Election Day in the USA -- Short term results and long term implications

[Seamus Fermanagh]

It is election day in the USA, though early voting is featured in more states then ever before.

Last moment polls suggest a GOP controlled Senate as well as HOR; numerous GOP governors (maybe even in New England) and a resurgence of the establishment GOP as opposed to the TEA party wingers.


For the rest of the World: Expect the USA to turn inwards with an Obamacare coming under fire and efforts at illegal immigrant amnesty generating a firestorm of controversy. We will continue to bumble along inconsistently in international affairs.


interactive map (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story/news/local/2014/11/04/election-results-map-race-calls/18198495/)

[Greyblades]

It is election day in the USA, though early voting is featured in more states then ever before.

Last moment polls suggest a GOP controlled Senate as well as HOR; numerous GOP governors (maybe even in New England) and a resurgence of the establishment GOP as opposed to the TEA party wingers.


For the rest of the World: Expect the USA to turn inwards with an Obamacare coming under fire and efforts at illegal immigrant amnesty generating a firestorm of controversy. We will continue to bumble along inconsistently in international affairs.


interactive map (http://www.thenorthwestern.com/story/news/local/2014/11/04/election-results-map-race-calls/18198495/)

You have my condolences. Please explain what these polls are and how they are in any way an accurate prediction.

[HoreTore]

John Oliver chimes in. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8)

[drone]

Regardless of the results, I don't expect anything to get accomplished in the next 2 years. If Congress is deadlocked, we get the same as we have now. If the GOP wins the Senate, Obama can (and will) veto whatever nonsense actually does get passed, and the Senate will go back to the Dems in 2016. And the campaign for 45 starts about 20 minutes after the polls close.

[Sarmatian]

John Oliver chimes in. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8)

Yeah, but I don't really care whether you can throw midgets in some parts of America.

What happens in Congress can affect me on, on the other hand.

[HoreTore]

Yeah, but I don't really care whether you can throw midgets in some parts of America.

What happens in Congress can affect me on, on the other hand.

Trade standards do affect you, and they often come out of state legislation.

Passed by guys who would rather debate dwarf-throwing.

[Beskar]

So, two years of complete deadlock as a solution to the 'political crisis' is a great move for the electorate.

[Beskar]

Forgot to post this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU

[Gregoshi]

Forgot to post this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU

Now I feel like Ned Beatty.

[Hooahguy]

And the Republicans dont have a veto-proof majority so Obama is just going to veto everything anyways.

Something distressing I saw yesterday when I voted was that it was exclusively older white folk; I was the youngest person at the tender age of 22 to come so far that day (and I got there at 5pm). At least that is what one of the people who was working there that day said. I would say this explains why the Republicans managed to win so handily, as the demographics which brought victory to the Democrats the past few times were most likely absent.

Real shame, the political deadlock is just going to get worse, and people will soon realize that its congress who is to blame, not Obama as the GOP likes to argue.

[Sarmatian]

Maybe it's time to make Head of State and Head of government two separate positions in the US.

[Husar]

Forgot to post this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9Y24MFOfFU

"Hello, I'm into animal cruelty, but I would like to torture humans next! Vote for me!"


Maybe it's time to make Head of State and Head of government two separate positions in the US.

Only if that adds a fourth layer of potential deadlock that people can vote for.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Maybe it's time to make Head of State and Head of government two separate positions in the US.

Would help be removing a lot of the "ceremonial" duties of the Presidency -- someone else could make the Presidential Freedom Award speeches and the like -- but the thrust of executive governance would remain the same.

Queen handles head of state ceremony -- PM all real duties

Israeli Pres handles head of state duties and serves as advisor at large -- PM runs the whole show (though the Knesset must seem like herding cats)

[drone]

Congrats, GC, don't get too baked.

[Sarmatian]

Would help be removing a lot of the "ceremonial" duties of the Presidency -- someone else could make the Presidential Freedom Award speeches and the like -- but the thrust of executive governance would remain the same.

Queen handles head of state ceremony -- PM all real duties

Israeli Pres handles head of state duties and serves as advisor at large -- PM runs the whole show (though the Knesset must seem like herding cats)

I'm not talking about workload distribution (you can dump all ceremonial duties on the VP, he's got less authority than European monarchs anyway), it is about avoiding deadlock and having a functional government that Congress can work with., so you could avoid having a head of government from party A having all his work blocked by party B who is in control of both Houses.

Also, having away with a two-party system would mitigate the problem somewhat.

