Official Unofficial Super Post BiPartisan Election Thread

[LeviF]

In related news, a California district elects a dead woman to office.

 

http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/03/deceased-candidate-wins-state-senate-seat-in-california/

[ExiledInIllinois]

In related news, a California district elects a dead woman to office.

 

http://news.blogs.cn...-in-california/

 

Why didn't it move right to special election?

 

Sounds fair enough:

 

"The Republicans are trying to take unfair advantage of Jenny’s tragedy," said the mailer without mentioning Oropeza's death. "They suggest that voting for Jenny will only result in a costly Special Election. I am asking you to vote for Jenny Oropeza. If a Special Election is called in a few months, you’ll have the chance to thoughtfully elect your Senator for a new four-year term."

 

CNN affiliate KTLA-TV in Los Angeles reports that Oropeza's name remained on the ballot because she died so close to the election.

 

So why encourage people to vote for her? Democrats likely hoped that at least they would get the chance to nominate a new Democratic candidate. And that's likely what will happen, KTLA reports, saying Oropeza's seat will be declared vacant, and a special election will be called in December."

 

Even if roles were reversed... You would think the two parties would agree on a fair election where the voters have at least some choice... That will at least happen now in a special election.

 

 

 

 

[Magox]

biggest and most depressing observation i had in this election was the impact of the invisible money, made possible by scotus. here in the virginia 9th, we saw a 14 term congressman go down to a fellow that lives outside the district. and it happened in the presence of a barrage of tv and internet attack ads funded by groups with unkown funding sources. rick boucher was an extremely popular congressman with the general population and big coal, voted against health care but was blamed for supporting cap and trade and portrayed over and over as an obama scut boy. i think va 9th was a test market for the ability of this newly allowed anonymous money's influence to be a game changer and it payed off big. there's much more of this to come...and the big winners will be big money.

As always birdog, I have to provide facts for you

 

 

The American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees is now the biggest outside spender of the 2010 elections, thanks to an 11th-hour effort to boost Democrats that has vaulted the public-sector union ahead of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the AFL-CIO and a flock of new Republican groups in campaign spending....

 

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."...

 

Contrary to liberal popular belief, Unions were the largest special interest group of the 2010 elections. IN FACT, AFSCME was the largest, and the SEIU and the NEA made up of 3 out of the 5 largest special interest groups that spent on this years elections.

 

Until the Unions butt out of the elections, I am 100% ok with this decision to even the playing field.

 

Talk about corruption, those members of congress (lapdogs) are beholden to Union special interests once they get elected, why do you think states like California, New York and Illinois are screwed with their pension obligations? Who do you believe engineered those pension benefit agreements? Those bastards make me sick, what is worse about it is that it is at the expense of our tax dollars. Every time taxes go higher, a good portion of those funds go to paying for these backroom deals that were made by your party and the unions. Get real birdog, it is those shills that you support that are bankrupting these states. The corruption is mainly from the candidates you support and the major players are the Unions, so I welcome this addition of new money "to even the playing field". Until all the special interest groups are out, as I stated, I support these new groups.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/22/afscme-is-big-dog-takes-big-cr

 

You got to hate those little thingies called facts

Edited November 4, 2010 by Magox

[OCinBuffalo]

You got to hate those little thingies called facts

But...but...but "we hate facts and science"^TM.

 

I saw this and was gonna post the same thing. I think the difference in spending ended up being $300 million for the Democrats. And, Democrat political action committees 572s have been doing this stuff for the last 10 years. This was the first year that Karl Rove used the same exact tactics, and they cry about it?

 

Democrats have to stop blaming everything but themselves for their crappy results, and the fact that the Pelosi Congress was one of the worst of all time. Democrats need to go back to representing the middle class, the real middle class, not the "creative class", or they can forget about 2012.

Edited November 4, 2010 by OCinBuffalo

[birdog1960]

As always birdog, I have to provide facts for you

 

 

 

 

Contrary to liberal popular belief, Unions were the largest special interest group of the 2010 elections. IN FACT, AFSCME was the largest, and the SEIU and the NEA made up of 3 out of the 5 largest special interest groups that spent on this years elections.

 

Until the Unions butt out of the elections, I am 100% ok with this decision to even the playing field.

