2010 Mid-Term Election Results
 

Here is a good interactive map:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/inte...ap-us-midterms

It breaks down red and blue further into a "hold" or a "win" victory. Also, separate tabs for House, Senate, and Governers.

I'm seeing, out of every race, of every type, in the entire country, a grand total of five "wins" by Democrats. They were absolutely devastated.

This would be a hard one to "spin" but I'm sure there are those who won't let that stop them from trying.

I'm glad someone finally dropped the other shoe on us liberals / progressives / Democrats / etc.
"Absolutely devastated" is as good a way to put it as any. :sniff:
With many thanks for relieving the pressure... now I can sleep tonight.

And tomorrow the contest of ideas will resume. Be prepared ! ;)

Who cares, business as usual...

Personally, I was glad to see the Blue dogs get their butts whipped. The house now has a stronger progressive caucus.

That's a surprising comment - coming from you. Dunno what to make of that.

Blue Dog Democrats.

No need to explain, I am well aware of who they are, but your utter disdain for anyone with an R after their name leads me to believe that you would have preferred the D's to have won. To say you are glad to see D's lose to R's seems contradictory.

Many of them caused a lot of problems for Obama and I say good riddance.

It seems to me that a lot got done in 1994-96, after the 1994 elections which were similar to this one. Clinton tacked center and centrist stuff got done and Clinton got credit for it and was re-elected. I think Obama should do the same. With the departure of Emmanuel, and Obama's maturation as a President, I think he will take on a different political style, and with continued economic recovery he may even get back the mojo he had in 2008.

The problem is that Obama started center right, and offered to compromise from there, and the Republicans still didn't take him up on it. And that was before the Tea Party.

I don't doubt that Obama will hold out the olive branch again, but they aren't going to take it up from him.

Right, their agenda is to kill as many corporate obstructing bits of the government as they can, under the guise of "smaller government"

This is some of what we can expect from Conservatives in the future...

NY Times article
Ouster of Iowa Judges Sends Signal to Bench

Lamp, that is nothing short of fear mongering.

Is it me that is doing the fear-mongering, or the news media, or the conservatives, themselves ?

Here is another news source talking about the same thing, but with quotes from several leaders of Conservative groups:

Removal of Iowa judges may inspire similar efforts

The news media is the liberal voice. Ask them.

To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin, a pretty smart guy by all accounts: Rebellion to that socialist Obama is obedience to God. Obama needed a hobbling and has received it. Now we need to move from hobbling to hogtying, and thence to the extinction of Socialism as a worldview and a school of economic thought.

Otherwise the Republic perishes and the Oligarchy takes over. True, the Republic is going to be harder to kill than the Oligarchy might hope, and in this lies the hope for thee and me. I have never been especially worried that Obama would succeed in his Sixties-model pro-socialist demolition of the Republic, and this midterm election bears me out. The repairs are not yet complete, however.

The people who actually inhabit the center-right, and who did some reading and listening, will not tell you Obama did any such thing. And you've seen just how much "compromis[ing] from there" actually went on.

Cap and trade was a center-right idea (GHW Bush plan. Don't ban pollution, make a market for it). The health care plan was a center right idea (Bob Dole's plan. No public option, let alone single-payer, some decent tweaks but mostly still hoping that the market will sort things out). He continued the wars. He continued Guantanimo.

On the left, maybe the consumer financial protection agency?

I saw how much compromising there was, and it was far too much, considering how little he got in return.

Bull shit. Cap and trade is a product of the Chicago Carbon Credit Exchange.... guess who is in on that scheme?

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

For carbon, sure. But it was based on the successful acid rain program from 1990.

Who will gain financially if Cap and Trade goes through?

Any industry that can reduce their carbon output, or help others to do so. They're all big industries, but solar and wind are more associated with "left" and nuclear is more associated with "right".

Ever since the 3-Mile Island accident my wife and I have been opposed to nuclear power. But now we are beginning to argue about it again. She is still opposed, and I have started to feel pragmatically that it may be necessary, as wind and solar each have such a long way to go to meet the nation's needs.

BUT, it is amazing to me how during the previous administration the nuclear industry started gearing up again quietly and without any public discussion. It's as if there is no institutional memory of what it was like during the 3-Mile and Chenoble incidents, and no assurances that anything different will be done in building the new reactors over what was done before. Again, just one disasterous event will probably be enough to kill the industry.

http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chicago_Climate_Exchange

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/if-al-g...-make-a-sound/

http://www.examiner.com/orange-count...-to-fleece-usa

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...abs%3Dcomments

So many forget why those (and other less documented accidents and near accidents in the UK, Canada, outside of Detroit, Davis Bessie near Toledo, Brown's Ferry, etc) accidents occurred. In every case, management failures.

