I think it's safe to say, the Tea Party handed the Dems Nevada and Delaware by nominating lunatics. Possibly Colorado. Don't know if Buck is a lunatic in the same way Angle and O'Donnell are, but in a close race I think the association didn't help him at all. Really, in any close Senate Races I think the more extreme Tea Party candidates gave purple voters pause, though that's harder to quantify.

Colorado Republicans were probably hurt by the disaster of Maes for governor and Tancredo as your only other Republican-like candidate, who may not have appealed to a huge swath of independents. (I will admit, he still polled better than I might have expected.)

I could also argue (uninformedly, just like above) that the Dems didn't have to put too much into appealing on the governorship because of how his opponents lined up. It probably helped in allowing money to be focused to the Senate candidate, but also might have hurt in a getting out the vote kind of way.

Yeah, a halfway competent candidate in Nevada and Delaware probably would have given those states to the Republicans. Definitely Nevada, but I'm still torn on Delaware (in part because the Republicans really only have one decent candidate in their pool, it appears, and he lost in the primary and he is in his 80s). But that still gets you to 49/49, with the 2 independents caucusing with the Democrats. The math barely changes now, and probably Warner/Webb/Manchin/Nelson/Lieberman/Snow/Brown (maybe Kirk and Coats) are going to find themselves in the position of kingmakers in some key areas, whether it's 51/47 or 49/49.

And now that McCain is back for his final term, he may be back to his mavericky ways, too.

I am happy about the senate, but I actually am not happy if this is the way it came about.

It's crap that you can't vote for a "3rd party" in this country (See also: greens) without basically throwing a vote for the opposition, on either side. Ugh I hate parties.

"It's true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It's a two party system. You'll have to vote for one of us."
"Well I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate."
"Go ahead. Throw your vote away."

http://sclipo.com/videos/view/kang-and-kodos


"It doesn't matter which candidate you vote for. This planet is doomed. DOOOOOMED!"

The republican failure to take the senate is due to two things IMO:

1. The utter failure of their senatorial efforts two years ago, when what was initially expected to be 55 or 56 democrat senators turned into 60. Apply this election's pickups to the smaller number, and you'd have had a turnover in the senate, too. Of course, without 60 senators maybe the democrats wouldn't have plunged so far into the leftmost reaches of the political spectrum, and maybe the anti-democrat vote would not have been so strong. I'm guessing we're probably at about the same place now, either way, except one way we wouldn't have Obamacare and the "stimulus" to overcome.
2. Their utter failure to craft a coherent statement of exactly what they stand for this time; whatever that thing they did produce was, it was no Contract with America; more like a set of ways that they're going to say "NO" to the democrats.

The TEA Party probably broke about even. Maybe Castle would have won Delaware, maybe not, Reid probably would not have held Nevada against a more centrist candidate, but on the other hand, Kentucky was considered a certain democrat gain a year ago, and the TEA Party did seem to do more to help than harm republicans with respect to house seats and governors. Where the TEA Party may have really helped is by providing a message that people could hang onto during the early days of the Obama administration, when there was a real risk that democrats would simply drive everyone else out of business. The democrats overplayed their hand on several occasions, the TEA Party was there to pounce when they did, and that message ultimately energized republicans. So on the whole, I think the TEA Party did more good than harm.

Overall, I think the republicans are in a pretty good place right now. Between the house and the blue dogs left in the Senate, they can pretty effectively stop the really extreme stuff, and it's going to be a lot harder for Obama to blame them for the coming meltdown if they don't control the senate.

Republicans need very badly to:
1. Get a message.
2. Throw Dubya under the bus.

(11-03-2010 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ... maybe the democrats wouldn't have plunged so far into the leftmost reaches of the political spectrum...

Republicans need very badly to:
1. Get a message.
2. Throw Dubya under the bus.

69, I usually respect you but I LOLed at the bolded... I think you should at least be honest and admit that this whole "socialist agenda" thing is fairly exaggerated. The real "leftmost" end of the spectrum has never been touched by this country.

As to the last, I thought the did have a pretty coherent message:

1) Abortion is bad
2) Killing people in other countries is good
3) The economy is simultaneously Obama's AND Bush's fault
4) Gays are bad
5) Health care for all is bad
6) Tax cuts are good, even when we're facing a huge deficit
7) Bailing out the banks/GM was bad, (even though we would have done the same)

Did I miss something? Were there conservative candidates who didn't agree on all these points?

