So where's the "We The People" spew now?

[spidey07]

Republicans have let a lot of things slide -- including their alleged dedication to fiscal conservatism.

I think they got the message from 04, 06, 08. I really don't think they're going to forget. This election more than showed that if you stick to conservative constitutional platform, you will win.

Now follow through on it and stick to what got you there.

 

[nageov3t]

"I have no desire to crow over anybody or to see anybody eating crow, figuratively or otherwise. We should all get together and make a country in which everybody can eat turkey whenever he pleases."

 

[theeedude]

I think they got the message from 04, 06, 08. I really don't think they're going to forget. This election more than showed that if you stick to conservative constitutional platform, you will win.

Now follow through on it and stick to what got you there.

Yeah, it's different this time.

 

[thraashman]

The only "We the People" in this situation is the American people that are screwed in this situation. All we'll see now is more stagnation, more obstruction, and more debt. Anyone who says they're for less government but votes Republican is lying to themselves. Republicans under Bush pushed some of the largest expansions of government in US history. The only small roll that Republicans want government to have is less regulation of big business. And look what that got us, a massive economic collapse that required a government bailout to not be a total collapse. A BP so reckless that it caused the largest oil spill in US history. Oh, but that same small government also has done a lot to prevent gays from being treated equally and to prevent women from having a say in what happens to their own body. And of course we got the Bush Tax cuts that have added more to the deficit than Healthcare, TARP, and the Stimulus combined.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I think they got the message from 04, 06, 08. I really don't think they're going to forget. This election more than showed that if you stick to conservative constitutional platform, you will win.

Now follow through on it and stick to what got you there.

I'll believe it when I see defense spending cut an appreciable amount.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Well, Republicans were perfectly fine letting status quo slide since 1994. Now they aren't, so we made progress.

I have some grapes for you Mr. Fox.

 

[her209]

I'll believe it when I see defense spending cut an appreciable amount.

Should start by laying off a large portion of those 600,000+ employees at the DoD.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Should start by laying off a large portion of those 600,000+ employees at the DoD.

Should start by laying off DC.

 

[BoberFett]

Here you go OP

 

[nick1985]

Did I miss something or didn't the cnn homepage say something this morning about greatest shift since 48 with some races still to be tallied.

You didn't miss anything. Democrats took a beating of epic proportions last night. OP is huffing paint and cannot grasp that.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

This is rich.... lol

The only "We the People" in this situation is the American people that are screwed in this situation. All we'll see now is more stagnation, more obstruction, and more debt.

Right now I'll take stagnation and gridlock rather than the absolutely INSANE levels of spending I've been forced to watch for the last two years... I thought it was bad when the Rs had the reigns... Jesus, Dems... WTF?

Anyone who says they're for less government but votes Republican is lying to themselves.

We should vote Dem for smaller government? LOL... What?

Republicans under Bush pushed some of the largest expansions of government in US history. The only small roll that Republicans want government to have is less regulation of big business. And look what that got us, a massive economic collapse that required a government bailout to not be a total collapse.

And they were rightfully tossed.

A BP so reckless that it caused the largest oil spill in US history.

You're blaming the oil spil on Republicans? :awe: Put the blame where it belongs... BP.

And of course we got the Bush Tax cuts that have added more to the deficit than Healthcare, TARP, and the Stimulus combined.

Tax cuts don't add to debt. SPENDING addds to debt. If you insist on spending more than you take in, you acquire debt.

But it's all sour grapes anyway... you poor poor lefties probably don't even understand why this happened. Hint: "The American people are stupid" is not the correct answer.

The Dems weren't bounced because times are tough... This is not another "it's the economy, stupid" moment. This was much bigger. This was "Hey, Stupid! It's MY money. Knock it off!"

 

[MrMatt]

this is just the same stuff Olbermann was serving up last night. The numbers are substantial and are close to what many predicted

I love watching that infected pus-bag douche-nozzle cry his smarmy tears. My only hope is that he commits sepuku with a frisbee on-air tonight

 

[CountZero]

No, they don't. Their best course of action is making sure no more horrible legislation (ie, Obamacare) gets enacted, and making sure Obummer is a one term president. That's essentially their sole mission now.