In Three Mile Island, management was so negligent that Three Mile Island 1 could not restart until all Met Ed management resigned. When the last of the problems did resign - and he kept refusing to - then Three Mile Island 1 restarted two days later.

Three Mile Island 2 is a perfect example of why failures happen. Management refused to replace a leaking valve that keeps coolant inside. All in the name of cost controls. Three Mile Island failed literally days after a restart. After a refurbishment that should have replaced that defective valve. Management (no different than GM's) was so business school brainwashed as to refuse to replace that valve. Everyone here should know that story. Because everyone should know why failures happen.

Are you listening to the Government inquiry into Deepwater Horizon? Engineering plans were changed ad hoc. The term 'unbalanced' should be a glaring fact in anyone who discusses that disaster. In every case, a classic management fubar. Fundamental violations of what William Edward Deming taught even 50 years ago.

There are no accidents. These are human safety failures only possible when management is not doing its job.

Today's reactor designs are even more human resilient. So how to make anything resilient when a worker decides to put a lit candle under electric control wires to find an air leak?

It is called education. And it is why America's more productive industries need so many immigrants from India and China. The problem is not that technology. Problem is so many Americans educated, for example, wastefully as communication and business majors. Who cannot even do a quadratic equation. And then get angry when their MBA school professor asks them to solve one.

So, do you know who created the NE American (2003) blackout? From Indiana, Michigan, Ontario, to NYC? If you do not, then you are also the reasons for 'accidents'. Because anyone informed from any newspaper (or equivalent) should have known that well understood fact. Most do not. It should be obvious. But most would rather call it an accident rather that learn the reason why accidents exist. Nuclear reactors are not dangerous. Business school types - uneducated managers - are the #1 reason for disasters.

They could not find even one engineer who said it was safe to launch Challenger. So they ignored every engineer. Launched anyway. Why? Because so many Americans would call it an accident rather than blame the only reason for that disaster. So many Americans said it is always good to have incompetent management. Since we do not hold the problem criminally negligent, then more *accidents* must happen.

you coulda saved a lot of space and just said 85%...

TW, I agree with most everything you have said... except I called them "incidents", not "accidents", for a reason.

I just watched a CSPAN Hearing of the National Traffic Safety Board which was focusing on drivers in my age-group (elderly).
The "experts" testified about how cars are going in the direction of measuring the driver's situation (sleep, distracted, night-glare) etc.
and either giving the driver a warning or actually taking charge.

They also described how each age group responds to technical innovations.
Older folk have more trouble learning and understanding new gadgets, but once self-trained they then tend to use them.
Young folk seem to accept new gadgets immediately and rely on them completely.

One example given was the gismo that detects a child or bike or car when the car is in reverse.
Elders tend to look back and use mirrors, but young folk will just back up until the alarm goes off !

If this is even close to being true, then the new nuclear plant control rooms are going to have to be a lot like HAL in the movie, 2001
... able to fend off the MBA's working the night shift.
Unfortunately, the BP-type supervising engineers haven't given me a whole lot of confidence.

Interesting is the word 'incident'. It implies a professional spokesperson underplaying the disaster. But then I cannot think of a better word to describe it.

Most interesting was an incident in 2004 when we reelected George Jr.

Oh, I liked doing that. The Dems are daily proving tw's 85-percent notion...

Which tells me I was right to do that! Anti-Republicans can just all join the List Of People Who Can Suck It until mud comes up.

Is it rude to keep the winner's bumper sticker on your car after the election ?

... or just delicious !

gah - I can't see it! sunglare issues.

UG understands only parts that agree with his extremist political biases. Meanwhile, spread sheets are reporting events that occurred four and ten years ago. Ford threw out Jacque Nasser in 2000. Therefore Ford is just now reaping the profits created by responsible management installed after 2000.

Someone (UG) with contempt for the American soldier advocated a war with no purpose: Mission Accomplished. Recessions many years later are how such wars are paid for. Including another war we are still fighting because George Jr all but surrendered to the Taliban.

Well, the recession is over. Now we go through a painful period of continued and less job losses. And to pay off mortgages mostly held by China. We are only just beginning to pay for wacko extremism after 2000. 85% is directly traceable to those who created our current economic mess. And now the bills have come due. UG again forget about that part. After all, being a person driven by hate of Muslims, he must also blame Obama. (So dumb as to think Obama is a Muslim. So Nazi like as to hype hate and fear of Islamofacism.)

