How Bad?

Nate Silver:

Dawn breaks over New York City on Wednesday, Nov. 3. Democrats catching the early train to work are thinking about adding a little whiskey to their morning coffee. Because the headlines they are reading are truly terrible.

[. . .] Pundits are running out of metaphors to describe what just happened. Not a wave, a hurricane. Not a hurricane, a tsunami! Not a tsunami; a tsunami from a magnitude 9.5 earthquake. Or by a meteor strike!

Democrats knew it was going to be bad. But they didnít think it was going to be this bad. So, what happened?

In typical Silver style, he's not saying this is his prediction, just a possibility (that's why he gets the big bucks!) As long as we are all hedging, I fall back on my tried and true cliche - time will tell.

Speaking for me only

< Suspected Saudi -Yemeni Bomb Maker Used His Brother in Suicide Attack on Saudi Prince | Change Day for Federal Sentencing Guidelines >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by lilburro on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 10:48:37 AM EST
    it may be that cross-ballot effects will result in X amount of seats being Republican as opposed to Y amount of seats.  

    Still I wonder if the losses might have something to do with the stubborn insistence on the part of Silver and the Obama Administration that it just wasn't politically possible to do anything other than what happened over the past 2 years.  I wonder if these incessant rationalizations will have any impact on the results of the election.

    rolls eyes

    Its Obamacare. (1.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:45:22 PM EST

    The mandate is about as popular as small pox.

    No, it's jobs Jobs JOBS (5.00 / 2) (#77)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:20:26 PM EST
    If it were really Obamacare then the right would equally be outraged that people are also forced to buy corporate car insurance, and homeowner's insurance, and every other. That it's a sh*tty plan forged from the tepid "fires" of post-partisan nonsense, and that largely props up a broken system, is more infuriating.  But if the masters of the universe gave a crap about their country, about really employing their fellow citizens, then it would all be moot. But the power players in our economy care about two things: their fat wallets and their incomparably tiny dicks. Inexcusable selfishness and dishonesty are ruling the day. Money, after all, when you really get down to its intrinsic value, is nothing more than a handful of marbles.  And a handful of marbles is keeping us from being the great country we COULD be. That's absurd and that's reality.

    Rather that working on jobs, (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:25:46 PM EST

    Rather that working on jobs, they dreamed up the Obamacare mandate.

    BTW, the feds have have never mandated nor claimed to have the power to mandate that you buy car insurance, or home owner's insurance, or any other product or service.  Until now.


    naw (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dadler on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:37:56 PM EST
    this administration is both arrogant and incompetent in various ways.  but obamacare was not dreamed up to avoid anything else.  it was a clear choice made, and a continually bad one.  obama is conservative by nature. that he's not batsh*t crazy conservative enough to please a solid third of the electorate at any one time (and i'm lowballing, i fear) is no real surprise. the obama administration is one of the most absurdist i can recall.

    and so goes the nation. absurdism as the status quo.


    Russ Feingold has been running on (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:15:11 AM EST
    passing the health insurance bill in his campaign. The wisdom of doing so is yet to be determined but indications are not good.

    Thank you. (none / 0) (#11)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:34:58 AM EST
    Thank you for not calling it the health CARE bill or even more of a travesty, "the HEALTH bill".  Trust me, it's neither of those things.  

    To say that I am not a fan of (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:45:43 AM EST
    that legislation would be an understatement on the scale of a magnitude 9.5 earthquake.

    Obama: Wisconsin a lost cause (none / 0) (#18)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:47:38 AM EST
    Obama skips Wisconsin
    Milwaukee News Buzz

    Wisconsin has been a focus of President Barack Obama's efforts to energize Democrats this fall, but he's passing on another visit here before the election. A recent Washington Post story suggests the president and his advisors consider the state a lost cause.

    The president will stump in Chicago on Saturday but skipped a detour to this state to give one final boost to Democrats Russ Feingold, running to hold onto his Senate seat, and Tom Barrett, Milwaukee mayor and the party's nominee for governor.

    Wisconsin, the newspaper reports, "could have been an easy stop. . . . But it was quickly eliminated after the Senate seat began to slip from (Feingold's) grasp, even after a presidential visit to Madison, Wis., last month. Republican Ron Johnson now appears to have a solid lead."

    A new poll released Thursday by the national Democratic pollster Public Policy Polling showed both Feingold and Barrett trailing their opponents by nine points. "Wisconsin has one of the largest enthusiasm gaps of any state in the country," the firm reported . . . [with] Wisconsin's unemployment rate [and] a painful recession in the state [now making Milwaukee -- a third of the state's population and most of its Democrats -- the fourth-poorest city in the U.S.].

    A poll released earlier this month by the St. Norbert College Survey Center found Obama had just a 42 percent approval rating in the state. Public Policy Polling says the president has rapidly fallen out of favor in Wisconsin.

    Obama didn't take many chances this weekend. His schedule, according to the newspaper, included "a familiar loop of cities with robust Democratic organizations," including Chicago, Philadelphia, Cleveland and Bridgeport, Conn.

    Masel: Feingold wins! (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:07:52 PM EST
    I'm seeing great turnout in downtown Madison.

    Won't be enough to drag Barrett across the line tho.
    feingold gets a share of the gun vote, and almost half the Libertarians, both groups going to Walker with near unanimity.

    The Republicans pick up the 07 House seat with ease, while the 08 is too close to call, perhaps 1,000 votes either way.

    Every poll here has shared the same flaw, calling only registered voters, when our at the polls registration means 18 and 19 year olds don't bother until they show up to vote.


    I like you Ben, and I respect (none / 0) (#167)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:12:05 PM EST
    your experience, but I don't think I've ever seen anyone win a statewide campaign with the consistently bad numbers Feingold has shown this past month or so.

    I hope you're right.


    Feingold 1998 (none / 0) (#168)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:24:38 PM EST
    Consistently bad polling methodology gives consistently erroneous results.

    In 1998, Russ was behind in every poll, by margins similar to those we're being given today. Come Wed. morning, he'd won by 1%.

    We had over 600 at the polls registrations at my polling place near the State Capitol that year, and Russ won the ward with 92%.


    From your keyboard to God's ear (none / 0) (#180)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:27:24 PM EST
    If the polls are wrong about any of the races, I hope it is this one.

    I read that Feingold was snapping back (none / 0) (#44)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    last night...not so?

    Maybe, maybe not (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:14:56 PM EST
    as some locals think he still has a shot, based on some local polls that spotted an upswing for him.  But that may mean that he needed another week. . . .

    The standard lore here is that any pol needs 60 percent of Milwaukee's votes -- the city, that is (not the county, with many right-wing burbanites) -- but that also requires a really good turnout.  And I don't know that we'll see that in the city, as so many people are so destitute now.

    At least the weather looks dry, but continuing to be a bit unseasonably cold (more like late November), and especially so after nightfall -- and that's a problem, with the change in daylight savings time a few years ago.  That change is still a week away, so it's dark and cold quite early, which could keep working folks -- the likeliest Dem voters -- from the polls.

    But that there are hundreds of thousands fewer working folks here means hundreds of thousands fewer likely Dem voters.  There 'tis.


    Thanks for the rundown (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:19:00 PM EST
    I didn't feel like we could afford to lose him so I acted accordingly, even though I can't vote for him.

    Thanks for your effort (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:54:38 PM EST
    and we'll hope for the best, which is not his opponent, wannabe "Senator Sunspots."

    The thing about Wisconsin is that it's not just Feingold who is a maverick; it's the voters here who are mavericks.  (This is, after all, the state that gave birth to the only third party in U.S. history that won the White House within six years and endures even to this day.)

    And Feingold just does not seem to be such a maverick anymore.  He did better running against the Republican tide when it was in power, and running against the Dems when they didn't matter, than he does now in running with the Dem tide -- saying that he would not fold for the Dems on some big issues and bills but then doing so, after all.

    So the ads that are killing him are the ones with the message that always does in any member of Congress here:  That he has become "too D.C." aka not a maverick.  And I have to say that his own ads are simply too generic and not specific, always a tipoff that a pol doesn't want to get into the specifics -- because just what is the Dem agenda for the next two years, anyway?


    did the same and sent him a contribution (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by kempis on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:17:22 PM EST
    I sure hope he wins.

    Tomorrow will be a VERY bleak day if Feingold and Boxer lose.


    Yup (none / 0) (#179)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:23:35 PM EST
    won't it get dark earlier (none / 0) (#83)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:28:04 PM EST
    after the change? i was just wondering when that was as it is so dark when i wake up :)

    i hope your sen pulls it off (along with Boxer).


    Oh, I think that you're correct (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:42:05 PM EST
    as I'm just so confused now, after decades on the previous calendar -- and with the unseasonable cold, it hits fracking freezing now, night after night . . . and seems to do so too darned early.

    And the time also ran out for Feingold because of Wisconsin's screwy late-primary calendar, a factor that a lot of folks elsewhere still haven't figured out for what it means when there is a primary contest for the Repubs but not for the Dems. . . .


    Just out: Wisconsin turnout prediction (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:32:06 PM EST
    Fyi, from jsonline.com:

    One in two Wisconsin residents of voting age - or about 2.2 million people - could turn out in Tuesday's election, state officials predict.

    On a fall day forecast to be clear and sunny, voters will pick a new governor and insurgent Republicans hope they vote out Democratic incumbents and choose a new U.S. Senator for Wisconsin and at least two new congressmen, as well.

    Rounding out the general election are the race for Milwaukee County sheriff and control of the Legislature. A Republican takeover of the state Assembly and Senate from Democratic hands is possible and the outcome matters even more than usual this year - the party in control of the Legislature is better positioned to redraw political districts that will stand for the next 10 years.

    The state Government Accountability Board is predicting up to a 50% turnout in this election, which would be near historical highs. In 2006, voter turnout reached 50.9% and in 1962 it reached 52.4%.

    But here's a caveat - for the September primary, the GAB predicted a record turnout of 28%, which turned out to wildly off the actual turnout of 19.6%. . . .

    Oh, um, never mind.  Turns out re turnout that no one knows!  (And again, the key turnout number would be in Milwaukee, and there is no prediction on that.)


    The brightside of... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:27:13 AM EST
    a Brand R landslide is we are that much closer to the worse before it gets better....though I am a little worried about how low we have to go before we hit the rock bottom necessary to break outta this two party cage...I hope the valley isn't as low as say food riots...that would suck.

    Well, looking at the upside (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:42:35 PM EST
    of those food riots, you'd at least get folks off their duffs and out into the fresh air and sunshine (still the best form of vit D for the body) and meeting their neighbors for a change.  

