FRIHOST FORUMS SEARCH FAQ TOS BLOGS COMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


What will happen on Election Day?





deanhills
I'm quite surprised that there is no posting on Tuesday's important election day. What do you think is going to happen on election day? Yahoo! News asked five analysts their opinions on what will happen and what this will mean for Obama for his next two years of his Presidency. Their answers are in the above article , but I am summarizing them for fun. Perhaps you would like to come up with your own answers before you check them against those of the political analysts in the article:
Question 1: wrote:
What sets this election apart from others that have taken place over the past decade?

Question 2: wrote:
Why are the Democrats so vulnerable this go-around?

Question 3: wrote:
Will the Democrats lose control of the House, Senate, or both?

Question 4: wrote:
Will this election help or hinder the Tea Party's political clout?

Question 5: wrote:
What can we expect out of the White House in the next two years, based on your election predictions?
liljp617
1) Not much. Democrats will win, they'll spend money. Republicans will win, they'll spend money.

2) The perception is the economy is beyond terrible, and that issue takes precedent over most others (perhaps rightfully so, but a lot of other positive changes get swept under the rug). The impression is that Congress and the President somehow control the world economy. Democrats have been in control over this time period. Therefore, "Democrats are to blame." Situation would likely have been nearly identical had Republicans been in control. Voters generally have narrow views, and I feel comfortable saying it bluntly -- most don't understand introductory economic theory. The US government goes through swings akin to a pendulum...if Republicans were to win "big," it wouldn't really be anything new.

3) No idea.

4) Don't particularly care. The Tea Party won't last...Democrats and Republicans will work together (radical concept) to ensure that.

5) No predictions on the specific outcome, I'll wait patiently.
deanhills
Question 1: wrote:
What sets this election apart from others that have taken place over the past decade?
In my opinion what is different from before is the role of the Tea Party and it will be interesting to see how they will impact the outcome and split votes that favour the Democrats. I agree with one of the analysts that voters are much more angry in general than they have been before. They are ready to make a stand. So it will be interesting to see what the voter percentages will be. I think there will be an increase in the percentages over the last time.
Question 2: wrote:
Why are the Democrats so vulnerable this go-around?
Are they really vulnerable? Or is that just a perception that needs to be tested by this election? I get the feeling that if there is a discussion about vulnerability that both are equally vulnerable, or that the Republicans may be more vulnerable as a result of the problems they are having with the Tea Party and lack of a real leader in their own camp.
Question 3: wrote:
Will the Democrats lose control of the House, Senate, or both?
This is a difficult one. I have a feeling the outcome of the election is going to be a surprise, and the Democrats are going to do much better than expected. They also have the benefit of the Tea Part splitting votes. It could well turn things in their favour.
Question 4: wrote:
Will this election help or hinder the Tea Party's political clout?
I suspect that since the Republicans are trying to project a united front, while the election is in its campaign stage, the Tea Party will be gaining in political clout. But after the elections, possibly the Republican Party will have to deal with the Tea Party, and that may lead to them splitting off. That will obviously mean less political clout for them as well.
Question 5: wrote:
What can we expect out of the White House in the next two years, based on your election predictions?
Pretty much the same as now. Obama has already laid the foundation for the changes he wanted to implement. I can't see how the Republicans will be able to undo any of those. Most certainly Obama will intensify his marketing leading up to his campaign for re-election. In absence of a real Republican leader or a viable alternative to Obama in the Democratic Party, right at this moment I think his chances for re-election are very good.
standready
deanhills wrote:
In my opinion what is different from before is the role of the Tea Party and it will be interesting to see how they will impact the outcome and split votes that favour the Democrats.

I think I need to clarify this for you. The Tea party movement is not a third party but rather a very conservative part of the Republican party. So this will be not splitting votes. It is not going to be a Democrat/Republican/Tea election. Most races will be Democrat/Republican election. Some races the Republican is from the very conservative part.
ocalhoun
standready wrote:
The Tea party movement is not a third party but rather a very conservative part of the Republican party.

In some districts, Tea Party candidates are running against Republicans as a third party... In others, the Tea Party merely endorses a chosen Republican candidate.
deanhills
standready wrote:
deanhills wrote:
In my opinion what is different from before is the role of the Tea Party and it will be interesting to see how they will impact the outcome and split votes that favour the Democrats.

I think I need to clarify this for you. The Tea party movement is not a third party but rather a very conservative part of the Republican party. So this will be not splitting votes. It is not going to be a Democrat/Republican/Tea election. Most races will be Democrat/Republican election. Some races the Republican is from the very conservative part.
Thanks for the clarification but I was fully aware of it. I sort of tried to work that one through in previous threads. Republicans who don't like the Tea Party candidates, may opt to vote for the Democratic Party instead. That is what I meant with splitting the votes.

