Republicans Have Taken the House!

[Magic Man]

I have great difficulty understanding the American political system.

Virtually in all other western systems, when the government loses its majority, the winning side takes over. In those cases it is the Lower house result that decides the issue.

Where there is an elected President like France, he has to choose a new prime minister who can command a majority, who in turn leads the parliament. This can cause a few weeks disruption.

The American System results in the President and his administration being emasculated, and a powerless government continuing for the next few years. Even when a new president is elected it takes a few months for them to take over.

The president and administration are elected for only four years, at least two of those years are taken up with campaigning where effective government is replaced by popularity stakes.
If they lose the mid term elections, at least an extra year is taken up in Limbo.

When you compare this to the UK system, after the Prime minister calls a new election. The whole process takes six weeks before a new Government is in place. In less than one hour the old Prime minister and ministers resign are replaced by the new one. At no time is the country with out effective Government.

It sounds like you understand it pretty well to me. Unfortunately, while your country is at no time without effective government, our country is at all times without effective government.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

It sounds like you understand it pretty well to me. Unfortunately, while your country is at no time without effective government, our country is at all times without effective government.

I dunno. I would agree that at all times we are without effective government, and sometimes they have effective government. They fight about stupid things and are just as dysfunctional and corrupt as we are.

 

[Mister_T]

Democrats did not show up to vote - despite the polls saying that they were in the majority

And that is the bane of our side of the fence. Sitting out on voting because you're angry that Obama and Congress are not beig "liberal" enough in the way they handle things is just plain stupid, and that's what people are doing.

People need ot realize that having the majority doesn't mean squat int he grand scheme of things, you have to get off your *** and vote because the other side --even though they may be in the minority-- are louder, more aggressive and more in your face with the way the do things....and with the mentality of a lot of my fellow Americans (treating politics like a sporting event), that will trump any majority, truth or presentation of facts that you may have in your back pocket. You'd think people would learn how to play the game by now after all these years instead of creating their own noose to hang themselves with.

 

[Magic Man]

I dunno. I would agree that at all times we are without effective government, and sometimes they have effective government. They fight about stupid things and are just as dysfunctional and corrupt as we are.

That may be. My main point was that we never have an effective government.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

And that is the bane of our side of the fence. Sitting out on voting because you're angry that Obama and Congress are not beig "liberal" enough in the way they handle things is just plain stupid, and that's what people are doing.

Yep. Basically it says, "I don't like what Obama is doing, so I'm going to withold the tools that he needs to do what I want."

Idiots!

Do they think that Obama is going to have an easier time getting things done with less people on his side in the House and Senate? Even worse, Republican governors will be redrawing districts, diminishing Democratic voices even further.

 

[Engyo]

But Nate, the Dumbs... errr Dems, sorry, outspent the Republicans overall.

That's only if you don't count all of the "non-political" issue-based ad spending by all of those groups that now don't have to disclose their donors. And that money went more than 3 to 1 for Republican causes.

 

[Danmac]

So, what will happen next?

We can all breathe a little easier.:yes:

 

[Danmac]

Republicans will toot their horns (paid for by their corporate bankrollers). Democrats will make lame excuses for losing. Then two years of deadlock followed by the apocalypse.

I think it was ****** off democrats that gotter done.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Even worse, Republican governors will be redrawing districts, diminishing Democratic voices even further.

I think it's insane for this process to be politicized.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I think it's insane for this process to be politicized.

You mean redistricting?

It's only insane when the Republicans do it.

 

[Skeptisch]

"The American people were concerned about the government takeover of health care." Boehner said. "I think it's important for us to lay the groundwork before we begin to repeal this monstrosity."

 

[Mister_T]

"The American people were concerned about the government takeover of health care." Boehner said. "I think it's important for us to lay the groundwork before we begin to repeal this monstrosity."

Yes please, let's go back to having domestic violence being considered as a pre-existing condition. Good job, Boner. You do your corporate masters proud.

 

[Sunstone]

Glenn Greenwald on yesterday's results:

“But for slothful pundits who want to derive sweeping meaning from individual races in order to blame the Left and claim that last night was a repudiation of liberalism, the far more rational conclusion — given the eradication of 50% of the Blue Dog caucus — is that the worst possible choice Democrats can make is to run as GOP-replicating corporatists devoted above all else to serving corporate interests in order to perpetuate their own power: what Washington calls “centrists” and “conservative Democrats.” That is who bore the bulk of the brunt of last night’s Democratic bloodbath — not liberals.”

Harry S Truman, 1952 address:

“I’ve seen it happen time after time. When the Democratic candidate allows himself to be put on the defensive and starts apologizing for the New Deal and the Fair Deal, and says he really doesn’t believe in them, he is sure to lose. The people don’t want a phony Democrat. If it’s a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don’t want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.”

 

[angellous_evangellous]

A phoney Democrat is better than a real Republican.

 

[Sunstone]

A phoney Democrat is better than a real Republican.

What do you think of Truman and Greenwald's notion that when Dems move to the Right, they loose?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

What do you think of Truman and Greenwald's notion that when Dems move to the Right, they loose?

I think that they said what the needed to.

If the Dems move right as a party, they lose. If one or two votes against the party line, they can more easily be brought back into the fold than a Rep be converted to liberalism.

I don't think that the Dems should trip their ranks at the cost of losing ground. It just doesn't make sense. Now instead of negotiating with their own jerks who hold out for more than they deserve, they have to work with extremist Republicans.

 

[YmirGF]

What do you think of Truman and Greenwald's notion that when Dems move to the Right, they loose?

Because it is about as convincing as calling Obama a centrist.

 

[Sunstone]

Here's something from an email that's been going around:



Did you know that the words “race car” spelled backwards still spell “race car”?

And “eat” is the only word that, if you take the 1st letter and move it to the last, spells its past tense — ate.

And if you rearrange the letters in “Tea Party Republicans” and add just a few more letters, it spells: “Shut up, you free-loading, progress-blocking, benefit-grabbing, homophobic, resource-sucking, racist, hypocritical jerks, and face the fact that you nearly capsized the country under Bush.”

How weird is that?

 

[Requia]

I think that this is an opportunity for Obama to really shine... if he can do what Clinton did with a Republican Congress.

The good thing - thank goodness - is that the Democrats could hang on to the Senate.

But two things upset me:

1) The big money Democrats did not show up to play, leaving the candidates under-funded
2) Democrats did not show up to vote - despite the polls saying that they were in the majority

So I don't think that the Republican take-over of the House is a mandate from the American people. It's a media-created momentum against Obama funded by corporate cash.

Funny thing is that two years ago the Republicans were spending money like crazy, creating a bigger government than ever before in American history, and destroying the economy with deregulation. And their platform is the same as it was then: fiscal responsibility, less government, and no bail-outs.

On the contrary, the lack of Democrats showing up at the polls is *exactly* a mandate form the American people. Democrats were put in power to do a job, and they refused to actually do the job, so why would democrats bother to show up and vote for someone who won't accomplish anything?

I am however incredibly saddened by the loss of Feingold, who was the only Senator worth a damn in the last decade.

 

[Aquitaine]

Meh, makes no difference which party is in power. Same stuff, just different tie colours and different rhetoric spewed. The actual people have very little say in the nation's affairs anyways, so either way the people are gonna get screwed over.