2010 Election Results Are In

The election results are in, and there are one trillion web pages now up helping you find out what happened. The short story is that the Republicans cleaned up, although the Democrats maintain a one-seat majority in the Senate. The GOP now has 239 seats in the house, giving them a huge lead over the Dems' 183.

Comments

Re:Not surprising

[ArcherB]

At least during my lifetime every time that a single political party has gained the presidency and a majority in congress it crashes and burns.

You must be pretty young. The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress. However, as I've stated repeatedly, I don't think the Prez has a whole lot to do with it.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[ArcherB]

You can claim credit for the economy growing like crazy under the GOP from 1995-2007 only if you also take the blame for the complete collapse of the economy in 2008-2009. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.

Democrats controlled both houses of congress in 2008 and 2009. Dems took both houses in the 2006 elections. Dems held both houses for a full year before 2008. Sure, there is much more at play, but I believe you are being very naive to blame the party in the minority for an economic collapse.

Still, if you think the economy of 2009 was the fault of Republicans who lost both houses in 2006, does that mean you believe that 9-11 was Clinton's fault? After all, Bush had only been in office for less than 9 months. At the end of 2009, unemployment climbed over 10%, just under three years since the Dems took both houses. You don't get the upside without also taking the downside.

Re:Should be good for the economy

[ArcherB]

When the GOP steers the ship towards a waterfall, just because someone else grabs the wheel right before it goes over doesn't absolve the GOP for their primary role in sending it over.

You are correct. It takes about a year for a new congress to get new legislation passed. In the beginning of 2008, unemployment was at 5%. At the end of 2009, unemployment was over 10%. That's three years of Democratic controlled congress, with one year of a Dem in the WH.

So yeah, you're right. It takes about a year for a new congress to grab the wheel and turn the ship around. The numbers reflect that.

"Obamacare"

[GodfatherofSoul]

Want to hear something interesting, try to get someone against ObamaCare to tell you specifically what they don't like about the bill. You'll hear a lot about socialism and a "government takeover," but that's about it.

Re:An interesting observation on civilizations

[Intrinsic]

Maybe for some people. Personally, I get hung up on the claims that the quote makes. First, that the average age of great civilizations was 200 years. This seems to be a carefully chosen date to correlate with the democratic revolutions that took place in France, the U.S., Mexico, and many other countries at the end of the last major colonial/imperial age. That is, chosen to be particularly relevant right about when the quotation is published. Any of my attempts at verifying that figure independently have used that quote as a primary source (that is, it cannot be verified independently and is likely bunk).

I say "is" because this quotation has been re-used several times in history (from 1951 to 2000) particularly around election times and other politically important events.

Also, the quote treats this pattern as a proven and established pattern, even though democracy in it's modern form and the way we have it (with a constitution and checks of power) is relatively recent.

That is, the author makes an unsupported argument and uses careful weasel-wording and timing to appeal to his audience.

If you've read Frank Herbert's Dune, it's very similar to the Missionary Protectiva concept: slight of hand with careful timing to spur action.

It is a great quote for sure, but one to be skeptical of and to carefully examine, not to take at face value.
--
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);

-4 Troll; and Flaimbait to boot.