US midterm elections: Barack Obama’s legacy could be ruined in one day

[VegasVic]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He is a good President and a descent person.
I hope the USA people would recognise that and give him the control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Honour your good people.

Sadly, the truth is that he is among the worst Presidents in U.S. history and he is also a pathological narcissist. I say this not to insult the man, a famous FBI psych profiler did a workup on Obama shortly after he was elected and Obama fit the clinical profile of a pathological narcissist perfectly, and thus far (6 years later) he has lived up to that profile]

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I reckon all political leaders would get the same diagnosis.

And to be fair, it has to be almost a pre requisite for the the job. You are there. You are making the call with at any one time at least 48% of your citizens vehemently disagreeing with you.

If you didn't have such inordinate amounts of self regard for yourself, you wouldn't be able to do the job.

Sam, I think you likely don't realize the difference between a narcissist and a pathological narcissist, the former is what most politicians are (quite full of themselves as you have pointed out) , the later is what Richard Nixon was and to an even greater degree what Barrack Obama currently is In pathological narcissisim the individual isolates themselves to an extreme and only has a small band of yes men around, and if anyone in that small inner circle was to ever suggest that the leader take a different path they are GONE and in the case of another famous pathological narcissist Joseph Stalin, gone meant gone for good. Forget the Republicans, Obama doesn't even have any solid working or personal relationships within his own party in Congress, we see this mentioned again and again. Watch this guy over the next two years (if he makes it that long) he will become more and more isolated and will strike out on his own with Presidential declarations and administrative actions even if they are clearly against the constitution, his paranoia will likely grow exponentially as a few moderate Democrats in the Senate join the Republicans and form a super majority and start sending bipartisan legislation to his desk, he will view this as a traitorous act and will not understand why everyone just can't do whatever he wants, after all HE IS THE PRESIDENT! I would like to say that I make this post tongue in cheek, but it is pretty much the situation

[Publicus]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He is a good President and a descent person.

I hope the USA people would recognise that and give him the control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Honour your good people.

Sadly, the truth is that he is among the worst Presidents in U.S. history and he is also a pathological narcissist. I say this not to insult the man, a famous FBI psych profiler did a workup on Obama shortly after he was elected and Obama fit the clinical profile of a pathological narcissist perfectly, and thus far (6 years later) he has lived up to that profile My guess is that he will not compromise and work with the new Republican majority to any great extent, he will continue ignoring the U.S. Constitution and to that end he could very likely put himself in jeopardy of facing an impeachment! Perhaps a fitting end to a man that had no experience for a job like this in the first place! Now all you tunnel vision liberals here can continue with throwing the terms "racist" or "redneck" around, however in the end just like Obama you will have to wake up and smell the coffee some day (hopefully soon than later?) alt=wai2.gif width=20 height=20>

Thank you Dr. Freud ! alt=laugh.png>

Trouble is there are several Dr. Freud types that post regularly to TVF. Together they have created a TVF pseudo Dr. Freud of a right wingnut multiple personality disorder. This is evident in the multiple political posts made over time by the various TVF self-appointed Drs. Freud of the far right.

So there are a lot of pedestrian and ameteur rat psychology Drs Freud around here. The fact and reality are that the Rat Psyke 101 TVF Drs Freud are motivated entirely by political bents and racial superficialities. Each of their/his bent out of shape posts in fact consists of banal and sophomoric stuff that presents only political tripe.

No active FBI professional for example did what you said he did. If anyone FBI did what you said, he did it on his own time in retirement and because of political bents entirely, same as the untenable post itself comes from a far right political bent.

It is in fact American political tradition to get a psyke expert to say a public official is pathological, to include being stark raving mad alt=clap2.gif> alt=cheesy.gif width=32 height=20> .

It's just well past time to say something sensible and credible.

