Election 2010

[KCMax]

The number of GOP seats in the House may not have peaked at this time.  Two things to consider:
1) It is expected that a number of senior Dem House members will not run again.  Normally when a party loses losses control of the House senior members do not like the adjustment to minority status, especially with regards to committee assignments, responsibilities, and control.
2) The GOP has increased its control of Governorships and state legislatures.  Before the 2012 election there will be redistricting and for many states the GOP will control the process.

These two arguments are exactly what people said in 2006 about the Dems. "Permanent majority" indeed.

[NDTeve]

Angry Dems 

Now the Republicans need to do something. Voting down every spending bill will not "grow the economy". At some point you need taxes and govt spending. Infrastructure spending (road, rail) is a huge job creator and fills an important need.

[phxcat]

The number of GOP seats in the House may not have peaked at this time.  Two things to consider:
1) It is expected that a number of senior Dem House members will not run again.  Normally when a party loses losses control of the House senior members do not like the adjustment to minority status, especially with regards to committee assignments, responsibilities, and control.
2) The GOP has increased its control of Governorships and state legislatures.  Before the 2012 election there will be redistricting and for many states the GOP will control the process.

True, but many of those elections are also very close and will always be that way.  Re-districting will be interesting.  I was thinking about the effects of it the other day, and I think they may be minimal- I would think that Texas is about as gerrymandered as it can get, and we saw the limits of the effect of gerrymandering in Texas when the Republicans lost DeLay's seat. Florida apparently passed a couple of anti-gerrymandering laws. I haven't seen any national tables, but I would assume that the Democrats control California, NY, NJ, and Illinois and probably a share of PA, OH, and MI.  The smaller the state, the more difficult it is to gerrymander, and of course the flip side of gerrymandering (like we saw in Texas) is that you end up weakening what should be your stronger districts, so in the case of a wave the other way, you end up losing seats.  

edit- it looks like the Republicans do control Michigan, so there is that!

[KCMax]

Republicans control both chambers of 25 state legislatures including Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin and Missouri.

Its interesting that Dems held their own in the northeast unsurprisingly, but the Dems did surprisingly well in the west, and not just the west coast, but mountain states like Colorado and Montana. They even held their own in parts of the south, where I suspect there are still remnants of old boy Dem parties from decades ago.

They absolutely got slaughtered in the rust belt. Minnesota used to have both houses controlled by the Dems, both are now GOP. Ohio completely flipped. Dems got killed in PA. Wisconsin and Michigan were the same.

So I suspect this landslide is almost completely because of the economy.

[zlohban]

Looks like Howard Dean might challenge the president in 2012 and go after the solid far-left. It will be interesting seeing what kind of position Obama will have to offer Dean to keep him inside his circle.  Dean has a grudge to settle with Obama for not being seated in his cabinet. Another threat is Feingold who would also take the left and has plenty of free time to campaign.  Obama must decide soon between going moderate for the independent vote or go further left to keep someone from challenging him in 2012.

My advise, set a new presidential precedent making a speech stating that he he has chosen to run for re-election in 2012 BUT will not campaign, he will however spend 100% of his time working for the american people and restoring faith in our government.

He would get my vote. 

[KCMax]

A Dean or Feingold run bolsters Obama because it makes him seem more moderate. A more serious challenge would be Evan Bayh, who recently retired, but is sitting on some $10 million in contributions. He's very moderate, hawkish, deficit-hawk - really nearly a center-right Democrat. It will be interesting to see what he does.

