Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United States Government Politics

2010 Election Results Are In 1530

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the perpetual-yo-yo dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2010 Election Results Are In

Comments Filter:
  • by rwa2 (4391) * on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @09:58AM (#34110690) Homepage Journal

    Historically, the economy has always done well with a Republican congress and a Democrat president...
    http://beforeitsnews.com/story/245/982/Divided_we_make_money:_Why_the_stock_market_wants_a_Republican_victory.html [beforeitsnews.com]

    A more data-based representation:
    http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm [cedarcomm.com]

    • by Wonko the Sane (25252) * on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:01AM (#34110748) Journal

      Historically, the economy has always done well with a Republican congress and a Democrat president...

      Of course it does - gridlock means that less laws get passed.

      The primary purpose of laws is to either to expand the public sector or else to advantage one group in the private sector at the expense of another group so less laws is automatically better for the economy.

      • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:04AM (#34110786) Homepage

        The real test will be what Boehner does now...will he obstruct, or will he work?

        This can be applied to Obama as well.

        • by Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:10AM (#34110894)
          Boehner has been quoted that he is more than willing to work with President Obama, as long as what they're working on is what he and the Republicans want
          • by Pojut (1027544) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:14AM (#34110976) Homepage

            That's the thing that pisses me off about Boehner...when he speaks in an "unofficial" capacity (i.e. not at a press conference), you can tell that the guy has a real solid head on his shoulders. I think he'll make a great Speaker, and I think he's a good person to have "leading" the Republicans.

            The only problem is that any time he is talking in an "official" capacity, his entire vocabulary consists solely of talking points. I know this is part of his role, but still...he nearly literally speaks only in talking points when speaking to the press.

            If he is true to his word and extends an olive branch to Obama, I think great things can happen. I'm just worried that he'll try to coat that branch in poison before trying to gift it.

          • by chris mazuc (8017) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:16AM (#34111002)

            Sounds like the same old bullshit to me. Compromise to the Republicans is the Democrats doing what they tell them to do.

            • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @11:06AM (#34111908)

              Classic example. The Dems had 60% of the Senate (counting the Indies). The stimulus bill included about 40% of the tax cuts that Republicans wanted. They wanted a 50/50 solution with 40% of the vote and still voted it down. A stronger Senate leader would have stripped all of their provisions out when they indicated they weren't voting for ti anyway.

            • by GiveBenADollar (1722738) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @11:08AM (#34111928)
              As is compromise to the Democrats. Also the Republicans can magically block all kinds of legislation while being the minority in the house and senate. Obama loves to blame the Republicans for not getting what he wanted, but in reality he could and did pass any bills the Democrats would approve. The fight he's had is not with the Republicans, but with his own party. The fight with the Republicans happens when the new congressmen get seated.
              • by bhcompy (1877290) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @11:58AM (#34112918)
                This is essentially correct. There was a lot of talk about the Republican filibuster for various bills, but there was never actually any filibuster. If you don't take it to the floor to see if they can manage to filibuster you can't complain about the filibuster because it doesn't exist. The Dems couldn't muster enough internal support to bring some of these bills to the floor to begin with.
          • by tepples (727027) <tepples AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:18AM (#34111040) Homepage Journal

            Boehner ... is more than willing to work with President Obama ... on ... what he and the Republicans want

            The Republicans, especially the Tea Party wing, want the United States government to spend less money. President Obama wants to end what some analysts have called an unwinnable war in Afghanistan. But are Speaker-elect Boehner and his Republicans willing to cut defense spending?

            • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:28AM (#34111220)

              Woah, woah, woah. Boehner, and the Republicans in general, want to cut taxes. When have they ever cared about cutting spending? What's that even got to do with it?

              • by NeverVotedBush (1041088) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:38AM (#34111404)
                And the sad thing is that while this country drowns in debt, taxes are at their lowest in decades. Somehow the right has convinced everyone that low taxes are actually high and need to be cut even more - in an era of multi-million dollar salaries for execs. Sure can't burden those poor folk with any taxes. How could they afford that next Gulfstream jet or vacation home?

