2010 Election Results

Remove all ads!

At the risk of sounding moronic, I will opine that the whole Jefferson and Hamilton debate took place at a time when there was no resource analogous to oil that was truly the lifeblood of industry and commerce. In addition, the population of the country, let alone the planet, was not as huge as it is now. A country with no oil source today is dead in the water and ready to be brutalized by its neighbours.

Maybe oil isn't that important to us as I'm making out, I don't know. What I do know is that America desperately wants to keep its fingers into every oil producing nation on the planet. At least it seems that way. I'm not sure why. I'm a romantic believer in American ingenuity, and I believe that a lot of these foreign wars could be avoided if the country made a unified commitment to finding, using, and improving other power sources (Wind, geothermal, solar, tidal, nuclear, and yes, even hemp!)

Am I a pie in the sky dreamer here?

 

There is much more to it than that, LKD:

But as I commented, Hamilton has gotten the edge, at least, in the opinion of some American historians who look closely at this kind of thing.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/terry-newell/jefferson-vs-hamilton-aga_b_713857.html

 

I'll agree with that. Flipping the Senate would have been extremely difficult this particular elections, as the Rs would have need a net 10 seats (or at least 9 and then hope to flip Lieberman).

First of all, how many truly "progressive" Senators are there? Maybe 15? Possibly 20 if you loosely define the term? It's the purple states that determine the majority in Congress, and Senators from those states are necessarily NOT very progressive if they want to get elected. So it's fine to say that the senators from "true blue" states got re-elected, until you also point out that there are at least as many senators from traditionally red states that also get in every election. The Dems' losses came primarily from the swing states that were critical to them obtaining their majority in 2006 and expanding it in 2008. Just look at where the big gains for the Reps were in both chambers of Congress - Virginia, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida - states that went Dem the prior two elections and went Rep this time along.

I'm also not nearly as down on Blue Dogs as you are. I, for one, would much prefer to see a Blue Dog in the Senate than a Republican who is going to vote straight for the party line. To use the first example that springs to mind, look at PA. Would you rather have a Blue Dog like Arlen Spectre - who is about as moderate as you can get (heck he was a Rep for a long time) - or an arch-conservative like Pat Toomey? Which one do you think you'll have an easier time with when seeking a compromise? [Full Disclosure: Spectre lost the primary to Joe Sestak - who wouldn't be considered a Blue Dog - but that only reinforces my point. Even more traditional Democrats lost this election.]

I do, and I have. As it pertains to the Senate, please reference the aforementioned Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida. Or Illinois. Or North Dakota. Or Indiana. Or Wisconsin. Or Arkansas. Of all those states, the only true "blue dog" was Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. (Although one could argue that ND and IN typically vote Rep, and once Dorgan and Bayh (respectively) announced their resignations, they were likely to flip. I'd love to site some examples on the Democratic side, but unfortunately, exactly zero Rep controlled Senate seats flipped. The "good news" for Dems in the Senate was that they managed to hold onto Nevada, Colorado, and West Virginia (although even then it should be noted that the Dem in WV won by running AGAINST Obama's policies).

I firmly believe that the number 1 item on Obama's plate (should he be re-elected) will be SS and Medicare reform. That's the thing though - I do see the 2012 election as being an all-or-nothing proposition for Democrats. If Obama gets re-elected, they'll likely pick up seats in both chambers from people riding on Obama's coat tails. If he doesn't get re-elected, you can kiss goodbye the Senate as well. In four short years, the Democrats can find themselves in the place of Republicans in 2008.

 

I completely agree.

Again, that was my point also. Most of those are not exactly "liberal" or progressive states, but are swing states, that normally tend to be just right of center. They do have some failry large progressive bases in the larger, urban areas.

Again, I agree. There is a lot riding on Obama and how he responds to the Republican challenge. This is really all on him now. It's not a question of him "getting it" but if he has "IT" or he doesn't.

Aldeth - I was not speaking of those seats that were lost, but which seats they would have lost if they were up for grabs this time, that would have given the Republicans a "convincing majority." Sorry I worded that so poorly. It was my fault that I was not clear enough.

 

I would go a step further and say that "IT" should be defined as the unemployment number under control.

It appears that we differ more on style than substance. My point was that if the entire Senate were up for re-election that there would have been a lot more blue dogs on the ballot. The Reps still controlled Congress in 2004, so there was a fair amount of Reps on the ballot this time. With Dems winning a majority in 2006 and expanding it in 2008, I suspect that even more Dems will be up for re-election in the 2012 and 2014 elections. While certainly some of the progressive you mention would be on that list, I think a lot of Blue Dogs also will be on that list, which is why I suspected - because so many of them lost - that the losses would have even been bigger had they all run.