Refer the article below:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_askamerica/20101019/pl_yblog_askamerica/too-extreme-ask-america-votes-split-on-whether-tea-party-will-hurt-gop
standready
Very interesting article, deanhills. I did go vote this morning. In most cases, I felt like I was for the lesser of multiple evils than voting for someone I believed in.
Afaceinthematrix
Well California is pretty much screwed no matter what. We have two main candidates for governor: Jerry Brown (worst politician alive) and Meg Whitman (utter douchebag). We also have many third party candidates (such as Dale Ogden running as libertarian). I was going to vote for Ogden because I'm a libertarian and he wants to do things such as legalize prostitution, gay marriage, drugs, and other nanny-state things (i.e. in my opinion legalize freedom - which is something that most people seem to be against). But then I started reading his website and concluded that he's a douchebag. So even though I absolutely hate Whitman, I will vote for her just because she's the only person who actually has a chance of beating Jerry Brown (who I would be happy if I watched die. He's been a career politician (including having been governor of CA in the past) and all he's ever done is raise our insanely high taxes and then lie about it).

And then there's many propositions. One of my favorites would be Proposition 19. Proposition 19, if passed, will legalize marijuana for recreational use. I will definitely vote yes on this but I have a feeling that it won't pass because there are too many immoral scumbags in CA who love to vote against freedom (like in Prop 8 last year trying to illegalize gay marriage). And even if it does pass, Obama and his people have already said that they'll do what they can to overturn it. It makes me hate him even more.

When will people realize that it is immoral to tell a grown person what they can or cannot put in their own damn body? And when will people realize that it's not okay to make something illegal on the basis that you don't like it? As long as what you're doing hurts no one else, then it should not be illegal (so prostitution, gambling, drugs, etc. all should be legal). Furthermore, if you try to make it illegal then you're an immoral piece of crap who doesn't believe in freedom...*

*And I'm not for legalizing drugs on the basis that it would severely help the economy (as most economist argue). While that would be a positive thing, I am seriously under the opinion that you cannot have freedom while they're illegal. Some people enjoy drugs (I don't... I, for instance, hated marijuana the one time I smoked it... but it should still be legal)...
Afaceinthematrix
Well... The results are coming in for California, and this is some of the breakdown (with my own opinion inserted where I feel like putting it):

Projected Governor: Jerry Brown
Is there anyone alive who remembers how much he raised taxes? Seriously... I hope the people who voted for him enjoy paying even higher taxes (California already has ridiculously high taxes)... He'll also tax the hell out of business which will hurt jobs...

Prop 19: Just like I predicted, it did not pass. In fact, it failed by a huge margin. Like I've always known, and stated, Americans hate freedom. I know I complain about this frequently and in many of my postings, but I cannot think of anything that pisses me off more than someone who doesn't believe in equality and freedom (prop 8 passed year when people voted "yes" for discrimination). Besides the War on Drugs being a complete economical and government policy DISASTER, it directly funds drug dealer, cartels, gangs, etc. Furthermore, the War on Drugs is a War on FREEDOM and if you don't believe in freedom then you can go and screw yourself and let me live in a place where freedom actually matters.

Prop 23: This is the only proposition (that I truly care about) that I went my way. It wanted to undo some clean air policies we have and I didn't want those to be undone because there's already enough smog in Los Angeles...

There were some other props but those are the highlights for CA
deanhills
So I was wrong. I really thought the Democrats would have done better than they did. They certainly got a thorough beating. Can just imagine Obama already planning a new marketing campaign. I really hate when he does those campaigns and everyone has to suffer through his many speeches. Surely he has to understand by now that he has completely underestimated his audience. Wish he could get it that people are looking for leadership and action, rather than more words.
liljp617
deanhills wrote:
So I was wrong. I really thought the Democrats would have done better than they did. They certainly got a thorough beating. Can just imagine Obama already planning a new marketing campaign. I really hate when he does those campaigns and everyone has to suffer through his many speeches. Surely he has to understand by now that he has completely underestimated his audience. Wish he could get it that people are looking for leadership and action, rather than more words.


What would you like him to do? From my perspective, he's been pretty damn busy the past (almost) two years, rather than sitting in his office playing games. You may not agree with his actions or the direction of leadership, but you can't sit there and tell me he hasn't taken either. He's accomplished and consistently pushed for many of the things he campaigned for (not to imply that he hasn't backed out on some promises, because he has). What else is a President to do in terms of taking "leadership and action?" Does leadership and action only count when it is fulfilling your personal views?