Anyone catch Charlie Rose last night? I thought it was an excellent discussion with David Brooks and Chris Matthews (amazing that you can actually have a meaningful, illuminating discussion on policy, not politics between conservatives and liberals on PBS!). One thing they both agreed on is that Obama needs to set out a vision for the direction he wants to take America. What will America look like in 2030? Will we have less of a manufacturing base? Will we have taken on a major infrastructure initiative (Matthews made the interesting point that Americans will accept major deficit spending so long as it is something everyone can enjoy, like infrastructure. He mentioned rapid rail, which Brooks dismissed, and quite frankly, I don't think would be that popular even though I support it very much)

Anyway, the next year should be an interesting one. First big issue will probably be the debt limit. Congress needs to vote on whether to raise it or not - they have never failed to raise the debt limit. Some Tea Partiers have vowed not to vote for it. If the debt limit is raised, we likely default on our debt, and I'm not entirely sure what happens then, but I don't think it is good.

[zlohban]

Evan Bayh would take the mid-west / rustbelt (the news today has Penn. in the mid-west???) and would also capture the rino vote and old traditional republicans, who are mostly progressive.

[aknowledgeableperson]

These two arguments are exactly what people said in 2006 about the Dems. "Permanent majority" indeed.

They didn't redistrict after the 2006 election.

[KCMax]

They didn't redistrict after the 2006 election.

That's true. They did in 2000 when Dems controlled more state legislatures. That worked out great.

[phuqueue]

Liberal policies are what cause the "collapse" in the first place.  I know Obama likes to blame Bush and Conservative values for the "collapse." but who had control of Congress in 2008?  2007?  2006?

Then, Obama comes along and spends more money than God has to stimulate the economy.  Obama said we had to pass the stimulus to keep unemployment under 8%.  Kind of like how Pelosi said we had to pass the healthcare bill to find out what's in it.  But, do you see her around anywhere?  

Until spending and unemployment (which were the main concerns for this election) get back to Pre-Obama and Pre-Dem Congress levels, it's not looking good for Obama to win in 2012.

WHEN does the unemployment rate come down?  WHEN does the out of control spending stop?  

Now, Obama might be able to campaign on his health care bill.....but most Americans oppose it.

Obama is suing the state of Arizona over their immigration law....but most Americans support it.

Obama supports the Ground Zero Mosque...but isn't going to comment on the "wisdom" of it.

Are there ANY major issue in which Obama agrees with the majority?

Since I last checked this thread I see a lot of people have already responded to this and various other posts so I won't beat a dead horse here.  Just going to make two quick points and let all the other posts that have been written speak to the rest.  First of all, "out of control spending": who cares?  As a percentage of GDP, our national debt is far lower than most European countries, Japan, etc.  Huge deficits are not something we can do forever, but we're not in any particular danger at this point.  Moreover, if you voted Republican because you expect them to reduce the deficit, your face is really gonna be red when they add $700 billion to it instead.

"Ground Zero mosque": are you fucking serious?  Are we still on this?  It's not at Ground Zero.  It's not a mosque.  And unless you live in the neighborhood, how is it any of your business anyway?  Who cares?  They bought a building to put a community center in it.  It's our Constitution and our capitalist economic system at work: two things conservatives claim to love in theory but evidently get really annoyed at in practice.

Angry Dems 

Now the Republicans need to do something. Voting down every spending bill will not "grow the economy". At some point you need taxes and govt spending. Infrastructure spending (road, rail) is a huge job creator and fills an important need.

See, if you were one of the Republicans who just went to Congress, it might not be so bad.  It's a pretty common sentiment that gridlock ends up being best in the long run, but right now we're in a situation where we need to take positive action, not just sit back and hope everything works itself out.  Lots of tough talk from Boehner that now isn't the time to compromise, but buddy, you still only have a majority in one house, if anyone's going to do anything there's gonna have to be compromise.  The worst thing that could happen here is for the Republicans to overplay their hand and refuse to work with the Dems (or for the Dems to do the same, but they've struck a much more conciliatory tone so I'm not really as worried about them).  They're going to be in for a shock if they think they've got the mandate that ATKC seems to think they do -- they certainly weren't put in any position to force through any of their own stuff, just a much stronger position to stop the Dems from doing it either.

