posted
Republicans should of had a clean sweep of both the House and the Senate, but the Tea Party resulted in the radicalization of the Right to the point that it lost favor with the more centrist Independent.
However, Tea Party values are not at all radical. There are in fact the traditional values of our American heritage. They are what most Americans who attend Church are taught to be the ideal caricature of Christian orthodoxy:
Anti-Abortion Anti-Federal control Anti-Perversion Anti-Foreign influence Anti-Evolution
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
oh please. Most tea Party candidates won and the peole who lost shared the view of those who won. When you have no argument all you can do is call nates and distort and that is what you are doing. they kicked your political asses this time. Man up and realize not everyone agrees with you.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked some of the Tea Parties original program - esp. END THE FED - but the tea party has already been taken over by fraudsters like Sarah frakkin Palin, and such elements.
Just hope that Rand Paul learn some stuff from his dad, and doesnt turn out to be an idiot about foreign policy and stuff.
posted
As noted the Tea Party is out of touch with their values they supposedly support..
for 1) "End The Fed"...Which Republican or Tea Party candidate supported end the Fed, the Democratic Senator Alan Grayson worked with Ron Paul to audit the Fed. and stood up to the Fed's outrageous spending. Say what you want about Grayson but one thing is for sure the Spineless sack of sh#t, Dan Webster Did nothing for the Fed.
Posts: 8805 | From: The fear of his majesty had entered their hearts, they were powerless | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obviously any Progressive is going to oppose the Tea Party aad that is fine. On the other hand the Tea Party is a values based movement that represents an important segment of American political thought. Whether one likes them or not they did a great job during this cycle of promoting their agenda.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: oh please. Most tea Party candidates won and the peole who lost shared the view of those who won. When you have no argument all you can do is call nates and distort and that is what you are doing. they kicked your political asses this time. Man up and realize not everyone agrees with you.
Here you guy making stupid assumptions. From my post you have no idea of my political position and you just going jumping to conclusions....assumptions again.
Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ the Republicans would have won more seats. This is my position which is logical. The incumbants were voted out because they failed to solve the problems that people put them in there to do - fix the economy. The landslide victories that Democrats got were solely due to the economy and not because Obama was Black, or even because of the Iraq war. So people hopeful for a fix voted for Democrats who only made things worse. So now people are seesawing back and forth.
Being Black doesn't mean I am affiliated with the Democratic party. I usually vote Republican at least until recently.
Learn to stop making soo many assumptions.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am not making any assumptions. The gas in the tank of the republican party this year was supplied by the Tea Party. Most of the states where republicans lost were in places where they do not usually win.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
They should have put on the breaks and they wouldn't have over shot the target.
They didn't need to go that much to the right to win their objective. Alienated too many people even though what they were saying was rather traditional positions.
-------------------- Across the sea of time, there can only be one of you. Make you the best one you can be. Posts: 4028 | From: NW USA | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
They won the election in a historical landslide, the biggest since 1938. What more do you want? Geeeze. In other words if they did not win every seat they were to far to the right? Strange thinking.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The 'gas in the tank of the republican party this year' was supplied by sections of the former (i.e. 2008) democratic voters abstaining their votes.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
well, to some extent that is true but more importantly was the loss of independent voters by the democrats. Conservative voters outnumber liberals 41% to 20%, the remainder are independent. Those numbers have been steady for several decades.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
What happened to these conservative voters in the 2008 presidential campaign?
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was the younger vote of the 18-29 yr old bracket for the Democratic party, as Explorer notes, abstaining their votes that gave the Republicans their "gas in the tank" hammerhead, definitely wasn't the teabaggers, get it right.
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:They won the election in a historical landslide, the biggest since 1938. What more do you want? Geeeze. In other words if they did not win every seat they were to far to the right? Strange thinking.
Bovine Excretia as usual Hammer.
quote:Why, yes, of course the Republicans will remember November 2, 2010, fondly. They won control of the U.S. House, shrunk the Democratic majority in the U.S. Senate, became a significantly more dominant political player states that are about to begin the redistricting process that will set lines for congressional races for the next decade and inflicted a heap of heartbreak on progressives by defeating Democrats such as Wisconsin Senator Russ Feingold.
