Big, i think you've got it nailed. We'll see if either side gets religion and drops the partison BS. The messege is clear, people want this mess cleaned up. Both parties are going to have to work together to get that done. The clock is ticking. And you can bet Bill Clinton got a call last night from the big guy asking "Now what?"

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Obama does talk to Bill Clinton about this. You'd have to agree, that if he moves away from Bill and Hillary, and goes into defensive mode, that probably doesn't serve him well?

Will also be interesting to see how some of these Democrat Senators that were NOT up for election, handle their votes in the future. Some of them probably feel very fortunate to not have run last night. The folks that are up for re election in 2012 are going to have to walk a fine line. 

Politics are local also. Boy, California was a huge win for Dems, while OH, PA and FL were disasters. Especially PA, wow, that was a big shocker to me. 

BG, what always surprises me, is when the Governor wins big as say a Democrat, but the Senator that wins big in that same state is GOP. Do people really split their vote between party like that?? 

If I was Obama, I would trust the Clintons about as much as I trust the fiscal conservatives.

Five minute lecture on how he needs to get out of the White House more and mingle with the common people ( in response to questions about working with Repubs). Wow.

Need to get this guy out of the White House ASAP. Two years, even Hillary would be an improvement. A big improvement.

Obama called Boehner last night to ask him to be bipartisan and help get things back in order and Boehner asked him what the hell happened when I asked you and Pelosi for the same thing and you all turned a deaf ear on me? You're on your own, click---

I think you guys are missing the point....

Most of the HOUSE REPS who lost, did so because their district reverted to the norm. Those people got elected on the coattails of the OBAMA rush, so they were moderate dems at best.. And now since nothing was accomplished, everyone comes out and votes for the "other" party... I don't think it is so much that the Republicans had such a strategic plan, more so the democrats were so inept when they had full control..

Same thing happened to Clinton, but republicans mucked it up so bad after they gain control that it allowed Clinton to get re-elected.. Of course he moved closer to center to get some legislation done, something Obama will have to do also.

The election in 2012 could be interesting... Moderate/Liberal Republicans with a succesful business background like Romney will attract a lot of democrat votes.. However if they put up some backwoods senator(read: South Dakota) or Palin.. Obama will cruise if he acts like he is willing to negotiate the next 2 years..

BS Squash....  total BS.  Dems already controlled the house before BO.

[quote=SuperMan]

BS Squash....  total BS.  Dems already controlled the house before BO.

[/quote]

Then you don;t pay attention...

109th Congress(years 5 and 6 of GW's reign)

Senate: 55 Republicans 45 Democrats

House: 232 republican 202 Democrat (there were some vacant seats off and on)

110th Congress (years 7&8 of GW.. essentially lameduck years since it was his second term, so everyone was trying to figure out who the next candidates were from each party to run for election. Also his favorability was down)

Senate 48 Repubs, 48 Democrats 2 Indys

House 233 Democrats, 232 Repub..(This was the start of the moderate democrats moving into the house, the ones I mentioned in the paragraph above)

111 Congress (1 & 2 of Obama) and coattails of "also elected"

Senate 57 Dems, 41 repubs, 2 indys

House 256 dems, 178 repubs...

ACCORDING TO MSBC today

HOUSE 239 repub, 185 Dem with 11 undecided... awful close to GW years 5&6.. that was my point... All the people who just lost were those who got elected on the coat tails of Obama crazyness in the presidential, and those that got voted in during GW's last 2 years...

Anyone that quotes MSNBC is a flaming liberal.  Go hug a tree you hippie.

[quote=SuperMan]

Anyone that quotes MSNBC is a flaming liberal.  Go hug a tree you hippie.

[/quote]

The part I quoted MSNBC on was the outcome of this election not the words after it.. Just because your brain works slower doesn't mean you have to be mad..

The CNN page was booting at the same time, but the msnbc election result came up quicker...I could have used the "Neo-Nazi we hate taxes but spend more than liberals and are homophobes" site, but i didn't have the password, can I borrow yours..?

[quote=BigFirepower]

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Obama does talk to Bill Clinton about this. You'd have to agree, that if he moves away from Bill and Hillary, and goes into defensive mode, that probably doesn't serve him well?

Totally agree. Bill was in the same boat in 94. The question is will Bill help? Lots of talk that there's gonna be a dem presidential challenge in 2012. Mrs Clinton would be at the top of the list of hopefuls. So, intersting to watch.

Will also be interesting to see how some of these Democrat Senators that were NOT up for election, handle their votes in the future. Some of them probably feel very fortunate to not have run last night. The folks that are up for re election in 2012 are going to have to walk a fine line. 

Politics are local also. Boy, California was a huge win for Dems, while OH, PA and FL were disasters. Especially PA, wow, that was a big shocker to me. 

Pa is a split state. Picture a big red letter "T" dividing the state. repubs hold sway in central, NW and NE Pa. Dems control the major population centers in Pittsburgh and Philly. Last night's senate race was very close and Toomey's victory had more to do with the dems not getting what they needed out of philly, rather than anything else. In a prez election year Sestak would have easily taken that race. The gov's office typically switches partys on almost every cycle. Onarato was a weak candidate. I wouldn't say PA was disaster versus what was expected.

