USA's midterm elections

[alhoon]

So, what do you guys think it will happen/change after these elections? (and why isn't there a thread about it already?)

Personally I believe:
- The democrats would lose the senate and blame it on Obama (I would dare say 52 Republicans/48 democrats)
- Government would remain paralyzed passing even LESS stuff that when they had "a house divided" with senate majority Democratic and House majority Republican
- Again, the inaction that would follow would be blamed on Obama

[Gaidin]

If the democrats lose the senate the republicans can't keep doing nothing(or appearing to do nothing) without blame shifting to them. And it's possible they do nothing because they have to figure themselves out first. When the democrats had the senate it was simple. If they have both houses, not so much.

[Ciciro]

If the democrats lose the senate the republicans can't keep doing nothing(or appearing to do nothing) without blame shifting to them. And it's possible they do nothing because they have to figure themselves out first. When the democrats had the senate it was simple. If they have both houses, not so much.

Ted Cruz can really hurt Republicans here, seeing as with such a slim majority if only one or 2 Republicans don't vote, nothing gets done.

[alhoon]

I'm not sure all blame should be placed on Republicans for inaction if it happens (and I believe it will). Democrats out of petty spite will fight them to a gridlock and Obama will take his time to sign the laws sent to his desk, if he actually does it.

Aside of the actual excuses for the Republicans for any incoming Gridlock, the "lazy" way for the voter is to blame the guy on top (Obama) and be done with it without actually realizing that Republicans now (marginally) run USA.

[Gaidin]

I'm not sure all blame should be placed on Republicans for inaction if it happens (and I believe it will). Democrats out of petty spite will fight them to a gridlock and Obama will take his time to sign the laws sent to his desk, if he actually does it.

Aside of the actual excuses for the Republicans for any incoming Gridlock, the "lazy" way for the voter is to blame the guy on top (Obama) and be done with it without actually realizing that Republicans now (marginally) run USA.

For the longest time the democratic senate has been said to be blocking republican bills and to some great extent this is true even though a great many of them are bills that would be vetoed and have zero chance of being overridden anyway, so why have them on record or so the political logic went. The democrats can literally say put up or shut up. At that point the republicans better have themselves figured out as a legislative party. The odds of that being done? Eh..six one way half dozen the other.

[mrmouth]

It's just the cycle of red/blue. The next round swings back into the Democrats favor due to where the states in contention being historically blue states. None of that is an issue if Congress actually did their jobs. It's not the most logical way of doing things but, whatever.

Instead, Congressional inaction is leaving states to pass the bills and laws they will not and, if you like big government, you'll love the tens of thousands of bills and thousands of subsequent laws passed in some states because they get no leadership from Capitol Hill.

Yet another fine example of the GOP shooting themselves in the foot.

[chilon]

It's just the cycle of red/blue. The next round swings back into the Democrats favor due to where the states in contention being historically blue states. None of that is an issue if Congress actually did their jobs. It's not the most logical way of doing things but, whatever.

Instead, Congressional inaction is leaving states to pass the bills and laws they will not and, if you like big government, you'll love the tens of thousands of bills and thousands of subsequent laws passed in some states because they get no leadership from Capitol Hill.

Yet another fine example of the GOP shooting themselves in the foot.

Can you define "big government" for me?

Its a common phrase that contains zero informational content.

I don't know what defines "big government" to people.

Is it how much the Federal Budget is that makes a government big?

Is it the sheer number of Federal employees?

Is it the number of agencies?

Is it the number of laws that are passed?

Is it some arcane combination of all of those?

What is your personal formula for what determines a "big government" ?

I know those two words are popular among the Rush Limbaugh fanbase but I personally have no idea what anyone means when they use vague and uninformative terms like "big government".

----

I get the feeling most people use some Potter Stewart definition for "big government" which is basically some arbitrary "I know it when I see it" rubbish.

Which basically translate to "if liberals propose it its big government". Like the HMO and Heritage formulated Obamacare. Had Mitt Romney been elected and proposed the exact same bill it would have been hailed as a "free market solution" from conservatives. A brilliant Heritage Foundation think tank conservative idea from the 1990s that is finally implemented as government recognizes the free market and the evils of a European-Japanese-Australian style socialized health care. But since Obama proposed it, its "big government socialism". :/

If a third party rose to prominence in the States (which won't happen anytime soon if ever), what would its platform and policies be like, I wonder? As cooky as he is, Ralph Nader has some good ideas, but ultimately the vast majority of the electorate finds him and his ideas unappealing.

If Ralph Nader and Ron Paul focused on their common ground (and there is a lot more common ground in greens like Nader and libertarians like Paul than most people might think as evidenced by a round table I saw with both of them) then that party/movement/electoral ticket would have the potential to attract a huge amount of support from Democrats, Republicans and Independents.

