Meanwhile, Back At Reality....Lord Jim Predicts...

[Lord Jim]

If Buck, Angle, and O'Donnell hadn't been nominated, we would have taken control of the Senate.....

Let that be a lesson to the Tea Party folks....

[Guinevere]

If wishes were horses . . .

[Crackpot]

I'm more or less satisfied (I'd be happier if Rand Paul got the boot) with the results. I'm hoping (though it's not in the least bit showing) that the repubs will tone down therhetoric ans start working for the people instead of doing the usual which is working for themslves.

[Sue U]

The Odious Harry Reid

Haha, beat Sharron "Obtuse" Angle by 6 points! On a ballot that aslo included a choice for "None Of These"! Tell me, you'd really rather have Angle as a frickin' Senator???? Rand Paul isn't nutty enough for you???!?!?!?!?!!?!

and The Loathsome Barbara Boxer

... who beat the nasty Carly Fiorina by 10 points. Apparently, not so loathsome as Pink-Slip Carly.

And Prop 19, the Marijuana legalization initiative, went down in flames....

Probably not gonna change the (non-)enforcement of marijuana laws.

[Crackpot]

The Odious Harry Reid

Haha, beat Sharron "Obtuse" Angle by 6 points! On a ballot that aslo included a choice for "None Of These"! Tell me, you'd really rather have Angle as a frickin' Senator???? Rand Paul isn't nutty enough for you???!?!?!?!?!!?!

What you had there were people who were voting against the other candidate rather than for anyone

[liberty]

North, South, black or white we are all in the same boat and had better plug the leaks or we are going to go under.

Unemployment near ten percent is unacceptable. Gas at near three dollars a gallon is unacceptable. Boat loads of money leaving the country to support our foreign oil habit is unacceptable. High food cost in this country is unacceptable.

We have to deal with our enemy; they can not attack us with impunity.
And we can not let people die on our streets and or go hungry; we have to take care of the helpless, but we have to get our economy and the nation finances under control or we are going to loose everything anyway.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Bishop is ahead by 3400 with only the absentie ballots to count. It is estimated that Altschuler would have to get 70% in order to draw even with Bishop.

[dales]

Prop 19 up in smoke.

Bummer.

Who actually voted agianst this?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I guess Zonker is not moving to Ca.

[Lord Jim]

If wishes were horses . . .

I believe the line is...

If maybe and buts were candy and nuts, every day would be Christmas....

[@meric@nwom@n]

Health care, among multiple other things, will continue to suck the taxpayers pockets dry on end of life care that could be avoided if people could be taught to accept that there comes a time to die.

In fact, it is not end-of-life care that is sucking taxpayers dry. It is teatment for chronic diseases -- diabetes, COPD, renal failure, cancer, heart disease -- particularly in the not-even-close-to-death elderly, that represents the greatest share of healthcare expenditures. Average annual US healthcare expense per person is about $3,000. Yet of that annual expense, half the population spends nothing while 5 percent of the population accounts for nearly half of all expenditures. Just kill off that 5 percent, and problem solved!

I can haz death panel now?

At lease treating chronic conditions makes some sense. What is done end of life does not. IT IS NOT RATIONAL. Call it a death panel if you like, but there needs to be something in place to stop the insanity. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/ ... 7002.shtml

[Lord Jim]

Call it a death panel if you like, but there needs to be something in place to stop the insanity.

At 51, there are times that a "death panel" sounds really appealing....

Of course I don't really mean that....

[Sue U]

At lease treating chronic conditions makes some sense. What is done end of life does not. IT IS NOT RATIONAL. Call it a death panel if you like, but there needs to be something in place to stop the insanity. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/08/ ... 7002.shtml

Oh, I agree with you. And I hope and pray that you are on my death panel, really. But if you want to truly control healthcare costs, the way to do that is by reducing the costs of chronic illness through prevention, optimizing treatment and imposing controls on treatment costs.

[Andrew D]

If Buck, Angle, and O'Donnell hadn't been nominated, we would have taken control of the Senate....

Maybe; maybe not. The Republicans needed a total of 51 seats to take control. (A 50-50 split would have left the Senate in the Democrats' control, because Vice-President Biden would cast the deciding vote.)

Pursuant to this election, the Republicans will have, when the new Senators are sworn in on 3 January 2011, 46 seats. Add Alaska to that, because the write-in winner is a Republican; that makes 47.