[Highlander]

A more serious challenge would be Evan Bayh, who recently retired, but is sitting on some $10 million in contributions. He's very moderate, hawkish, deficit-hawk - really nearly a center-right Democrat. It will be interesting to see what he does.

When was the last time a sitting president did not get his party's nomination?  I can't think of any instances off hand in the 20th century.  Johnson was reputedly unlikely to get the democratic nomination in 68 but he did not seek it.  Even Gerald Ford got the nomination. 

[AllThingsKC]

First of all, "out of control spending": who cares?  

The voters.

"Ground Zero mosque": are you fucking serious?  Are we still on this?  It's not at Ground Zero.  It's not a mosque.  And unless you live in the neighborhood, how is it any of your business anyway?  Who cares?  They bought a building to put a community center in it.  It's our Constitution and our capitalist economic system at work: two things conservatives claim to love in theory but evidently get really annoyed at in practice.

My post wasn't about where the Mosque was or was not.  Nor was my post about if it was right or not.  My post was about Obama's comments about it, followed by more comments 12 hours later in which he seemed to have changed his tune slightly.  My point was that without a teleprompter, Obama makes just as many political miscues as Mark Funkhouser - AND how that affects his approval ratings.

They're going to be in for a shock if they think they've got the mandate that ATKC seems to think they do.

Link to where I said Republicans have a mandate?  

[phuqueue]

The voters.

Obviously they don't or they wouldn't have voted in the party whose platform includes adding $700 billion to the deficit.

My post wasn't about where the Mosque was or was not.  Nor was my post about if it was right or not.  My post was about Obama's comments about it, followed by more comments 12 hours later in which he seemed to have changed his tune slightly.  My point was that without a teleprompter, Obama makes just as many political miscues as Mark Funkhouser - AND how that affects his approval ratings.

Well actually in that particular post that I was replying to, your main point seemed to be that Obama doesn't see eye to eye with the majority of voters.  And in trying to make this point, you brought up something that has no place in any serious discussion of real political issues.  My counterpoint was I don't give a shit what the majority of Americans feel about something that is a) of no concern to them and b) has no bearing on Obama's job performance.  Most Americans don't like the White Sox either but you'd be laughed out of the room if you put that up as some kind of proof that Obama and the voters don't see eye to eye.  The only reason the "mosque" issue blew up is that Republicans decided to use it to exploit racism and xenophobia for political gain.  Now that it's faded from the headlines, we should return to treating it as the non-issue that it always should have been instead of pretending like it has any role as a valid point of political discussion.

To your further point that Obama makes as many political miscues as Funkhouser when he doesn't have a teleprompter -- a) this is a single miscue, not any sort of pattern (kind of like when Boehner insists that he can reach across the aisle, he has to reach back a decade to point to NCLB as an example of his bipartisanship -- you got anything else John?); b) he gave his opinion on a matter that, for better or worse, was dominating the political scene at the time, but refused to become part of the fight because he (rightfully) realized this is not an issue of national concern, so I don't know that I'd characterize it as a miscue in the first place; c) the teleprompter shit is pretty tired anyway -- even if it's a real thing, even if Obama really can't speak without a teleprompter and it's not just a thing the GOP likes to try to poke fun at, it's certainly no worse than Bush's myriad oratory gaffes, and while both might be amusing to the respective opposing parties, neither has any particular bearing on political acumen.  Like the "mosque" itself, it is a non-issue.

Link to where I said Republicans have a mandate?  

If I specifically quote you as saying "the Republicans have a mandate" then you can ask for a link to the post where you said it.  If, on the other hand, I make reference to the mandate "that ATKC seems to think" they have, then you'll just have to read between the lines of all your various posts.

[AllThingsKC]

Obviously they don't or they wouldn't have voted in the party whose platform includes adding $700 billion to the deficit.

Yeah.  It's a good thing that the party that lost seats in the House didn't triple the deficit in one month's time.  But, I am sure you are right.  Voters don't care about the deficit.  

