Repubs win 2 house seats, Dems lose Weiner

[zsdersw]

This thread is so full of liberal spin I'm about to puke. If you said the reason that the R's won was because the sky is blue, you would still have a liberal trying to tell you the sky isn't blue. Its gonna be a fun fun ride to 2012.

Everyone here is spinning.

This is what P&N looks like:

 

[spidey07]

Ouch. Come 2012 dems will be even more distanced from Obama than they were in 2010. He's toxic. And the reason for the high turnout? I already explained this, the taxpaying working American realizes now "I have to work" is no excuse to not vote.

 

[AMFMQAM]

Pity me, for I am a 9/11 truther who is off his meds.

 

[monovillage]

I think that it more resembles Scott Brown winning his Senate seat and a precursor to Democrat Senate losses in 2012 then anything else.

 

[werepossum]

The grass is always greener...

Looking to any one political party for economic salvation or, alternatively, to demonstrate your disgust with the other party is delusional.

If you can't tell that the grass on both sides is brown and dead, you're an idiot.

LOL This. I have no idea whether or not this portends anything for 2012. However the two parties are much more alike than not on most issues that matter. They have to be in a two-party system where each party needs the center. For most people it's choosing the lesser evil, without a great deal of confidence that the lesser evil is really that much different.

If either party had any real solutions to our big problems, the other party would be adopting them.

 

[senseamp]

Seat going to be lost to redistricting anyways.

 

[xBiffx]

Seat going to be lost to redistricting anyways.

Whatever makes liberals sleep better at night, right?

 

[nageov3t]

Seat going to be lost to redistricting anyways.

yup, which is why the DNC made a $500,000 last-minute tv ad buy and dispatched Clinton to campaign in the race.

even if the seat wasn't going to be lost to redistricting, a single House vote doesn't really matter all that much. what's the difference between 242 and 243? it's more a question of whether or not the race portends anything for Democrats state-wide, if not nationally as well.

 

[GuitarDaddy]

So the republicans stole our Weiner? Republicans just can't get enough Weiner

 

[Deudalus]

Weiner's position is set to disappear in a few months permanently. Only a Republican is moran enough to take a position with no future whatsoever.

What position would that be? Missionary? Actually he was chasing a porn star so we're probably talking reverse cowgirl here.

Only a MORON is dumb enough to call people MORONS and not know how to spell MORON.

 

[CPA]

Brainwashing is a powerful thing.

When applied correctly one would kill their own mother or child.

When all else fails, throw out the brainwashing argument.

Dave, could you care to explain how an 80-year old Democrat stronghold was all of a sudden "brainwashed"? Of course you can't because you are a moron.

 

[xBiffx]

So the republicans stole our Weiner? Republicans just can't get enough Weiner

ROFL. But the dims still have Wasserman-Schultz's weiner. All is not lost.

 

[CrackRabbit]

What position would that be? Missionary? Actually he was chasing a porn star so we're probably talking reverse cowgirl here.

Only a MORON is dumb enough to call people MORONS and not know how to spell MORON.

 

[xBiffx]

Facepalm..not a Cardinal's jersey...nooooooo. St. Louis is better than that.

 

[senseamp]

yup, which is why the DNC made a $500,000 last-minute tv ad buy and dispatched Clinton to campaign in the race.

even if the seat wasn't going to be lost to redistricting, a single House vote doesn't really matter all that much. what's the difference between 242 and 243? it's more a question of whether or not the race portends anything for Democrats state-wide, if not nationally as well.

I'll spoil the surprise for you. Dems are going to lose in 2012. GOP policies will fail to revive the economy or make it worse, GOP will lose Congress in 2014, and by 2016 it will be clean sweep for Dems again.

 

[spidey07]

Remember in 2010 when Democrats wanted Obama to stay away from their campaigns? Just think of how bad it's going to be for them in 2012.

That a democrat couldn't win that district is very telling. Especially given the spending difference and high profile push. It's not like it was very close either.

