Thursday, November 1, 2012

Something To Consider Before Casting Your Ballot...

by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty
-vs- Tyranny



It appears, at least to David Wasserman anyway, the House of Representatives will remain in republican control. It is possible republicans could actually gain seats in the House. This of course either a good or a bad scenario, depending on how you view good or bad.

It depends actually on whether or not President Obama is reelected. If he is we can almost be assured, based on his prior four years serving as President, of continued partisan gridlock. Assuming the Senate remains in democratic control of course, which it no doubt will.

On the other hand if Mittens is elected the chances of actually getting anything done increases. Why? Simply because Romney, governing in a overwhelming democratic state (MA) had to take a bipartisanship stance. Everything else aside, Romney knows how to work across the partisan aisle.

The Weekly Standard - Democratic hopes of capturing the House next Tuesday are long gone. And Democrats now could wind up actually losing seats.

David Wasserman, the Cook Political Report’s expert on House races, changed his rating of 15 contested House races, 11 of them to the benefit of Republicans. For example, Republican Bob Dold, supposedly doomed because his affluent district north of Chicago was badly gerrymandered, now is in a tossup race.

Wasserman counts six Republican seats as lean or likely Democratic and nine Democratic seats as lean or likely Republican. And “if the 28 races in our Toss Up column were to divide evenly between the parties, Democrats would score a net gain of a single seat in the House,” Wasserman concluded.

This is especially bad news for House minority leader Nancy Pelosi. Unless Democratic candidates do far better than Wasserman projects, she may be forced to give up her leadership post. There’s already speculation in Washington than she may retire.

In Ohio, two incumbents – Republican Jim Renacci and Democrat Betty Sutton – face each other in a merged district. Wasserman has changed their race from tossup to lean Republican.

Something to think about.

Via: Memeorandum

49 comments:

  1. Here's something you and the GOPers need to think about:

    President Obama worked with GOP governor Christie in the best interests of the citizens of New Jersey to get them help and relief during the time of a catastrophe.

    The Republcans--see Silverfiddle and Free Thinke--no call Christie a traitor to the GOP.

    RN, it's not President Obama who can't work with Republicans. When he did just that during a disaster, the Republicans went berserk and bashed Christie for cooperating.

    You and others who are so quick to put the blame for gridlock on Mr. Obama are blind to where the problem really is. What happened to Gov. Christie is a perfect example of where the obtructionism is. And even you, a supposed nonpartisan, Johnson voter, refuse to see it for what it is. Right in front of your nose.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Wrong Shaw. I say, as do many many other conservative/libertarians that Christie was right in his response to the disaster, and putting politics aside.

      You however are quite good at micro examination of a subject and finding that miniscule "proof" that supports you argument and then applying it on a macro level. IMO.

      Delete
  2. Yeah. Right. You just did that with your post on Signorile. You and three other people know who he is, yet you called liberals hypocrites for this one guy's response to one caller.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Perhaps this is just wishful thinking, Les/Shaw, but I strongly suspect that there will be some sort of a grand bargain (a la, Bowles-Simpson, Rivlin-Domenici, Gang of 6, etc.) no matter who gets elected. There has to be. THERE HAS TO BE.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow! He worked with a Republican in a disaster area a week before the election... imagine that.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I get your point Finntann, but really. Isn't it just a bit trite? The disaster is real and the President did the right thing. For Christ's sake can't we put aside partisan BS and act responsibly? Governor Christie and the President have. That's good enough for me.

      Delete
    2. The disaster is real all right -- and, therefore, ripe for political exploitation by Obama who unsurprisingly used the occasion as a Grand Photo op to further his campaign, gave us a dose of his usual high-toned empty rhetoric, then quickly abandoned the scene to depart for greener fields likely to aid his insatiable lust for power.

      So the president "did his job" in response to Sandy? I don't think the citizens of New York City would necessarily agree with that.

      The president made a holy SHOW of doing his job.

      What burned my butt was the way Governor Christie made such a holy show of HIMSELF by ardently soul kissing Obama's butt in front of the cameras -- REPEATEDLY.

      In making such flamboyant gestures, neither one of these larger-than-life figures did ONE LITTLE THING to advance the cause of restoring power to over a million deprived souls or making fuel available to the hundreds of cars parking on lines for HOURS in the faint hope of procuring a small measure of the shrinking supply of gasoline.

      My post was NOT a condemnation of Barack Obama, however, rather it was a pointed CRITICISM aimed at Governor Christie who is SUPPOSED to be a supporter of MITT ROMNEY'S candidacy --NOT BO"s failed and flailing presidency.

