Were you surprised
 

When the liberals got more seats than the conservatives at the recent elections?

I was going to ask only for conservative viewpoints on this one, but I guess everyone's opinion is valid, as has been demonstrated.

I was surprised. I really didn't think there would be enough support for liberal viewpoints or policies. I honestly thought that the majority of voters would have continued to support the conservatives.

I dont believe that people voted for liberal policies, but that's what they will most likely get.

The Republican party is the home of the conservatives. There are some Democrat conservative leaning pols though.

In this case the Dems "out-conservatived" the Reps. They said things that liberals would never say like, I believe in gun rights, love Jesus, believe that abortion is wrong and the like. Saying things like that and not being under indictment pulled them over.

Once in Congress they will probably be "influenced" to vote liberal by the senior leadership there. Those that thought for one second that they would be able to effectively support anything conservative were'nt paying attention. They were just intent on getting rid of the Reps.

To be sure, I know what's coming and I'm not the least bit happy.

For the most part, I figured that the Dems would at least gain the House, so I was a little surprised they won the Senate too. However, my prediction is that regardless of the Dems ideology, if they don't pass laws that the President likes, then there is not going to be any change. They may have a majority, but it is such a slim majority that they will have a very hard time overcoming a veto. I am sure we will see more vetos in the last two years in office for Bush than we have in the first six.

That said, I would not be surprised if the Democratic gains this year are erased or at least marginalized in 2008. The reason for that is because if you look at the Democratic Party as the party for liberals, then 2 things will happen to this new Congress...

1) They will attempt to pass lofty and liberal policies and laws in order to appeal to the Democratic leadership and base. In that case, if they try to pass anything too liberal, count on a veto, and no progress is made.

2) They anticipate vetos and so in order to pass legislation, they will stay away from passing any legislation that could be considered part of the liberal agenda, i.e. gay marriage, higher taxes, etc. In this case it will appear that they are caving to Bush's demands and will in effect disenfranchise their base.

In either senario, what will result will just be another unhappy electorate looking for change. The Republicans will be on good ground to retake some of thier lost seats, arguing that in two years the Democrats haven't accomplished anything they said they would, and that if America wants results then they should vote Republican.

I also anticipate that the next President to be elected in 2008 will also be a Republican. If you look at the two big names in the Democratic party, Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama, here is why. Hillary is just too much of a polarizing figure to be able to win the Presidency any time soon. Obama is at this point still very much inexperianced in the political arena. My prediction is that we will see McCain as the next President. A lot of people like to talk of Rudy Giuliani as a potential contender, however, I believe he is too much to the left of what many in the Republican party would be comfortable as a Presidential nominee.

So anyways, that is my analysis of the election and what I expcect to happen in the next 2 years.

Most new-coming presidents are not even front runners in years previous. New presidents typically are not 'discovered' until the last 9 or 6 months. Making such predictions are as 'logically based' as knowing which race horse will win. Posted are the current 'hyped' names. History says they are not probable possible 'victors'.

One fact that America desperately needs is outright contempt of extremists - people who tell Limbaugh types what to say in broadcasts. People who tell American 'brown shirts' how to think. Will that outright and patriotic contempt happen? Current climate says so.

But again, almost every reader of this post is that fickle. Most will deny how fickle they are. And yet we have a benchmark. Determine if you think logically or are easily manipulated. Did you believe Saddam conspired to create 11 September? The logical answer on 12 September was completely and obviously 'not'. That 'in your face' question - and whether you can answer that question logically - demonstrates how easily your conclusions and attitudes are manipulated even within one year.

Since so many are so easily manipulated by lies, then we have no idea who will be president elect in two years. To make such predictions means that prediction is only for amusement. Put quarters in a slot machine to get better answers. Meanwhile test yourself. Are you so easily manipulated as to think Saddam had something to do with 11 September? The correct answer on 12 September was that obvious to those who are not easily manipulated. A benchmark to learn who you really are and learn why we have no idea who might be a next president.