                But will the working class get a break? Nope. As the Fed cuts various programs, states will be forced to raise taxes and guess who will pay them.
            • by tverbeek (457094) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:35AM (#34111346) Homepage

              "But are Speaker-elect Boehner and his Republicans willing to cut defense spending?"

              Not as long as their are military-industrial jobs programs in their districts. Which is why the Democrats aren't willing to do it either.

          • by dkleinsc (563838) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @11:29AM (#34112312) Homepage

            He's also on the record as being concerned that Newt Gingrich was too conciliatory back in the 1990's. Also, the Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is on the record as saying that the top priority of the Republican Senate delegation is to ensure that Obama doesn't get reelected. Something tells me the people's business isn't the top of their list.

      • by fishbowl (7759) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:15AM (#34110996)

        >Of course it does - gridlock means that less laws get passed.

        Gridlock means that less *federal* laws get passed. It also means that the states have more power.

        Also in this case, the House controls plenty of things related to spending that don't have to go through both chambers.

      • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:37AM (#34111384)

        mod parent up!

        almost any law these days is an unnecessary law! bought and paid for by special interests.

        modern (recent) laws have done nothign to 'help people live better or safer'. they are ENTIRELY 100% bought and paid for by PACs.

        so yes, I'd agree! stalemate is good. it stops the bastards from lining their pockets with even more stupid corporate-backed laws.

        (OT: anyone else think the idea of 'keep passing more and more laws' is not scalable? shouldn't we CONDENSE laws and make things more general and not more and more specific? ever look at a lawyers bookshelf? how on earth can anyone think this is manageable! its not. we need to repeal laws and 'age them out' instead of just adding TO the pile of shit we call laws. I propose a 'reference count' and if a law has not earned its keep (after review) it should be gone!)

      • by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:40AM (#34111438) Homepage

        The primary purpose of laws is to either to expand the public sector or else to advantage one group in the private sector at the expense of another group so less laws is automatically better for the economy.

        Really? The laws that enforce the terms of contracts are automatically bad for the economy? The ones that establish the fed's ability to monitor the monetary supply in an attempt to mitigate fluctuations in valuation are automatically bad for the economy? The ones which establish fire departments, roadways, and the international negotiations which provide protections for domestic businesses doing business with international companies are bad for the economy?

        You know what you have without laws? Anarchy. By Definition you have anarchy. Anarchy is a terrible state within which to attempt to conduct business.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by ArcherB (796902)

      Historically, the economy has always done well with a Republican congress and a Democrat president...
      http://beforeitsnews.com/story/245/982/Divided_we_make_money:_Why_the_stock_market_wants_a_Republican_victory.html [beforeitsnews.com]

      A more data-based representation:
      http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm [cedarcomm.com]

      I halfway agree. The economy just seems to do pretty well with a Republican congress, but to be fair, it was slightly better under Clinton with a Repub congress than Bush with a Repub congress. I say that because the current Democratic congress has been a disaster, regardless of which party controls the WH.

      My prediction: Expect the economy to improve and Obama take the credit. I believe we are about to see a repeat of the Clinton WH after Newt became Speaker of the House. Recent history has shown that t

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymusing (1450747)

        My prediction: Expect the economy to improve and Obama take the credit. I believe we are about to see a repeat of the Clinton WH after Newt became Speaker of the House. Recent history has shown that the president has little effect on the economy. It's all congress.

        Even if it's "all congress" -- the Democrats can still claim responsibility for upswing. They already do: more jobs added in the last two years than during Bush's entire reign, most banks repaid their bailouts with interest, GM on firmer financ

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Wonko the Sane (25252) *

        My prediction: Expect the economy to improve and Obama take the credit. I believe we are about to see a repeat of the Clinton WH after Newt became Speaker of the House. Recent history has shown that the president has little effect on the economy. It's all congress.

        There's no recovery on the horizon. In fact, shortly after all these new members of Congress get seated the inflation from Ben Bernanke's recent dollar devaluation will work its way through the supply chain and start ravaging family budgets.

