Ken

It's been the weekend. I watch football when not hiking.

What can I say? It's hard to beat a dishonest man, especially when the press is biased in his favor. A lot of bought votes with the bailout in PA hurt too.

It's a sad sad day for our country. I can only hope the house stays strong.

Its 9:40 PST and a concession speech has not been made. There is still time to insult the other side and make it count.

Well guys, I'm in Ohio and voted for Obama.









Hah.

I am in Tenn and I voted Obama even if the state is a red one

Edited by Ewker on 11/07/2012 07:08:57 MST.

"What can I say? It's hard to beat a dishonest man, especially when the press is biased in his favor. A lot of bought votes with the bailout in PA hurt too.

It's a sad sad day for our country. I can only hope the house stays strong."

It's funny how opposite different people can feel.

I think there are 5 senators in last 2 elections that Republicans chose extreme candidates and then lost to Democrats - if they had chose more moderate candidate they would have won.

The demographics are slowly evolving. Both Bushes just barely won, and jr required shenanegans. If the Republicans stay extreme, they'll win less and less.

Will the moderate Republicans regain control of the party?

And all those hundreds of millions of dollars Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, David Koch, Sheldon Addelson spent didn't seem very effective - if anything they're shooting themselves in the foot by selecting extreme candidates in primary that lose in general election.

It's a sad day when a desire for self-sufficiency and being fiscally conservative gets you labeled "extreme".

From where I stand, Michael's comment...

"What can I say? It's hard to beat a dishonest man..."

...rings true. Except, as is Jerry, I'm looking at it from the opposite perspective. Romney and the GOP establishment ran a truly despicable campaign, one that was built on half-truths (at best) and outright lies (at worst). In spite of the staggering amount of money that the Romney campaign and the PACs that supported him poured into the dissemination of his deeply dishonest message, Americans put Barack Obama back in office. That, to me, is hopeful and inspiring. Paul Krugman really nailed it in a blog post early this morning...

"For a long time, right-wingers — and some pundits — have peddled the notion that the “real America”, all that really counted, was the land of non-urban white people, to which both parties must abase themselves. Meanwhile, the actual electorate was getting racially and ethnically diverse, and increasingly tolerant too. The 2008 Obama coalition wasn’t a fluke; it was the country we are becoming.

And sure enough that more diverse and, if you ask me, better nation just won big.

Notice too that to the extent that social issues played in this election, they played in favor of Democrats. Gods, guns, and gays didn’t swing voters into supporting corporate interests; instead, human dignity for women swung votes the other way.

A huge night for truth, justice, and the real American way."

Edited by EarthDweller on 11/07/2012 08:05:19 MST.

All politicians use half truths to support their reelection campaign. If you think Obama ran a squeaky clean and honest campaign you are just being fooled. Romney and Obama both ran a campaign of half truths and neither really has a plan to fix the problems we have. Both parties must come together to solve the problems and neither has that desire.

2 billions dollars later (both spend about the same) and the US is no closer to solving the real issues that we face. I'm willing to bet that in 4 years we will be sitting here worse off than we are today. More debt, stagnant economy, little movement in unemployment, etc. Both parties blaming each other for not compromising on issues.

At the end of the day 59 million voted for Obama and 57 million voted for Romney. The congress has a less than 20% approval rating, but the vast majority of the incumbents got reelected. Really?

Fiscal cliff is front and center now that the election is over. Odds are they are going to kick the can down the road for another year and do nothing at the expense of taxpayers. Neither the President or Congress is doing their job, period. I'm amazed at how the voters have become complacent and allow these guys to continually blame the other guy for their failure to accomplish something.

I'm amazed at how people have such excitement about the outcome like it gets us any closer to fixing the problem. I would have the same feeling if Romney won because Reid had already said he was going to use the Republican tactics of not working with the president.

Brad

One of my favorite memories of this election will be an Isreali jounrnalist consistently making donations to Obama from Pakistan, using the name Osama bin Laden and pre-paid debit cards, and then receiving thank you emails from Michelle. But Romney is the one using half-truths.

