CNN and MSNBC are quick to point out to me that it isn't a reflectin of Obama. Thanks, CNN and MSNBC! My mind is at ease!
Edited By GORDON on 1257362343
I guess a bunch of republicans won elections yeste
Further proof that this election was not solely focused on Obama, 56 percent of Virginians said that the president was not a factor when it came down to their vote. In New Jersey, that number increased to 60 percent of the people who went to the polls on Tuesday.
You mean the gubernatorial elections aren't completely determined by who the president is? No shit.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Republicans already unjustly overconfident ...
Transcendent? "Found your voice?" Yeah, right. Start celebrating after you can make a dent in the Congressional elections. To quote Winston Wolf, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet, gentlemen."
Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele said the victories demonstrated "a transcendent party" that was on the move again.
Steele told CBS's "The Early Show" that he believes the Republican Party has "really found its voice again" after sustaining damaging losses last year.
Transcendent? "Found your voice?" Yeah, right. Start celebrating after you can make a dent in the Congressional elections. To quote Winston Wolf, "Let's not start sucking each other's dicks just yet, gentlemen."
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Anyone who manages to survive reelection at the federal level -- I've just got a hard time seeing how that could happen without you being corrupt, taking backdoor deals, illegal deals/contributions, etc.GORDON wrote:I am just about to the conclusion that 99% of all federal-level elected officials are corrupt and are working only to enrich themselves, and state-level elected officials... I've hovering around 75-80%.
If politicians weren't treated like fucking aristocrats, you wouldn't've so many assholes lining up for the gig.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Only 99%? And I wouldn't be so low on the state level. I think the problem is that people like you and I can't run for office. Well we could but would be run over by money. You simply have to have a lot of money to run. To get money you have to make deals and suck the right dicks. Then you are elected and no better than the rest of them.GORDON wrote:I am just about to the conclusion that 99% of all federal-level elected officials are corrupt and are working only to enrich themselves, and state-level elected officials... I've hovering around 75-80%.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
I think that's going to start changing soon.
Why do you need so much money to win an election? Advertising. Lots and lots and lots of advertising. But traditional advertising doesn't reach the younger generations, it reaches the older folks that sit and watch TV or read newspapers. The younger generations are better reached by online means, from twitter to facebook to various viral memes. And those don't cost money, or at least not much. Using those new channels, the best way to reach people is to be entertaining or have good ideas that bear repeating.
I think that over the next few decades, as the old people that grew up consuming strictly passive media passes on and finally stops voting their stupid party-line bullshit votes, the currently yonger generations will see some profound changes in the political realm. It will all become more accessable and personal, and even if there will still be corruption it will have to be more subtle.
Why do you need so much money to win an election? Advertising. Lots and lots and lots of advertising. But traditional advertising doesn't reach the younger generations, it reaches the older folks that sit and watch TV or read newspapers. The younger generations are better reached by online means, from twitter to facebook to various viral memes. And those don't cost money, or at least not much. Using those new channels, the best way to reach people is to be entertaining or have good ideas that bear repeating.
I think that over the next few decades, as the old people that grew up consuming strictly passive media passes on and finally stops voting their stupid party-line bullshit votes, the currently yonger generations will see some profound changes in the political realm. It will all become more accessable and personal, and even if there will still be corruption it will have to be more subtle.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
The younger generations are better reached by online means, from twitter to facebook to various viral memes. And those don't cost money, or at least not much.
Yet.
... as the old people that grew up consuming strictly passive media passes on and finally stops voting their stupid party-line bullshit votes ...
The party lines will just change. & people will STILL vote that stupidly.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Sure, they're still stupid. But the key is that they are far less likely to tick that box that says "Democrat" at the front of the ballot that sets all their votes to the same party, and much more likely to go down the list checking individual boxes for Democratic candidates. It's a subtle but important distinction, and one that can possibly lead to actual individual thought regarding individual political races.
But I'm an optimist.
But I'm an optimist.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"
No way. Fewer checkboxes = umpteen billion times easier & requires less thinking. The next generation of voters seems just as apathetic & idiotic as the old one, just about different things.TPRJones wrote:Sure, they're still stupid. But the key is that they are far less likely to tick that box that says "Democrat" at the front of the ballot that sets all their votes to the same party, and much more likely to go down the list checking individual boxes for Democratic candidates.
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Malcolm wrote:TPRJones wrote:Sure, they're still stupid. But the key is that they are far less likely to tick that box that says "Democrat" at the front of the ballot that sets all their votes to the same party, and much more likely to go down the list checking individual boxes for Democratic candidates.
No way. Fewer checkboxes = umpteen billion times easier & requires less thinking. The next generation of voters seems just as apathetic & idiotic as the old one, just about different things.
It seems to me, unfortunately, that the things they are apathetic about are the things that allowed them their cushy lifestyle in the first place.
Poor kids... what with their electronics and internet and cars at 16. Life is so rough. Down with capitalism!
Edited By GORDON on 1257456776
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
You are an optimist. That is fine. I hope your theory is right. The only part is I might be towards the end of your passing on by then part.TPRJones wrote:I think that over the next few decades, as the old people that grew up consuming strictly passive media passes on and finally stops voting their stupid party-line bullshit votes, the currently yonger generations will see some profound changes in the political realm. It will all become more accessable and personal, and even if there will still be corruption it will have to be more subtle.
In marriage there is always one person right. And the other one is the husband.
Much as I hate to admit it, making life a bit harder on folk would go a long, LONG way towards having them take voting seriously.GORDON wrote:It seems to me, unfortunately, that the things they are apathetic about are the things that allowed them their cushy lifestyle in the first place.Malcolm wrote:No way. Fewer checkboxes = umpteen billion times easier & requires less thinking. The next generation of voters seems just as apathetic & idiotic as the old one, just about different things.TPRJones wrote:Sure, they're still stupid. But the key is that they are far less likely to tick that box that says "Democrat" at the front of the ballot that sets all their votes to the same party, and much more likely to go down the list checking individual boxes for Democratic candidates.
Poor kids... what with their electronics and internet and cars at 16. Life is so rough. Down with capitalism!
Diogenes of Sinope: "It is not that I am mad, it is only that my head is different from yours."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
Arnold Judas Rimmer, BSC, SSC: "Better dead than smeg."
I would prefer they all die than make my life harder just because they need to learn a lesson.Malcolm wrote:Much as I hate to admit it, making life a bit harder on folk would go a long, LONG way towards having them take voting seriously.GORDON wrote:It seems to me, unfortunately, that the things they are apathetic about are the things that allowed them their cushy lifestyle in the first place.Malcolm wrote: No way. Fewer checkboxes = umpteen billion times easier & requires less thinking. The next generation of voters seems just as apathetic & idiotic as the old one, just about different things.
Poor kids... what with their electronics and internet and cars at 16. Life is so rough. Down with capitalism!
"Be bold, and mighty forces will come to your aid."
Clearly you didn't pay attention to the last election.TPRJones wrote:Sure, they're still stupid. But the key is that they are far less likely to tick that box that says "Democrat" at the front of the ballot that sets all their votes to the same party, and much more likely to go down the list checking individual boxes for Democratic candidates. It's a subtle but important distinction, and one that can possibly lead to actual individual thought regarding individual political races.
But I'm an optimist.
It's not me, it's someone else.
I was under the impression that Republicans still won typical number of local and state elections, while the Dems took most of the federal elections. That would imply more split tickets than usual. Is that wrong?TheCatt wrote:Clearly you didn't pay attention to the last election.
"ATTENTION: Customers browsing porn must hold magazines with both hands at all times!"