Who will be the first "conservative" to. . .

[SuperHoosierFan]

To get on here and piss/moan about a filibuster or a government shutdown? Not that democrats would actually have the balls or spine to do it, but if they did. . .

There is no reason for them not to. Doing both sure didn't hurt republicans.

 

[Sope Creek]

Wrong question . . .

the right question is whether the GOP will begin to pass selected infrastructure projects for GOP-majority districts in order to solidify their majorities in Congress with good old fashioned pork-barrel politics while also doing the right thing - on a politically select basis, of course - with respect to the country's infrastructure and economic growth.

 

[Mas-sa-suta]

You mean act like Democrat incumbants?

Like NPT, I will be hugely surprised if the GOP doesn't fall on it's face.
The first item for Congress must be the budget, IMO.
Dependent upon the level of obstruction practiced by the WH, impeachment will (and should) be considered.
I'm sure there will be a lot of noise made for the pipeline.
That's considered infrastructure , no?

 

[NPT]

Who will be the first "liberal" to. . .

justify the Democrats blocking stuff that the Republicans try to pass after complaining loudly about the Republicans blocking stuff the Democrats tried to pass? It is funny how when your side does something it's okay but when the other side does exactly the same thing it's all of a sudden a bad thing. Let's face it, both sides do exactly the same thing. I don't think they could agree that water is wet.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

The Democrats Would Never Be So Hypocritical

for at least a day. So no worry yet.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Mandate! Mandate!

Obama still has a pen - a veto pen.
So I expect gridlock.
Obamacare will not get changed - unless/until the Pubs win the win White House and KEEP the House and Senate.
Budgets will be big battles, with Republicans throwing Gramma off the cliff and hating sick children again.
Maybe even a veto-caused shutdown.

Voters are schizo.
They tossed the Dems enough to change Congressional control, but they'll swaallow the hype hook-line-sinker and punish the Pubs if the Pubs actually do what they said they'll do.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

Rand Paul floated a really good idea last night.

He paired up reform of corporate taxes (viz the ~$2 trillion in corporate cash held overseas) with infrastructure spending.

Seems like a really good way to not only break that impasse, but also to generate some new tax revenue to help pay for it.

 

[Fro]

The ballot initiatives are pretty interesting

- State min. wage increases did very well (Arkansas, Alaska, Illinois, Nebraska, South Dakota all passed measures)
- Pro-life measures failed in Colorado/North Dakota (basically personhood at conception). TN passed their measure but that was much weaker (basically saying their state legislature can legislate abortion)
- Oregon legalized marijuana & Alaska decriminalized it. Florida didn't pass medical marijuana but it needed 60% there.

Newsy Ballot-Measure Results

 

[Noodle]

Although not as telling, perhaps, as the statewide measures....

here in Cincinnati all of the local tax levies in the city and county passed by very large margins. All but one of the countywide tax levies passed by 70-30 margins (the one that didn't passed 61-38). Even the Cincinnati Public Schools tax levy passed 70-30--an extraordinary margin for them.

Yet, Republicans had wide majorities in the county for every single statewide election (governor, treasurer, etc.). None of those races were even close.

And for a reference point, in 2012 Obama took Hamilton County 52-47.

 

[Marvin the Martian]

It is a problem that both sides engage in

And of course it is loved when "our guys" do it, and despised as unAmerican when "they" do it. The problem is simple, and it's getting worse. If you look at number of filibuster/cloture motions by Senate:

The Senate should return to the old rules, one must stand and speak for the entire time. As a symbolic act, the filibuster is great. As a means of tying the Senate in knots, it is horrible no matter who is doing it. We used to accept defeat somewhat, the idea of the loyal opposition. I think politicians used to ascribe to the "fight the good fight then live to fight again" strategy. Now almost every issue is a scorched earth battle to the death. I'm not sure we can survive that mentality as a nation. I've suggested before, we became that way heading up to 1860 and look where that got us.

 

[davegolf]

Re: Wrong question . . .


I look at your question a little differently any infrastructure project is a good thing no matter where it occurs. It creates jobs and puts money in the market place. IMO infrastructure improvement is a good thing.

