Big Girl- A question about mid term elections

[stevenash]

What message do you believe the voters will send in the mid term elections tomorrow? Is it that they are happy and satisfied with the way things are going or are they going to say/demonstrate that they believe we are not on the right path?

[tvc184]

It is hard to tell about the mid-terms since there are a fair substantial percentage of people that have no clue of the names running but put the button for straight ticket. 

 

With that said, the Dems are sweating this one out. They are behind in almost every race that is up for grabs but with only about half the people voting, it doesn't matter who is the most popular but who shows up at the polls. You can lead in true public opinion 55-45% and lose the election if the other side can round up enough people and get them to the polls. 

 

I think the Washington Post just came out with a 96% chance the Republicans take back the Senate. 

[stevenash]

If that is the case, it is obvious to me that things arent as rosy as the President would have us believe. Nobody wants him around campaigning for them. There is a reason for that. It's quite a bit different now from when the vast throngs were worshipping the "chosen one" as he stood in front of the Greek Pillars promising us "hope and change" and " oh, yes we can". I have never understood why so many people bought that garbage. And, in regard to his promise to "fight for the middle class": what benefits has the middle class realized? Its not lower healthcare premiums- real wages for the average family are down about $10,000 per year the country is certainly not more safe/tranquil as he has stated. I obviously have been and still am a big critic of the President. Maybe someone out there can help me understand what type of change we got and what benefits accompanied that change.

[bullets13]

Steve, it's my very strong opinion that if the republicans regain control, they'd do very well to remember why they do... economic problems, some scandals, and a dislike of presidential policy. if they forget that, and go overboard trying to push social agendas, we're liable to see another flip flop again in the next 4-6 years, if not sooner.

[stevenash]

If you are right, they will only have control for a couple of years. If you are wrong, perhaps the majority is not as aligned with your perception of "correct" social policies as you believe. The pendulum swings too far in BOTH directions, so there is nothing wrong with "corrections" from both angles in all issues. My strong belief is, that if the country is unable to remain solvent, social policies will become much less important and will not be given the attention you want them to be given.

[tvc184]

Steve, it's my very strong opinion that if the republicans regain control, they'd do very well to remember why they do... economic problems, some scandals, and a dislike of presidential policy. if they forget that, and go overboard trying to push social agendas, we're liable to see another flip flop again in the next 4-6 years, if not sooner.

 

Nothing will change in this congress until the next election, period. Even controlling both houses, the president has veto power. He doesn't have to use it because Harry Reid is his buffer and will let nothing come up for a vote that will ever have to be vetoed. 

 

The only changes possible will be after the next presidential election. Either the Republicans will take it back and if they can hold both houses, can get legislation pass or a Democrat that will actually be involved and try to compromise will work some bill through instead of the current stalemate. 

 

The only thing the midterms are likely to do is to keep Obama appointments out of office such as to the Supreme Court. With the House seemingly firmly in Republican hands, no legislation can pass anyway without a compromise and those just aren't coming. The Senate however does not need congressional approval and only from that one house to confirm nominees. With Harry Reid using the nuclear option and changing the long standing rules of the Senate, if the Republicans take the Senate they will have huge power to confirm or stop any nomination in its tracks. 

 

In effect this election is only about a complete stopping of Obama power until a new president can be put in office, not about legislation no matter who wins or keep the Senate. 

[baddog]

A presidential veto can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. At least that's what I remember from school. Yes, they did teach government, but I wasn't an "A" student.

[westend1]

So voters determine the best candidate.  is that what I am hearing?

[stevenash]

I think that was the intent of the system , wasn't it?

[westend1]

Guess that's why Barack is in then.

[tvc184]

A presidential veto can be overridden by a 2/3 majority of the Senate. At least that's what I remember from school. Yes, they did teach government, but I wasn't an "A" student.

 

I believe it is by both houses, not just the Senate since both houses passed the law and both have to override a veto. 

[stevenash]

Guess that's why Barack is in then.

Absolutely- it is also why there is a Republican majority in the House and quite possibly the Senate tomorrow as well as a Republican plurality within the Governorships. But let me guess, you have no interest in discussing or acknowledging those situations?

[westend1]

I really don't care much.  Gridlock for two more years won't have any effect on me.

[stevenash]

I hope you are the exception rather than the rule. I hope people do care and will exercise their right to vote. I hope people do care about whether or not government is the answer to every single issue/problem that arises. If a Republican is elected President in 2016, will you "care" at that point?

[westend1]

Maybe 30% will turn out.  Am I the exception or the rule?

[stevenash]

Would that be 30% of the voting age population or30% of the registered voters? In either case, I always got the impression that you considered yourself a thoughtful and responsible citizen. But, if you dont care and dont vote, I may have miscalculated.

[LumRaiderFan]

Let the 70% stay home...they don't know who they are voting for anyway.

 

Sadly, many will be back out in 2016 throwing their vote for the candidate with the coolest soundbite with no clue about their background.

 

"Yes, we can"   

 

"Change you can believe in."

[LumRaiderFan]

Do we really want these folks voting?

 

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3873607537001/watters-world-election-edition/#sp=show-clips

[westend1]

Would that be 30% of the voting age population or30% of the registered voters? In either case, I always got the impression that you considered yourself a thoughtful and responsible citizen. But, if you dont care and dont vote, I may have miscalculated.

Did I say I wasn't voting?   I just don't care about Congress.  I prefer a divided executive branch.  I do care somewhat about local elections, though it matters not to me whether a Pub or Dem is on the family court bench or the criminal bench.

[thetragichippy]

Did I say I wasn't voting?   I just don't care about Congress.  I prefer a divided executive branch.  I do care somewhat about local elections, though it matters not to me whether a Pub or Dem is on the family court bench or the criminal bench.

 

Did the affordable heath care law effect you?  It sure effected me, but it took a while. I lost my 90/10 plan to 80/20, plus a small increase for less coverage.

[westend1]

Not sure, Hippy.  I don't think my plan changed any.

[Big girl]

[quote name="LumRaiderFan" post="1576670" timestamp="1415112583"]

Do we really want these folks voting?

http://video.foxnews.com/v/3873607537001/watters-world-election-edition/#sp=show-clips[/quote any person who thinks that FOX is a valid news station should not be voting.

[Big girl]

Nothing will change in this congress until the next election, period. Even controlling both houses, the president has veto power. He doesn't have to use it because Harry Reid is his buffer and will let nothing come up for a vote that will ever have to be vetoed.

The only changes possible will be after the next presidential election. Either the Republicans will take it back and if they can hold both houses, can get legislation pass or a Democrat that will actually be involved and try to compromise will work some bill through instead of the current stalemate.

The only thing the midterms are likely to do is to keep Obama appointments out of office such as to the Supreme Court. With the House seemingly firmly in Republican hands, no legislation can pass anyway without a compromise and those just aren't coming. The Senate however does not need congressional approval and only from that one house to confirm nominees. With Harry Reid using the nuclear option and changing the long standing rules of the Senate, if the Republicans take the Senate they will have huge power to confirm or stop any nomination in its tracks.

In effect this election is only about a complete stopping of Obama power until a new president can be put in office, not about legislation no matter who wins or keep the Senate.

you are delusional. The republicans dont want to compromise.

[Big girl]

I dont care what happens, because I know that GOD is with me no matter what. You repubs seem too cocky too early. I hope for your sakes that this is not a Obama/Romney repeat.

[Big girl]

Guess that's why Barack is in then.

heck yeah