Right, this is EXACTLY what is wrong with political discourse in this country. Their mission isn't improving this country, fixing issues or any of that. No concrete plans of any kind. No the primary mission is to make sure their team wins the next election. Our system is a joke, it is no more than a game any more, what team will win?

And thanks to the 2000 election coloring scheme sticking they even have team colors. It is pathetic. Both sides are full of people that have decided they are team X and nothing matters as much as team X winning.

The closest we've come to even talking issues was the Tea Party in its earliest form but that was largely bought and packaged by the R's before it got anywhere.

Personally I dislike the R's more than the D's but they both suck. I do think D white house and R congress is the best configuration we can hope for. R's make terrible presidents and D's make awful congresses. In any case the pendulum swings as it always does, a bit faster this time due to the recession but not surprising. I actually expected the Rs to do better.

 

[Patranus]

Um...

The entire house was up for re elected while only 1/3 of the senate was up for re election.

Using simple logic and reasoning, one can clearly see why the GOP picked up less seats as a percentage of the entire senate. The GOP won 23 of 33 seats or 70% of the seats up for grabs.

 

[PJABBER]

The only way to look at this election is that the Dems got spanked hard.

The House seats are the most obvious as they are up for grabs every two years and the shift empowers the Repubs to act as spoilers to the agenda of the White House. We will see what initiatives result in the beginning of next year.

The Senate has one third of its seats available every two years. 37 seats were available this time around. The results are not fully in yet, but I am particularly pleased to see that not only did the Republicans dominate in electing some great candidates, but that a guy like Manchin (D-WV) may represent a new, pragmatic voice for the Democrats.

The most critical races to have watched last evening, once at least a stalemate was insured in the Congress, were those at the State level. The Republicans absolutely dominated and this will hopefully lead to great effect at the local level, and likely insure that the Republican/Tea Party/Libertarian coalition will pick up greater gains in 2012.

From the Michael Barone article in the Washington Examiner this morning -

As I write, the House results indicate that Republicans have gained a net 61 seats (64 gains minus 3 losses) and are leading in 6 races currently undecided and trailing closely in 6 other races currently undecided. So the Republican net gain will be something like 67 seats—more than any party has won in any single election since 1948 (my Examiner column actually looks at the big seat gains for the Republicans in 1946 and the Democrats in 1948).

The upshot is that Speaker-to-be John Boehner will have a workable House majority, larger than the Republicans had during the 12 years they controlled the House from 1994 to 2006, larger than Republicans have enjoyed since the 80th Congress elected in 1946 which enacted laws which resulted in enduring public policies in 1947 and 1948. The sweet spot in the House, I would argue, is around 250 seats, enough so that you can let a fair number of your member dissent on a particular vote but not so many that dozens of members feel free to ignore party discipline because the party’s majority is so large.

A 67-seat Republican gain would mean a House with 246 Republicans and 189 Democrats—a smaller number of Democrats than in any House since the one elected in 1946. The popular vote for the House is not yet available. California takes five weeks to count all its votes, a vivid contrast with Brazil, which voted on Sunday, where all the votes were counted within five hours (what is wrong with this picture?). But the popular vote appears to be a near-reversal from the Democrats’ popular vote 2008 majority in the popular vote for the House which was 54%-43%; the Republicans’ majority is likely to be greater than in 1994 and the largest since 1946 (54%-44%) and perhaps since 1928 (57%-42%). We are, as I wrote in the first sentence of my Examiner column, in uncharted territory.​

He wrote another article yesterday that adds some interesting historical perspective, well worth glancing at.

The bottom line is that the playing field is now fundamentally different and that the players on all sides need to adjust or they will be thrown off the playing field.

The speeches made by the Dem leadership after the election thus far, including the speech Obama is making as I write this, seem to show that they have absolutely not gotten the message. They may never, which is why we now must look forward to 2012.