It is how economics works when one learn from reality - not from political rhetoric. When one is not educated by fools who only incite hate.

The first years of 2000 were some of the most irresponsible fiscal mismanagement this nation has seen since the 1920s. We are now learning what wacko extremism really costs. Only a wacko extremist would forget whose politics created a mess that is just beginning to end.

So how is your reading of Barnett's book. Did you finally get through Chapter 3? I warned you. It was not a Dr Suse book.

According to your logic, One could argue that the Clinton surplus was due to Reagan policies and the Bush issues were actually because of Clinton's decisions. I disagree.

And you would be inventing facts. Some of Reagan's excesses and Desert Storm causes high unemployment (that was not as high as this recession). 8%. By raising taxes and other fiscally responsible activities, Clinton restarted economic growth. But wackos forget how we almost eliminated all debt.

Fortunately for Clinton, George Sr was responsible. George Sr got most of Desert Storm paid for by the world. A resulting economic downturn was mild. 8%. George Sr also did not do harm using fiscal mismanagement, overt lies, and a political agenda. Clinton easily rectified the economy by being responsible. Therefore by 1993, the economy was healthy again. And became better when intelligent people passed laws including the 1996 Federal Communication Act. Only extremists ignore these facts to rewrite history.

What did George Jr do? Anything that Clinton did was called evil. So George Jr even made Bernie Madoff rich. Even promised to rebuild Trent Lott's beachfront house while letting hundreds die in New Orleans. Even refused to prosecute Enron. Invented a Mission Accomplished war to worship Cheney's penis. George Jr openly encouraged spread sheet games that created the worst recession since 1920s. Of course. The most egregious recessions are created by corrupt governments. Corruption that only the dumbest Americans both approve of AND deny the damage was created. Welfare only for the rich - and that was good?

How to print money? Borrow massively from the Brits, Japanese, and even more from the Chinese. Incur massive debts by openly creating mythical capital on Wall Street. Debt that are only beginning to be discovered and must be paid ten plus years from now. Encourage phony wealth even with the largest corruption scandal in America's history - K Street. Lie to the most gullible Americans via Fox News, Limbaugh, and Hannity.

Solutions started by Bernanke, Paulson, Geithner, etc were understood, supported and encouraged by Obama. But more extremist lies must be rectified. One lie is preached by only the dumbest of people - that economic growth is created by tax cuts. Welfare to the richest people who do not create productive jobs. That is good? Those aspiring to be rich - people who did not get George Jr’s government welfare - create the jobs. But the rich, using government welfare, then enrich political extremists. And waste American wealth with glee.

Why has the average American income dropped 2% from 2000 to 2008? Oh. That happened only when George Jr was doing so much 'good'. A 2% drop during the good times - before a recession began. Why do extremists forget these numbers? Intelligence would only create a skin rash or eye strain.

Unemployment is a lagging indicator. Recessions created by corrupt government means unemployment lasts longest - 18 months or longer. Employment numbers should not recover until next summer. More facts that extremist will deny.

Debt was virtually eliminated by Clinton. Then extremists did what extremists do to rape a nation and massacre 4,400 best Americans in Iraq. When in America's history did the average America's wealth drop 2%? And then decrease further with an inevitable recession?

Obama, et al successfully averted what would have otherwise been 20% or 40% unemployment. The George Jr unemployment was successfully limited to a mild 10% - only slightly worse than George Sr's mild 8% recession. We got lucky. George Jr was out before wacko extremism created more damage. And still extremists rewrite history for a political agenda. Just like they rewrote science. Clinton made economic prosperity to happen. George Jr mortgaged America’s future to lie even about Mission Accomplished. Lies that only a wackos extremist could approve of.

HAHAHA - you really didn't get it did you?
lol - thanks for the laugh - I needed one today.

If you are serious, and I sincerely hope you aren't reread my post, this time for comprehension.

We seem to have leveled off at least, and unemployment is the next hurtle as that's always the last to improve. But Europe is in deep shit. They bailed Greece out, but now Ireland is teetering, and if they go down Portugal will also, and likely Spain will follow.

Europe is overall stable. The mostly smaller and fiscally irresponsible PIIGS did money games as MBAs are so often taught. Therefore their people must suffer harshly.

Major powers of Europe were fiscally responsible. Britain, France, Germany, Turkey, and a number of other larger European economic powers will continue to prosper. Albeit at diminished growth rates (especially those participating in the Euro) due to a few states that operated as irresponsible as George Jr.

