US Midterm Elections - Predictions and Post-mortems

[Gokul43201]

Still a little early in the day for AK, but it's probably also a first time that the ballot was allowed to list the names of write-in candidates.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It's probably also a first time that the ballot was allowed to list the names of write-in candidates.

I don't understand. Her name isn't on the ballot, and write-ins have always been allowed.

Or are you saying they provide some list?

 

[Gokul43201]

Brown and Boxer won, but I haven't heard about their pot amendment yet.

25% of precincts reporting, and pot is losing by double digits.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/ballot.measures/#

 

[Gokul43201]

Or are you saying they provide some list?

Yup they provide a list of all the write-ins' names. First time it's been allowed in AK. Was some wrangling in the courts about it in the last couple weeks.

Edit: From the wiki:

Early voting began in mid-October. On October 20th, a voter in Homer noticed that a list of write-in candidates was posted inside the voting booth. The voter took a picture of the notice and reported the incident to both the City of Homer and the Alaska Democratic Party. While city workers maintained that posting the list in the booth was a misunderstanding, there was soon more attention on the broader issue of whether the state should be providing such a list at all, and a lawsuit was filed alleging that the Alaska Division of Elections was violating the law, specifically AAC, 25.070,which reads in part: "Information regarding a write-in candidate may not be discussed, exhibited or provided at the polling place, or within 200 feet of any entrance to the polling place, on election day." Both Republican and Democratic spokespersons decried the lists as electioneering on behalf of Murkowski, while representatives of the Division of Elections maintained that the lists were intended merely to assist voters. On Wednesday October 27 a judge issued a restraining order barring the lists, noting in his decision "If it were important 'assistance' for the Division to provide voters with lists of write-in candidates, then the Division has been asleep at the switch for the past 50 years, the Division first developed the need for a write-in candidate list 12 days ago." Later on the same day the Alaska Supreme Court issued a new ruling that the lists could be distributed to those who asked for them, but that any ballots cast by voters based on information on the lists be "segregated." The Division of Elections responded that they had neither the manpower nor the time to implement such a system by Election Day. By close of business on Thursday, October 28, over 60 new write in candidates had submitted their names for the race, encouraged by an Anchorage talk radio host.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_election_in_Alaska,_2010#Candidates_3

 

[Ivan Seeking]

25% of precincts reporting, and pot is losing by double digits.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2010/results/ballot.measures/#

Yes, I saw that. It was about 14% I think...? [Ah 11% so far] Interestingly but not surprisingly, one of the groups that was coming out against the law were... the growers!

I guess it suddenly dawned on them that this may not be too good for their bank accounts.

It should pass in several States in 2012 [a younger electorate and a bigger turnout], but is too bad for now. Chalk up another one for the Mexican cartels.

 

[NeoDevin]

Post to subscribe to thread on PF mobile.

 

[Gokul43201]

Interesting to look at ballot measures in AZ. Strong rejection of affirmative action and support for secret ballots for union membership, but medical marijuana is split right down the middle with 80% of precincts counted.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I know that I'm the minority here, but I feel that it's good to be in a country that's not so "blue." HAHA

Were it not for the extremism of the tea party and their influence on the Republican party, and the extremism of the party itself, I would normally agree. But most of the big tea names went down - O'Donnell, Fiorina, Miller, Angle. In addition to Paul, those were the biggest on my list.

At least Paul is an accomplished person. It is the know-nothings like O'Donnell an Palin that really scare me.

Edit1: Fiorina is contesting the call for Boxer saying it's a dead heat. Presumably she ignores district considerations.

Edit2: Holy crap, she is indeed trailing by five points! A good example of why I can't stand her! She is a snake.

 

[Jasongreat]

Wow! Murkowski appears to be winning handily in Alaska.

I don't recall a write-in candidate ever winning a Senate seat before. Is this a first [assuming she wins]?

Last I saw, it was all write-in candidates, which there are quite a few running this year in alaska.

 

[talk2glenn]

Interesting to look at ballot measures in AZ. Strong rejection of affirmative action and support for secret ballots for union membership, but medical marijuana is split right down the middle with 80% of precincts counted.

Always amusing to look at the "think of the children" results. My property taxes just went up, and a horribly ineffective bureacracy created by voters a few years back was retained, both by overwhelming margins.

I'm pretty confident your average person will vote for anything that says "kids" or "schools" somewhere in its description.

