Kevin's Watch

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:10 pm**

ussusimiel wrote: Interestingly Mitch McConnell sounded much more placatory about bipartisanship in the Senate.

Also a strong indication that an Independent candidate with proper financial backing could be have a real chance at the Presidency in 2016.

u.

On the first: he's done that before...he started talking about "old school" style senate oh....a week or two ago, I first heard it??
Anyway, is it true?
Point in favor: Mitch USED to be somewhat more moderate and a big time dealer/negotiator.
Point against: he's been a dick recently and there is some indication that some Rep. senators might not back him. [only a few from what I've seen so far...but only a few can mean a lot. Depends on their leverage.]

On the second: I'd like to think Independents have always had SOME chance, usually just vanishingly small. There's a larger-than-normal space right now, I think, but still small chance overall.
[[I think, theoretically and not quickly enough to get the next presidency, there's an opening for a new major party to form. The problem is that our structure will always favor 2 parties...so which of the two current ones will be the one that dies off? That's unpredictable...it could go either way. Which would bleed more people? The left or right? Either is possible right now. Think unlikely is WILL happen...but the opening is biggest that I recall it being in my lifetime]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My prediction was off. But hey, at least I knew it was shaky.
The Dem's should mostly blame themselves. Sure, there are historical and structural effects in play, but still...I've only seen very preliminary numbers so far...but they showed, especially in the expected close states, turnout at the lowest level since '92.
The candidates ran like chicken shits and hypocrites away from Obama, and the voters stayed home.
The candidates should have used Obama every way they could...
[[Which isn't the same as backing/supporting everything he's done...]]

And the upset Dems should at least have the nerve to show up and vote for someone else.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 4:13 pm**

I'm especially pleased with the MD governor's race. In voter registration, Democrats outnumber Republicans 2:1, and voters had the chance to elect our first African American governor.

Granted, extremely low turnout swayed the results (about 40%), but the Republican candidate ran an extremely positive campaign that diddn't focus on social issues at all. He repeatedly hammered the Democrat hegemony on taxes, jobs, and the economy, and deflected nearly every attack regarding wedge social issues.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 7:22 pm**

A couple noteworthy "firsts" from this election:

First black Republican female elected to Congress, Mia Love, from Utah.

Youngest female elected to Congress, Elise Stefanik, from New York.

First black Senator elected from the South since the 19th century, Tim Scott from South Carolina (endorsed by the "racist" Tea Party).

Not bad for a bunch of "sexist" and "racist" Republicans, eh?

Reps also hold every congressional district in Arkansas, for the first time in 141 years.

In state legislatures, Dems are now at their weakest since 1920s. Reps now control the Colorado Senate (and maybe the House ), and the New Mexico House.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 9:47 pm**

Kinda off topic...though the subject is mostly over now anyway...but surely connected if indirect.
Related to U's independent thing, and Cail and some others will approve I think...though they probably already know about it:

reason.com/blog/2014/11/04/gary-johnson-ill-run-in-2016-to-provide

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:12 pm**

I like Gary, and I'll vote for him again, but he won't get more than 2% of the vote. The problem is that the two major parties have conditioned the electorate to believe that legislation and "fairness" are the way to equality rather than choice. It's statism versus liberty, and there are simply too many people who think their way is the better way and want to legislate it.

So it's not enough for the government to treat gays equally. They need to legally compel people to do business with gays. It's not enough to ban smoking in government buildings, they need to deny property owners the ability to decide what goes on in their busnisses.

Posted: **Wed Nov 05, 2014 10:22 pm**

One other positive to come from this election....We can finally do away with the myth of "buying elections". The Democrat candidates far outspent the Republicans (4:1 in the case of the MD governor's race) and lost. Badly.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 12:13 am**

Cail wrote:One other positive to come from this election....We can finally do away with the myth of "buying elections". The Democrat candidates far outspent the Republicans (4:1 in the case of the MD governor's race) and lost. Badly.

That is not the way you disprove something: by noting one exception to a pattern. But rather, by displaying a clear and obvious pattern. It is like saying that you can finally do away with the myth of racism because your president is half black.

On a general note, I saw your democrats got their asses handed to them, but that left issues won. Pretty interesting. The bbc had a commentator thingie saying that the americans seem to like democratic ideas, but just not the democrats.

Do you think this trend will follow to your next governmental election when you find a new president?

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 2:31 am**

Ananda wrote: Do you think this trend will follow to your next governmental election when you find a new president?