      • by cgenman (325138) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:48AM (#34111592) Homepage

        Unfortunately, I fear whatever data we've collected since the early 90's pretty much needs to be thrown out.

        The mid 90's saw an explosive growth in technologies that fundamentally changed the human condition and drove the economy to dizzying heights. By 2000, the associated huge stock bubble burst. But everyone had a taste of prosperity, and looked to the dream of Home ownership, like Japan in the late 80's. A second prosperity bubble formed around real estate in the 2000's, which burst in 2008 or so.

        Al Gore aside, none of these things had anything to do with which party was in power. I'm not saying that who controls what is irrelevant, just that most of the data collected since Bush #1 probably needs to be thrown out as being unfairly prejudicial. And since the parties today are very different than the parties from the 70's and 80's, the relevance of "Dems are better for the economy!" or "Republicans are better for the economy!" when looking at this one point of data seems like a form of rooting for Baseball teams.

    • by jemenake (595948) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:56AM (#34111762)

      A more data-based representation: http://cedarcomm.com/~stevelm1/usdebt.htm [cedarcomm.com]

      What worries me about a lot of the graphs on that page is that they either use numbers which aren't even adjusted for inflation, or they adjust for inflation but don't compare them to GDP. He gets it right in a few places, but most of the graphs aren't useable. Looking at the un-adjusted debt principals, yes, the numbers will tend to climb.

      What I'm much more concerned about is debt as it relates to GDP. After all, if you owe $10 in debt, that's a serious problem if you only make $1 per year, but it's inconsequential if you make $1,000 per year.

      So, look at debt-as-a-percentage-of-GDP here: (http://zfacts.com/p/1195.html [zfacts.com]). You'll see that:

      • The debt was once much higher than it is today.
      • We were managing to pay it down... through Eisenhour, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter... and then Reagan started a precedent for Republican presidents to blow it sky-high.

      I do agree with the webpage about trickle-down not working and that, for a steady economy, we need to get back to the higher taxes on the rich, like the 70%-90% on the highest tax brackets which were helping us pay down the WW-II debt consistently over 35 years until Reagan took office.

  • The real winners (Score:5, Insightful)

    by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @09:59AM (#34110702) Homepage Journal
    This was the most expensive midterm election cycle ever, even adjusting for inflation. And you can bet grandma wasn't the one forking over the dough. The corporate paymasters are going to be expecting(and almost certainly will get) a huge ROI for their investments.
    • The real losers (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:35AM (#34111340)

      Of course the real losers in all of this are us: the idiots who keep voting for Democrats and Republicans while believing the platitudes pounded into our heads: This is democracy! The people have spoken! Let freedom ring! And other rubbish.

      It isn't even a secret that the politicians work for the lobbyists and not for us: the "campaign contributions" are made one day, and the very next day the vote just so happens to go the way of the contributor. What a shock!

      Reform from the inside seems hopeless, because the people charged with making that reform are the very people benefitting from keeping it the way it is. The few honest politicians who get into office get twisted and corrupted so quickly that they become indistinguishable from the most self-serving of the bunch.

      If we want to ever break out of this complete rape of our selves by our lords and masters, there is only one option. No it is not revolution. That too is unrealistic both motivationally and militarily. Our only hope is to create an alternative, open-source-style government [metagovernment.org] and make the current system obsolete.

      It is a long shot, and you can find a lot of problems with it. But do you have a better idea?

      • Re:The real losers (Score:4, Interesting)

        by GaryOlson (737642) <slashdot AT garyolson DOT org> on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @01:47PM (#34114502) Journal
        Yes. Return the members of the House of Representatives to their home districts. The current mode of shipping Representatives to a central physical location is based on technology limitations which no longer exist. Although many would bemoan the limitations of teleconferenced debates, a geographically dispersed Congress would benefit the people.

        The current concentration of government in one location -- executive, legislative, and judicial -- provides too much ease of access with minimal expense/friction for the private sector to influence government. The current atmosphere in Washington DC is too concentrated and too caustic for real representative government to survive. If the private cost of influencing government was increased with a geographically dispersed House of Representatives, the people might actually have a chance to be heard.

