Three for three is HUGE. The pressure is going to be on other blue states to follow suit soon enough, and hopefully from there we can see it break out from just the progressive states.

 

And for what it's worth, Florida was VERY consistently liberal in this election. Flat no's across the board, except for the 'special needs' type tax cuts, which even from a Republican written stance were very liberal in concept.

I believe that if the House and Senate can actually come together on some issues instead of saying, "no, you're of the other party, I disagree," or having the "my way or the highway" mentality, we could actually get some things done for the better of this country.

 

I hope they don't unless they want to both make concessions about spending cuts (military, entitlements, etc.).

I'm not talking about that specifically, I'm saying more in general. Too many things are getting turned down because one side doesn't want anything passed just because the other side proposed it.

With regards to the upcoming fiscal cliff, I hope both parties see their sacred cows on the chopping block and decide to make a real effort at compromise. Something like Bowles-Simpson.

Florida is the worst. Typical lawyer jargon that nobody understands.

 

 

Also looks to pass in Washington but no confirmation. Passed in Maine as well.

 

Very proud of those states. Hopefully in the future we can have the same here.

 

 

Send me a link, I'll try to break it down.

Shellacked? Hardly.

 

It turned out to be a 50/50 election. No re-elected incumbent in a hundred years has gotten fewer votes and fewer electoral votes than the first time around.

 

Since the candidates campaign for electoral votes, the popular vote is a very flawed parameter. And it's far from an embarrassment to get 332 electoral votes :lol That he went down from the 2008 floor-wiping doesn't diminish the impressiveness of this victory. In 2008, Obama swung a lot of traditionally-red states to his side, and the fact that he maintained a lot of them even without the luster of being the first black president is laudable.

 

I could only imagine how you'd spin that if it were a Republican in that spot.

More than even the re-election of Obama, who I do truly and deeply support, I'm proud to see marriage equality affirmed on a state-wide ballot for the first time.

 

Yeah, Maryland passed it narrowly. I voted in favor of it and was particularly fond of the language of the referendum. I think other states should follow that model if they aren't already.

Do you have a link to the full text? I can't pull one up, although it seems to shield from liability religious or other private officials who refuse to grant a given marriage. That's good stuff.

By shellacked I meant the party line. Brown people, gays, pot smokers, women...they're all under the blue tent. The republicans, when you look at the demographics, really appear out of touch on their social platform. It's nice when the status quo gets reformed.

 

I wasn't talking about numbers of seats, votes, or logistics. It's a philosophical shellacking.

 

As I said in the other thread, I think the outcome of the election probably had much more to do with the weakness of Mitt Romney than the weakness of GOP philosophy. Now I do think that the GOP's stance on most social issues is a losing battle, but I don't think that this particular election was about that.

My completely-unsubstantiated opinion agrees the Romney was a candidate; however, I do think that the social issues may push more people to volunteer for campaigns, and so the Democrats may have had a significant "ground game" edge, which is important in the swing states.

Three for three is HUGE. The pressure is going to be on other blue states to follow suit soon enough, and hopefully from there we can see it break out from just the progressive states.

 

And for what it's worth, Florida was VERY consistently liberal in this election. Flat no's across the board, except for the 'special needs' type tax cuts, which even from a Republican written stance were very liberal in concept.

 

I mean, there's a good bit of selection bias; such amendments are more likely to hit the ballots in states that are ready to pass them. But it's obviously still a big deal and [to me, just as obviously] a good thing.

With regards to the upcoming fiscal cliff, I hope both parties see their sacred cows on the chopping block and decide to make a real effort at compromise. Something like Bowles-Simpson.

 

It's going to be hard without Medicare/SS/Medicaid reform, and many experts still believe those are untouchable. We'll soon find out.

Obama was very clever on the map. He comes from a background of community organizing and his campaign used narrowly focused key wedge issues to squeeze out about 500k votes in high-population markets across 6 states.

I could only imagine how you'd spin that if it were a Republican in that spot.

 

 

I believe you can look at Dick Morris for this take. He was calling for Romney to get 325 in a "landslide" before the election. He then called Obama's victory a "squeaker."

By shellacked I meant the party line. Brown people, gays, pot smokers, women...they're all under the blue tent. The republicans, when you look at the demographics, really appear out of touch on their social platform. It's nice when the status quo gets reformed.

 

I wasn't talking about numbers of seats, votes, or logistics. It's a philosophical shellacking.

 

As I said in the other thread, I think the outcome of the election probably had much more to do with the weakness of Mitt Romney than the weakness of GOP philosophy. Now I do think that the GOP's stance on most social issues is a losing battle, but I don't think that this particular election was about that.

My completely-unsubstantiated opinion agrees the Romney was a candidate; however, I do think that the social issues may push more people to volunteer for campaigns, and so the Democrats may have had a significant "ground game" edge, which is important in the swing states.

He would have been wanting to draw from the Tea Party types for potential volunteers, since those are probably the most politically active minded individuals who share his general ideology. I would hypothesize that it would have been Romney's economic policies (or record in that area) that would turn away potential volunteers, not really the social issues.

Let me clarify: I'm not saying that Romney's social issues record turned volunteers away, although they may have been turned off by his inconsistency re: abortion and gay rights, for example, such that they didn't have as much passion to volunteer. But my focus was rather that volunteers were brought in based on Obama's social policy platform. Gay rights move a lot of people right now, and I think that issue may have played into a good edge in volunteers. This is one where my personal situation colors my view, but national polls show it to be a hot issue, as well.

Florida is the worst. Typical lawyer jargon that nobody understands.

 

 

Also looks to pass in Washington but no confirmation. Passed in Maine as well.

 

Very proud of those states. Hopefully in the future we can have the same here.

 

 

Send me a link, I'll try to break it down.

 

The internet is filled with explanations. Only on paper are they unexplained, you see.

Outlook is grim.

 

On the bright side, Mike Lowell got at least one vote. I wrote him in. For the second option on the ballot that had the option of a write in candidate. Can't remember :patriot

Your outlook is grim.

 

I voted for myself for Clerk of Court.