And while I'm thinking about all this, I leave you with a quote from the book I recommended earlier this month, What's the matter with Kansas:

Quote:Like a French Revolution in reverse-one in which the sansculottes pour down the streets demanding more power for the aristocracy-the backlash pushes the spectrum of the acceptable to the right, to the right, farther to the right. It may never bring prayer back to the schools, but it has rescued all manner of rightwing economic nostrums from history's dustbin. Having rolled back the landmark economic reforms of the sixties (the war on poverty) and those of the thirties (labor law, agricultural price supports, banking regulation), its leaders now turn their guns on the accomplishments of the earliest years of progressivism (Woodrow Wilson's estate tax; Theodore Roosevelt's antitrust measures). With a little more effort, the backlash may well repeal the entire twentieth century.

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

(11-03-2010 04:20 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

Quote:Like a French Revolution in reverse-one in which the sansculottes pour down the streets demanding more power for the aristocracy-the backlash pushes the spectrum of the acceptable to the right, to the right, farther to the right. It may never bring prayer back to the schools, but it has rescued all manner of rightwing economic nostrums from history's dustbin. Having rolled back the landmark economic reforms of the sixties (the war on poverty) and those of the thirties (labor law, agricultural price supports, banking regulation), its leaders now turn their guns on the accomplishments of the earliest years of progressivism (Woodrow Wilson's estate tax; Theodore Roosevelt's antitrust measures). With a little more effort, the backlash may well repeal the entire twentieth century.

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

Don't forget that the great State of Texas wants to take us back to the Wild West of the late 1800s when everybody packed their sixgun in the holster on their hip. Weaponry may be a tad more fashionable these days, but the idea that we're a more civilized society when everyone packs a heater is totally oxymoronic.

P.S.: Coloradoan here who voted for Bennett. Yes, JustAnotherAustinOwl, Buck was/is a nut job.

(11-03-2010 05:01 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  Don't forget that the great State of Texas wants to take us back to the Wild West of the late 1800s when everybody packed their sixgun in the holster on their hip. Weaponry may be a tad more fashionable these days, but the idea that we're a more civilized society when everyone packs a heater is totally oxymoronic.

Point of information: Texas is not an open-carry state.

emmie,

I am being totally honest. I don't believe that there is so much as a particle of exaggeration in my statement. I really don't. The fact that we have not yet reached the leftmost end of the spectrum is not because Obama and the democrats do not want us to go there, nor because they have not been doing everything they could to move us there.

If that has you wondering when the at least somewhat reasonable Owl turned into a right-wing zealot, then consider my reaction to your (I assume, attempted humorous) impression of the republican "message":

1) Nope, disagree
2) Nope, disagree
3) Add "and the first Bush's, and Carter's, and Ford's, and Nixon's, and LBJ's" between "Bush's" and "fault"; I give Reagan and Clinton passes because they each actually did some good things, but otherwise we've been on the wrong track for 50 years under both democrats and republicans
4) Nope, disagree
5) My problem with Obama here is that he took the worst possible approach to solving the problem, when there are far better models available
6) Nope, disagree
7) Agree as to the first part, disagree with everything in parentheses

So I guess I flunk your test to be a conservative, too. But remember that all of this post is coming from the same person with a consistent point of view.

What I am is in the middle/center, thinking that both side have strayed way, way too far in their respective directions. They've each fallen off the spectrum at their respective ends.

If BOTH sides don't give up the petty bickering and move toward taking constructive action (not compromise, constructive action, there's a big difference) we are in for a very bad go of it. Today's Obama press conference was unfortunately far more petulant child than consensus-builder, and the republicans haven't sounded much better.

I think for myself. I'm neither partisan nor optimistic. Your perspective is clearly further left than mine. As a result, you may not fear some of these things as much as I do. But I am extremely fearful. I think we are on the wrongest possible wrong track, and I see little likelihood that will change until we get hurt pretty badly.

Bottom line may well be that at this point I'm simply too cynical to have much use for either side. I can't think of anyone in any position of national political leadership for whom I have any respect. I respect the offices, but not the people in them. I'd have an extremely difficult time saying much good about any of them.

(11-03-2010 04:20 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(11-03-2010 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  ... maybe the democrats wouldn't have plunged so far into the leftmost reaches of the political spectrum...
Republicans need very badly to:
1. Get a message.
2. Throw Dubya under the bus.