Your post implies he's done absolutely nothing except give a couple speeches and sit around twiddling his thumbs.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/browse/
standready
Well Obama's core group (under 30 years old) did not vote. Only 11 percent of that group did. Also people out of work were sending a message to congress. "It is the economy - stupid! You failed!"

Palin's "Mama Grizzlies" did not fair as well as she hoped either. We can only hope that will keep her out of 2012 elections!
deanhills
standready wrote:
Well Obama's core group (under 30 years old) did not vote.
Now that IS really interesting. In July there was a Keiser Report TV interview (on Russia Today) with a stockbroker cum political analyst who basically went touring through the major cities of the United States, and interviewed the core group for their views on Government. Basically the majority said they can't relate to the system and that nothing of it resonates with them. That is the future of the United States probably saying all of the system will have to change in order for them to make it their own.

By the way I would be grateful if you could give me a link to the percentages. I am very curious about the percentage of total voters voting as well.

This is a link for the YouTube Russia Today Keiser Report Recordings. Unfortunately I can't remember the one that referred to the core group discussion, but all of the discussions are really very good in an "out of the box" thinking kind of way.
standready
deanhills wrote:
By the way I would be grateful if you could give me a link to the percentages. I am very curious about the percentage of total voters voting as well.


Here is one link:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/11/04/opinion/main7021190.shtml
Lots of number crunching going on. It seems to play down the numbers on what I had heard was Obama's core group. I guess each news show has their own thoughts as well.
ocalhoun
standready wrote:
Well Obama's core group (under 30 years old) did not vote.

*is disgruntled about being called part of Obama's core group*
*didn't vote though*
(I'm not going to vote in local elections in a place where I'm only going to be living for a few years. I don't have a right to force my views on locals when I'll be moving away before most of the effects of that even occur... Would only have voted for third parties when available and write-ins when not available though, anyway, so it doesn't make a huge difference.)
menino
Well, the results of the mid-term elections were out last week, and the Rebublicans won it.
This doesn't look good for Obama at all.
deanhills
Thanks standready. I was looking for something that is standard with most reports of elections. The percentage of those who voted out of the total list of voters.
standready
deanhills wrote:
The percentage of those who voted out of the total list of voters.

I have been unable to find that information for the entire country. Seems news only reports that when the President is up for election.
deanhills
standready wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The percentage of those who voted out of the total list of voters.

I have been unable to find that information for the entire country. Seems news only reports that when the President is up for election.
That probably makes sense. Were you able to find the ones by State, or is that also a problem because there were more than one election in any given State?
Bikerman
standready wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The percentage of those who voted out of the total list of voters.

I have been unable to find that information for the entire country. Seems news only reports that when the President is up for election.

Well, here it is showing the percentage for each state.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8095512/US-midterms-live-elections-results-map.html
deanhills
Bikerman wrote:
standready wrote:
deanhills wrote:
The percentage of those who voted out of the total list of voters.

I have been unable to find that information for the entire country. Seems news only reports that when the President is up for election.

Well, here it is showing the percentage for each state.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8095512/US-midterms-live-elections-results-map.html
Thanks for the link Bikerman. I did see that Website, and maybe I'm not looking in the right place, but all it refers to is to the Precincts Reporting, not actually the voters turning out as a percentage of total registered voters. The percentages for the precincts reporting are all from nineties to 100%. Or are the voter percentages there, staring me in the face, and I can't see them? Smile
Alaskacameradude
What will happen in the election?
Well, I predicted this a LONG time ago on this very board. What will happen?
The Democrats will get their butts handed to them. The End.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
What will happen in the election?
Well, I predicted this a LONG time ago on this very board. What will happen?
The Democrats will get their butts handed to them. The End.
I remember that Alaska, and you were completely right in the end. Smile

What do you think is going to happen to Obama now? Do you think he is going to make it through to a second session of the Presidency? As I get the impression that the gains by the Republicans had more to do with protest votes, than being able to offer some real solutions. I don't see effective leadership, nor potential leaders that can make a real impression on the voters. Can you?
gandalfthegrey
1. It was not the blow out expected. Democrats still control the senate. Republicans won Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - all blows to the party - but held onto Deleware and Nevada.

2. I find it strange that Americans are so quickly blaming the Democrats for an economic crisis created by adopting right-wing policies of overspending and tax-cuts. Recipe for disaster. And worse, Americans are putting the same idiots back into positions of power.

