Wednesday, November 3, 2010

Election 2010: Winner and Losers

I am disappointed, I admit it. I am disappointed in several things. I’m disappointed in the Republicans. I’m disappointed in certain segments of the public. But, despite my disappointment, I am also excited. Yesterday’s election was historic. And while it showed us the problems we will continue to face, it also gave us a hint of the future. Let’s look at the winners and losers.

Winners

The Republicans: The Republicans won an historic victory. Consider this:

● The Republicans gained 60+ House seats, with 11 undecided. This is the largest repudiation of a sitting party since 1932 and is bigger than 1994.

● The Republicans gained 6 Senate seats (including Obama's seat), with 3 undecided. And this election was fought in mainly deep blue states; 2012 will be different.

● The Republicans now hold 29 governorships, with 1 more leaning toward the Republican column. These governorships control around 70% of the House seats that will be redistricted in the next year -- they also hold most of the key states that are gaining or losing seats.

● The Republicans flipped at least 17 legislative chambers and now control both chambers in at least 31 states, including large states like Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and North Carolina (the first time since 1889). They even won veto proof majorities in New Hampshire.

● See the map above, the Democrats have been pushed back to the coasts and the big cities -- and it’s even worse on a county by county basis. They are again a special interest party rather than a party of general popular appeal.
The United States: We have stopped Obama’s agenda.

The Tea Party: Sure, they chose some bad candidates (O’Donnell) and they couldn’t win some elections they probably should have won (Alaska/Nevada/Colorado), but the scale of what they achieved is still monumental. They defeated several RINOs, they won some seats, and they changed the way the Republican Party thinks. I actually believe John Boehner when he talks about integrating their ideas into the party. They might even have a future President in their ranks in Rubio. And I’ve seen evidence that Tea Party people learn quickly from their mistakes. Look for more genuine Tea Party people in the future, like the new governor of Michigan, and fewer celebrity-wanna-bes riding the Tea Party label like O’Donnell.

Sanity: California, which is synonymous with drugs and stupidity, shot down the marijuana petition. It didn’t just lose, it got blasted. This is a huge blow to the pot industry and a great moment for sanity and small government in America (I’ll explain this in an article Monday morning).

The Republicans II: By not winning the Senate, the Republicans escaped a trap. The public wants results and the public has shown over and over that they will not excuse failure just because of the filibuster. Thus, had the Republicans won a majority, they would have been blamed for not achieving anything, even if they couldn't have achieved anything.


Losers

Obama: This election was a total repudiation of everything Obama. That was the singular message last night. If he campaigned for you, you lost. If you voted for his agenda, you lost. His entire agenda is now D.O.A., and the Republicans are likely to kill off the parts that escaped the asylum.

The Republicans: The Republicans left a lot on the table. For a long time, I have been pounding the drum that the Republicans need to offer the public something to vote for. They could have won 100+ seats if they had offered an inspiring vision rather than just “we’re not them.” This also would have helped them in the Senate where they fell apart when they let the Democrats make these into races about individual candidates. . . because there was no unifying vision to override the personalities.

Sarah Palin: Palin’s endorsement turned out to be death for many candidates, particularly the “Mama Grizzlies” and Joe Miller in Alaska.

The Democrats: The Democrats got just enough aid and comfort from the Senate results that they will see this as an affirmation they should move further left. And since there are no more moderates (25 of 29 House moderates are gone), they are likely to chart that course. That’s very bad for them.

Obama II: By the Republicans not taking the Senate, Obama is denied the one thing that could have saved him without changing his agenda -- the chance to blame the Republicans for stopping him. With Republicans controlling the House schedule entirely, they can control what goes to the Senate, where the Democrats will try to stop everything. That puts the Democrats in the role of obstructionists, and puts Obama in the awkward position of having to attack as “obstructionists” the very people (the Senate) who are stopping the Republicans from undoing his agenda. He also can't talk to the right (by saying he favors right-leaning things) while acting to the left, because the House will call his bluff and the Senate would be forced to follow his lead. He would have been better off with a clear enemy.

Our Electoral System: There is a strong whiff of electoral fraud in this country, and it all leans toward Democratic districts and states. Until this gets cleaned up, our election system will continue to be suspect.

MSNBC: MSNBC faces a huge cleaning bill today as they try to clean up all the exploded heads.

Women: Apparently, liberal states don’t like women. . . Whitman, Fiorina, O’Donnell, Angle, McMahon, Lincoln, and possibly Murray.

The United States: It is obvious that we have certain states that are a problem. These states do not vote according to national interest, or ideology, or even rationality: they vote for the person they think will give them the most benefits from the federal treasury. And this isn’t just blue states. Alaska is largely a ward of the federal government and they kept right on voting for the candidate who can bring home the most goodies, as did West Virginia and Nevada and New York.

Colorado: F#$%# you, Colorado.

California: LOL! Next stop Evencrazierville. . . population: you.