      ~ FreeThinke

      Delete
    3. I got the point FT, and my unmitigated opinion of your opinion is this... It is at best trite. At the worst it is a totally and completely partisan swipe at two INDIVIDUALS who under the circumstances did the RIGHT thing.

      I usually find myself in agreement with you FT. On this one one I firmly disagree and stand by my convictions.

      Delete
    4. And I by mine, Les.

      In my opinion you understand the principles behind political theory very well, but tend to confuse idealism with REALPOLITIK which is, as the name implies, about dealing with boots-on-the-ground REALITY.

      The SUPREME COURT is at stake in this election, and whether it ShOULD be that way or not, the Supreme Court -- as John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts proved once again for the umpteenth time -- is far and way THE most powerful of the three branches, which stopped being "co-equal with the advent of the Warren Court.

      Like it or not we DO live by the dictates of a de facto JUDICIAL OLIGARCHY. By failing to do everything POSSIBLE short of murder to stop Obama's reelection we would effectively ENSURE the decisive VICTORY of the MARXIST AGENDA for the foreseeable future.

      An election cycle is NOT an exercise in academic THEORY. It's about blood and guts, life and death REALITY.

      ~ FreeThinke

      Delete
    5. "The SUPREME COURT is at stake in this election, and whether it ShOULD be that way or not, the Supreme Court -- as John "Benedict Arnold" Roberts proved once again for the umpteenth time -- is far and way THE most powerful of the three branches, which stopped being "co-equal with the advent of the Warren Court."

      Ah, I am glad you brought this up. Of course you are correct, and a Obama Supreme Court is indeed VERY undesirable to say the VERY least. Could be disastrous in fact.

      But is the answer to perhaps put a Mittens in office vthat will likely appoint moderate to liberal rEpublican judges that will become another Roberts? That might be okay and I could live with that. However, assumoing the Human Flipper, aka Mittens Romney moves to the right in neo con fashion and appoints judges who find invasion of civil rights, aka The Patriot Act mentality will we be better off? Don't know.

      My fight is for what I view as right, just as classical liberals viewed it back in the day when liberalism was a good and decent thing. And so my boots are on the ground working for candidates like Gary Johnson and Ron Paul, not Mittens or Obummer.

      Because that in reality that is the ONLY WAY WE WILL EVER CHANGE CURRENT REALITIES.

      Delete
  5. It's the most powerful argument the Right has, Les. Kudos. I have not read anywhere a better summation of that argument. Again, kudos.

    When you look at the big picture (or bottom line, depending on how you think;) we're going to have a relatively rookie GOP House that's having a hell of a time making it's scattered mind up about anything important. On the other hand, we have a more than relatively sane Senate, thought bent on the status quo.

    A President Romney could, theoretically, if he shows his true moderate colors, rein in the Republican House cats, and actually accomplish things. Those things, however, would probably be unanimously hated by the Right.

    If I were a Righty, with a subjective but easy take on your logic, Les, I would vote for Obama specifically to keep the status quo and then deal with my prognosticated consequences later. And then you conservatives could come in and save the day. Right?

    Romney would only muddy the field.

    Careful what you wish for.

    I'm still voting for Obama.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's fine jmj, and I'm still voting for Johnson.

      Perhaps sinister thoughts rule the roost with progressives jmj, apparently they do with you anyway.

      My point actually is a valid one based on Romney's history as Governor. Soon we will know jmj, soon we will know. Be careful of what you wish for.

      Delete
    2. I don't know what you mean by "sinister thoughts." I was agreeing with you about your take on Romney, but simply showing another way of looking at it based on your logic.

      What I wish for is irrelevant. Realistically speaking, for the sake of the country, I see a president Obama as the only intelligent choice for us all. As for those who vote for Johnson, more power to 'em.

      JMJ

      Delete
    3. "And then you conservatives could come in and save the day. Right?"

      I was referring to the above. If I assumed incorrectly you were lumping me in with all the other "you conservatives" than I stand corrected.