    And with all the marching and setting up of barricades and tearing up of cobblestone streets (if available), you get your aerobic workout for the day, something you won't get from sitting at a computer keyboard.

    Sounds kinda exciting, actually, and healthful.  A few will have to go to jail, of course, but, again on the bright side, lots of good writing can get done in jail, as that great statesman Dick Nixon once mused.


    I'm with you (none / 0) (#36)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    but always chaps people to admit such things.  Sheesh though, if our leaders won't give us the leaders the times call for and the voters are willing to vote for anything so long as it wasn't the guy that was there before....what the hell else is there?  We obviously are ready to be the change we are looking for yet :)  After we get the holy ever livin crap beaten out of all of us maybe we will be, at least it is likely most of us will be.

    Though it sure would be nice... (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:43:37 PM EST
    if getting out the stain were as simple as switching from Wisk to Tide...it's a comforting fantasy.

    But I've got an hour to kill tomorrow, so I'll go vote for some no chance in hells, for sh*ts and giggles.  Though if there was no Jimmy Mac on the ballot for Gov, I might side with my man PJ O'Rourke..."Don't vote, you only encourage the bastards."  There are no "no chance in hell"'s in the US senate races...I think I'll skip 'em cuz I ain't sullying my ballot with Chuckie F*ckin' Schumer's name.


    Sorry....typo (none / 0) (#38)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:29:29 PM EST
    We aren't ready to be the change we were looking for yet.  I don't know I could have typed that wrong since it has been staring me in the face almost for forever :)

    i flipped a coin (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    and for statistical accuracy, i made it two-out-of-three. both times, it came up republican. it's going to be a bad night. unless it turns out to be a good night, or a better-than-expected night. in which case, i will recalibrate my model, find a different coin, or go three-out-of-five. but first i must renew my contract, and maybe ask for a raise.

    The Ducks (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:30:54 AM EST
    A lock.

    they made some dumb mistakes (none / 0) (#15)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:44:07 AM EST
    and there were a few spots where they could have succumbed to the pressure. but thomas's poise and leadership, the coaching, the talent- i'm almost afraid to think it, much less write it- but they really are that good! and fun as hell to watch!

    Been saying it for some (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:56:02 AM EST
    time here -- the Canards play like a buncha crazed, caffeinated animalés on offense and can't be stopped by no one nowhere no how.  Even their defense is up to the task most times.

    It will take a quality defense, well coached, with a few weeks off to prepare before -- one hopes -- the BCS Championship Game to knock them off.  

    Boisé State would be a good opponent, and they have a recent track record of shooting down ducks.

    Most unstoppable overwhelming offense I've seen in all my years of watching college football.  


    this ducks team (none / 0) (#23)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:05:47 PM EST
    would destroy boise. run through then, around them, and all over them. they'd also reveal boise's offense as a step slow.

    The same Boise team (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:10:59 PM EST
    beat the essence of this Oregon team last year.

    The same Oregon team, in essence, scored a ton of points last year and then got whipped in the Rose Bowl.

    Oregon is good. But its opponents have been not so good as well.


    But Oregon has actually (none / 0) (#35)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:23:57 PM EST
    improved at the QB position -- better passer and nearly as good a runner -- plus their offense is just one year more experienced at executing things to perfection.  LaJames Michael (or LaMichael James, I forget which it is) is just a monster at RB.

    I like Boisé's chances of beating the Canards more than any other team in the land given their decent D, smart coaching, and ability to score when they get the ball.  Not saying they can do it though, just that this is the matchup I'd prefer for a close game.

    Of course, Orégone has to finish out with a tough game or two against Pac-10 quality opponents before they can play for the Big One.  Boisé has no such similar opposition left, iirc -- except possibly the BCS computers.


    not even close (none / 0) (#37)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:28:09 PM EST
    this is much more chip kelly's team, darron thomas is a special qb, and blount was the star at the beginning of last year. no comparison. and it was blount's fumble that cost the ducks the rose bowl. very, very different team. and boise struggled against oregon state, and this osu team is not as good as the previous few years.

    Meh (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:34:16 PM EST
    Look, one of the reason Oregon was a stone cold lock against USC is that USC stinks.

    Frankly, Oregon has not played a very good team all year.

    I might add that dissing Oregon State before the Civil War seems a dubious approach.


    heh (none / 0) (#51)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:42:41 PM EST
    having gone to neither, i root for both, but the beavers just aren't very good this year. katz shows potential, but he's inconsistent. he's not canfield.

    usc is not terrible. barkley had been on fire, and both their losses were on the final play. stanford is very good, and usc almost beat them at stanford. and of course, the ducks pounded stanford. the ducks have shut down two of the best qbs in the land.

    arizona will be a decent test, although it's at autzen, but boise just doesn't have the athletes. abc has them facing ohio state in the rose bowl, and as much as i hate ohio state, it think they'll pummel boise.


    Stanford is a very good (none / 0) (#58)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:55:54 PM EST
    team this yr with good talent on both sides of the ball.  But the Canards simply demoralized them in the 2d half and rolled to an easy win.

    USC is a half-notch below the Cardinalés, but at home they had a chance, as when they went up by 10 or so in the 3d qtr and seemed to have suddenly changed the momentum.  But in the next few possessions, the Canards simply flew past them on offense and shut them down on defense.  Game over by early in the 4th qtr.

    Oregon was so fast and furious and revolutionary on offense, they were like a well-tuned Ferrari while the Trojans's offense looked like a conventional and dull '56 Buick.

    As for other decent upcoming opponents, again it's tough to win on the road against good and motivated opponents in the Pac-10.  And Oregon St, at home, might present problems.  Certainly not an easy game for the Ducks.

    Then before that they have to play an inconsistent, but somewhat talented and potentially troublesome Cal Bears team -- at Berzerkeley.  Again, no way to phone in that one.


    How bad? (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:04:13 PM EST
    So bad y'all switched the topic to College Football:)

    Yes We Cam! (none / 0) (#72)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:14:09 PM EST
    If College Football (none / 0) (#207)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:07:16 PM EST
    is in your blood it's hard not to talk about it.  Even the tiniest opening for a conversation isn't missed.

    Has nothing to do with the elections.


    What I've been reading the past few days (none / 0) (#137)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:21:00 PM EST
    50-60 seats in the House, 6-8 in the Senate.

    "They" are predicting this will be an epic blowout for a mid-term president and will be historic in how many seats he loses.



    One thing's for sure: there will be (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:40:18 AM EST
    no dearth of media coverage for the foreseeable future, and I suspect that if it isn't as bad as some have forecast, they will find some way to make that a negative too; the media do love them some disaster, don't they?

    Maryland has early voting, so I voted last week; it doesn't sound like a lot, but I think something like 6% of registered voters in MD have already voted, which means that people had already made up their minds.

    There is only one race in MD, I think, where the Dems could lose a seat in the House: the 1st district seat held by very Blue Dog Dem Frank Kratovil may fall to Hard Right Conservative Andy Harris.  Other than that, I don't think much is changing in my state.  It's been hard watching the Frank Kratovil ads, where he touts his independence, which he exercised in many cases along Republican lines - he hasn't been much help to the Democratic issues I care about.  He didn't vote against the ACA because it didn't go far enough or wasn't Democratic enough, he did it because he saw it as a big-government takeover of health care.  He voted against the stimulus not because it wasn't large enough, but because he's got Deficit/Debt Hysteria.  You get the picture.

    If I lived in that district, I think I would have skipped it - neither one are good for what ails us.

    I think Bob Ehrlich, running to get back to the MD governor's mansion that he lost in 2006 to current incumbent Martin O'Malley, is toast.  And he knows it.  I think the loss will be by a larger margin than last time, which I hope sends him away to lick his wounds and forget about politics.  But, if Mikulski retires in 2016 - which I think is likely - Ehrlich may look to run for her seat.  

    One thing I'm pretty sure of: there will be very few so-called pundits and experts who will get right what is really wrong with Democrats and their base, almost none of them will assess that Obama's problem is that he isn't liberal enough, and they will home in on the Tea Party in a way that makes them credible, which is why I may not watch a whole lot of coverage.

    May not watch? (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by waldenpond on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:51:00 AM EST
    I'm further than BTD's 'we'll see'.... I'm at 'don't care'

    I'm not watching at all.  I grabbed a half-dozen books from the library on Sat.  On 10/10/10 I ripped out the last of my front lawn and in between rain storms have been putting in fence posts.  I'm about ready to cancel cable.


    I am interested in my local and (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:12:18 PM EST
    State races, and that one House race, and I will note the end results from around the country, but I don't intend to listen to the network anchors and political correspondents and their "teams" explain to me "what happened?'  I think I already know what happened - I think a lot of people have figured that out, but we all know that the talking heads don't give much weight to what we think, even though we're living what's going on in a much more real way than some network pooh-bah is.

    They haven't been relevant to me for some time, and I don't see that changing anytime soon.


    I joined Netflix just in time!!! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:32:12 PM EST
    The so called pundits will (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:55:04 AM EST
    drone on and on about how the Democrats were not bipartisan enough and the need to move back to the middle. Of course, the only way they could have given away more would have been not to have shown up at all. That could have been a good thing IMO as the Republicans and conservative policies would have gotten the negative PR from the legislation that was enacted.



    Check. It's guaranteed (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:15:58 PM EST
    that the MSM will constantly pull out the bipartisan centrist nonsense over the next 48 hours.  (Sadly, I greatly fear the clueless Obama will fall for this junk, since it feeds into his psychological need to constantly play nice guy conciliator.)

    And though I'm afraid I'm the type who tends to watch and gawk not at traffic accidents but at political disasters about to happen, I'm going to try to discipline myself to not watch more than a few minutes of CNN, as opposed to Msnbc, where at least we'll be unlikely to hear Keith or Rachel repeating the Beltway blather about bipartisanship and centrism.  I expect Tweety to want to argue that, however, so it could make for some interesting viewing.


    Yup (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:23:51 PM EST
    clueless Obama will fall for this junk

    He already has.  In a recent interview he said his regret was allowing himself to be labeled a tax and spend Democrat.

    If only.


    I have the (none / 0) (#87)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:34:58 PM EST
    John Adams HBO DVD with Paul Giamatti and Laura Linney all ready to go.  I intend to watch it (or at least a good portion of it- it's very long) tomorrow night, with only occasional pauses to take a peek at the election results.  Good acting is somewhat of an antidote to complete idiocy, as far as I'm concerned, and it's hard to beat Giamatti and Linney.  

    Saw a bit of JA (none / 0) (#106)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:08:53 PM EST
    when it first aired.  Prefer though to see a good biopic of Tom Paine, who still doesn't get his due.

