Gas Bandit's Analysis of the Midterm Results

Status
Not open for further replies.

GasBandit

Staff member
So here we are, the proverbial morning after. More seats changed parties this election than in any since 1948, the Republicans picking up more seats than they even did in 1994.

But what does all this mean?

Let's not forget that the first reason they could pick up so many seats in the first place is because they've been trampled so heavily for the last 4 years. For a brief period, the Democrats even had a filibuster-proof majority and it was only internecine squabbling that kept them from enacting every piece of legislation their heart desired while the Republicans wallowed in irrelevancy.

And why were Republicans so withered during that period? Because of their behavior while in power from about 1995 onward. Because they forgot who they were (or at least who they purported to be) and started bloating government and spending faster than even a Democrat would have thought inadvisable... putting aside for a moment that since 06 Democrats, having seen what Republicans could get away with, went on to triple down on expenditure and centralization.

Republicans won big because they'd previously lost big. And really, how big have they won? They don't have a majority in the senate (though the Democrat control is as tenuous as it can get). The pendulum didn't swing ALL the way back in the House either - the specter of filibuster is ever present in congress and the Republicans didn't get enough seats to be filibuster-proof, so it seems the gold medal agenda item from their platform (the repeal of ObamaCare) is probably just a pipe dream unless they suddenly grow a spine and bully some Democrats into recanting... which to put it mildly, is not something Republicans are known for.

It's proven historic precedent that the midterms usually go against the party who previously won the presidency. That it went in that direction to such a degree is noteworthy, even if tempered by the fact that the end result is a return to legislative stalemate, for a number of factors. The first is that even many of the seats the Democrats retained, it was a lot closer than it should have been. Vilified tea-party candidate Sharron Angle came within 5 percent of sending House Majority Leader Harry Reid home, for example. There are many other elections that came out that way - with the Democrat holding on by the skin of their teeth. Some southern seats were taken by Republicans for the first time since Reconstruction. Additionally, the GOP took Gubernatorial elections away from Democrats in Wyoming, Oregon, Maine, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Wisconsin, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, and kept Jan Brewer now officially in the seat vacated by Janet Napolitano when called to service by President Obama. While tempered by Democrat victories in California, Vermont, Minnesota and Connecticut, it's still a telling push toward the red... or rather, away from the blue.

Because therein lies the true rub - America has pulled a Darth Vader. This isn't a ringing endorsement of Republicans - it's the slaying of Admiral Ozzel and promoting the Republican standing next to him. The American public is still wary of the Republicans, and rightly so. If the GOP lets this go to their head and starts channeling Dick Cheney, saying "This is our due so F%$# off with all that talk about dangerous deficits," they very well could end up right back out in the cold in 2012, and solidify Barack Obama's re-election campaign.

And there's more than budgetary concerns, even if the Economy is still the number one issue, or perhaps because of it. They need to get over their hangups about gay marriage and gays in the military. They need to drop the evolution/creation in schools argument, because it will go nowhere and do nothing for them. This is not the time to push a neocon social agenda, if there ever even is one at all. They need to concede most of the social issues to what the vast majority of the country considers to be common sense, and focus on getting the Economy moving again, mostly by demonstrating to small business and big corporate interests alike that the winter is over and they can start hiring again - mostly by trying, even if futilely, to remove the roadblocks and pit traps set in place by the Democrats over the last 4 years. And that includes a precluded attempt to repeal Obamacare. It won't work, but it will show business that those in power in Washington no longer want their scalp and are willing to go to bat for them, even if they can't repair all the damage. Serious spending cuts also need to be made... and we'll see if the buoyancy of this electoral victory gives Republicans the spine to do what needs to be done... or if it just bloats their heads and makes them forget, yet again, why they were sent to Washington.
 
or if it just bloats their heads and makes them forget, yet again, why they were sent to Washington.
Most likely. The only issues that some of them campaigned on which will be pushed are the neocon social agenda ones that you mentioned. When it comes to the stuff that matters, Dem or Repub, they live in a completely different world.
 
Krisken's counter Analysis-

Democrats lost many seats due to not just the pendulum swing, but the same reason Republicans lost seats in the 2008 election- the poor economy. Though the number of jobs has gone up and a record number of initiatives have been put into place in the last 2 years, Republicans owned the message. The economy didn't move fast enough for many independents and most have no idea what was all done by the current administration. Many progressives are angry that more hasn't been done with DADT, no public option for health care, and the failure of campaign finance.