In the end, I think this election protends an end of the Obama agenda and the end of business as usual. The nation is about to get a lot more partisan, with the center all but disappearing. But that's a good thing because elections should be about choices, not about picking between two brands of the same oatmeal. Redistricting will be huge for the Republicans and could result in a significant advantage for years to come in the House. Also, the shift in the electoral map will hurt Democrats a lot in Presidential elections. The problem, however, remains getting the Republicans to offer an inspiring agenda that can translate into state-wide wins in welfare states. That's the key: break the cycle of dependency and reintroduce these states to conservative values like self-reliance, living within your means, and capitalism. Letting California go broke and cutting the spigot in places like West Virginia and Alaska would be a good start; go cold-turkey on these fools. Nevada and Colorado also showed that Republicans need to start making gains with Hispanics and they need to finally break the unions.

The next few years will be ugly, but 2012 could be a lot brighter. That could be the year we finish what started last night.

92 comments:

Tennessee Jed said...

a good summary, Andrew. Pretty close to my own assessment. I am very concerned about fraud, however. Id we can't believe our results are protected in this country, then WTF?

Tennessee Jed said...

BTW, Obama sucked in his comments. He is as arrogant as ever. He'll probably trade Bush Tax cuts for all but the "rich" for cap 'n tax.

AndrewPrice said...

Jed, I think fraud is an issue that NEEDS to be addressed. If we can't trust the election system, then our democracy dies.

Plus, how in the world can we be an example to the rest of the planet if we can't run our own elections without voter intimidation, vote buying, and voter fraud?

On Obama, I don't think he's capable of changing. His personality tells me that he does not know how to handle defeat -- all he does is get angry.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Good assessment. I misdoubt Palin will try for President now.

I said last night and I will say again today, election fraud should be burned out. Tea Partiers should now concentrate on getting as many poll watchers trained and ready along with people who pick those voting machines.

In all states, Tea Partiers should hold the people responsible for accurate elections and push for convictions for fraud as well as voter intimidation.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I think reforming the electoral system is something that needs to be done. It's ridiculous what is happening in these corrupt Democratic-leaning states.

And I think it's a great idea for Tea Party people to concentrate on becoming election watchers in the future.

On Palin, I actually haven't thought she was serious about running for some time, but I suspect she will flirt with the idea because that gives her some level of influence. I think she's taking the Gingrich path, who also will never run but will continue to flirt with the voters.

I also think that now that the election is over, and we have so many new Republican governors, Senators, etc., that there will be a whole new host of possible contenders. It's funny how we went from having few good choices to suddenly having lots of interesting choices. And I think the lesson for people like Romney is that if you snooze, you lose.

Ed said...

Looks like you guys did a great job yesterday, I'm sorry I missed it. I was at a party, hoping to be rid of our local Demo-thug-ocrat. No such luck.

I can't believe Harry Reid survived this election. That has to be fraud. There is no way. I heard on the radio that he got 90% of the Hispanic vote? Obama didn't get that much of the black vote. There is no way!!

Nice analysis on winners and loser. I think you're right about the unions and the welfare mentality in some states. We have a long way to go to turn this country around again.

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: In California, they have literally "cut the spigot." The greenies and airy-fairy ecoweenies now have a governor who will decorate his office with aquariums featuring the Delta smelt. Brown was an eco nutcase the last time around, and he'll be even worse this time. You can kiss California's agricultural foodbasket, the Central Valley, bye-bye as it dies of thirst.

Pray that all of the California Supreme Court justices remain in good health and that none resign during his tenure. The California ambulance-chasers and "love the criminal" lawyers are already far too powerful. This will only make it worse. Brown's appointments to the various benches during his last fiasco did more damage to the integrity of the California legal profession than all the other governors combined.

One possible bright spot. With 100% of the precincts reporting, the noxious Attorney General candidate Kamala Harris is only .2% (45.9% to 45.7%) ahead of her crime-fighting Republican opponent Steve Cooley. That's well within the limits for a recount. There has been no announcement of Cooley demanding a recount, but he should. And at the same time we should make sure every Republican poll watcher and conservative attorney in the United States is monitoring the recount. On the other hand, if sad history teaches us anything, it's that Republicans concede and Democrats keep recounting until they win.

AndrewPrice said...

Ed, Thanks. Yeah, I think we're looking at a lot of work still to be had to turn the country around.

The Harry Reid election bothers me a lot. Something smells there, and it should be investigated.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, As strange as it may sound, I think the implosion of California may be a good thing. Yes, it's bad for the country and the innocent people in California, but so far the idiots out there have gotten away with pushing further and further left while Republicans have played the "complicit game," with Schwarzenegger playing the part of a Republican, and while the Feds have propped up their failures.

This has let the leftists out there act mystified at the problems the state is experiencing while never slowing down their push left.

Now there is no doubt that they are running the show. From here on out, they can no longer point fingers at anyone else. . . no shared blame.

Plus, maybe some of the conservatives will flee to other states and off-set the liberals who fled in the 1990s to places like Colorado?

T_Rav said...

Andrew, agreed about Nevada, agreed about Colorado, agreed about most of the other wins and losses, and agreed about more partisanship being a good thing (as with gridlock, people can't ever seem to figure this out).

Florida is a very good example of this. Not only did Rubio win Senate, Scott win governor, and Republicans win every competitive House race (including Webster and West!), but the GOP won all the other elected statewide offices and a two-thirds majority in both houses of the state legislature, making the Dems virtually irrelevant for the next two years. That said, though, I might venture a caution that this is possibly a mirror image of CA. They have to enact the right policies now, or it'll be all on them.