Unemployment is not a hurtle. Once a recession ends, then unemployment numbers automatically and eventually decrease. How long? Depends on the type of recession. The worst recessions are created by governments and other fiscally irresponsible parties - the bean counters who are so corrupt as to think they create jobs and innovation. Therefore employment does not increase for something less than 2 years after the recession ends. The American recession appears to have ended at the beginning of 2010.

The next hurtle is a decreased American Living standard to pay for those 2000s money games. For example, we have not yet even started to address wealth reaped by inventing mortgaged. The richest took the money. And left the common man with homes worth less than he owes. We must now foreclose for pennies on the dollar that the richest 2% partied on. Pennies tomorrow for dollars 'printed' and played with by government and Wall Street in the 2000s.

Yes, the European PIIGS also will suffer. Major rule changes will be necessary to make Euro nations more accountable. So that books are not manipulated as George Jr also did.

The next hurtle for America is untangling massive debts incurred and not yet apparent on the books. Not just real estate. About $100 billion of military equipment has been trashed in foolish overseas adventures. Science destroyed by the $1 billion per seat Constellation and other science boondoggles. As Alan Simpson, et al note, a Medicaid prescription drug program (thank you George Jr) that has already overburdened and may dwarf other entitlement program. And that keeps prescription drug prices 40% higher.

Any robust recovery that normally occurs after other types of recessions is less likely after this recession. Other problems also must be paid for by sacrificing the American Standards of Living. That is how economics works. It takes revenge four, ten and twenty years after money games create fictious wealth. The common man will pay for the past wealth of Bernie Madoff and other fiscally irresponsible players who were all but encouraged to rape America. What Americans and Europeans pay when their governments and financial establishments screw the nation to enrich the privileged few.

The next hurtle: how diminished will the American Living Standard fall to pay for George Jr's 2000s - including Mission Accomplished. Some of those bills are just starting to appear on spread sheets.

American incomes dropped 2% during George Jr's reign. Will the 2010s see a positive or negative Std of Living? We don't know. We are still learning how much damage was created in the 2000s.

Again the lag factor - which could allow one to argue that the Clinton surplus was due to Reagan policies and the Bush issues were actually because of Clinton's decisions. I disagree, but according to your logic...

So you forget that George Sr was the president. What did George Sr do? Raise taxes. Good things resulted from that balanced budget meaning economic growth during Clinton's watch.

George Sr was president before Clinton. Or did you conveniently forget. George Sr raises taxes making possible economic growth four years later.

Actually I did forget - wee not really, I had him in there and was editing and .... edited him out accidentally. oh well, the principle of the argument is still sound.

As Clinton so often said, "It's the economy stupid." A driving force behind these mid-term elections. Unfortunately too many saw bottom line unemployment numbers. Ignored facts such as the recession has ended. That job losses have been constantly decreasing since the worst losses in Jan 2008. And decreasing job losses will continue maybe until next spring. It is how economics works when economic recovery is strong.

Meanwhile another discussion is ongoing among insider economists. Many view a Japanese economy that suffered these same problems a decade earlier, did not address them forthwith, and have never really seen a robust growth rate since then.

Whereas deficit spending can be used to overcome a liquidity (cash flow) problem. And that is what TARP did so successfully. Deficit spending afterwards is long term harmful. The Japanese continued deficit spending to fix their economy. And therefore were not rewarded with robust growth. That is bean counters doing economic growth. We know bean counter types can harm growth and cannot create growth. They can only make growth possible by acting as bank tellers; by serving all other productive (innovative) people. But bean counters and Wall Street foolishly think they create growth with money games.

Unfortunately economists now argue that deflation must be Japan’s problem. Nonsense. Deflation is a symptom. But economist mind games assume economics can create product innovation. They propose tax cuts, deficit spending, buy American, and even ethanol production. And now even suggest that higher inflation will create economic growth.

With interest rates at a zero (or negative depending on how factors are weighted), many economists are now encouraging inflation to create growth. Latest proposal is to manipulate price increases. As usual, they ignore the only thing that creates economic wealth - innovation. Their reasoning is based in the same myth that low interest rates, tax cuts, and deficit spending creates economic growth.

How did America create growth after those lies were so exposed in the 1970s? Volker forced interest rates to exceed 20%. The resulting reduction in American living standards during Carter’s reign cause economic growth to occur in the second half of Reagan’s first term. It takes that long for actual economic growth to appear on spread sheets. Four to ten years after the actual problem is eliminated. Tax increases to create balanced budgets – not tax cuts – create jobs and wealth. A reality that contradicts widely believed myths. Welcome to Economics 101 with political spin removed (with contempt).