69, I usually respect you but I LOLed at the bolded... I think you should at least be honest and admit that this whole "socialist agenda" thing is fairly exaggerated. The real "leftmost" end of the spectrum has never been touched by this country.
As to the last, I thought the did have a pretty coherent message:
1) Abortion is bad
2) Killing people in other countries is good
3) The economy is simultaneously Obama's AND Bush's fault
4) Gays are bad
5) Health care for all is bad
6) Tax cuts are good, even when we're facing a huge deficit
7) Bailing out the banks/GM was bad, (even though we would have done the same)
Did I miss something? Were there conservative candidates who didn't agree on all these points?
And while I'm thinking about all this, I leave you with a quote from the book I recommended earlier this month, What's the matter with Kansas:

Quote:Like a French Revolution in reverse-one in which the sansculottes pour down the streets demanding more power for the aristocracy-the backlash pushes the spectrum of the acceptable to the right, to the right, farther to the right. It may never bring prayer back to the schools, but it has rescued all manner of rightwing economic nostrums from history's dustbin. Having rolled back the landmark economic reforms of the sixties (the war on poverty) and those of the thirties (labor law, agricultural price supports, banking regulation), its leaders now turn their guns on the accomplishments of the earliest years of progressivism (Woodrow Wilson's estate tax; Theodore Roosevelt's antitrust measures). With a little more effort, the backlash may well repeal the entire twentieth century.

It would be funny if it weren't so true.

(11-03-2010 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I am is in the middle/center...

I am too! I don't know how it's possible we feel the same way. Oh, the wonders of cognition.

(11-03-2010 05:32 PM)texd Wrote:  

(11-03-2010 05:01 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  Don't forget that the great State of Texas wants to take us back to the Wild West of the late 1800s when everybody packed their sixgun in the holster on their hip. Weaponry may be a tad more fashionable these days, but the idea that we're a more civilized society when everyone packs a heater is totally oxymoronic.

Point of information: Texas is not an open-carry state.

Yes, but why let facts get in the way of a disparaging stereotype? After all, it's only Texas that is being disparaged.

(11-04-2010 10:43 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(11-03-2010 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I am is in the middle/center...

I am too! I don't know how it's possible we feel the same way. Oh, the wonders of cognition.

Most people believe that they are in the center, because they ARE in the center of their frame of reference. On that subjective basis, we both think we're in the center.

But there are also objective measures. Take ten or twenty significant issues, state your position, and see where your position stacks up on every issue. I'm fairly certain that if you do that, you score nowhere near the center. I doubt seriously that any of the views that I've seen you express on here would land anywhere but left of center. If you think that any of your views are right of center, or even in the center by any objective standard, I'd be interested in knowing what those views are.

If you take those same 10 or 20 issues, I'm not going to be in the middle on most of them. I'll probably score right on almost half of them and left on almost half of them. So my "centrism" is sort of an "average" of a number of positions (mostly on fiscal issues) from the right and a number of positions (mostly on social issues) from the left. You may not call where that average places me the center, but on a straight left-right scale it's hard to figure out what else to call it. My comment was meant in response to emmie's post, where she proposed a 7-question litmus test for conservatives--which, as you can plainly see, I flunked miserably.

I'm pretty hard to characterize because I don't fit any established mold. I think for myself, and I like some things Sweden does, some things France does, some things Brazil does, and, yes, some things out of the republican playbook. If it really matters to you, I'm fine with putting myself on the right about half the time and on the left about half the time, and letting you call that whatever you want. By contrast, I've not seen you express any opinion that does not come from the left; I don't see how you--or I--can legitimately call where you are the center.

one of the things that i found annoying in a book i was required to read in a women's study class was the implicit suggestion that those who disagreed with the author weren't thinking for themselves. i'm working on not reading your posts that way, but it's not always easy.

(11-05-2010 11:24 AM)kinderowl Wrote:  one of the things that i found annoying in a book i was required to read in a women's study class was the implicit suggestion that those who disagreed with the author weren't thinking for themselves. i'm working on not reading your posts that way, but it's not always easy.

I suppose this is somehow directed at me, since I used the "think for myself" wording, and from its tone I would infer that it is somehow negative.

Past that, I'm sorry, but I can't figure out what on earth you're talking about.

Don't necessarily agree with it, but this was an interesting piece in the Thresher:

http://media.www.ricethresher.org/media/...4555.shtml

(11-04-2010 10:43 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(11-03-2010 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I am is in the middle/center...