        Leave the technical details of securing the legislative process to the NSA -- give them some real work for a change.
  • Fear & Ignorance (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nahdude812 (88157) * on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @09:59AM (#34110710) Homepage

    According to many polls, the number one concern this election was the economy. Somehow in the minds of many, the economy is the fault of the Democrats, in spite of the fact that the 2008 candidates left the campaign trail to focus on the rapidly failing economy.

    The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.

    Somehow people buy that rhetoric. I guess angry shouting will beat out reasonable discourse nearly every time.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Wonko the Sane (25252) *

      The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.

      That's just it - they haven't done anything to reverse the disaster.

      The voters collectively know that, despite any propaganda you get out of the media. If the economy was actually improving the voters would not have voted as they did.

      Now

      • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:31AM (#34111268)

        Imagine you run a business and the shit hits the fan; revenue is down 50%, your customers aren't buying because they don't have any money, and you can't afford to pay the bills, let alone the payroll. What are you going to do if you want to keep your business running? Fire a lot of staff? Negotiate a short term loan with the bank? Negotiate a payment plan with the people you owe money to?

        Now imagine it's 3 years later and revenues are back up, not to what they were before but they're getting close and trending upward. So now what are you going to do? You'll hire some staff back, doubtless, but during the past three years you've been forced to find ways to make your business works with less staff so it won't be as many as you needed before the bad years. Not to mention you're still paying off all those high interest debts and payment plans, even with revenue up you can't afford to take the risk of hiring someone you don't 100% need.

        This is pretty much exactly the position my wife's work found themselves in; revenues are up, workload is up but what should be discretionary cash is going toward paying off their old debts. Meanwhile they can't hire those two new staff persons (increasing from 4) they really need to support that revenue because the money isn't there. It'll be a at least 6 months, maybe a year before the debt is paid down and they can start hiring again, despite that fact that they have more customers than ever.

      • by bouldin (828821) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:37AM (#34111366)

        What the Dems did accomplish was to prevent a panic, which may be the best anybody can really expect of government in this kind of crisis. Republicans probably would have focused on lowering taxes, so big business could take that money and use it for overseas jobs.

        Maybe we all need to consider that American politicians just are not able to fix this problem.

    • Laser Precision (Score:3, Interesting)

      by SuperKendall (25149)

      in spite of the fact that the 2008 candidates left the campaign trail to focus on the rapidly failing economy

      Focusing by sending a ton of money to banks? Or was it the focus later where they decided the best way to "improve" the economy was to scare businesses with massive changes to health care and insure business spending would pucker faster than a North Dakotan chewing on a raw lemon?

      They had a laser like focus on the economy for sure. It shows in that the economy is now blind, staggering and badly bur

    • by antifoidulus (807088) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:10AM (#34110890) Homepage Journal
      Well the problem is complexity and people's refusal to take the time to try to understand it. The modern economy is a complex beast due to both natural forces and manipulation. Trying to understand and grapple with our problems are going to require nuance and understanding, but the American electorate seems to reject this outright. They want the person with vague overly-simplistic answers(and it's not just republican voters and candidates who offer this, Obama did it in 2008 with the whole hope thing).

      While Obama was a wide eye idealist on the campaign trail he actually tried to grapple with complex issues in a very sophisticated and relatively practical way. He didn't always do the right thing IMO, but he at least was on the right path and realized that empiricism ultimately trumps ideology and he paid dearly for it. The Tea Party found that selling platitudes about government without actually offering any sort of specifics was the best way to win. Why not offer specifics? Because the Republic leaders realize that the US is a country of McWatts.

      For those of you who have never read the book "Catch-22":
      a) why the hell not?
      b) McWatt was a character whose philosophy on government spending came down to this, "All government spending that does not benefit me is bad"
      c) why the hell haven't you read it yet?

