd say the same thing Obama said..."$hit is messed up, and the last four years I've been undoing my predecessors' mistakes. So just give me another four years and then things will be better." Thanks for letting me rant

JDH

President Obama was not just re-elected.

Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and Mitch McConnel, and Sheldon Adleson, and the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump, and the idea that "I hope he fails" was defeated. The birthers were defeated. Obstructionists in Congress were defeated. A lot of very wealthy conservatives just threw away a ton of money in their efforts to insure that President Obama would fail.

Amos_Umwhat

JDH:

President Obama was not just re-elected.

Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and Mitch McConnel, and Sheldon Adleson, and the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump, and the idea that "I hope he fails" was defeated. The birthers were defeated. Obstructionists in Congress were defeated. A lot of very wealthy conservatives just threw away a ton of money in their efforts to insure that President Obama would fail.

I wonder if the Koch brothers will hold good to their threat that they'll decimate their blue-collar workforce?

Rain makes some excellent points, as well. We can only hope, and pray, that the incoming "public servants" will make some kind of honest effort to come together and start trying to solve some of the vast problems that their predecessors have created. Sadly, history indicates that it will be just more of the same.

We can't get it together if every problem is met with hatred for "the other side". There is no other side, we're all right here.
Turn off Rush, tune out Nancy Pelosi, bring the soldiers home, and start investing time energy and effort into America.

webmost

Well I for one think it's a damn shame. If Romney had been elected, he would have created twelve million jobs. I know it for a fact. I heard him say it.

blurr

Not too much salt in the wound Vulchor. Even as a registered Democrat I would still vote republican in the future if they can get their heads out of their butt and stop focusing on things that are so far right and mean nothing to me personally. Give up the insistence on trickle down economics working without any regulation or oversight of financial markets, give up on protecting the uber wealthy and corporations, and focus on things that matter to the middle class. Stop calling a president a food-stamp president because he took office during a collapse after 8 years of republican policies, etc. And most important of all, and this is the most needed, DROP the religious right pandering! The fringe right, especially fringe religious christians etc, do not hold views that have any relevance to 3/4ths of the people in this country. Religion is going the way of the dodo, the sooner the GOP distances from the religious right the better for the party as a whole. The GOP needs a major shakeup, and I think in the future we will see a lot of changes from the party if they are to remain relevant.

beatnic

Well. Your guy won. Fair and square. Now where do I go to get my free Obamaphone, healthcare and food stamps?

JDH

beatnic:

Well. Your guy won. Fair and square. Now where do I go to get my free Obamaphone, healthcare and food stamps?

Maybe somewhere in your imagination. That's where I'd look.

Ken_Light

MSNBC reports that Obama has received 50% of the 97% of votes that are in. That's 48.5% of the popular vote by my math. That's not victory, that's just not losing. No one won last night, not the president, and not the people he'll allege to represent. Number reversed, my opinion would have been no different.

Vulchor

Rain:

Vulchor:

I cant wait to get up in the morning and hear the excuses, the insults of other people, the silver linings, the good news spin, ect. I also cant wait to hear 4 more years of how bad the world is and that its all going to hell. I also wanna hear how it has nothing to do with race or birth certificates or religion. What I certainly hope I do not hear however is a simple admission that even as bad as the economy, jobs, and confidence is----the idea and the man they put forth is even a worse idea than what we already have.

As often as I see political postings...do any of you really think it matters? I mean this seriously and honestly, not in jest. Who among us does not think that corporations run America? That if Romney won he'd come in and change things overnight. He'd say the same thing Obama said..."$hit is messed up, and the last four years I've been undoing my predecessors' mistakes. So just give me another four years and then things will be better." Thanks for letting me rant

I go on tangents and sometimes lose sight of the big picture. Dlo I think Obama is a better choice than Mitt...yes, I do. HOWEVER, I think you are totally correct. The country is run by wide ranging economic influences from every side of the political spectrum who only care about furthering their financial gain----not true political measures. See the Bildebergers and other organizations as proof of this. So to answer your question...No, I do not think this will be a big difference for the country, but sadly here we have to take our joy in small victories.