Also, apparently Michelle Bachmann (who seems to have a more favorable image and reputation than Palin) is jockeying for a leadership position in the new House. Between that and the strengthened Tea Party contingent in the Senate, it's looking good for our side.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Few people understand that partisanship is a good thing. Everyone who visits this blog probably does, but in the general population you hear people all the time who say stupid things like "why can't they all agree?" Well, because they believe different things and they typically want different policies.

When the parties try to mimic each other, i.e. they behave in a bipartisan manner, you don't end up with good policies that everyone agrees upon, you end up with thousands of minor half-policies that neither side really wants but on which they can agree -- you can't get the big policies because there is no level of agreement. Well, those policies typically only make things worse, they satisfy no one, and they are susceptible to influence peddling.

Florida and Texas offset New York and California right now, but I think New York and California are failing. But Florida is not as solid "Republican" as Texas, so I think there will be strong expectations that they put in place good policies.

Finally, I think it is looking good. The party seems to be getting more and more conservative and less willing to be pushed around by Democrats. Hopefully, this will translate into better policies being put in place and a stronger agenda. We'll see.

BevfromNYC said...

The most important point though is that we CAN'T stop speaking "truth to power" whatever political party it is. It is NOT the time to go back to tend to our crops. If anything we must double down on our local, state and Federal officials. As we say in NY - If you see something, SAY something! So if the policy is bad in DC, we hold Boehner's feet to fire just like we did with Nancy's.

This is the point I am going to drive home to my TP group. Frankly our "leadership" fell apart in the end and it was very frustrating. We have got to shift NOW to hold ALL elected officials accountable otherwise we lose. But we have to do it deliberately and intelligently. We can't just be an angry flash mob that pickets every time we are called. My group starting doing that and it P.O'ed me big time. And frankly, no more Palin, Angle, O'Donnell, Paladino, or Miller types. Too much baggage.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I couldn't agree more. Everyone needs to keep the pressure up, and on both sides. We cannot be a rubber stamp for Republicans just because we prefer them to the Democrats. Nor can we assume that 2012 will be fine if we don't keep the pressure up.

And you're right about being a flash mob. That kind of behavior weakens the group and converts the group from a goal-oriented political organization into a tool for others to exploit.

Most of the Tea Party people I know seem to get these points. Good luck with your leadership!

In terms of the people you name, I agree too. I think the key is to support good people who walk the walk AND who make good candidates. Just because someone says they agree with you, doesn't make it so, and just because they do agree with you doesn't make them a good candidate. It takes the combination.

There was an interesting comment last night. I can't think of who said it, but they pointed out that the Tea Party candidates who were "genuine" Tea Party people, in that they got involved in politics because they didn't like what they were seeing come out of the current environment, did very well. By comparison, the ones who had been politicians for years and suddenly jumped on the Tea Party bandwagon did poorly. I don't think that's entirely true in all cases, but it was an interesting observation that merits consideration.

Tam said...

By the way, how did Tehatchapi (sp?) Tom do yesterday?

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, Good question. Hopefully, he'll drop by and tell us?!

Pittsburgh Enigma said...

Nice wrap up Andrew. I would suggest one addition to the "lose" column: Chuck Schumer. He was really counting on that majority leader position. Or do you think he'll fight Harry Reid for it anyway?

LawHawkRFD said...

Here's my rant for the day. The Messiah addressed his errant children, and told them he didn't want to "re-litigate" the issues. Aw, crap. Re-litigate? Now he acts like a damned lawyer? The issues are socio-economic political issues, not a bunch of legal gobbledygook. In the three hours since that nonsensical non sequitur, I've heard four different liberal Democratic hacks talk about "litigating" or "re-litigating" the issues. No wonder people hate the damned lawyers.

Meanwhile, Emperor Obama says he will "look at the proposals, if any" of his disloyal opposition. That's the same thing he's been saying all along. He'll look, then reject in toto anything the Republicans propose. So Republicans need to make their proposals loudly, coherently and publicly in such a way that he can't later lie about what took place.

By his own admission, he took a "shellacking." So act like it, you jerk! Learn from it. Work on getting this country moving again instead of driving the nation further into the ground. Bill Clinton could do it, but this clown is a doctrinaire, leftist, socialist race-baiting ideologue, so decent negotiations are highly unlikely to occur.

And while I'm at it, "begs the question" does NOT mean "calls for a question." In fact, it means exactly the opposite. It means "I asked a question, and you dodged it in your answer." Obama almost always begs the question when he gives one of his mealy-mouthed responses to a question asked at a press conference. He was pitch-perfect today--at begging the question.

End of rant.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Pitts! LOL! yes, add Chuck Schumer to the loser column! He must be sitting at home right now fuming.

I don't think Schumer will run against Reid for a couple reasons. First, I don't think he can win because Reid can actually argue that he had considerable success. Pelosi got the House wiped out, but Reid kept a strong majority in the Senate - that's actually quite a success.

