I think Romney may have tried to be more persuasive to the republicans to be open to compromise than Obama has been He may have been more persuasive to the Senate Majority jerk as well. But I can't prove that, obviously. He did, at least, work with a legislature in MA. Obama didn't exactly do a lot of anything before he got elected. And Mr. "Party of No" has not offered up many "yes's", Except for that stupid albeit successful "...we can" slogan.
Why are we even discussing this, and for that matter, I don't know why I'm responding. The election is over.
It is kind of silly to keep debating campaign fantasies. In truth, perhaps you are right. The way you worded your response does not particularly portray Republicans as having been very cooperative.
Popular vote my arse, the popular vote did not even go to the voting places. A few concerned citizens attended and voted with the results you are discussing. Those who did not vote deserve no largesse from the government and no voice of theirs should be listened to as they screech and bitch that they are being let down by the "gobernent" I am appalled that there is so much indifference to the fiscal situation that about half the population could not see their duty to exercise the right so many have given their lives for over the past two centuries. As for the mandate, it is out of my league but as a foreigner I would have thought that as the final arbitrator is the Electoral College, the massive differential between Pres O and Mr. Romney should be considered a mandate. Cheers from Aussie
'Those who did not vote deserve no largesse from the government and no voice of theirs should be listened to as they screech and bitch that they are being let down by the "gobernent". '
Wow! Could I ever agree with you on that! About 230 million have the privilege, 124 million voted, and 62.6 made the pick for all of us. About 21% of the population. I just think of the lives lost over 230+ years so we could do that. And the wounds. And the time away from friends and family.
The electoral college is the final arbiter, but that doesn't reflect accurately the popular feelings, obviously, no? It helps that both are on the side of the winner, but not all that much. Using the EC difference as a mandate when the paltry popular vote was rather close is not something with which I would agree.
Our congress controls our purse strings king. A president can promulgate all that he wishes. Our congress shall hold the line if they value their grandchildrens future.
The president only controls 46% of our house. It's time to roll back the debt.
William my thanks for the post. So, the Pres controls 46% of your house, true enough but does he not (by your reasoning,) control over fifty percent of the Senate? If I am correct, this taken with the College vote and having regard to the people who did not trouble to vote, should provide a mandate? Irrespective of the semantics, surely it is time to give the administration a chance to do what they were elected to do. I assume you agree the Pres is one arm of government and the Senate and the House is the others. Surely they have a right to prosecute their program until the people decided they have been there long enough. I apologize that this reads a bit like a grade school lecture but I have to be very careful not to unduly upset my friends as I get involved in your debates Cheers from Aussie
Technically, or should I say, ideally, the president doesn't control eithe chamber of congress, but in reality, MOCs generally toe their party's line. The 'mandate' view I expressed above still arguably holds here, as the party plits in the House and Senate are not really huge, relatively speaking.
As far as doing what they (the House, the Senate amd the White House) were elected to do, I'll not talk about the first two years, but certainly obstinacy among the three 'houses' and two legs of federal government locked everything up. Contrary to what you may have read, the party of 'NO' and all that, there was plenty of obstinacy to go around and was displayed for all to see. Some of us saw it, others not so much.
That's my take on the idiocy. We'll survive, I guess.
Grade school lecture? Hardly a need to apologize, especially considering the behavior of the 536 (or 537, if one include The Mouth Biden) children chosen to lead. They all deserve a timeout.
Obama Sacrifices House, State Legislatures The farther down the ballot you go, the more the results look like 2010’s.
Democrats came out of the 2008 election with 257 seats in the House, well above the majority threshold of 218. That enabled a tough Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to squeeze out majorities on unpopular measures such as the stimulus package, cap and trade, and Obamacare.
Advertisement Two of the three were big liberal policy victories (cap-and-trade went nowhere in the Senate). But the Democratic party paid a price in 2010 — and kept paying in 2012.
Democrats have won or are currently leading in 201 seats in the House. (All these numbers could change slightly in final counts.)
Obama was able to build his electoral-vote majority thanks to big Democratic majorities from core constituencies concentrated in these states, which gave him 207 electoral votes.
But the concentration of blacks, Hispanics, and gentry liberals means there are fewer Democratic votes in the suburbs, the countryside, and the geographic heartland. The Obama campaign strategy concentrated on turning out core voters. That left House Democrats short of the votes they needed elsewhere.