2016 is now the Republicans' election to lose, which means that they will lose it only if they screw up badly during the next 2 years.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:10 am**

Ananda wrote:
Cail wrote:One other positive to come from this election....We can finally do away with the myth of "buying elections". The Democrat candidates far outspent the Republicans (4:1 in the case of the MD governor's race) and lost. Badly.
That is not the way you disprove something: by noting one exception to a pattern. But rather, by displaying a clear and obvious pattern. It is like saying that you can finally do away with the myth of racism because your president is half black.

On a general note, I saw your democrats got their asses handed to them, but that left issues won. Pretty interesting. The bbc had a commentator thingie saying that the americans seem to like democratic ideas, but just not the democrats.

Do you think this trend will follow to your next governmental election when you find a new president?

No, this has been the trend for 4 election cycles now.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 3:43 am**

Krauthammer wrote: [Obama] played as the puzzled observer. He was asked about the meaning of the election, and he said “I’ll leave to others the reading of tea leaves.” Was this really a subtle result? Was this sort of complicated and nuanced? This was the worst wall-to-wall, national, unmistakable, unequivocal shellacking that you will ever see in a midterm election, and it happened on just about every level. You’ve got in the House the Republicans now have the largest majority since 1929.

In the Senate, the Democrats have lost seven, probably nine, and by huge margins, McConnell is supposed to be neck-and-neck, he won by 15 points, Arkansas 18 points. And then the — the one excuse the Republicans have is “well this election was played on their home turf, on red turf.” Well, you know, Maryland, Massachusetts and Illinois are not exactly red states. All of them elected, shockingly, Republican governors. “The Economist” called this a massacre and Obama says, “I don’t read tea leaves,” and remember, what he said about the election. It’s about his policies, everywhere, every single one. Of course it was about him, of course it was his ideology and the execution of his leadership. This was a wall-to-wall rejection of Obama-ism and he pretended that this was an election that didn’t have a lot of meaning because two-thirds of the electorate didn’t show up.

The race I liked the most was the one in Maryland, where I live, where the Lt. Governor Anthony Brown was considered such a shoe-in, no one spoke about the Maryland race. No one. You didn’t hear a word, and the Republican, Larry Hogan, came out of nowhere. He won by 8 points. This tells you — the reason I like it, it shows the extent of this political event into the bluest of the blue, Maryland. It wasn’t a tea leaf election. It was a nuclear explosion.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 4:00 am**

I know this thread is about the Senate but here is what the House districts looked like. At this point in time, this is what the country really looks like--a sea of mostly red with pockets of blue centered on major urban centers.

Depending upon how you want to look at it, it appears that Hope & Change had a shelf life of either 4 or 6 years.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 1:08 pm**

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:I know this thread is about the Senate but here is what the House districts looked like. At this point in time, this is what the country really looks like--a sea of mostly red with pockets of blue centered on major urban centers.

Depending upon how you want to look at it, it appears that Hope & Change had a shelf life of either 4 or 6 years.

Oh I disagree. I think that had Obama delivered H&C at all, this election would have gone very differently. Instead we got 6 more years of an accelerated Bush Doctrine in foreign policy, a continuation and expansion of the Surveilance State, an expansion of Executive Authority, more crony capitalism, and a more polarized country.

Obama's reign has put the country in vastly worse shape. There is simply nothing that is objectively or subjectively "better" now than it was in 2007-2008.

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 4:04 pm**

Cail wrote:
Ananda wrote:
Cail wrote:One other positive to come from this election....We can finally do away with the myth of "buying elections". The Democrat candidates far outspent the Republicans (4:1 in the case of the MD governor's race) and lost. Badly.
That is not the way you disprove something: by noting one exception to a pattern. But rather, by displaying a clear and obvious pattern. It is like saying that you can finally do away with the myth of racism because your president is half black.

On a general note, I saw your democrats got their asses handed to them, but that left issues won. Pretty interesting. The bbc had a commentator thingie saying that the americans seem to like democratic ideas, but just not the democrats.

Do you think this trend will follow to your next governmental election when you find a new president?
No, this has been the trend for 4 election cycles now.

Sorry, which thing? the money buying election? The voters voting for democrat platform ideas, but not voting for democrats? Or, a keeping a trend for the voting to the next government election?

Posted: **Thu Nov 06, 2014 6:28 pm**

Cail wrote:There is simply nothing that is objectively or subjectively "better" now than it was in 2007-2008.

Objection: the unemployment rate is better now than it was in 2008 (late 2008, that is). You wouldn't know it unless you look for it since no one in Washington has been talking about it but this number has been going down lately. Of course, this has nothing to do with government policy and is a direct result of the economy righting itself (which is another reason politicians need to quit trying to micromanage the economy).

edit: on a slightly related topic, many Democrats are thinking about a change in their leadership but aren't brave enough to come out and say it just yet; they will be gracious and not bring it up during the holiday season. That being said, neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi are going to be large figures for Democrats within a year.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:22 am**

Uh, just saw something the other day saying consumer confidence is up considerably as well. It mentioned unemployment too, and a couple other stats. Can't remember them, but the consumer confidence should be easy enough to check.

