Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

2010 Election Results Are In

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the perpetual-yo-yo dept.

United States 1530

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.

cancel ×

1530 comments

Should be good for the economy (4, Interesting)

rwa2 (4391) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110690)

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]

Re:Should be good for the economy (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110748)

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110786)

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

This can be applied to Obama as well.

Re:Should be good for the economy (5, Informative)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 3 years ago | (#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

Re:Should be good for the economy (0)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110958)

It's a big challenge for Obama - he's more "ideologically pure" than Clinton was, so we'll see if he's willing to compromise at all to get anything done for his side. If he wants to be reelected, he'll have to run to the right.

Re:Should be good for the economy (5, Interesting)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111026)

It's a big challenge for Obama - he's more "ideologically pure" than Clinton was, so we'll see if he's willing to compromise at all to get anything done for his side. If he wants to be reelected, he'll have to run to the right.

Ideologically pure? The man has offered so many concessions while in office that it's become ridiculous. He really thinks he can win over the paranoid right with his charisma, but he's just not really that charismatic.

Re:Should be good for the economy (4, Insightful)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110976)

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy (4, Informative)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111124)

Boehner? Are you kidding me? Boehner distributed campaign distributions from tobacco lobbyists to his fellow congresspeople. On the House floor. Right before a tobacco vote. [mediamatters.org] I mean, there are a lot of people in Congress who are basically corporate shills, but Boehner is easily one of the worst. He's basically a lobbyist in congressional clothing.

Re:Should be good for the economy (4, Insightful)

chris mazuc (8017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111002)

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

Re:Should be good for the economy (1)

Count Fenring (669457) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111024)

So, that's a big old "I'm gonna obstruct," then. Super.

Cut spending on Vietghanistan (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111040)

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?

Re:Cut spending on Vietghanistan (0)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111068)

Absolutely not! That would put us in danger from the tur'rists!

Re:Should be good for the economy (4, Insightful)

fishbowl (7759) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Should be good for the economy (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110774)

Stock market is up for sure.

Since the dollars aren't worth much longer even falling valuation lead to increased stock prices :D

Inflation at work.

Low salary increase = not much more money.
Inflation with low salary increase = less purchase power.

But it's good for the fucktards at the banks who lend people all the money, because it's much easier to pay back an inflated debt.

Good for them, bad for you all.

Re:Should be good for the economy (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110892)

Btw, I read how FED had asked 18 (?) banks what they expected QE2 to be or something such, either to know at what level to put it or be able to blame them if they fuck up ("oh but look we asked them!")

Anyhow, FED is your central bank? Maybe you shouldn't let things like that and FDA be ran by (people of) companies with subjective interests and personal gains.

Re:Should be good for the economy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111010)

If you look at it... have salaries increased much since the 1990s? I saw what college students are being offered when they graduate, and it isn't that much more than what they were being offered in the mid 1990s. All the while, prices of cars have nearly doubled, and housing prices have skyrocketed.

Re:Should be good for the economy (2, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110784)

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 the president has little effect on the economy. It's all congress.

Re:Should be good for the economy (2, Insightful)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110860)

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 financial footing than it has been in many years, etc. Even much of the health care reform bill is considered a good idea by both sides: elimination of rescission, improved coverage for children, etc. They have much to crow about, and if the Republicans play it badly in the next two years, expect the Dems to make a comeback in 2012.

Re:Should be good for the economy (3, Insightful)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111086)

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

Really? The unemployment rate in November of 2008 was 6.9%. Today, it's at 9.6%. So are you telling me that -2.7% is ADDING jobs? Were you a math major?

Oh, and like I've said... Bush had very little to do with the economy. Obama has little to do with the economy. It's congress. From 1995 to 2007, Republicans held the House. In that time, unemployment went from 5.6% to 4.6% with a low of 3.8% and a high of 6.3% (unemployment climbed form 9-11-2001 to June 2003 before dropping off again). The party that held the WH had little effect. It wasn't Bush's fault and it's not Obama's.