I am too! I don't know how it's possible we feel the same way. Oh, the wonders of cognition.

This is easily explained by where you two live.

A friend of mine says in college he was considered to be an SDS member in Texas but then he would get on a plane, fly to NJ and become a young Republican.

(11-05-2010 08:39 PM)Owl75 Wrote:  

(11-04-2010 10:43 AM)Boston Owl Wrote:  

(11-03-2010 06:32 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  What I am is in the middle/center...

I am too! I don't know how it's possible we feel the same way. Oh, the wonders of cognition.

This is easily explained by where you two live.
A friend of mine says in college he was considered to be an SDS member in Texas but then he would get on a plane, fly to NJ and become a young Republican.

Good point. Probably has a lot to do with it.

I probably could have organized my post that started this a little better. My point was that emmie had posted a 7-point litmus test for conservatives, and I disagreed totally with 4 of the 7 points, and was only lukewarm on the other 3. If I flunk that test, and am not a liberal, I guess I must be in the middle.

From what I read, Emmie didn't say anything about you being or not being a conservative in reference to that list. Unless you were a republican candidate for office... As I read it, her point specifically was about the republican party and more specifically about the candidates for that party.

69, it appears that you shifted the ground to argue about yourself instead, saying you disagree with most of her list. All that means is that you apparently don't identify with the current republican party as it played out its campaign/as that campaign was understood by Emmie.

and, yes, my comment was in reference to your post. I'm trying not to read an undertone of others must not think for themselves when you distinguish yourself by saying that you do. it would seem that you may not mean that at all by your comment since mine was so mystifying.

(11-03-2010 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republican failure to take the senate is due to two things IMO:

1. The utter failure of their senatorial efforts two years ago, when what was initially expected to be 55 or 56 democrat senators turned into 60. Apply this election's pickups to the smaller number, and you'd have had a turnover in the senate, too. Of course, without 60 senators maybe the democrats wouldn't have plunged so far into the leftmost reaches of the political spectrum, and maybe the anti-democrat vote would not have been so strong. I'm guessing we're probably at about the same place now, either way, except one way we wouldn't have Obamacare and the "stimulus" to overcome.

This is essentially correct. The Republicans gained more than the average number of Senate seats for a non-presidential party in a mid-term election, but the hole was too steep to climb out of (at least for this election; I suspect the situation will be rectified in 2012). There are other factors involved as well, such as the relative dearth of pickup opportunities that existed for the Republicans in this senatorial class.

Quote:2. Their utter failure to craft a coherent statement of exactly what they stand for this time; whatever that thing they did produce was, it was no Contract with America; more like a set of ways that they're going to say "NO" to the democrats.

The TEA Party probably broke about even. Maybe Castle would have won Delaware, maybe not, Reid probably would not have held Nevada against a more centrist candidate, but on the other hand, Kentucky was considered a certain democrat gain a year ago, and the TEA Party did seem to do more to help than harm republicans with respect to house seats and governors. Where the TEA Party may have really helped is by providing a message that people could hang onto during the early days of the Obama administration, when there was a real risk that democrats would simply drive everyone else out of business. The democrats overplayed their hand on several occasions, the TEA Party was there to pounce when they did, and that message ultimately energized republicans. So on the whole, I think the TEA Party did more good than harm.

The Tea Party definitely helped the Republicans, moreso in the House than in the Seante. The New York Times's election maps site lists 129 congresssional districts as having Tea Party candidates in them, of which 120 were held by Democrats before election night and 87 afterward, producing a net gain of 33 for the Republicans, about half their total net gain for the night. While some of those seats doubtless would have flipped no matter who ran against the Democrat, I suspect that in some races the presence of a Tea Partier made the difference. For example, here in Texas in the 27th District radio talk-show host Blake Farenthold knocked off one of the most venerable pieces of furniture in the House, Solomon Ortiz, by 900 votes. My guess is that, confronted by a generic Republican running against Ortiz, the 900 voters that gave Farenthold his victory would have yawned and skipped the race, or rolled their eyes and put another coat of polish on Ortiz. By having Tea Partiers run under the Republican ticket, it gave people who didn't want to vote for a Democrat or generic Republican the convenience of voting for a third-party candidate without actually having to vote for a third-party candidate.