Looking forward to the new chaff thread when a worthless dollar ceases to be the world's reserve currency, and gas is $20 a gallon.

That's a nice "no true Scotsman" fallacy in your second sentence there, Brad. But I get what you're saying.

Yes, the fact-checkers called the Obama campaign on several things. The one that really amused me was when they tried to claim that the Obama Recovery was in any way more impressive than the Reagan Recovery. Ha! But, Dear God, the clear majority of the Romney campaign was based on falsehoods. IIRC one fact-checking organization figured that 65% of their ads were false. And they bragged about it- "We're not going to let the fact-checkers dictate our campaign strategy." Remember that cute comment? That is insulting as hell- they expect us to buy any lie they spew.

Of course, the latest ploy is to claim that the fact-checkers are themselves partisan, which is on the face of it untrue to anyone who puts in the effort to read the evaluations. Certainly, I would doubt MSNBC's or Fox's "fact-checkers". But groups like Politifact and FactCheck are pretty reliable. They both present explanations for their ratings, which you can read and decide if you agree. Usually I do agree, occasionally I don't.

Frankly, though, this is all the fault of the American electorate. The candidates never even really tried to counter the other sides' falsehoods, because the issues are complex and our attention span isn't long enough to make the effort worthwhile. They just took the hit and moved on to their own talking points. Pathetic.

I'm a right-of-center moderate. But I have to tell you, the Republicans are loosing me because they are getting so extreme and so dishonest. The day a foam-at-the-mouth Tea Party wingnut called me a RINO, they lost me. I've voted Democrat twice in a row, now. I often call myself a "Schwartzeneggar Republican", which means among other things that I'm very green, so you can imagine that the Republican hostility to the environment annoys me. Otherwise I have a bit of a libertarian streak on most social issues, but I'm very conservative on fiscal policy, business, foreign policy, most anything else, etc.

There was a really neat graphic on the xkcd comic website that showed how there are NO moderate Republicans left in the House. Zero. In fact it's majority extremists. (This is clearly the major factor in why Obama failed at so much he tried to do, and I'll "no true Scotsman" back at you- if you don't see this, well, you might need an eye exam.) Radical Republicans scare me (just as much as do radical Democrats- Nancy Pelosi, anyone?) I especially do not want my country to degenerate into some sort of farcical Iran-modeled Evangelical theocracy, or even worse some sort of callous Objectivist paradise. And if the current extremist Republicans ever get power you'll see both.

Where are the damned moderate Republicans ?!?! At least moderate Democrats DO exist.

The U.S. has many times been called a center-right nation, and I've come to believe that I am in many ways the "average American" in my political views, as I mentioned above with the Schwartzeneggar thing. Yes, some of that is self-contradictory- that's America for you. A couple of elections back there was this debate among political wonks about whether the republicans should trend moderate or even more extreme. Unfortunately, the bloated gasbag commentators like Limbaugh won out, and they shifted even more toward extremism. Why are they listening to an ENTERTAINER whose entire schtick is to say the most ridiculously extreme tripe that he can think of, anyway? If they are losing the middle (people like me) I think they need to rethink the issue again.

I can fix the United States in two steps: make our voting Australian-style, and craft an Amendment overturning Citizens United (the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson). This would favor moderates, who presumably would be capable of working together, instead of two polarized groups of extremists who only cause gridlock.

Really- does ANYONE think Citizens United was a good call?

Edited by acrosome on 11/07/2012 10:09:55 MST.

"I can fix the United States in two steps: make our voting Australian-style, and craft an Amendment overturning Citizens United (the worst Supreme Court decision since Plessy v. Ferguson)."

+1

The half-truths that factcheck pointed out Obama made were things like that Obama mentioned the $5 trillion tax cut without mentioning the loophole reductions - but what Obama said was accurate, they proposed $5 trillion of tax cuts. And I think it was Biden that rounded up $265 million to $300 million. And there was the ad that Romney/Bain closed a plant and 5 years later someone died because they didn't have health insurance - probably unfair to blame that on Romney but at least it was factual - definitely a negative ad.