Numbers don't lie. Source:
http://www.miseryindex.us/urbymonth.asp [miseryindex.us]

Re:Should be good for the economy (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110876)

a little better under clinton than bush? we're talking about W? clinton left with a balanced budget and more job creation than in the 40 previous years combined and W doubled the debt and left us with an almost great depression are you fucking joking "slightly"?

Re:Should be good for the economy (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110986)

Get a clue, libtard. The economy got fucked when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in 2006.

And... she's... GONE! WOO HOO! SPEAKER BOEHNER!

Re:Should be good for the economy (5, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111042)

The economy got fucked when Nancy Pelosi became Speaker of the House in 2006.

The economy was fucked when the banksters initiated the largest embezzlement scam in human history in the form of the housing bubble. They just managed to cover up the theft until about 2006.

The reason that there has been no recovery is because the Democrats were not willing to bite the hand that feeds them by allowing the insolvent institutions to fail and allowing criminal prosecutions of those responsible.

The Republicans will continue this policy, so the economy will continue to suck.

Re:Should be good for the economy (1)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110988)

An oversimplification. Clinton had to sign on to a lot of what a Republican Congress was doing, and the "balanced budget" is a bit of a misnomer.

Re:Should be good for the economy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111050)

Did he say W? Wouldn't it be smarter to assume he meant H.W. since he was the president before and didn't have a notoriously bad economy? Or I guess it would be better for you to assume he meant W so you can make your party seem better.

Re:Should be good for the economy (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110908)

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.

Re:Should be good for the economy (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111122)

No it won't. Why do people insist on making ignorant statements as fact?

Not surprising (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110692)

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.

Re:Not surprising (-1, Redundant)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110810)

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:Not surprising (2, Insightful)

Shadow Wrought (586631) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110960)

Blackwater, Haliburton, and other defense contractors did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.

FTFY

Re:Not surprising (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111064)

The economy did pretty well under GWBush with a Republican controlled congress.

I wonder what the deficit impact of that was.

The real winners (5, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110702)

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.

Re:The real winners (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110820)

ROI for their investments.

Yes, they truly treat congress like an ATM machine.

first? (-1, Troll)

yet-another-lobbyist (1276848) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110704)

Summary: Republicans won. Democrats lost.

Re:first? (3, Insightful)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110930)

At least you didn't say "the people have spoken" or "the American people made their voices heard" or some such bullshit. Many of last night's races were incredibly close, like Toomey/Sestak in Pennsylvania, where the Republican got 51% of the vote and the Democract got 49%. But to hear Boehner and others, votes like than are "the voice of the people" supporting Republicans. Hardly. It's just democracy in action: winner takes all, for a time.

Re:first? (1)

camperdave (969942) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111130)

So... Is Obama still president, or is it someone else now? Usually there's a lot of news coverage on TV about elections, but I just got back from being overseas, and I haven't watched a lot of TV since returning. Besides, isn't it a little early for elections? I thought he was elected in 2008. Isn't being elected president a four year sentenc... I mean term of office.

Fear & Ignorance (5, Insightful)

nahdude812 (88157) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110710)

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:Fear & Ignorance (0, Troll)

nomadic (141991) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110768)

The weird thing is so many people conflate the economy and the national debt, as if there is a direct correlation between the two. The weirder thing is in response they vote in the party that has historically run up the deficit more often. The weirdest thing is the Republicans have said they won't touch social security, medicare, or military spending, which constitutes the bulk of this country's financial obligations; the rest is comparatively small, and if you eliminated everything else except spending on those things it wouldn't change too much.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (3, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110782)

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 the Republicans will not do anything different - they are just as beholden to the white collar gangsters in New York as the Democrats were.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111030)

People keep mentioning this nonsense, but where the hell is your proof? An economy losing 800k jobs monthly vs an economy growing 200k is a gigantic improvement.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111114)

An economy losing 800k jobs monthly vs an economy growing 200k is a gigantic improvement.

