The United States 2010 Mid-Term Elections

Scarf said:
You make it sound like this is a new tactic for them.

It's kind of bewildering that Republican senators want Democrats to compromise when these past two years they've been so unwilling to do the same. More bewildering is that lots of voters think it's just the Democrats who've been keeping government running at a snail's pace.

At least things didn't go so badly here in California.
Click to expand...

I love how just a week ago, John Boehner was quoted as saying to not compromise with Democrats, at all. And in his speech last night, the first thing Boehner mentioned was working together with Democrats to creat jobs. :/

The Repubs did a good job of portraying the Obama Administration as the source of of economic woes., when in actuality they're to blame.

da_absol said:
...um no only 18% percent of voters responded so far and Whitman's not too far behind. The votes haven't also been totally tallied for Nevada either. I don't see how you can say that. It ain't over till it's over.
Click to expand...

No, its over. ^^ They can accurately project the winner early on by looking at the Repub-Dem proportions, by city and by County. Forecasters knew Reid would win, because he took Sharron Angle's own hometown by a huge margin.
 
Last edited:
No one party is to blame for our economic woes. Each side has a share in the blame.

You have to play tricky defensive tactics when you're the minority party.

I believe that the Tea Party did hold the GOP back this election. If it weren't for them, the Republicans could have taken the Senate as well. They fared well in traditional conservative areas like the South and Midwest, but voters in the West and Northeast didn't agree with their message. That's okay, though. I would much rather it take two election cycles to get a Republican majority that connects with everyday Americans rather than sweep through in one cycle with the same puppets as usual.

I'm rather disappointed Boxer won. I knew that seat was safe Democratic, but I would be much more comfortable with one of her primary challengers holding the seat. As for Jerry Brown, well we've had him as Governor in the past and that's didn't go very well.
 
Last edited:
FreakyLocz14 said:
No one party is to blame for our economic woes. Each side has a share in the blame.

You have to play tricky defensive tactics when you're the minority party.

I believe that the Tea Party did hold the GOP back this election. If it weren't for them, the Republicans could have taken the Senate as well. They fared well in traditional conservative areas like the South and Midwest, but voters in the West and Northeast didn't agree with their message. That's okay, though. I would much rather it take two election cycles to get a Republican majority that connects with everyday Americans rather than sweep through in one cycle with the same puppets as usual.

I'm rather disappointed Boxer won. I knew that seat was safe Democratic, but I would be much more comfortable with one of her primary challengers holding the seat. As for Jerry Brown, well we've had him as Governor in the past and that's didn't go very well.
Click to expand...

Some more than others. George Bush's policies, and the Democratic opposition to that from late '04-08 is to blame.

Moreso in the Senate than the House. O'Donnel and Angle were defeated rather comfortably, but had the traditional Republican nominees been on the ticket, they would have defeated Chris Coons and Harry Reid. So it cost the GOP at least two senate seats.

Fan fact:

This is the first time in almost 80 years that the Senate didn't flip-flop along with the House of representatives, So the GOP victory isn't as major or universal as it's made out to be. Remember, in every single Mid-term election since the end of the Civil War, the party of the sitting President has lost House and Senate Seats. This was an expected result.
 
Live_Wire466 said:


Some more than others. George Bush's policies, and the Democratic opposition to that from late '04-08 is to blame.

Moreso in the Senate than the House. O'Donnel and Angle were defeated rather comfortably, but had the traditional Republican nominees been on the ticket, they would have defeated Chris Coons and Harry Reid. So it cost the GOP at least two senate seats.

Fan fact:

This is the first time in almost 80 years that the Senate didn't flip-flop along with the House of representatives, So the GOP victory isn't as major or universal as it's made out to be. Remember, in every single Mid-term election since the end of the Civil War, the party of the sitting President has lost House and Senate Seats. This was an expected result.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the fact that the House flipped the next election right after Obama was elected is significant. The Dems took until the last midterm of Bush's presidency to gain any majority.
 
What about the 2002 Mid-Terms. I think the Republicans gained seats that time? :B
 
Netto Azure said:
That's what I'm trying to point out. In Mid-terms Presidents usually lose seats, but it was different that time around. :O
Click to expand...

Yes. Bush had a friendly Congress all the way up until 2006; the last midterm before his Presidency ended, since he was term limited in 2008. Obama's party lost seats in both Houses, and lost majority in one, the first midterm immediately following Obama's election to the Presidency.
 
I am so glad that these elections are over, it was insane~

But in my state, the count for Governor was too close so we're not going to know anytime soon. -_-
Some people are talking about a few weeks before we know...? And one side wants a recount and stuff.
And it's bad because one of our biggest cities didn't order enough ballots so they started to turn away people and there were huge lines and they ended up keeping everything open a bit later...

I'm pretty okay with the results that my state got.
I'm happy that Linda Mcmahon lost. She doesn't really know what it's like for lesser people, she grew up with money and didn't she spend almost 40 Million Dollars of her own money on the campaign?
These elections shouldn't be about who has the most money (but unfortunatly, it usually is..) Glad she didn't win over the voters, ^_^

Is anyone else semi-happy with the results in their state?
 
I watched my fair share of the election results from last night. With the Republicans taking control of the House and the Democrats still hanging onto the Senate by a few seats, I'm wondering if anything will get done in the next 2 years. There are still some senate races that have yet to be decided and it might take a while to figure who won, especially Alaska where you got a Write-In independent leading.