I like the basic idea of the tea party - getting rid of debt and deficits - but the movement has been largely hijacked by neo-conservatives. Unless you are going to tackle military spending, then you are not going to be able to deal with the massive debt load.
Alaskacameradude
Quote:
1. It was not the blow out expected. Democrats still control the senate. Republicans won Illinois, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania - all blows to the party - but held onto Deleware and Nevada.


Umm....sorry but I disagree BIG TIME here. It was the biggest gain for one party since 1948!
That is a HUGE ENORMOUS blow out! I understand that there were a couple races (Nevade in
particular) that the Democrats held on to, that were big wins for them, but with so many 'too close
to call' races, you couldn't really expect ALL of them to go Republican, a couple had to go the Democrats
way. But lest you think it wasn't the blow out expected.....see here:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/nov05election/detail?entry_id=76227

Not only that, but Republicans gained the majority of governorships, putting THEM in control of
the 'gerrymandering process' of forming congressional redistricting. For those of you that have
never been involved in this, it usually involves the party in power redrawing constitutional
districts in such a way as to give them the best chance of winning the majority of state and
national congress seats. I got to cover this process here in Alaska, and suffice it to say, it
is a VERY political process. Trust me, the Democrats did NOT think the blow out would be this
bad. In fact right before the election, Speaker Pelosi and the White House were both predicting
that the Democrats would retain control of the House


Quote:
What do you think is going to happen to Obama now? Do you think he is going to make it through to a second session of the Presidency? As I get the impression that the gains by the Republicans had more to do with protest votes, than being able to offer some real solutions. I don't see effective leadership, nor potential leaders that can make a real impression on the voters. Can you?


Those are good questions, and I agree 100% that the gains by the Republicans had more to do
with poeple being mad.....ironically kind of similar to the way Obama came to power with
people being mad at Bush (which is one of the reasons I saw this coming....I know how the
American voter behaves.) Much like an NFL coach, the person or party in charge, is given
blame when things aren't working, no matter whose fault it is. I really don't know
how anything effective will get done with a divided government. Selfishly, I am glad
that Obama will not be able to advance his agenda totally anymore, and if he
wants to get anything done he will now HAVE to compromise. However, in a way, this is
the best thing that could have happened to Obama. First, he will have to 'moderate' to
get things done, which will help him appeal to independent voters again.
Second, he and his party no longer have 'exclusive ownership' over all the bad things
that happen, as Republicans have made HUGE gains and control much more now. So
although it is bad for Democrats in congress it may be a GOOD thing as far as Obama is concerned,
for his reelection chances. That is why I think you see some Democrats VERY miffed with
Obama, because they feel he 'threw his party under the bus'. What hurts the Democrats
in Congress could help Obama's reelection chances. I do hope they can somehow work together
to get rid of some of our crippling debt, but I'm not that optimistic.
deanhills
Alaskacameradude wrote:
Selfishly, I am glad
that Obama will not be able to advance his agenda totally anymore, and if he
wants to get anything done he will now HAVE to compromise. However, in a way, this is
the best thing that could have happened to Obama. First, he will have to 'moderate' to
get things done, which will help him appeal to independent voters again.
Second, he and his party no longer have 'exclusive ownership' over all the bad things
that happen, as Republicans have made HUGE gains and control much more now. So
although it is bad for Democrats in congress it may be a GOOD thing as far as Obama is concerned,
for his reelection chances. That is why I think you see some Democrats VERY miffed with
Obama, because they feel he 'threw his party under the bus'. What hurts the Democrats
in Congress could help Obama's reelection chances. I do hope they can somehow work together
to get rid of some of our crippling debt, but I'm not that optimistic.
Very interesting insights Alaska, many thanks. I also thought Obama stood a good chance of getting re-elected, but your reasons are different and more subtle, and make plenty of good sense. The Republicans are probably also going to get some of their way, by forcing Obama to be more moderate. Let's hope the Republicans can come up with some good leaders, as it would be nice if they could at least give Obama some good competition during his next election campaign.
Related topics
Election Day Eve in Iraq
U.N Calls Iraq Election A Success. Libs On Suicide Watch
Not Voting is Reasonable for People Who Want Freedom
HUGE amounts of WMDs found-500
President Bush talks w/ Matt Lauer on Torture
True The Vote
NY Times: A perfect example of lieberals spreading...
Enemy Press
More front page news NOT on the front page..
Aliens - Myth or reality?
Wag The Dog my best film
berlusconi...the king
The Perfect World
To the Christians, this is why I don't fear hell.
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Politics

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.