      If the Republicans/Tea partiers actually outlined a plan to actually reduce government spending in any meaningful way there would have been revolt because the two biggest pigs are entitlement programs which the largely elderly base just absolutely loves, and the military which Republicans just cannot get enough of. Instead if they offer any specifics at all they go after safe, but relatively low value targets like the dept. of Education or the National Endowment for the arts, who, combined, make up only about 1% or so of the current deficit.
      d) why not?
    • Re:Fear & Ignorance (Score:5, Informative)

      by Andraax (87926) <mario.butter@silent-tower.org> on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:23AM (#34111120) Homepage Journal

      The Republicans couldn't have timed it better. Pillage the economy, let it fail just before the Democrats take office, and two years later when the Dems have halted and begun reversal of the worst economic disaster of all time, the Republicans come in, blaming the Democrats.

      Err, the Democrats took over *4* years ago, not 2. They had complete control of the legislature (and hence the budget process) in 2006, only adding the executive in 2008.

    • by jemenake (595948) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:39AM (#34111408)

      According to many polls, the number one concern this election was the economy. Somehow in the minds of many, the economy is the fault of the Democrats

      What disheartens me is the number of people who seem to think that the largest economy in the world should handle like a sports car and not like a super-tanker. According to what you hear from countless economists, we narrowly avoided another great depression, and the last one took a decade to recover from. And now we've got voter revolt happening over: 1) shock over the price tag of the stimulus (ie, Dems are spending too much trying to revive the economy) and 2) the slow recovery (ie, the Dems aren't doing enough to try to revive the economy). Well, which is it?

      During the 2008 campaign, I was actually a little worried that Obama wasn't making clear that it was going to take years to recover from this mess. It seems that every economist I was reading at the time was saying it. Granted, Obama wasn't saying that we'd recover quickly, but he also wasn't doing anything to disabuse the public of this notion that the recovery was going to be speedy. It struck me, at the time, that he could be setting himself up for this very kind of thing that we saw on Tuesday. Alas... perhaps his analysts, during the campaign, concluded that to utter things like "multi-year recovery" would lose him the election. It probably would have, but he should have, at least, started getting that message out very early on after his win.

      As someone who stands to make out like a bandit from 0% tax on an inheritance (that I did nothing to earn) and on capital gains (that I make even while I'm sleeping or golfing), I'm getting pretty tired of voting against my personal financial self-interest for the benefit of other, less-fortunate folk who can't be persuaded to vote for their own interest.

  • by Lord Byron II (671689) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:00AM (#34110736)

    Theoretically, it shouldn't matter what party is in power. Each representative should vote in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of their constituents. Right? Right?

    • Leadership (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alaren (682568)

      I guess that depends on whether you vote for your representatives because they closely represent your views, or because you find them to be wise, virtuous people--the very best of your community--and trust them to make the best possible decisions whether those are the decisions you personally have made or not. The whole point of representative democracy is to reap the benefits of rule-of-law while suppressing the excesses of mob rule. We even see that in action today--a sentiment sweeping the nation could

  • by Alaren (682568) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:03AM (#34110756)

    I'd really appreciate it if the federal gears ground to a halt for a while. That government is best which governs least. Is is too much to hope? I still remember the bipartisan bailouts and I'm still mad about them.

    Oh well, it's probably progress... so to speak. Now if we could just find a way to convince the beast to govern less on purpose...

  • by QuantumBeep (748940) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:03AM (#34110772)

    A divided congress is probably a good thing for people who don't like random horseshit one-sided laws.

  • Gridlock FTW (Score:5, Insightful)

    by brian0918 (638904) <brian0918@nOSPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:06AM (#34110814)
    As a pro-choice, pro-gay rights atheist, I voted almost entirely GOP, knowing that gridlock is the only thing preventing either party from further spending away our long-term future on futile attempts to reinflate economic bubbles (e.g. housing) and prop up Ponzi schemes (e.g. Social Security). We can only hope that they do not attempt compromise and bipartisanship.
  • by GPLDAN (732269) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:06AM (#34110830)
    Kiss Net Neutrality goodbye. The champion of it in the Senate is Al Franken, and he's a one term Senator for sure.
  • by Shivetya (243324) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:09AM (#34110872) Homepage Journal

    The House take over, while expected, is not the big news. The major push Republicans made at the state level shows the strength of the move. Actually by not winning the Senate the Republicans may have preserved the ability to take the White House in 2012. Given that there are more Democratic Senators up for election in 12 than Republicans they have a near majority on many issues.