Publicus says "It's well past time to say something sensible and credible" at the end of his post, perhaps he should have opened up his post with this sentence and then continued on from there The FBI profiler I mentioned was indeed retired at the time, however the Bureau did call upon his expertise on certain cases even after his retirement as he was very well thought of, as far as his political affiliation goes I really can't speak to that, but many of those types are apolitical. I'm sorry if I offended your tender sensibilities that you hold for Obama by speaking the truth, but reality is that yesterday the U.S. electorate finally saw that the "emperor had no cloths" and woke up and smelled the coffee, perhaps due to your strong and personal feelings for Obama it will just take you a while longer? Good luck my friend

You speak directly to me so it's appropriate that I should respond directly to you.

I have "tender sensibilities"!?!

American politics is partisan and harsh so it's important to try to be civil but it's not always possible to be completely civil, as your post attests.

Ronald Reagan was a classic conservative in that he learned quickly to reach agreements with his political opponents that he himself could live with. Reagan was not a rigid conscience of a conservative Barry Goldwater, nor would Reagan today be a tea party rigid absolutist. In 1964 I supported Barry Goldwater for president but I soon surpassed that restricted mindset, to gradually develop as a Lyndon Johnson/Ronald Reagan/Bill Clinton, so I can speak from that experience and perspective.

Neither LBJ nor Reagan nor Clinton ever tried to say his political opponents were pathological. Each respected that rational negotiation and agreement are at the core of American politics and government.

I use the word nutcases which is casual political slang, as is the word redneck although 'redneck' has a certain historical bite to it. Do pardon me if I don't use the word 'pathological'. I'm not a psychiatry professional, nor do I make any attempt to criminalize or to assassinate the character of those who disagree with my own political faith.

I will say in my political slang that there is a proliferation of right wingnut refugees around here. I'd also add that you guys need to stop trying to politicize and to defame the FBI, but then politics is politics, isn't it.

Edited November 6, 2014 by Publicus

[farang000999]

Young people do not vote as often in mid term elections as they do in presidential years. That is 100% what these election results were about. The statistics do not lie. If young people voted as proportionally as they did in 2008 and 2012, it would have been a Democrat victory. 2016 will be another whollaping for the GOP.

The above is not an opinion, it is fact.

[farang000999]

http://jezebel.com/election-2014-postmortem-we-&lt;deleted&gt;-did-this-to-oursel-1654948653

[Publicus]

Young people do not vote as often in mid term elections as they do in presidential years. That is 100% what these election results were about. The statistics do not lie. If young people voted as proportionally as they did in 2008 and 2012, it would have been a Democrat victory. 2016 will be another whollaping for the GOP.

The above is not an opinion, it is fact.

Yes, quite....

Wall Street Journal: “Members of both parties, however, caution against reading too much into Tuesday’s results. The complexion of the electorate is expected to be markedly different in 2016. Turnout by Democratic-friendly voting blocs, including minorities, young people and unmarried women, tends to drop off in midterm elections and surge in presidential election years.”

[samran]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

He is a good President and a descent person.

I hope the USA people would recognise that and give him the control of the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Honour your good people.

Sadly, the truth is that he is among the worst Presidents in U.S. history and he is also a pathological narcissist. I say this not to insult the man, a famous FBI psych profiler did a workup on Obama shortly after he was elected and Obama fit the clinical profile of a pathological narcissist perfectly, and thus far (6 years later) he has lived up to that profile]

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I reckon all political leaders would get the same diagnosis.

And to be fair, it has to be almost a pre requisite for the the job. You are there. You are making the call with at any one time at least 48% of your citizens vehemently disagreeing with you.

If you didn't have such inordinate amounts of self regard for yourself, you wouldn't be able to do the job.