[GeneralHankerchief]

You know, in spite of the implications of what's going to happen in the next two years (absolutely nothing), I'll be sorry to see this election cycle go. Partly because it's been the first time in over a decade that this hasn't been The Single Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime™. The endless posturing tends to get old, fast.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You know, in spite of the implications of what's going to happen in the next two years (absolutely nothing), I'll be sorry to see this election cycle go. Partly because it's been the first time in over a decade that this hasn't been The Single Most Important Election Of Our Lifetime™. The endless posturing tends to get old, fast.

Try living in Florida....vicious governors race (that convinced me both were unworthy), Congress, and medical marijuana

The ads were lethal in their intensity. I am not sorry to be done with it.

[drone]

Try living in Florida....vicious governors race (that convinced me both were unworthy), Congress, and medical marijuana

The ads were lethal in their intensity. I am not sorry to be done with it.
You missed out here in your old state. I didn't get any political robocalls, and the ads were fewer than I can ever remember. Not many signs littering the roads either.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

You missed out here in your old state. I didn't get any political robocalls, and the ads were fewer than I can ever remember. Not many signs littering the roads either.

...aaaah the Commonwealth with its periodic (if short-lived) moments of clarity.

[Hooahguy]

Maybe its just me, or does Mitch McConnell look almost plastic here? Definitely getting a creepy vibe.

14742

EDIT: here too-

14743

[a completely inoffensive name]

This election result was expected more than a year ago. Congress always swings towards the opposition party during the last two years of a President's second term. This has been the pattern for every president since Truman I believe.

This election was not hyped because both sides were going to win key victories and neither side wants to waste resources on a pointless midterm before the 2016 primary cycle.

Oregon, Washington DC and Alaska have legalized marijuana. Kansas just had its same sex marriage ban struck down by the courts. Republicans took control of a Congress that will not actually do anything because the Republicans only want the ability to use this midterm as a referendum towards Democrats for 2016. Obama will veto, the Senate will filibuster, both sides go about planning for the future.

The only real tragedy is that Florida continues to be filled with voters mentally delirious from sun exposure. 58% in favor of medical marijuana is not enough because of a proposition passed in 2004 that requires a 60% vote or higher to pass. That same proposition requiring 60% approval was passed at the time with less than 60% approval. You really can't make this stuff up.

Everyone calm down and get ready for some entertaining primary elections...

[GeneralHankerchief]

You missed out here in your old state. I didn't get any political robocalls, and the ads were fewer than I can ever remember. Not many signs littering the roads either.

Yeah, I'm actually a bit surprised about that. Maybe because Gillespie decided not to bother with NoVA?

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Maybe its just me, or does Mitch McConnell look almost plastic here? Definitely getting a creepy vibe.

14742

EDIT: here too-

14743

Only his embalmer knows for sure.

[drone]

Yeah, I'm actually a bit surprised about that. Maybe because Gillespie decided not to bother with NoVA?

Could be, even though that race was closer than expected. Most of the ads I saw/heard were from Comstock, who crushed Foust for Wolf's old 10th seat. I can't really remember any ads from Foust, and not any spillover from the car salesman in the 8th either. The lowest margin if victory for the VA House races was 15%, so I think we are well and truly gerrymandered. While I dislike the foregone conclusion aspect of it all, it's nice to have some respite from the voter harassment masquerading as campaigning. I can only imagine the hell Florida voters go through...

[Kadagar_AV]

This might be a stupid question, but why mid term elections?

Isn't it rather obvious that the democratic party wont go all-in when they know the president can only sit 2 more years anyway.

Also, why is this? Lots of democracies go without this rule, and they seem to do well enough.


From my perspective, this system only seem to be good if you really want a lame government who can't force an agenda. Admittedly this might be a reason of its own, but really, is that a good way to run politics?

I don't mean to troll or derail, I am just honestly interested in the reasoning here.

[drone]

This might be a stupid question, but why mid term elections?

The terms for House representatives, senators, and the president reflect the purposes and constituency of their roles as originally intended. The House representatives are the people, they are supposed to reflect the current will of the populace. Senators are supposed to represent the States, they are meant to be a more stable part of the government. Hence the 6 year term and staggered term endpoints. The president is meant to be a mixture of both, thus the 4 year term and the electoral college.

This kind of falls apart when the Senate no longer represents the States, and presidential term limits are enacted. Prior to the 17th amendment, State legislators selected senators when their terms came due.

[Kadagar_AV]

The terms for House representatives, senators, and the president reflect the purposes and constituency of their roles as originally intended. The House representatives are the people, they are supposed to reflect the current will of the populace. Senators are supposed to represent the States, they are meant to be a more stable part of the government. Hence the 6 year term and staggered term endpoints. The president is meant to be a mixture of both, thus the 4 year term and the electoral college.