 

[MyTeamIsOnTheFloor]

Kentucky's House Did Not Change

Kentucky has 2 Pub Senators and 5 out of 6 Rep's are Pubs.

In Frankfort, the Senate is Republican majority.

But the House has been Dem since the Civil War.
It was 54-46 before yesterday.
Its 54-46 today.

 

[Yougotme]

The Federal Government sucks at infrastructure...

The procurement is painful, long and unnecessarily complicated. The permitting process is painful, long and unnecessarily complicated. The construction costs associated with the projects are exponentially higher that if they're built at either the local level or even state level. Federal contracts are the definition of crony capitalism because they are only won by a handful of huge contractors, both at the design and build level.

Now, some projects are, by their scope, done best at the federal level. But these are the exception. Projects such as ports, large scale rail and transcontinental projects. But these are rare. It'd be better off if the money never went to Washington.

 

[ARMZP]

That, along with one democrate governor after another

is why we stay toward the bottom in education, and economic development.

You would think people would learn.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Let's be clear about the problem...

...the main problem with Republican obstructionists wasn't with filibusters in the Senate, which has been a problem for years (although the Senate GOP did take it to a whole new level, statistically). The main problem is the refusal of the House GOP to even consider compromise or engage in discussion with the Democrats over anything. That problem will not change now that the Senate is in GOP hands. It will simply shift the point of battle between the parties closer to 1600 Pennsylvania. I smell a lot of vetoes the next two years.

goat

 

[NPT]

Yeah, let's be clear

Obama's definition of compromise is "My way or the highway". Even several Democrats have said that he's doesn't communicate with them. He thinks he knows best and that's the end of the story. I wish he was just half as smart as he thinks he is.

Edit: One more thing....Let's see if the same people that complained the loudest about filibusters by the Republicans complain about it when the Democrats do it. I'd be willing to bet that they won't complain.
This post was edited on 11/5 10:17 AM by NPT

 

[NPT]

I agree

with you completely about returning to the old rules.

Especially since the Republicans now control the senate.....

...... just kidding.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Plus background checks won in WA.

The overall list of ballot measures tells a startlingly different story than the partisan results in the House.

Although the country did vote for the Republicans by a 51-47 margin, once again the structure of House elections, combined with a handful of good old-fashioned gerrymandering, has resulted in skewed results. Based on percentages, the GOP should win 224 House seats. Instead they will win at least 240, probably more like 250+.

And, as we discussed multiple times last night, the Senate spanking was largely the result of calendrical truth. This batch of states is heavily Republican anyway, but had gone blue in 2008. Last night was a correction.

That said, I think it's safe to say the GOP did slightly better than I expected.

But, long story short is that the picture painted by the elections isn't one of a conservative mandate. It's one of a nation still deeply divided, distrustful of government, but moving to the left on a number of hot button issues even while they elect conservatives to represent them. That so many voters in red states would go out and vote yes to a minimum wage hike, and then punch the "Straight R" button, tells me all I need to know about the schizophrenia of the modern American voter.

goat

 

[mjvcaj]

Are those increased taxes solely on property?

Does OH tax obscure property other than RE?

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

It wasn't just about Obama.

The House GOP refused to work with House Dems or the Senate. Hell, in reality it was a segment of the House GOP (read: "Tea Party") who refused to work with Obama, the Senate, House Dems or OTHER House Repubs. The only hope of breaking that gridlock is if enough establishment Repubs wont seats to ignore the Tea Party.

The filibuster thing won't be the same. The complaints were about appointments. Senate Dems aren't going to filibuster Obama's appointments.

goat

 

[ARMZP]

Bullsh**

The biggest problem in the Senate the lat seveal years has been Harry Reid...PERIOD.

He wouldn't allow anybody to vote on anything then complained about the house (just like you did).

 

[I FAN U]

Yeah, but was that really a problem for them?

Given how Pubs now have their largest house majority in many decades, an argument could be made that says a majority of voters wanted the Obama / Pelosi / Reid agenda blocked and approved of the tactic.

And now that the the senate given firmly in Pub hands too, I'd say the voters want to Obama to actually be a pragmatic president; not a guy that hides behind Harry Reid's apron when he's not on the golf course.