I was a bit suprised by the Dems gaining majority.

I was more suprised that liberal WI approved both ballot measures that reinstated the death penalty with DNA evidence and banned civil unions.

AND kept a do nothing Democrat governor.

I'm surprised that someone in Australia cares more about american politics than I do. wait, no I'm not.

Why aren't you lumber?

disgust, dismay, disbelief, disenchantment, disestablishmentarianism.

not antidisestablishmentarianism?

I fully expected the "knee-jerk" reaction of the masses (sheep) to vote primarily democratic. I was not at all surprised that the Dems dominated the elections. Dismayed and disappointed yes, but not surprised in the least.

So.....knee jerk sheep vote Democrat and deep thinking politically savvy people vote republican?

A new corollary to Godwin's Law:

Ewe's Law - the first person in a debate to categorize the other side as "sheep" (or, God forbid, "sheeple,") loses.

I think I like that Clod. That works.

yesman.....maybe democracy would be better if people weren't given a choice between two parties...that way they couldn't fuck it up by voting for the wrong party?

i've said it before, i'll say it again. america is a pendulum. we swing to far to the right, then back to the left, then to the right... somehow in all that the media forgets that most americans are somewhere in the middle and they spend most of the time trying to ignore the geniuses taking us too far in either direction.

What's really bizarre is that America's idea of too left is Britain's idea of Middle-ground. Funny how the political spectrum can be so different in different countries.

eh, whatever, you commie.;)

I seriously dont understand how the USA became one of the furthest-right countries in the world...

By what definition of "right".

It's all the Pilgrims' fault.

Right as in conservative... I mean sure, there're some muslim nations, and some dictatorships and such that are further, but america is moving left a LOT slower than the rest of the world. They got the head-start, but have been lagging a lot every since.

By what definition of "conservative"?

That of the people who call Europe commie.

give me a break HM. i called DanaC a commie. and we've both been around here long enough for you to know that wasn't a serious comment. ya freakincommie sympathizer.

Anyone who thinks we will have a lefty government now doesn't understand how it works.

The Supreme Court is controlled by Republicans.
The White House is controlled by Republicans.
Both branches of Congress have a thin majority of Democrats, so they now control the agenda there. But they don't have a large enough majority to override a veto.

The White House and Congress pretty much cancel each other out as far as passing laws, because of the veto power of the President.

But the President still has a huge amount of executive office power he can use to do what he wants. He dictates what the executive branch does, and the executive branch is huge and far reaching.

The Republican Supreme Court will have an impact on American society for decades.

The Republicans still have more power than the Democrats in the Federal government. The Democratic victory brings the government closer to the middle, but it's still clearly leaning to the Right.

i absolutely agree glatt. i expect in '08 we'll get a dem president, unless the D's really really really step on their crank in the next two years. that seems highly unlikely.

I used your wording because it was conveniently right there, but there are plenty of people who say it seriously- I occasionally listen to Bill O'Reilly's radio show.

Which is funny because I, though generally more conservative than you, HM, have literally never once listened to Bill O'Reilly or seen his show, except for a clip or two replayed on the Daily Show.

I wonder how much the people who tune in just to get angry (or at best, to "know the opposition,") are actually bolstering his ratings.

I listen (when I do) for the same reason I used to occasinally listen to G. Gordon Liddy - his show is between two shows that I do enjoy listening to.

I've never watched his TV show.

Watch out lookout... if you didn't see my prediction earlier, you should go back and read it, and then read tw's attack back and see how "illogical and fickle" you are for making any such prediction at this point. I mean forget that the majority of his response has nothing to do with what I said or even what this thread is all about and surely you will see the folley of your ways LOL :D

...I know you are, but what am I? :P

i've learned through many discussions and pissing matches with tw that he is a vulcan. he believes emotion can and should be removed from discussions and issues. i agree that it should, but i don't believe it can. the human is an emotional animal. it is also a lazy animal. very few will ever dig deep enough to learn the hard reality of a situation so they respond instinctually or emotionally. i believe this recent election is an example of that. many people (the swing voters) didn't so much vote FOR something (democrats) as they voted against the negative emotions caused by the war which emotionally can be set squarely on the shoulders of the republicans. if the D's can avoid stepping on their collective cranks for the next two years the swing voter will feel good about the "change" they've brought and will vote for a D president. we'll see in two years.