 

Talk about corruption, those members of congress (lapdogs) are beholden to Union special interests once they get elected, why do you think states like California, New York and Illinois are screwed with their pension obligations? Who do you believe engineered those pension benefit agreements? Those bastards make me sick, what is worse about it is that it is at the expense of our tax dollars. Every time taxes go higher, a good portion of those funds go to paying for these backroom deals that were made by your party and the unions. Get real birdog, it is those shills that you support that are bankrupting these states. The corruption is mainly from the candidates you support and the major players are the Unions, so I welcome this addition of new money "to even the playing field". Until all the special interest groups are out, as I stated, I support these new groups.

 

http://reason.com/blog/2010/10/22/afscme-is-big-dog-takes-big-cr

 

You got to hate those little thingies called facts

ah, statistics....if you read the original wsj article it states that nearly $1 billion had been spent this election cycle by anonymous groups (as of late oct). $87 mil from afscme represents about 30% of the total for democrats meaning that less than 30% of the total spent by anonymous groups was in support of dems. whoever is paying the bills for this , it is bad for democracy, america and particularly bad for the disenfranchised (ie the average citizen on average wages). do you really want elections decided by anonymous special interests, regardless of what side they're on? this election shows that this is more likely to happen now than ever before.

[OCinBuffalo]

ah, statistics....if you read the original wsj article it states that nearly $1 billion had been spent this election cycle by anonymous groups (as of late oct). $87 mil from afscme represents about 30% of the total for democrats meaning that less than 30% of the total spent by anonymous groups was in support of dems. whoever is paying the bills for this , it is bad for democracy, america and particularly bad for the disenfranchised (ie the average citizen on average wages). do you really want elections decided by anonymous special interests, regardless of what side they're on? this election shows that this is more likely to happen now than ever before.

I know I don't want them decided by 1 billion in union money, that outpaces all the Republican money by $300 million, and is being given without the consent of union members.

 

Union member should be allowed to vote on who to give their money to, up or down. In fact, I would like to see a law that requires a majority of locals' consent before any money is given to any candidate.

[Magox]

ah, statistics....if you read the original wsj article it states that nearly $1 billion had been spent this election cycle by anonymous groups (as of late oct). $87 mil from afscme represents about 30% of the total for democrats meaning that less than 30% of the total spent by anonymous groups was in support of dems. whoever is paying the bills for this , it is bad for democracy, america and particularly bad for the disenfranchised (ie the average citizen on average wages). do you really want elections decided by anonymous special interests, regardless of what side they're on? this election shows that this is more likely to happen now than ever before.

No, what I want is special interests to butt out completely. The bottom line is that these scumbag union bosses are bankrupting many states and that is a FACT! Spending from these special interest groups are damaging this country and causing taxes across the country to go higher, and I HATE the idea of helping pay for these backroom deals that are engineered and struck from politicians that were bought off in exchange for a deal they made with the devil.

 

If you want to lend credibility to your argument you would denounce all special interests.

 

The fact is that even with the Chamber of Commerce and all the new super PAC's that recently came about, there was more money funneled into Democratic re-election efforts than funds moved into the GOP's efforts. That is a fact!

 

The Dem's have had a large advantage for a long time now because of the special interest efforts of the Unions, this now levels the playing field. You can't make a credible case until you argue for all the special interest money is flushed out.

Edited November 4, 2010 by Magox

[Da Big Man]

Did you get that from FOX? HAHAHA!!

 

Yes let's get rid of everything the Dems did. No one needs health care for college age dependents; no one needs protection against insurance companies who want to end coverage because you get sick or have a pre-existing condition; no one wants equal rights; fair labor laws and minimum wage; social security; environmental protection; school lunch programs; the Department of Education; unemployment compensation; or any other program and policy that demonstrates concern and compassion for our fellow citizens. Let's privatize social security while we're at it too!!

 

Republicans have 90 days to fix the economy and unemployment. 90 Days. After all, that's what they gave Obama. Only far right? Sorry, slip.. fair right?

 

Side note: I do love how all of you "independant" thinkers get your news from FOX. Funny.

 

 

 

 

Nope like most republicans he was hiding under a rock waiting for the chance to promise Change in Washington. Ooops, isn't that something they scolded before?

