2010 Election Results Mega Thread

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 11-03-10, 04:37 PM

I would think that holding the senate and a lot of the other races that power tipsy republicans began to speculate they might win would have been trumpeted as victories today. The common line that I am reading is that the purge of blue dogs is a victory and the Democrats "won" last night by dropping dead weight.

If we put animosity away for a bit, is that emotion present in any of the left of center folks who frequent this forum, or is it putting the best face on a tough night.

I guess the big sticking point is what the plan is to replace blue dogs with someone more left of center going forward.

**Captain Coors** · 11-03-10, 04:47 PM

The overwhelming theme of both parties is moderates from both sides are being pushed out the door because they arent liberal or conservative or not. And that is a sad day for most everyday Americans who are better represented by the moderate not the extreme.

**Fovezer** · 11-03-10, 05:42 PM

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

I would think that holding the senate and a lot of the other races that power tipsy republicans began to speculate they might win would have been trumpeted as victories today. The common line that I am reading is that the purge of blue dogs is a victory and the Democrats "won" last night by dropping dead weight.

If we put animosity away for a bit, is that emotion present in any of the left of center folks who frequent this forum, or is it putting the best face on a tough night.

I guess the big sticking point is what the plan is to replace blue dogs with someone more left of center going forward.

Good question, and it's a twofold answer, really. Make no mistake about it, this was a loss for the Democrats by any metric, but by looking into the results we can try and pull out moral victories. Did I want Blue Dogs to lose, only to be replaced by people even further to the right? No, but if I had to choose which Democrats to lose, I'd happily pick the Blue Dogs. Their caucus was the one decimated here, not the progressives. They lost 29 members of their 54 member caucus, and accounted for half of all the losses. The Progressive caucus lost only 4 of their 70 members, and one was a primary loss (in my state) that elected another Democrat anyways. I'd call that a win inside of a loss, and I won't lie, I was happen to see a couple of them lose.

The plan going forward shouldn't necessarily be to try and put people left-of-center into seats they cannot win, like more conservative districts, but to get these new Blue Dogs to realize that trying to play politics, supporting the Republicans, and opposing the Democratic President isn't going to get Republican or conservative voters to vote for you. All you will end up doing is polarizing yourself from the people who would have voted for you, causing them to not turn out. And we saw that yesterday with some of those Democrats who rode in on Obama's coattails, but then decided to vote against many important Democratic bills. That's not how you energize your base or draw moderates to you.

**Wraith** · 11-03-10, 06:10 PM

IMO the GOP could have won two more Senate seats if they hadn't run the crazy people like O'Donnell and Engel.

What I am grateful for (old news but whatever) is that Arlen Specter got the boot in his freaking primary. The Dems were all like "Thanks for your Senate seat, we needed that. Move along now, please." When I heard about it I was on the floor.

**Muqtar SGT_Clintok** · 11-03-10, 07:43 PM

Originally Posted by Fovezer

Good question, and it's a twofold answer, really. Make no mistake about it, this was a loss for the Democrats by any metric, but by looking into the results we can try and pull out moral victories. Did I want Blue Dogs to lose, only to be replaced by people even further to the right? No, but if I had to choose which Democrats to lose, I'd happily pick the Blue Dogs. Their caucus was the one decimated here, not the progressives. They lost 29 members of their 54 member caucus, and accounted for half of all the losses. The Progressive caucus lost only 4 of their 70 members, and one was a primary loss (in my state) that elected another Democrat anyways. I'd call that a win inside of a loss, and I won't lie, I was happen to see a couple of them lose.

The plan going forward shouldn't necessarily be to try and put people left-of-center into seats they cannot win, like more conservative districts, but to get these new Blue Dogs to realize that trying to play politics, supporting the Republicans, and opposing the Democratic President isn't going to get Republican or conservative voters to vote for you. All you will end up doing is polarizing yourself from the people who would have voted for you, causing them to not turn out. And we saw that yesterday with some of those Democrats who rode in on Obama's coattails, but then decided to vote against many important Democratic bills. That's not how you energize your base or draw moderates to you.

I don't see the coattails of Obama as the catalyst that brought these blue dogs into office. I see the actions of Bush and the Republican congress as the catalyst that brought the blue dogs and Obama into office. Scratch the consideration of the Democrat base in this discussion. I am talking about the independents who pulled the level on the O, and the conservatives would could not pull the lever on McCain.

I cannot imagine conservative democrats being funded and fostered by the Dems for the next 2 election cycles, at least not like they were for the past 2. The primary ace in the hole for the Dems is to hope that the republicans will draw the amount of ire they did in the 2000-2006 time frame, but with limited power, and the ability to sell the idea that they are holding the line against additional govt debt, and expanding govt, its going to be hard for the Dems to replicate the anger against them that propelled Obama into office, and return the congress to the Dems.

