Thoughts?

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

My next prediction...Marco Rubio, the newly elected Republican senator from FL, will very likely be the Vice Presidential pick for the GOP in 2012. This kid is extremely impressive. He helps the GOP in FL, he is Catholic (huge voting bloc), and he is hispanic (he is Cuban American). In other words, he pulls a lot of levers for the GOP. The sky is the limit for this kid (he might be under 40?). And if he is able to swing the Hispanic vote to the GOP, watch how fast the Democrats change their tune on immigration, in the very next nanosecond.

I agree, Rubio has a bright future.

Overall, I grade the night a solid B+ for the GOP. Very disappointed that Harry Reid held on. I guess CO and WA are still too close to call.

The GOP did quite well on paper, but they need to fix the issues within the party to really make this a success.

This election cycle was just as much a rejection of the establishment than a rebuke of Obama. Now that the GOP is part of the establishment once again, the people will just as likely elect more Dems in 2012 if they feel their needs aren't being represented.

Does the establishment GOP really want to give up their power? That remains to be seen.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

The GOP did quite well on paper, but they need to fix the issues within the party to really make this a success.


-spence

they did well in reality , right down to the state house level...you are about the 4th person to suggest that the GOP needs to fix the "issues" within the party(this always seems to be suggested or warned by people outside the party which is humorous)....care to elaborate on the"issues" that you are speaking of?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by scottw

they did well in reality , right down to the state house level...you are about the 4th person to suggest that the GOP needs to fix the "issues" within the party(this always seems to be suggested or warned by people outside the party which is humorous)....care to elaborate on the"issues" that you are speaking of?

I think Spence would like to see the same thing the Tea Party wants.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

This election cycle was just as much a rejection of the establishment than a rebuke of Obama. -spence

Please. I keep hearing liberals say that, to soften the blow. If what you said was true (it was anti-incumbency, not anti-liberalism, that took place) then the % of incumbent Dems that lost would be the same as the % of incumbent Republicans that lost. That's NOT what happened.

Let's talk with some intellectual honesty. The public essentially gave Obama an "F" for his first 2 years. Given the 8 years before that, they have good reasons to doubt that the GOP is any better, but that doesn't mean they didn't reject liberalism.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Please. I keep hearing liberals say that, to soften the blow. If what you said was true (it was anti-incumbency, not anti-liberalism, that took place) then the % of incumbent Dems that lost would be the same as the % of incumbent Republicans that lost. That's NOT what happened.

No, not when the Dems are the party holding the Whitehouse, the House of Representatives and US Senate. The 2006 mid-term election had some of the same substance. Ideology put aside, the people didn't feel the government in charge was responding to the will of the electorate.

You can't say 2006 and 2008 was a mandate for Liberalism, and 2010 was a mandate against it. That makes no sense. Face it, we're at the end of an economic cycle with massive deleveraging that has sucked a lot of life from the economy. The party in power will always get hit...

Let's talk with some intellectual honesty. The public essentially gave Obama an "F" for his first 2 years. Given the 8 years before that, they have good reasons to doubt that the GOP is any better, but that doesn't mean they didn't reject liberalism.

In both cases the people were rejecting a government that couldn't defend it's actions.

I know some really hardcore liberals who feel it's an imperative to keep their checkbook balanced. Out of control spending isn't a liberal trait, many liberals would just want to raise taxes to keep things square.

On spending, Bush was just about as bad as Obama...it's the appearance of reckless behavior that ticked the electorate off, in both 2006 and 2010.

-spence

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

I know some really hardcore liberals who feel it's an imperative to keep their checkbook balanced. -spence

this would be correct, liberals prefer to spend freely, wrecklessly and charitably with other people's money

[JohnR]

Absolutely this has been anti-Obama / practices just as 2008 was Anti-Bush-Hitler from the left. Not entirely , but a good percentage of it.

Originally Posted by spence

On spending, Bush was just about as bad as Obama...it's the appearance of reckless behavior that ticked the electorate off, in both 2006 and 2010.

-spence

Umm, no. Bush was really bad with spending. Obama is far worse.

Bottom line - both presidents were awful on it yet we continue to HEMORRHAGE money.

[Jim in CT]

Spence -

"On spending, Bush was just about as bad as Obama"

That's as stupid as saying that 5 and 8 are equal. It's just not true. Bush ran up the deficit. Obama is running it up MORE.

You're entitled to you own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. If yyou want to debate, you have to show some intellectual honesty. Obama has increased our deficit more than any president in the history of our country. I'm sorry if that fact doesn't serve your lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence -

"On spending, Bush was just about as bad as Obama"

That's as stupid as saying that 5 and 8 are equal. It's just not true. Bush ran up the deficit. Obama is running it up MORE.

You're entitled to you own opinions, you are not entitled to your own facts. If yyou want to debate, you have to show some intellectual honesty. Obama has increased our deficit more than any president in the history of our country. I'm sorry if that fact doesn't serve your lefty agenda, but it's a fact nonetheless.

relativity is an easy argument...my kids try it all the time

[scottw]

Originally Posted by spence

.

, the people will just as likely elect more Dems in 2012 if they feel their needs aren't being represented..

-spence

yeah, well there are a lot of dems up for reelection in 2012 and not many republicans, several of those dems are in red states and some are first termers that beat repubs and a couple will be up for reelection after just 2 years winning by close margins....just sayin'

Dem Senators(ind caucus) Up in 2012

Dianne Feinstein of California

Tom Carper of Delaware

Bill Nelson of Florida

Daniel Akaka of Hawaii

Ben Cardin of Maryland

Debbie Stabenow of Michigan

Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota

Claire McCaskill of Missouri

Jon Tester of Montana

Ben Nelson of Nebraska

Bob Menendez of New Jersey

Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico

Kirsten Gillibrand of New York

Kent Conrad of North Dakota

Sherrod Brown of Ohio

Bob Casey, Jr. of Pennsylvania

Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island

Jim Webb of Virginia

Maria Cantwell of Washington

Joe Manchin of West Virginia

Herb Kohl of Wisconsin

Joe Lieberman of Connecticut

Bernie Sanders of Vermont