[mrmouth]

I know those two words are popular among the Rush Limbaugh fanbase but I personally have no idea what anyone means when they use vague and uninformative terms like "big government".

That's the idea.

I suppose it was born out of the idea of inefficiency and the idea that conservatives manage that better by simply limiting everything because Washington D.C. is inherently inefficient. Problem is, things changed and so did that party. If they ever were that party, they are not anymore.

I suspect it could be filed away with the other myth of Conservative fiscal responsibility. Which of course gives birth to the tea party.

[Admiral Piett]

I voted early. The more I thought about it, it might actually make sense to have a Republican controlled legislature if Hillary runs. If she's anything like her husband's example, she will work with people rather than refuse to compromise.

[alhoon]

Hillary in 2016 would be OLDER than McCain was when we all made fun of him for being too old to run. She's a relic of the past. Good in her job? For some yes, for some no. But when she left office it was a good time for her to retire. Yes, women live a bit longer than men, but she's still old.

[Roma_Victrix]

If a third party rose to prominence in the States (which won't happen anytime soon if ever), what would its platform and policies be like, I wonder? As cooky as he is, Ralph Nader has some good ideas, but ultimately the vast majority of the electorate finds him and his ideas unappealing.

In either case, we'll see how these midterm elections pan out. Apparently the Democrats are supposed to be getting hammered, or so I hear. Even when the Republicans do nothing in Congress, they are the most effective campaigners for sure. Democrats in general don't know how to rule and force their way to get what they want. The Republicans are masters of that and Democrats should learn lessons from them in that regard.

Also, money in politics is spoiling everything at the moment, so no matter what party wins, the actual winners are the big moneyed donors and those forming superpacs with dark money that ultimately can't be traced. By legally buying and bribing our politicians with a few million here and a few million there, they get a massive return on that investment with favorable legislation.

[alhoon]

Even when the Republicans do nothing in Congress, they are the most effective campaigners for sure. Democrats in general don't know how to rule and force their way to get what they want. The Republicans are masters of that and Democrats should learn lessons from them in that regard.

I think it mostly has to do with being the opposition. You can easily find something that's not good and say "that SUCKS!"
As for being better campaigners... they've lost the presidency in 2008 and 2012 and by quite a large margin.

[anant]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIMgfBZrrZ8

American's NEED to see this...

[Gaidin]

Thanks for the brilliant summary.

[DarthShizNit]

Voted, all the old people there let me skip to the front of the line cause I was the only person in their 20's that had showed up all day. There was much celebration.

[alhoon]

Voted, all the old people there let me skip to the front of the line cause I was the only person in their 20's that had showed up all day. There was much celebration.

I really, really hope you're joking or that you went to vote at 8 am or something.
Young generations not voting is absolutely dreadful. Why you think your grandfathers died in Europe and in the Pacific? So that you can vote! ! !

[Phier]

Incoming gross abuse of executive orders in three...two...one...

Edit: HOLY JEBUS... right now the Glorious Peoples Republic of Illinois is voting to outs the Dear Leader Pat Quinn..... thats.... unpossible!

[DaVinci]

Incoming gross abuse of executive orders in three...two...one...

Jupp, now ... the news say, your friends take over the Senate.

So how is it now for next two years for the US government and related politics?

And expecting, upcoming election 2016 won't show something else, but rather a republican president/admin as well ...
... summarized, back to Bush admin politics or what will happen (question is meant seriously, as i have no clue about the current republicans, its politicians)?

I'm suspecting sad times.

[mrmouth]

Anything is possible when you are a billionaire who managed to not give one specific on how he will balance the budget without raising taxes because both camps were busy attacking one another.

I didnt vote. I hate all of them. Although I'm actually a little interested in seeing this guy navigate Springfield. Should be good for a laugh while we all plunge down the drain. If we want actual change then it begins with stuffing Madigan into a rocket and shooting him at the sun. Rauner is just the latest guy that will be setup to fail for literally no reason.

[Phier]

Anything is possible when you are a billionaire who managed to not give one specific on how he will balance the budget without raising taxes because both camps were busy attacking one another.

I didnt vote. I hate all of them. Although I'm actually a little interested in seeing this guy navigate Springfield. Should be good for a laugh while we all plunge down the drain. If we want actual change then it begins with stuffing Madigan into a rocket and shooting him at the sun. Rauner is just the latest guy that will be setup to fail for literally no reason.

Quinn was destroying this state, I've had so many families transfer out of my office to other states the last few years because of jobs. Killing us with taxes and adding to one of the most corrupt states in the country. Ass wanted to raise taxes again too. A dead cat was a better choice for Governor.