      Delete
  6. To the detriment of the American people the Republicans announced they would not work with Obama, of course they will work with Romney. Obama's first visit to the Hill after inauguration was to the Republicans, not the Democrats. It's not a lack of ability on Obama's part to be bipartisan, but on the part of the Republicans in the House.
    Reality was Romney had to move to the left to get something done in Mass., as his then positions on the issues have been pointed out. Just as he moved to the right to get the Republican nomination, giving him the "etch-a-sketch" moniker.
    The reason some liberals are unhappy with Obama is because he is actually a very conservative Democrat. Did he use FDR type programs to give people jobs. No. Would Carter spend billions to save Wall Street, the banks, or the auto companies? I doubt it. What other Democratic president would have continued the Republican tax cuts, or the Republicans wars abroad? Liberals wanted a health care plan that eliminated the private insurance companies. Republicans may cry Obama care is government care, but of course the private insurance companies still rule, with certain government regulations. A plan first proposed by Republicans in the 1990's, to counter Clinton's health care plan.
    It is the Republicans who have missed a chance to get things done with a conservative Democratic president. It is Republicans who missed a chance to get something done for the country.
    House Republican majority was never in question. The Senate Democratic majority is. Thanks to a few statements by Republican Senate candidates, Democrats should keep control of the Senate.
    How long can House Republicans continue to refuse to work with the president (if Obama wins) before the American people toss them out?
    Congressional approval ratings are the lowest in history, which could lead to a 2010 type switch of House majority, but not till 2014.
    It is truly a Republican talking point that Obama is not bipartisan, or that Republican leaders have done all they could to work with the president.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting perspective. Can't say I agree with a lot, particularly with respect to Obama's not being partisan and being a conservative president.

      There is a modicum of truth to your statement rEpublicans stood in the way of "progress", as in "get things done." But that depends largely on ones view of what constitutes progress in the correct and sensible direction, doesn't it? The country is as close to evenly divided as I've ever seen it.

      Delete
    2. Skipping what you think is good, or not for the country, proof is not much has gotten done. That is due more to Republicans refusing to work with Obama (their stated position since he took office) than Obama refusing to work with Republicans. The Republican House has earned their low ratings.
      For me, good to see Pelosi go, even better to see Reid go.

      Delete
    3. "The Republican House has earned their low ratings."

      Agreed, to a degree and in some respects.

      "... good to see Pelosi go, even better to see Reid go."

      It will be absolutely fabulous to see them BOTH go. It cannot happen soon enough.

      Delete
    4. Good to Tan Man and McConnell go also. Start with a new slate of leadership

      Delete
    5. Yup, I been saying dump em all for a long time. Problem is, it is never your own rep. or senator, for most is ALWAYS some other rep. or senator that is the problem.

      So we do must we must do.

      And I say dump Obama and Romney and go with Johnson.

      Delete
    6. However, since it is going to be either Obama or Romney, given the DC situation, IMO more will get done with a President Romney rather than with President Obama.

      Delete
    7. Makes sense a Republican president would get more out of a Republican House than a Democratic president. I say drop the Republican refusal to work a with Democratic president and get something done. If Romney wins, I'll bet for sure we see a switch to a Democratic majority in the House in 2014.

      Delete
    8. "Makes sense a Republican president would get more out of a Republican House than a Democratic president."

      Yes it certainly does, same applies to the 180 degree swing.

      "If Romney wins, I'll bet for sure we see a switch to a Democratic majority in the House in 2014."

      Your bet is very likely a safe one. It is how the American electorate generally likes to keep balance. Something I actually agree with. One party goverance is not usually a positive thing, IMO.

      Delete
    9. Love to hear which Democratic president you think has been more conservative than Obama, and why.
      With the election this close, I expect something like 2000. A court will be making decisions on ballots.

      Delete
  7. If Pelosi loses her position as House minority leader, I'm going to hoist my glass in celebration!

    We do naturally focus a lot on who is elected President. However, the real seat of power is on Capitol Hill -- not in the White House (except for the power of executive order and appointments to THE SCOTUS, of course).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And I shall be lifting my glass in celebration as well!

      Delete
  8. Shaw: You are mistaken about me. I most definitely did not call Christie a traitor. He did what governors must do when disaster strikes. In no way did I criticize him, so please stop spreading misinformation about what I said.

    @ Shaw: "President Obama worked with GOP governor Christie in the best interests of the citizens of New Jersey to get them help and relief during the time of a catastrophe."

    Do you really think Obama did anything besides fly in a get a photo op? Do you really think he and Cristie, maps and calculators out, planned a recover? How naive.

    The president took pro-forma actions all presidents take. A cadaver could do it.

    Now, let's talk about New York, and also New Jersey, where people are eating out of dumpsters and stabbing each other over gas shortages.

    President "Leave no one behind" left four people to die in Benghazi and he left a whole bunch of Americans stranded as he waltzed off to more campaign stops and fundraisers with the rich and famous.

