General News US - Republicans now control both Houses of Congress

I think there's a saying that goes, "right wing, left wing: same bird." Another one: "No matter who you vote for, the Government always wins" - although really, that ought to read 'the corporations always win'.

 

I'm pretty sure, the affordable healthcare, is about to be targeted. I think, that is what I'm most concerned about.

 

If you look at the numbers, it's hard to see why he's so unpopular. David Letterman said it best:

Unemployment's below 6%, the stock market's at record highs, it's no wonder Obama's so unpopular!

 

they need 2/3rds in each house to pass a repeal of the ACA, which will never happen.

 

I want to say, true, and leave it at that. But I have a feeling, some deity is looking at this, and thinking, "Ha! So, they don't think it'll happen!"

And it does.

LOL.

Even if it doesn't get repealed, they can still focus on it, neglecting other aspects. Either way, it is a potential problem.

 

they literally need 2/3rds for a repeal with veto protection, there's no way they'll flip enough dems in the senate to make that happen. I'm not terribly concerned about the ACA getting messed with over the next few years.

 

I applaud your confidence. However, let me remind you of something...

Kentucky, again, elected a turtle to lead them. LOL!

 

Ugh.

1. The United States Senate cannot be gerrymandered, since it is a statewide election. When it comes to Federal Elections only seats in the house can be gerrymandered.

2. The United States is a two party system, and thus having center-right politicians from center-right states in the Democratic Party is useful--if that is as liberal as the states can be. Center right is still better than far right.

3. This is bad primarily due to the appointments to the courts. Not a lot was getting through the Senate, and this still will not change since Republicans do not hold a filibuster proof majority in the Senate. However, it does mean that Washington is potentially about to become more gridlocked than it was before...

4. I say potentially, because if Obama is smart he will now have a Republican Congress to play off against. In the past, Republicans could always blame the Democratic Senate for things not getting done. Now, it rests on the shoulders of Republicans. They have both the House and Senate, and if things do not get through--Obama has someone he can clearly point to and blame. And of course Democrats can filibuster the things they do not WANT getting through--this kills most of the extremist crap.

5. I have already heard some pundits throwing LGBT people under the bus. 'Conservatives were angry because they saw gay marriage taking place all over the country! They came out in large numbers!' Ugh. No, idiots. It has nothing to do with marriage equality. I seriously doubt that was on anyone's mind who would not have already come out to vote for a Republican. Anyone who cares enough to be motivated to come out and vote in a mid-term simply due to marriage equality is ALREADY a die-hard Republican, AND was already motivated enough to come out and vote. (This is a way for moderate and weak-kneed liberals to signal to one another, 'Run away from the gays! They are toxic to us!')

6. I cannot speak for other places, but I can speak for what took place in Virginia where Mark Warner is holding onto a slim lead. What hurt Warner? Was it Obama? No. It was extremely low turnout. It was not Republicans turning out in large droves to vote against Obama or Warner, it was Democrats sitting on their asses at home. When we have low turn out like this, it is a case of not energizing your base enough to get them to turn out. I know lots of Democrats who did not go out to vote, unfortunately, because they believed that Warner was going to win the race easily.

7. It is always dumb to run away from the President if he is in your party. Low information voters may be ignorant, but they are not stupid (usually). Your best bet is always to embrace the President, even when he is unpopular, if for no other reason than to appeal to your base. Whether you like it or not, you are going to be connected to the President left and right. By telling people that you like and support the President, it allows you to pivot on to other topics--it steals away the controversy.

 

I give it a week before they try to impeach Obama for something.

 

Anybody want to take bets in when the crazies try impeachment? This is honestly the biggest loss for Democrats since the 1980s. Good luck trying to get ENDA passed, or any actual promising legislation.

 

Well, Charlie Baker was just elected the first pro marriage GOP governor in America. And see the other Pro Marriage and Equality favorable Republican wins (they are not all right wing zealots):

Rep. Mike Coffman (R-CO)
Carlos Curbelo (R-FL)
Rep. David Jolly (R-FL)
Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL)
Bob Dold (R-IL)
Bruce Rauner (R-IL)
Charlie Baker (R-MA)
Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME)
Frank LoBiondo (R-NJ)
Rep. Richard Hanna (R-NY)
Rep. Chris Gibson (R-NY)
John Katko (R-NY)
Elise Stefanik (R-NY)
Rep. Charlie Dent (R-PA)

 

It would appear that, in American politics, NOT having a platform and NOT having ideas is the way to win. Why put out ideas and plans that can get shot down at the first opportunity? Better to win by just attacking your opponent, much more efficient...

 

Bruce Rauner is not pro-marriage equality at all. I remember seeing once that he said he'd reverse SB-10 (the bill that allowed Illinois gay marriage) should he become governor.

Edit: I guess what I saw was Rauner saying he would have vetoed SB-10. Still dooesn'tt make him any more pro-gay. Pat Brady, an Illinois Republican, is, on the other hand.

 

*squints* Nah, it all looks the same from here.

 

Even though I hoped for victory I knew thr senate would be hard to hold on too especially in the south. I blame obama and his far left policies for this result. All I can say is look to 2016!

 

See attached article regarding Rauner from August:

Two LGBT leaders defend Bruce Rauner - Chicago Sun-Times

EC Moderator - I assume I can cut and past an article link. If not, please delete.

---------- Post added 5th Nov 2014 at 02:49 PM ----------

Don't forget to mention the need for media friendly and voter digestible sound bites to promote the lack of plans and ideas!

 

Politicians need to be moderate more often or it just leads to more losses in a party. A far right or far left America would never work well.

 

And with that link comes more sources that say otherwise or question the article you gave. Sources that have very little to do with Pat Quinn.

Rauner says he has no social agenda, but LGBT community sure does | Early & Often

Bruce Rauner – Bad for Marriage Equality « Equality Illinois

Bruce Rauner On Gay Marriage: Illinois GOP Gubernatorial Candidate Won't Take A Stand On Same-Sex Marriage

I do not say what I say because of anything Pat Quinn has said about Rauner. I don't follow fearmongering. I say what I say because of what Rauner himself has done and said. It's basically going to ask the question "what if Romney were the governor of Illinois?" Maybe Rauner will keep to his word (unlike another governor that's currently in Colorado). Maybe he won't. We'll really have to see about that. It just seems like Illinois went "Okay, well we had 2 choices. Didn't like one, so let's try this one and see if they're better". I honestly liked Quinn. Was he perfect? Not by any stretch of the imagination. But he did his job well, and that's what matters. I don't really care how he got it.

Rauner may not be a strong conservative like many people in Illinois, but he's said time and again that he's not pro-LGBT.

 

There goes America's "freedom-loving" stealth authoritarianism again...