    And I've got a couple of Dvd's standing by in case I just can't take any more midterm blowout madness.  Citizen King (PBS from a few yrs back) and The Lost JFK Assass'n Tapes which was rec'd by a trusted researcher for some of its unique footage.


    CNN is using the John Adams score (none / 0) (#125)
    by Joan in VA on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:39:32 PM EST
    for their election coverage. The nerve! I thought the series music was great but they've ruined it for me.

    Is that what it is? (none / 0) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:15:16 PM EST
    It's really pretty terrible music, or at least the little pieces CNN is using.  The first bit sounds like it was cribbed from somewhere in the middle of the fabulous Elmer Bernstein "Magnificent Seven" score.

    The second part, which they usually use for the ends of segments, sounds exactly like the parody heraldic music from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail" to accompany King Arthur and his silly knights when they go clip-clopping somewhere self-importantly on their pretend horses.


    I live in Maryland, too (none / 0) (#82)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:27:38 PM EST
    I laughed my @ss off at Ehrlich trying to portray himself as some kind of an "outsider."  Bob, voters may be dumb, but they do have a memory span of four years, when you were the previous governor.  I really hope that he crawls back into his hole and never tries to run for anything again.

    I've been saying that once (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:48:12 PM EST
    Ehrlich's ads started to hit the media, people began to remember why they hadn't re-elected him in 2006...

    Did you watch any of the O'Malley-Ehrlich debates?  In the first one, he called O'Malley "guv" throughout, and while it took me aback the first time he said it, it at least sounded kind of friendly at the outset, but as things got a little heated, it just started sounding snide and disrespectful, and did not go over well - but it's typical of Ehrlich.

    I know his mother, and let's just say that there's a reason Ehrlich thinks he can walk on water - that's how he was raised - and why, if you have the perception that this race is all about getting even with O'Malley, you'd be right.  

    I take some satisfaction in knowing that if he loses - and it looks like he will - that loss is going to sting even more than the last one did.


    Hahaha! (none / 0) (#143)
    by Zorba on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:34:33 PM EST
    Yes, I've always thought that Ehrlich thinks that the sun shines out of his @ss.  What a jerk.  

    Not to worry (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:10:33 PM EST
    Remember this from January about midterms:

    "They just don't seem to give it any credibility at all," Berry said. "They just kept telling us how good it was going to be. The president himself, when that was brought up in one group, said, `Well, the big difference here and in '94 was you've got me.' We're going to see how much difference that makes now." link

    OMG (none / 0) (#54)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:48:21 PM EST
    I hadn't heard that one.

    Conceit beyond the pale.


    Oh ... (none / 0) (#153)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:10:07 PM EST
    ... my ...

    ... gawwwwwd ...


    I do remember that (none / 0) (#164)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:02:09 PM EST
    I got you babe.

    I cannot understand voters (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:22:30 PM EST
    attempting to put republicans back in charge of this country. It's incomprehensible. (Even though I know that democrats are completely lame and incompetent.)

    How did we get here once again? Is the country masochistic?

    In elections, particularly (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:32:17 PM EST
    midterms, turnout by one party is decisive.

    What's happening is the energized GOP-TP voters are more motivated to go out and vote this cycle than demoralized Dem-Obama voters are.  

    And formerly pro-Obama indies are either switching over to the Party of Evil, or they're planning on staying home.  Lots of Obama Jugend apparently are also planning on staying in their dorm rooms or apartments.

    It's not an election about positive mandates for one party as much as a statement of discontent about the last two years in Congress and the WH.  


    Was the Hitler Youth reference really necessary? (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Addison on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:05:40 PM EST
    Well, probably not, but (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:36:58 PM EST
    it's the campaign season, which means a lot of hyperbole and silliness.  Also, in my defense Your Honor, I can honestly say I didn't consciously intend quite such a close association as you suggest by laying out those two words so starkly in tight juxtaposition, though I confess I did probably intend to imply some seriously mixed feelings about how too many energetic Obama-marching youth from 08 were apparently, judging by midterm polling so far, in it only for the person and not so much for the policies.

    And if only half of his supporters from then would bother to show up to vote sensibly once again this time, we'd all probably be a lot better off going forward.  But who knows -- my somewhat colorful and over-the-top rhetoric might just motivate enough of them to change plans and get out tomorrow and show Brodie he doesn't know what he's talking aboot.


    Well (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:55:00 PM EST
    I usually appreciate your comments, but I think it is irresponsible to be throwing around fascist terminology unless you really intend to make the connection.

    Using jugend with a political movement implies Hitler, whatever apologists out there are saying, it either elevates Obama to a fascist threat, or diminishes the real horror of Hitler, imo.

    Not to be used lightly.


    You do understand (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:18:43 PM EST
    that the word "Jugend" simply means "youth," no more, no less.  Is the word "youth" now forbidden?  Somebody better tell the Germans.

    Is this subtle snark? (5.00 / 1) (#230)
    by Addison on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:54:42 PM EST
    No, She is Serious (none / 0) (#234)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:56:39 PM EST
    Kool Aid infection, no doubt.  

    Might want to tell that to (none / 0) (#235)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:00:52 PM EST
    In Germany (none / 0) (#236)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:05:10 PM EST
    Yup, they do regularly use the term Jugend in Germany. Here not at all, except when someone wants to make a hitler reference.

    The kool aid has made your comment more silly sounding than usual, quite a feat.


    At least (none / 0) (#242)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:18:34 PM EST
    Mine will never be as silly as yours.

    Really? (1.00 / 2) (#243)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:32:20 PM EST
    Interesting take from a designated chatterer, and designated moron. But you have your fan base to fan your stupid.

    Wow (none / 0) (#245)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 06:10:14 PM EST
    Blatant disregard for site rules.

    Oh well, we know nothing will come of it.

    But all your comment does is continue to reflect on you.


    Site Rules? (1.00 / 1) (#246)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 06:17:00 PM EST
    You were just named today named site moron and recently a chatter, not by me.,,,



    Nothing compared (none / 0) (#247)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 06:20:17 PM EST
    To what name I have for you.  Many around here would agree, I'm sure.



    yeah (5.00 / 1) (#241)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:18:09 PM EST
    He just happened to use the German word for it.  Totally silly to think anything of it.  He could just as easily have used Swahili, or Japanese, or Spanish, yes?



    TL is not Germany. (3.50 / 2) (#173)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:07:04 PM EST
    I think the capitalization of the word - along with the word itself following Obama, the leader of our nation - is pretty clearly a intentional reference.

    In fact, I would not be surprised if such a use was much more quickly recognized as such a reference in Germany.

    Whether the reference was meant as a dead serious comment, or merely as a superficial off-the-cuff quip, it was clearly intentional...


    gman - wha? (5.00 / 1) (#220)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:37:40 AM EST
    We are in general agreement on this one, no?

    Not Surprising To Me (none / 0) (#224)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:04:58 AM EST
    Even though the TL anti-kool aid vaccine did not work so well on
    previous politicians, it was working at 100% strength against Hillaritis and Obamaphilia for both of us.



    TL is in cyberspace (none / 0) (#201)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 08:47:14 PM EST
    So seriously, no German allowedC?  onsidering that people from all over the world can read and comment here, anyone using German and the word Obama in the same sentence must be making reference to Obama somehow being Hitler?

    Why not French, or Latin, or Italian, or even (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by steviez314 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 09:27:36 PM EST
    Arabic?  You really must be kidding me to think Obama Jugend and Obama Jeunesse are the same.

    The excuses in this thread for such a loaded phrase really is a jump the shark moment here for everyone p.o.ed at Obama.


    Rather Amazing (none / 0) (#203)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 10:15:35 PM EST
    That these volk are so in the tank that they repeatedly soil themselves.

    Zeig Heil.... just another couple of German words.

     I guess if the intent is to make a parallel with the brainwashed youth who went bonkers for Obama aka Obots, than the analogous term for those drunk on kool aid here are the Hillary freikorps, a markedly older group.


    Just dropped off my son ... (5.00 / 2) (#213)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 07:22:59 AM EST
    ... at (gulp) ...

    ... Kindergarten!!!


    BTW - What is it ... (5.00 / 3) (#214)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 07:37:39 AM EST
    ... with you and the constant references to "soiling" and "bedwetting".  It's almost like a form of ...

    ... angst.

    (Oops .... another one.)


    All nouns are capitalized (none / 0) (#210)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:43:42 PM EST
    in German always.

    And the word "Jugend" is used in Germany all the time and for all kinds of <gasp!> youth groups.

    The key word in the term "Hitler Youth" or "Hitler Jugend" is Hitler, not "youth."


    We Are Not In Germany (5.00 / 1) (#212)
    by squeaky on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:21:30 AM EST
    And using the German word for youth right after Obama, in an english speaking country, was because?

    It has a nice ring?  

    Or is it because Germans were once to known for their blind devotion to their Führer?

    Führer is just another German word as well...  Used all the time...


    BS (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:52:59 PM EST
    Clearly the reference was Hitler Youth, not sure what kind of revisionist propaganda you are selling but it is a load of crap.

    Thank you for correcting (none / 0) (#169)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:43:51 PM EST
    the blog bullies on this.  This has nothing to do with Hitler!  This is about the youth vote that was a huge score in the last election.  Jugend is also a class in the International Dog Shows too, not that my German is that good.  I have to look up the class names everytime I enter to remember the age ranges for the three German class names.  If the use of a German word next to the word Obama is going to instantly have something to do with Hitler....sheesh, can we get anymore nuts around here?

    The author of the comment agrees that his (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:11:09 PM EST
    reference was intentional.

    Doesn't matter what his intention was (1.00 / 1) (#211)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:45:38 PM EST
    He was jumped on with both feet for daring to use the word "youth."

    He didn't use the word Youth (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 09:05:12 AM EST
    He wrote "Obama Jugend"

    It is not the same thing.  Jeez.


    Mixed feelings (none / 0) (#177)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:22:01 PM EST
    And it isn't as if the people we used to Obots didn't run around and beat the crap out of everyone who had deeper questions.  I would say they used it with mixed meaning at best because the youth vote was played up so huge during the campaign too.  But the poster was not calling Obama Hitler.

    come within a thousand miles of saying he was...

    Not the way you're suggesting (none / 0) (#182)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:36:38 PM EST
    I can honestly say I didn't consciously intend quite such a close association as you suggest by laying out those two words so starkly in tight juxtaposition.

    He says he intended to use the word and (probably) take a mild dig at young Obama supporters, but not to analogize Obama to Hitler, as you are suggesting.