To your further point that Obama makes as many political miscues as Funkhouser when he doesn't have a teleprompter -- a) this is a single miscue, not any sort of pattern (kind of like when Boehner insists that he can reach across the aisle, he has to reach back a decade to point to NCLB as an example of his bipartisanship -- you got anything else John?); b) he gave his opinion on a matter that, for better or worse, was dominating the political scene at the time, but refused to become part of the fight because he (rightfully) realized this is not an issue of national concern, so I don't know that I'd characterize it as a miscue in the first place; c) the teleprompter shit is pretty tired anyway -- even if it's a real thing, even if Obama really can't speak without a teleprompter and it's not just a thing the GOP likes to try to poke fun at, it's certainly no worse than Bush's myriad oratory gaffes, and while both might be amusing to the respective opposing parties, neither has any particular bearing on political acumen.  Like the "mosque" itself, it is a non-issue.

1. This is just one political miscue without a teleprompter.  Do you remember when the Cambrigde, MA police "acted stupidly"?  Or how about when Republicans were "the enemies," only to say later that he meant, "opponents."  When was the last time a Republican President referred to Democrats as "enemies"?

2. Presidents have to talk a lot.  They are going to make gaffs now and then.  I understand that Obama seems to be making gaffs just as much as Bush did.  That's really no big deal to me.  But do you know what is funny to Conservatives?  This is just another way in which Obama is just 4 more year Bush.  So, it's not really much of a "change over the past 8 years," is it?  Hope and Change, baby!

3. Obama = 4 more years of Bush.  There is no hope.  There is no change.  It's same old Washington as usual.  Obama has out of control spending, isn't listening to the people, high unemployment, and has a low approval rating.  So did Bush.  Obama is one who said he was the change we needed over the past 8 years.  The changes the voters probably do see are changes for the worse.

If I specifically quote you as saying "the Republicans have a mandate" then you can ask for a link to the post where you said it.  If, on the other hand, I make reference to the mandate "that ATKC seems to think" they have, then you'll just have to read between the lines of all your various posts.

Allow me to make clear what I think:   I do not believe the Republicans have a mandate at all (expect for MAYBE healthcare reform...maybe).  I think the voters were rejecting Democrat policies, but not embracing Republican ones.  So, if the GOP thinks that they have the will of the people, they will be surprised in 2012.

[KCMax]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that teleprompters were not a big factor in this week's elections, and won't be a factor in 2012. 

[mean]

Allow me to make clear what I think:   I do not believe the Republicans have a mandate at all (expect for MAYBE healthcare reform...maybe).  I think the voters were rejecting Democrat policies, but not embracing Republican ones.  So, if the GOP thinks that they have the will of the people, they will be surprised in 2012.

Honestly, I think even that is a stretch. Certainly I'd agree that some voters were rejecting the Obama administration's policies, but I don't think it's more than 30-40%.

[zlohban]

I heard this on Morning Joe about a county that solved the Social Security issue in 1981 yet this is the first time I have heard of any attempt to make SS better. Try this Obama.

The Galveston County, Texas Plan was implemented just before the U.S. Congress passed a reform bill in 1983 that closed the door for local governments to opt out of Social Security.

To be sure, our plan wasn't perfect, and we have made some adjustments. For instance, a few of our retired county workers are critical of the plan today because they say they are making less money than they would have on Social Security. This is because our plan allowed workers to make "hardship" withdrawals from the retirement plan during their working years. Some workers withdrew funds for current financial problems and consequently robbed their own future benefits. We closed that option in January 2005.

Galveston vs. Social Security. Upon retirement after 30 years, and assuming a 5 percent rate of return - more conservative than Galveston workers have earned - all workers would do better for the same contribution as Social Security:


Workers making $17,000 a year receive about 50 percent more per month on our alternative plan than on Social Security - $1,036 instead of $683.

Workers making $26,000 a year make almost double Social Security's return - $1,500 instead of $853.