Plus, I'm not sure that the Democrats are ready to give up Reid's style, which takes the edge off his partisanship because Reid seems like a nice guy when he talks. . . even though he's a real S.O.B. Schumer doesn't have that camouflage ability and he doesn't come across very well.

Plus, I think we can't underestimate how closely Reid is tied to the unions, who own the party. Schumer's friends are Wall Street, which doesn't play well with the rank and file.

Tam said...

Yes, Lawhawk! Only, I was thinking why would anyone buy this call for compromise, civility, bipartisanship bullshit from the guy who called us ENEMIES a couple days ago, and who, knowing this "shellacking" was coming, said he is getting his veto pen ready? He's suddenly had a change of heart? No way. So I'm glad you're here to make my feelings sound smart.

BevfromNYC said...

Pitts: That's a very good point about Schumer. He must be really disappointed. Thanks for the bright side of Reid's win!

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, Good points -- I will comment a little later... need to run, I'll be back.

Ponderosa said...

Agreed - excellent job yesterday.

Quick thoughts...
* My recollection: it was tough to recruit candidates for 2010

* CT & DE are very blue states; a tall order even with the best candidates

* Still very happy Castle was knocked out; sent the right message to the establishment

"Keep it up and next time we'll be back with the varsity team."

* The bench is now much stronger across the country for Sen, Gov & Pres.

* Sorry LH, but I'm also glad the GOP lost in CA

* The census bodes well for the House and Electoral College

* Dan Maes is an idiot but CO is in better shape than it looks

And finally - we have been blessed with an opposition that has proven incapable of learning.

Joel Farnham said...

Big loser: Karl Rove exposed as an elitist has-been RINO more interested in his next consulting gig than in doing right for the United States. His on-air rant about O'Donnell may not have caused her to lose her election,it probably didn't, but it didn't help either. This exposed a nasty side to Rove. He already has been knee-capping Palin. Who else will he knee-cap because he hasn't been consulted? Rove loves the RINO McCains of the GOP world. Hopefully people will constantly remind him of his work to destroy GOP's chances before the next election.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, I really like the way Jonah Goldberg summed this issue up once: The Mafia is united. Rampaging mobs bent on pillage are united. Civilized people, on the other hand, can and do have reasonable disagreements. Simple as that.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: Anybody who was idiotic enough to vote for Hope N. Change in the first place is probably dumb enough to believe he has any intention whatsoever of giving up on his socialist agenda. The Good Lord willing and the creek don't rise, that will be his downfall. Defeated by his own arrogant ignorance.

In some ways, I'll miss San Francisco, if only for their outrageous ballot measures and fascist nanny-state legislation. Yesterday, San Francisco banned Happy Meals that have toys, exceed 500 calories and don't include fruits and vegetables. French fries are vegetables, aren't they?

Indeed, the progressives had a plan for us, and we just told them in most of the United States that we have our own plan, and that ain't it. San Francisco is clearly not part of the United States--or planet Earth for that matter.

T_Rav said...

Joel, one thing I think should be kept in mind about O'Donnell is what people were saying right after she won the primary. Rove and others were complaining that by wrecking the prospects of an easy GOP pickup in Delaware, O'Donnell had cost them the Senate. Many in the blogosphere pointed out that, strictly speaking, this wasn't true: She only cost us the Senate if we picked up nine other seats. More or less than that, and it didn't matter either way. Well, guess what: not only did we not win nine Senate seats, we didn't really even come that close. We lost nothing on her.

I don't know if that makes Rove an elitist RINO. In general, he's probably a good guy to have on our side. But it doesn't really do much for the "winnable RINO > long-shot Tea Partier" argument, does it?

Ponderosa said...

Pretty sure they are cooked in some form of vegetable oil as well.

Probably the salt.

Joel Farnham said...

T-Rav,

Karl Rove has his opinion. I just wish he would vomit it up over a toilet bowl instead of sharing it on Fox.

Once it was revealed, last December, he went to Delaware to influence the Tea-party into backing Castle, everything he says becomes suspect. Including any backing or denigrating he advocates. I now find myself wondering who Rove is helping. Which makes it very difficult to trust this guy.

BevfromNYC said...

So maybe it's time to jettison Rove. Frankly, anyone who "tried to influence the Tea Party movement" is on my jettison list anyway. Michelle Bachmann is another one on my watch list. Listen to - yes. Reason with- yes. Listen to, but don't agree even - okey dokey.

Belittle, hijack, coopt, etc - watch or jettison list...

AndrewPrice said...

Ponderosa, Excellent points to add, I agree with each one. And I think the point about us now having a stronger bench is a great one -- having prolonged success in politics is about having the next generation ready to move up and the one behind them, etc. so that you never find yourself with the kind of void we've had the past 5-6 years.... and which the Democrats have right now.

I agree about Colorado too, though I still worry that if the public wasn't ready to vote for Buck this time, they will never vote Republican state-wide again.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk, I agree with your rant. Obama continues to condescend and talk down to us. And if he's going to define this election as a temper tantrum, then he clearly hasn't learn this lesson. Which is fine, let him continue to treat the public like fools and continue to insist that he's not going to change and that he can do what he wants.... that only helps us for 2012.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, Great point. The impulse that everyone needs to agree strikes me as a misdirected herd instinct of some kind.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I agree entirely! I don't think the word "enemies" spoken by a President about the American public is forgivable.

Joel Farnham said...

Bev,

What did Bachman do to get on your list?

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I will agree with you by slightly disagreeing with you -- this didn't "expose" Rove because (in my opinion at least) Rove was already exposed.

Rove has never been a movement conservative, he's always been a Bush conservative -- a "big government conservative." He favors large corporations, establishment politicians, and big government programs to solve social issues. He's internationalist and favors a neo-con foreign policy.

So it didn't surprise me in the least that he opposed O'Donnell. But his voice carries no sway with the public. O'Donnell lost for a lot of reasons, Rove wasn't one of them.

Moreover, Fox hired him to provide analysis -- not to be a propagandist. If he thought this was a mistake, then he was hired to say that. If he was working for the Republican Party and he went on TV and said this, then I would have been furious with him. But that wasn't the case.

In terms of worrying about what he says in the future, I wouldn't put any faith in him, nor would I hire him for any party positions. For one reason, I don't agree with his views (I think they're bad). For another, although they gave him this credit for being the architect of the Bush victory, I saw nothing from him that wasn't simple basic politicing. Nor have I ever been particularly impressed with his commentary. In other words, I don't know that he brings any assets to the table.

T_Rav said...

Yeah, Bev, what's up with you and Bachmann?

By the way, Andrew, on the subject of Rove and political commenting in general, I am never listening to Dick Morris again.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Point taken.

T-Rav,

What do you have against Dick Morris?

Individualist said...

Andrew

Great Synopsis, speaking of "crazy" what is your legal take on what is going on in the Coneticut Governor's Race. The Republican has gotten 14K morevotes than the Democrat Maloy and yet the Democratic Secretary of State has officially declared Maloy the winner and Maloy has made an acceptance speech. They are even upset that Foley has not bowed out. My Op Mgt Professor spent ten minutes in classmaking sure everyone know of this, man!

CT Governor Race

LL said...

Thoughts:

(a) The Obama White House will show itself to be an intransigent force in government. There is an enemies list and the Commander-in-Chief will exact whatever pound of flesh that he's able to exact. The House of Representatives will check it with subpoenas and investigations that will be made public.
(b) The courts will strike down ObamaCare, which is inseverable and the Republicans will offer a bipartisan healthcare solution that will be accepted by Democrats in Congress but it will stick in Obama's throat.
(c) Obama will be unelectable in 2012 and we'll see a different Democrat running against whoever the Republicans put up for president.

Tam said...

speaking of whoever the Republicans put up...did you see that Mike Pence is stepping aside? Is he looking to be the GOP nominee?

Joel Farnham said...

Tam,

Pence is going to go after the Indiana Governorship. He stepped down from the leadership position to free up time.

Tam said...

aha. Thanks.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav & Joel, What's up with Dick Morris? I haven't heard anything good or bad about him lately?

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

I don't know about T-Rav, but I got annoyed with Dick and his constant requests for money for SuperPac. I still will listen to him, but I think he gets more wrong than right.

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, Thanks! I'm glad you liked it.

I don't understand what is going on in Connecticut. On the one hand, I could say that maybe there is something else they haven't mentioned -- like an absentee ballot count? Or maybe they are misreporting the number? On the other hand, who knows anymore. Sounds like a legal challenge will definitely be coming.

AndrewPrice said...

LL, Interesting thoughts. I think you're right about Obama being intransigent, and the effect that will have. It will be a total disaster for him because he has never had to deal with an opposition. So he has never learned to deal with satisfying other people. And he's already shown that he doesn't play well with others.

I'm still undecided if he will be the nominee in 2012. I think he probably will, just because his ego won't let him quit. But he has an excuse if Michelle keeps saying she hates being FLOTUS.

In terms of ObamaCare, I think the court will strike down parts, but not the whole thing.

AndrewPrice said...

Tam, I heard the same thing Joel did about Pence, though there is a lot of speculation that he would accept a VP position even if he won the governor's job. Mitch Daniels the current governor will apparently run.

So will Minn. Governor Pawlenty and Sen. John Thune. Beyond that, people are talking about McConnell in Virginia, Christie in New Jersey, Rubio, Huckabee, Palin, Romney, Jindahl, and several more I can't think of at the moment.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I never gave Morris my address! :-)

You're right about him being wrong more often than he is right, but I still like his analysis, he often says very interesting things.

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Unfortunately, the part of the law which allows part of ObamaCare to be struck down wasn't included in the draft signed by Obama. This was forgotten in the rush to get it to Obama. So if the court strikes down part of ObamaCare, it strikes it down completely.

It seems that they couldn't add it without going back to the Senate and by that time Scott Brown was there and.......

BTW that is why I still listen to Dick Morris. :-)

CrispyRice said...

Great summation, Andrew!

Sorry I missed the election night coverage with you guys!

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, Interesting! No severability clause. If that's true, and the court accept that, holy cow!!! That would be a world class error!

AndrewPrice said...

Crispy, A good time was had by all! Glad you liked the summation.

Mark your calendar to join us in 2012! :-)

T_Rav said...

Andrew and Joel, I'm a little ticked off at ol' Dick because he was promising, night after night, that we were going to win 80, 90, even 100 seats in the House and take back the Senate, which is partly why I got my hopes up so much in the first place (and partly why I made my overly optimistic predictions yesterday). I'm not exactly mad at him, but after this and his prediction that the '08 election would be Condi Rice beating Hillary Clinton, I'm not sure I can believe anything he says anymore.

AndrewPrice said...

T_Rav, I understand. I think Morris has some excellent insight and some good contacts, but his predictions have tended to be over the top.

On the disappointment issue, that's why I try to write about evidence and probabilities rather than predictions. Although as the evidence kept coming in, this election looked bigger and bigger and it got hard to see anything except a huge tidal wave -- which we got, just not as big as expected (I never bought into us winning the Senate).

I'm truly surprised it wasn't bigger in the House. I'm actually rather disturbed that the election wasn't bigger. It makes me wonder what is wrong with the public that so many of them would still turn out for the Democrats in this kind of environment? And what will it take to swing them over?

LawHawkRFD said...

Andrew: I'll attest to the fact that they forgot the severability clause. If the mandate goes, the whole damned mess goes to the grave it richly deserves.

LawHawkRFD said...

Tam: I checked the Kern County vote results. Our friend Tehachapi Tom did not win this time. He says he's going fishing. Let's hope he keeps up his involvement. As I've said in the past, I lost two elections before I won one. I used to joke that in my run for school board, I came in seventh in a field of six. I wish him luck in his next try.

AndrewPrice said...

Lawhawk.... brilliant!! Wow, just wow! LOL!

BevfromNYC said...

Andrew and LawHawk: Does it really surprise you that they left out "severability"? Who had time to dot all the legal I's and cross all the legal T's when they didn't even bother to READ it? That is the most egregious issue about Obamacare - the "we will have to pass it to find out what's in it" mentality.

BevfromNYC said...

T-Rav and Joel - Michelle Bachman is a co-opter. I appreciate her hard work and she was the first to actually participate at the March 20 Stop Obamacare rally in DC. I just thinks she needs to be watched, so she does go too far a field or use her influence with the FreedomWorks or Tea Party Patriots to actually form a very conservative 3rd Party if she doesn't get what she wants

Individualist said...

I dunno Andrew

Maybe I am one of those simpleminded peasants who does nor understand political nuances but last I checked the winner of the election got the most votes.

Of the 1,112.941 votes, 1.5% is 16,694 votes not counted. Maloy would need 12,600 of those votes just to beat him by one. That is 75%. I find that to be very hard to beleive. Either wat the election result should not have been certified. This seems really corrupt.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, It shocks me in the sense that the severability clause is one of those things that should go in automatically, almost like a macro or a form. Speaking as a lawyer, it really is stunning. It's like trying to cook dinner and forgetting to pull out any pots.

I like Bachman generally, but I am suspicious of groups like Freedom Works, who are old-school lobbyists (big corporate donors, selling tickets, selling advertising space, etc.) who tried to hitch their wagons onto this movement. That bothered me, and I do get the sense that Bachman has either been active in that or has not realized that the Tea Party and Freedom Works are not the same thing. So while I support her, I too would be wary of her.

AndrewPrice said...

Individualist, You apparently don't know the new math -- now matter how you add it up, it comes up with a Democratic win.

Like I said, I see this one going to court unless there is something we know nothing about.

T_Rav said...

Andrew, just take some comfort in the fact that if this crap keeps up unabated much longer, Texas will just secede and we can all move there.

Tam said...

Thanks for the update on Tehachapi Tom. I hope the fishing's good!

LawHawkRFD said...

Bev: I go even farther back than Andrew with the severability clause. It first popped up in California on the so-called Jarvis Amendment (Prop 13) in 1978. At that time, I was drafting city and county ordinances as a private consultant to municipal governments. I was so impressed with that wording and how it could save a good law from being destroyed entirely over one small error that I included it in everything thereafter.

Back in those primitive times, I would put a big Post-It note on every ordinance and contract I was working on that said "don't forget the severability clause." By the late 80's it became so standard that a lawyer could be sued for malpractice for failing to include it in a private contract. Only Democrats in a hurry to bamboozle the public and enact socialized medicine could be so stupid and so negligent as to forget the severability clause.

And to complete my day's contempt for the legal profession, I should remind everyone that most of the people who drafted the bill are lawyers, and they hire lawyers as well to assist them. A confederacy of dunces.

Anonymous said...

I heard a comment that Rubio was not born in the US. Would that disqualify him or not these days?

Anonymous said...

Well duh... they have this neat thing called the internet and you can type in words like "marco Rubio" and find out that he was born in Miami.

Well what will they think of next.

ROTFLAM
(rolling on the floor laughing at me)

Libertarian Advocate said...

Connecticut and Massachusetts followed California into the desert of liberal vapidity and fiscal insolvency. I suspect a major producer exodus from all these states as the liberals double down on their tax and spend binges.

Joel Farnham said...

Bev,

Bachman as co-opter. Hmmm. A compelling argument. Still, it can be argued that since Michelle Bachman has been in Congress for years and has been a thorn in the side of the Elitist Republicans, and has argued all along for a smaller government that it is the Tea Party is just getting up to speed to her. And she finally has a crowd around her that thinks like her.