There is no way around the hard solution. Any attempt to use Wall Street spin and money games to create growth means economics takes revenge on everyone else many years later. We let the liars (Bernie Madoff, Lehman Bros, AIG, etc) get rich. Time to pay for their money games, government welfare to the rich, and easy money.

economists are bean counters.

No, they are balloon-pokers.

The economy is one big balloon, and so you poke it here and it pops out there.
Each economist can then be an authority on the best place and how hard to poke.

:)

Accountants are bean counters. Economists analyze what happens once the beans are processed. That makes them fart sniffers.

even better! :thumbsup:

I do believe you've nailed it, Spex. :yesnod:

My G-son has become a liberal... but still has a sense of humor.
Here's his latest on Facebook with friend, Alex.

Re: pict below
Sam: House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) breaks into tears
during his speech as he addresses supporters at a Republican
election night results watch rally in Washington, November 2, 2010.

Alex: They did a segment on him on 60 minutes a couple of weeks ago,
and he cried about 4 times.

Sam: Yeah, I saw that too.
He couldn't talk about how he went from being a janitor to making the lives of
countless Americans more difficult without tearing up and crying.

Economists are the field’s scientists. Others (ie accountants) are technicians or engineers of that financial discipline.

Economists learn of trends, relationship, and resulting effective in economics. Study symptoms to understand how X caused Y. That part of the field is rather accurate. The problem is when these same people believe money games can fix an economy or create productivity. Believe manipulating Y can fix X. What so many fail to comprehend or measure is how innovation works, why throwing money at something never creates innovation, and that their numbers are always reporting events long after events actually started or happened.

An economist can identify this type of recession so destructive that jobs will continue to be lost for 18 months after the recession ends. But cannot determine when the recession ends until long after the recession ends.

An economist that would fix an economy by averting deflation with money games is fooling himself and too many others. Economists can report on the ballon. But cannot 'fix' it.

Deflation is a monetary number that economists can understand. But are only symptoms of real world events that economist cannot quantify. When he tried to fix an economy by curing that symptom, then an economist is his own worst enemy. Tax cuts to fix an economy is a perfect example. Can actually make things worse.

Same applies to finance industry technicians. Which is why a company’s worst CEO would previously be the CFO.

Don't see how. The corporate reason for not hiring the jobless hardly at all is they don't find the money in any of the company's accounts to pay their hires, not so?

Tax cuts make more money available to said company, not so?

Hiring, assuming the costs of employment are both predictable and affordable, may then proceed, not so?

Reduction of regulatory compliance costs and reduction of the tax bite gives the company the wherewithal to hire, not so?

Tax reduction is essential to recovery. Overregulation prolongs all depressions.

Not so. Corporate cash on hand is at an all-time high.

Perfectly legal.

i hate this thread and am ignorant to it. however....why is it that in this economy all the oil companies are recording record profits?

i know why. they can mark up the oil in production. they pay a certain amount for a barrel of oil.

i sure as hell am. i'm in the market to replace the Fixed Or Repaired Daily v-6 for a jetta or something of that effect.

To whom is this directed? I looked back a few posts, and saw no accusations of criminality.

I guess I was thinking of the fact that "Corporate cash on hand is at an all-time high" but they are not hiring.

What does "perfectly legal" have to do with that? I was pointing out that UG's little string of "not so"s failed in the very first link. Criminality doesn't enter in to it.

I was pointing out that there was nothing wrong with it. That is all.

Which is the sound byte promoted by extremists to appeal to those with the lowest intelligence.

Meanwhile, those who deal in reality and fact know that tax cuts only create short term economic thrill (like a drug) followed by serious economic destruction when the bills come due.

Those educated in reality know that tax cuts to the richest do not create jobs. The richest do not create jobs. They simply maximize their wealth at the expensive of all others.

Who creates jobs? Those who aspire to be rich. And those people saw their incomes drop 2% during George Jr's tenure. When tax cuts were enriching those who do not create the new and innovative jobs.

Of course, this has been explained often. It contradicts the extremist agenda. Best to ignore it if promoting Limbaugh lies and Hannity hyperbole.

Tax cuts never created innovation or the resulting jobs. History over 30 years said jobs were created when fiscal responsibility (including tax increases) were implemented. Only those most easily manipulated by MBA myths think money games can create innovation and jobs. But again for those who ignored history, the Kennedy tax cuts only resulted in job losses so many years later.

Making the rich richer has – every time – been followed by massive recessions. Only people living in reality learned this history.

I can see I know a lot more about both capitalism and economics than tw, which is why I make him sputter so. I live in the human world; he refuses to.