If your post was not about a president in '08, then why did I quote that sentence and reply accordingly to that paragraph? Why would I mention your other paragraphs that are not disputable? Why waste bandwidth on paragraphs based in reasoning and history. Those other paragraphs were speculation based in sound logic and with historical precedent.

If using current attitudes, then a most likely president is Republican and one who is not wacko extremist. But history demonstrates that picking a future president in two years is about as reliable as making a profit from slot machines. Furthermore, sitting Congressmen rarely become a president.

BTW Shocker, where is the attack? Are you that touchy? Did I say your mother wears combat boots? Of course not. Did I challenge other parts of your post? No. Obviously no reason to. One paragraph in your post that is not based in history predicts a president two years early. Traditionally, presidential contenders are mostly unknowns two years before an election. That is not an attack. That is simple fact based is history. And that reply was exactly what you posted about in your paragraph 6. Where is this attack?

Do you deny that most readers of these posts are fickle? If yes, then why did you not post a reply? Your salience implies you agreed. Lookout123 examples the concept: His is a traditionally likely statement. Why such an emotional change? Well if you could answer that question, then there are many presidential contenders who would hire you.

An interesting discussion would be on why 'fickle' emotions changed so sharply. During Vietnam, it was called Tet. We had no such single event during "Mission Accomplished". And yet something changed sharply in but maybe six months causing independents - those who don't blindly follow the party line - to suddenly see George Jr lying. If so much can change so quickly over such little events, then how in hell does anyone hope to guess a next president? Better would be to use a dart board and monkey. Just ask Senator Gary Hart about sure bets.

That reply was exactly about your paragraph 6. Are you now retracting paragraph 6?

Did not surprise me... now we have to get rid of the religious leadership in DC ASAP!

We're in ur kongruss

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...nthefloorc.jpg

raysin ur tackses.


edit: {thanks to Hoof Hearted for the pic}

Do original 8-hole black Doc Marten's count? ;)

ooooooh. did you say original?:PP

Well, original style I meant. I bought them used in 1995, and I've replaced the laces more times than I can count, but they have never let me down.

1995.....let's see, in 1995, my docs were about three years old and had holes in them :P I was so disappointed when they bust up. I thought docs were indestructible....they aren't.

Emotions, absolutely, can be removed from discussions.

I'd say not so -- look how he gets when he interacts with me! He copes poorly, and comforts himself with delusions. Hardly Vulcan.

Aw man, that was a letdown, just another attack on tw. I was expecting a long post about how it should have been obvious that the US would elect a liberal because only UG and his privelledged intellectually elite equals are in a minority, and only the exceptionally intellegent are conservatives - and vice versa, only the conservatives are exceptionally intellegent.

I don't reckon anyone here is vulcan like. Aren't they famous for not having emotions?

I do like to imagine tw with pointy ears, though.

Has anyone considered the idea that if the left didn't antagonize the wealthy by making it plain that they consider them scum and want to grab as much from them as possible, that they might take a much more liberal attitude toward philanthropy?

WTF kind of stupid statement is that??!

Think about it, the wealthy arn't stupid (the vast majority aren't, admit it), so they do understand the benefits that come from charity. But when you're asked to give to a group that's hissing at you and yelling about how you're nothing but a amoralistic thief who's only good deed would be handing over the cash and shutting up, you tend to shut the door and lock it. I'm saying that the antipathy the liberal party generates toward the wealthy is extremely counter productive, that's all.

You're assuming that all wealthy people are right leaning.