Hey jerk I 've been right here the whole time watch the Obama* train derail...and it is glorious. Just as i predicted in 2008. Feell free to go back and look at old posts. P.S. how man college age people do you know that require healthcare..they are the healthiest they will ever be. Obama has had 2 years to fix the economy and unemployment and only wants to further his agenda. Stop feeding at the trough with the other sheep. No other programs will be effected as you say..school lunch? give me a break. Fair wages..coming from a union strangled Democratic party. Educate yourself before you look like a moron, Oops too late! Obama and his band of anti-American socialists didn't listen to his "enemies" and it cost him now and in 2 years from now.

[ExiledInIllinois]

Obama and his band of anti-American socialists didn't listen to his "enemies" and it cost him now and in 2 years from now.

 

Why is it costing him? How would he have compromised with an obstructionist opponent? Obama's agenda has been pushed. Now if the other side wants to dismantle it fine (that will be harder). Once you give something to people, it is always harder to take it away (HC). Sure there is more work to be done... Yet, the ball is rolling.

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

Why is it costing him? How would he have compromised with an obstructionist opponent? Obama's agenda has been pushed. Now if the other side wants to dismantle it fine (that will be harder). Once you give something to people, it is always harder to take it away (HC). Sure there is more work to be done... Yet, the ball is rolling.

 

In a nut shell that is basically the liberal playbook to maintain power.

 

step 1- tell people they are poor, weak, deserve more, it's everyone else's fault. cultivate the victim mentality

step 2- raise taxes to fund an obscene amount of social programs which just amount to being legal bribes for votes on the taxpayers dime

step 3- futher encourage the victim and entitlement mentality

step 4- repeat steps 1 through 3

step 5- try to add an uncounted number of millions of "undocumented workers" to increase our bases

step 6- repeat steps 1-4

step 7- even though we all know we cant afford these programs and taxpayers don't want them, tell the voters "the other evil hateful party" wants to take that away from you and make you work.

step 8- anyone who opposes these programs is a racist, hater, fear monger, bible thumper, radical, evil.

 

there ya have it

[IDBillzFan]

Why is it costing him? How would he have compromised with an obstructionist opponent?

Precisely what did they do to obstruct?

[birdog1960]

Precisely what did they do to obstruct?

hmmm....how bout threatening fillibusters on every senate vote with any chance of opposition victory thus setting a new threshold for all votes at 60? you want gridlock? this is the new norm for the senate.

 

In a nut shell that is basically the liberal playbook to maintain power.

 

step 1- tell people they are poor, weak, deserve more, it's everyone else's fault. cultivate the victim mentality

step 2- raise taxes to fund an obscene amount of social programs which just amount to being legal bribes for votes on the taxpayers dime

step 3- futher encourage the victim and entitlement mentality

step 4- repeat steps 1 through 3

step 5- try to add an uncounted number of millions of "undocumented workers" to increase our bases

step 6- repeat steps 1-4

step 7- even though we all know we cant afford these programs and taxpayers don't want them, tell the voters "the other evil hateful party" wants to take that away from you and make you work.

step 8- anyone who opposes these programs is a racist, hater, fear monger, bible thumper, radical, evil.

 

there ya have it

wow!!! bitter much? how's the american dream workin out for YOU?

[ExiledInIllinois]

Precisely what did they do to obstruct?

 

You mean DO to obstruct.

 

Act like whiny little babies... Scream holler and delay. Just look how HC had to be passed. Bottom line is that Republicans don't know when to quit. The problem with Democrats is that they quit too easily.

 

Just look at the Gov. race in Illinois. Why doesn't Brady concede? He must be "praying" that he will win, that is all he's got: "prayer." Mathematically he can't win... Yet, he remains right there, OBSTRUCTING. Typical.

 

"The governor's race in Illinois appears finally over with the Associated Press on Thursday reporting that Gov. Pat Quinn, the Democrat, had an insurmountable lead over Republican Bill Brady, a state senator.

 

Quinn, who had a 19,400 vote lead over Brady, was declared the winner by the AP after the news service analyzed absentee and provisional ballots and determined that there weren't enough votes left for Brady to overcome Quinn's lead.