So in order to take control of the Senate, the Republicans would have had to win the as-yet-undecided vote in Washington plus all three of the races which Tea Party candidates managed to lose: Colorado (Buck), Delaware (O'Donnell), and Nevada (Angle). The loss of any one of those contests would have meant that the Democrats retain control of the Senate.

Lord Jim's assertion thus depends on the assumption that the Republican candidate will win in Washington. But at the moment, the Democratic candidate is very slightly ahead. The race is far too close to call, but the numbers do not support an implicit assumption that the Republican will win. And if the Democrat wins in Washington, then the assertion that nominating orthodox Republicans in Colorado, Delaware, and Nevada would have assured a Republican takeover of the Senate turns out to be wrong.

And then there are the three races which the Tea Party candidates lost. There seems little doubt that had the orthodox Republican been the nominee in Delaware, the Republicans would have gained that seat. In polls taken during the runup to the Delaware primary, Castle was consistently beating the crap out of Coons.

But that is not true in Colorado or in Nevada. In Colorado, head-to-head polling during the runup to the primary of Bennet (the Democrat) and Norton (the orthodox Republican) was a mixed bag. In polls concluded on 8 and 26 July, Rasmussen found Norton ahead by 7 and 9 points, respectively. But in a poll concluded on 29 July, SurveyUSA found Bennet ahead by 3 points; and in a poll concluded on 8 August, PPP found Bennet ahead by 6 points.

In Nevada, head-to-head polling during the runup to the primary was also a mixed bag. In a poll concluded on 2 June, R2000/DailyKos found Reid ahead of Lowden (the leading orthodox Republican) by 4 points. And in a poll concluded on 3 June, LVRJ/Mason-Dixon found Reid ahead of Lowden by 1 point. In the same polls, R2000/DailyKos found Reid ahead of Tarkanian (the other orthodox Republican) by 4 points, but LVRH/Mason-Dixon found Tarkanian ahead of Reid by 7 points.

For it to be true that the Tea Partiers cost the Republicans control of the Senate, it must be true (a) that the Republican will win in Washington, and (b) that Norton would have beaten Bennet in Colorado, and (c) that either Lowden or Tarkanian would have beaten Reid in Nevada. None of those is/was a sure thing, and a Republican loss in any one of those contests would have doomed the Republicans' chances of taking control of the Senate.

So it appears that it was not just the Tea Partiers who prevented a Republican takeover of the Senate. Even without the Tea Partiers' involvement, the orthodox Republican might well have lost to the Democrat in Colorado. And even without the Tea Partiers' involvement, either of the orthodox Republicans might well have lost to the Democrat in Nevada.

The notion that the Republicans' failure to take control of the Senate was due to the Tea Partiers' involvement in the elections must be quite comforting to orthodox Republicans. But the facts do not support it. Rather, the facts tell us that despite widespread disapproval of the Democrats' policies -- a disapproval fueled at least in part by the relentless torrent of right-wing falsehoods about those policies -- there is not a corresponding approval of Republicans' policies.

On the contrary, what we see most is a widespread revulsion at both major parties' policies -- a "throw the incumbent bastards out" mentality that does not translate into a "the other side will do a better job" mentality. Rather, the anti-incumbent movement in 2008 led to a Democrat President and to gains for the Democrats in the House and the Senate; and the anti-incumbent movement in 2010 led to gains for the Republicans in the House and the Senate.

So what will happen in 2012? If anti-incumbency remains the dominant trend, then we can expect, I suppose, a Republican in the White House, Democrats in control of the House of Representatives, and Republicans barely in control of the Senate. In other words more gridlock.

Does anyone here think that more gridlock is better for ordinary Americans?

[Crackpot]

it's more like lets keep throwing them out until they remember they work for the people not the parties.

Which I've actally heard allot from Republicans... and then the turtle opened his yap.

[dgs49]

Anti-incumbency as an explanation just does not wash. The Republican swept governorships and state legislatures, and where republicans were already in power they generally stayed in power (e.g., PA Senate).

The Republican accomplishment in the Senate is not generally appreciated. ONLY ONE THIRD of the Senate was up for re-election. To take over the senate would have required almost a sweep of those running this year. Had half or all of the senate been up this time, we would have a supermajority republican senate - no question.

Many, many great things happened this week. Republicans will control the redistricting for 2011. We have hundreds of attractive, newly-elected politicians who will have a couple years to develop their skills for runs at higher offices. Look at Kasich in Ohio. Fantastic national candidate in two years.

But the Republicans will have to produce something tangible or the euphoria will not last.