In state legislative races, Democrats also rebounded from 2010, but fell far short of recouping the losses they sustained then. They went into the 2010 election with 53 percent of state senators across the country and 56 percent of state lower-house members. (Nebraska elects its one legislative chamber on a nonpartisan basis.)
Democrats came out of the 2012 election with only 46 percent of state senators and 48 percent of state lower-house seats.
The changes in the South have been especially striking. Democrats went into the 2010 election with 51 percent of state senators and lower House members in the South.
They came out of the 2012 election with 38 percent of state senators and 40 percent of lower House members.
Obama lost the popular vote in the South and carried it by only 3 percentage points in the Midwest.
The presidential election results looked a lot like 2008’s. But the farther down the ballot you go, the more the results look like 2010’s.
K, Apathy is a terrible thing. People are not interested and don't carer until it doesn't go their way. You are correct, their voices will be heard first and the loudest. They can proudly proclaim they didn't vote for ----- fill in the blank.
Kingston, the apathy is appalling. What Lou has said down here is spot on. In the little traveling I have done around the world, I have been fortunate to hear what people outside of our country think of us. Even when being critical for our childlike maturity, there still remains a sense of awe.
For what it's worth, the only people you are likely to offend on this site are those who believe they are conservative. Because I identify myself as a liberal, you might have a view my outlook is much different from yours, Yet, I read your posts and seldom find things I disagree with. Your views in this country would at best be moderate Republican, if not liberal Republican. The basic standard of living your country has chosen to support simply does not exist on this side of the pond. If we had a similar setup here, there would be a lot fewer liberals. Just my take anyway.
Thank you William for helping me think of the perfect example of what you have become; The Black Night
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKhEw7nD9C4
Quite enjoyable Max. But 'tis hardly a scratch to date. This Black Knight bows to no King.
DeleteMight doesn't equate to right.
1773-2009
"This Black Knight bows to no King."
DeleteAnd seemingly no amount of rejection.
Of course, if Romney had won 50.6% of the popular vote that would have been a clear mandate wouldn't it? :)
ReplyDeleteMick,
DeleteNo. It would have still been a divided country, but I think there would be a better chance for compromise.
Jean
"No. It would have still been a divided country, but I think there would be a better chance for compromise."
DeleteTranslation: Meaning a Democratic minority would not be able to mount a successful protest to Republicans doing exactly as they please, yes?
Max,
DeleteI think Romney may have tried to be more persuasive to the republicans to be open to compromise than Obama has been He may have been more persuasive to the Senate Majority jerk as well. But I can't prove that, obviously. He did, at least, work with a legislature in MA. Obama didn't exactly do a lot of anything before he got elected. And Mr. "Party of No" has not offered up many "yes's", Except for that stupid albeit successful "...we can" slogan.
Why are we even discussing this, and for that matter, I don't know why I'm responding. The election is over.
Jean
It is kind of silly to keep debating campaign fantasies. In truth, perhaps you are right. The way you worded your response does not particularly portray Republicans as having been very cooperative.
DeletePopular vote my arse, the popular vote did not even go to the voting places. A few concerned citizens attended and voted with the results you are discussing. Those who did not vote deserve no largesse from the government and no voice of theirs should be listened to as they screech and bitch that they are being let down by the "gobernent"
ReplyDeleteI am appalled that there is so much indifference to the fiscal situation that about half the population could not see their duty to exercise the right so many have given their lives for over the past two centuries.
As for the mandate, it is out of my league but as a foreigner I would have thought that as the final arbitrator is the Electoral College, the massive differential between Pres O and Mr. Romney should be considered a mandate.
Cheers from Aussie
Kingston,
Delete'Those who did not vote deserve no largesse from the government and no voice of theirs should be listened to as they screech and bitch that they are being let down by the "gobernent". '
Wow! Could I ever agree with you on that! About 230 million have the privilege, 124 million voted, and 62.6 made the pick for all of us. About 21% of the population. I just think of the lives lost over 230+ years so we could do that. And the wounds. And the time away from friends and family.
The electoral college is the final arbiter, but that doesn't reflect accurately the popular feelings, obviously, no? It helps that both are on the side of the winner, but not all that much. Using the EC difference as a mandate when the paltry popular vote was rather close is not something with which I would agree.
Jean
Our congress controls our purse strings king. A president can promulgate all that he wishes. Our congress shall hold the line if they value their grandchildrens future.
