[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;386933]I predict that the first thing Congress will do is to try to repeal Obamacare.
This will be vetoed.

They will then continue to push the Republican agenda: tax breaks for corporations and
the wealthy, cutting social program spending while maintaining military spending,
pushing bigotry and hatred toward immigrants (legal or not) and minorities, and trying to
force their religious agenda on everyone.[/QUOTE]

Do you still believe Obamacare is anything but a massive giveaway to the for-pay medical-industrial complex? Sure, it undoubtedly helps some folks with preexisting conditions, but the vast majority of working Americans seem to be facing crapification of their health insurance: Huge-deductible policies which cost more than lower-deductible ones did before. In short, overpriced catastrophic-event policies. Do you think that may have had just a little bit to do with the electoral revulsion expressed yesterday?

And, all but the cuts social programs and religious nuttery are firmly part of Team Blue's ongoing agenda, too. Anyone who still allows himself to be conned by the fake read v blue partisan Kabuki is deluding himself.

And let's face it -- the bipartisan support for rampaging wealth inequality these past 30 years (via deregulation, tax breaks for offshoring, financialization of the economy) make massive and ever-increasing social program spending necessary, to stave off mass revolt.

I could go on about bipartisan support for shredding of the Bill of rights, bipartisan support for perma-warmongering - how many countries has Obama bombed while in office? - etc, but I think most people in possession of a sub-cheesehead level of blinkered knee-jerk partisan faith don't need any convincing of the bipartisan nature of those various "government initiatives".

It looks like the Democrats lost four incumbent senators (Pryor of Arkansas, Udall of Colorado, Hagan of North Carolina, and most likely Begich of Alaska) and Landrieu of Louisiana looks like she will be in a difficult run-off election. That is huge considering that incumbents usually don't have that much trouble getting re-elected.

On the other hand, the Republicans did not make Obamacare much of an issue during this election, probably because polling indicated that this stance would not be popular, considering the number of people who now have healthcare insurance but didn't previously. I think that it might just improve the Dems' chances in 2016 if Congress continues sending repeal bills to Obama for him to veto.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;386920]
The reason is clear. They may want change, but they generally hate the [I]other[/I] party so much
that they are willing to return the incumbent rather than vote for the other party.[/QUOTE]

I could not agree more with your statement. "Most" people in my state would vote for a rotting opossum corpse so long as it had an (R) behind its name. It is the ONLY thing that matters in the elections here.

[QUOTE=ewmayer;386953]...

- etc, but I think most people in possession of a sub-cheesehead level of blinkered knee-jerk partisan faith

...[/QUOTE]Was this reference really necessary ? You are a moderator of the forum and should use some restraint. Disagree with somebody and express it, but don't attack other forum users while they are not even participating in the discussion.

Thanks,

Jacob

[QUOTE=S485122;387006]Was this reference really necessary ? You are a moderator of the forum and should use some restraint. Disagree with somebody and express it, but don't attack other forum users while they are not even participating in the discussion.

Thanks,

Jacob[/QUOTE]
Agreed.

[QUOTE=S485122;387006]Was this reference really necessary ? You are a moderator of the forum and should use some restraint. Disagree with somebody and express it, but don't attack other forum users while they are not even participating in the discussion.

Thanks,

Jacob[/QUOTE]

I've known for years that (at least some of) the moderators are hypocrites.

[QUOTE=R.D. Silverman;387019]I've known for years that (at least some of) the moderators are hypocrites.[/QUOTE]

Coming from arguably the most flame-prone, serially-abusive, intemperate M-forum user of all time, that seems a tad ... what's the word I'm looking for?

I invoked cheesehead because his extreme myopic brand of political partisanship is well-known to all longtime regulars in the Soap Box.

================

Getting back to the election results, I find it very interesting that while the faux-progressive Democratic party got smacked down hard, lots of progressive ballot proposals (e.g. minimum wage iniatives in AR,AK,NB,SD - all 'red' states! - marijuana legalization, fracking bans, including [url=http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/05/us-energy-texas-fracking-idUSKBN0IP1K120141105]one in the Texas birthplace of the technology[/url]) passed, which tells me the broad theme was less one of giving the GOP a mandate than of punishing the Dems. The famous aphorism about governing parties needing to be changed regularly like diapers, and for the same reason, comes to mind.

So the silver lining for GOP-loathers is this: If they mis-read this as a mandate for their right-wing's pet causes they will similarly get smacked down in 2016. And I for one hope the voter-administered beatings will continue until the lying and fringe-issue bullshit stops.

Your opinions about, and descriptions of, a couple of other forum members, Ernst, are certainly well known to long time regulars and even to less longtime people like me, but they are simply your own opinions which others won't share. I certainly don't. Perhaps we can view them in that context, then those you describe can hopefully live with your opinions about them, you can live with that, and this thread does indeed return to the election results as you rightly direct.:smile:
===
This phenomenon of alternative smacking down of alternately one political side, then the other, is often observed here in Europe too. It's a bit like a game of Nim I suppose: each side will ideally want to be in favour at the moment when the most important elections are due and will need to plan their popularity ahead on that basis.

[QUOTE=Brian-E;387089]
This phenomenon of alternative smacking down of alternately one political side, then the other, is often observed here in Europe too. It's a bit like a game of Nim I suppose: each side will ideally want to be in favour at the moment when the most important elections are due and will need to plan their popularity ahead on that basis.[/QUOTE]

Is it as polarized as it is in the USA?

I think a great solution is to have the two parties play full-contact football or hockey. Oh, and with no pads or helmets. I think inherently the two parties want what is best for America but they (often) have different ideas on how to achieve that goal. Perhaps a few concussions and splinted limbs would make them more agreeable to being compromising.

Edit: I also like the idea of putting them in a giant Hunger Games type arena filled wild and hungry predators. Cooperate or become bear food. Yep, it is time to wake up now... cooperation will never happen in an environment where putting your foot in the "demilitarized zone" between the left and right will get you crucified/stoned by your own party.

.

[FONT=Arial][SIZE=3][SIZE=6]↑[/SIZE] SIGH[/SIZE][/FONT][FONT=Arial].....[/FONT]