Additionally, the wariness of Republicans is not only connected to the excesses of the early 2000's and the abandonment of fiscal responsibility. Two days ago House Minority leader (soon to be Majority) leader Boehner stated that he would do everything he could to make sure nothing gets done. Last night that tune changed to it being time to work together. Also, interviews with Republican leadership involved promises of spending cuts 'across the board', but no one could specify what would get cut down, even when pressed. Often the phrase 'discretionary spending' was used, but never identified.

Finally, Republicans will have their hands full trying to reign in the fringier elements which got elected this season. Rand Paul has stated he intends to grind the entire process to a halt and has vowed to work against even the GOP leadership to insure this happens.

Overall, both parties have a lot of work ahead of them if they plan to do something as elementary as the budget.
 
My analysis: The right people won for the right reasons. The right people lost for the right reasons.

The US experimented with a Republican presidency and a Republican house. Didn't work.
The US experimented with a Democrat presidency and a Democrat house. Didn't work.
The US has gone back to the tried and true split regime, which seems to produce the best results.
 
I love how the Daily Show made a crack along the lines that John Boehner will be an inspiration as the first Orange-American, or is it American of Orange Decent to rise to such a high position of power.
 

Dave

Staff member
U Stink But I Love U.



TUBA SOLO!!!

---------- Post added at 03:11 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:08 PM ----------

 
The US experimented with a Democrat presidency and a Democrat house. Didn't work.
I always wonder... where you guys actually thinking that once Obama is elected he'll jump start the economy with his fairy hope dust?![/QUOTE]

Some people were thinking exactly that, yes. Some people seemed to think that the US would become a utopia within 2 weeks of his election.
 

Necronic

Staff member
My Analysis:

It's the economy stupid. The republicans sang a monotone this election season, and why not? The economy is in terrible shape, and the causes of it are deep and complicated enough that it is easy to blame anyone who has the power to act. Regardless of what the real causes were or what actions the powers that be took.

Some may think that the republicans will now have to pony up on those promises, but they won't. Their current position is advantageous as they can set up straw man after straw man and have the senate or the president knock it down. At the same time they have the ability to block lots of legislation from the dems side. This will make the democrats look even worse as they will be shooting down potential solutions and not be putting out anything of their own.

The vaguely libertarian shift of the republicans during the election will swing back towards more social conservatism as they shore up the religious right for the next election. I don't think it will go back as strong as it was in the Bush years, but you can be assured to see bills tossed around on gays in the military, abortion, gay marriage, and/or evolution in school. Yet again, none of these will be expected to pass, but will be a token gesture to the relgious right reminding them that they haven't been forgotten.

What this all boils down to is a relatively inactive next 2 years with a continuing shift to the republicans in the next election. Obama has little if no chance to be re-elected, and the health care package may not survive the next elections. What does that mean to the economy for those 2 years? Not much, but probably some good. With the assumption that little will be done in the next 2 years businesses have a better understanding of the playing field: You have what you have now, and nothing more. This gives some stability which could help people better formulate business plans. Assuming they aren't dumb enough to plan on getting tax cuts, because I seriously doubt any major tax cuts are coming down.

Some people seem to think that the republican take-over would seriously benefit the economy, and I doubt that. From what I have seen the Dow Jones agrees. The significant stagnation of the Dow in the last year even up to tonight means that Wall Street doesn't see an epiphany in the new Republican majority.
 
The only problem with that is the House has to get a budget passed, or it could spell financial ruin for the United States, not to mention the rest of the world. With Boehner in charge, he is in a position where he has to get the House and Senate to work together or things could go south quick.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
The US experimented with a Democrat presidency and a Democrat house. Didn't work.
I always wonder... where you guys actually thinking that once Obama is elected he'll jump start the economy with his fairy hope dust?![/QUOTE]

Some people were thinking exactly that, yes. Some people seemed to think that the US would become a utopia within 2 weeks of his election.[/QUOTE]

Not so much that he didn't wave his "fix everything" wand, so much as he waved his "FUBAR everything" wand.



See that top triangle? Yeah, that's where it stayed to this very day.

His opponents were grumpy that he turned out to be just as hostile to capitalism as they thought he would be, and his supporters were grumpy that he didn't stick to his guns enough by their estimation, abdicated his agenda to the same clinton-era hacks who were screwing things up since 06, delivered a health care bill that did nothing about health care other than inject a government middleman to make it more expensive and mired in bureaucracy yet not providing the single payer land of milk and honey they'd been jonesing for... in essence, making it illegal to not buy health insurance while making it more expensive to do so. That's like trying to solve world hunger by making it illegal to not eat. Then there's been all the talk about cap and trade, the VAT tax, the complete flop of environmental policy (thankfully)...