Vulchor

Well Ken, sorry my friend someone did win, even if you dont aknowledge it. Hell....me and my lliberal hippie brethern didnt recogize (and still dont) Governor Bush as a legit 8 year pres;)

Blurr, I read your post and I think it was thoughtful and spot on. Good assessment man.

jadelt

Time to go to Colorado where they just legalized pot..... smoke my troubles away

Vulchor

jadelt:

Time to go to Colorado where they just legalized pot..... smoke my troubles away

This we can all agree on.

jgibv

Vulchor:

the idea and the man they put forth is even a worse idea than what we already have.

Certainly agree with this. It's sad that Mitt was the "best" candidate the republicans could come up with - he should have ended his political career when his time in MA was up. State politics, ok - but I don't believe he was ready for the national level. Just my opinion.

JDH:

President Obama was not just re-elected.

Carl Rove and Rush Limbaugh and Mitch McConnel, and Sheldon Adleson, and the Koch Brothers and Donald Trump, and the idea that "I hope he fails" was defeated. The birthers were defeated. Obstructionists in Congress were defeated. A lot of very wealthy conservatives just threw away a ton of money in their efforts to insure that President Obama would fail.

I would partially agree with this. The wealthy conservatives who spent all sorts of money backing Romney were defeated this time around, but they won't disappear - unless Citizen's United is over turned and SuperPAC rules are changed/outlawed this will just continue in the next election.
Also - just to play devil's advocate, what would you say about the wealthy democrats who were using their money to support Obama? Aren't both parties guilty of this "I hope he fails" attitude to some extent? I'll agree that the right seems to be guiltier of this, but the left's certainly not 100% innocent of this too.

Someone had to win (obviously) and given the two choices - I'm glad it was Obama, he seemed the lesser of two evils.
However the Republicans still control the house and unless everyone starts to get along and "play nice" don't expect much to change if the fighting between parties continues, legislation will continue to be stalled.

Ken Light:

MSNBC reports that Obama has received 50% of the 97% of votes that are in. That's 48.5% of the popular vote by my math. That's not victory, that's just not losing. No one won last night, not the president, and not the people he'll allege to represent. Number reversed, my opinion would have been no different.

I also somewhat agree with Ken's sentiment here - obviously 1 politician or party can not please everyone - but how much is this really considered "winning." Yes Obama won and was reelected but you still have nearly half of all voters who did not support him at the polls.


Also - it will be interesting to see the stats on voter turn out this election - it was right around 60% of the voting-age eligible population in the 2008 presidential election - so let's say that stays the same for this election.....that means only about 30% of the voting-aged citizens supported Obama, only 30% supported Romney, and the other 40% couldn't be bothered to vote.
Just some "food for though" ...

Yes Obama "won" and was re-elected, but to what extent does any candidate "win" if only 30% of eligible voters support him.

jgibv

Vulchor:

jadelt:

Time to go to Colorado where they just legalized pot..... smoke my troubles away

This we can all agree on.

Didn't something similar pass in WA as well - I know it was a ballot issue, not sure what the specifics were though.

gdsim1

jgibv:

However the Republicans still control the house and unless everyone starts to get along and "play nice" don't expect much to change if the fighting between parties continues, legislation will continue to be stalled.

+1. After a record billions and billions spent on campaigns, at the end of the day Obama was re-elected, the house is still controlled by democrats, and the senate is still controlled by republicans.

So, to quote one of my favorite urban poets - same name, same game, aint a damn thing changed.

jgibv

gdsim1:

jgibv:

However the Republicans still control the house and unless everyone starts to get along and "play nice" don't expect much to change if the fighting between parties continues, legislation will continue to be stalled.

+1. After a record billions and billions spent on campaigns, at the end of the day Obama was re-elected, the house is still controlled by democrats, and the senate is still controlled by republicans.

So, to quote one of my favorite urban poets - same name, same game, aint a damn thing changed.

I think you got it mixed up, gdsim1, Democrats have a majority in the Senate, Republicans have a majority in the House.

