View Thread

Atheists Today » Power and Control » U.S. Politics
Who is here? 1 guest(s)
 Print Thread
2010 Election results
Doubting Thomas
Well I'm glad to say that although the Republicans took control of the House, I'm fairly pleased with the results of the election. Mainly that extreme right-wing candidates like Sharron Angle & Christine O'Donnell lost. And in Colorado, Tom Tancredo (the guy who said we should bomb Mecca) lost the race for Governor. Doing some Monday morning quarterbacking, I would say that the Tea Party lost the GOP the senate.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
JohnH
The results in california were as usual mixed. Somehow, I cannot imagine why, the legalization of ganga was voted against. Unfair tax breaks for large corporations were confirmed. A trivial increase in vehicle license fees to support the state parks failed. A new impediment to funding government was passed.

The two very rich and very conservative candidates for senator and governor were defeated, with my limited help in that defeat. Giving us instead a very conservative, old and generally ineffectual but less scary, senator and governor.
 
Doubting Thomas
I mean, I know a lot of tea party candidates did win in the house, but I'm at least relieved to know that the most radical like Angle & O'Donnell, were defeated. Perhaps there's hope for the country after all.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
catman
It wasn't a pretty picture, but it could have been worse. I'm glad Angle and O'Donnell lost too. I'm disappointed in the fact that the 'Party of No' managed to keep the Dems from being able to do much of what they tried to do, and are now being rewarded for their pure obstructionism. Of course Texas politics went very badly, with the cretinous Rick Perry as Governor again.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
Doubting Thomas
Yeah, that about sums it up pretty well. I bet that we would be out of this economic mess if not for the obstructionist Republicans. Now with a divided Congress we can look forward to more gridlock.

And while I am still happy that extremist candidates lost, what's scary is how many votes they actually did receive. There are still a lot of nutjobs out there voting.
You're just jealous because the voices are talking to me and not you.
 
Bob of QF
Well, here in the land of the retarded and the home of the all-red-county state (OK), we had a choice between two creationists for governor.

The red one won, not that it would have mattered if the other red one one (who was a republican pretending to be a democrat-- she said that she thought creationism and evolution should be able to co-exist without problem...!)

Since we now have a brain-dead rethug in the capital, I will predict it here:

1) there will sooner than later, be a lawsuit wasting taxpayer's money over some damned "teacher" teaching creationism in science class-- the state will lose, costing millions.

2) a fairly quick end to voluntary abortions in this state will also happen, sparking another lawsuit that will likely go all the way. Again, costing my cash-strapped state millions it does not have, to lose in the end.

<<<gaaaah>>>>
Quantum Junction: Use both lanes

Reality is that which is left, after you stop believing.
 
seeker
The way I see it the most conservative Dems were replaced by Repugs. Very little really will change.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
JohnH
Seeker, not in all cases. Alan Grayson who is one of very few congress members who was consistently honest in his positions whether you agreed with him or not was badly defeated. He was definitely not a blue dog democrat.

Another interesting aspect of the election was the targeting of judges for their decisions. Apparently a well funded campaign removed 3 judges from the Iowa supreme court because they had decided that same sex marriage was legal.

Electing judges has always been difficult for me, although typically judges are not actually elected but appointed and after a period of time confirmed by election.

I first confronted this in 1986 when Rose Bird and 2 other california supreme court justices were up for reconfirmation. It was difficult for me to vote. Chief justice Bird voted to overturn every death penalty case to come up before the court. I personally am opposed to the death penalty. However, overturning every death penalty case that came before the court demanded setting precedents that were damaging in other ways. Too many years ago for me to be specific but I remember very well thinking about some of the decisions that they were flawed, sometimes in significant ways. In my memory, I ended up simply not voting.

This year I, without any knowledge, voted against every judge up for confirmation. This is typically what I do. It is also typical that no one knows anything about what they are voting for when judges are up for confirmation. That is the major reason why I question voting for judges. I think it is the sort of thing where the public has no understanding of what they are doing. Only when a judge does something of obvious significance does their confirmation become controversial. Generally in election campaigns funded by outside agencies that have no real interest in justice.

The Rose Bird case showing how complex this issue can become.
Edited by JohnH on 11/05/2010 12:46
 
catman
I would posit that with the Supreme Court's ruling that allows corporations to give unlimited funds to campaigns, there are none with any 'real interest in justice'.
"If I owned both Hell and Texas, I'd live in Hell and rent out Texas." - General Sheridan
 
JohnH
I am not sure that corporations play a significant role when judges are removed for cultural reasons as was the case in Iowa.

In the Rose Bird case they did actually play a role. The california supreme court had made a lot of decisions against corporations and corporations did finance the campaign against her in a significant fashion.

I am very upset about the Citizens United case and its implications. I am also upset about how organizations with innocuous names can finance unlimited political advertisements.

It is all about the money. Remove money in a significant way from political decisions and maybe we could have a country run in a rational manner.
 
seeker
John - Good points.

Unfortunately the radical right has turned to attacking the legal system along with pushing any sort of moderate politician out. They've talked about this sort of thing for years but this is the first time they've been as organized about it. I sort of see the attacks on judges as a logical extension of their attempts to emasculate the government's role as regulator.
"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." - George Santayana
 
Jump to Forum:

Similar Threads

Thread Forum Replies Last Post
Video - Chuck Norris's dire warning of an Obama re-election Election 2012 (US) 5 09/04/2012 19:55
Ten Weirdest New Animals of 2010 Science articles, papers and posts 3 12/15/2010 00:58
Gordon Brown triggers general election with Labour closing in on Tories European Politics 25 05/12/2010 07:27
Howard Zinn 1922-2010 The Lounge 3 02/01/2010 15:54
2010 CA Marriage Protection Act LGBT 3 10/14/2009 07:46