--A

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2014 1:20 pm**

Ananda wrote:
Cail wrote:
Ananda wrote: That is not the way you disprove something: by noting one exception to a pattern. But rather, by displaying a clear and obvious pattern. It is like saying that you can finally do away with the myth of racism because your president is half black.

On a general note, I saw your democrats got their asses handed to them, but that left issues won. Pretty interesting. The bbc had a commentator thingie saying that the americans seem to like democratic ideas, but just not the democrats.

Do you think this trend will follow to your next governmental election when you find a new president?
No, this has been the trend for 4 election cycles now.
Sorry, which thing? the money buying election? The voters voting for democrat platform ideas, but not voting for democrats? Or, a keeping a trend for the voting to the next government election?

Money not buying elections. In the last 4 cycles the candidates who have spent the most have lost.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:
Cail wrote:There is simply nothing that is objectively or subjectively "better" now than it was in 2007-2008.
Objection: the unemployment rate is better now than it was in 2008 (late 2008, that is). You wouldn't know it unless you look for it since no one in Washington has been talking about it but this number has been going down lately. Of course, this has nothing to do with government policy and is a direct result of the economy righting itself (which is another reason politicians need to quit trying to micromanage the economy).

Objection: The labor participation rate is at its lowest point in nearly 35 years. Real unemployment is not down.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:edit: on a slightly related topic, many Democrats are thinking about a change in their leadership but aren't brave enough to come out and say it just yet; they will be gracious and not bring it up during the holiday season. That being said, neither Harry Reid nor Nancy Pelosi are going to be large figures for Democrats within a year.

Agreed on those two, but I'll still bet money that Hillary is their nominee in two years.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2014 4:00 pm**

Cail wrote: Do you think this trend will follow to your next governmental election when you find a new president?

No, this has been the trend for 4 election cycles now.[/quote]
Sorry, which thing? the money buying election? The voters voting for democrat platform ideas, but not voting for democrats? Or, a keeping a trend for the voting to the next government election?[/quote]Money not buying elections. In the last 4 cycles the candidates who have spent the most have lost.

[/quote][/quote]

To tell the truth, I was tempted to vote purely out of how much a candidate spent and vote for whoever spent less.

People are sick and tired of being treated like prostitutes... add that to people watching pennies more nowadays, and big spending on annoying campaigns becomes incredibly obscene. People with debt and/or a tight budget don't like to see others wipe their asses with Benjamins, and they sure as hell wouldn't want to pay them with their tax dollars.

Add to that the obscenity of elected officials panhandling for money when they really should be dealing with some serious problems at home and abroad, and you have people really pissed off at big money.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:09 pm**

Cail wrote:
Ananda wrote:
Cail wrote:No, this has been the trend for 4 election cycles now.
Sorry, which thing? the money buying election? The voters voting for democrat platform ideas, but not voting for democrats? Or, a keeping a trend for the voting to the next government election?
Money not buying elections. In the last 4 cycles the candidates who have spent the most have lost.

I'm not doubting you, per se, but the things I read say the opposite.
inthecapital.streetwise.co/2014/04/07/political-candidates-with-more-money-win-elections-study-inforgraphic/

Do you have some sort of citation that shows this is wrong?

Also, I read that four BILLION us dollars were spent on this last election. A great deal of this is coming from a few rich people and corporations. Do you know something that they don't know? Why are they spending all of this money on buying elections if it is just a 'myth' that money wins elections?

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2014 5:16 pm**

That's interesting, however it only covers the Congress. Romney and McCain both outspent Obama and lost. In state races (as I mentioned with our governor) the trend has been that the least amount spent wins.

I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of the cases are incumbents who have much greater funding sources than challengers. Our government is wholly owned by special interests.

I posted an article about this after the 2012 elections. I'll see if I can dig it up.

Posted: **Fri Nov 07, 2014 8:09 pm**

The rationale behind 'money buys votes' is patronizing and undemocratic. Slickly packaged, expensively produced, and widely disseminated horseshit is still recognizable as horseshit to those with only a modicum of sense. And I take issue with the notion that the choice made when votes are cast is a fundamentally ignorant one. I think rather that collective judgments carry more weight than the opinions of any particular expert.

Yet the concern over election spending is supposedly used on behalf of a democratic rationale. But if the electorate cannot be trusted to separate the dross from reality, what reality can there be to a democracy in the first place.

I'm gratified that the trend is contra to this little piece of leftist hogwash.

Kevin's Watch

Senate Predictions