I think this pretty much sums it up
Picture stolen from Ace. A huge Republican wave swept over the nation yesterday. Republicans gained at least 61 House seats (I think there are still ten too close to call), 5 Senate seats including Barack Obama's old seat in Illinois (not counting Scott Brown's pickup in January), and 6 governorships (Democrats lost 7; Rhode Island went Independent). The most readily apparent statistic is the House pickups. This is the largest Republican gain in the House in 70 years (1940), and the greatest overall number of Republicans in the house since 1946 (the election after WWII ended and the nation realized it was sick of Roosevelt's New Deal policies). The 5 Senate pickups were a good, not great haul. As significant as the House swing and total is, an even more significant statistic is governorships: the total number of Republican Governorships (29) are the most ever, and by lucky chance, it is happening in a Census House District redraw year. To cap that, Real Clear Politics claims that the Most Significant Statistic is the Republican gains in the statehouses where
With races outstanding in New York, Washington and Oregon, Republicans have flipped at least 14 chambers, and have unified control of 25 state legislatures. They have picked up over five hundred state legislative seats, including over 100 in New Hampshire alone.and they summarize:
Finally, the GOP will control or have a say in almost all of the states that are gaining or losing seats. Democrats will control Massachusetts, where a Democrat must be eliminated regardless, and perhaps Illinois, which may or may not lose a seat. Meanwhile, Republicans will control over a dozen newly-drawn seats, and chose almost a dozen more seats to be eliminated districts.It's also important to note that it's not just the quantity of the Republican wave, but also the quality. Because of Tea Party pressure, the Republican lineup was much more conservative than it would have been: Marco Rubio (Florida), Rand Paul (Kentucky), Pat Toomey (Pennsylvania), and Mike Lee (Utah) are all Tea Partiers. I have no idea how many House members are, and how many candidates not backed by the Tea Party were still compelled to campaign more conservatively.
Last night's GOP wave devastating for Democrats, but it could not have come at a worse time. If the GOP takes full advantage of this opportunity, it could even expand upon its current Congressional majorities further in 2012.
So, now we have 3/5 of the governorships in Republican hands, a House Majority of at least 45, and 47 Republican senators.
The Senate was the one area where Republicans thought they could do better, and the Tea Party is part of the problem, if problem it be:
- In Delaware, in the race to fill Joe Biden's old seat, Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnell beat popular Congressman Mike Castle in the primary, only to lose to Chris Coons in the general election. Polls showed that Mike Castle would probably have beaten Coons handily, however Mike Castle is a super RINO.
- In Nevada, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was thought to be very vulnerable. He is one of the most disliked politicians in the country. The Tea Party candidate, Sharon Angle, won the Republican nomination. She was known to be a strong fiscal hawk, but unfortunately, she evidentally was a little flaky. I don't know off the top of my head what was flaky about her. Anyway, she never really caught on in Nevada, and the neck-and-neck race between two disliked candidates turned out in Reid's favor in the end. This would have been a very satisfying win, that before the primaries, Republicans thought was very doable.
- In Alaska, Tea Party candidate Joe Miller won the Republican primary against incumbant Senator Lisa Murkowsky. Alaska is a very Republican state, and everyone thought the Tea Party candidate had the seat in the bag. But, then Murkowsky decided to run as a write-in candidate. A winner hasn't yet been declared, but it's clear that semi-RINO Murkowsky is going to win. This is very mystifying to me. I don't know what the downside of Joe Miller is. This is still a Republican win, but not as good of one as we hoped it would be.
This points out a shift that has been happening in American politics and greatly accelerated this election cycle: the two main parties are becoming increasingly polarized. Along with Tea Partiers 'purifying' the Republican brand, 28 of the 54 members of the House who call themselves Blue Dog Democrats (ie conservative) were thrown out of office by Republicans. When I was younger, both the parties had strong conservative and liberal wings: conservative Dixie Democrats kept their northeastern McGovern liberal brethren in check, and old school Establishment Republicans (the original Civil Rights leaders) kept the fire-breathing nuke-em Goldwater fundamentalists in check. I'm not sure, but I think being able to see a real difference between the parties is a good thing, though, for better or for worse, the spirit of cooperation and compromise is in tatters.
