Tendo City

Evidence: This year's election.

Can't wait to see racist conservatives lose their shit at Obama's immigration address.

ABF, one notable thing is that elderly people voted in far greater numbers in this election compared to the younger demographics. The younger groups now care a lot more about politics, but they only care about the president.

It's a failing of the internet, I think, that it's nearly impossible to get local news to become as popular as world news. Heck, the Daily Show only has so much time, and while they can mock presidential candidates on a personal level, they can only grab a handful of idiots from state elections, and generally don't even have the time for city level elections (unless it's New York, that'll get whole episodes about drink size restrictions).

I think we've got to figure out some system to set up to get larger groups of people online more directly involved in the reporting and discussing of local issues. That might "get the vote out" as I think someone in the '90s once said.

This is why internet voting needs to be a thing, and why a person's ID should be their voter registration.

Yeah, DJ, you're absolutely right -- the biggest problem we have is that younger and minority people just don't vote most of the time. Some turn out for presidential elections, but that's it. The end result is that apparently this election had maybe the highest percentage of age 60+ voters EVER! Considering that, we're just lucky that things weren't even worse... older people are of course much more likely to vote, and to vote Republican.

And then a lot of those young people who didn't bother voting then complain about the government... but then don't bother to vote, ensuring that horrible right-wing nutcases continue to govern their states (this one included), because most states have governor elections on off years. It's a horrible cycle! The Democratic Party has tried to use turnout operations to get people to actually vote, but that can only help a bit, it can't entirely counteract the combination of young people not voting and old people being self-motivated to vote against liberals.

As for methods to increase voter participation, such as same-day voter registration, internet voting, having voting happen on a weekend or holiday or such, etc... the Republicans don't want any of those things to happen, because the fewer people vote the better they do, so no changes are likely. They'll ride this wave of racist bigotry for as long as they can, as long as it gets them elected!

Horrendous stuff. And by not voting, most Americans are complicit in it. Not even 40% of the American people voted in this year's election. And it mattered, a lot. Pathetic...

Someone pointed out one problem with internet voting. Poll booths, if nothing else, are a natural check on people too drunk to get to a poll booth or otherwise too sociopathic to behave in that setting without getting arrested. I mean, have you MET the internet?

Dark Jaguar Wrote:Someone pointed out one problem with internet voting. Poll booths, if nothing else, are a natural check on people too drunk to get to a poll booth or otherwise too sociopathic to behave in that setting without getting arrested. I mean, have you MET the internet?

Have you ever seen the comments section of Breitbart.com or TownHall? Sociopaths vote. There's a whole party full of 'em.

You know what a large part of the problem is, too? A lot of the Democrats ran scared from liberal positions. I voted for Alison Lundergan Grimes, because I'd sooner glue my junk to a bullet train than vote for Mitch McConnell, but I had to kind of hold my nose doing it. Grimes had some good positions, but for the most part, she let McConnell dictate the rules of engagement and she was on the defensive the entire time. We have that awful turtle telling voters here that he intended to repeal Obamacare. This would eliminate Kynect, our state level ACA exchange (and which is actually pretty popular because it doesn't have a nigger's name on it), but that didn't matter. He won easily. Why? Because Grimes never tried to call him out on this horrendous malfeasance of the truth. She didn't attack him on his opposition to the minimum wage (Kentucky is, of course, a state with a lot of poor people). Nothing about McConnell's vast personal wealth or corporate ties. Her way was to go on TV holding a gun, insisting she wasn't like Obama, and iterating that she would never support amnesty.

She was clobbered because a Democrat who tries to run as Republican-lite is doomed. Conservatives hate RINOs, and liberals don't turn out for such dull alternatives to a dull incumbent.

It's a shame, too, because McConnell was very beatable.

Oh, you're in Kentucky now? Huh. Last I remember you were in Virginia. But yeah, you are right that many Democrats ran as Republican-lite. It didn't help of course, because the Democrats lost most of the competitive Senate and Governor's races this year. But would being more liberal have helped either? I mean, one major problem is that younger voters don't vote, but the other major problem is that older and white voters are becoming more and more Republican. The Republicans' hold on the South is now just about complete, there are few significant Democrats in that large part of the country now. It's amazing and incredibly sad how important anti-black and hispanic sentiments (and now also anti-gay sentiments as well!) have been in that move; of course, the Democrats lost the South when they took up civil rights in the '60s. It's taken a while for the Republicans to totally take over the region, but with this election, they seem to have done it, for now at least. And racism is a big part of why. It is. The virulent hate so many on the right have towards Obama is another example of this. If Hilary Clinton (or another Democrat) wins the next Presidential election but Republicans hold at least the house, as is perhaps likely, just not having a black President might help the Dems in the south, sadly enough...