 

I tend to agree, to a point. I think a lot of liberals stayed home in those particular states. I don't think many of them could stomach voting for the blue dogs who gave them [liberals] such fits in 2009. The link I posted of the exchange between the two liberals on Morning Joe really demostrates this point. Lawrence is correct in pointing out that without the blue dogs, Dems would have little chance of controlling anything, despite the problems they caused [they just about ruined the health care law, and he concedes as much]:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3096434/#40025894

 

That is EXACTLY my point. Especially in 2008, when Obama ran. A lot of people went to the polls that day to vote for Obama, and then cast a "what the hell" vote for the particular Democrat Congressman or Senator on the ballot while they were there. Those people didn't show up this time around, and there was a definite "enthusiam gap" between liberal and conservate voters this time along.

I will also echo Lawrence's point that Blue Dogs are a necessary evil, and certainly better than the alternative...

 

True, but that doesn't explain the fairly large number of voting districts who voted in a democratic congressman while giving the presidential nod to McCain -- last I saw the republican won those districts in every election (including my district). I guess those congressmen could be considered blue dogs, but it was more than just Obama euphoria that got them elected.

 

Aldeth - It seems we agree after all. I believe that Glen is wrong - a more liberal agenda would have been even more costly, except on the issue of health care. Also, I don't think there was anything Obama could have done to move the needle on unemployment in a meaningful way. It's really all about consumer demand. Consumer demand is still soft; people are just not spending like they did two years ago.

 

Nate Silver actually covers this exact point on 538. There were 50 districts that elected a Democratic Congressman while voting for McCain in 2008. However, in most of those districts it was really close, with Obama within 4 points of McCain. Of those 50, Democrats now only control 12 of those seats. I think voter enthusiasm can easily explain those numbers. A formerly small Dem win could turn into a Dem loss when fewer Dems show up. Especially in a year where there was a strong anti-incumbent sentiment.

Harder to explain is the 16 seats Democrats won in 2008 where Obama had less than 40% of the vote - the enthusiasm gap wasn't that freakin' big. [Note: These 16 are included in the initial 50 count.] Of those 16, the Democrats now control just 3.

I agree that there was little Obama could have done regarding unemployment. He just has to hope it's a lot better in two years. While a lot of the problems Obama inherited were not of his doing, after a point in time they become YOUR problem.

 

Even when his performance is pulling the team down, the quarterback gets the credit for his team's success. Even when he does everything right and plays a perfect game, it's the quarterback's fault when his team loses. Politics is the same way.

 

I've never quite heard it put that way. Nice.

 

OK, question for you all: How can Obama lower the jobless rate? In other words, how can he create more jobs? I've never taken economics courses, but I am not a moron, either. I'm going to put out a few government policies that might be tried. Some of them carry SEVERE penalities / backlashes and I want to go on record as understanding that from the beginning. This is just an LKD brainstorm -- scratch that, thought shower (for those who saw Silvery's thread in Whatnots!)

-- Lower minimum wages. This will encourage businesses to hire that extra help they have needed, as it's cheap! Some form of reward from the Feds to the States for those that do this would be how the Feds would accomplish this.

-- invest government money in public works projects -- New Deal sort of thing. Better infrastructure, construction jobs, spinoff jobs, all good.

-- increase tariffs on foreign goods, making it more attractive to buy American made products.

-- tighten workplace regulations, making it a more difficult process for companies to fire employees. They'll stop firing the minor nuisances and so those guys'll keep their jobs

-- smash unions -- in the sense of forcing them to accept lower levels of compensation overall. It'll keep more people employed . . .

-- send illegal immigrants home, or just detain them. More security guard work, maybe some construction work for more jails or detention camps, and they won't be taking low level jobs that Americans can take - better a crap job than no job . . .

-- speaking of which, cut welfare and other social programs. People will go out and scrape up what work they can if they know they're not going to get a free ride on the welfare gravy train.

-- Encourage foreign investment in the US -- make them set up shop here if they want to sell here. They'll provide manufacturing jobs, spinoff jobs will result, and so what if some profits flow overseas?

-- conscript the chronically lazy into the military. If you are able bodied and haven't made much effort to get some sort of job, you can push a broom in Baghdad for a while. It's a job, and it'll make you think twice about being a lazy bastard.

-- implement incentives for people to not have so many frigging kids. That'll help in the long term, though of course in the short term it'll just free up lots of women who may end up unemployed.

-- stop accepting uneducated refugees. Only let in people who already have a job lined up.

-- initiate incentives for entrepeneurs and small businesses. Lower their taxes and remove roadblocks to innovation. Let them keep the fruits of their labours for a few years before taxing the snot out of them. Encouraging individual innovation is the American thing to do!

That's all I can think of right now. Any other ideas?

 

Was that a thought shower or a golden shower?

 

I can address just a few of these, that raise concerns, at least in my humble opinion, but I can respond a bit more later.

Yes, lower the standard of living for workers. THAT will improve consumer spending in a big way.

No doubt we need it. But that would add lots to the deficit, which is already quite large.

Many countries do this to protect vital industries. But because it drives up the cost of products it can be counter productive.

That could hurt morale and lower productivity a bit.

