[mgoetze]

 y66, on 2010-November-04, 07:11, said:

好主意

谢谢

[Aberlour10]

Whatever the new masters will do, one thing is certain,they bring us healthier fast food.

[y66]

Russ Feingold ousted? Even if the Badgers win their last 4 games it's going to be a long, cold winter in Wisconsin.

[kenberg]

Question: What happened?

In an entertaining but not very enlightening column,

http://www.washingto...0110305318.html,

Kathleen Parker observes:

"In February 2009, Obama had an approval rating of 76 percent. Let me repeat that: 76 percent! Few but God poll better. Obviously, one can go only downhill from there, but you can't pin the slide on racism. All those people didn't suddenly realize their president was African American and become racists."

True enough. But did all those people suddenly discover that their president was a Democrat? The man did not run on a platform of lowering taxes and reducing the size of government.

Any suggestion that we run the country by putting Obama in the presidency and establishing John Boehner as speaker of the House appears loony to me, but this is what the American people have done. I think that our problems are pretty substantial and I don't see them as being solved in the next two years. It will be, let us say, interesting to see how this plays out.

There was a letter to the editor published in the paper on Thursday. The essence was: "This is Wednesday, the election was Tuesday, the economy is still bad. Let's throw the bums out." He was joking. I think.

[mike777]

"Any suggestion that we run the country by putting Obama in the presidency and establishing John Boehner as speaker of the House appears loony to me"


You may very well be correct.

My guess is the country wants divided govt and hopes this will reduce or atleast slow the growth of spending by the govt. In other words a vote for gridlock in terms of money.


As others have pointed out this may be a very bad thing to wish for or not.

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-05, 07:21, said:

Any suggestion that we run the country by putting Obama in the presidency and establishing John Boehner as speaker of the House appears loony to me, but this is what the American people have done. I think that our problems are pretty substantial and I don't see them as being solved in the next two years. It will be, let us say, interesting to see how this plays out.

mike already pretty much said what i believe, that the system is working just the way it was designed to work... move slowly, fight over changes, etc... that works until one party promises a better way, controls the gov't, fails to deliver, and back to split gov't

[PassedOut]

 luke warm, on 2010-November-05, 16:13, said:

mike already pretty much said what i believe, that the system is working just the way it was designed to work... move slowly, fight over changes, etc... that works until one party promises a better way, controls the gov't, fails to deliver, and back to split gov't

Historically the economy has been best with a split government. From best to worst:

1. Democrat president, republican congress.
2. Republican president, democrat congress.
3. Democrat president, democrat congress.
4. Republican president, republican congress.

Wouldn't want to read too much into that though because the parties completely reverse their positions over time.

[mike777]

 PassedOut, on 2010-November-05, 16:46, said:

Historically the economy has been best with a split government. From best to worst:

1. Democrat president, republican congress.
2. Republican president, democrat congress.
3. Democrat president, democrat congress.
4. Republican president, republican congress.

Wouldn't want to read too much into that though because the parties completely reverse their positions over time.

Interesting.

If I mean if split govt means a slowing of growth in govt spending and one party rule means a large increase in spending as a percentage of National Income.

I cant find a chart online, maybe someone else could.

If so then the vote in 2008 was clearly for a large increase in govt spending, perhaps even larger than what occured(Krugman)

[PassedOut]

 mike777, on 2010-November-05, 16:59, said:

Interesting.

If I mean if split govt means a slowing of growth in govt spending and one party rule means a large increase in spending as a percentage of National Income.

I cant find a chart online, maybe someone else could.

If so then the vote in 2008 was clearly for a large increase in govt spending, perhaps even larger than what occured(Krugman)

Can't say that folks always get what they voted for.

[mike777]

Undiscussed so far regarding the election is redistricting.
http://en.wikipedia....i/Redistricting

Redistricting is an arcane issue that comes up every ten years.

In this case since the republicans gained a lot at the state level they get to draw the new districts.

What this means is republicans can game the elections in their favor. Again this is an issue that comes up every ten years.