Like I said. He grabbed the wrong wand. Was easy to do I guess, they both start with F.
 
You're wrong on the health care thing, and it drives me crazy that people are so intentionally obtuse about it.

This is what was in the bill the day Obama signed it on March 23rd.
Gas, I know you're a smart guy. I really expect more from you than that.

Additionally, the reason a lot of the provisions were set to take place in 2014 was... wait for it... it takes time to implement these things. Just like George Bush's health care reforms involving the push for electronic health care exchanges, which have helped speed up hospital wait times and reduce costs in billing by reducing paper work, storage of medical records, and clarify privacy rules regarding health records.

This stuff just can't happen overnight.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
You're wrong on the health care thing, and it drives me crazy that people are so intentionally obtuse about it.

This is what was in the bill the day Obama signed it on March 23rd.
Gas, I know you're a smart guy. I really expect more from you than that.

Additionally, the reason a lot of the provisions were set to take place in 2014 was... wait for it... it takes time to implement these things. Just like George Bush's health care reforms involving the push for electronic health care exchanges, which have helped speed up hospital wait times and reduce costs in billing by reducing paper work, storage of medical records, and clarify privacy rules regarding health records.

This stuff just can't happen overnight.
From the Article -

In 2014, everyone must purchase health insurance or face a $695 annual fine. There are some exceptions for low-income people.
Other parts of it, like the deficit reduction, have been shown to not pan out after all, because the accounting was so "creative." And that's why all of a sudden in August Democrats stopped talking about the supposed fiscal benefits of the bill. And meanwhile, us working stiffs just had to go through all our health care stuff again, because all our premiums just went up. And not in 2014. My company had to switch providers, otherwise our premiums were going up 50%.

All this to fix a fictional "47 million uninsured."

If you want to talk about what Bush did wrong in health care (don't even get me started on his prescription drug plan)... that's for another thread.

At any rate, my point is, the Republicans have two very short years to show progress, or at least really really hard work, in rolling back the damage wrought to the nation over the last two years. If they don't... if they turn back into the 1994 republicans who promised to eliminate the federal department of education and then instead doubled it... they're Done. With a capital D. Their former supporters will turn on them, and it wouldn't surprise me to have the party splinter.
 
Maybe, and this is just me thinking out loud here, it's because insurance companies are gouging ya.

I still maintain healthcare should not be a for profit industry. I know that runs counter to everything you believe in, but when an industry built to maintain a societies health is more interested in shareholder payouts, there is a serious conflict of interest.
 
You're wrong on the health care thing, and it drives me crazy that people are so intentionally obtuse about it.

This is what was in the bill the day Obama signed it on March 23rd.
Gas, I know you're a smart guy. I really expect more from you than that.

Additionally, the reason a lot of the provisions were set to take place in 2014 was... wait for it... it takes time to implement these things. Just like George Bush's health care reforms involving the push for electronic health care exchanges, which have helped speed up hospital wait times and reduce costs in billing by reducing paper work, storage of medical records, and clarify privacy rules regarding health records.

This stuff just can't happen overnight.
Sorry Dems don't get to play the "you have to be patient these things take time card" when they are going around claiming that we have to have healthcare reform now or people will die!!!!
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Maybe, and this is just me thinking out loud here, it's because insurance companies are gouging ya.

I still maintain healthcare should not be a for profit industry. I know that runs counter to everything you believe in, but when an industry built to maintain a societies health is more interested in shareholder payouts, there is a serious conflict of interest.
That's always a possibility of course, but our premiums still went up when we switched, just not up nearly as much. And every insurance company and major business leader has said that the bill will raise insurance premiums (and the Democrats got very angry at them for that and called them Republican stooges who wanted children to die of the flu in the street and so on).

My position on health care for profit is that we need the competition to keep costs down and level of service up. Our problems started when it stopped being health insurance and started being "I pay my premium and copay, so my insurance company should just pay the rest" medical payment plans. We have to reintroduce the consumer to the costs, so that they start taking some responsibility in making the choices that affect their health care... choosing doctors who charge less, etc.

And yes, I put my money where my mouth is on this too... I switched to a high deductible medical plan with a HSA. It'll probably take 10 years, but if we can get more people doing this, we will be able to just watch the health care costs plummet.
 
Sorry Dems don't get to play the "you have to be patient these things take time card" when they are going around claiming that we have to have healthcare reform now or people will die!!!!
Never crossed your mind that the reason why you have to do it now is because it will take time to implement and if it's not done now it won't be done in time to save lives?