ReplyDeleteThe president only controls 46% of our house. It's time to roll back the debt.
1773-2009 Taxed Enough Already
William my thanks for the post.
ReplyDeleteSo, the Pres controls 46% of your house, true enough but does he not (by your reasoning,) control over fifty percent of the Senate? If I am correct, this taken with the College vote and having regard to the people who did not trouble to vote, should provide a mandate?
Irrespective of the semantics, surely it is time to give the administration a chance to do what they were elected to do. I assume you agree the Pres is one arm of government and the Senate and the House is the others. Surely they have a right to prosecute their program until the people decided they have been there long enough. I apologize that this reads a bit like a grade school lecture but I have to be very careful not to unduly upset my friends as I get involved in your debates
Cheers from Aussie
Kingston,
DeleteTechnically, or should I say, ideally, the president doesn't control eithe chamber of congress, but in reality, MOCs generally toe their party's line. The 'mandate' view I expressed above still arguably holds here, as the party plits in the House and Senate are not really huge, relatively speaking.
As far as doing what they (the House, the Senate amd the White House) were elected to do, I'll not talk about the first two years, but certainly obstinacy among the three 'houses' and two legs of federal government locked everything up. Contrary to what you may have read, the party of 'NO' and all that, there was plenty of obstinacy to go around and was displayed for all to see. Some of us saw it, others not so much.
That's my take on the idiocy. We'll survive, I guess.
Grade school lecture? Hardly a need to apologize, especially considering the behavior of the 536 (or 537, if one include The Mouth Biden) children chosen to lead. They all deserve a timeout.
Jean
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/333420/obama-sacrifices-house-state-legislatures-michael-barone
DeleteObama Sacrifices House, State Legislatures
The farther down the ballot you go, the more the results look like 2010’s.
Democrats came out of the 2008 election with 257 seats in the House, well above the majority threshold of 218. That enabled a tough Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, to squeeze out majorities on unpopular measures such as the stimulus package, cap and trade, and Obamacare.
Advertisement
Two of the three were big liberal policy victories (cap-and-trade went nowhere in the Senate). But the Democratic party paid a price in 2010 — and kept paying in 2012.
Democrats have won or are currently leading in 201 seats in the House. (All these numbers could change slightly in final counts.)
Obama was able to build his electoral-vote majority thanks to big Democratic majorities from core constituencies concentrated in these states, which gave him 207 electoral votes.
But the concentration of blacks, Hispanics, and gentry liberals means there are fewer Democratic votes in the suburbs, the countryside, and the geographic heartland. The Obama campaign strategy concentrated on turning out core voters. That left House Democrats short of the votes they needed elsewhere.
In state legislative races, Democrats also rebounded from 2010, but fell far short of recouping the losses they sustained then. They went into the 2010 election with 53 percent of state senators across the country and 56 percent of state lower-house members. (Nebraska elects its one legislative chamber on a nonpartisan basis.)
Democrats came out of the 2012 election with only 46 percent of state senators and 48 percent of state lower-house seats.
The changes in the South have been especially striking. Democrats went into the 2010 election with 51 percent of state senators and lower House members in the South.
They came out of the 2012 election with 38 percent of state senators and 40 percent of lower House members.
Obama lost the popular vote in the South and carried it by only 3 percentage points in the Midwest.
The presidential election results looked a lot like 2008’s. But the farther down the ballot you go, the more the results look like 2010’s.
K,
DeleteApathy is a terrible thing. People are not interested and don't carer until it doesn't go their way. You are correct, their voices will be heard first and the loudest. They can proudly proclaim they didn't vote for ----- fill in the blank.
This is what our country is all about.
Kingston, the apathy is appalling. What Lou has said down here is spot on. In the little traveling I have done around the world, I have been fortunate to hear what people outside of our country think of us. Even when being critical for our childlike maturity, there still remains a sense of awe.
DeleteFor what it's worth, the only people you are likely to offend on this site are those who believe they are conservative. Because I identify myself as a liberal, you might have a view my outlook is much different from yours, Yet, I read your posts and seldom find things I disagree with. Your views in this country would at best be moderate Republican, if not liberal Republican. The basic standard of living your country has chosen to support simply does not exist on this side of the pond. If we had a similar setup here, there would be a lot fewer liberals. Just my take anyway.
http://c1.nrostatic.com/uploaded/pic_related_111512_Dasdf.jpg
ReplyDelete