Sam, I think you likely don't realize the difference between a narcissist and a pathological narcissist, the former is what most politicians are (quite full of themselves as you have pointed out) , the later is what Richard Nixon was and to an even greater degree what Barrack Obama currently is In pathological narcissisim the individual isolates themselves to an extreme and only has a small band of yes men around, and if anyone in that small inner circle was to ever suggest that the leader take a different path they are GONE and in the case of another famous pathological narcissist Joseph Stalin, gone meant gone for good. Forget the Republicans, Obama doesn't even have any solid working or personal relationships within his own party in Congress, we see this mentioned again and again. Watch this guy over the next two years (if he makes it that long) he will become more and more isolated and will strike out on his own with Presidential declarations and administrative actions even if they are clearly against the constitution, his paranoia will likely grow exponentially as a few moderate Democrats in the Senate join the Republicans and form a super majority and start sending bipartisan legislation to his desk, he will view this as a traitorous act and will not understand why everyone just can't do whatever he wants, after all HE IS THE PRESIDENT! I would like to say that I make this post tongue in cheek, but it is pretty much the situation

I agree that the next 2 years might be messier from an Obama perspective, purely because his coat tails are getting shorter and members of his own party are going to be in it for themselves, and looking for the next messiah to gather around. But I take your point about definitions. I think you have to be a bit mentally ill as well to want to be a politican. So pathological works for me too...

I'm not sure I'd put him in the same class as Stalin, and to be frank, I think - as I said somewhere earlier - he might even encourage the bedlam in congress from the GOP as all that will do is help Hillary.

I sometimes subscribe to the rule in politics, if you want to show how bad your opponents are, let them have their way. It leads to hubris and arrogance. The GOP control both houses. The next 2 years is enough time for the radical elements in the party to get their way, scare enough voters so that by the time 2016 comes around, people will be thinking Hillary looks good in comparison.

But thats just my theory....the ultra conservatives in the GOP wont be able to help themselves. They've got access to the cookie jar and they are going to go for it. And it will scare people.

[thailiketoo]

That's the advantage of a liberal media when the Republicans are in control. Democrats get to have the big wars like WWII, Vietnam while Reagan had to settle for invading Granada. The media continually are whistle blowing on Republicans where they let the Dems slide.

Edited November 6, 2014 by thailiketoo

[hawker9000]

Young people do not vote as often in mid term elections as they do in presidential years. That is 100% what these election results were about. The statistics do not lie. If young people voted as proportionally as they did in 2008 and 2012, it would have been a Democrat victory. 2016 will be another whollaping for the GOP.

The above is not an opinion, it is fact.

"2016 will be another whollaping for the GOP.

The above is not an opinion, it is fact."

Only a hopelessly enthralled Obamanista would think he could get away with so arrogantly stating as "fact" that which hasn't even happened yet!! 2016 is 2 years away!!!!! 5555555555 Congratulations! You are hereby awarded the Barack H. Obama order of merit for advanced public speaking.

I can't help but wonder what the "facts" (according to you) were 2 years AGO - as Obama was being re-elected - about what's happening NOW.

I personally think the 19-29yo demographic is more than disillusioned not only with Obama, but with the democratic party. Republicans have a real opportunity here, but I'm the first to admit that they can certainly blow it by failing to take on Obama and his proven toxic, un-American agenda, both domestically and overseas. His veto pen is now a dagger to the heart for democrats, and his stubborn & petulant use of it as a cudgel will cost them dearly. And most of them know it. An overridden veto would be better than impeachment. And a series of them, which will necessarily have to be bipartisan, a gift to republicans of inestimable and lasting value.

[chuckd]

I got a good laugh out of this one:

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

"I'm not a psychiatry professional, nor do I make any attempt to criminalize or to assassinate the character of those who disagree with my own political faith."

Followed immediately by this one:

"I will say in my political slang that there is a proliferation of right wingnut refugees around here."

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

How's that for trying to have your cake and eat it too?

I suppose in some twisted way, calling a political foe a "right wingnut refugee" might NOT be an attempt at "character assassination", but not in polite society.

[chuckd]

It's a TEA party in the old town tonight. Seriously who votes in midterms? Angry white men. HILLARY coming to the rescue!

Sent from my Lenovo S820_ROW using Thaivisa Connect Thailand mobile app

Hillary? The Belle of Benghazi?? "Rescue" isn't exactly her forte is it...