Ken_Light

For what it's worth, bothered by the swingy nature of our electoral all-or-none method, I did some playing around with weighting electoral votes based on the actual spread of the popular votes. I don't like that if a candidate wins 51% to 49% the 51% are able to completely silence the 49%. I've also always been a fan of a 2/3 majority, so I set that as my criterion to receive 100% of the electoral votes in a state (67-33 = 34% or greater than 33% disparity)Call me crazy. So anyway, I devised this method of weighting electoral votes by the disparity in popular votes:
1) less than 10% disparity - 55% to winner, 45% to loser
2) 10-20% disparity - 67% to winner, 33% to loser
3) 20-33% disparity - 75% to winner, 25% to loser
4) greater than 33% disparity - 100% to winner, 0% to loser

By this math, Obama is still elected president, 277.3 to 260.7.

Interestingly, if I change the first category to have no victor (50% to each candidate), the margin closes considerably to 271.45 to 266.55, which means that the swing states DO still matter in this method, but they're just less swingy.

JDH

Vulchor:

jadelt:

Time to go to Colorado where they just legalized pot..... smoke my troubles away

This we can all agree on.

...and I've got a bunch of good friends in both states. Met my bride of 37 years in Steamboat Springs, and we lived in Bellingham, WA for 20 years. I feel a vacation coming on.

mmccartneydc

Thanks for doing that Ken. It actually made me feel less critical of the electoral system. I appreciate that!

Ken_Light

mmccartneydc:

Thanks for doing that Ken. It actually made me feel less critical of the electoral system. I appreciate that!

Well let's not forget that the electoral decision was a landslide under the current system. While the dysfunction might not have affected the election's outcome this time around, the disparity between the popular vote percentages and the electoral vote percentages is still alarming to me.

I really wish I was better at Excel. I feel like if I was I could find a way to set up a spreadsheet to simply import popular vote percentages and have it do the math for lots of previous elections. Since I don't know how to write if/then statements and make them work properly the legwork to do this is just too great.

pross

There were two clear choice in this election.

1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.

2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.

Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.

This is what we have become.....

JDH

pross:

There were two clear choice in this election.

1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.

2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.

Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.

This is what we have become.....

I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.

Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.

raisindot

Ken Light:

MSNBC reports that Obama has received 50% of the 97% of votes that are in. That's 48.5% of the popular vote by my math. That's not victory, that's just not losing. No one won last night, not the president, and not the people he'll allege to represent. Number reversed, my opinion would have been no different.

You can only count votes cast, not those that weren't cast and Obama won 50% to 48%, a number that is likely to rise if they ever get a final total for Florida. It's a higher percentage than President Bush and Al Gore got in 2000. It's nearly as high as the percentage Bush got in 2004. But here's the difference: When Clinton and Bush were elected, the economy was still growing and unemployment was low. The fact that Obama won with unemployment so high and an economy struggling to improve momentum is unprecedented in American history, a tribute to his ability to capture the loyalty of his supporters, regardless of whether you like him or hate him.

Ken_Light

raisindot:

Ken Light:

MSNBC reports that Obama has received 50% of the 97% of votes that are in. That's 48.5% of the popular vote by my math. That's not victory, that's just not losing. No one won last night, not the president, and not the people he'll allege to represent. Number reversed, my opinion would have been no different.

You can only count votes cast, not those that weren't cast and Obama won 50% to 48%, a number that is likely to rise if they ever get a final total for Florida. It's a higher percentage than President Bush and Al Gore got in 2000. It's nearly as high as the percentage Bush got in 2004. But here's the difference: When Clinton and Bush were elected, the economy was still growing and unemployment was low. The fact that Obama won with unemployment so high and an economy struggling to improve momentum is unprecedented in American history, a tribute to his ability to capture the loyalty of his supporters, regardless of whether you like him or hate him.

First, Obama has 50% of the 98% of expected votes that are in. There is no reason to believe that the remaining 2% will lean differently than the current 98%, so if you want to predict he'll get 50% the overall vote, so be it. I still wouldn't call that much of a victory, especially not by someone who once upon a time set a goal to unite the country as president. 50 to 48 is a far cry from unification.