It's very simple - if the number of jobs added to the economy is less than the number of people (trying to) enter into the workforce then the employment rate of the population [market-ticker.org] is still going down.

Get your news from a better source [market-ticker.org] . You might learn something.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111072)

Actually the economy really seems to be improving (I say this as a day trader).

"People", as in the general population of morons, are a lagging indicator and usually don't know what the fuck is going on. They don't know things are improving until well into the recovery. Could be because there is a period of time before the improvement trickles down to them or it could just be because they don't know what is going on in general.

Obama should just call for elections (2, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110822)

If the democrats had some guts, they would just quit. Hand the country over the tea-party. Then when it has all collapsed come back and demand the first son/daugher (according to sexual preference) of every republican family.

The tea baggers will cause one hell of a mess. Normal republicans are merely inept and corrupt. Most are not completly batshit insane.

But this is the ultimate failure of democracy. When people think they punish the PRESIDENT by voting for some nutters.... yeah, because Obama is NOW going to take the hint and FIX the economy after all that was ruined by the republicans because without a majority that makes that job a lot easier...

When voters start basing their vote to punish a leader for not doing fast enough what they want and then vote for people that are totally against what they want... just call it quits and get me a benign dictator (translation, any dictator whose deathlist I am not on).

Punish Obama for not pushing heathcare reform by voting for a tea bagger... maybe voting should require an IQ test. If you eat the piece of paper, you fail it.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (3, Interesting)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110854)

Punish Obama for not pushing heathcare reform

Maybe you missed the memo - the majority of the country opposes the healthcare reform that got passed. Many of them are the people who just did they annual enrollment and discovered how much more their premiums went up because of it.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (3, Informative)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110994)

Many of them are the people who just did they annual enrollment and discovered how much more their premiums went up because of it.

It's a good thing that premiums haven't gone up a similar amount every other year, or that statement would seem suspect.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (2, Insightful)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111144)

It's a good thing that premiums haven't gone up a similar amount every other year, or that statement would seem suspect.

Not much of a reform if costs just keep going up as much as they always have, is it?

Especially when the opposite was promised repeatedly.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (2, Insightful)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110998)

*Reform in name only. Does not contain any actual reform. Void where prohibited.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (1)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111060)

Too bad they were all for a full single payer system until there was a gigantic media blitz by Republicans and their healthcare overlords. Otherwise, I might be inclined to take your point seriously.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (1)

slyrat (1143997) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111136)

Punish Obama for not pushing heathcare reform

Maybe you missed the memo - the majority of the country opposes the healthcare reform that got passed. Many of them are the people who just did they annual enrollment and discovered how much more their premiums went up because of it.

This is what I really fear. There are a lot of good things in the healthcare bill that I hope stick around. It also should be noted that the majority of really good features of it don't start until 2014 so checking on how good it is at this point is not going to get you good data. Hopefully the pre-existing conditions part of the healthcare bill sticks around, though to keep that you need a lot of the rest of the bill.

Re:Obama should just call for elections (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111070)

"Failure of democracy?" Because the election didn't go they way you wanted?

It's exactly this sort of hubris and condescension that lost Democrats their congressional majority. Please, keep it up for '12. We could use a few more senate seats, too.

Laser Precision (2, Interesting)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110826)

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 burnt.

Doing what you wanted to do anyway and claiming it was to help the economy, is not ACTUALLY helping the economy. And it turns out the average voter is smart enough to see that (well, anywhere except for California).

Re:Fear & Ignorance (3, Insightful)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110890)

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 (1)

operagost (62405) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110910)

The Democrats took a majority in both houses in 2006. So you're saying that the economy tanked in 2006?

Re:Fear & Ignorance (1)

Wonko the Sane (25252) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110948)

The political party crashed and burned once they got both Congress and the Presidency.

Just like the Republicans did before them.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (1, Troll)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110928)

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.