And, yes, of course, that's a short-term bummer for Barack Obama, who was right when he said before the election that a shift in the congressional balance toward the Republicans would make his job a whole lot harder.
But for all the talk of landslides, waves and tsunamis, 2010 produced a relatively typical mid-term election for a new president.
Obama and the Democrats actually fared better than did Bill Clinton and the Democrats of 1994.
quote:Originally posted by Hammer: You are totally incorrect. Independents who voted democratic their in 06 and 08 voted republican this time.
There were 23 million younger voters 18-29 in the 2008 election, compared to only 9 million this year, which means 14 million younger voter abstained their votes, wherein the Republicans only won by 5 million votes in 2010. In every other demographic Obama lost the over 29 yr old vote in 2008, it was the younger voters who put him over the top. What does this tell you hammerhead (besides that we're still a country divided)?
Posts: 6572 | From: N.Y.C....Capital of the World | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every demographic turns out isn smaller numbers in an off year election so democrat losses in the 18-29 rage due to turnout would have been balanced out by republican losses in the older demographics. the independs are the key in every election Mindless and in this election they almost exactly reversed themselves from 2008. The terrible damage done to democrats in this election was the loss of 697 state House seats. those are the people who will be drawing the new Congressional lines in 2011. Those lines will be good for the next 10 years. Our county republican chair told me last week that by the time we finish redrawing the lines here in Texas you will have to look under a rug to find a democrat in office. Nationwide it will cause a shift in another 25-50 seats in congress in the 2012 election.
-------------------- The tree of liberty is watered by the blood of tyrants. Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
The Exit Polls The Independent voters voted for the Republican congressional candidates by an 18-point margin of 56% to 38% in the 2010 midterm elections. In the 2006 midterm elections, the Independent voters favored the Democrats over the Republicans by an identical 18-point margin. The Independent voters’ preferences were thus responsible for the Republican loss of the House in 2006 and a Democratic loss of the House in the 2010 elections.
Voting For Change 43% of those who voted in the 2006 election approved of the job that George Bush was doing as President. Similarly, the number was 45% for Barack Obama in 2010. With Independent voters proving to be the deciders, in both elections the voters chose to vote against the party in power. Voters who disapproved of the job that Congress was doing, voted overwhelmingly for the opposition in both elections.
Posts: 2036 | From: Texas | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let's take a look the numbers here for a sec:
The 18-29 age voter group was about 18% of voter turnout in the 2008. In November this year, it was about 10%. So yes, the youth turnout apparently dropped.
The 65+ age voter group was about 15% of the 2008 turnout vote. This jumped to 24% in November this year. Guess what? This age group's vote had actually jumped for the Republicans. In 2008, 48% of the elderly voted Republican, but this was notched up to 58% this year!
Voter turnout for either party fell this year from the numbers in 2008. Republican vote this year fell by ~ 11 mil against that cast in 2008, while for the Dems, it fell by ~ 30 mil.
Consider that in 2006, in the House elections, the turnout numbers for the Dems was 42,255,280 and that of the Repubs was 35,657,353. In 2008, it was 65,241,408 for the Dems and 52,184,380 for the Repubs. In 2010, the numbers for the Dems was 35,377,756 and 41,128,504 for the Repubs.
Looking at the numbers for recurring candidates...
In 2008, Harry Mitchel (D) received 149,033 votes vs. the 122,165 votes for David Schweikert (R). In 2010 however, Harry Mitchel received 66,063 votes vs. 82,391 votes from David Schweikert (R).
In 2008, Steve Driehaus (D) received 155,089 votes vs. 140,069 votes for Steve Chabot (R). In 2010, Steve Driehaus (D) received 87,394 votes vs. 101,691 votes for Steve Chabot (R).
In 2008, Ron Klein (D) received 169,041 votes vs. 140,104 votes for Allen West (R). In 2010, Ron Kein (D) received 96,004 votes vs. 113,921 votes for Allen West (R).
What do we see here? Yep, the numbers dropped for both Dems and Repubs this midterm election from those of the 2006 midterm elections, but the numbers for the Dems dropped even more than that for the Repubs.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic