A complete rejection of President Obama, his agenda, and his ideology

[Pogo]

I'm not worried- this was expected, and will only give the divided idiot GOP more chances to screw up. And in 2016 we'll kick your ass. O-Care will be a proven success, even to many hater dupes...

LOL, what a lying piece of shit you are

You "expected" the ass kicking you just got.....lol

Of course it was expected. It happens every mid-term; the party in the White House loses seats in a mid-term; there have been three exceptions since these two parties have existed side by side. Three. Two of them happened to be Clinton and Bush II (which is why CNN would note more seats changed hands than during those administrations) and the third was 1934 -- FDR's first mid-term, when he was pulling the nation out of its greatest financial crisis.

That is, "you could look it up" if you were at all interested in historical patterns rather than facile election porn.

(smile) Previously what were the most incumbents ever unseated in an Election.

You are free to be an idiot, but try and be at least an honest idiot.

Are my facts wrong?

Show me.

 

[Mustang]

I seriously question the intentions of someone who says "Ok you won NOW you MUST only send the President Bills he agrees with."

That is silliness beyond belief.

The point is to find common ground that you can agree to and not waste everyone's time legislating a bill that will die on the vine after weeks or even months of working on it almost every day.

Obama and the Dems have made it clear for six years there is no common ground.

Nonsense. The republicans made it clear early on that they had no intention of compromising which is exactly the way that the base of the party said they wanted the GOP to approach the working relationship with the president.

In fact, one of the more inane comments I've heard over the last couple of years (if not longer) was that the Republicans had no intention of compromising with the president. Instead, the president had to compromise with Republicans. Well, of course that's a nonsensical statement because the nature of compromise is that both parties have to be willing to accept less than everything they they want in order to get some things that are the most important to them while also allowing the other side to achieve some of their primary goals. Otherwise, there's gridlock, and nothing gets done.

"Elections have consequences."- Hussein the First and Last

No plan, no clue, no solutions, no knowledge, just hate and misinformation. Hail no drama Obama. lol

Back in 2001 and for most of the next few years, it seems as if the Republicans perfected their ability to run campaigns to get elected but simply failed miserably at governing competently. The debacle that was the federal response to Hurricane Katrina made that abundantly clear. I mean, if you can't respond with men and material for four full days to a natural disaster in the center of the country when everyone saw it coming ahead of time, then you've essentially lost any claim to the whole American can-do attitude where no obstacle was seen as insurmountable.

Now it seems as if things have changed somewhat.

From my perspective, a big part of the problem now is that getting elected no longer appears to be a means to an end at all like it used to be when politicians actually had an agenda, and the goal was to enact it after running on it. Now it seems as if the end is merely to get elected, and if nothing at all gets accomplished afterward, that's perfectly fine as long as the resulting failure can be used in the next campaign to get reelected two years later and to get additional party members elected as well so you can increase your majority and prepare for the election after that. Consequently, elections are no longer a means to an end; there an end unto themselves.

 

[Science*Good]

Republicans who swept the Democrats from office last night, didn't run as a party with a stated agenda.
Many of the individual candidates ran on disagreeing with Obamacare and wanting it repealed. Others ran on the poor condition of the economy and the leftist actions that prolonged the recession for so long.

Overall, the election showed, not so much the people's approval of Republicans (which has been lukewarm for more than a decade), but on virulent rejection of President Obama and his agenda, his results, and his and ideology.

---------------------------------------

2014 Midterms A complete rejection of President Obama his agenda and his leadership Fox News

Democrats and Republicans alike predicted that November 4 would be a big night for the GOP. The polling had indicated that the election – in the Senate and on the state level – was going to go their direction.

What began as cautious optimism has ended up just about as well as could have ever been expected. Even in races where Republicans didn’t end up with a victory, we saw closer races than predicted.

Tuesday night wasn’t about campaigns – it was about a deeply unpopular president. And it was about negativity and dirty tactics.

All in all, the net negative view of President Obama was over 30 points in battleground states.

This election represents a complete rejection of the president, his agenda and his leadership.

This is true in traditionally Republican states, but crucially in the states that defined his victory in both 2008 and 2012.

Newt Gingrich argued on CNN this evening that these tight races across the nation indicates that campaigns actually matter and that tonight is a good for American democracy.

I respectfully disagree. Tuesday night wasn’t about campaigns – it was about a deeply unpopular president, and American abhorrence of what he and his allies tried to do.

To this end, Tuesday night’s final result isn’t anything but deeply disheartening.

Leftist actions

 

[Antares]

I'm not worried- this was expected, and will only give the divided idiot GOP more chances to screw up. And in 2016 we'll kick your ass. O-Care will be a proven success, even to many hater dupes...

LOL, what a lying piece of shit you are

You "expected" the ass kicking you just got.....lol

Of course it was expected. It happens every mid-term; the party in the White House loses seats in a mid-term; there have been three exceptions since these two parties have existed side by side. Three. Two of them happened to be Clinton and Bush II (which is why CNN would note more seats changed hands than during those administrations) and the third was 1934 -- FDR's first mid-term, when he was pulling the nation out of its greatest financial crisis.

That is, "you could look it up" if you were at all interested in historical patterns rather than facile election porn.

(smile) Previously what were the most incumbents ever unseated in an Election.

You are free to be an idiot, but try and be at least an honest idiot.

Are my facts wrong?

Show me.

You got your ass handed to you last night in a manner that HASN'T ever happened before, that is a "fact" that you do NOT want to admit to.

 

[francoHFW]

I'm not worried- this was expected, and will only give the divided idiot GOP more chances to screw up. And in 2016 we'll kick your ass. O-Care will be a proven success, even to many hater dupes...

LOL, what a lying piece of shit you are

You "expected" the ass kicking you just got.....lol

Of course it was expected. It happens every mid-term; the party in the White House loses seats in a mid-term; there have been three exceptions since these two parties have existed side by side. Three. Two of them happened to be Clinton and Bush II (which is why CNN would note more seats changed hands than during those administrations) and the third was 1934 -- FDR's first mid-term, when he was pulling the nation out of its greatest financial crisis.

That is, "you could look it up" if you were at all interested in historical patterns rather than facile election porn.

(smile) Previously what were the most incumbents ever unseated in an Election.

You are free to be an idiot, but try and be at least an honest idiot.

Are my facts wrong?

Show me.

You got your ass handed to you last night in a manner that HASN'T ever happened before, that is a "fact" that you do NOT want to admit to.

Bullshytte. For example, Ike lost 13 senators one off year. Change the channel and get a grip...

 

[Antares]

LOL, what a lying piece of shit you are

You "expected" the ass kicking you just got.....lol

Of course it was expected. It happens every mid-term; the party in the White House loses seats in a mid-term; there have been three exceptions since these two parties have existed side by side. Three. Two of them happened to be Clinton and Bush II (which is why CNN would note more seats changed hands than during those administrations) and the third was 1934 -- FDR's first mid-term, when he was pulling the nation out of its greatest financial crisis.

That is, "you could look it up" if you were at all interested in historical patterns rather than facile election porn.

(smile) Previously what were the most incumbents ever unseated in an Election.

You are free to be an idiot, but try and be at least an honest idiot.

Are my facts wrong?

Show me.

You got your ass handed to you last night in a manner that HASN'T ever happened before, that is a "fact" that you do NOT want to admit to.

Bullshytte. For example, Ike lost 13 senators one off year. Change the channel and get a grip...

LOL, so your point is that since this was only the SECOND worst it is not so bad.

Sucks to be you.

10 of those 13 were incumbents....we are pushing 9 here.

 

[francoHFW]

Not your fault, our media is a bs ratings crazy joke. Fox of course is a total disgrace- bs hate infotainment...

 

[Pogo]

I'm not worried- this was expected, and will only give the divided idiot GOP more chances to screw up. And in 2016 we'll kick your ass. O-Care will be a proven success, even to many hater dupes...

LOL, what a lying piece of shit you are

You "expected" the ass kicking you just got.....lol

Of course it was expected. It happens every mid-term; the party in the White House loses seats in a mid-term; there have been three exceptions since these two parties have existed side by side. Three. Two of them happened to be Clinton and Bush II (which is why CNN would note more seats changed hands than during those administrations) and the third was 1934 -- FDR's first mid-term, when he was pulling the nation out of its greatest financial crisis.

That is, "you could look it up" if you were at all interested in historical patterns rather than facile election porn.

(smile) Previously what were the most incumbents ever unseated in an Election.

You are free to be an idiot, but try and be at least an honest idiot.

Are my facts wrong?

Show me.

You got your ass handed to you last night in a manner that HASN'T ever happened before, that is a "fact" that you do NOT want to admit to.

Dood, I didn't follow the elections. I didn't have a horse in the race; I don't have a party. I don't even have a TV. I did vote -- for Democrats, Republicans and a whole lot of no-party people. So no, there was no ass-handing unless there was some football game I missed.

But you enjoy your little puppet show and go on pretending it means something.

I do have history books though. Guess you failed to find a flaw in them..
Whatever.

 

[Bill Angel]

https://www.flickr.com/photos/bill_angel/15691836172/
This fellow near where I live is displaying a "Don't Tread on Me" flag, which has become symbolically associated with the Tea Party movement. I think that the results in Maryland were more of a taxpayer's revolt against the policies of the Democrat that controlled the Maryland State government than a vote on Obama. While a Republican was elected Governor, all of the Democrat Congressmen were re-elected.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Republicans who swept the Democrats from office last night, didn't run as a party with a stated agenda.
Many of the individual candidates ran on disagreeing with Obamacare and wanting it repealed. Others ran on the poor condition of the economy and the leftist actions that prolonged the recession for so long.

Overall, the election showed, not so much the people's approval of Republicans (which has been lukewarm for more than a decade), but on virulent rejection of President Obama and his agenda, his results, and his and ideology.

---------------------------------------

2014 Midterms A complete rejection of President Obama his agenda and his leadership Fox News

Democrats and Republicans alike predicted that November 4 would be a big night for the GOP. The polling had indicated that the election – in the Senate and on the state level – was going to go their direction.

What began as cautious optimism has ended up just about as well as could have ever been expected. Even in races where Republicans didn’t end up with a victory, we saw closer races than predicted.

Tuesday night wasn’t about campaigns – it was about a deeply unpopular president. And it was about negativity and dirty tactics.

All in all, the net negative view of President Obama was over 30 points in battleground states.

This election represents a complete rejection of the president, his agenda and his leadership.

This is true in traditionally Republican states, but crucially in the states that defined his victory in both 2008 and 2012.

Newt Gingrich argued on CNN this evening that these tight races across the nation indicates that campaigns actually matter and that tonight is a good for American democracy.

I respectfully disagree. Tuesday night wasn’t about campaigns – it was about a deeply unpopular president, and American abhorrence of what he and his allies tried to do.

To this end, Tuesday night’s final result isn’t anything but deeply disheartening.

I see that the post-election analyses have begun.

Unfortunately, we can count on a couple of things to happen.

For one, we can count on Democrats to claim that this is NOT a rejection of their policies, per se.

Secondly, we can count on Republicans to claim that it IS a rejection of those polices and/or that it's an electoral embrace of conservative ideas and their governing philosophy.

However, there IS another even more likely possibility which bodes poorly for the country as a whole and is an indictment on the current state of politics and governance in America. It's a combination of apathy and disillusionment with the political process as a whole, gridlock in general, and politics as usual.

Since the US has a notoriously generally apathetic electorate which culminates in an embarrassingly low turnout of only about 53% of eligible voters in years when it's a presidential election year and even far less in off year elections, AND the fact that so many people are not engaged or invested in the process because they think their vote has little meaning, AND the fact that large amounts of money from undisclosed sources have been allowed to flood the process, AND the fact that people in generally are mostly completely turned off by all the negative campaign ads, AND the fact that a small highly energized segment of the electorate dictates not only who the nominees of their party will be but can determine the outcome of a general election, this election may have considerably more to do with a general disengagement of a majority of eligible voters than any kind of ideological rejection or support for any particular party or their policies.

But I fully expect everybody to put their own self-serving spin on the outcome in an effort to burnish the credibility of whatever their governing philosophy may be. With that said, it's almost a certainty that the Republicans will overreach in the reading of the results which frankly is not supported by the simple fact that the midterm turnout is so low.

And when push comes to shove, the Republicans will probably pass bills that they KNOW the president will not sign, and the gridlock will continue for another two years, just like it has for the last two years.

So, like Jake, franco,and JoeB you think we should ONLY send him Bills he will sign..

Amazing.

I seriously question both the intentions and the wisdom of people who waste their time crafting bills they know won't be signed into law when they also know they don't have the votes to override a veto.

I seriously question the intentions of someone who says "Ok you won NOW you MUST only send the President Bills he agrees with."

That is silliness beyond belief.

The point is to find common ground that you can agree to and not waste everyone's time legislating a bill that will die on the vine after weeks or even months of working on it almost every day.

Well, that sounds lovely... but our President set the tone very early on which was "we won, fuck you."

 

[PaintMyHouse]

I see that the post-election analyses have begun.

Unfortunately, we can count on a couple of things to happen.

For one, we can count on Democrats to claim that this is NOT a rejection of their policies, per se.

Secondly, we can count on Republicans to claim that it IS a rejection of those polices and/or that it's an electoral embrace of conservative ideas and their governing philosophy.

However, there IS another even more likely possibility which bodes poorly for the country as a whole and is an indictment on the current state of politics and governance in America. It's a combination of apathy and disillusionment with the political process as a whole, gridlock in general, and politics as usual.

Since the US has a notoriously generally apathetic electorate which culminates in an embarrassingly low turnout of only about 53% of eligible voters in years when it's a presidential election year and even far less in off year elections, AND the fact that so many people are not engaged or invested in the process because they think their vote has little meaning, AND the fact that large amounts of money from undisclosed sources have been allowed to flood the process, AND the fact that people in generally are mostly completely turned off by all the negative campaign ads, AND the fact that a small highly energized segment of the electorate dictates not only who the nominees of their party will be but can determine the outcome of a general election, this election may have considerably more to do with a general disengagement of a majority of eligible voters than any kind of ideological rejection or support for any particular party or their policies.

But I fully expect everybody to put their own self-serving spin on the outcome in an effort to burnish the credibility of whatever their governing philosophy may be. With that said, it's almost a certainty that the Republicans will overreach in the reading of the results which frankly is not supported by the simple fact that the midterm turnout is so low.

And when push comes to shove, the Republicans will probably pass bills that they KNOW the president will not sign, and the gridlock will continue for another two years, just like it has for the last two years.

So, like Jake, franco,and JoeB you think we should ONLY send him Bills he will sign..

Amazing.

I seriously question both the intentions and the wisdom of people who waste their time crafting bills they know won't be signed into law when they also know they don't have the votes to override a veto.

I seriously question the intentions of someone who says "Ok you won NOW you MUST only send the President Bills he agrees with."

That is silliness beyond belief.

The point is to find common ground that you can agree to and not waste everyone's time legislating a bill that will die on the vine after weeks or even months of working on it almost every day.

Well, that sounds lovely... but our President set the tone very early on which was "we won, fuck you."

I very much wish that he had actually.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Haley Barbour got it right:

"The American people have given us a chance to get back on the right track," Barbour added. "This is not some great embrace of Republicanism. This is the American people giving us the ball back."

Sounds like a lot on the Right think they have a mandate to shove their agenda down the country's throat.

Hmm. Shades of 2008.

.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

.

Haley Barbour got it right:

"The American people have given us a chance to get back on the right track," Barbour added. "This is not some great embrace of Republicanism. This is the American people giving us the ball back."

Sounds like a lot on the Right think they have a mandate to shove their agenda down the country's throat.

Hmm. Shades of 2008.

.

They didn't listen to why they lost so why would the listen to why they won?

 

[Little-Acorn]

Republicans who swept the Democrats from office last night, didn't run as a party with a stated agenda.

Many of the individual candidates ran on disagreeing with Obamacare and wanting it repealed. Others ran on the poor condition of the economy and the leftist actions that prolonged the recession for so long.

Overall, the election showed, not so much the people's approval of Republicans (which has been lukewarm for more than a decade), but on virulent rejection of President Obama and his agenda, his results, and his and ideology.

---------------------------------------

2014 Midterms A complete rejection of President Obama his agenda and his leadership Fox News

Democrats and Republicans alike predicted that November 4 would be a big night for the GOP. The polling had indicated that the election – in the Senate and on the state level – was going to go their direction.

What began as cautious optimism has ended up just about as well as could have ever been expected. Even in races where Republicans didn’t end up with a victory, we saw closer races than predicted.

Tuesday night wasn’t about campaigns – it was about a deeply unpopular president. And it was about negativity and dirty tactics.

All in all, the net negative view of President Obama was over 30 points in battleground states.

This election represents a complete rejection of the president, his agenda and his leadership.

This is true in traditionally Republican states, but crucially in the states that defined his victory in both 2008 and 2012.

Newt Gingrich argued on CNN this evening that these tight races across the nation indicates that campaigns actually matter and that tonight is a good for American democracy.

I respectfully disagree. Tuesday night wasn’t about campaigns – it was about a deeply unpopular president, and American abhorrence of what he and his allies tried to do.

To this end, Tuesday night’s final result isn’t anything but deeply disheartening.

It was about more than the rejection of President Obama. Every candidate Bill Clinton campaigned for, lost also. And the same for Hillary.

It was a rejection of big-govt liberalism, that makes grandiose promises about lowering healthcare costs, making healthcare more prevalent and affordable, making the world a more peaceful place where they like us better, making government more transparent and more congenial, etc. etc... and then failing to deliver on every promise, beginning to end.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just remember, the number one GOP promise was to repeal the ACA.

 

[Mustang]

I see that the post-election analyses have begun.

Unfortunately, we can count on a couple of things to happen.

For one, we can count on Democrats to claim that this is NOT a rejection of their policies, per se.

Secondly, we can count on Republicans to claim that it IS a rejection of those polices and/or that it's an electoral embrace of conservative ideas and their governing philosophy.

However, there IS another even more likely possibility which bodes poorly for the country as a whole and is an indictment on the current state of politics and governance in America. It's a combination of apathy and disillusionment with the political process as a whole, gridlock in general, and politics as usual.

Since the US has a notoriously generally apathetic electorate which culminates in an embarrassingly low turnout of only about 53% of eligible voters in years when it's a presidential election year and even far less in off year elections, AND the fact that so many people are not engaged or invested in the process because they think their vote has little meaning, AND the fact that large amounts of money from undisclosed sources have been allowed to flood the process, AND the fact that people in generally are mostly completely turned off by all the negative campaign ads, AND the fact that a small highly energized segment of the electorate dictates not only who the nominees of their party will be but can determine the outcome of a general election, this election may have considerably more to do with a general disengagement of a majority of eligible voters than any kind of ideological rejection or support for any particular party or their policies.

But I fully expect everybody to put their own self-serving spin on the outcome in an effort to burnish the credibility of whatever their governing philosophy may be. With that said, it's almost a certainty that the Republicans will overreach in the reading of the results which frankly is not supported by the simple fact that the midterm turnout is so low.

And when push comes to shove, the Republicans will probably pass bills that they KNOW the president will not sign, and the gridlock will continue for another two years, just like it has for the last two years.

So, like Jake, franco,and JoeB you think we should ONLY send him Bills he will sign..

Amazing.

I seriously question both the intentions and the wisdom of people who waste their time crafting bills they know won't be signed into law when they also know they don't have the votes to override a veto.

I seriously question the intentions of someone who says "Ok you won NOW you MUST only send the President Bills he agrees with."

That is silliness beyond belief.

The point is to find common ground that you can agree to and not waste everyone's time legislating a bill that will die on the vine after weeks or even months of working on it almost every day.

Well, that sounds lovely... but our President set the tone very early on which was "we won, fuck you."

Oh, for cryin' out loud. You act as if Obama is supposed to take office and immediately try to initiate the Republican agenda.

If you want something to compare it to, look at 2000 when Bush actually received 540,000 FEWER votes than Gore. Under such circumstances, having lost the popular vote, most political observers though Bush would try to govern from a centrist philosophical perspective. Instead, he governed as if he had an overwhelming electoral mandate. I think Dick Cheney even came out to SAY that in his opinion, they had a mandate. What nonsense.

The point is you don't win by a healthy margin and then behave as if you took office under a cloud.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Just remember, the number one GOP promise was to repeal the ACA.

Which they can't do...

 

[NotfooledbyW]

This election represents a complete rejection of the president, his agenda and his leadership.

Only 38% of eligible voters participated in this rejection. A bit more turned out that were Republicans. Could be the lowest mid-term election turnout since the middle of WWII. That's all folks. But also Four Dem incumbents retired leaving their Senate seats more vulnerable.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Just remember, the number one GOP promise was to repeal the ACA.

Which they can't do...

Well the RWnuts never criticized Obama for broken promises, so....