 

[nageov3t]

I'll spoil the surprise for you. Dems are going to lose in 2012. GOP policies will fail to revive the economy or make it worse, GOP will lose Congress in 2014, and by 2016 it will be clean sweep for Dems again.

or the Dems could lose in 2012, after which the economy turns around (due to natural economic cycles and having nothing to do with GOP policies at all) and GOP policies get credited and we're stuck with doubling down on Reaganomics for a generation.

 

[woolfe9999]

or the Dems could lose in 2012, after which the economy turns around (due to natural economic cycles and having nothing to do with GOP policies at all) and GOP policies get credited and we're stuck with doubling down on Reaganomics for a generation.

Sadly, this is exactly what I fear will happen. The jobs will start coming back in 2013 and it's 8 years of Rick Perry. I think this is actually the most probable outcome.

 

[senseamp]

or the Dems could lose in 2012, after which the economy turns around (due to natural economic cycles and having nothing to do with GOP policies at all) and GOP policies get credited and we're stuck with doubling down on Reaganomics for a generation.

Reaganomics only works if you can run never ending deficits in perpetuity. That dog won't hunt anymore.

 

[IBMer]

or the Dems could lose in 2012, after which the economy turns around (due to natural economic cycles and having nothing to do with GOP policies at all) and GOP policies get credited and we're stuck with doubling down on Reaganomics for a generation.

Actually it makes a lot of sense for business to hold money right now and then start hiring and turing around the economy after republicans take over. It cements that lower taxes on the rich, no estate tax and no capital gains taxes will create jobs and increase prosperity even though it had little to do with it.

 

[trenchfoot]

All is not lost...............just 99.99999999% of it.

 

[RedChief]

Obamanomics only works if you can run never ending deficits in perpetuity.

Corrected that for you.

Actually, Obamanomics doesn't work at all.

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually it makes a lot of sense for business to hold money right now and then start hiring and turing around the economy after republicans take over. It cements that lower taxes on the rich, no estate tax and no capital gains taxes will create jobs and increase prosperity even though it had little to do with it.

In theory, yes, but I actually doubt many businesses are making hiring decisions based on whether a D or an R is in the White House, and certainly not on a longview political strategy. It isn't the way businesses think. Certainly conservatives would have us believe that every time a D is in the White House, businesses worry about increased regulations and stop hiring. They said this about Clinton as well. If it were true, you'd expect macro-economic data to show a better economy with the R in the White House as opposed to the D, over time, but that isn't the case. Clearly, businesses are making their decisions based on whatever is profitable in the moment, an equilibrium between demand and supply. Whoever is in the White House or Congress is at best a secondary consideration.

To be sure, some business people will CLAIM that they aren't hiring because they worry about regulations since this providers conservatives with an anti-regulatory talking point, and obviously the businesses would rather not be regulated. But that isn't the same thing.

 

[dank69]

Sadly, this is exactly what I fear will happen. The jobs will start coming back in 2013 and it's 8 years of Rick Perry. I think this is actually the most probable outcome.

I just don't see how jobs will start coming back, ever, barring some sort of human advancement.

 

[IBMer]

In theory, yes, but I actually doubt many businesses are making hiring decisions based on whether a D or an R is in the White House, and certainly not on a longview political strategy. It isn't the way businesses think. Certainly conservatives would have us believe that every time a D is in the White House, businesses worry about increased regulations and stop hiring. They said this about Clinton as well. If it were true, you'd expect macro-economic data to show a better economy with the R in the White House as opposed to the D, over time, but that isn't the case. Clearly, businesses are making their decisions based on whatever is profitable in the moment, an equilibrium between demand and supply. Whoever is in the White House or Congress is at best a secondary consideration.

To be sure, some business people will CLAIM that they aren't hiring because they worry about regulations since this providers conservatives with an anti-regulatory talking point, and obviously the businesses would rather not be regulated. But that isn't the same thing.

Exactly the real reason is lack of demand and over supply of labor.