Official 2010 US Election Thread - S D 53 R 47 - H D 192 R 243 (At 9:17 AM EDT)

*sigh* Haley has pulled ahead of Sheheen. MSNBC's calling it for Haley. :(

EDIT: Rob Miller might win SC-2! I'll have one victory for my state if he can hold on!

Ultimas_Blade

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

Voting for a non-viable third party candidate doesn't have any track record for changing the country for anything other than the immediate short term. (hijacking elections) I don't vote to prove anything, I vote to elect the best realistically electable candidate.

Watch_My_6

I specifically stated "non-viable third parties." The Independents are the only viable third party, and only in some races. I have a rather pragmatic view. The world is what it is, and I have to make the most with what there is, and deal with what isn't.

[QUOTE="coolbeans90"]

[Voting for a non-viable third party candidate doesn't have any track record for changing the country for anything other than the immediate short term. (hijacking elections) I don't vote to prove anything, I vote to elect the best realistically electable candidate.

Watch_My_6

Third Parties have rarely had a chance of winning, but they've often been extremely influential when they received even a tiny amount of votes that couldn't be ignored, particularly in situations where they cost the party most like them a seat to their main second-party opponents, but even in situations where that was not the case.

Generally what happens is that one of the two major parties takes notice of the political trends, and begins to absorb some of the rhetoric and often some of the platform of the party in question. The Anti-Mason Party is one of the first examples of this sort of thing happening -- and we can thank them for opening the political process of the existing parties at the time (and all future parties). It is thanks to them that secret societies no longer control the platforms of the existing parties, that parties and their planks are now open to public member votes, and that a privileged few are no longer the only ones who have any chance in hell at gaining a political office.

Likewise, you can thank the efforts of the Populist Party, the Progressive Party, and the Socialist Party of the United States (particularly their tireless candidate Eugene Debs) for bringing attention social justice ideas and Union support to the Democratic Party. The Dems eventually made these parties irrelevant by adopting their rhetoric and platforms. Similarly, the Libertarian Party and several other related movements had a direct influence on the Republican Party in the '70s.

The most recent example was the Reform Party, specifically the time period under Ross Perot's running for President. He never really had a strong chance of winning, but his focus on balancing the budget and insisting that the Government execute with the same requirements for fiscal responsibility were eventually absorbed by the Republican Party, and helped them to gain their first dominance of Congress in many decades with their "Contract with America".

Yes, these parties do have influence. Not always though.Ultimately, the thing to remember is that those who voted for these parties sent a message that was eventually heard clear enough by one of the two entrenched parties, changing some aspect of their direction (whether for better or worse).

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

*sigh* Haley has pulled ahead of Sheheen. MSNBC's calling it for Haley. :(

EDIT: Rob Miller might win SC-2! I'll have one victory for my state if he can hold on!

peaceful_anger

Nah I can't call ownage on anything tonight, Democrats (and in a few cases Progressives) are being routed by the Tea Party in many areas of the country.

Pat Toomey has overtaken Joe Sestak.fidosim

Kirk has overtaken Giannoulias, too.

Joe "You Lie" Wilson pulled ahead and won SC-2 :(

**** Toomey and Kirk are leading.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="m0zart"]

[QUOTE="Watch_My_6"]Are you telling me that no issues have been altered by Democrats to help persuade Independents to vote Dem? Also, obviously some third parties have picked up steam as posted above by Gabu. Maybe I have more of an idealistic view on it, but I feel if you don't vote for who you want then you are part of the problem.Watch_My_6

Third Parties have rarely had a chance of winning, but they've often been extremely influential when they received even a tiny amount of votes that couldn't be ignored, particularly in situations where they cost the party most like them a seat to their main second-party opponents, but even in situations where that was not the case.

Generally what happens is that one of the two major parties takes notice of the political trends, and begins to absorb some of the rhetoric and often some of the platform of the party in question. The Anti-Mason Party is one of the first examples of this sort of thing happening -- and we can thank them for opening the political process of the existing parties at the time (and all future parties). It is thanks to them that secret societies no longer control the platforms of the existing parties, that parties and their planks are now open to public member votes, and that a privileged few are no longer the only ones who have any chance in hell at gaining a political office.

Likewise, you can thank the efforts of the Populist Party, the Progressive Party, and the Socialist Party of the United States (particularly their tireless candidate Eugene Debs) for bringing attention social justice ideas and Union support to the Democratic Party. The Dems eventually made these parties irrelevant by adopting their rhetoric and platforms. Similarly, the Libertarian Party and several other related movements had a direct influence on the Republican Party in the '70s.

The most recent example was the Reform Party, specifically the time period under Ross Perot's running for President. He never really had a strong chance of winning, but his focus on balancing the budget and insisting that the Government execute with the same requirements for fiscal responsibility were eventually absorbed by the Republican Party, and helped them to gain their first dominance of Congress in many decades with their "Contract with America".

Yes, these parties do have influence. Not always though.Ultimately, the thing to remember is that those who voted for these parties sent a message that was eventually heard clear enough by one of the two entrenched parties, changing some aspect of their direction (whether for better or worse).

I am not arguing that they have no effect, I just don't think that it's worth the tradeoff. Just my opinion.

