By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - The American Thread of Mid-Term Elections (2010)

Hm... Rand Paul won.

I guess it's because the crazy accusations against him didn't stick unlike O'Donnel and Angle.

 

Kidnapping a woman and forcing them to worship "Aqua Buddha" i guess is a story too ridiculious to pin even on a tea party member.

Probably helped that he had an established brand name.

 

I wonder if Angle will win.  People say it's dumb to kick out Harry right now because as Senate majority leader he'd be able to get Nevada more stuff....

but if that's the case why is Nevada way at the bottom when it comes to stimulus money....

even below Washington DC by a huge amount.

 

DC's huge stimulus bailout pretty much shows that for a lot of politicians it's not who gets them there but where they live now.



Around the Network

Been watching the CNN coverage who have called that Republicans will retake the majority in the House of Representatives (the lower house).  They are estimating them taking 50 or more seats (only needed 39) so will be quite a big swing there.  But, usually in midterm elections and in times where it seems the minority party is going to be able to take the majority party, the House is where you get the biggest swings.  It does seem that the majority will stay with the Democrats in the Senate, although not entirely out of the question.  But as Kaz says, the difference will be minuscule comparatively if it is the 51-49 or 52-48 split.  

Really based on things leading up to this, the change in power in the House doesn't come as too much of a surprise too me.  However, I am a little surprised that the Senate held as strong as it did for the Democrats.  I thought the Republicans would be able to take that small majority, although still have a chance.  

Very interesting election night gentlemen.



theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Pity that Barney Frank didn't lose, but this election will always remain a fond memory in my heart after Keith Olbermann openly wept on live TV. That man is a fucking PRO.


he did? where?

That's pretty amazing. Guess he and beck aren't that different after all

Oh wait, he's cried before nevermind. I remember he cried about gay rights


Even John Stewart gets that much.  Of course the thing Stewart doesn't get is... that even though he specifically says "We are not a real news show" people take them as a real news show anyway, a LOT of them.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are no better then the cable shows they mock... at least  not in effect.



Coca-Cola said:
badgenome said:

Pity that Barney Frank didn't lose, but this election will always remain a fond memory in my heart after Keith Olbermann openly wept on live TV. That man is a fucking PRO.

oh my God!  I missed it?  That must have been awesome.

video link yet?

Not yet, sadly.



Republicans up 12 in Congress now.

Ohio has nearly kicked out every Democratic congressman, except for Cleveland. Portman ran over Fisher in the Senate, and Kaisch looks to win. Big news is that 100,000 voters in Cleveland decided to stay home...Which is really bad for Strickland.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.

Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Pity that Barney Frank didn't lose, but this election will always remain a fond memory in my heart after Keith Olbermann openly wept on live TV. That man is a fucking PRO.


he did? where?

That's pretty amazing. Guess he and beck aren't that different after all

Oh wait, he's cried before nevermind. I remember he cried about gay rights


Even John Stewart gets that much.  Of course the thing Stewart doesn't get is... that even though he specifically says "We are not a real news show" people take them as a real news show anyway, a LOT of them.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are no better then the cable shows they mock... at least  not in effect.

It's a comedy show.

It's not *fake* news, it's real news being made fun of.



mrstickball said:

Most governments *do* drop in popularity during the mid term. However, it usually isn't something that shifts fast. For example, the Republicans lost about 60 seats over TWO votes....The Dems may lose that many in half the time.

Yes, its possible that a 3rd party candidate could win the presendency. However, it hasn't happened since Abraham Lincoln in 1860. It almost happened with Ross Perot in 1992, but due to crazy circumstances, he lost.


Yea they drop in popularity on the midterm as a large amount of seats picked up by the President's party in the presidential election year is from independents rallying with that party.  Midterm elections aren't as "popular" among the masses and the president's party loses those votes.  So the loss is well-documented and almost guaranteed to happen, aside from a few instances in American political history.  

Now for losing them fast, it usually doesn't happen fast.  However, in times of economic trouble, usually those in power aren't looked highly upon.  Economy, has and always will, trump any other issue.  So with a high unemployment rate and an economy, while stable, but not fully recovered, a large swing power isn't something to out of the question and obviously what we are seeing right now.  Whether or not the state of the economy is in fact the fault (if bad) or success (if good) of the party in control, it usually tends to be seen that way.  

 

Really shows how important the state of the economy is into the political game in America, or well any country.  



theprof00 said:
Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Pity that Barney Frank didn't lose, but this election will always remain a fond memory in my heart after Keith Olbermann openly wept on live TV. That man is a fucking PRO.


he did? where?

That's pretty amazing. Guess he and beck aren't that different after all

Oh wait, he's cried before nevermind. I remember he cried about gay rights


Even John Stewart gets that much.  Of course the thing Stewart doesn't get is... that even though he specifically says "We are not a real news show" people take them as a real news show anyway, a LOT of them.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are no better then the cable shows they mock... at least  not in effect.

It's a comedy show.

It's not *fake* news, it's real news being made fun of.

Not according to John Stewart and the Daily show itself.

They've called themselves a "Fake News" show from day 1.

It's News Satire.



Kasz216 said:
theprof00 said:
badgenome said:

Pity that Barney Frank didn't lose, but this election will always remain a fond memory in my heart after Keith Olbermann openly wept on live TV. That man is a fucking PRO.


he did? where?

That's pretty amazing. Guess he and beck aren't that different after all

Oh wait, he's cried before nevermind. I remember he cried about gay rights


Even John Stewart gets that much.  Of course the thing Stewart doesn't get is... that even though he specifically says "We are not a real news show" people take them as a real news show anyway, a LOT of them.

The Daily Show and Colbert Report are no better then the cable shows they mock... at least  not in effect.

Well anytime anyone talks or even mocks politics, they are going to be making some sort of political statement.  So that only makes sense.  I think the real thing to remember, is that at the forefront they are trying to be funny, and only secondary does a message come out.  Think the best thing to do is just sit back and laugh and not think too much about it haha.  But I guess I can see where you are coming from with them two.  



Zucas said:
mrstickball said:

Most governments *do* drop in popularity during the mid term. However, it usually isn't something that shifts fast. For example, the Republicans lost about 60 seats over TWO votes....The Dems may lose that many in half the time.

Yes, its possible that a 3rd party candidate could win the presendency. However, it hasn't happened since Abraham Lincoln in 1860. It almost happened with Ross Perot in 1992, but due to crazy circumstances, he lost.

Yea they drop in popularity on the midterm as a large amount of seats picked up by the President's party in the presidential election year is from independents rallying with that party.  Midterm elections aren't as "popular" among the masses and the president's party loses those votes.  So the loss is well-documented and almost guaranteed to happen, aside from a few instances in American political history.  

Now for losing them fast, it usually doesn't happen fast.  However, in times of economic trouble, usually those in power aren't looked highly upon.  Economy, has and always will, trump any other issue.  So with a high unemployment rate and an economy, while stable, but not fully recovered, a large swing power isn't something to out of the question and obviously what we are seeing right now.  Whether or not the state of the economy is in fact the fault (if bad) or success (if good) of the party in control, it usually tends to be seen that way.  

Really shows how important the state of the economy is into the political game in America, or well any country.  

Historically, if the Republicans take 50-60 seats, it will be the 3rd worst election in history for Democrats. Only 1894 and 1938 were worse. Crazy stuff.



Back from the dead, I'm afraid.