I'll bet dartboards with her picture on them would be big sellers in the Foreign Service commissaries! Hmmm.

Hawker:

I am a little upset with you.

I have just cleaned up the coffee I spit out laughing at your post.

Your post has to be a nomination for Post of the Year. Its one of those..."Darn, why didn't I think of that" moments.

[JDGRUEN]

Some posts back there was yelping about radicals - Republicans who will cause the pendulum to swing back to the Dems in 2016... Liberals love to call common sense conservatives Radicals -- nothing could be further from the truth ,,, If one is a leftist then Conservatives are approaching radical ... it is all a matter of perspective.

What Liberals and Leftists call "radicals" when referring to Republicans turns out to be Constitutional Conservatives that just want to adhere to the rule of law, for the Government to abide by the liberties and freedoms found in the Constitution and Bill of Rights granted to the citizens and protect them from degradation, and for the Government to recognize that THEY MUST SERVE THE PEOPLE and be answerable to the people - as they were shown yesterday. Furthermonre - insure our immigration laws are not violated, have a government that is not so huge and out of control to the point of crippling the future for all, work to keep creeping socialism at bay, work to make sure that capitalism will flourish, regain the countries sovereignty, protect the country and the citizens from invasion of illegal aliens, protect America and Americans from needless exposure to such diseases as Ebola, make the elected officials and bureaucrats answerable to the people as a primary principle upon which America was founded, protect America and Americans from intruders such as violent jihadies, work to achieve energy independence, work to increase domestic production of gas and oil and increase refining of such, remove blockage on achieving energy independence thrown up by obama, stop leftist indoctrination of children by doing away with the Common Core curriculum, remove members of the Muslim Brotherhood from positions of power in the Federal Government, work to remove Federal Government obstacles that create blockage of increasing employment, reduce taxes - personal and business, return health care to private enterprise which was working at an 85% coverage level before Democrat trickery forced obamacare on Americans, eventually do away with obamacare totally - put in place a rational voluntary health insurance program via private enterprise based on competition, remove the boot of Federal Government from the back of our necks by doing away with Federal income taxes and the IRS as has been discussed for years and migrate to one of the versions of a Fair Tax, remove the influence of any First Lady by statute to that of a figure head as it was always meant to be - remove any and all assumed power, And many similar things... Shocking to some -- some liberals who want to run every aspect of a citizens life. Actually not really shocking as the vast majority of what I just wrote is how the United State was run for about 230 years. Nothing radical about it ... unless one is a liberal gone leftist... What I just wrote reflects the values, wants and desires of about 45-50 million Adult American Voters and it generally agreed to by another 20 to 25 million Americans - many of whom turned out for the mid term elections to repudiate obama and his agenda. Radicals? Totally ridiculous.

Nothing in the U.S. Constitution speaks of the government's right to redistribute wealth ... certainly not in the way as has been done by obama, No Federal agency should be allowed to persecute individual citizens as the EPA and the IRS does. The track record of these two agencies has become littered with abuses. It has to stop. The Department of Homeland Security has become a virtual civilian army complete with armored vehicles. Several Federals Agencies have established heavily armed internal police forces - totally unprecedented and must be dismantled. These civilian Federal Government Agencies have purchased Billions of rounds of ammunition and automatic weapons - for what purpose ? This has to be stopped and reversed.

In general the U.S. Federal Government has assumed about 90% More Authority than was set forth in the U.S. Constitution. We have an obligation and a right to change that.

In addition we are adamantly against Amnesty for 20 million illegal aliens who broke into our country... And will work to remove them by enforcement of current laws and attrition by cutting off jobs and benefits so they will begin to self-deport. If obama grants them Amnesty via unconstitutional Executive Fiat ... then we citizens will clamor vigorously for Impeachment.

Wow - how radical - protecting one's own country - preserving our liberties and freedoms... The Liberal - Leftists claim of Conservative Radicialism - pure fantasy - Falsely projected to defame... and nothing else.