    Really? I'm suggesting that? (5.00 / 1) (#221)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 10:40:33 AM EST
    Quite the little straw merchant you are...

    You're not? (none / 0) (#227)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:00:49 PM EST
    I think the capitalization of the word - along with the word itself following Obama, the leader of our nation - is pretty clearly a intentional reference.

    In fact, I would not be surprised if such a use was much more quickly recognized as such a reference in Germany.

    Reference to what, in your mind?  Maybe you should be specific about what it is that you think was "clearly intentional' in the original post.  Otherwise, people are likely to interpret your words in the way that are most logical, ...

    ... and we know you don't like people interpreting the words of others.


    The part of my comment that you "forgot" Oops! to include in your quote:
    Whether the reference was meant as a dead serious comment, or merely as a superficial off-the-cuff quip, it was clearly intentional...
    The comment stands in its entirety.

    Here's my advice, Strawman. There are plenty of truly outrageous comments made here every day. Ya might find it more successful to attempt to slam them instead of having to resort to such embarrassing pre-school level parsing and concerted disingenuity.


    It makes no sense (none / 0) (#229)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:51:54 PM EST
    You say it was "clearly intentional", claim you didn't mean the OP was making a Hitler analogy, yet won't say what about the post is "intentional".  That he used the word "Jugend"?  No kidding.  What you're complaining about is what you believe he meant by the use of that word, yet you still won't say what that is.

    The reason is obvious ...


    Really? I said that? Too? (none / 0) (#232)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:12:15 PM EST
    [you] claim you didn't mean the OP was making a Hitler analogy
    All that leftover straw from the Halloween decorations sure is coming in useful for you.

    Kinda fun watching you twist yourself and my words into little straw pretzels.

    Continue on, if you must. It'll be entertaining.


    Still no answer (none / 0) (#233)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 02:20:13 PM EST
    Still so obvious as to why that is ...

    Yes, because OBVIOUSLY, when one talks about (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by steviez314 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:44:37 PM EST
    Obama or his voters, the first thing that comes to mind is....German.  Because he's from Germany?  Or wait, he's the President of Germany?

    Do yourself a favor and type "jugend" into Google and see the top reference.


    I think Brodie explained what he meant, (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:04:57 PM EST
    ... which is probably a better indicator than the top Google result.

    BTW - I did Google it ... first result is a wiktionary definition of the word meaning "youth".  Yahoo yields an art magazine.  Same for Bing.

    Probably easier (and more reliable) just to stick with the OP's explanation.


    Sure (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:08:23 PM EST
    Jugend on its own is just a german word. Jugend attached to a political leader connotes fascism.

    Try typing Obama Jugend, different story...  but you knew that.


    Moving the goalposts again? (4.00 / 4) (#196)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:17:38 PM EST
    Gee .... wonder why you'd need to do that?

    BTW - Let's see - the OP's explanation of his own words, or Squeaky's mind-reading interpretation ...

    Hmmmmmmmmm ..... wait a second!  You're the guy who claimed Lindsay Lohan was making a feminist, political statement by flashing the papparazzi with no underwear, right?

    Never mind ...


    What He or She Said (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:22:29 PM EST
    Google what he or she said, not what you want.

    So the way to interpret ... (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:56:20 PM EST
    ... a concept, or even a sentence, is to choose two words from a sentence and Google them?

    How about "Squeaky is not a squirrel, but he loves nuts".  Oh, wait ...

    ... that's three words ...

    BTW - I was responding to steviez314's post and Googling what he said to Google, not "what I want".


    Such a Silly Comment You've Got There (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    The author writes "Obama Jugend" and you guys are like hey, it's just German for Youth?


    This is some pretty sad rationalizing going on here.


    "Rationalizing"? (none / 0) (#218)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 09:15:28 AM EST
    I'm accepting the OP's explanation as to his intent.  He said he probably intended a dig at young Obama supporters who are not engaged in this election, but he did not mean to compare Obama to Hitler, as some are suggesting.

    You (and a few others) may choose to "read between the (invisible) lines", but I'll stick with the OP's explanation of his own intent.


    I'm not demonizing the author (5.00 / 1) (#219)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 09:35:25 AM EST
    I'm just saying it was a very charged, and very stupid word choice.  And that the word was decidedly not Youth.

    Yet we have all these commenters saying "whaaaaaat? Why are people upset? We can't use German words now?"  I am more inclined to take the author at his word than I am to take the commenters who rose to defend him by saying he only wrote "Youth."  Aren't you?  


    No (none / 0) (#238)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:27:41 PM EST
    I'm just saying it was a very charged, and very stupid word choice.  And that the word was decidedly not Youth.

    Sorry to hear you think it was a "very stupid" word choice.  Oh, well ... BTW - I never said he used the word "youth", so you must be confusing me with someone else.  I would say he used the word "Judgend" - or the German word for "youth".

    I am more inclined to take the author at his word than I am to take the word of those interpreting his words suggest the OP was alluding to some kind of Hitler metaphor.


    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:14:33 PM EST
    He used the German word for Youth.  In a post written in English he chose one German word, and that one German word happened to be give us "Obama Jugend," which only renders over 300,000 google hits, most of which are dominated by reference to Hitler youth.

    But no, it was a perfeclty intelligent choice by a thoughtful poster.  And it is silly that anyone would think he meant anything other than Youth.  Hey, he just chose a German word for it, that's all.

    Christ on a Crumb Heap.


    Jeezus ... throw a little more straw ... (none / 0) (#244)
    by Yman on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 06:01:10 PM EST
    ... in the mix.  The OP already said he meant it as a dig against the young Obama supporters who are no longer turning out, and I never claimed he didn't "mean anything other than youth".  It's the silly Hitler/Nazism analogies that I object to, as the OP has clearly stated that was not his intent.  But some people fancy themselves as mindreaders.

    "Christ on a Crumb Heap", indeed.


    Pretzel Logic (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:59:10 PM EST
    Go for it, of course everyone konws about dog show terminology, nothing rareified about it

    It is so common that whenever Jugend is used with a political movement everyone thinks about poodles. You must be 12 years old and have never read a book, except ones about dogs.


    Nothing rarefied about it (none / 0) (#200)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 08:44:09 PM EST
    It is German for youth and is used today to describe youth no matter what lifeform or form they may be.  It is a common German word.

    This is disingenuous beyond words... (5.00 / 2) (#231)
    by Addison on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 01:57:04 PM EST
    ...it's even more insulting to everyone at this site than the original Hitler Youth reference. Who do you think you're fooling here? What possible reason could there be for pairing the president's name, Obama, with the German word for youth, Jugend, besides the Hitler Jugend reference?

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#240)
    by glanton on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 05:16:10 PM EST
    While the original post was very stupid, the people who are defending it as "just a German word for Youth" are making Sharron Angle's dissembling look reasonable.

    My, how low people are willing to go, and for absolutely nonexistent stakes to boot.  Sad.


    Ya know, one reason is that (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:37:25 PM EST
    they don't respect parties.  And they don't form allegiances to parties unless they are asked to do so - and Obama hasn't been much of a party guy in his approach to leadership.  There was no real case made for Democrats over the past two years.  I would argue that the White House's almost obsessive focus on what the Republicans wanted overshadowed the Democratic Party's profile.  

    So, outside the ranks of the small groups of people who follow party politics and understand that there are some meaningful differences, the voters in this era are more likely to go with whomever appeals to them.

    Oh, and, another thing - the Republicans created an alternate party branded it "rogue" and have attracted a bunch of people that would otherwise probably not have taken up with them again for at least a few more election cycles.


    The last memo they bothered (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:52:41 PM EST
    to send me said it was the blue dog party, and if you don't like that don't let the door hit you in the a$$.  I watched Lawrence O'Donnell talk about why women have walked away from Obama and supporting the Dem party this weekend and he didn't even come close to touching it.  How can he be that stupid because usually he is a smart guy?  When you wake up every morning though and look in the mirror and know that if somehow trying to deal with the sex drive God gave you ends up getting you pregnant (which is what God or Nature or whatever you call it wants) it will be completely on your shoulders dealing with this and optional for everyone else....sink or swim and how many children in this country live in poverty?  Do these idiots really not understand that the whole country of women, whether you live in the South and have to lie in public about being prolife just to save face or not, watched what they did to us and our right to choose when they argued this utter POS healthcare plan that is costing the middle class a fortune every month now?  We saw, we get it, nobody fights for us on basic rights and we are so close to being completely sold out and losing it all it isn't even funny.  These days though, the poor will have the baby because they have no choice....the rest of us can choose if we want to travel long distances and jeopardize jobs making up lies about what we are doing and a whole variety of other gross horrors.

    I also think that if this administration (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:58:40 PM EST
    had put out more messages outlining a 5-year plan instead of a "man, this is hard work, can't be done overnight, and we inherited this mess," more people might be willing to let them have the 5 years. Too many people appear to think the only time they can speak up is when they are casting a ballot.

    Change would have come if more people had buried congress in letters demanding the democrats back away from that ridiculous bi-partisan theme and restore the democratic agenda.

    NOTHING, though, will turn me into a Republican voter.


    Voters are being sane (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:03:58 PM EST
    by the definition of insanity.  That is, insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result, right?

    So, the voters went to Dems in 2006.  But the voters were told that was not enough to get what they want.

    So, the voters went to Dems in 2008, resoundingly, with a mandate for the White House and 60 votes in the Senate and a majority in the House.  But the voters were told that was not enough to get what they want -- and indeed, many got the opposite of what they want.

    So, why would the sane voters go to Dems again in 2010?


    OK. But then neither choice is sane! (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:06:00 PM EST

    Yep, you got it -- the reason (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    for the projected low turnout for the Dems.  Ding, ding, ding!

    Exactly... (none / 0) (#66)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:08:28 PM EST
    When most ballots resemble a Chinese Restaurant menu, "Choose One from Column A or One from Column B", what do you expect a voter to do when their selection from Column A two years ago gave them heartburn, besides trying Column B this time?  

    Even if Column B gave them food poisoning 4 years ago, there is no Column C.


    Not masochistic (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:07:06 PM EST
    Very short memory and don't forget that the White House couldn't possibly have played a dumber game.

    VEEEEERRRRYYYYY (none / 0) (#71)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:13:30 PM EST
    short memory!

    It's like mass Alzheimer's or something...


    No. Again, think about not all voters (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:44:38 PM EST
    as the Repub and Repub-leaning voters have massive incentive to turn out in massive numbers for the GOP, correct?