 

[ARMZP]

That playbook of


blaming the Republicans for everything that you guys have been using for 6 years, just got shredded to pieces last night.

Time to move on and find something else. Look at last nights results, that didn't work.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I don't think a majority of voters know what they want...

As I pointed out in another post above, only 51% of voters voted for a Republican House candidate. It's the structure of House elections that has turned that 51% into a huge majority.

The GOP had serious advantages this year. Coupled with an unpopular president, that led to them performing very well. But when you look at the voters as a whole, you don't see a country that has jumped fully on board with the Republican party. You see a country that is still deeply divided somewhere down the middle.

goat

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I call "blah, blah, blah" on you.

I'm not blaming the Republicans for everything. I'm blaming the House GOP for the past two years of incompetent governance out of Washington. Specifically, I'm blaming a small segment of the House GOP. I might disagree with most Republicans, but it's only a small handful of them who can actually be blamed for the dysfunction in DC.

Last night's election changes nothing on that front.

goat

 

[ARMZP]

LMAO



OK... isn't that what I just said.?

Keep thinking that way. We can use some more gains in 2016 and hopefully get this mess cleaned up.

 

[Ladoga]

The exit polling

indicates absolutely that they surely do know what they do not want by numbers exceeding 60%.

They do not want Obama, his party nor his policies.

They do not want Dems running the Senate nor the House.

They do not want Dem Governors in those blue states where state finances and local taxes are a nightmare.

But, you're right in large measure. They may not know what they want. They DO KNOW exactly what they don't want and they flushed the toilet yesterday.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Don't get cocky.

You will never get a better set of elections than you did this year. In 2016, of the 34 Senate seats up for election, 24 of them are held by the GOP. Almost every competitive seat will feature a GOP incumbent (only Colorado and Nevada will have Dems on the hot seat).

We all know by now about Democratic turnout in presidential years vs. midterms. I can't imagine the GOP losing the House any time before 2022, but with huge turnout and a popular Democratic presidential candidate, who knows?

51% of Americans voted for the GOP in a year with depressed Democratic turnout. So, again, don't get cocky.

 

[toastedbread]

Lousy Dem Candidates...

Who were ineffective communicators. They did not tie their message to the greater issues. That's what that tells you.

 

[I FAN U]

I agree with the deep divide..

Unfortunately, I think Obama has made it much worse, not better, like he promised he would. To me, that is the most un-presidential thing he's done to this country. And me fear is, he's not done...

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

If you're right....

If it is Obama that has exacerbated this divide, and, most importantly, if the voters see it that way, then the GOP should be even more wary about reading too much into their victories last night. In 2016, they won't have the luxury of running against Obama (and they will be dealing with the same Senate problems the Dems had this year).

goat

 

[ARMZP]

I'm not. Just want to get

some things done...and the dialouge of "everything is the fault of the Republicnas" (especially when most people point toward Reid and Obama) isn't a good way to take last nights results and start moving forward.

Obama and Reid spent six years poking their fingers in the eyes of the Republicans. I hope Mitch doesn't do the same thing. If he does, you will be correct.

I hope for improvement, but I ain't optimistic.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Yes, and...

I want to be clear that at no time was I saying "everything" was the fault of "Republicans." I was saying that the Tea Partiers in the House were largely responsible for the gridlock since 2012.

Be that as it may, though, you're wrong to say that "most people point toward Reid and Obama." When the issue is polled, Americans consistently lay at least as much of the blame - if not more - at the feet of the Congressional Republicans, same people who blame him for the Katrina response, how much stock can we really put in that?

Long story short is, all I'm saying is this: congrats on a great night for your side, but don't be fooled into thinking Americans love you, now.

goat

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

I also agree. And I have a solution for your "just kidding..."

The Senate should pass a rule change to require filibusters to actually be held on the floor of the Senate, but should amend that "this rule change will take effect on January 3, 2017." Then no one can accuse the majority party of using a rule change to screw the minority party.

goat

 

[Noodle]

not sure I fully understand your question, but the taxes in question...


are solely based on real estate value. Ohio got rid of its personal property tax several years ago.