BG, what always surprises me, is when the Governor wins big as say a Democrat, but the Senator that wins big in that same state is GOP. Do people really split their vote between party like that?? 

I believe there a couple reasons for this. Many states, my own included, have a large independent element.  These people will vote across party lines for whoever they beleive will do the best job.  The indy's are mixed in with a healthy split between red and blue in some of these states. The second reason for splits has to do with the campaign's themselves. Sestak lost because for as well as he did in philly he needed to do better.  While these candidates, congressman, senator, governor may be of the same party they are not on the same ticket and run seperate campaigns. Some are better at getting out the needed vote than others.

In my state,NJ, you never know who is going to win.

I voted for the guy who at 6 foot 7 inches will become the biggest man on the Hill, Jon Runyan. He's a repub, honest, and a nice guy. As an ex  NFL tackle he's got two years to figure out how to speak in complete sentences or he gets the hook.

[/quote]

[quote=BigFirepower]

Yeah, it will be interesting to see if Obama does talk to Bill Clinton about this. You'd have to agree, that if he moves away from Bill and Hillary, and goes into defensive mode, that probably doesn't serve him well?

Will also be interesting to see how some of these Democrat Senators that were NOT up for election, handle their votes in the future. Some of them probably feel very fortunate to not have run last night. The folks that are up for re election in 2012 are going to have to walk a fine line. 

Politics are local also. Boy, California was a huge win for Dems, while OH, PA and FL were disasters. Especially PA, wow, that was a big shocker to me. 

BG, what always surprises me, is when the Governor wins big as say a Democrat, but the Senator that wins big in that same state is GOP. Do people really split their vote between party like that??  In my state(IL) it just happened and the explanation was simple.. The Governor, won 3 counties... out of 102... Of course 45% of the state resides in one county (Cook.. Also known as Chicago) So he didn't need any other counties if he could overwelmingly win Cook County (which he did..4 votes to 1) then he can just pick up scraps the rest of the way..

In the senate race Alexi Ginnulias didn't get enough of a margin in cook county to defeat Mark Kirk..

So IL re-elects a Democrat Governor, and a GOP senator..

The other explanation and I have been told this by many people is that sometimes they only vote for best candidate locally (State on down to city) but nationally (Senator, US REp, President) vote for a party platform because the the federal guy is believed to be not helping the area directly but influencing national policy so they vote with what party represents what they like on a national level.

[/quote]

I think the votes were anti Obama policy, not pro GOP. Personally, I don't care. I hate it when clients use an emotional reaction to make decisions regarding their investments and I hold the American people to the same standard when it comes to politics.

What kills me is Boehner coming out the next morning after the elections to talk about how priority number 1 is to demolish the "monstrosity" that is the health care reform. Boy, how quickly they change their tune. In addition, he, out of the kindness of his heart, takes the time to impose on us what the votes meant and passes it off as fact presumably to justify his own agenda.

So brutal.

[quote=anabuhabkuss]

I think the votes were anti Obama policy, not pro GOP. Personally, I don't care. I hate it when clients use an emotional reaction to make decisions regarding their investments and I hold the American people to the same standard when it comes to politics.

What kills me is Boehner coming out the next morning after the elections to talk about how priority number 1 is to demolish the "monstrosity" that is the health care reform. Boy, how quickly they change their tune. In addition, he, out of the kindness of his heart, takes the time to impose on us what the votes meant and passes it off as fact presumably to justify his own agenda.

So brutal.

[/quote]

But ana, that is exactly what we want along with many other things. I am guessing the comment Obama made to McCain is coming back to haunt him. It went like this-

"It sounds good," Democrat Barack Obama replied. "In fact, an across-the-board spending freeze is a hatchet, and we do need the scalpel, because there are some programs that don't work at all. Some programs are underfunded. And I want to make sure we are focused on the programs that work."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95772062

Cutting taxes DOES NOT increase deficits unless you spin the facts around which are that cutting taxes ONLY decreases revenue. The only way to reduce the deficit is to REDUCE expenditures. How many of you tell your clients that they need to TAKE more money from their employer to reduce their liabilities? NO ONE on this board would do that. The only way to reduce expenditures is to quit increasing them. Bush is guilty (Homeland Security, Patriot Act, the war) and Obama is guilty (Healthcare and FinReg). IT HAS ALL GOT TO STOP or we will be fuked soon!

The economy is in the shape it is in because the American people ran their personal finances the same way as the government but the only difference is Joe Sixpack can't mandate his employer to increase his revenue.

THE SPENDING HAS TO STOP BY ALL PARTIES NOT JUST RIGHT OR LEFT AND THAT IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT.

Thought everyone might find this a bit interesting, some research I did this morning. A little historical context...

Carter won narrowly over Ford in 1976, had limited coattails.