Joel Farnham said...

T-Rav,

I understand your anger. And yes, Dick Morris did that. Bob Beckel, a man I detest, seems to agree with him. They are right we could have done better.

Here is something to think about. If our aim was much lower, say at 40 in the House and 3 in the Senate, we wouldn't have had to work as hard. We would have just barely made it. As the results show, we accomplished what they said couldn't be done 2 years ago. We retook the House and scared the Democrats silly about re-taking the Senate. As Andrew believes and I concour, the Democrats saving the Senate will be a pyrrhic victory at best.

Here is something from Glenn Beck that is well worth ten minutes of your time. ;-)

http://www.therightscoop.com/glenn-beck-happy-days-are-here-again

USArtguy said...

How was Palin a "loser" when 30 of the 43 candidates she backed won? If this were baseball that would be batting about .697.

Patti said...

best analysis, not to mention entertaining, i have read. will be linking!

AndrewPrice said...

Libertarian Advocate, I suspect you're right. That will be a clear difference between states that are business friendly and states that are desperately taxing everyone to maintain their spending, and there's no reason to stay in a state like that.

AndrewPrice said...

USArtguy, Two reasons, first it was the high profile races where she lost. Anyone can rack up a heck of a batting average on not-really competitive races. It's the competitive races that count. And her "Mama Grisly" team got killed. Alaska also poked her in the eye. When your home state does that, that's always considered a big loss. And even if Miller does pull it out, it was still embarrassingly close.

Secondly, if she's going to get credit for endorsing candidates who then win the primaries over other candidates (as her supporters claimed every single time), then she deserves the blame when those people go on to lose in the general election.

AndrewPrice said...

Thanks Patti! I'm glad you enjoyed it, and thanks for the link!

CrisD said...

Andrew, who was most responsible (PICK ONE) for the unprecendent turnout of people getting up off their tushes and voting Republican against Oboma?

1.Tea Party
2.Fox News
3.Sarah Palin
4.Michael Steele
5.Rush Limbaugh

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

Haven't you noticed that the RNC did their level best to not Help?

Check out their help in Angle's case. Check out their response with O'Donnell. Check out their response with Rubio.

I submit that the RNC actively did what it could to deny Palin as many wins as they could. What is more, you will find that there is a low-level campaign to destroy and limit any thing that Sarah Palin is doing.

CrisD said...

Okay, Andrew,
I thought it was Sarah Palin. It has been her movement--fanned and flamed by everyone BUT Steele and Co.

And although many Republicans are willing to accept the sweep with a great smile--they reject Sarah--and so do somersaults to call this "a loss."

The real story here is that America was not excited about the current Republicans (name and describe those that you find inspiring)--No, they want to infuse this party with PROPER conservatism.

THE REPUBLICANS COULD NEVER HAVE PULLED THIS SIZE WIN OFF WITH THEIR CURRENT SLEW OF IDIOTS.

Hand to hand combat is where polite, intellectual conservatives run for the hills! They resist dealing with people who could be in the tent. They go running for the hand sanitizer. They are embarrassed!!!!!!! They are weak!
They will sink us if they don't wake up. Because the Dems are shooting holes in the canoe.

AndrewPrice said...

CrisD, I would say the person who did the most to bring people out was Obama. Beyond that it was the Tea Party. The rest were just talking to the base.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I think the RNC was a definite hinderance for all non-establishment Republicans, I don't see a particular plot against Palin.

CrisD said...

Okay, I could say alot more but I see that you and I have some big differences. (and I am not talking about who we would nominate or vote for)

Joel Farnham said...

Okay Andrew,

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44449.html#ixzz142kgV9tU

This probably means nothing to you. It is the usual bash Palin from Politico. What is unusual is the ease at which all of them take for granted that there is a concerted effort from Republican Elites to stop Palin.

What you forget is that RNC didn't kick Murcowkski from her chairmanships for not respecting the primary. Demint was incensed about it. The whole purpose is to defeat one of Palin's own. Do you understand now?

AndrewPrice said...

CrisD, Everyone has differences, no body thinks the same on all things. I see this turn out being almost completely in response to Obama's policies that have all destroyed our country. I don't think any Republican, Palin or otherwise, is responsible for getting people this worked up.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I agree that the RNC and the Senate Committee, etc. have been working to undermine non-establishment Republicans. But this is not about stopping Palin. This was about protecting the club. The person they are most upset about is Jim DeMint.

CrisD said...

I think in 2008 alot of people looked at the young democrat Obama and "loved" it-- while the other half of the Country heard a speech from a very attractive firecracker that made them think "yeah, we DO like ourselves!"

That's what I'm saying about the power of Palin's dream. People are moved by these kind of notions in order to get up and vote.

I certainly wasn't "mad" or "angry" when I voted. I just have a dream about voting for a future for my self and now my kids.

But, as you say, we cannot always agree.

AndrewPrice said...

CrisD, If she inspires you, I think that's great. And we don't have to agree about her because we don't have to agree about everything. . . unlike leftists. :-)

I was honestly excited by Palin when I first heard her, but I just don't see her as particularly effective since her introduction. And it's not just her, I don't see anyone in the Republican party that I think is exciting or that I think excites people outside of the base. That was the thing about Reagan, he excited people who were lifelong Democrats. I don't see that today from anyone on the right.