Other than that, I couldn't be happier with the results of the AZ elections tonight. I did vote for the medical marijuana prop myself, which is far more conservatively crafted than that passed in CA and OR. Assuming passage, it won't turn into the rubber stamp between pot heads and pot observed elsewhere. But, yeah, clearly the average voter in AZ is still pretty conservative, even as the state dances on the edge of west coast libertarianism.

 

[MATLABdude]

Wow! Murkowski appears to be winning handily in Alaska.

I don't recall a write-in candidate ever winning a Senate seat before. Is this a first [assuming she wins]?

The last time it happened, Strom Thurmond was still a Democrat!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Write-in_candidate

 

[Astronuc]

So far this morning:

Senate: 51 D, 46 R, 3 undecided
House: 183 D, 240 R, 12 undecided

Next two years will be interesting.

Boehner now has the toughest job in Washington
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101103/el_yblog_upshot/boehner-now-has-the-toughest-job-in-washington

Reid (D-NV) was re-elected to the Senate. So much for ousting incumbents. DeMint (R-SC) and Schumer (D-NY) were both re-elected to the Senate.

 

[WhoWee]

That's about all I cared about tonight. The bloodbath of red was obviously expected, but I am still very sad for the country.

On the up side, the just-say-no party won't be able to get away with that anymore, so this does help to secure Obama's victory in 2012.

In 2012, Obama will most likely (still be running against Bush and) cite gridlock. However, this time around, he will also be faced with nearly 6 years of his own words - the accumulated sound bites and broken promises that define Obama.

 

[Gokul43201]

Always amusing to look at the "think of the children" results. My property taxes just went up, and a horribly ineffective bureacracy created by voters a few years back was retained, both by overwhelming margins.

I'm pretty confident your average person will vote for anything that says "kids" or "schools" somewhere in its description.

Aha! I hadn't read the actual text of the measures (just the summary provided by CNN), so didn't notice the tactical wording. Add to that list: "patriot" and "security".

I've only been following a handful of Governors' races and they all went roughly the way I was hoping. Rick Snyder (R-MI) won handily by 20 points or so. Patrick (D-MA) held off Charlie Baker a little more easily than expected, with Tim Cahill(I) sadly dropping into single digits. If Scott Brown's election was to be read as a rejection of by the MA electorate of Obama's policies (as has been suggested by the punditocracy, and some posters here), I wonder how we should interpret the re-election of Obama's closest friend and virtual political doppelganger. And in RI, Lincoln Chafee (I) won, and will likely be the only Independent in a statehouse.

 

[Gokul43201]

Another interesting tidbit about a specific group of ballot measures:

Voters in several states defeated major anti-tax measures on Tuesday, acknowledging that their financially-strapped governments need revenue to provide services.

A trio of controversial tax initiatives in Colorado failed, as did an effort to slash sales taxes in Massachusetts, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures. This comes amid a wave of anti-incumbent fervor that swept Republicans to victory in the U.S. House of Representatives.

"Voters are not willing to go so far as to start to disassemble state government," said Jennie Bowser, an elections analyst for the conference. "They recognized there are programs and services they benefit from and they want them to continue."

At the same time, voters were not eager to raise taxes. A high-profile bid to tax millionaires in Washington state failed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/11/02/news/economy/ballot_measures/index.htm

 

[WhoWee]

The real bloodbath is not in the Senate or the House, but in the Statehouses.

In states like Ohio (where Obama/Clinton campaigned very hard) the issue for 2012 and beyond is re-districting.

 

[Astronuc]

My neighborhood sits right on the border of two congressional districts, so we get blasted by two sets of campaigns. Both districts were held by democrats, one was one term, and the other in a second term. Both democrats lost to new republicans. Independents swung away from democrats. Economy and taxes are the big drivers in voter sentiment. Health care is an issue for many, and social security and health care are issues for the elderly and retired.

I want to see where Congress will cut expenditures.

Nobody wants their social security or medicare/medicaid cut, or the unemployment check eliminated - but that's pretty much what has to be done to reduce government expenditures.

http://www.federalbudget.com/

Cutting SSI payments, HHS and DOD by 30% would quickly reduce the deficit.

Otherwise - http://blog.heritage.org/2010/02/05/past-deficits-vs-obamas-deficits-in-pictures/

The states have to rein in healthcare and pension costs. An issue in this state is the health care, pension and other benefits enjoyed by State lawmakers (assembly and senate), who actually work part time.

 

[WhoWee]

I listened to msnbc and CNN last evening and this morning. The (rather smug) question being posed isNow what? What will you cut? Who will you target?