The house after the election had a whopping 292 to 143 Democrat majority (One seat gain for Democrats)

The senate after the election had 62 Democrat Senators, 37 Republicans (One seat gain for Republicans)

Wow, surprising numbers.

This is the last time a party had a veto proof majority. 

In 1978 the GOP gained 15 seats in the House, 3 seats in the Senate.

Ana, i agree with you on the emotional response of voters.

Boehner is a tough guy that wrote the repub partisan rule book in the nineties, so, expect no less from him than no compromise.

The repubs only want to undo the cost controls of the healthcare bill, which leaves room for compromise.

The repubs can no longer sit on their hands. If change doesn't happen now after this election, they'll own it.

The debate is over whether obama failed on policy or process. Probably both. He promised to change the way DC did business and instead became Pelosi's bitch. Going forward, expect to see a very different prez. One like Reagan in 84 or Clinton in 94. Both of whom recieved eerily similar rebukes two years in. If that doesn't happen, Obama finishes out the term and rides in to the history books.

On a positive Obama note, with life for most on this board, pretty damn good, It is easy to discount the bag of shit Obama was handed as he came into office. The guy, while alienating the repubs and conservatives has done a really good job of stabilizing the economy. And, unlike those on mainstreet who can be tricked by the campaign rhetoric, we know the truth that, that was no small task.

As for tax cuts not increasing deficits, lets see: Not the case when Ronnie wrote the White Paper on deficit spending in the eighties. Bush 1 paid the political price for Reagan's flawed tax policy. And, didn't work during the boom economy for Bush 2 from 2002 to 2007. Both cases saw deficits soar. Again, you can try this at home by cutting your income below your expenses and see what happens to your debt. going an extra step and cutting your expenses sounds good but only works if those expenses are cut to less than your income.

Applying this simple financial concept to the republican's proposed cuts seems lost on them. While we are already a trillion dollars in the hole on the budget, they are proposing 100 billion in cuts next year. This while at the same time proposing no increase in revs. In fact they want to cut revs. I leave the math to you, but if you question how we got to 13 trillion in national debt, well, there's your answer. 

The USA, we love an underdog, but we hate excuses. Doesn't matter what party is in charge, blaming the last administration wears thin, very quickly. Bush, as far as I recall, didn't spend a ton of time bashing Clinton, or the Dot Com bubble bust, as an excuse for a terrible economy in 2002. Obama is long past the grace period, and much like a baseball team that changed the manager a couple years ago, blaming the last guy for continuing to lose is a recipe for failure.

The Democrats, I don't think they realize it, left a long lasting impression about how they govern, and what type of ideology they bring to the table. There are little kids today, that will have their voting preference established from their impression crafted from this time period. Pursuing gays in the military, Olympics in Chicago, national health care, and raising taxes, was the Obama agenda the first two years. Well, duh, it's the economy stupid...

Oh, and I do wonder, about attitude. The kind of smarmy attitude where during the State of the Union, you belittle the Supreme Court. That was a huge mistake, and symbolic of the leadership style that was pushy, arrogant, without compromise.

If you go to wikipedia, you can look up all the past elections in the USA. This one, was really a historic one. The party that best understands why it happened, will be the benefactor. I admit, the people voted more about what they don't like, then what they do like. The GOP was just lucky to benefit from that.

Thoughtful post, Big.

Just seeing and hearing the adult political leadership in charge again is comforting.

I think the broader implications of recent U.S. political history suggest things like:

1. Increasing concentration of wealth and poverty.

2. More awareness that Americans need to be allowed freedom to succeed or fail - need for a trend toward less taxation and regulation.

3. Reality that wealth redistribution - given the age and income demographics - is here with us to stay.

4. Need for advisors to approach clients differently in this environment. ( What is your written one page plan for dealing with taxes for the next three decades of your life?)

5. For our business, there is opportunity for advisors to compete for business on the basis of wealth creation and protection in this environment. With regard to younger folks getting started or growing your book, I urge everyone to increase their street smarts about financial planning strategies and products and approach potential clients in a way that differentiate you from the average asset allocation or retail portfolio provider.

Get down and dirty and talk to folks about where taxes and wealth redistribution will be going, given the demographic trends and broke baby boomers, and devise strategies that will ultimately lift all boats via capitalist practices.

http://registeredrep.com/newsletters/practice/no_time_for_laziness/

N.D,

I appreciate the sensible post. I guess where I'm coming from is this: At the end of the day, are voters angrier because they don't have a job or because they feel government spending is excessive? The GOP clearly thinks it's the latter. My intuitiion tells me that people are more stressed about doing what they can to keep a roof over their heads on a day to day basis than they are about obsessing what government is doing with their tax dollars.

New, from McConell:

"That means that we can — and should — propose and vote on straight repeal, repeatedly," McConnell said.

"But the fact is, if our primary legislative goals are to repeal and replace the health spending bill; to end the bailouts; cut spending; and shrink the size and scope of government, the only way to do all these things it is to put someone in the White House who won't veto any of these things."

No mention on what's in it for the American people.