I'm running with the idea based on the majority, which I'm pretty sure are right leaning. My point wouldn't really apply to wealthy liberals anyway. I wish there was a distincion made between multimillionare wealthy and highly paid professional wealthy though, the later tends to get lumped in with the former.

I think you might be surprised if you looked into the statistics.

Do you routinely speculate without first consulting the facts? Did you bother to notice who is doing so much of the complaining about our tax structure?

Warren Buffet long ago was quite blunt about how stupid the American tax structure has become. As he noted, his receptions pays higher percentages of taxes than he does. The rich typically pay less taxes (by percentage) than most other taxpayers. And even the rich are complaining about how stupid our tax structure has become.

But try to explain that to politicians. Do you do your own taxes? They don't. Tax structure has become so complex, so distorted, and so nonsensical that all Congressmen have their taxes done for them by the government. Taxes are now too complex even for lawmakers to do.

Ask yourself why even the rich complain about our totally perverted, unfair, and unnecessarily complex tax laws - before just speculating that you know what they must think. Intelligent people are neither left nor right leaning. Those with such political agendas tend to be the politically dumb. Intelligent people are fact leaning - don't have political agendas.

Fact that you would assoicatae yourself with right leaning explains why you have speculated rather than first learn what rich people are saying.

I was reading a company report about the compensation paid to the corporate bigwigs. The CEO gets $150,000, every year, to pay the people that do his personal tax returns. Presumably these people are trying to reduce his obligation to the taxman as much as legally possible and that's very complicated. :smack:

Hmm, now who is now making assumptions? Looks like you are stating that all who you consider right leaning speculate.

He also assumes I'm wealthy, which is bizzar because I've made no secret of the fact that I'm a student instead of some 40-something head of an engineering firm (or something of that sort).

EDIT...tw should never comment on anyones grammer after this little number

The exceptions to that tend to be the ones that make the headlines, viz., George Soros. Count the ways on him: a Jewish antizionist, a communist billionaire. The man amounts to a suicidal neurotic, and the harder you look at him the crazier his motivations and actions seem. All you can conclude is plenty of dollars, not enough sense. He seems driven by an access of an excess of guilt. Surely it's not all because he's Hungarian.

Shoulda made his own money? I dunno. I thought he made most of his own fortune at least.

The wealthy, particularly the self-made, like to keep the economic game to rules they understand and have succeeded at. Nothing astonishing there. Life's winners tend to vote conservative -- it's what happens with success in business. And success in business isn't of itself limited to a certain population.

The American Jewish vote used to run as heavily Republican as it runs Democratic now. However they started out, American Jews, on getting rich in business, went Republican, the party of business, in a big way. The changeover was during FDR's Administration, when activist, then welfarist, government became, for some time, fashionable.

And yet another for the bulging "attacks on tw" file: two T's in Warren Buffett, dumb ass. Your grasp of written English is still a match for your grasp of issues. You cannot persuade unless you master a better grade of English -- or of copyediting. Bad writing is the spawn of bad thinking. Note that I invariably write well.

UG...get back to us with some figures before you try to refute a statement that doesn't even suggest that I am trying to argue the opposite.

I don't know if left or right have more money, but I suspect it's not quite as cut and dried as some would have us believe.

Remember, many people in the entertainment industry are left leaning, and they're definitely politically active also, not to mention filthy rich. (that's just something to think on. I have no figures to support what their political preferences are.)

It's actually a fact that more poor people vote conservative than liberal though, so that's something to think about too.

Wow. You found a typographical error. That justified your contempt of the American soldier; your claims that more die on highways so soldiers are expendable. Well you must celebrate every little victory you can find because of that contempt you just posted for the American soldier. You owe every American solder a major and very repentant apology.

Of course your insulting the entire site does not fall under this... riiiiiiiight?

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...bombs/kirk.jpg

I'll let one stand for many thousand, tw. This seems addressed to me.

But now you seem quite confused as to whom you make reply:

I'm certainly nonplused.

The kindest thing to say is that this is incredibly slipshod copyediting.