    But what is the incentive for Dem and Dem-leaning voters?  Only a negative incentive.  That never is enough.  They need a positive incentive, not just something to vote against but something to vote for.  What would they vote for?  More GOP-lite?


    Incentives (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:56:50 PM EST
    You may think it's negative.  Well, OK, it is negative.

    Keeping the GOP (the hard right) out of office is incentive enough.  

    The damage at the federal level, especially with Republican leaning Obama in the White House, could be catastrophic.


    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:08:09 PM EST
    and I see that you now see what is meant by a negative incentive -- it's not what you or I think it is, it's what it is.  And the track record of negative incentives is what it is, too; I don't make this up but go back to studies of persuasion.

    So I keep looking and listening, in the incessant ads (in the state with the most expensive race for Senate, plus we have a hugely funded governor's race and more) and the nonstop phone calls and the daily deluge of campaign literature, etc., etc., for what the Dems are giving as their positive incentive.

    And I don't find it.  Do you?  What is the Dem agenda for the next two years, four years, six years?  

    "More of the same"?  Uh. . . .


    Yes (none / 0) (#208)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:25:06 PM EST
    I agree.  The problem for Democrats this year is that actions taken (the positive) appear, to so many, to be ineffective.

    Though the recovery act may have helped prevent an economic catastrophe it's a hard argument to make when unemployment has increased since the act was passed.

    The timid approach is, IMO, stupid.  Over the top would have done nicely.  If people see the job situation improving, carping about deficits is a loser.


    Nice video piece here to go along with your point (none / 0) (#98)
    by Farmboy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:49:29 PM EST
    The Gloom (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:13:15 PM EST
    of the coming election was eased a bit, for me anyway, on Sunday night.

    David Stockman was interviewed on 60 Minutes.

    The principle author of the Reagan tax cuts said that he was ashamed of his party and their "anti-tax religion."

    He called Republican anti-tax rhetoric "rank demogoguery."

    On the same segment was Bill Gates Sr who's backing a proposal on the ballot in Washington to levy an income tax on the wealthy.

    I wish they'd do more stuff like this.  The segments were well done and made no attempt at phony balance.  Somehow the anti-tax jihad has to stop.  The anti-tax disease is, IMO, one of the two biggest problems in the nation.

    So in effect (none / 0) (#139)
    by BTAL on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:23:06 PM EST
    The segments were well done and made no attempt at phony balance.

    pure liberal propaganda.  One side of the story is ALWAYS good journalism, if it is the message you support.


    "Liberal propaganda" from... (5.00 / 2) (#144)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:34:56 PM EST
    David Stockman?


    We already know that the Republicans are anti-tax - Lord knows the media has been chock full of that coverage, and the legitimizing of the hysteria over debt and deficits - so if anything, the Stockman and Gates segments presented WERE the other side.

    Do you ever find those jerky knees of yours kicking yourself in the a$$ of their own volition?


    This is not a new revelation or tact from (none / 0) (#150)
    by BTAL on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:07:22 PM EST
    Stockman.  He was taken to task back as OMB director for similar statements.

    Speaking of knee jerk reactions.


    Let's find a 60 minutes expose on (none / 0) (#155)
    by BTAL on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:11:03 PM EST
    spending cuts, then there might be some credible discussion.

    What In (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 10:28:36 PM EST
    hell does that have to do with anything.

    Although I will say that I'd like to discuss significant cuts in military spending, spending on private contractors, subsidies for private companies.


    No (none / 0) (#204)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 10:24:09 PM EST
    The opposite side wasn't simply allowed to make crap statements without follow up questions.

    Phony balance is when each side makes a statement and neither is questioned.

    It's the way Republicans have been getting by with their ridiculous over the top, beyond the pale bullsh!t for years.

    What you're calling balance is a failure to inform the public.  "Balanced" coverage in your mind is nothing more than allowing a platform for propaganda.  Republicans have thrived on that type of "coverage."


    The best thing a pro-tax.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:29:29 PM EST
    person can do is lobby for the abolishment of the DEA and halfing the defense budget...until then I'll continue to give all anti-tax arguments a honest hearing out...and support principled tax protests.

    The trouble is (5.00 / 1) (#209)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:28:46 PM EST
    that the anti-tax jihad means cuts to anything BUT defense.

    Independent (3.67 / 3) (#47)
    by soccermom on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    In 2008 Donna Brazille said that there was a new democratic party and many of us weren't needed anymore. Ok.  I'm 61 and voted straight Republican this year. First Republican votes in my life.

    Republican Party will gain >65 house seats and the majority in the senate.

    I guess a lot of us still cling to our guns, bibles, and ballots.

    I marched to end segregation, to end the Viet Nam War, and for increased federal funding for AIDS. I am glad that sanity has prevailed in drug sentencing.

    When the history of this time is written, President Obama, Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi will be identified as the figures who drove a stake through the soul of the Democratic Party. I didn't want to leave the party, the party abandoned me.

    And I am not alone.

    Seriously? (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:42:08 PM EST
    What were the Republicans you voted for offering you that was in any way in line with the history of social justice you claim to have?

    I mean, I'm not all that happy with the Democrats myself, but I think - no I KNOW - that there's pretty much not a single Republican with whom I could find common cause - especially not in this year's wacky crop of candidates.


    My new approach doesn't involve (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:59:02 PM EST
    casting votes for Republicans, with whom I - like you - never find common cause, but it does involve not honoring sub-standard, mediocre, dismissive Democrats with my vote, and thus giving them the idea that I approve of the jobs they are doing, which ensures that low-quality representation ends up being the rule instead of the exception.

    All I had on my ballot this year, nationally, was my current Senator - Mikulski - and my current House member - Roscoe Bartlett.  One Democrat with only nominal opposition, and one Republican who was never going to get my vote in any event, but who will win anyway.  I hesitated over Mikulski - she has signed on to some good things - but given that I know she's going to win handily, I declined to cast a vote.

    The other races were all local and State: Governor, County Executive, Judges, Clerk of the Court, County Council and State Delegates, and a bunch of bond issues.  The people I voted for ARE doing a good job, so there's no point in taking out what is generally, for me, a national problem on state/local candidates who aren't - at this stage - part of that problem.

    I don't get protest votes, when it means you have to affirmatively choose someone you already know you share nothing ideological with.

    Some people would say that not voting a particular race is the same as voting for the other guy, but  I have to draw the line somewhere - there's no point in having standards if you are going to ignore them when it matters.

    So, it is what it is, and we'll see how it goes.


    I'm fine leaving things blank too (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:10:18 PM EST
    If nobody earned my I don't have to pull for that race, and it isn't like voting for the other guy....I would have to vote for the other guy in order for it to be the same as voting for the other guy.

    I agree ... (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Erehwon on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:41:23 PM EST
    I couldn't possibly vote for any Republican too! Anybody who does is condoning bigotry, or at least they don't think it matters as much as it does to me!

    Even here in NYS, when I hear my local Republican House candidate say the word Obama, I can hear the bigotry ooze in his intonation, much like I could when Dan Quayle used to say Mario, as in Mario Cuomo, former NYS Governor (and soon to be Governor Dad, I hope). I am going to leave Schumer's slot unvoted or vote for the Green Party, but definitely vote for Gillibrand.


    What does either party offer? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:35:12 PM EST
    I mean really, what DOES EITHER PARTY OFFER? Not, what do they say, but how do they act?

    Because the Democrats pay lip service to what you want to hear, you think they're better.

    For me, 2% less evil isn't good enough anymore.

    When people wake up and realize there is no benefit to their thinking, "well the Democrats are better so I have nowhere else to go," we will not have change in this country.

    Stick to your failed logic and that ultimately ruins all of our worlds.


    I am asking a very specific (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:48:52 PM EST
    question - which is - what do those Republicans she voted for have to offer that is in line with her political vision?

    There may be a serious and legitimate answer to that question, but the poster has not responded as yet.


    And, I thought I made it clear (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:54:26 PM EST
    in my original post that the Democratic Party of now is not making me very happy - but that does not mean that the Republicans with whom I share no common cause get my vote.  That's a real leap - a really BIG leap especially this year.

    Maybe in 1980 some of those Republicans could have gotten my vote because a number of them were more liberal than a lot of Dems are now - but they're LONG gone.


    Maybe there's a belief or a perception (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:16:01 PM EST
    that by voting for the other party, it will "show" the party one is angry or unhappy with just how angry and unhappy one is.  Except that all that matters is the final vote count - our votes aren't electronically tabulated with "reasons" for those votes.

    It might be interesting if that were possible; imagine the discussions that would ensue if "2% less evil than the other guy," or "throw me under the bus and I'm happy to return the favor, and send you to the unemployment line," or "Haven't a clue, but I like your name and LOVED your ads," or "Glenn Beck told me to," or "Where else am I gonna go?" were among the top reasons why votes were cast for particular candidates.  Imagine the media having at those kinds of results: "Senator Reid, the largest percentage of votes cast for you fell into the category of `2% less evil than the other guy.'  Is that a vote of confidence, or resignation?"  I'm sure Harry's response would be, "A vote is a vote is a vote, and I stand before you a winner, so screw the malconents!"

    Before we can have a third party that is truly viable, we desperately need to get the corporate/private money out of elections, and publicly finance them; sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon, short of some sort of actual revolution.


    This is the kicker IMO (none / 0) (#116)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:27:27 PM EST
    ...we desperately need to get the corporate/private money out of elections, and publicly finance them; sadly, I don't see that happening anytime soon, short of some sort of actual revolution.

    As long as we have big money influencing the elections and the politicians, the people and what they need really will have no voice. The results will be mostly the same no matter which party is in power.


    Yes. (none / 0) (#117)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:27:30 PM EST
    A vote is a vote - and the interpretation on the part of the the candidate and his or her party is that a person supports their stated platform.  Your vote is their mandate - that's all.

    If we also voted against candidates - meaning literally a yea or nay on each candidate rather than picking between two or more - then we might be able to understand more about where a voter really was coming from - but even then these votes for Republicans would still register as votes for Republicans - and interpreted as a mandate from a voter - not as revenge on another candidate.


    Do you really (none / 0) (#206)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 10:35:41 PM EST
    want to see what will happen if the GOP gets full power at this point in time?

    You can fault the Democrats for not doing enough if you like but if you knew what Republicans have in store for all us 'common folk' I believe you might adjust.  The difference is a lot more than 2%.


    Unfortunately, then (none / 0) (#145)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:37:49 PM EST
    That leaves us with "You've got nowhere else to go."  

    That does not give any Dems who do happen to get re-elected to change, so where does that leave us?