[kenberg]

Divided government has its uses. Perhaps, although I am not prepared to fully defend this, the Clinton presidency was improved by Republican control of Congress in 1994. Perhaps it is so, perhaps this will work. I doubt it, but we can hope.

I do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened. Rand Paul is not interested in slowing down Obama and making some sort of comprise to improve Democratic initiatives. We are speaking of irreconcilable differences here.

Here is (part of) what I think was going on:

During the latter part of the Bush presidency it became clear that the economy was crashing badly. People were confused and Obama offered hope. And chants. Everyone chanted a lot and hoped Obama would deliver. Things are still looking pretty bad, especially for a person living close to the edge with a mortgage that is significantly higher than the value of the house. Move to where there are jobs? How? You can't sell.

Enter the Tea Party. Obama offered chants, the Tea Party offers Mama Grizzly. Clinton would feel your pain, the Tea Party will feel your anger. And your fear, although that is sub-text.

I think that this will not go well. Obama apparently thought that when he campaigned on health care reform and won, people wanted health care reform. Silly of him. Many of the Tea Party candidates think that the people really want smaller government. If they follow through and actually start shutting down some programs, they will find out differently. They want the other guy's benefits discontinued.

Fundamentally, the things people really want are somewhere between out of reach and really difficult. Nothing really can be done about the fact that they overpaid when they bought a house. Perhaps they can improve their own financial condition, but not easily.


"I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore" makes a nice movie idea. Lousy as policy though.

[mike777]

"do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened."



If the major LEGISLATIVE issue is govt spending as a percentage of national income( "the economy stupid")...and all of what that broadly means perhaps yes?

I just present this as a discussion point.


----

Please note the country, my family, is involved in two major wars......who cared????

[luke warm]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-05, 19:21, said:

Divided government has its uses. Perhaps, although I am not prepared to fully defend this, the Clinton presidency was improved by Republican control of Congress in 1994. Perhaps it is so, perhaps this will work. I doubt it, but we can hope.

I do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened. Rand Paul is not interested in slowing down Obama and making some sort of comprise to improve Democratic initiatives. We are speaking of irreconcilable differences here.

that's true, but i think this confuses cause and effect... perhaps the electorate doesn't consciously vote for split gov't (in most cases), but against the effect(s) of one party controlling the gov't... and rand most assuredly is interested not only in "slowing down" obamba but in reversing what he (and others with his philosophy) see as a departure from what they perceive as the principles upon which the country was founded

[y66]

The title of that Kathleen Parker column is "Blindsided by their own blindness". Evidently, she does not follow Nate Silver who said in a March 2010 blog post that he expected Democrats to lose up to 60 seats in November.

[y66]

Are you ready?

[kenberg]

 luke warm, on 2010-November-06, 06:54, said:

that's true, but i think this confuses cause and effect... perhaps the electorate doesn't consciously vote for split gov't (in most cases), but against the effect(s) of one party controlling the gov't... and rand most assuredly is interested not only in "slowing down" obamba but in reversing what he (and others with his philosophy) see as a departure from what they perceive as the principles upon which the country was founded

This has been an enormous shift. I can well imagine you voting for a conservative candidate in 2008, and a conservative candidate in 2010. I imagine you did so. Voting for Obama in 2008 and Rand Paul in 2010 is harder to grasp. At least it is hard to grasp if we try to explain it as being the consequence of careful attention and reflective consideration of principles.

Here is an example:
In Carroll County Maryland, where I live, there is now some discussion of improving the manner in which the school system assists the disabled student. A wonderful example of local spirit, yes? Not at all. The federal government mandates such accommodation and so Carroll needs to pay for transportation and services provided by nearby counties if they can provide what we cannot. Now we could discuss whether such a mandate is a good thing or a bad thing but that is not my point. If the small government folks decide that the mandate is an unacceptable intrusion of the federal government into local life and kill the mandate, the initiative will die. I know of at least one guy whose son has benefited greatly from this mandate. I am sure he votes for whatever candidate promises lower taxes and smaller government. I doubt that he advocates killing this mandate.