It seems to me that if the Republicans "put the car in the ditch" - Obama and company pushed it into the field took it for a joy ride. Now everyone wonders how the Republicans will get the car back on the road? (again IMO)

Therefore, I think the strategy for the new Republican House should be to identify about 1,000 insane/obvious wastes of money and target them with very narrow legislation (Bills that everyone can and will read) - force Reid and Obama to defend their spending. Will this fix the problem - of course not - but it will set the stage for 2012.

On the flip side, the new Republican House also needs to introduce very narrow and specific programs that will help small business and create jobs.

The bottom line is a common sense approach to the problem will be recognized as responsible behavior. The surgical extraction of obvious waste, coupled with job growth (increased tax revenue) will steer us back in the right direction.

 

[Gokul43201]

On the flip side, the new Republican House also needs to introduce very narrow and specific programs that will help small business and create jobs.

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

 

[Astronuc]

"I'd like to get to the bottom of what's really right for this country, and that's kind of hard while they're all calling each other names."
TONY PERELLI, 75, voting in Chicago.

Independents Fueled G.O.P Gains (no surprise there)
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/03exit.html

Many Voters Find Little Comfort on Ballot
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/03/us/politics/03mood.html

I believe Reid will step down as majority leader. Too bad it wasn't sooner.

As for bigger or smaller government, one of the problems is that under the republican administrations, the trend was to increase spending, partly because the government starting outsourcing work to expensive contractors (which began under Reagan). So it is quite disengenous for republicans to be claiming they are for less government, when in actuality the function of government is simply passed to private hands. Add to that the failure to appropriately regulate and the failure to enforce regulation (e.g., mine safety, hazardous waste, financial markets, . . . ) which have in part lead to the near economic collapse in the US. Of course, the democrats have been more or less equally irresponsible.

It is certainly fair to ask the republicans what they will cut. Cutting $100 billion in the next fiscal year still leaves more than a $1 trillion deficit. Try cutting $1 trillion is federal expenditures.

The federal deficit is about 10% of the GDP, and the GDP only grew at an annual rate of 2%.

Federal budget deficit to exceed $1.4 trillion in 2010 and 2011
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/23/AR2010072304101.html

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/ (also has numbers on GDP)
http://www.cbo.gov/

 

[CAC1001]

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

I think it depends. We may see a full-on gridlock for the next few years if Obama tries to continue with his agenda because Republicans disagree with it.

Everyone talks about "bipartisanship," I really don't see how that can work except in a very few limited circumstances. On almost eveyr major issue, Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided on how to go about solving the issue.

 

[Gokul43201]

I think it depends. We may see a full-on gridlock for the next few years if Obama tries to continue with his agenda because Republicans disagree with it.

How specifically do you suggest Obama will try to "continue with his agenda" (whatever that means)? Obama doesn't write legislation, he can only at best veto it. The Republicans have the House, and it's time for them to start writing some legislation.

Everyone talks about "bipartisanship," I really don't see how that can work except in a very few limited circumstances.

However, even in those limited circumstances, artificial differences are created purely for political reasons. Example: Republicans propose a commission to study the budget and deficit issues; later Obama supports this idea and promotes it publicly; immediately, Republican leadership stonewalls the move.

 

[WhoWee]

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

I said "narrow and specific".

 

[Astronuc]

Advice from republicans to the republicans
Veteran Republicans' Advice To Winners: Don't Blow It
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=131033092

Ken Duberstein's comment hits the spot. The election was a referendum on Obama and the democrats, not an indication that the voters are in love with the republican agenda.

 

[CRGreathouse]

The election was a referendum on Obama and the democrats, not an indication that the voters are in love with the republican agenda.

Indeed.

 

[CRGreathouse]

Something like the Small Business Jobs Bill that passed a few weeks ago after Republicans had been blocking it for months? Hopefully, now that they are forced to actively lead, there will be less of a gridlock with reasonable legislation.

I can't imagine anything but gridlock with different parties controlling the two chambers.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I can't imagine anything but gridlock with different parties controlling the two chambers.

We already had gridlock because of the Republican use of the fillabuster. Even though the Dems had a majority in the Senate, the Reps were determined to fillabuster every single issue, which meant that Dems needed 60 votes instead of 51. That dodge won't work anymore.

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

 

[jambaugh]

Everyone talks about "bipartisanship," I really don't see how that can work except in a very few limited circumstances. On almost eveyr major issue, Democrats and Republicans are sharply divided on how to go about solving the issue.

Calls for "bipartisanship" is when one party demands the other ignore their own values and side with the one.