    But you do have somewhere else (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:48:23 PM EST
    to go: you can choose to vote, in essence, for None of The Above by not casting a ballot for anyone in a particular race if you feel neither are qualified, or the candidate from your party has not performed well; if enough people just refused to vote for the poor choices they were being offered, it might inspire some honest discussion about why.

    Nothing is going to change much until we get all the private and corporate money out of the process, and make it - as it should be - about the people.

    It's just my personal opinion, of course, but I don't see what is gained by voting for candidates whose platform, beliefs and agenda you don't believe in.  It would be like choosing to marry someone you abhorred to "get even" or "show" the one you've been dating for 10 years and who still won't commit or treat you the way you think you should be, that "someone" cares about you.

    The GOP will happily take your votes, but I have no idea what that accomplishes.


    I get that (none / 0) (#148)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:54:16 PM EST
    But not voting at all, doesn't really send a message.  The person with the most votes still wins regardless (unless you are in a state which requires 50% + 1 and has runoff elections). So, say you are in California and you do not like either Fiorina or Boxer.  You choose not to vote for either.  It won't matter, because some people will vote for either one, and if it's only a matter of 11 people in the whole state vote for Senator, someone will still win.

    Your non-vote means nothing.  


    Voting for someone who will (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:08:28 PM EST
    work against everything you believe in - or just most of what you believe in is really ill advised.  You're not going to send a message other than one signaling that you approve of the person for whom you voted.  I'm not handing my vote out to anyone who doesn't represent my political values - even if the other guys have really pissed me off or disappointed me.

    Of course it means something, (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:18:32 PM EST
    and the something it means is "I don't think either or any of these candidates worth voting for."

    It certainly means more than voting for the candidate whose positions I don't agree with in some misguided belief that that's a better way to send a message to Dems; the only message that sends is "I agree with the other party's agenda."

    That's the only message sent by affirmatively casting a ballot for someone you don't agree with.

    If I vote every other race on the ballot, my non-vote shows up as an undervote - as a deliberate decision not to vote for any candidate running for that particular office.

    My conscience won't allow me to vote for candidates whose beliefs and agenda I abhor, and I'm tired of voting for mediocre candidates who are supposed to represent my views but increasingly regard those views as expendable in service to the corporatocracy.

    To each his own, of course, but I can't keep playing this game and watching the quality of representation get worse and worse.


    Nope (none / 0) (#161)
    by jbindc on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:26:27 PM EST
    All they care about is if they win or lose.  If they win by 1 or win by a million, it makes no difference - they still get the title, the office, the staff, the prestige, the ability to cast votes and make laws, and the pension.  Only the statisticians who compare full votes to undervotes and overvotes will care about such anomalies.

    You still have not explained how (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:22:11 PM EST
    voting for a candidate whose views you don't agree with makes anything better - or how the Dem "knows" your vote for the Republican is some sort of protest - and what they would do to counter it.

    If all that matters is the bottom line - who has the most votes - what, exactly, is the point of voting for someone whose views, positions and agenda are 180 degrees away from yours?


    I can't explain it (none / 0) (#215)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 08:27:11 AM EST
    That's the point.  We can vote for someone who has a "D" after their name, because, well, "we have nowhere else to go" and because "the other guys are worse".  That does not give them any reason to change, right?  It just affirms the status quo and gives no motivation for them to fight harder or change. It rewards incompetence and inaction.

    On the other hand, as you point out, a protest vote may not tell the Dem to work harder for you either.

    Which leads me back to my original question - what are we to do when we have a choice of bad and worse?


    I don't have a good answer for that (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by sj on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 11:02:39 AM EST
    In all the months I've pondered that very question, the best I've come up with is this:

    I refuse to vote against my own interests.  

    No candidate will ever line up with me completely.  I get that.  But I can distinguish between

    1.  a "level of commitment" disagreement,
    2.  "not my particular deal" disagreement, and
    3.  "I care neither for the party platform nor for the traditional Democratic position.  period."  disagreement

    I'm a pro-union, pro-safety net, pro-worker, pro-civil liberties, pro-woman, pro-choice, pro-taxes (yep, for me AND thee), pro-SS/Medicare, pro-Medicare for all, pro-no-doubt-I'm-missing-some-issues, die-hard, bleeding heart liberal.

    A candidate can jump in at any of those points.  The more the merrier.  But if I find you at none of them, you do not get my vote.  "D" after your name or not.


    You may not be alone (5.00 / 5) (#67)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:09:17 PM EST
    but, you can't convince me you're right.

    The entire country will pay the price for putting the R's back in power. Personally, it appears we will lose some of our better Democrats to the blind anger simply because it's their turn on the ballot. That, I'm sorry to tell you, is just plain stupid voting.


    Thank you. (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:12:13 PM EST
    Lord, I'm the first to express major outrage at the unbelievably pathetic democrats of today. But vote for republicans?? Especially this crop of republicans???

    Requires a major eclipse of history, IMO.


    Biologically impossible (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:21:44 PM EST
    Dr. I agree.  I don't care how many zombies take over the party, the leap to voting Republican is just not possible.  

    In my family (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:09:27 PM EST
    we called that kind of temper tantrum vote another common phrase: The cutting-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face vote. Ah well. It is fascinating reasoning..."x states belief in a series of matters, then notes anger, and then votes for y team who are openly guaranteed to do the opposite." Ah well.

    I read a short article this morning about Sunday sermons given by black pastors yesterday, wherein the strong reminder of how precious voting is was stated in very specific & historical terms in the black community. Fighting and giving one's life for the vote.


    Voting is a precious (none / 0) (#131)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:52:44 PM EST
    thing but ironically at the same time, the way things work in this country in most states anyway, it's not that precious, what with an election of some sort every year -- not counting primary contests -- plus in some states a very long list of offices and ballot measures and propositions and judges to vote for, most of which most folks are only barely informed about at best.

    I'm all in favor of better public education -- PSAs in prime time on the networks and cable, plus all the usual venues -- about our electoral system and the importance of voting.  But sometimes we ask too much too often, and then it becomes all the easier that truly important elections, like tomorrow, get dismissed as just another election for a buncha pols.


    Maybe if people felt like their votes (5.00 / 3) (#135)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:08:07 PM EST
    actually mattered, they would vote more often, and in greater numbers, but there are a lot of us who feel that, on issue after issue, the only thing our vote does is give permission to those elected to ignore our votes and do whatever the heck they want to.

    They ignore the body of phone calls and e-mails and faxes; ignoring the votes is just one more thing they don't accord any respect - until election time rolls around again and then they want to tell us what a great job they did.

    I'm really coming to hate the whole process - even as I continue to participate in it - because more and more it seems like so much lip service/kabuki/window-dressing to what should be a compact between voter and candidate that means something once the votes are tallied.


    The way I manage my relationship with (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:10:32 PM EST
    the reps and senators from my area is to write to them....often and with reasoned support for how I feel.

    My vote is a backup comment rather than the entire thesis.

    Over the past 3 years my letters have been great in number. I get phone calls from their staffers, so I know my position is heard and considered.

    From all I'm reading, it appears that many want congress to read their minds, or their comments on the blogs to figure out what the people want from them. If one letter doesn't get action, write another, and another, and another.

    I do NOT like the way things have gone, but I do think that the Republicans set the Democrats up for this fall starting in 2007. Two years was not enough time for them to get their bearings, so millions of irritated Democrats are going to stand their ground and refuse to vote, or vote 3rd party (might as well not vote), either way, they are giving the power to the other side. Well, gosh. Goodbye to what little we have left. Thanks to the poor me voters.

    If there is a silver lining to this, I sincerely hope it is that no Democrat will ever again decide to sit out an election.



    I don't think they need to go that far (none / 0) (#225)
    by sj on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:07:48 PM EST
    From all I'm reading, it appears that many want congress to read their minds

    But I would like them to read the party platform.


    Why should they? (none / 0) (#226)
    by jbindc on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 12:18:52 PM EST
    They don't read bills before voting on them and, you know, making them law.....

    You opined on what you thought people wanted (none / 0) (#237)
    by sj on Tue Nov 02, 2010 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    I told you what I wanted.  And now that you mention it, I DO want them to read bills before voting on them.

    Who said that voting is easy? (none / 0) (#147)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:53:25 PM EST
    Well, maybe once in a great while, when there is someone or some issue on the ballot that we strongly support. We were having a voting memory fest the other day--the best & the worst personal examples. For some reason, the saddest national election days for me were 1972 and 1984. In 1972: My incomprehension at reelecting Nixon coupled with my youthful belief that he would be ousted (especially in view of the continuing Vietnam situation) left me a bit emotionally unprepared (trans. as mixed cussing and crying) for that reality.  In 1984: Oh, that was the real bummer--because I worked for the federal EPA, an Agency through the likes of Gorsuch, that Reagan had tried to dismember and because of the conservative politicization--and, the dreadful day resulted in my leaving work early as the projections started coming in, heading for a scotch (make that plural) and sitting with my dog sobbing away the evening.  (In 2000: I and a friend were in a hospital emergency room with my sister who had broken her arm--the whole long night was more surreal than sad.  In 2004: My sister passed away suddenly & unexpectedly--so the grief that I felt at her death, and still feel in many ways, dwarfed the national tragedy. And, my passionate sister Rita dislike what Bush stood for almost beyond words.)

    On election eve, two other factoids stand out:  (1) As a teenager, when I first went to college in Indiana, Birch Bayh was elected Senator that year by 100 votes--1 vote per county. What a lesson in pragmatism/reality for me.  (2) In my wayback memory, I recall that the votes in the late Weimer Republic/Germany--circa 1933--were initially considered to be a sign of everything working well because the voter participation was quite low, which was thought then to mean a public satisfaction. Flash just shortly ahead to the naming of the new Chancellor then. Lesson for me: It makes a difference. In one way or another, the act of participation in voting involves us all in the process of governance (even in messy, nose-holding times.)

    So, I thank you for voting, Anne. I really do.


    Clarification (none / 0) (#149)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:57:34 PM EST
    About 1933 reference above: Pls read as "...recall from reading...." (I'm getting older but not that many years yet.) Scusi.

    Disagree (none / 0) (#152)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:08:39 PM EST
    I don't think this happens

    ignore the body of phone calls and e-mails and faxes

    In sufficient quantities, by default, these will get any pols attention.  What I think people have to deal with is sometimes, the idea written, emailed, faxed, just ain't the best idea - for whatever reason.  It may be timing (political, economic) or too costly or some other reason.

    While I know often times, the moneyed interest has all the clout, that does not mean they don't necessarily have the best answer.  A knee-jerk distrust of business does not necessarily = what's best for the people.  On the flip side, I read a Paul Krugman post the other day where he ridiculed those who bought into this line:

    "How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor's mortgage that has an extra bathroom and can't pay their bills?"
     Our side's response is "we need more stimulus!"  