I just wonder, will southern white people ever realize that they keep electing leaders who act directly against their own economic and health interests? Somehow the Democratic name in the south is so bad that a lot of people won't vote for them no matter what they think of Democratic policies, or something -- we saw in this election this year several minimum wage bills pass in states that voted in hugely Republican-majority governments, for example. That kind of disconnect between policy and elected officials is crazy.

Of course, racism is only one of many issues that have helped build Republican strength. Nationwide, the Republican party has been moving right for the past few decades, after all. The right hated Clinton, and then Obama took on some old Republican ideas and they hate them not not just because of his party or race, but also because their party has gone crazy-right, probably as a reaction to the Bush years. I just hope that eventually the Republican party decides to start attempting to govern the country again, instead of just destroying as much of the government as they can. Hopefully that happens before they get control of the whole government... it's just fortunate that the Democrats have the edge in Presidential elections, we'd be in big trouble as a nation otherwise, with their edges in statehouses, the Supreme Court, and the US House, and the divided nature of the Senate (the Dems may take back the Senate in 2016, but it will be difficult for Democrats to hold long-term because of how many states now are so Republican-dominated...). At this point though, that doesn't seem likely to happen, not with so many horrendously destructive right-wing governors just re-elected!

And this is why the American people, younger ones particularly, are being very stupid for not voting. Vote like it was an election year this year, and some of those guys lose. The core Republican base is aging, after all. Younger voters in the South may vote Republican too, but the next generations are not, so far at least, as crazy as the ones currently in control.

I did my patriotic duty by voting in this year's midterms. It didn't help (yes, I still live in Alabama), but if nothing else, I've earned the right to complain about how much the government sucks.

When this year began, I felt confident that the Democrats could at least hold the Senate and maybe regain a few seats in the House. From all the polls I saw, it seemed that people were frustrated with the GOP acting like a bunch of overgrown brats who only care about getting their way, spiting the president, and looking out for corporate interests while belittling the working class as being lazy, entitled, and incompetent. Polls further indicated that the people supported such liberal policies as increasing the minimum wage, legalizing same-sex marriage, and decriminalizing marijuana. And of course, most people blamed the Republicans for shutting the government down (which was their fault; as much as they tried to pretend they didn't want to do it afterwards, we live in the 21st century, and so there is ample documentation of all the times they threatened to do it). One study even determined that the modern day GOP is the most hated party in American history.

So when I heard that Republicans were poised to take control of the Senate and gain an even larger majority in the House, all I could think was... why? Just... why? Why do voters vote for liberal policies but Republican candidates who make it perfectly clear that they intend to do the opposite? Do the American people have a short-term memory when it comes to Republican wrongdoings? Why are we so quick to forgive the Republicans for all the things they have done and continue to do? If the government shutdown had happened in October of 2014 rather than October of 2013, would they have won? Was a year's difference all that was needed for them to garner the support of the American people again? It's not like they've done anything productive or helpful in the last year.

If Congress's approval rating is 11% on a good day (and I'm aware that this rating accounts for those who are unhappy with Congressional Democrats as well), then why was over 90% of that Congress reelected?

And of course, most baffling of all, is this guilt by association with President Obama. Sure, roughly two out of five Americans still approve of the job he's doing, but the other three out of five don't even see him as the president. They don't even see him as American. They see him not as our twice democratically elected commander in chief, but as a dictator of the same ilk as Adolf Hitler (that's their own hyperbole, not mine, and it's not a new one either). Even if the people support the same policies as him, such as raising the minimum wage and ensuring equal pay for equal work, the moment his name is attached to a policy, they're up in arms. Since 2009, I've always wondered... what was it he's done that's so horrendously despicable? With Bush's post-presidential approval rating on the rise, it once again appears that Republicans can do no wrong and can be forgiven even for unnecessary wars, uncontrolled spending and deficits, and an imploding economy, but Obamacare is the greatest evil this country has ever known. Part of it is the "liberal" media's spin on the state of our nation. Listening to Fox News, you'd think we're still in a recession and that unemployment and the deficit are still rising, even though the opposite has been true since the beginning of 2010. You'd also think that ISIS is going to kill us all, or that Ebola is going to kill us all, or that Benghazi was the worst terrorist attack in American history, and that it was worth wasting taxpayer dollars on a fake scandal investigation that eventually determined that the Obama Administration did not, in fact, try to cover the whole thing up to win an election (and there was no evidence to suggest this anyway). I don't see why Democrats need to distance themselves from the president in order to garner support, but if that's what it takes, then they can't be faulted for it. Obama is hardly what I would call the abysmal failure that Megyn Kelly wants us to think he is.

I keep going off on tangents here, but yeah... I just don't get it. I get that old white people are the main ones who vote in midterm elections, but the GOP doesn't have their interests at heart either, so... I still don't get it. I'm a little bit more optimistic about 2016 as long as Hillary stays ahead in the polls. She's not my first choice, but I'll take her. (I'd personally prefer someone who doesn't think of the word "liberal" as a pejorative and who is willing to call out the Republicans for their BS like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but few people even know who they are.)