I agree with you about the difference between Obama and Palin. When she spoke, I and the people around me felt like, "wow she represents the America I believe in -- where anyone can be a success if they work hard and dream big." When Obama spoke, his followers seemed to think: "this is the guy I want telling me what to do." And that's a huge difference.

CrisD said...

Tx. for responding. I think we do have some interesting differences.

It is funny about Reagan. In the primaries I must admit that I liked Bush senior and thought Reagan was -shockingly!-a former movie star! Not at all like my conservative notions! I liked "preppy Bush." Of course, now I am old and wise and know that Bush was a moderate Republican and all the hurt he had caused. I believe my house lost 20% its value in his recession!!!

But I mention this because I was in Graduate school during the Reagan years and watched him deal with the press so masterfully! What a powerful person. The left hated him! It was embarrassing to admit that I would like him. I was so glad to get George Herbert so that people would like me.

I tell you this because I believe it was a process for me. Learning the REALIIES of conservative-moderate and liberal Republicans (yes, I have pulled the lever for Spector in my day)

Reading your last post to me I could not help but suspect that maybe in your maturity, you see all the possible pitfalls (economic, judicial, congressional, etc) to a presidency that you are cautious to be "enthusiastic" or Overly enthusiastic" about PEOPLE. Am I right? It is a bit of a philosophical question. But while you can and need to be (you are the brains of the operation, sir!!!), don't forget that the people need to be inspired. We won't judge them to harshly.

Thanks for letting me talk.

Joel Farnham said...

Oh Andrew,

Losers: NRCC, NRSC, and RNC. They refused to help candidates who overcame their "picks" or incumbents during the primaries. O'Donnell wasn't the only one.

This helped change politics where people are now giving directly to the candidates and not the RNC, NRCC and NRSC. They are slowly being removed from power and when they can help, like right now with Rene Elmers recount and maybe get back some of their power, they shoot themselves in the foot and refuse.

This tells me that unless the people are replaced from the RNC, NRCC and NRSC we will get the Elitist Republican Party we have always known.

AndrewPrice said...

CrisD, You're welcome and thanks for sharing your opinions. We honestly want people to tell us when they disagree with us because that's the only way we learn what we truly believe. I am the first to admit that I am often wrong, and I've changed my opinions over time to reflect facts that I've learned or experiences that I've had.

I think you're right that people need someone to inspire them, that seems to be part of the human condition. In fact, it's the people who inspire us that tend to drive us to achieve the best we can achieve, be they a parent, a teacher or a politician.

But where I draw the line is exactly where you say, I put my faith in ideas first and people second. People come and go, but ideas are timeless. And the problem with vesting our faith in people rather than ideas is that when the people stumble, that (unfairly) hurts the ideas. That is a lesson I've picked up over the years because I have seen many people who seemed great at the time start to disappoint because they lacked the principles (or strength of conviction) that would have kept them making the right decisions -- instead they started to be motivated by things like celebrity or money or just keeping the people around them happy. Those are the kinds of lessons that have taught me that we should always put our faith in ideas first, and people second.

Still, when the ideas and the person come in the same package, then I am thrilled. And don't mistake my attempts to be somewhat impartial in our blog with a lack of passion or enthusiasm. We see our goal here as talking about ideas, not necessarily promoting ideas or candidates. In other words, we like to see ourselves as analysts rather than advocates because we don't want people to feel that we might shade the truth or that we would reject them for supporting other candidates.

(Sorry for the delay in responding, it's been a busy day and I keep being called away.)

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, I couldn't agree more. They were losers in this because of their behavior, which turned off the donors who cut out the middlemen. (I've been recommending supporting candidates directly rather than party machinery for some time now -- I think(?) I wrote an article on it a couple months back.)

The interesting question here is: was this a one time thing or is this the next phase in the destruction of the political party in America? For decades now, the power of the parties has been slowly disappearing. If people stop supporting party mechanisms, that could spell the end of the parties. I don't know?

Joel Farnham said...

Andrew,

You do ask some tough questions. End of the parties? Hmmm. Parties are sometimes a strength. In resisting Obama's agenda, party discipline was invoked and fairly effective.

I don't think we will lose them entirely. They are just too convenient. I do think that some parts of them are too elitist for our society and they have too much of a top-down instead of bottom-up structure. This latest thing about not helping Miller and Elmers will stick in the craw of every day Republicans.

AndrewPrice said...

Joel, That's why we're here -- to make people think! :-)

I don't know if it will be the end of parties or not, but they seem to be dying. If you look at the power of political parties in this country, they have been getting weaker and weaker since the lat 1890s. Today, they are a fraction of what they once were. And with more people choosing to call themselves independents, and with the rise of the Tea Party (which seems to be both Republican and not-Republican at the same time), and the shift of focus to individual candidates rather than party-line voting.... who knows?

Like you, I suspect they will survive in one form or another, but it's always very hard to see the future of something like this. If enough people in the public decide to change their minds, history has a way of following.

Post a Comment