    We can't just trust one side to have all the answers.  Neither side has them.  How do we know who is right?  We either have to work w/the current process (trust) or require all your fellow constituents to do the research on every issue.  Where do we go from there?  Referendums every week?  What happens to the minority view in those cases?


    Maybe I'm confusing Anne (none / 0) (#154)
    by brodie on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:10:23 PM EST
    with another poster, but didn't you say somewhere that you didn't vote in the Obama vs McCain race?  

    Regardless, it still seems like you might be setting up a rather high and high-minded bar for our merely mortal pols who will always be flawed and who will always have a non-pure and wide-ranging set of concerns to weigh the higher up they go on the food chain.

    I'm disappointed with Reid (failure to fix the obviously broken filibuster system or push for major change back in 2006-7) and with O (long list, already discussed), and to some extent Pelosi (in 2006 taking impeachment off the table against Shrub).

    But in all cases my disappointment is not quite great enough to punish them -- and me -- by staying home and enabling their opponents to gain power, which would result in a set of concerns for all of us far greater and more depressing than mere disappointment over our Dem reps.

    Iow, unless the disappointment is of such magnitude that it's clearly crossed the line from disappointment to supporting someone representing actual evil -- as in 1968 and the War, if LBJ had decided to stay in the race -- my strong inclination is to back the Dem, particularly if by not doing so a snake of an evil Repub gets in.

    In 1968, had I been old enough, I hope I would have been savvy enough to vote HHH even though he was badly flawed, because a) he still would have given us a better chance to end the war quickly compared to his opponent, and because b) his opponent was Richard Nixon.

    Ditto 1972, despite McG's obvious flaws as a candidate.

    And so on.



    You are correct, brodie - and it was (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    the first time I bypassed that particular office; my finger hovered over the screen, but I just could not bring myself to do it.

    I can see where you might think my approach too high-minded, or just too high for the current candidate pool, but I just can't keep voting mediocre.

    I'm not at the point some are, where they refuse to vote for any Democrat; I still think there are local and state candidates who deserve my vote and I voted for them.

    I've been voting straight "D" for a long time, but as I've watched the candidate pool resemble, more and more, a stinking swamp, I don't know how that quality stands any chance of improving if I don't draw the line somewhere.

    To each his own, I guess.


    I certainly understand (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:13:09 PM EST
    your post.  I remember Brazille's statement too and her immature and dismissive behavior at the RBC in 2008 (OK...I'm trying to let it go, just not there yet). After that fiasco and the last two years, I just wanted the Democrats to hit rock bottom. But, maybe not.

    Watching and listening to the obscene rhetoric coming from Republicans, and just not TP candidates, I cannot vote Republican. I will vote straight Democrat tomorrow and hope for the best.

    Then I'm going to encourage a movement retuning to the 60's and 70's and get people to kick ass and take back the government. :-)


    More power to you, Madeline (none / 0) (#109)
    by christinep on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:12:57 PM EST
    And, about Brazille: It took me awhile to put that aside too. She got a bit out there in those days.

    Are you a 'VALUES' voter? (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:28:08 PM EST

    If values voter means (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by soccermom on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:41:04 PM EST
    agreeing to disagree while respecting your opponents right to an opinion, I guess I am.

    "We're going to punish our enemies and we're gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us," President Obama, Univision ihnterview, October 25th, 2010.


    Uh, that was an attempt at a joke. Everyone who (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:44:31 PM EST
    tells me they voted Republic because of 'their values' makes me laugh.  Sorry if you took it the wrong way, my fault.  

    I get it....... (1.00 / 1) (#108)
    by soccermom on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:12:02 PM EST
    You are the "values" arbitor.  Now that right there is real comedy gold.

    Keep the funny coming. Please explain the value in promises that a healthcare bill won't cost my plan "one more dime"  versus a 12% increase in my contribution to the company plan next year?

    Oh, and my 92 year-old godmother lost her Medicare Advantage plan. Please let me know the funny part of that so I can share it with her.


    GOP Operative? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:19:51 PM EST
    Hope they are paying you well.

    Adios, mi amiga (none / 0) (#119)
    by soccermom on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    I am a full time, union dues paying pilot, Hillary supporting mother of two hillbilly.

    Nobody pays me except my company and the local soccer association for refereeing..

    Please check out my posts from 2008.  

    I had thought that this site was more tolerant of civil debate about current events. I guess that changed.

    God bless you.


    Oh Well (none / 0) (#123)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:38:29 PM EST
    You are also a GOP supporter, which cancels out your liberal/progressive creds, imo.

    Not sure what you expected to gain by bragging about it here.


    Would it be too much to ask (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:47:55 PM EST
    of you to just lay the hell off of everyone?  I'd like to hear what people have to say without you running everyone off of here.

    Yes (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:49:47 PM EST
    Start your own blog or go to email if you want a private chat.

    Nothing is stopping you from supporting Hillary PUMAS for voting R.

    GO for it.

    My opinion is my own, and does not represent the blog.


    Oh....so this is your Blog? (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:00:21 PM EST
    I'm dying laughing now.  Do you know how many times I've emailed Jeralyn whining about someone posting on here?  Exactly zero....it isn't my bag.  But just because you've gotten away with your recent behavior lately I wouldn't get too attached to it or assume this is your very own autobahn.

    "Autobahn"?!?!? (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:11:27 PM EST
    Isn't that a ....


    ... German word???

    I think we all know what you meant by that... :)


    lol (2.00 / 2) (#189)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:04:27 PM EST
    My opinion is my own, and does not represent the blog.

    Your recent behavior is appalling, imo.

    Name calling, and trying to bully....you are tough guy... lol

    I guess the military can do that to a person.


    soccermom has been around here (none / 0) (#172)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:50:26 PM EST
    for quite awhile.  I may not agree with them, but they aren't a GOP operative.

    How many apologies do you need to have from (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:21:17 PM EST
    someone?  One is usually enough for me, so that's all you'll be getting.  Sheesh.

    BS (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:51:03 PM EST
    Anyone who comes to TL trying to drum up support for voting Republican is an operative, imo. Paid or unpaid.

    Proof the new HCR is a failure (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by BTAL on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:22:18 PM EST
    squeaky has totally gone off the meds.  Must be that death panel thingy.  

    Let's get real here (5.00 / 2) (#120)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    your plan would have increased without the HI bill also. and any increases you are experiencing now aren't prob really from the bill, just more greed and excuses from the insurance cos.

    and in case you missed it, they moved a majority of their $upport back to . . . you guessed it! THE REPUBLICANS! Yay for you! You just voted straight insurance companies :)


    Seriously stray.... (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:49:56 PM EST
    well said, my health insurance has gone up every year for the last 9 years...hard to pin all of next years increase on Obamacare.  The mandate nobody likes yeah, but not ever-rising costs...thats natural law as far as I can tell...its never gone down:)

    My husband's insurance nearly tripled during (none / 0) (#138)
    by Angel on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:22:34 PM EST
    the Dubya years.  It's stabilized since Obama came in office.  

    We all get that the Dems let us down (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:39:11 PM EST
    on a host of issues, but what do you suppose the Republicans are going to do that will make things better, for you or anyone with a net worth and/or income that isn't well into 6 or 7 figures?

    I could be wrong, but there is nothing either of these parties have up their sleeves that is going to give any of us a big ol' belly laugh anytime soon; you've chosen to protest vote for Republicans, who have no intention of making your life better, so "showing" those bad Dems how serious you are about your anger only hurts them to the extent those particular incumbents or candidates don't have a job come January.


    Yeah, I've chosen not to vote for Dems I'm not happy with, but not voting for the Dem does not require me to vote for his or her opponent; I think my non-vote reflects my displeasure without rewarding the other side.

    My vote matters too much to me to cast it for people I know do not have my best interests at heart, regardless of their party affiliation.

    That I show up and do vote other races means that when the votes are tallied, some races will show up as being undervoted - reflecting a conscious decision not to cast a vote in a particular race - and I like to think there is more to be taken from that statistic than if I had just stayed home - or voted for the other party.


    I am now and have been opposed to (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:45:43 PM EST
    the health insurance legislation that was passed. I also have followed the debate on the issue pretty extensively and have to say that at no time did I hear anyone say that

    a healthcare bill won't cost my plan "one more dime"

    I am also confused as to why your godmother lost her Medicare Advantage plan. Nothing in the legislation eliminated Medicare Advantage plans in 2011.  


    Medicare Advantage will be reduced (none / 0) (#181)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 06:33:33 PM EST
    "Medicare Advantage payment rates will be frozen in 2011 and then gradually reduced giving companies time to adjust to the changes." Reuters, Mar, 2010

    But there is also, supposedly, an improvement in regard to to prescription drug plan in 2011


    Medicare Advantage Plans (none / 0) (#194)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 07:11:42 PM EST
    payment rates are currently more than regular Medicare rates. So even if they are frozen in 2011, they should still be higher than regular Medicare. The claim was that an elderly person lost their Advantage plan as the result of the legislation. Don't understand why that would be. My mail box is still overflowing with solicitations from Medicare Advantage plans wanting me to switch in 2011 and they are still available on the Medicare website.

    Prescription Drug Changes:

    New in 2011: a 50% discount on brand-name drugs in the doughnut hole. Beneficiaries also get a slight break on the cost of generic drugs in the doughnut hole next year� paying 93% of the cost rather than the full 100%. So if you've been paying extra for coverage in the doughnut hole, it's a good time to reassess your options.

    Also new:

    Also keep in mind that starting in 2011, individuals who earn more than $85,000 (or $170,000 if married filing jointly) will have to pay a high-income surcharge for Part D premiums, similar to the high-income surcharge for Medicare Part B. The amount of the surcharge has not yet been determined . link

    Some of the top Plan D insurers are dropping their cheapest plans and rolling people into a higher cost plans. New players might make up for this but like everything else care must be taken in decision making. It is my understanding that pharma, drastically increased the retail cost of the most popular drugs used by Medicare patients. From some examples I've read, after receiving the 50% discount during the donut hole, people may be paying close to the same price that they paid this year or last year for the drug.


    Looking to alternatives (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by waldenpond on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:41:25 PM EST
    Nothing could make me vote for a Repub but I have found some decent greens to vote for.

    You believe (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:42:22 PM EST
    you've been abandoned and in some ways you may be right.

    But you've chosen to go way beyond dissatisfaction over tepid or no support for your causes all the way to supporting people who are absolutely opposed to your causes.