Where Romney just made stuff up - like saying that Jeep was going to make cars in China and ship them here. Or that Obama was taxing $716 billion seniors to pay for Obamacare - but that is just the amount health providers saved by having more insured people because of Obamacare.

This is violating my never post in chaff policy, but I'll bite.

What's Austrailian voting?

What's the Citizens United case?

What's the difference in a moderate Republican and a moderate Democrat? And was my father-in-law the last conservative Democrat allowed in Congress?

Keep feeling good about your candidate and saying he lies less than the other guy.

What we lack are two parties that can come together and develop an executable plan. Today both talk about having a plan and just blame the other for it not getting passed. That is not a plan. Well I guess it is a political plan - develop something that supports your party with no likelihood of ever getting passed.

A few close to my heart:

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/05/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-provided-90-billion/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/17/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-says-barack-obama-began/

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/oct/30/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-obama-chrysler-sold-italians-china-ame/

That last one in particular is just farcical when you consider Romney's record at Bain. Though, to be fair, according to the fact checkers Romney wasn't responsible for more than a fraction of the closures, layoffs, and moves overseas that were attributed to him.

EDIT- Wow. Thanks for the condescension, Brad. I have thought about this a lot, y'know. Fiat trivializing my opinions is a very weak argument.

That was sort of my point about the "no true Scotsman" arguments; they are bad arguments because:
1. They are a fallacy.
2. They are almost always condescending.

Call me "sheeple" next. That'd be fun. :)

But, honestly, it's kind of hard to get me wound up about political issues. I'm a MODERATE, remember? I say throw ALL the bums out and start over...

Edited by acrosome on 11/07/2012 10:53:44 MST.

Citizen United - Supreme court ($upreme court?) case - says corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts on political ads. And either that or the Montana case after that allows anonymous unlimited donatations to "501c" groups that supposedly have "issue ads" but they look a lot like ads that support candidates.

Like Karl Rove's Crossroads GPS. They identify Republican candidates that have a chance and dump $millions in ads.

Or Grover Norquist has almost all the Republicans pledged to not raise taxes - which includes eliminating loopholes. Any Republican that goes against Grover has a huge amount of money going against him in the next primary.

Watch "Frontline" on PBS or "60 Minutes" had a good interview of Grover Norquist - he is unembarressed and "in your face".

We have "the best government money can buy".

Yet, it seemed pretty ineffective in this election, but the House is still firmly in the hands of these groups. Next election they'll probably try different strategies, maybe be more effective.

The Democrats tried to pass the "Disclose Act" that would force 501c groups to disclose their donors but the Republicans blocked it.

There are a number of groups like movetoammend.org that are pushing a constitutional ammendment to over-turn Citizen's United.

Australian voting is "instant runoff voting." You don't just pick a candidate, instead you RANK all of them, and people's second and third choices are used if no candidate has a majority among first choices. This would probably destroy the two-party system, as third parties would be more viable.

Also, voting is mandatory. I'm not so sure about that one- if you're too lazy to vote I'm not sure that I can trust you to research issues and put some thought into it, anyway. Go ahead and don't vote.

But we really do need to make election day a federal holiday...

I don't feel all that good about the Democrats, Brad, but

the Democrats have compromised a lot more. The Republicans won't agree to any tax increases. The Democrats have agreed to and passed expense cuts.

and Obamacare is a compromise to the conservatives. It was first proposed by the conservative Heritage Foundation. The liberal solution would be "Medicare for all".

It's a "false equivalency" that the Democrats are just as bad. Good strategy by the right wing to push their policies.

Just look at the end result - in the last 30 years, taxes on the upper 0.1% have gradually gone down from about 60% to about 25% of income. And corporations have gone down from about 50% in 1950 to 15% now. You and I pay a little less now because of the Bush/Obama tax cuts.

+1 Dean

The two parties hate instant runoff voting because it makes it easier for third parties

Rather than election day a federal holiday, I prefer Oregon system - two weeks ahead you get ballot in mail, mail it back or there are boxes at libraries and county election offices.