I also want to say this. Republicans and and Democrats WILL NEVER compromise on ANYTHING! They never have and they never will. You got two totally different ideological views on how things should be run and each and every view will clash and nothing happens in the end. To each party, compromise is a dirty word that equals weakness in their eyes and is not tolerated by anybody. Sure, there are some Republicans and Democrats who aren't blinded by party ideologue and see stuff more clearly, but they'll always go back for fear of being ostracized out of their party.

The day we see compromise between Republicans and Democrats is the day the Chicago Cubs win the World Series, Boston Red Sox fans and New York Yankees fans like each other, Isreal is no longer a warzome and there's actually world peace where somebody's not trying to blow another person to hell.
 
I didn't vote. They never bothered to mail me an absentee ballot :/ Not that I'd know any of the candidates since I'm at school 9 months out of the year...

Not liking that the House and the Senate are each controlled by a different party. Prepare yourselves for even more bickering and even less actually getting stuff passed for the next two years :/
 
Elite Overlord LeSabre™ said:
I didn't vote. They never bothered to mail me an absentee ballot :/ Not that I'd know any of the candidates since I'm at school 9 months out of the year...

Not liking that the House and the Senate are each controlled by a different party. Prepare yourselves for even more bickering and even less actually getting stuff passed for the next two years :/
Click to expand...
Is that worse than having both the House and Senate in cahoots with the President?

I know it "gets stuff done" faster, but even then...

I'm not saying you're saying this (...Umm...), but I can't stand the "Balance is only good when we're the minority" mindset everyone has.

I'm a Conservative. I'm happy that it's not a single-party government.

I'm happy because the Republicans filibustered the Healthcare Bill (Something the Democrats would never dream of, I know...), and I'm happy that we now have a semi-balanced legislative branch.

We can't keep relying on "Obama isn't as bad as George Bush!" to help our nation, nor can we rely on "Republican X is really stupid!"

Both sides have their problems, even if one side never gets called on it.

I'm sick of the black and white view of politics, and the way most people act like schoolchildren after elections.

Yeah, there'll be bickering. I'm not naive. But saying "They'll bicker more!" is a really bad way to start off. Whining that there'll be arguments and opposing ideas is a really bad way to start off.

This country has gone to hell since the Cultural Revolution in the 1960s, and... I'm actually starting to lose faith in America's pride. If all we can do is sit around, moan about the other party, and worry about offending anyone and losing votes...

Wow.

God/Some-Inoffensive-Deity-Or-Lack-Thereof Bless America.
 
This is the balance of power. Checks and balances. The Congress checks the Executive, and vice-versa.
 
Live_Wire466 said:


You also have to take 9/11 and Afghanistan into account. Wartime Presidents have approval ratings through the roof. At least in the beginning, as show by Bush's massive ratings in 2002-4, right after 9/11, then horrendous ratings in 2007-8.
Click to expand...

As I recall, Bush's approval ratings were at record highs (like 90%) after 9/11.
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
This is the balance of power. Checks and balances. The Congress checks the Executive, and vice-versa.
Click to expand...
That's what I'm saying. I like the fact that the two are in the hands of two different parties, regardless of the fact that the Democratic agenda won't steamroll everything else because of "Dirty Republican tactics."
 
FreakyLocz14 said:
As I recall, Bush's approval ratings were at record highs (like 90%) after 9/11.
Click to expand...

Yes.

This just shows how spitful people can be. "They blew us up, omg our president hates them too! LIKE LIKE LIKE!"
 
Commentary and results

The Republican takeover of the U.S. House, and its modest gains in the Senate can be attributed to one thing-disgust for Obama's agenda (such as the stimulus which has several pork-barrel special interest projects, the health care reform which forces everybody to buy health insurance, the financial reform which does everything for Wall Street and the Federal Reserve and almost nothing for Main Street, and the cap-and-trade bill which taxes our energy to benefit Wall Street speculators who will be controlling the issuance of the permits), just as the Democrats' takeover in 2006 was the result of voters' disgust for Bush.
(From what I read, the incumbent President's party typically loses Congressional seats in the midterms.)

I doubt the Republicans in the House will be able to do much to slow down Obama's agenda. In fact, I expect them to bow down to Obama and his agenda, just as the Democrats bowed to Bush when they took over in 2006.
After all, just as the Democrats have wildly expanded government and spent and inflated us into debt like there's no tomorrow, the Republicans under Bush expanded government and spent and inflated us into deep debt like no other.

In Michigan, in addition to winning the statewide races, Republicans regained the majority in the State House of Representatives, and increased their lead in the State Senate.
Michigan election results, statewide races and select legislative districts, with commentaries on some races below:
Spoiler:
 
Last edited:
I finally got to vote! I sadly just turned 17 for the '08 presidential election, but I got to vote for the first time on this midterm election :)

Illinois was really close and we got both a democratic and republican winner. We got Quinn (D) at 47% for Govenor v. Brady (R) at 46% and then for the Senate, Giannoulias (D) at 46% and Kirk (R) at 48%. Sooo we got a democrat govenor like before, which whatever, as long as it won't be as embarrassing as Blagojevitch it should be fine.

I personally didn't vote for dem/republican for govenor or senate since I'm really not a fan of either canidate. they all had pretty shady backgrounds and eh. I also didn't catch the rest of the races, so i'll have to check on that :)
 
Shanghai Alice said:
That's what I'm saying. I like the fact that the two are in the hands of two different parties, regardless of the fact that the Democratic agenda won't steamroll everything else because of "Dirty Republican tactics."
Click to expand...

I agree. This is our republican form of government in action.

And no party controls the Senate. Real control of the Senate takes 60 seats. The Democrats have a majority, but unlike in the House, a majority =/= control. Because of this, the Republicans are still in a position to play hardball in the Senate as well.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top