    God, Gays, and Subpoena's, are about the best way for Republicans to knock themselves out of the House control in 12, as in, lean into any of those areas too far and the voters will show them the door.

    Do I expect budget miracles, nope. I expect a whole lot of gridlock, preventing new large government programs from being implemented. That will do us nicely. The government has been on a binge of spending in the last four years and needs to be reigned in. Too much of the government spending is untouchable but if the line can be held, by gridlock or vote, to where spending does not go up by more than 2% per year the economy can grow us out of the deficit spending.

    However, like I read elsewhere, the good news is the Democrats lost the House, the bad news is the Republicans won it. Like Rove and a few others mention, Washington doesn't care what the country thinks and the Senate is the worst of the lot. As in, Tea Party candidates, candidates of "change", or whatnot, are in for one rude surprise. The nice thing about the Senate however is that regardless of seniority or committee assignment anyone can submit new legislation

    Was is a slap in the face of Democrats. Sure it was, just like 08 was us telling Republicans, no more of this crap; let alone don't expect us to vote for rights killers like McCain. Obama and Pelosi got told, there are no Kings and Queens in America, so quit acting like one.

    • by gad_zuki! (70830) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:45AM (#34111530)

      I think your comment is the accepted convention wisdom, which will get play in every office and news outlet in America, but its pretty wrong.

      First off, the appeal to the wisdom of crowds is faulty. If this was just a warning to Democrats then why was someone like Russ Feingold, a well-loved non-partisan who has been fighting the good fight for Wisconsin for a long time, ousted by a high-school drop-out who married into money and had no platform other than "Lets fix things with Tea Party principles." No plan to cut entitlement programs, no plan to cut military, and really no concrete plan at all. He's the epitome of the empty suit millionaire who will vote in anything to help his other millionaire friends.

      The message you won't be hearing is about the Citizens United ruling which led to unrestrained campaign spending this year. The Dems were outspent 7 to 1. That's right, 7 to 1. This election was shamelessly bought. Oh, and Feingold was a big supporter of campaign finance reform which the CU ruling nullified and suddenly he's gone. Seems to me that he's gone because Wall Street wanted him gone. The negative ads that ran in Wisconsin were of a scale never seen before by groups like "Moms for American Business" and other groups that never have to reveal who they are or where their money comes from. Funny that.

      Yes, jobs and economies are important, but Americans also know that when Obama took office the jobs we were losing were around 800k a month. Now we are gaining at least 60k in jobs a month. Americans know that Bush and his cronies brought us to this level, but they voted in R and Tea Party regardless - because they get their views and opinions from TV commercials and media outlets legitimizing the Tea Party. Suddenly they were told that economy isn't good for them, and death panels are coming, and Obama isn't a citizen, and Reid/Pelosi are liberals and fat cat Wall Street gangsters who want to give your home to a random Mexican family, etc.

      In short, this was the first election with unrestricted spending in a long time - the results - corporatists with no concrete positions who are selling out their constituents as we speak. Turns out campaign finance reforms are important. The conservative majority in SCOTUS gave the GOP this election with its CU ruling. Any other analysis really takes backseat to how the CU ruling sold out this election.

  • by erroneus (253617) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:10AM (#34110900) Homepage

    What little of the campaigns and activity I saw, there was a lot of FUD and a lot of astro-turfing. For the masses, it's about hype and fear. Substance and reason are worthless. We truly live in an idiocracy. I blame the gradual deterioration of our minds on pop culture and TV advertisers... and advertisers in general.

  • Did anyone notice.. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MooMooFarm (725996) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:13AM (#34110962)
    That /. gets its United States election results from CBC/Radio Canada?
  • OK Republicans, (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sootman (158191) on Wednesday November 03, 2010 @10:20AM (#34111082) Homepage Journal

    you've got two years to fix everything starting... now.

Whenever a system becomes completely defined, some damn fool discovers something which either abolishes the system or expands it beyond recognition.

Working...