Maybe it's because Democrats have held both houses of congress for past four years. In the past two, they've had the WH and a super-majority in Congress.The unemployment rate was less than 4.5% when the Dems took congress. What did the Republicans do as the minority party since 2007 to ruin the economy and raise the unemployment to over 10% at the end of 2009 (it's currently at 9.6%)?

You can place the blame wherever you like, but the numbers don't lie. Nor do they change with respect to which party has the White House.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (3, Informative)

antifoidulus (807088) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111056)

Um, you do realize that this fiasco was YEARS in the making and the recession started in 2007, only months after the democrats actually took office. It's not like the democrats could just pass bills at will(as Bush had essentially done from 2002-2007). This whole "giving people houses they cannot afford" was actually the cornerstone of Bush's claims of economic progress in the 2004 election. He droned on and on about the "ownership society" and boasted about how under his presidency more people owned their own homes than ever before*. The republicans were also the ones that were really big on deregulation and repealing depression-era laws that were designed specificially to stop this kind of crash from happening. The democrats aren't angels, but they have a much better record than the Republicans do.

*for certain values of "own", namely you put your name down on a piece of paper and a loan, didn't matter if you could actually pay back that loan.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (1)

OverlordQ (264228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111118)

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.

Pot meet Kettle.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (5, Informative)

Andraax (87926) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111120)

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.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111148)

According to polling results, these elections had a big change in demographics. The wave of young voters from 2008 stayed home, while old people turned out in hordes. Not surprisingly, old people voted overwhelmingly Republican, and also overwhelmingly for the loony Tea Party candidates. They "want their country back", indeed.

Re:Fear & Ignorance (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111150)

Is everything this simple in your world?

Well this should be fun. (1)

Superchip (1874486) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110716)

Cue the House not working with the Senate to get bills passed, then the fingerpointing at the executive who can't sign things that aren't sent his way. *sigh*

Balance (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110866)

Yes, finally we have some balance where people have to work together instead of claiming to work with the other guy and then doing what you wanted to anyway.

That goes for both Democrats and Republicans...

This is actually really a great benefit for Obama as he will now seem much more moderate merely from him not being able to get many things passed that he would like.

New for nerds. Stuff that matters (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110720)

New for nerds. Stuff that matters

This site turned political after 9/11 and still is.

Re:New for nerds. Stuff that matters (5, Informative)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110834)

This DOES matter. It will directly impact laws and regulations that matter to nerds.

Re:New for nerds. Stuff that matters (1)

StopKoolaidPoliticsT (1010439) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110902)

There was always some politics here... I can remember the late 90s with the DMCA, UCITA, Columbine (who could forget Jon Katz?), global warming (sorry, it's as much, if not more, politics as it is science) and whatnot.

That said, Slashdot expanded beyond nerd political issues when they created the dedicated politics section and hired kdawson.

So did everyone else... (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110940)

This site turned political after 9/11 and still is.

That is so true. But I think the whole world did, to a degree... lots of people ignore politics more before then, and after 9/11 people from all political bents realized you couldn't realistically not pay attention - from things like the patriot act being passed and seeming to be a step down a slippery slope to loss of freedom, to a nation with one of the most powerful military forces on earth struggling to figure out how you respond to attacks from a small and widely dispersed enemy.

We are all still trying to figure this out, but in the end everyone is political as long as the federal government has so much power to wield - and that's true even in technical matters with issues like patent law and copyright enforcement.

Re:New for nerds. Stuff that matters (1)

aliquis (678370) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110982)

Is that the birth date of Stallman [wikipedia.org] ?

It's not a competition! (5, Funny)

Lord Byron II (671689) | more than 3 years ago | (#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 (2, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110858)

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 not command a majority in the senate. The system resists sudden change.

What's that? Are you laughing at the proposition that politicians of any stripe are wise or virtuous? Well, the Founding Fathers believed that democracy could not function any other way...

Re:It's not a competition! (1)

Micahsa (815660) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110904)

Awww you suck! I just snorted coffee up my nose and across my keyboard.

