your election in three sentences

[p-branez]

Michigan

The 'tough nerd' and former Gateway CEO Rick Synder leads the Republican charge in taking back the governorship, state House, and in keeping the state Senate, attorney general, and secretary of state. The popularity of Snyder, a political outsider and successful businessman, permeates down the ticket: the two elected Republican Michigan Supreme Court justices give the Republicans a 4-3 lead on our 'non-partisan' Supreme Court and the public universities' board of regents each add two Republican regents. By a 2-1 margin, voters reject a constitutional convention, possibly the best chance we had to move our state forward.


Aside:
A younger person, confused and talking on his cell phone, asked the candidate I worked for where to vote for prop 19

[kaiser soze]

So how is small government possible when they are propped up by massive funding from anonymous corporate and quite possibly foreign funds?

I'd like to congratulate the Chamber of Commerce for a job well done

[Dorothy Wood]

Governor race still hasn't been called. I'm really hoping we get the democrat. Bill Brady is awful, and he's being a huge pussy right now by not conceding.

http://www.whoisbillbrady.com/

it's really scary to me that the race is so tight though. I mean, the guy is fucking skunk!

[yeahwho]

same shit in washington state, senate race is 50/50 (http://elections.komonews.com/race.asp?ID=1001) with 64% of the vote counted.

[valvano]

So how is small government possible when they are propped up by massive funding from anonymous corporate and quite possibly foreign funds?

I'd like to congratulate the Chamber of Commerce for a job well done

yeah unions didnt throw any of their member's money into lost causes when they gave out millions and millions and millons :rolleyes:

[yeahwho]

While corporations gave out tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions and tens of millions.

[kaiser soze]

corporations who may very well might not even be headquartered in the good ol' USA

but unfortunately for the citizens - that paper trail does not concern us

yeah that's Patriotism for ya!!!

[valvano]

just like Obama, your message has failed:D

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20020498-503544.html

"We're the big dog," said Larry Scanlon, the head of AFSCME's political operations. "But we don't like to brag."

[yeahwho]

here is the amount of money spent on the 2010 midterm election (http://www.opensecrets.org/action/countdownwidgets.php)

here is the Business-Labor-Ideology Split in PAC & Individual Donations to Candidates and Parties (http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php)

That is a 70% discrepancy in funding between Business and labor.

[travesty]

yeah but look at where the money went. In no single sector did the Republicans get more of the money than the Dems. Be it corporations, Labor, Pacs or individuals the Dems came out ahead on the bottom line. These charts plainly prove that the biggest whores to the corporations AND labor are the Dems. They whore that shit out on both sides of the fence. And they still lost...big. Thanks for the link, I will use it frequently.

I'd like to congratulate the Democrat Party for a job well done.

[yeahwho]

Well as you already know I think the whole system is about representation for corporate interests, this whole idea that "We the People" have any input is played out. Democrat vs. Republican to me, seems like a shell game.

Paul Krugman of the NYTimes summed the past few years very accurately a few weeks ago with this statement,

"We all wish that American politics weren't so bitter and partisan. But if you try to find common ground where none exists -- which is the case for many issues today -- you end up being played for a fool. And that's what has just happened to Mr. Obama."

[yeahwho]

yeah but look at where the money went. In no single sector did the Republicans get more of the money than the Dems. Be it corporations, Labor, Pacs or individuals the Dems came out ahead on the bottom line. These charts plainly prove that the biggest whores to the corporations AND labor are the Dems.

I noticed that too. The democrats received massive support from labor which is to be expected. But it is surprising they edged out 5% + from PAC's & Individual contributions yet still couldn't acheive orgasm on election day.

The part we're missing here is the geographical data that shows which races and initiatives the money went to. Numbers like these can be simple on the surface but once the data begins to breakdown the disbursement of funding the picture becomes clearer.

It's so gross, all of it is. A complete hijacking of democracy through billions of dollars.

On a positive note it's safe to watch TV sitcoms without the corporate candidate grooming and corporate tax issues ads now.

[travesty]

It is very nice to be rid of all the ads. Fucking lies, all of them. You're right, it's disgusting from both sides.

[saz]

orrin hatch, rich lugar, bob corker and scott brown aren't good or pure enough for the tea party :confused:


Scott Brown Finds Himself On Tea Party's 2012 Hit List

Sam Stein l HuffPost Reporting (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/scott-brown-finds-himself_n_778269.html)

First Posted: 11- 3-10 11:53 AM | Updated: 11- 3-10 11:53 AM


WASHINGTON -- Tea Party activists didn't have to wait for the results of the 2010 elections to start conspiring about their targets for the next cycle. Sen. Orinn Hatch (R-UT) has long been considered a primary target, alongside Bob Corker (TN), Richard Lugar (IN) and Olympia Snowe (ME). All of the aforementioned are Republicans with a penchant for working in bipartisan fashion, some more than others.

One surprising name popping up on the 2012 target list, however, is an individual that the Tea Party turned into a cult hero of their movement. Scott Brown (R-Mass) has spent the past ten months in office building the framework for his reelection. He's worked with Democrats on a variety of economic initiatives while siding with the Republican caucus on other measures. He has been, as conventional wisdom goes, about as conservative as one can be in Democratic-leaning Massachusetts. But, for some, not conservative enough.

On Wednesday morning Red State's Erick Erickson put Brown on his list (http://www.redstate.com/erick/2010/11/03/potential-tea-party-targets-for-2012/) of "Potential Tea Party Targets for 2012."

Erickson's site is a hub for Tea Party theology and was one of the earlier indicators of the wave that would define the just-completed cycle. So his inclusion of Brown is noteworthy, not just in what it potentially foreshadows but also because it is an indication of how dispirited conservatives are with the man they helped elect.

That said, while Massachusetts showed some conservative trends in 2010, it's hard to imagine (at least at this point) voters there rallying around a new candidate after the euphoric victory of the first.


and



Most Voters Think House GOP Likely To Disappoint By 2012, Rasmussen Reports

The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/house-gop-disappoint-2012_n_778281.html)

First Posted: 11- 3-10 11:51 AM | Updated: 11- 3-10 11:54 AM


The polling firm Rasmussen is out with a relatively shocking poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/most_voters_think_house_gop_likely_to_disappoint_b y_2012) given the results of yesterday's election. Here's the gist:

Hold the celebration. Most voters expected Republicans to win control of the House of Representatives on Election Day, but nearly as many expect to be disappointed with how they perform by the time the 2012 elections roll around.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds, in fact, that 59% of Likely U.S. Voters think it is at least somewhat likely that most voters will be disappointed with Republicans in Congress before the next national elections. That includes 38% who say it is Very Likely.

More details here (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/november_2010/most_voters_think_house_gop_likely_to_disappoint_b y_2012). And before you question whether Rasmussen has a Democratic bias, note Nate SIlver's observation about their election polls last night (http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/live-blogging-election-night/#rasmussen-reports-polls-were-biased):

"Rasmussen polls quite consistently turned out to overstate the standing of Republicans tonight. Of the roughly 100 polls released by Rasmussen or its subsidiary Pulse Opinion Research in the final 21 days of the campaign, roughly 70 to 75 percent overestimated the performance of Republican candidates, and on average they were biased against Democrats by 3 to 4 points."

[p-branez]

hmmmm... this thread got a little off track.

I think statewide races are interesting 1) we hear little about in national media, 2) have more significant and local impacts than federal races, and 3) shape the nearing redistricting process.