Quote:If Congress's approval rating is 11% on a good day (and I'm aware that this rating accounts for those who are unhappy with Congressional Democrats as well), then why was over 90% of that Congress reelected?

If you just poll people as to whether they approve of Congress as a whole, 89% will say no. But if you poll them on their local state reps, they'll approve. They just hate congresspeople from other states.

Quote:I'm a little bit more optimistic about 2016 as long as Hillary stays ahead in the polls. She's not my first choice, but I'll take her. (I'd personally prefer someone who doesn't think of the word "liberal" as a pejorative and who is willing to call out the Republicans for their BS like Elizabeth Warren or Bernie Sanders, but few people even know who they are.)

Agreed completely.

Voter turnout in this election was the lowest since WWII. People are just jaded with all sides. Republican voters hate Obama with an irrational vehemence that ensures they'll turn out and pull the knob for any schmuck with an ® by his name. Hopefully 2016 we can turn things around. In the mean time, let's waste 2 years with more attempts to repeal Obamacare and investigations into Benghazi.

I wish Republican voters would see through this nonsense, but this is a blindly ignorant block of voters. I wouldn't normally paint so many people with a broad stroke of brush, but honestly, if you don't see the Republicans' cynical attempts to oppose the president and dig their heels in the sand in the way of any progress, logic, or growth, if you just don't get it, you probably never will.

So in Maine this election, things were both the same as in most of the rest of the country, and a little different.

The main difference is that turnout was fairly high -- it was over 50%, higher than every other state except Oregon. Sadly, our complete idiot right-wing Governor won re-election, and the 2nd district US House seat went to the Republicans, and they took the state legislature Senate, as well (though thankfully not the house).

So... what happened?

Well, first, there was that national trend against the Democrats. Yeah, turnout was high, but a lot of that was motivated nutjobs voting out of fear for the Republicans.

That wasn't all of it, though. Maine's second congressional district is where the worst of the problem was. Maine has two US House districts, the first down south here, and the second taking up the majority of the state up north. In the first district, the Democratic candidate for governor won, our US House member won a crushing re-election, and we held on to most, though sadly not all, of the legislature seats. But in the second district, there was a horrible wipeout, one of the worst years there for the Dems in a long time. This is despite the Democratic governor candidate being a multi-term US House member from the second district! He'd won in that district quite a few times... but this time lost very badly, badly enough to overwhelm his (perhaps too narrow, but definite) victory in district 1. Why? I've seen several reasons given, and they're all VERY stupid but true:

1) There was a bear-baiting referrendum on the ballot, to ban hunting bears with bait, dog packs, and traps. It's a great idea, and I hope we pass it eventually, but it failed again, by about the same percentage as the last time it was on the ballot ten years ago.... and it seems to have really helped draw out a big anti-bear-baiting-and-Democrats crowd in the second district. Ugh!

2) Ebola fearmongering peaked right before the election. Remember that "Ebola nurse" thing? She just HAD to be living in Maine's district 2 and came back there not long before the election, to quite a commotion, giving our idiot governor a perfect chance to maximize his stupid Ebola fearmongering. Yeah, Ebola is scary, but SHE DIDN'T HAVE IT!

3) The Democratic candidate for governor, Mike MIchaud, may have won elections in the second district for decades, but within the past year, he announced that he is gay. This was perhaps a mistake, because in many 2nd district towns, Michaud under-performed the US House candidate. She also lost, but Michaud probably lost by more. Unfortunately, there are still a lot of anti-gay people out there, and some of them probably voted against him because he came out. :(

... Doesn't say much good about this state that these four things (the three above plus the national climate) actually was a winning combination, but it was, terribly enough. :bummed:

Geno Wrote:If Congress's approval rating is 11% on a good day (and I'm aware that this rating accounts for those who are unhappy with Congressional Democrats as well), then why was over 90% of that Congress reelected?

Gerrymandering, mostly. That is the number one reason. Most congressional seats are so absurdly gerrymandered, more towards the Republicans than towards the Democrats, that it takes a LOT for an incumbent to actually lose.

And beyond that, a lot of those people who hate Congress don't vote, and people in general frequently don't hate their member of congress as much as they do congress as a whole. Combine those factors and 90% of incumbents win. The only way to change this is to get more people to vote and to somehow do away with gerrymandering. Redistricting reform, to get rid of gerrymandering and all those states rigged against the Democrats, is something this nation desperately needs, but it doesn't look likely to happen, frustratingly enough. The Republicans like things as they are, for fairly obvious reasons. :(

Oklahoma too is heavily gerrymandered. I wouldn't say OK would suddenly go "blue" or anything if that was fixed, but the results would be a bit closer and a lot more honest.

Oklahoma is, really? I thought it was one of the most Republican states in the country...

It's not like Oklahoma NEEDS gerrymandering to secure a republican vote, mind you, but a quick perusal shows that at some point in the past, someone thought it did, because it is, very much so.