One other point, which I don't think has been appreciated as much as it should be, is that the Tea Party helped the Republicans to huge gains in state legislatures. Here in Texas, the Democrat Party has been effectively destroyed as a party with any significant statewide influence, thanks to state House seats lost to Tea Partiers (and even a couple of Republican incumbents were knocked off by Tea Partiers in the primaries). Similar things happened in other states such as Michigan, which will have ramifications for redistricting.

(11-06-2010 02:12 AM)Jonathan Sadow Wrote:  

(11-03-2010 02:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  The republican failure to take the senate is due to two things IMO:

1. The utter failure of their senatorial efforts two years ago, when what was initially expected to be 55 or 56 democrat senators turned into 60. Apply this election's pickups to the smaller number, and you'd have had a turnover in the senate, too. Of course, without 60 senators maybe the democrats wouldn't have plunged so far into the leftmost reaches of the political spectrum, and maybe the anti-democrat vote would not have been so strong. I'm guessing we're probably at about the same place now, either way, except one way we wouldn't have Obamacare and the "stimulus" to overcome.

This is essentially correct. The Republicans gained more than the average number of Senate seats for a non-presidential party in a mid-term election, but the hole was too steep to climb out of (at least for this election; I suspect the situation will be rectified in 2012). There are other factors involved as well, such as the relative dearth of pickup opportunities that existed for the Republicans in this senatorial class.

Quote:2. Their utter failure to craft a coherent statement of exactly what they stand for this time; whatever that thing they did produce was, it was no Contract with America; more like a set of ways that they're going to say "NO" to the democrats.

The TEA Party probably broke about even. Maybe Castle would have won Delaware, maybe not, Reid probably would not have held Nevada against a more centrist candidate, but on the other hand, Kentucky was considered a certain democrat gain a year ago, and the TEA Party did seem to do more to help than harm republicans with respect to house seats and governors. Where the TEA Party may have really helped is by providing a message that people could hang onto during the early days of the Obama administration, when there was a real risk that democrats would simply drive everyone else out of business. The democrats overplayed their hand on several occasions, the TEA Party was there to pounce when they did, and that message ultimately energized republicans. So on the whole, I think the TEA Party did more good than harm.

The Tea Party definitely helped the Republicans, moreso in the House than in the Seante. The New York Times's election maps site lists 129 congresssional districts as having Tea Party candidates in them, of which 120 were held by Democrats before election night and 87 afterward, producing a net gain of 33 for the Republicans, about half their total net gain for the night. While some of those seats doubtless would have flipped no matter who ran against the Democrat, I suspect that in some races the presence of a Tea Partier made the difference. For example, here in Texas in the 27th District radio talk-show host Blake Farenthold knocked off one of the most venerable pieces of furniture in the House, Solomon Ortiz, by 900 votes. My guess is that, confronted by a generic Republican running against Ortiz, the 900 voters that gave Farenthold his victory would have yawned and skipped the race, or rolled their eyes and put another coat of polish on Ortiz. By having Tea Partiers run under the Republican ticket, it gave people who didn't want to vote for a Democrat or generic Republican the convenience of voting for a third-party candidate without actually having to vote for a third-party candidate.

One other point, which I don't think has been appreciated as much as it should be, is that the Tea Party helped the Republicans to huge gains in state legislatures. Here in Texas, the Democrat Party has been effectively destroyed as a party with any significant statewide influence, thanks to state House seats lost to Tea Partiers (and even a couple of Republican incumbents were knocked off by Tea Partiers in the primaries). Similar things happened in other states such as Michigan, which will have ramifications for redistricting.

The Tea Party backed US Senate Candidates (aside from the flakes like O'Donnell and Angle) did very well. And some will say Reid only beat Angle because of some illegal Union involvement in the election.

Rand Paul - Win
Marco Rubio- Win
Pat Toomey- Win

Dino Rossi ran a close campaign in Washington, losing to Patty Murray by 2.5%.

In Colorado Mike Bennet defeated Tea Party backed Ken Buck by only 0.7%.

Now some commentators seem to mix apples and oranges when it comes to Palin.

Palin is NOT the Tea Party. While Palin endorsed several Tea Party backed candidates, she didn't endorse them all.

My biggest fear is that Palin gets the 2012 Republican Nomination. The only way Palin would beat Obama is if Obama turns into a total "Jimmy Carter" in the next two years-- with a totally trashed economy coupled with a foreign policy/military humiliation.