[samran]

^^ as much as it pains me to say it, keep posting rants like that, and you become the poster boy for the irrational right.

It makes Hillarys presidency that much more likely. Sure you aren't working for her secretly?

[NeverSure]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future. Obama will still be POTUS and screwing up more and more because that narcissist can't have his way. He'll try every trick, make a further idiot out of himself, and things will be worse.

We are in the now. It happened and it happened big. No one can predict the future, but I don't think that a woman who uses an ordinary household broom for a daily driver will wind up in the White House.

[samran]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

[JDGRUEN]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

That is a far fetched analysis done by some wistful thinking person - not much connected to reality ... Conservatives went to vote yesterday for men and women espousing Conservative values... Liberals are always fantasizing and can never make connection with the reality of a situation when it does not fit their world view.

[thailiketoo]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

Where did you read the quoted text? I can't find it. LInk please.

[canman]

2/3 of the electorate didn't bother to turn up to vote

You can't fix stupid

But you can stop voting for it

[JDGRUEN]

^^ as much as it pains me to say it, keep posting rants like that, and you become the poster boy for the irrational right.

It makes Hillarys presidency that much more likely. Sure you aren't working for her secretly?

What I posted is hardly a rant... it is just a listing of what has been bothering conservatives for the last six years. And if you think it is radical - it is because you are so left wing you fell of a cliff... A huge portion of the American electorate believes as I just wrote. You cannot recognize it because you don't want it to be that way... What I wrote is what drove millions to the polls to repudiate obama or anyone like Hillary who believes any where near the same as obama. Hillary has dug her political grave with Benghazi and she will never climb out of it ... She is obama's 3rd. Term and will not even be nominated by more realistic Democrats... Hillary comes much closer to been classed as a radical than any Republican I know.

Keep on with your wishful and wistful thinking - it will keep you busy and out of trouble.

[samran]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

Where did you read the quoted text? I can't find it. LInk please.

Australian Internet newspaper called Crikey. Unfortunately it is subscription only bit if you go to their website I think you can get a free two week pass. Sorry I can't do better than this...

[canman]

I've read that all the dems who lost their seats had Hillary campaigning with them. Seriously, does anyone believe they have a chance with her put forward as commander in chief?

[samran]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

That is a far fetched analysis done by some wistful thinking person - not much connected to reality ... Conservatives went to vote yesterday for men and women espousing Conservative values... Liberals are always fantasizing and can never make connection with the reality of a situation when it does not fit their world view.

Did these things get passed or not get passed?

Did these things get approved by the same people who voted in conservatives?

If so, are these issues now conservative heartland issues too?

[samran]

^^ as much as it pains me to say it, keep posting rants like that, and you become the poster boy for the irrational right.

It makes Hillarys presidency that much more likely. Sure you aren't working for her secretly?

What I posted is hardly a rant... it is just a listing of what has been bothering conservatives for the last six years. And if you think it is radical - it is because you are so left wing you fell of a cliff... A huge portion of the American electorate believes as I just wrote. You cannot recognize it because you don't want it to be that way... What I wrote is what drove millions to the polls to repudiate obama or anyone like Hillary who believes any where near the same as obama. Hillary has dug her political grave with Benghazi and she will never climb out of it ... She is obama's 3rd. Term and will not even be nominated by more realistic Democrats... Hillary comes much closer to been classed as a radical than any Republican I know.

Keep on with your wishful and wistful thinking - it will keep you busy and out of trouble.

Deary me. I called it a rant. I didn't comment on the nature of the ideas expressed there. My experience is that ranters get sidelined and ridiculed.

Having said that, I could talk for a couple of days why some of the economic ideas in your post a bunkum and unworkable but let's save that for another time. And before you try and throw the liberal label on me I'm a trained economist from one of the rather more conservative schools.

[chuckd]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

Where did you read the quoted text? I can't find it. LInk please.

Australian Internet newspaper called Crikey. Unfortunately it is subscription only bit if you go to their website I think you can get a free two week pass. Sorry I can't do better than this...