That would take away the rights of workers to organize.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer every year, which is driving the economy into the ground. Suggestions that attack the working poor and those who can afford it least, seem incredibly ridiculous considering that upper management skims the cream off the top and leaves what's left for everyone else. Really, I don't you how you can make these suggestions without asking the same of millionaire CEO's and the rest of upper management.

 

I made it clear that some of those would have consequences that would suck big hairy ones. You pointed out some of those big hairy ones.

Would salary caps for CEOs that force them to put more money into wages and employment work?

How about tax breaks for companies that create more jobs?

 

Sorry to respond so quickly, LKD, but I was in the middle of cooking supper for the kiddies.

The key, at least as I see it, is to revive manufacturing in a big way in the US. Made in the USA should have the same meaning that it had once upon a time. That would mean cutting off some of the companies that now enjoy big government subsidies, while shipping jobs overseas, and favoring new start up companies that wish to buld in the US. There is a lot we can do for brand new companies to help get them started. Most other countries have enough sense to protect jobs at home, while increasing exports. The problem is that this will not play well with China, which holds much of our debt. The fact that they hold so much of our debt should be a wake up call to us.

Keep in mind that lowering wages, lowers the standard of living for many workers. Thusly, you are essentially turning America into China when you lower wages to become competitive. Cheap labor may help in emerging markets, but it does little in the long run. Examples? For the longest time Japan did our manufacturing. Japanese standards are excellent and now their products are expensive but sought after by savvy consumers who know quality means something. The rest can go to Walmart and buy their cheap Chinese junk.

Korea was next, but that is the same story. Many Korean companies are almost as respected as the Japs in that regard. Samsung is a good example of what was once a second rate company but is now very respected and has very high standards in manufacturing. Same with Tiawan, and lately even Malaysia. Yes, Malaysia. Those who follow electronics are much rather seeing "Made in Malaysia," rather than "Made in China" on the backs of their 3D big screen TVS. Did you know America once made TVs? Some darn good ones too. But we don't anymore. Did you know that we also made a lot of audio equipment? And still, 50 years later, people value their American well-made hi-fi products.

Saul B. Marantz, Avery Fisher, James B. Lansing, Henry Kloss, to name just a few, who were all Americans and start-ups, many, just like Apple started in their garages. I guess working at Circuit helped me to understand some of this history, even though I worked in computers. And don't get me started on THAT manufacturing. Where are they all made now? It isn't here in Houston any longer.


Other countries actually care about their workers. What do we say? Oh, "cut wages and make the rich richer and in the end the workers will benefit." What fools they are.

Please note that I do NOT include you in that comment, LKD. You are relaying what is thrown about in the corporate media as "solutions." Well, just llook at who their clients are and pay for the advertizing. Why would they say otherwise?

 

Tariffs would be a good idea, but they need to be targeted. They're also called protectionist laws (or, rather, tariffs are a category of these). In some areas (where the products can be manufactured and bought locally), they can work well. In other cases (when any kind of international cooperation is important), they can kill the industry. This is really bad in aerospace and other distributed tech industries. The biggest fear in the AIAA when the recession started was that more protectionist laws would pop up, both here and abroad. The aerospace industry is highly distributed internationally. Isolated, no nation can go it alone, and no company can do it all themselves. There are already a lot of protecitonist laws, though most of them take the form of export control and dual-use laws. They're important, and in place for good reasons, but they do hurt the industry. More could easily kill it. I'm sure other industries are facing the same concerns.

Basic manufacturing, jobs that the US had years ago, could handle this, though international politics may restrict things. Remember, other nations will react to our actions. Cutting off international markets for our products by cutting of our market for their products won't help much.

 

That's a very good point. But if we don't buy from them, what will happen to THEIR workers?

 

Actually, Chandos, I was not "relaying what is thrown about by the media" -- I was just applying what little I know about economics to the employment market, and shooting out ideas, no matter how random or silly they might be on even a cursory examination. To wit:

I know that lowering minimum wages really screws the lower class, the lower middle class, and possible some middle class folks.

I also know cutting welfare and other social programs willy-nilly really screws with those who cannot work for legitimate reasons.

The make work public works option is a little more realistic, but still, the money has to come from somewhere, and the US is already in debt to its eyeballs.

The one idea I didn't put down because it was too random and wild I'll share now, though I will restate for those who chronically throw hissy fits that it is not feasible, moral or Constitutional. It would, however, solve some of the problem. And it is this:

-- find the 3% of the population who are able bodied but refuse to work. The ones with multiple convictions for welfare fraud. The lowest of the low who haven't contributed anything to the economy but have sucked resources for years. Kill them. Tada!

I guarantee you, there are frustrated social workers out there who have daydreamed this, if only for a few seconds.

Joking aside, though, the response of the community has to be one that makes it more attractive to work than to not work. And that makes it more attractive for businesses to hire people in the US than to hire people elsewhere. Following through on that goal is the hassle. The devil is in the details . . .