    ReplyDelete
  9. "President 'Leave no one behind' left four people to die in Benghazi and he left a whole bunch of Americans stranded as he waltzed off to more campaign stops and fundraisers with the rich and famous." --SF

    Nice redirect there. It has nothing to do with Les's topic or Hurricane Sandy.

    "Do you really think Obama did anything besides fly in a get a photo op?"

    Well Christie thinks he did. And he was at the disaster, while you've been at your pc writing cranky comments.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Shaw:

    I did not redirect. Put on your reading glasses: "Now, let's talk about New York, and also New Jersey, where people are eating out of dumpsters and stabbing each other over gas shortages."

    Looks like you're the one redirecting from President "leave no one behind" Obama. So what about it? If his recovery actions were so heroic, why are people in New York and New Jersey looting, digging in dumpsters for food and stabbing one another in Soviet-era style gas lines?

    Back to you, Shaw!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Silver: I don't think you will get very far asking said person to put on glasses. I am sure this person is using glasses like this which add no clarity and present nothing but obfuscation. Blinders, really.

    ReplyDelete
  12. RN said: ""The Republican House has earned their low ratings.""

    Yes. If they had done their job, Obama's plan to destroy healthcare would not have passed, and we'd have a lot more jobs because Obama's job destroying "stimulus" package would have never been passed either.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Was his plan to "destroy healthcare" or was it just a misguided attempt to improve a system that is without question ailing?

      What I would like to know is this... Why wasn't a successful plan such as the Swiss plan considered and adopted in a format that would truly benefit Americans.

      The floor i wide open on this one. Is it not?

      Delete
  13. Misguided or malicious? What term would you use for certain parts of it, such as the provision to further overtax medical equipment makers, thus forcing them to fire people and raise prices sharply?

    You'd think if it was the affordable care act, he wouldn't do that. Or at least, he'd have a provision to make it easier to them to lower prices.

    ReplyDelete
  14. I'm sorry, Les, I didn't mean that as mean as it sounded at the time. Poorly written and thought out on my part. You're not, by any stretch, a stereotypical American conservative. You are an Objectivist, and if anything, you'd think another Obama term to be pretty much the same as a "fresh" Romney term. And in a lot, if not most ways there, I agree with you.

    So again, sorry. I shouldn't have lumped you in with that bunch.

    JMJ

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks jmj, no need to feel like the lone ranger, many on your side of the aisle have done the same.

      Delete
  15. Republicans are so anti-European anything they would never consider a Swiss plan. As far as Republicans are concerned Europe is the socialism they believe Obama represents. Nice to see a little TAO in your thinking.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A) I am not a rEpublican.

      B) There are some things about Europe I find quite interesting. European socialism just doesn't happen to be one of them.

      C) I disagree with most of TAO's positions. On healthcare (Swiss plan) I just happen to agree. Our system is broke, unaffordable for many, and the Swiss Plan makes a hell of a lot more sense than ObamaCare.

      Delete
    2. RN said: "European socialism just doesn't happen to be one of them."

      It can be interesting to read about the history of it. And how so many people are fooled into large scale genocide by it. Chilling.

      Delete
  16. Hey Shaw, you sound like a "vengeful partisan" (please, notice that I said "sound like", as opposed to directly declaring you to be one). What's up with that, man?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Will, I don't think Shaw was referring to you specifically. I think she knows you are a moderate or only very slightly to the right of center, in a fiscal. Unlike me who is a shade further to the fiscally conservative partisan side :-)

      Delete
    2. I did enjoy her Clintonian foray, needless to say.

      Delete
    3. "I did enjoy her Clintonian foray, needless to say."

      Clintonian? Nah. It's not Clintonian until there's a dressed stained, and a President commits purjury related to an incident of sexual harassment he committed.

      As for Will being "only very slightly to the right of center", the record shows that he is to the left of center. He voted for Clinton and Obama.

      Delete
    4. Actually, dmarks, I voted for Perot in '92 and '96 (though, yes, I do like President Clinton in hindsight). And on economic matters I've moved significantly to the center/cener-right.

      Delete

As this site encourages free speech and expression any and all honest political commentary is acceptable. Comments with cursing or vulgar language will not be posted.

Effective 8/12/13 Anonymous commenting has been disabled. This unfortunate action was made necessary due to the volume of Anonymous comments that are either off topic or serve only to disrupt honest discourse..

I apologizes for any inconvenience this necessary action may cause the honest Anonymous who would comment here, respect proper decorum and leave comments of value. However, The multitude of trollish attack comments from both the left and right has necessitated this action.

Thank you for your understanding... The management.