Re:It's not a competition! (1)

garaged (579941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110952)

theoretically modern technology should help lower the poverty on the world...

a few politics and very few scientists (as hard as it looks) actually work to the better of mankind, or even earth, I'm no pessimistic, I'm realist, and yes, I do know what I'm talking about

Re:It's not a competition! (2, Interesting)

Wrath0fb0b (302444) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111034)

Each representative should vote in a manner that is consistent with the best interests of their constituents.

And I voted for the representative whose conception of what is best for my district matches mine. For instance, one of the candidates believes that gun control was best in the best interests of our district, the other one believes that gun rights are best for the district. Neither of them came out and said "I have a policy on guns that is wrong for you!".

Meanwhile, there is another problem: both candidates believe that economic growth is best for our district (gasps from the audience) but one believes the best way to achieve that is by cutting taxes and the other believes the best way to achieve it is to fund a second round of stimulus spending. Neither of them came out and said "I have a policy on the economy that is going to wreck it!".

If we all agreed on (a) what constitutes the best interests of the district and (b) which policies are most likely to achieve those interests, then there wouldn't be much point in a political process at all. As it happens, we are pretty divided as a nation both on (b) but more fundamentally on (a) -- on what outcomes are normatively preferable. That can't be resolved by a "best interests of the constituents" test because the constituents themselves don't agree.

Here's Hoping for Some Gridlock (2, Insightful)

Alaren (682568) | more than 3 years ago | (#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...

Re:Here's Hoping for Some Gridlock (1)

Anonymusing (1450747) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110896)

I didn't like the bank bailout either, but at least most of it has been repaid to the government (with interest).

how do you know the senate results? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110758)

Democrats maintain a one seat majority in the Senate

Really? So you know the results from Washington and Colorado, even though those 2 states are dead even with a significant portion of the votes (35% and 12%) not yet reporting? It's a MINIMUM 1 seat majority, and possibly 3

pollsters got it right! Despite cell phones!!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110760)

I guess the article claiming that the pollsters were wrong because they used "antiquated" polling techniques that didn't count the young hip democrats was just plain phooey. So, will the author create a youtube video of him eating either his hat or some crow?

Re:pollsters got it right! Despite cell phones!!!! (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110974)

There may still be something to it. Yes, the effect was absolutely exaggerated, however the GOP still performed under expectations, IMHO. I expected 70 seat changes and 7+ senate seats, based on the polls. This did not materialize.

Politics sucks, but (3, Insightful)

QuantumBeep (748940) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110772)

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

Re:Politics sucks, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111062)

These people must enjoy absolutely nothing productive getting done when neither side can enforce their agendas and angles into something without the other calling them on it.

Re:Politics sucks, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111116)

This is about all I can see with it. People rag on Rand Paul, but if he is anything like his father, he wont be going lock step, and will want to do everything his way. People on both sides will look at him funny. A lot of people got voted in that will be like this regardless of what letter is beside their names.

HUGE mandate! (0, Troll)

SoupGuru (723634) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110788)

After all, the Republicans have gained the House of Representatives... let's just not remember that the Senate and Presidency is still Democratic.

HUGE mandate.... of course knowing some Repubs, they're probably actually hoping for a "man date".

Re:HUGE mandate! (1)

halivar (535827) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110938)

Which means that in '12, the angry anti-incumbent vote is still going against you.

Re:HUGE mandate! (0, Flamebait)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111092)

Just wait until the Republicans decide to block the shit out of every piece of legislation; they'll be painted as do-nothings with no ideas - exactly what they've been for the past 2 years.

Gridlock FTW (5, Insightful)

brian0918 (638904) | more than 3 years ago | (#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.

Re:Gridlock FTW (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111004)

As a pro-choice, pro-gay rights atheist, I voted almost entirely GOP

Congratulations. You voted against your interests.

Re:Gridlock FTW (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111102)

Sometimes the interest of the individual is outweighed by the needs of the country.