I think that quite a few people voted for Obama in 2008 without really wanting him to do what he said he would do. Equally, I think quite a few people voted for Tea Party candidates without really wanting them to do what they say that are going to do. This might work out for them because most likely they don't actually intend on doing it.


I have seen explanations that the Democratic defeat was due to cap and trade proposals. My wife asked me to explain it this morning, I said about three sentences, and acknowledged that this was the limit of my knowledge. Three sentences of knowledge probably makes me the neighborhood expert.

It was not cap and trade, and I also don't think that it was deep adherence to the thoughts of Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, etc. Not that they agreed with each other. I have read some of this, not much, not enough. More than a lot of people who voted for Rand Paul, I bet.

Every election the winners explain that this is because the voters grasped the deep meaning of their party's principles and the losers explain that the voters are confused. So we will wait for two more years and do it again. John Boehner should hold off on ordering the White House stationery with his name embossed.

[hrothgar]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-06, 10:44, said:

This has been an enormous shift. I can well imagine you voting for a conservative candidate in 2008, and a conservative candidate in 2010. I imagine you did so. Voting for Obama in 2008 and Rand Paul in 2010 is harder to grasp. At least it is hard to grasp if we try to explain it as being the consequence of careful attention and reflective consideration of principles.

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

Republicans showed up to vote.
Democrats didn't.
And this made all the difference.

[kenberg]

 hrothgar, on 2010-November-06, 10:59, said:

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

Republicans showed up to vote.
Democrats didn't.
And this made all the difference.

Best explanation I have heard so far.

[pooltuna]

 kenberg, on 2010-November-05, 19:21, said:

Divided government has its uses. Perhaps, although I am not prepared to fully defend this, the Clinton presidency was improved by Republican control of Congress in 1994. Perhaps it is so, perhaps this will work. I doubt it, but we can hope.

I do not think that desire for divided government comes anywhere near being an adequate explanation for what happened. Rand Paul is not interested in slowing down Obama and making some sort of comprise to improve Democratic initiatives. We are speaking of irreconcilable differences here.

Here is (part of) what I think was going on:

During the latter part of the Bush presidency it became clear that the economy was crashing badly. People were confused and Obama offered hope. And chants. Everyone chanted a lot and hoped Obama would deliver. Things are still looking pretty bad, especially for a person living close to the edge with a mortgage that is significantly higher than the value of the house. Move to where there are jobs? How? You can't sell.

Enter the Tea Party. Obama offered chants, the Tea Party offers Mama Grizzly. Clinton would feel your pain, the Tea Party will feel your anger. And your fear, although that is sub-text.

I think that this will not go well. Obama apparently thought that when he campaigned on health care reform and won, people wanted health care reform. Silly of him. Many of the Tea Party candidates think that the people really want smaller government. If they follow through and actually start shutting down some programs, they will find out differently. They want the other guy's benefits discontinued.

Fundamentally, the things people really want are somewhere between out of reach and really difficult. Nothing really can be done about the fact that they overpaid when they bought a house. Perhaps they can improve their own financial condition, but not easily.


"I'm mad as hell and I am not going to take it anymore" makes a nice movie idea. Lousy as policy though.

The object when you move should not be to sell your house at the same price but to be able to buy a house equal(not in terms of price though) to the one you now own. Prices are falling at your potential new location as well

[luke warm]

 hrothgar, on 2010-November-06, 10:59, said:

The change in the electoral results between 2008 and 2010 was all about turn out. Relatively few individuals shifted their votes from Democrat to Republican.

Republicans showed up to vote.
Democrats didn't.
And this made all the difference.

 kenberg, on 2010-November-06, 11:18, said:

Best explanation I have heard so far.

yes, but it doesn't get to your question; that question is "why?" btw there was a huge shift in 2008's undecided (or "independent") voters... it's true that some were more motivated than others to get out and vote... the question is, why were they?