I hope you, as an Australian/Thai citizen, will forgive the Americans posting on this US political thread for taking your posts with a grain of salt.

We can hardly do otherwise when "Crikey" might be your main source of information.

[samran]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

Where did you read the quoted text? I can't find it. LInk please.

Australian Internet newspaper called Crikey. Unfortunately it is subscription only bit if you go to their website I think you can get a free two week pass. Sorry I can't do better than this...

I hope you, as an Australian/Thai citizen, will forgive the Americans posting on this US political thread for taking your posts with a grain of salt.

We can hardly do otherwise when "Crikey" might be your main source of information.

Your benevolence is noted and received gratefully, Charles.

If I should be reading Gates of Vienna then let me know.

But surely you can help answer my questions so that a boy from the far flung colonies might understand....

Just as a point of reference crikey was set up by a former advisor to Liberal Premier (read conservative state governor).

Edited November 6, 2014 by samran

[Jingthing]

2/3 of the electorate didn't bother to turn up to vote

You can't fix stupid

But you can stop voting for it

Yeah, but the angry white men ... DID.

[chuckd]

It amazes me actually doesn't surprise me how many people want to forget what happened yesterday and look two years into the future.

okay, in the spirit of you wrote above, a genuine question, what do you make of some analysis I read this morning:

"But here's the kicker. Across the country, as judged by special measures, the country moved left. Minimum wage measures were voted up in half a dozen states, including huge Republican ones like South Dakota. Three strikes automatic felony legislation was struck down in California, an end to the worst of the prison mill there. Marijuana was legalised in Alaska, Oregon and, heh, Washington DC. Anti-woman "personhood" amendments were defeated in Colorado and North Dakota. Mandatory gun checks on private sales won in Washington state, a popular defeat of the NRA. Which leads you to the question: what would the Democrats have done if they'd run towards all that, rather than away from it, had embraced a whole progressive program? Meanwhile the most successful Republicans had run to the centre, sounding like Democrats."

That is a far fetched analysis done by some wistful thinking person - not much connected to reality ... Conservatives went to vote yesterday for men and women espousing Conservative values... Liberals are always fantasizing and can never make connection with the reality of a situation when it does not fit their world view.

Did these things get passed or not get passed?

Did these things get approved by the same people who voted in conservatives?

If so, are these issues now conservative heartland issues too?

Permit me to answer your questions.

Having found out what your source is, I will assume they are somewhat accurate so I will accept the data at face value.

1. "Did these things get passed or not get passed?"

Assuming the accuracy of your link, I would presume the state bills were passed (or not).

2. "Did these things get approved by the same people who voted in conservatives?"

The short answer, generally, is "NO.

California, Washington state, Oregon and District of Columbia are Democratic strongholds and have been for years. Both North and South Dakota are generally conservative with Colorado just turning back to conservative in this election. Alaska is, well...Alaska. They march to a different drummer.

3. "If so, are these issues now conservative heartland issues too?

You get the short answer yet again...NO.

Suggestion: Stay away from "Crikey" and start reading Drudge Report.

[chuckd]

2/3 of the electorate didn't bother to turn up to vote

You can't fix stupid

But you can stop voting for it

Yeah, but the angry white men ... DID.

...and they will vote again in 2016.

[Jingthing]

Along with other demographics that will propel Hillary Clinton the white house.

[canman]

Along with other demographics that will propel Hillary Clinton the white house.

If she does run I predict the GOP will bury her with the Bengazi issue. I suspect they have been keeping their powder dry and will let loose if she runs.

[Jingthing]

Along with other demographics that will propel Hillary Clinton the white house.

If she does run I predict the GOP will bury her with the Bengazi issue. I suspect they have been keeping their powder dry and will let loose if she runs.

Benghazi is a punchline of late night t.v. comedy jokes. It is a dead issue. If that's all they've got, I actually feel sorry for them. I think non-Americans don't understand the HUGE difference between midterm elections and presidential elections.