Re:Gridlock FTW (1)

gQuigs (913879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111108)

As a pro-choice, pro-gay rights atheist, I voted almost entirely Democratic, knowing that both parties suck horrifically at spending control and that a senate majority might just help Obama move forward with protecting the environment.
We can only hope that the republicans will feel that they will blamed enough in the next election to get them to start thinking about compromise and bipartinanship.

One result that affects Slashdot... (4, Interesting)

GPLDAN (732269) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110830)

Kiss Net Neutrality goodbye. The champion of it in the Senate is Al Franken, and he's a one term Senator for sure.

so close (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34110832)

Dang! One seat short. The best scenario we could have is senate tied, house in control by party A, and the white house controlled by party B. That way there is a stalemate and the government gets nothing done at all, which is the best for everyone.

Something most people don't realize. (2, Insightful)

BStroms (1875462) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110848)

I think many people are putting too much emphasis on the Republican takeover of the House. Yes it will mean that it will be difficult for Obama to get his agenda through for the next two years, but it's not like Republicans will be able to do much either. The democrats still have control of the Senate and veto power. However, since every House member goes up for election every two years, it could easily sweep back the other way then.

As much as people like to focus on national elections, it's the governor and state legislature elections that I think are the bigger deal. Republicans had very strong showings there as well. The reason this is critical is that we just had the once every ten years census. That means states are going to be up for redistricting. With the large gains republicans made, they'll have a huge advantage in gerrymandering. This could make a very significant difference in the 2012 election and for that matter every election for the next decade. It will be much harder to undo that than it will be for Democrats to recapture the House.

Take over at state level is more important (4, Interesting)

Shivetya (243324) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110872)

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.

People want fear, not facts (3, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110900)

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.

Re:People want fear, not facts (2, Funny)

dragonhunter21 (1815102) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111084)

You make a good point. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be swayed by fear tactics. We should think through the issues, and make careful, reasoned deci-

OHMIGOD NET NEUTRALITY AAAAAGH

Did anyone notice.. (5, Interesting)

MooMooFarm (725996) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110962)

That /. gets its United States election results from CBC/Radio Canada?

Re:Did anyone notice.. (4, Insightful)

Minwee (522556) | more than 3 years ago | (#34110990)

Where else would you go to find fair and balanced reporting?

Re:Did anyone notice.. (2, Insightful)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111022)

Yeah I noticed that little oddity too.

Then it occurred to me that a foreign national news source is likely to contain less bias/spin than an american one, but I have yet to read the article and confirm that.

Still, as a Canadian it gave me a chuckle. :)

Change? (1)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111000)

Does anyone really believe that things will change now that the GOP holds the majority in the house? Seriously.

D's control WH and Senate, R's control House (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34111020)

It seems to escape everyone's attention that the Democrats still control the White House and Senate, and the Republicans only control the House. The Democrats still have most of the power.

Of course, they proved inept at using far more overwhelming power for two years, letting the GOP define every issue and define the Democrats themselves. I expect the Democrats to be the Republican's b*tches for the next two years.

Oh great... (2, Funny)

scourfish (573542) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111080)

We're simply swapping from ineffective democrats that want to take my guns away and give all my money to the lobbyist interests to ineffective republicans that want to take my aborted fetuses away and give all my money to the lobbyist interests. Progress is zero sum.

OK Republicans, (4, Insightful)

sootman (158191) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111082)

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

Some things that I can get behind that may happen (1, Interesting)

Notquitecajun (1073646) | more than 3 years ago | (#34111128)

1. A possible return to the 2008 budget - which means freezing any unspent "stimulus."

2. A freeze on federal hiring (EVERY department could probably use a little attrition, and there's been a bit too many people getting on the federal dole/payroll as of late).

3. Extension of tax cuts, namely on estates and dividends.

4. Barney Frank not in charge of the House Financial Services committee (the main proponent/protector of Freddie and Fannie).

5. Crazy conservative ideas coming out of the house that Boehner can't control and the Senate will have to deal with.

6. Cleaning up the "Obamacare" deal (won't be repealed, but the mandate is probably gone).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...