- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
Obvious meaning of election results: Folks want Congress to work together
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:11 am
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:11 am
Media / Dem talking point for the last week has been "It's obvious the country is tired of the bickering and wants the the two parties to work together."
The week before the election I worked an early voting poll in North Carolina, 10:00am - 7:00pm for five days. The voters were 99.5% Democrat, 99% African-American.
I was campaigning for a Republican candidate.
I promise you, these voters were not interested in "working together" with Republicans. On the contrary, they were passionately supportive of destroying Republicans.
On election day I worked a poll evenly split among Dems and Repubs with a large # of unaffiliated voters.
Neither side was interested in "compromise."
Media pundits offer no evidence voters were motivated by a desire to "work together." They simply state it as if it were so.
The week before the election I worked an early voting poll in North Carolina, 10:00am - 7:00pm for five days. The voters were 99.5% Democrat, 99% African-American.
I was campaigning for a Republican candidate.
I promise you, these voters were not interested in "working together" with Republicans. On the contrary, they were passionately supportive of destroying Republicans.
On election day I worked a poll evenly split among Dems and Repubs with a large # of unaffiliated voters.
Neither side was interested in "compromise."
Media pundits offer no evidence voters were motivated by a desire to "work together." They simply state it as if it were so.
8
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:19 am to Fat Man
quote:
they were passionately supportive of destroying Republicans.
Republicans think Dems are wrong
Dems think Republicans are evil.
Dems are entirely different breed of mindset and politicians.
This post was edited on 11/8/14 at 9:19 am
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:21 am to Fat Man
When Democrats win, it's "I won. Elections have consequences. Deal with it".
When the GOP wins, "We must compromise" becomes the catch phrase. As if they still have some kind of bargaining chip to play.
Of course, the Democrats' idea of compromise is "my way or the highway", so...
When the GOP wins, "We must compromise" becomes the catch phrase. As if they still have some kind of bargaining chip to play.
Of course, the Democrats' idea of compromise is "my way or the highway", so...
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:39 am to dcrews
quote:
Dems think Republicans are evil.
This, on the surface, sounds like a mindless Republican talking point. However, I met many, many Dem voters, usually low information, that truly, in their hearts, believe Republicans are evil and also
... "against the people." Like literally, opposed the people of country.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:45 am to Fat Man
The general trend is the voters wanted the Republucans to work with more Republicans.
Dems got canned, Republicans took their places.
It's not that complicated really, but now the Republicans are on the clock.
Dems got canned, Republicans took their places.
It's not that complicated really, but now the Republicans are on the clock.
This post was edited on 11/8/14 at 11:49 am
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:50 am to Fat Man
I'm torn as to what road to take. My initial impulse is to say to the dems is "what goes around comes around". However, if I take that approach then it just means it will probably come back to bite us in the arse in two years.
Option 2 is to offer a fig bud, not a leaf, and give the dems a chance to put up or shut up. I'd like to see us take the approach of thinking past 2016.
Option 2 is to offer a fig bud, not a leaf, and give the dems a chance to put up or shut up. I'd like to see us take the approach of thinking past 2016.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 10:05 am to Fat Man
Lets be very clear on this point.
When you are in charge of a senate that votes on nothing sans obamacare, and then the senate gets wacked by the voters, you look for any excuse to say "hey they're not mad at me, they're mad at US".
Dem posturing to not accept blame for one of the worst elections in history for them, is a certainty.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 11:07 am to Homesick Tiger
quote:
I'd like to see us take the approach of thinking past 2016.
I wouldn't
All I care about is winning the WH in 2016 AND maintaining a majority in both houses of congress
we fricked it up last time, hope we can get it back and do better
all we need to do is send bills to Obama with great catchy names
"The NEW Jobs act of 2014" - etc
make him sign, ignore or veto
If he signs or ignores, great!
If he vetos, use it like a godam hammer in 2016
Posted on 11/8/14 at 1:54 pm to Fat Man
"make no mistake: These policies are on the ballot." -can't remember who
"elections have consequences. " -some guy
"elections have consequences. " -some guy
Posted on 11/8/14 at 2:03 pm to dcrews
quote:
Dems think Republicans are evil.
To be fair, I think progressives are either useful idiots or evil. Most of them are Democrats, but many are Republican.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 3:32 pm to dcbl
quote:
make him sign, ignore or veto
Can't do it in most cases without at least 6 Dems voting with the Republicans. That will likely happen on a few pieces of legislation that have bipartisan appeal (i.e., Keystone XL), but those will occur early on, and 2016 will see most senate votes taking place strictly along party lines in a presidential election year.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 3:37 pm to Fat Man
quote:
Obvious meaning of election results: Folks want Congress to work together
Acually I think it was a rebuke of Obama and his ongoing attempt to destroy this country.
But, it would be nice if politics were put aside and both parties actually tried to work together.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 4:34 pm to kywildcatfanone
quote:
both parties actually tried to work together.
I'm afraid, politics aside, "working together" really doesn't make sense.
For example:
Bob opposes the expansion of government programs.
Sid says, "let's expand Program Z by 2x"
Is Bob supposed to compromise, meet Sid half-way, and only expand the Program by x? That compromise is diametrically opposite to Bob's basic principle.
Apply this abortion, income redistribution, war, immigration.
Immigration: some favor securing border first, then addressing illegal immigrants status. Others say we address status first, don't worry about the border. Where does one compromise?
I agree much of the rancor is politically motivated, but whether you are for or against the death penalty, it's kind of hard to work together. Uh, let's just make him "a little dead." Miracle Max can work with slightly dead.
Posted on 11/8/14 at 8:59 pm to Fat Man
compromise on this 
and rotate
and rotate
Posted on 11/8/14 at 9:31 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Option 2 is to offer a fig bud, not a leaf
How about an olive branch? It's not like the dems are naked or anything.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News