    I can understand when people object to or are troubled about voting for the lesser of two evils, but your choice is for the very worst.


    I Smell A Rat (none / 0) (#102)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:00:03 PM EST
    So, but (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by soccermom on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:22:28 PM EST
    What doe that mean? If I am offending you in any way, I will not post anymore.

    PS  Someone named "squeaky" smelling a rat is kind of funny.


    No Offense (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:40:11 PM EST
    But those who claim to have a liberal D record and brag about voting R, certainly are not coming to TL to do anything but troll, imo.

    The best (none / 0) (#3)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:06:13 AM EST
    description I think I've heard is chaos, it's a total chaos election.

    We will see (none / 0) (#4)
    by CST on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:10:20 AM EST
    it's interesting, because here in MA, republicans are running stronger than they usually do... but there is a solid chance that they will still lose every congressional race, and that they might even lose seats in the state house.

    Of course they could win too... the races are closer than usual, but it is far from guaranteed that they pick up anything.

    If they do end up losing seats in the state house, that will be kind of funny.  I think the conventional wisdom is that every republican thought they could run this year.  So every republican did.  But they weren't very smart about it.  The best candidates are in tough-to-win districts.  And the districts that should have been closer have terrible republican candidates.

    Well (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:23:08 AM EST
    at least you don't have the possibility of having a criminal for your governor like we do here in Ga.

    or in Florida (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Madeline on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:38:22 AM EST
    With Rick Scott's history in re Medicare fraud, his crazy platform and the length of time he's lived in the state, I am appalled at even the possibility much less the reality, that he may be governor of Florida.

    What a freaking sickening mess!


    Sink (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by star on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    did not do a good job of laying out what she stands for , her platform. I live in Florida in a family of Independents. Choice was easy for my since I am a registered Dem. But this election is all about how the I's go . They are more interested in the economic agenda of the candidate. Sink IMO did not do a good job of portraying herself as a strong economy candidate.
    All the negatives of Scott is what has made this race close. else Sink would have been toast. She did not impress her positives at all.  

    You are right on (none / 0) (#56)
    by Slado on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    My dad is a hard core republican doctor and would vote for any republican over Sink except for one, Scott.

    He thinks Scott is a criminal and simply can't vote for him no matter how much he agrees with his policies.

    He is going to write in a name and vote party line for everyone else.

    It's only close in this one because of his history.


    well the most competitive (none / 0) (#24)
    by CST on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:07:32 PM EST
    important race is the gov. race.  If the republican wins, we will have a former ceo of a health insurance co. as our gov.  For some reason, I don't think that's a good thing re. costs.  One of the highlights of our current gov's reign is that he did a pitched battle over health insurance premium increases - and for the most part, he won.

    So there is a lot at stake.


    I always hesitate to do predictions (none / 0) (#9)
    by andgarden on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:28:51 AM EST
    Here are the most competitive races I'm watching:







    There are lots of other intersting and important races out there, but none are both (1) well-polled, and (2) close enough to come out either way.

    If Dems take 3/6, it will merely be a bad night. If they only win a couple, it's a terrible night, and if they win none, it's time to crack open the 100 proof vodka.

    In Harry Reid's race, (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by KeysDan on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:37:34 PM EST
    we, of course, hear a lot about his opponent Sharron Angle's attacks and positions.  But, I wonder what impact the fact that Harry's son, Rory, is also on the ballot as candidate for governor.  That seems ill-advised to me.

    I'm watching one of those with you (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:48:36 PM EST
    WA - Sen.

    If Dino Rossi takes that Senate seat, it will be a sad, sad outcome for everyone in the country. He has blamed Patty Murray for everything from the giant deficit caused by the Bush war to the massive bank bailout under Bush. He is as creepy as they get.


    It would (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:15:26 PM EST
    be hard to nominate a most creepy in this election year.

    Would make for an interesting contest after the elections are over.

    We may need that to numb us to what could be a real catastrophy if Rs take both Houses with Obama, the "compromiser" with heavy Republican leanings, in the White House.


    if susa is right (none / 0) (#16)
    by Turkana on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:45:15 AM EST
    i'm going to have at least one huge silver lining!

    Is SUSA predicting a Kitz win? (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by caseyOR on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:44:46 PM EST
    That would be good news. While I am not at all excited about having Kitzhaber back in Mahonia Hall, (wasn't happy with Bradbury either), the thought of Chris Dudley as governor is horrifying. I prefer to elect politicians whose understanding of the workings of government are, at a minimum, equal to mine. Dudley fails that test in dramatic fashion.

    Additionally, a Dudley win will mean a bigger megaphone for Bob Tiernan, and having to listen to him jabber on and on for the next four years would push me right over the edge.

    I think, hope, the Oregon Congressional delegation will remain the same. Despite the Oregonian's best efforts, I think Wu will prevail over Cornilles;  DeFazio will overcome the rightwing whacko noise machine; and Kurt Shrader will defeat Bruun. Blumenauer has one of the safest seats in Congress, even in a year like this. And, even though I am not a big Wyden fan, Huffman is a fool who doesn't have a chance.

    But Dudledy. Oh lordy, not Chris Dudley.


    The science of setting expectations (none / 0) (#12)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:35:56 AM EST
    Set horrendous expectations.  Make it sound like the earth is going to cave in for the Democrats.

    When it doesn't quite do that, it's considered a win!

    Yup. (none / 0) (#33)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:22:18 PM EST
    Many months ago I think I wrote that (none / 0) (#19)
    by tigercourse on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 11:49:54 AM EST
    we would see 45-55 net losses in the House. Not much has changed since then. It might be more but I'll stick with around 50-55. Senate will come darn close to flipping and Governors will be equally ugly. Almost any race that polls as even or with a Dem 1 or 2 point advantage will go to the Republican.

    As for what happened? The Unemployment rate is almost 10%. Not a whole heck of alot of mystery. If it were under nine we'd be losing several fewer Senate seats and a good dozen fewer House seats at least. I guess letting Ben Nelson write the Democratic playbook wasn't such a brilliant idea, huh Mr. President? Also, the Democrats should have bothered to explain, just once or twice, in the past 2 years why the bailouts and stimulus were a good idea (and I'm one of 10 people in this country who think the bailouts worked great).

    I think you are right on this (none / 0) (#39)
    by MO Blue on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:29:32 PM EST
    I guess letting Ben Nelson write the Democratic playbook wasn't such a brilliant idea, huh Mr. President?

    Harry Truman (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:26:37 PM EST

    Given a choice between a Republican and a Republican people will vote for the real Republican.


    Precisely (none / 0) (#165)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:02:48 PM EST
    The New Democratic Leadership (none / 0) (#25)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:07:50 PM EST
    As the New Democratic coalition falls apart and we are entertained by a parade of whimsy from the Creative Class, can someone tell me, who is in charge?  

    I will settle for Boxer, Brown and Giants win for tonight.  

    You are (none / 0) (#40)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:31:41 PM EST
    You are the change you are looking for :)

    I'm adding 19 to your settle for mine :) (none / 0) (#79)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:22:58 PM EST
    I'd put the over/under at ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Yman on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:08:31 PM EST
    ... +55 seats for Repubs in the House and +8 in the Senate, ...

    ... but who knows.

    As for turnout (none / 0) (#32)
    by CST on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    my personal bubble will be at the polls.  I would call a number of them "casual voters".  FWIW.

    Although according to this, it's not just me.  Some possible good news too... in this state at least.

    "Secretary of State William F. Galvin is predicting record voter turnout in tomorrow's election...

    he based his prediction on the number of absentee ballots that have already been cast...

    unlike in that election ... a large number of Democrats are voting early."

    Forgetaboutit (none / 0) (#43)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:34:40 PM EST

    Will be hard when we are (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    watching Rand Paul lead a movement to destroy Social Security and Medicare.

    Not sure that I can forget and I am pretty sure that I am not likely to forgive, either.


    Funny ballot question (none / 0) (#65)
    by CST on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:07:19 PM EST
    Question 1 is to eliminate sales tax on alchohol.

    Nothing else, just booze.

    If the economy is $hitty - at least you can afford to get drunk!

    It would be kind of funny if this passes but Question 3 (to reduce the state income tax) fails.  I doubt that will happen though.

    Question 1... (none / 0) (#85)
    by kdog on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:28:50 PM EST
    should help get all those Beantown college kids out to the polls...thats change a cash-strapped college kid can believe in, as in less time spent scrouging for change for a 12 pack of Natty Light.

    What State Do You Live In (none / 0) (#93)
    by cal1942 on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 01:44:29 PM EST
    that has a ballot proposal to reduce state income taxes?

    MA (none / 0) (#103)
    by CST on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:04:13 PM EST
    and whoops, I meant sales tax.

    Well, I might just go to the lost cause (none / 0) (#128)
    by ruffian on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:41:52 PM EST
    Meek rally with the Big Dog tonight at Lake Eola park. At least Alex Sink still has a shot.

    And it is a nice place to walk the dogs.

    I have no predictions for tomorrow. I was surprised the Dems took over in 2006, that is how bad a predictor I am.

    me (none / 0) (#132)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 02:56:08 PM EST
    neither. No one was predicting huge GOP gains in 2004 and was predicting huge GOP gains in 1998 and both times they were wrong.

    The only thing that I can see right now is the house is probably gone. Past that who knows? Many people are predicting bigger gains for the GOP than 1994. Of course, "many people" are often wrong.


    Bad if Blue Dogs we had a chance of working with (none / 0) (#133)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:04:50 PM EST
    are voted out for more extremist Republicans but we maintain control.

    Real bad if anything worse happens.

    My gut (er, hope) is the MSM is merely trying to amp us up for a story either way (R's don't make big gains vs. Dems lose big.)

    The MSM (none / 0) (#134)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:06:06 PM EST
    goes by polls and they are merely repeating what the polls are saying.

    Oh I know, however (none / 0) (#136)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:18:06 PM EST
    let's just say I'm hoping many of the polls are not accurately capturing the true state of the voters frame of mind.

    I know, I know, I may be wee bit be self-delusional....


    Well, (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 03:28:33 PM EST
    there's always the possibility that they are wrong but they are often more right than wrong.

    At this point, I'm past caring. It's like BTD said, we are going to have a lost decade because Obama couldn't find the stones to do what is right for the country.


    *I may be a wee bit (none / 0) (#156)
    by vicndabx on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:14:33 PM EST
    too fast w/the Post button.

    It's okay (none / 0) (#171)
    by nycstray on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 05:50:08 PM EST
    it's perhaps our last day/chance for awhile to be wee bit self-delusional  :)