Next, why make this partisan? I didn't. You're right it's better than Bush 2000, but so what? That doesn't make it good! For the record, I didn't vote because I didn't like either choice and didn't read up on 3rd party candidates enough to make an informed choice there, so rather than add noise to the already noisy system, I abstained.

Finally, you've given one possible explanation for the fact that Obama won despite unemployment woes and other economic problems in the country, but have no evidence for this. I can easily come up with two alternatives (for which there is also no evidence, mind you, I'm not saying either of these is right, but instead that their very existence means we cannot conclude your answer is the correct one):
1) His opponent was weaker than those faced by candidates in similar situations to his who lost.
2) Those who vote for him choose who to vote for on criteria other than unemployment and those parts of the economy which are failing.

Both are quite plausible and it is most likely that both and your explanation are all true (in fact number 2 and your explanation might be one and the same, phrased very differently) in some proportions, along with other explanations neither of us have yet considered.

Amos_Umwhat

Wanna get sprayed with some serious spewing, skewing and stewing? Tune in to El Rushbo, absolutely rabid!

pross

JDH:

pross:

There were two clear choice in this election.

1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.

2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.

Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.

This is what we have become.....

I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.

Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.

Actually, I equate the successes of the Clinton era directly with his ineffectiveness as a fiscal president. We wound up with a de facto Smithian "Laissez Faire" economy, which let the free hand of the economy run it's course.

We should have ordained that man king!

JDH

pross:

JDH:

pross:

There were two clear choice in this election.

1. Send your money to the rich in the form of tax increases for ongoing bailouts to large corporations or sweetheart deals to special interest groups.

2. Send your money to the poor in the form of tax increases due to unfunded mandates at the state level, rising dependence on government programs, and escalating government employment to oversee all of the new and exiting regulations that will be coming down the pike.

Both options result in most Americans who work to support this great nation being continually pressured until they prosper enough to be included with the rich, or fail to do so and join the ranks of those benefiting from the vast array of entitlement programs.

This is what we have become.....

I remember the Clinton years quite well, and one thing is absolute: The Regan/Bush administrations left the country saddled with huge budget deficits and debt. During the Clinton years, taxes were raised ON EVERYBODY, the tax code was tweaked, spending was cut, and the economy grew and grew and grew, and not only was the debt paid off, but there was a huge budget surplus when he left office. Raising taxes did not cause unemployment, and it did not cause any financial burden that I recall. It raised revenues which were used to pay down the debt. That is called fiscal responsibility.

Now we must raise taxes again, and we must also cut spending. How can Congresss be convinced to do that when nearly all Republicans have signed a pledge, not to the American People, but to Grover Norquist, who is an unelected extortionist threatening all of the Republican Party with revenge and a loss of their Office if they do not do what HE tells them to do? That is not how our form of government is supposed to work, but it is a reality now.

Actually, I equate the successes of the Clinton era directly with his ineffectiveness as a fiscal president. We wound up with a de facto Smithian "Laissez Faire" economy, which let the free hand of the economy run it's course.

We should have ordained that man king!

You don't remember the Clinton era taxes? You know, the ones that GW immediately abolished as soon as he got in office, and then he went on a spending bender for 8 years with no way to pay for the expenses? You can't just ignore the facts of history and declare that we got rid of a bunch of debt without those tax hikes because you may be a big fan of Milton Friedman. The "Laissez Faire" economy you refer to didn't create the surplus and eliminate the debt that Clinton inherited. If the taxes had not been raised during those years, the debt that Obama inherited would have been even larger. One more thing those taxes did was to prove once and for all that raising taxes does not prevent growth or cause unemployment. Taxes purchase civilization and pay down government debt, especially when the debt is caused by excessive military spending. How do you think we paid for WWII? It wasn't by cutting taxes, I can gurantee.

Instead of ordaining the man anything, the foam at the mouth conservatives only wanted to destroy him, and eventually impeached him, because he had the audacity to be a Democrat elected to an Office that these same conservatives believe is owned by them and can only be held by a conservative.

Amos_Umwhat

Ah, history. The elusive mystery that must be learned anew by each successive generation.