 

Brady said he won't concede, however, until all the votes are officially counted."

 

 

What a !@#$ing little whiny B word Brady is.

Edited November 5, 2010 by ExiledInIllinois

[ExiledInIllinois]

hmmm....how bout threatening fillibusters on every senate vote with any chance of opposition victory thus setting a new threshold for all votes at 60? you want gridlock? this is the new norm for the senate.

 

wow!!! bitter much? how's the american dream workin out for YOU?

 

bird, you know what they will say:

 

"step 8a (corrected)- anyone who opposes these programs is a racist, BITTER, hater, fear monger, bible thumper, radical, evil."

 

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

 

wow!!! bitter much? how's the american dream workin out for YOU?

 

 

I don't see you trying to refute or argue my mildly sarcastic rant? just adding more sarcasm

 

at least you didnt blame bush

[pBills]

Precisely what did they do to obstruct?

 

 

You realize they did a one seat filibuster many times and threatened it other times?

[DC Tom]

You realize they did a one seat filibuster many times and threatened it other times?

 

"Waaaaaah!!! Evil politicians I don't like followed parlimentary procedure!!! Waaaaaah!!!"

 

Do any of you realize how ridiculous you sound?

[ExiledInIllinois]

"Waaaaaah!!! Evil politicians I don't like followed parlimentary procedure!!! Waaaaaah!!!"

 

Do any of you realize how ridiculous you sound?

 

Fair enough.

 

Yet, LA did ask for examples... pBills might not be needing a wambulance?... I didn't take his post as whiny, just answering LA's question. Why is simply anwering LA's question to cite cases of obstruction ridiculous? So what if it is Parlimentary procedure... It is still obstruction. Myself? More power to them. Procedure, obstruction, whatever... They used it... I know that, you know that.. Who cares? It is the noodleheads and hacks like LA that don't want to face the music and admit it.

[Magox]

hmmm....how bout threatening fillibusters on every senate vote with any chance of opposition victory thus setting a new threshold for all votes at 60? you want gridlock? this is the new norm for the senate.

Yes, and they were supposed to just lie down and go along with their terrible policies right? Get a grip of yourself.

 

It is clear to anyone who is able to think in a rational manner knows that the majority of the American public agreed with the fillibusters, on every single major policy initiative that was enacted by the Dems, the public was against their proposals. The conservatives ran on REPEALING the health bill, that was main part of their platform and because of the poison pill that was swallowed by many of the members that voted for that bill that lived in moderate to conservative leaning districts, their political careers were imperiled. Look at three of the house democrats from N.C that voted against the bill and they all survived. Look at Altmire from PA. he survived where the rest of them that voted for the bill are gone. The job of a politician is to represent his electorate, and those that ignored the will of the people are without a job today.

 

They jammed these bills that the majority didn't want, and I for one was one of those people that were angered in the blatant over-reach of this administration and congress. I kept a scorecard on these members that voted for the health bill and for me it was a major influencing factor in my vote and it empowered me to get at least 5 other people to go out and vote this election cycle and I know my sentiments were shared by many middle of the road voters as well. I remember telling myself after the vote was passed, that the ones who voted for the health insurance bill that lived in moderate to conservative leaning districts would be toast when the elections came, and I was right.

[DC Tom]

Fair enough.

 

Yet, LA did ask for examples... pBills might not be needing a wambulance?... I didn't take his post as whiny, just answering LA's question. Why is simply anwering LA's question to cite cases of obstruction ridiculous? So what if it is Parlimentary procedure... It is still obstruction. Myself? More power to them. Procedure, obstruction, whatever... They used it... I know that, you know that.. Who cares? It is the noodleheads and hacks like LA that don't want to face the music and admit it.

 

It's less that than the whole idea of calling the minority party "obstructionist". The idea seems to be that the minority party should just bend over and take it up the ass, simply because they're the minority party. That's a completely puerile and retarded sentiment.

 

Particularly coming from Democrats now, who five years ago, when the Republicans controlled everything, thought being "obstructionist" was a virtue. (Ditto the whining coming from Republicans, who five years ago used fear-mongering w/r/t national security to label the Republicans as "unAmerican", much as the Democrats fear-mongering over health care has done over the past two years.)