This kind of falls apart when the Senate no longer represents the States, and presidential term limits are enacted. Prior to the 17th amendment, State legislators selected senators when their terms came due.

Good info, but may I ask what your thoughts on it is?

I get the idea, at large. But it seems to work really bad?

See, in the nations I have dwelled in, you elect a ruling party every X years. They then have more or less free reign, until the next election. The only controlling factor is that if they do bad, they will be punished in the next election. We also assume they want to do good (and practise show they try).

So what are the benefits of having a system where the ruling party gets deadlocked mid term?

The way we see it here, is that it's better that one party can make decisions, than it is to have a non-functional government.

Don't read me wrong, I don't flame the idea... I am just curious on the thoughts and practices behind it.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I think this is going to be a big 2 years for getting things passed. Obama and the GOP Congress are going to get along just fine - passing bill after bill with enough in there for both interests.

[drone]

I get the idea, at large. But it seems to work really bad?

See, in the nations I have dwelled in, you elect a ruling party every X years. They then have more or less free reign, until the next election. The only controlling factor is that if they do bad, they will be punished in the next election. We also assume they want to do good (and practise show they try).

So what are the benefits of having a system where the ruling party gets deadlocked mid term?
There is not supposed to be a "ruling party". The theory was that we elect people, not parties (political parties are not in the Constitution). But even with parties, the control is split amongst the branches. The checks that exist between the branches of government are meant to be roadblocks, something most parliamentary democracies are lacking. The UK system gives me the heebies, especially since they neutered the Lords. "Free reign" of government is what the Founding Fathers were trying to prevent.

The system is supposed to work through compromise, the GOP has opted to watch the world burn instead. A lot of this can be blamed on the Democratic leadership, their ineptness knows no bounds, but Congress is fundamentally broken since the two houses are essentially identical. There were problems with the old way of selecting senators, but the consequences of removing State power from Congress are being felt.

[Veho Nex]

Yeah, for me I see the parties as wanting two shades of the same thing. Democrats want purple cows with white stripes while the republicans want white cows with purple stripes. It makes no sense to me so I don't vote for anything above local govt. They are normally the only ones that I see get anything done around me. The second it goes above county it seems like nothing gets past the whole "my idea is better than your idea so i wont listen to your thoughts stage."

[Ironside]

The system is supposed to work through compromise, the GOP has opted to watch the world burn instead. A lot of this can be blamed on the Democratic leadership, their ineptness knows no bounds, but Congress is fundamentally broken since the two houses are essentially identical. There were problems with the old way of selecting senators, but the consequences of removing State power from Congress are being felt.

I'm curious, in your opinion, what could the Democrat leadership have done? Because the Republican policy seems to be never to give an inch. And any policy suggested by a Democrat is two inches long by default.

Considering the John Oliver episode, the state powers seems to be in a half vacuum. They still got plenty of power, but way too little focus on them.

[Beskar]

I think this is going to be a big 2 years for getting things passed. Obama and the GOP Congress are going to get along just fine - passing bill after bill with enough in there for both interests.

I love your sarcasm. :thumbsup:

[HoreTore]

....and to think some Americans believe the EU is a mess and incapable of action....

[Beskar]

Nothing beats the "Hey guys, great idea, let's not approve any budgets so we bankrupt the nation! We destroy it then blame Obama." diplomacy. No wonder nothing is getting done under Obama, it is not getting approved.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Yeah, for me I see the parties as wanting two shades of the same thing. Democrats want purple cows with white stripes while the republicans want white cows with purple stripes. It makes no sense to me so I don't vote for anything above local govt. They are normally the only ones that I see get anything done around me. The second it goes above county it seems like nothing gets past the whole "my idea is better than your idea so i wont listen to your thoughts stage."

You have just summed up the modern American conservative desire for smaller government with as much of governance passed to more local levels as possible.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The only reason I voted this election was because of California's propositions and my hometown elections. Seriously, why does my hometown have career politicians who have been on the council for 20+ years.

[HoreTore]

Ooh, I think the EU is in a slightly bigger pickle, all things considered.

The EU has no problems getting new laws passed. Not sure we can say the same thing about congress...

[Greyblades]

The EU has no problems getting new laws passed. Not sure we can say the same thing about congress...

Heh.

[drone]

I'm curious, in your opinion, what could the Democrat leadership have done? Because the Republican policy seems to be never to give an inch. And any policy suggested by a Democrat is two inches long by default.

The removal of the silent filibuster in the Senate rules would have been the single best move they could have implemented. The Democratic leadership has been inept ever since the Bush years, they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the GOP and have shown that they care more about just getting reelected than exercising their power.