My position on health care for profit is that we need the competition to keep costs down and level of service up.
Yeah, the problem with that is that your health is not a ordinary good (i might be wrong about the nomenclature, learned it in another language after all), so it doesn't work like stuff you buy at the supermarket.


And every insurance company and major business leader has said that the bill will raise insurance premiums
And of course they're so objective...
 

GasBandit

Staff member
Sorry Dems don't get to play the "you have to be patient these things take time card" when they are going around claiming that we have to have healthcare reform now or people will die!!!!
Never crossed your mind that the reason why you have to do it now is because it will take time to implement and if it's not done now it won't be done in time to save lives? [/quote] A difference of a week or two to read the bill, as was promised in the campaign, would not have caused deaths. As a matter of fact, it was found that people weren't actually dying in the streets to begin with. The entire crisis was largely manufactured out of whole cloth.


My position on health care for profit is that we need the competition to keep costs down and level of service up.
Yeah, the problem with that is that your health is not a ordinary good (i might be wrong about the nomenclature, learned it in another language after all), so it doesn't work like stuff you buy at the supermarket.
You used the proper nomenclature, but you're still half wrong - it's not a good, it's a service. And competition helps the consumer in the service industry as well as in retail goods. Basically, it's been shown repeatedly throughout the course of human experience that if there's no competition, there's no motivation either.


And every insurance company and major business leader has said that the bill will raise insurance premiums
And of course they're so objective...
Objectivity is irrelevant. They are the ones who are charging and paying the lions's share of said premiums, so it's more a statement of fact. Plus, it's also common sense - you can't add millions more people to a system without increasing costs.

Nobody's saying things didn't need fixing with health care - costs are and were too high, and there were too many ways for insurance companies to weasel out of claims. But this doesn't address the latter, and even exacerbates the former.

Also - remember the "if you like your current coverage, you keep it?" Turns out that was yet another huge lie.
 
I haven't seen a whole lot of credible news sources in this thread. Soon as I see something like AP or the like, that would probably do a lot more to convince me of the EPIC DANGERS AND BIG FAT LIES you keep touting.
 
48% of americans want it repealed.

Review & Outlook: Martyrs to ObamaCare - WSJ.com

---------- Post added at 12:48 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:45 PM ----------

The congressional budget office itself released a "revised" figure for the costs of the healthcare bill, with an estimate that's over 100 billion more than the original reports.

CBO: Health Care Bill Will Cost $115 Billion More Than Previously Assessed - Political Punch

---------- Post added at 12:52 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:48 PM ----------

And, of course, we already had a huge thread on this with sources in the politics section, so if you really want to debate the facts, please go there and review them.
 
Ok, so the first decade we break even instead of being ahead $100 billion. Then what happens after those initial costs are spend and reimbursed? Do the savings just stop? Are we only concerned with what happens in the next 10 years, or does the long term matter?

18% of Americans also believe Obama is a Muslim. Jon Stewart is the most trusted news man in America. All this tells us is people like polls.


Edit: I just want to add- there is a lot wrong with the bill. I'm not saying that it's perfect or that improvements can't be made to it. I'm just tired of the misinformation that gets spewed around about what is in it.

Steinman, the increase in cost is something I wouldn't have known if you hadn't posted it here.
 

Necronic

Staff member
My position on health care for profit is that we need the competition to keep costs down and level of service up. Our problems started when it stopped being health insurance and started being "I pay my premium and copay, so my insurance company should just pay the rest" medical payment plans. We have to reintroduce the consumer to the costs, so that they start taking some responsibility in making the choices that affect their health care... choosing doctors who charge less, etc.
I generally agree that competition makes for better business, but there are some exceptions. Personally I feel that Credit Unions are vastly safer and generally more appealing banking options than commercial banks. I think the same could apply to insurance as well. I'm not sure why health insurance co-operatives don't exist, is it a legal blockage? When a business provides services that are so fundamentally important to an individual, such as their finances or their health, it may be that the competitive advances aren't worth the extra risk to the customer. In a for profit bank, for instance, the bank will take risks with your money for the sake of the stock-holder. The risk tolerance a customer would accept is probably far less than the risk tolerance an investor would accept.

For instance I still want to invest in citi-bank. But I would never have them manage my money.

Similar disparities of risk tolerance exist in the insurance business as well. So why aren't there insurance co-ops?
 
Very nice, Gas :)

I told Gas about this in IRC, but since it's about voters and people like polls so much....

Most voters think Republicans will disappoint by 2012

I think this is two-fold. Some will be upset there isn't more partisan bickering, but I think a lot are just as tired of the demonizing and false equivalencies, as both sides have been compared to Nazis in the last 10 years (ridiculously so).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top