And "gridlock" is the ideal situation, where only common sense legislation that most agree as necessary gets passed.

The markets have been climbing in anticipation of Tuesday's result, not because Republicans favor business, but because with gridlock, the companies can actually plan long term and thus risk their capital without the risk that a change of rules will undermine their expectations of return on investment. Sweeping change is the last thing our economy needs right now. That's not a matter of ignorant fear. It is a matter of stability.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Just fyi, Strom Thurmond was elected to the Senate on a write-in vote, in 1954. So Murkowski would be the second Senator to win as a write-in.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Wow, Bennet [D] won in Colorado!

Edit: Whoops, not official yet.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

One funny comment from last night. How would you like to wake up and realize that you just spent $160 million of your own money for the Calif Governer's race, and LOST!

 

[Astronuc]

I really would like to see more grey or purple or some other color, which represents a true indpendent not beholden to democratic or republican party.

Interesting commentary from the Tech-Ticker

Election Post-Op: Republicans Win, Deficit Hawks Lose
http://finance.yahoo.com/tech-ticker/election-post-op-republicans-win-deficit-hawks-lose-535564.html

1. Recent History: In the past 20 years, there have been two deficit-reduction deals. But Congressional Republicans weren't a significant party to either one of them. In 1990, Republican president George H.W. Bush and the Democratic Congress agreed to higher taxes and spending cuts -- a deal that was largely denounced by the then-minority Republicans in Congress. In 1993, Democratic Congress and President Clinton passed another package of spending cuts and tax increases over the united opposition of then-minority Congressional Republicans.
. . . .
. . . Mitch McConnell, Senate Minority Leader, and John Boehner, the next Speaker of the House, are veterans of last decade's Republican majority that created the Medicare prescription drug benefit with no payment mechanism, funded wars on an emergency basis, and sharply increased discretionary spending.
. . . .

 

[WhoWee]

We already had gridlock because of the Republican use of the fillabuster. Even though the Dems had a majority in the Senate, the Reps were determined to fillabuster every single issue, which meant that Dems needed 60 votes instead of 51. That dodge won't work anymore.

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

Yes Ivan, you've certainly described the events surrounding the passage of health care reform - or have you?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Yes Ivan, you've certainly described the events surrounding the passage of health care reform - or have you?

Yes, that is why passage required the political maneuvering that was used. The only way to pass the bill was to get the two Independents on board, which made passage fillabuster proof. When it became impossible to pass the desired bill due to the fillabuster, a bill passed previously in the Senate was passed in the House retroactively.

The Republicans called this dirty politics when a clear majority - 58 votes - had supported the abandoned bill in the Senate. This is what killed Universal Health Care and the reason to many liberals are ticked off. The liberals blame Obama when he got the only bill possible.

Everyone is mad for the wrong reasons on both sides of the aisle. It is insanity! And the Tea Party caters to the insanity.

 

[Jasongreat]

We already had gridlock because of the Republican use of the fillabuster. Even though the Dems had a majority in the Senate, the Reps were determined to fillabuster every single issue, which meant that Dems needed 60 votes instead of 51. That dodge won't work anymore.

Imo, I would add, if someone wants to use the fillabuster, they should have to actually fillabuster and not just threaten to use it. They have made it far too easy to use. If they had to actually fillabuster, it would be used far less often.

The republicans used the fillibuster, or threatened to use it? Your post seems to say both things. I could be wrong, but to me it seems the dems only used the supposed threat to say that they couldn't do anything because of those damn republicans, a view it doesn't seem the voting public believed.

"Astronuc = As for bigger or smaller government, one of the problems is that under the republican administrations, the trend was to increase spending, partly because the government starting outsourcing work to expensive contractors (which began under Reagan). So it is quite disengenous for republicans to be claiming they are for less government, when in actuality the function of government is simply passed to private hands..."

As I see it the 2006 and 2008 elections were a rebuttal of the big spending, big government Rino's, or progressive republicans. There were huge numbers of independents and republicans who voted for change, too bad, the change was bigger spending and bigger government. Those same independents and republicans are who voted yesterday to give power back to republicans, but looking into my crystal ball, if those republicans now continue big government policies, they won't be in congress long, and as far as that goes if some democrats don't stand by them, they will also be booted next vote. Republicans forgot that the reason they are there is because they were supposed to be conservative, it was why they got over 50 seats in the 94 election, to oppose over-reaching government, and why they got over 50 last night, but I agree with you that that is not what they acted like once in power last time, hopefully they learn from history, or they WILL be taught another lesson next election, imo.