We can agree that its going to take more than the cyclic nature of politics to return the amount of seats in the areas they were lost.

**Red_Lizard2** · 11-03-10, 11:04 PM

Except, and even some of the republicans have been saying this, its not a vote for the republican party, its giving them a chance to fix it. In 2 years, if they don't achieve some of the goals, I would not be surprised to see many of them voted out. As for thoughts on the Blue Dogs getting voted out, it goes back to hearing some on the left wanting basically a "tea-party movement" within the democratic party (basically kick out the moderates and bring in more hard-line lefties), I really hate it, we need moderates in both parties. But with the tea-party and now the pissed off dems, it will never happen.

In my opinion this election has shown that our parties are going to get more and more to the extremes, and no one is going to work together anymore (hell we are already at the point). Which will just lead to party switching, and still nothing getting done. Call it pessimistic, but we are screwed and going to be more screwed going forward (unless you are one for no progress, then you'll love the countries new direction).

**Red_Lizard2** · 11-03-10, 11:47 PM

Anyone want to trade states with me? Russel Pierce is the new President of the AZ Senate, RUSSEL FUCKING PIERCE

**CanadianPersian** · 11-03-10, 11:52 PM

haha your "extreme left" is like our center left and our conservatives are like your "center left".

our conservative prime minister passed a huge stimulus bill and supports health care :P. pretty funny.

**Fovezer** · 11-04-10, 12:02 AM

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

I don't see the coattails of Obama as the catalyst that brought these blue dogs into office. I see the actions of Bush and the Republican congress as the catalyst that brought the blue dogs and Obama into office. Scratch the consideration of the Democrat base in this discussion. I am talking about the independents who pulled the level on the O, and the conservatives would could not pull the lever on McCain.

I disagree. The increased turnout among traditional Democratic constituencies pushed many of these Blue Dogs over the edge. Why was there an increase in turnout? Because Obama was on the ticket. Yes, the independents also broke toward the Democrats, and that helped, but I think the turnout based on Obama's coattails was the major factor.

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

I cannot imagine conservative democrats being funded and fostered by the Dems for the next 2 election cycles, at least not like they were for the past 2. The primary ace in the hole for the Dems is to hope that the republicans will draw the amount of ire they did in the 2000-2006 time frame, but with limited power, and the ability to sell the idea that they are holding the line against additional govt debt, and expanding govt, its going to be hard for the Dems to replicate the anger against them that propelled Obama into office, and return the congress to the Dems.

I'm not willing to make such broad predictions. Yes, yours is a possibility. Another possibility is that after giving the Reps control of the House, the people see they aren't living up to their lofty promises, and with a Presidential election on the ticket, the Dems sweep back into power. It is way to early for any sensible predictions one way or another, there is a lot that can and will happen over the next 2 years. All we can do is wait and see.

Originally Posted by Muqtar SGT_Clintok

We can agree that its going to take more than the cyclic nature of politics to return the amount of seats in the areas they were lost.

It's impossible to judge the mood and situation two years from now. Like I said, I don't know if this is a 1994-esque election or a 1946-esque election, and we won't know until 2012. Politics are cyclical, the question is just how big is the cycle going to be?

**Fovezer** · 11-04-10, 12:12 AM

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

Except, and even some of the republicans have been saying this, its not a vote for the republican party, its giving them a chance to fix it. In 2 years, if they don't achieve some of the goals, I would not be surprised to see many of them voted out. As for thoughts on the Blue Dogs getting voted out, it goes back to hearing some on the left wanting basically a "tea-party movement" within the democratic party (basically kick out the moderates and bring in more hard-line lefties), I really hate it, we need moderates in both parties. But with the tea-party and now the pissed off dems, it will never happen.

In my opinion this election has shown that our parties are going to get more and more to the extremes, and no one is going to work together anymore (hell we are already at the point). Which will just lead to party switching, and still nothing getting done. Call it pessimistic, but we are screwed and going to be more screwed going forward (unless you are one for no progress, then you'll love the countries new direction).

I'm pretty far on the left, and it's not if you are a Blue Dog or other conservative Democrat that bothers me, it's when you put politics and other stuff before the party. If you run as a Democrat, VOTE as a Democrat. Don't waffle and play Republican-lite. Don't run away from the President. Don't try and hold the majority of your caucus hostage with your ridiculous demands. If the votes can be spared, they will give you the cover to vote no on controversial topics, otherwise vote the way that the party you chose to be a member of wants. If you give the voters the choice between a Republican and a Republican-lite, they are going to take the real Republican every time.

The biggest problem, as I've long said, is our two-party, first-past-the-pole system. It should be multiple parties and proportional representation. If we don't change the system, the atmosphere will never change.