Once again: lol @ Colorado Republican Party. They need 10% in the gubernatorial race to be considered a major state party and they only have 9%.scorch-62

Thank you Mozart for giving factual evidence on what I was *trying* to convey. I have a hard time seeing someone try to argue that 3rd parties haven't had an effect on American politics over the years.Watch_My_6

A loss for the house and maybe Senate (I hope not) might be good for Obama in the 2012 election. It all depends on how he handles it. That said, I doubt that will happen because the republicans have the master manipulators (Fox News) on their side.Ring_of_fire

With Citizens United and Fox News, the RW echochamber will be extremely loud. This is Business Plot 2.0 IMHO, they found a way to do it without insurrection :( (hey,take that with a grain of salt super serious:|)

[QUOTE="Watch_My_6"]Thank you Mozart for giving factual evidence on what I was *trying* to convey. I have a hard time seeing someone try to argue that 3rd parties haven't had an effect on American politics over the years.Ultimas_Blade

Any thoughts on Colorado's/Oklahoma/Arizona'shealthcare amendment?

This measure would amend the state constitution so that the people of Colorado cannot be penalized for refusing to buy health insurance.

It's nullification I say!

Any thoughts on Colorado's passed healthcare amendment?

limpbizkit818

Passed? CNN says it's failing 55-45.

I want to ask Gabu (cause he's smart ) or anyone for that matter a question about the taxes. Some people are really losing itover what will happen once the bush tax cuts end. This business person said he orshe employs 80 people with full health benefits and then went on to say... "I pay my corporate taxes at the personal tax rate so what is going to happen on income tax. Take 300,000 in extra taxes from me and I am cash broke and won't be able to make payroll. Who wants to be in that position?"

Does that even make sense? How is that going to make him or her lose that much money or "broke" or "lose payroll" from that? Wont ending the tax cuts be not even that drastic in the first place, why is he/she saying that all of that will happen to him/her?

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

Any thoughts on Colorado's passed healthcare amendment?

GabuEx

Passed? CNN says it's failing 55-45.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"][QUOTE="GabuEx"]

Passed? CNN says it's failing 55-45.

Watch_My_6

Also winning inOklahoma with 80% in.

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"][QUOTE="Watch_My_6"]Thank you Mozart for giving factual evidence on what I was *trying* to convey. I have a hard time seeing someone try to argue that 3rd parties haven't had an effect on American politics over the years.Watch_My_6

Third Parties sometimes change the debate, but at the end of the day you have campaigning behemoths DCCC/DSCC/DGA and NRSC/NRCC/RGA behind them. Sorry but yes it is my opinion you are wasting your vote in the general voting for a non-viablethird party. You don't see Tea Party candidates running as Libertarians or "Tea" candidates, they run as Republicans, they do that for a reason. The same with Progressives running as Democrats.

[QUOTE="Watch_My_6"][QUOTE="limpbizkit818"] Sorry, no idea why I typed passed. I meant "Any thoughts on Colorado's healthcare amendment". The votes only 20% in.limpbizkit818

Here's an odd random tidbit: the Illinois exit poll shows that blacks voted more Democratic this year than in 2004. When Obama was the candidate.

What the **** Nevada, now you suddenly have 42% reporting?

On the plus side, Reid is up 54-42. Though that's mostly from Clark.

[QUOTE="limpbizkit818"]

[QUOTE="Watch_My_6"] You had me excited for a second...Theokhoth

UGH! That ***** Boxer's ****ing winning! Again! I'm ****ing SICK of this!!!The-Apostle

UGH! That ***** Boxer's ****ing winning! Again! I'm ****ing SICK of this!!!The-Apostle

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]UGH! That ***** Boxer's ****ing winning! Again! I'm ****ing SICK of this!!!ferrari2001

8% reporting guys, of course it's volatile. :P

I want to ask Gabu (cause he's smart ) or anyone for that matter a question about the taxes. Some people are really losing itover what will happen once the bush tax cuts end. This business person said he orshe employs 80 people with full health benefits and then went on to say... "I pay my corporate taxes at the personal tax rate so what is going to happen on income tax. Take 300,000 in extra taxes from me and I am cash broke and won't be able to make payroll. Who wants to be in that position?"

Does that even make sense? How is that going to make him or her lose that much money or "broke" or "lose payroll" from that? Wont ending the tax cuts be not even that drastic in the first place, why is he/she saying that all of that will happen to him/her?

gaming25

His business is already rigged up for spending beyond it's means and that's why he'd end up cash broke. Did they expect the tax cuts to be permanent while they were expanding? He should have prepared.

Here's an odd random tidbit: the Illinois exit poll shows that blacks voted more Democratic this year than in 2004. When Obama was the candidate.

GabuEx

Well I sure know I voted now (since I am now of age) in Illinois and I am black, so I am a statistic!!!!!! :lol:

But anyway, I posted this to you a few minutes ago... I want to ask Gabu (cause he's smart ) or anyone for that matter a question about the taxes. Some people are really losing itover what will happen once the bush tax cuts end. This business person said he orshe employs 80 people with full health benefits and then went on to say... "I pay my corporate taxes at the personal tax rate so what is going to happen on income tax. Take 300,000 in extra taxes from me and I am cash broke and won't be able to make payroll. Who wants to be in that position?" Does that even make sense? How is that going to make him or her lose that much money or "broke" or "lose payroll" from that? Wont ending the tax cuts be not even that drastic in the first place, why is he/she saying that all of that will happen to him/her?

Yup Reid's up in NV. I think this election might be just as much a repudiation of extreme Tea Partiers as it is a repudiation of Democrats.fidosim

Yeah but on the other hand it's basically only Clark reporting atm.

I've more or less lost hope for Pennsylvania and Illinois. :(