Workers making $51,000 a year will get $3,103 instead of $1,368.

Workers making $75,000 or more will nearly triple Social Security - $4,540 instead of $1,645.

Galveston County's survivorship benefits pay four times a worker's annual salary - a minimum of $75,000 to a maximum $215,000 - versus Social Security, which forces widows to wait until age 60 to qualify for benefits, or provides 75 percent of a worker's salary for school-age children.
In Galveston County, if the worker dies before retirement, the survivors receive not only the full survivorship but get generous accidental death benefits, too. Galveston County's disability benefit also pays more: 60 percent of an individual's salary, better than Social Security's.

Two government studies of the Galveston Plan - by the Government Accountability Office and the Social Security Administration - claim that low-wage workers do better under Social Security. However, these studies assumed a low 4 percent return, which is the minimum rate of return on annuities guaranteed by the insurance companies. The actual returns have been substantially higher.

[bobbyhawks]

Allow me to make clear what I think:   I do not believe the Republicans have a mandate at all (expect for MAYBE healthcare reform...maybe).

If we asked a group of people if they were satisfied with the amount of nuts in their banana split, most would probably be dissatisfied.  Some would want more, and some don't like them at all.  This is not to say that most people hate nuts.  One thing is for sure, if the nuts in Congress don't work together, health care will be a big problem and drain on the economy for many many more years.

I heard this on Morning Joe about a county that solved the Social Security issue in 1981 yet this is the first time I have heard of any attempt to make SS better. Try this Obama.

First of all, this wasn't a county, this was a few thousand workers in that country.  Second, this information is from 2005, prior to the recession.  I would love to see the returns they have now.  Third, I'll let wiki take it from here:

A more fundamental flaw in this criticism is the fact that Social Security is not analogous to a retirement investment plan because it is an insurance program, not an investment account. Social Security benefits can exceed market returns of retirement investments under some circumstances, because as an insurance program it pays benefits not only for retirement, but for disability, as well as paying survivors and dependents (see FICA above), and this coverage begins shortly after a worker starts contributing. It can also be argued that part of Social Security's "return" is not only benefits actually paid, but the coverage against risk a worker and their family has in the event of loss of income from retirement, disability and death, even if disability and death occur at a relatively young age.

Hope those people in Galveston didn't have any money with Bernie Madoff.

[KCMax]

Bush tried to privatize social security with a Republican Congress and it went over like a lead balloon. And that's when the market was doing well. No way anyone goes for any kind of market volatility in SS now.

Social Security is still taking in more money than it pays out and has built up a sizeable surplus, even if you account that some of it is in the form of IOUs from Congress. To make it more sustainable all it really takes is a number of tweaks, not wholesale changes. We should probably raise the early retirement age, probably even raise the late retirement age option. Slowing COLA growth would help. Either lifting the cap on income that can be taxed for SS or means-testing should probably be done. If a number of these are incrementally changed, SS will be solvent for at least another century. IMO, SS can be fairly easily solved if the political will is there. The bigger issue is Medicare/Medicaid whose costs are just ballooning and are straining not only the federal government, but state governments as well.

[KCMax]

I am optimistic about bi-partisanship! &&&

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president."
-Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/10/25/mcc ... -one-term/

"I'm going to ensure that Republicans come out of the gate and seize this moment, we've really been given a second chance at a first impression and I'm going to tell them that we have to rise to the challenge with principle and conviction and not with this attitude that you saw coming from the White House yesterday and from some other quarters on the establishment left in Washington which was that somehow the message of the election was that they want Democrats and Republicans to work better together, to get along - good heavens."
-Congressman Mike Pence

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/11/04/pen ... -together/

But here's the critical thing: a whopping 78 percent want the Republicans to compromise with Obama rather than stick to their positions in the next two years; 76 percent want the Dems to do the same; and a slightly lower percentage, but still overwhelming, wants Obama to compromise too: 69 percent.

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/t ... -poll.html