And to be fair, some of the tax levies which passed yesterday were straight renewals of existing levies, with no increase in millage. The way things work in Ohio, a real estate tax levy is for a set amount per year rather than being based on a pure % of real estate value. Therefore, the amount a property owner pays generally will not increase as their property value increases, except to the extent that the property value increases more than the average increase of all property in the region subject to the tax levy. As a result, local governments and agencies are forced to go back to taxpayers for increases from time to time.

In addition, a few years back the state made it more difficult to get levy increases. I can't remember the details, but essentially if you increase the millage of an existing levy, then you lose out on some funds you would otherwise receive from the state (those funds are intended to make up for the lost personal property tax, I think).

Because of all of this, many agencies have been stuck with the same levy funds for almost 10 years, with no effective way to make up for inflation.

 

[ARMZP]

Well,

the voters said different last night. But we will see what happens.

 

[DougS]

Regarding Democratic turnout for Presidential elections.....

I recognize that this has been true in 2008 and 2012 - but there was a reason for that which was far greater than it simply being a presidential election - otherwise you would never have expected Bush to win in 2004, let alone 2000.

Idealistic young people looking to do something historic were a big piece (not by any means the only piece) of the picture in 2008, and I think it carried over 4 years later. Certainly if Hilary Clinton gets the nod from the Dems we will see that again, but I'm not sure it will be to the same degree.

If the Dems don't nominate Clinton, who, in your opinion, would galvanize those hard-to-motivate voters that helped so much in the last 2 presidential elections?

 

[DougS]

In 2008 the Dems didn't have the luxury of running against Bush.....

But they ran against him anyway, and to great success.

 

[crazed_hoosier2]

When you say...


"The main problem is the refusal of the House GOP to even consider compromise or engage in discussion with the Democrats over anything."

What I actually hear is:

"The main problem is the refusal of the House GOP to even consider doing -- largely or mostly -- what the Democrats want."

I know, or at least strongly suspect, you don't mean it that way. But that's the way I hear it. Because compromise in politics is about a give and take. And you'll have to pardon me for thinking that Obama and the Democrats are far more interested in the "take" part than the "give" part. I can appreciate that you probably think the same thing about Republicans. But let me offer an actual example that demonstrates this.

On MSNBC last night, Chris Matthews was going on and on about immigration reform. He said that he can't understand why Republicans wouldn't pass it or what more they could want. His problem (and he's hardly alone) is that he's focused on what he wants -- and, to him, "compromise" would be to give him what he wants. When somebody mentioned border security, he just said that was absurd.

Well, no, Chris. It's not. That's where the "give" part comes in. You may not like the prospect of securing the border as a condition of the "pathway to citizenship". But you have to give on things you don't want if you want to get things you do want. And you clearly aren't interested in giving anything you don't want to give.

Marco Rubio pledged, before sitting down at the table with Senate Democrats to hatch out an immigration reform bill, that any bill he signed onto would contain this provision. As we all know, the bill that actually emerged did not. So Matthews is hardly alone in steadfastly refusing to even entertain the notion of a "border first" provision.

Republicans have put forth their idea of a blueprint for our fiscal future -- which is pretty clearly an opening bid to start negotiations. The president, for his part, established a bipartisan commission to produce recommendations. And what did he do with their output? Well, nothing. And Bowles-Simpson actually had bipartisan buy-in!

The bottom line is: compromise is a two-way street. And I'd say that neither side has been all that interested in truly reaching any compromises lately.

 

[TheOriginalHappyGoat]

Tough one...

First of all, I want to reiterate that the partisan divide in last night's vote was actually very close. The Democrats won't need 2008 turnout to make up that small difference.

But, to answer your question, anyway, I don't know. Warren would obviously be exciting. I would have also easily said Warner before yesterday, but...

I like Webb, Nixon and Rendell as candidates, as well.

I'd also point out that Mike Beebe and John Hickenlooper are the two most popular Democratic governors (1st and 3rd overall), and almost no one is talking about them. Hickenlooper survived the siege last night, and Beebe is going out on top, being term-limited.

goat