​

 

[thegimp03]

Olbermann was trying to spin this as not that big as well? Shock. I flipped to MSNBC a few times last night for lulz and all I saw was Christ Matthews foaming at the mouth and raging. I didnt catch any gems from that piece of shit keith olbermann

I almost just fell out of my seat laughing reading this.

 

[JD50]

The gains made by the Republicans in the House were huge. In the Senate, not so much. But with a majority in the House, the Republicans now have skin in the game and will have to put up or shut up.

I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly. For the past 2 years, the Democrats have controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, but every time they fail to pass something we hear excuses from the left about them not having a super majority. Now, the Republicans are in control of just the house and it's time for them to put up or shut up?

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[First]

I think they got the message from 04, 06, 08. I really don't think they're going to forget. This election more than showed that if you stick to conservative constitutional platform, you will win.

Now follow through on it and stick to what got you there.

lol, what's sad is that you believe they will. Repubs will pass multiple progressive bills that Obama will sign off on because if they don't they'll be held accountable in 2012 in the form of lost House and Senate seats. The presidency going to anyone but Obama looks unlikely until an actual Republican suitor who isn't radically right comes along, and that person doesn't exist save for Mitt Romney, who's all but a liberal anyway. Repubs will paint it as something other than progressive/liberal, but bottomline is they'll be passed eventually like they always have. Spending will come down though, but that was going to happen anyway based on Obama's own projections.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

You think regaining control of one part of the government counts as a resounding victory?

 

[her209]

I just want to make sure that I understand this correctly. For the past 2 years, the Democrats have controlled the House, Senate, and Presidency, but every time they fail to pass something we hear excuses from the left about them not having a super majority. Now, the Republicans are in control of just the house and it's time for them to put up or shut up?

You can't make this stuff up.

The biggest complaint by the Republicans was that they were cut out of any legislation being written. Now they have a majority in the House. Time to put up or shut up.

 

[JD50]

The biggest complaint by the Republicans was that they were cut out of any legislation being written. Now they have a majority in the House. Time to put up or shut up.

What are they going to put up? If you don't hold the Democrats accountable when they owned the House, Senate, and Presidency, how can you hold the Republicans accountable when all they have is the House?

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

You think regaining control of one part of the government counts as a resounding victory?

Republicans piled up their biggest House gains since they added 80 seats in 1938....yeah, not a resounding victory....got it.

 

[JD50]

You think regaining control of one part of the government counts as a resounding victory?

/facepalm

 

[IBMer]

Um...

The entire house was up for re elected while only 1/3 of the senate was up for re election.

Using simple logic and reasoning, one can clearly see why the GOP picked up less seats as a percentage of the entire senate. The GOP won 23 of 33 seats or 70% of the seats up for grabs.

No most of it has to do with the fact that most people don't know any position of someone running for the house other than if they are an R or D, so the house is often the place that independants shift sides back and forth.

In the senate the races are much more televised and positions more widely known so just being an R or D doesn't always get you the win.

 

[Fern]

As I watched the election results last night it ocurred to me someone might like act like a partisan fool and try to down play the Repub gains. Congrats to the OP, he wins that award.

BTW: The TEA Party people won quite a few seats, even Alan West, the guy who claimed to have a higher security clearance than Obama.

IMO, state-level results are being overlooked. Perhaps soon someone will analyize that and write a decent article. It already appears the GOP won big in the gubernatiorial races, but I'm wondering about state-level legislative battles. Here in NC (which Obama won in '08), the Repubs took control of both the state House and Senate for the first time in over a century.

State level control will likely be very important in the 2012 elections.

Will be interesting to see how this plays out. New legislation originates in the House. Boehner has a large majority (50-60 seats or so depending upon the races not yet decided). How will he 'play it'? He can easily get bills passed that are popular with Repubs and independants then send them over to the Senate. If the Reid and Senate fails to pass them will they be labled as the "party of NO"?

Reid is not popular, should the Dems replace him as Senate Majority leader? To a large extent he'll be the face of the Dem party, I'm not sure that's in their best interests.

Fern