Buy Jerry, it's hard to argue tax rates- there is no "right" answer for what is a fair tax rate. What you just quoted probably seems perfectly reasonable to a large fraction of this forum. Back when the Democrats were REALLY in power and had a national emergency to justify ANYTHING they wanted to do (World War II) we had a 95% tax bracket. I think that even the most ardent (American) left-wingnut would agree that that was a bit excessive.

And FDR wanted 100%! Egad!

I get annoyed when I hear left-wingers (e.g. my wife) rant about wanting a "more fair" tax system, and about how the rich should "pay more." What the hell is "fair?" I'll tell you what it is- it's totally subjective, that's what it is. And, clearly, they are all humanities majors who flunked math. 15% of one million dollars is, in fact, MORE than 15% of fifty thousand dollars, is it not? Or am I missing something?

I'm certainly not some right-wingnut who believes that there should be NO taxes. I do not misunderstand obama's "you didn't build that" speech, the way that Brad clearly wants to. That speech was a cogent argument for the existence of taxes. Now, Obama was using it as an argument for a tax INCREASE, which I'm not sold on, but as an argument that taxes aren't a form of immorality or robbery it's a good one. Down with Objectivism.

Now, for the sake of compassion I will agree that there needs to be a poverty level below which people don't pay taxes. Thus, I tacitly support the idea of a graduated tax scheme. But, wow, a flat rate truly tempts me. I guess I'd like the graduated scheme to be flatter, with less loopholes and deductions. I'm not sure how I feel about capital gains taxes- in theory I see no reason that such income should be taxed at a lower rate, but there is NO DOUBT that it drives investment and thus the economy, so it may be a necessary evil.

EDIT-- Yeah, I'm a fan of alternate voting schemes, too. I'm for anything that enables people who WANT to vote to vote. But if you HAVE to vote by mail, well, who decides who gets a ballot mailed to them? BOTH parties have a long, proud history of voter fraud. What if you move and your ballot goes to your old address? So I think that you still have to have polls, and thus a federal election holiday. And what if someone starts stealing ballots from mailboxes and using them? A felony, yes, but what if? Oregon, of course, is a relatively small-population state. Small states (and nations) have an easier time trying such interesting things. (I admire a lot of the (not necessarily political) experiments that Iceland and New Zealand, for example, have tried.) It would be much harder to try such a system in New York or California.

I don't think it is a false equivalency that the Democrats are just as bad. At least, the really extreme Democrats are just as bad in my book as the really extreme Republicans. The problem is, as I have tried to argue, that right now almost ALL Republicans are extremists. (You can still find a couple of moderate Republicans in the Senate.) At least you can still find an adequate supply of moderate Democrats. But, yes, I rank Nancy Pelosi as just as evil as Dick Cheney.

Edited by acrosome on 11/07/2012 11:34:36 MST.

A lot of people seem to like the simplicity of a flat tax, but I don't get it. The complex part of taxes is not calculating the rate. Its the exclusions/deductions from income that may or may not be allowed. Finding the right bracket adds virtually no level of complexity. Also, the results of a flat tax will be higher taxes on middle class folks and lower taxes on the richer folks.

Looking beyond what is fair, I think you have to look at practicalities in tax policy. No matter what the spending level is (within reason), you can't raise revenues to levels that approach the spending until both of the following occur: 1.higher taxes on rich people and 2.the economy recovers. We can raise taxes on the middle class (and poor) but it just won't raise enough money to pay our spending. And they simply don't have the extra money to pay higher taxes and do the things necessary to raise their kids, etc. The only time in recent history where we were able to balance the budget was in the Clinton years. He had a great economy and higher tax rates on wealthy than we have now.

There is simply no way to balance the budget right now and talk of it is not based it reality, particularly when we talk in the same breath about tax cuts for the wealthy and a robust military. And no one is going to cut out Medicare or Social Security. If the economy gets rolling and we raise rates on higher income, I think its possible to balance the budget.