[HoreTore]

Heh.

Removing "democratic oversight" from the equation really speeds stuff up....

[Veho Nex]

You have just summed up the modern American conservative desire for smaller government with as much of governance passed to more local levels as possible.

It's not my intention to vote like that. Its just in the three elections I've voted in nothing that would be along what my hopes and interest were had passed. Our current political process just seems like a joke when, if possible, one side can literally talk forever to prevent anything from being voted on. If nothing ever gets passed beyond a local level then what's the point in even attempting to vote on it.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

The removal of the silent filibuster in the Senate rules would have been the single best move they could have implemented. The Democratic leadership has been inept ever since the Bush years, they have allowed themselves to be bullied by the GOP and have shown that they care more about just getting reelected than exercising their power.

I believe that the filibuster is a valuable tradition of the Senate and one of the better tools to avoid tyranny of the majority. However, they should have to do it on their feet and hold the floor the old fashioned way. I loathe this, "consider it filibustered without anybody talking and let's go shag interns" absurdity. If it is important enough a stand for you to make that you want to bring the entirety of the Senate to a halt then by gum stand up and do so. If not, sit the flack down and vote when your name is called.

[a completely inoffensive name]

The Senate should just be elected by the state legislators again. They filibuster all the time because now they are just an exclusive house of representatives.

[Age]

It is only for the Senate darn Obama needs to go but hey I ma Canadain.

[Strike For The South]

I think we are finally past the high water mark of the "tea party" conservative. They seem to be losing support and Rand Paul is getting cozier and cozier with the GOP establishment in order to set himself up for 2016.

The Texas race wasn't surprising. Wendy Davis was useless and got stomped accordingly. Dewhurst rested on his laurels months ago and accordingly got stomped by the backass rednecks who make up the GOP primary voters. Patrick will be reigned in. He is the most powerful man in Texas but no one wants to rock this sweet crony capitalism boat they have going.

Democrats in Texas need to pull their collective head out of their collective ass and realize that a growing hispanic population does not equal an automatic blue state. Davis tried to make inroads on abortion and womens rights and hispanics held their nose in disgust.

[a completely inoffensive name]

As soon as Republican establishment realizes that Hispanics are very socially conservative, they will begin to stomp democrats for a long while.

[Hooahguy]

As soon as Republican establishment realizes that Hispanics are very socially conservative, they will begin to stomp democrats for a long while.
Yeah but before they gain the Hispanic vote they have to side with them on immigration, which probably wont happen for a while. Plus by siding with Hispanics on immigration, the GOP would probably alienate the Tea Partiers, further splitting the base.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Yeah but before they gain the Hispanic vote they have to side with them on immigration, which probably wont happen for a while. Plus by siding with Hispanics on immigration, the GOP would probably alienate the Tea Partiers, further splitting the base.

The demographics are against the white tea party members. Trust me, at the tipping point when whites are no longer a majority, Republicans will eat up the Hispanics and certain segments of Asian communities.

[Montmorency]

Why haven't the GOP won over the blacks, who are by all accounts far more socially-conservative than just about anyone?

[a completely inoffensive name]

Why haven't the GOP won over the blacks, who are by all accounts far more socially-conservative than just about anyone?

Because the Republicans are too fiscally conservative for them. Also to a large degree, it's a PR issue. I don't know if you followed some of the elections in the south, but Republicans just put the first African-American to hold the office of Senator in a Southern state since reconstruction (among other victories for Repub. African-American politicians), the Republicans have had many African-Americans throughout their party (Rice, Steel, Cain to name a few). I once had this argument a few years ago with Panzer about racism within the GOP, but to be honest, if Panzer was still around, I would admit I was wrong. The GOP establishment is not racist and only certain fringes of the Tea Party are probably actual racists.

Contrast that with Hispanics and East Asian immigrants who for the most part do not put welfare programs as high of a priority, either because A. many are not able to take advantage of it (Hispanics) or B. because their culture puts emphasis on building upon yourself and your status (East Asians). You can even see a difference of attitudes towards welfare between African-Americans and black Caribbean immigrants.

For all the talk about the Democrats having a PR problem, the Republicans only main policy holding them back is immigration, the rest is just as much of a PR disaster for the GOP.

[Montmorency]

Because the Republicans are too fiscally conservative for them. Also to a large degree, it's a PR issue.

I would say there are similar issues with the Hispanic and East Asian demographics.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I would say there are similar issues with the Hispanic and East Asian demographics.

Fair enough. I just don't think the obstacles are as big for those demographics to relate to the GOP than for African-Americans. 30+ years of targeted terminology such as "welfare queen" does a bit of damage for your reputation.