Now, what's next for Republicans? Mark Kirk's win in Illinois will be effective immediately, so as of today, there are 42 Republicans in the Senate and Scott Brown is no longer the only vote maintaining a filibuster. Melkor probably knows more about this than I do, but of the two parts of Congress, at least right now, it's probably better to be in control in the House than in the Senate. Bills originate in the House. Republicans can make sure that the bills are to their liking, at least to begin with. They can throw bills out there that make Democrats define themselves as super liberals to oppose, or force Obama to veto, further defining them. Since Harry Reid is still the leader of the Senate, Obama can't totally use Congress as a foil like Clinton did with the Republican Congress he was up against after '94. Republicans will hopefully be able to defund Obamacare, but they won't be able to overthrow it yet. They will stop Cap 'n' Trade in its tracks, and they should be able to put a significant break on Stimulus spending. But, they won't be able to take the huge steps that will still be needed to get our financial house in order. They'll only be able to control further bleeding.
They need to be loudly and proudly doing that or there will definitely be a third party break by the Tea Party in 2012, and after that, as King Louis the something or other said, the deluge.
One additional thing to consider and look forward to is that in a normal year, this wouldn't have been a good year for Republicans in the Senate. They had to defend a lot more seats than the Democrats. But, this was such a good year for them that they successfully defended all their seats and had a shot at flipping the Senate. In 2012, things will be MUCH worse for Democrats regarding who has the most seats to defend. If feelings are still as amped as they are now,...Red Storm Rising, baby!!!
I was really hoping for a Dudley or Huffman win in Oregon. But I came back down to earth and realized where I live. Oregon even voted for tax increases. I believe I will pay 20 dollars more property tax this year to preserve some stupid museum.
ReplyDeleteThis was my first voting experience where I was in to everything. When people talk about, "its gonna be harder for the dems next election," I didnt realize why. Now that you mention "In 2012, things will be MUCH worse for Democrats regarding who has the most seats to defend" I understand a little more. I never considered that. Its a simple concept but I didn't see it and now I'm really excited.
Hooray!
Ashley's regular client Jefferson Smith (great political name) won Oregon House District #47 again. He smoked the challenger (I believe was a homemaker).
ReplyDeleteSmith is a real scumbag. He's all about social programs and what not. Ashley needs to snip his ear.
I didn't realize the Museum tax passed. What a pathetic state we live in. California lite.
ReplyDeleteI was also into the elections. I tried in vain to get some people to vote and found that most could care less and that some simply could not vote because of being a felon or not a citizen. There is a still a large portion of the population that really could care less about politics or are straight up ignorant. When I bring politics up, people seem to go into 911 conspiracy theories. But I tried.
ReplyDeleteYou should take advantage of knowing a state legislator and make some contacts or networks there.
I just don't understand how states like Oregon and Mass can be such liberal states. Barney the Frank lover, won his seat over there in Mass and that is a disappointment. Here is one man who was one of the hand full of people that were most culpable in causing the economic mess and they vote him back in twice. I can't understand that.
I also read that it is a good thing that the Republican didn't win the Senate for the reasons you stated. On O'Donnell not wining, I read that it is still a good thing that she ran as she moved the "conservative ball forward" in Delaware. She was also stabbed in the back by the RNC. And Castle was a liberal anyways.
The Republicans have one shot at showing us that they will not revert back to their old ways of being big spenders. If they mess up this opporunity, then we are fucked. A third party will have to be formed. Their victory will only but the brakes on on the massive move towards the left. Real change will have to wait until 2012.
Another BIG item in the news is that the Fed will enact quantitative easing 2 by buying back 600 billion in treasuries. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-03/federal-reserve-to-buy-additional-600-billion-of-securities-to-aid-growth.html
This will pump money into the economy as the Fed will be paying money in exchange for these treasuries. Of course the question is with what? The nation is broke. Every dollar the gov spends it has to borrow over 40 cents. So they will be printing more money which will increase the monetary base. This will increase the inflationary pressures. They are worried about deflation right now, but factoring in energy and food prices which is excluded from the CPI, inflation is at about 10%, I cant back this figure up. The problem is not that there is not enough money in the economy as banks and individuals are sitting on a couple trillion dollars already and they are not lending or spending it because of a lack of confidence. This action by the Fed could artifically boost the stock market although not to such a great extent because this action is already priced into the Market and this will create an illusion of propersity. There will potentially be massive inflation not that far down the road. Unless the Fed can do what it has never been able to do which is pull all of this excess money out of the system at just the right moment. And when people and businesses get their confidence back, these trillions of dollars sitting around will start flowing through the system which will be inflationary. I could be wrong on this.
I was just listening to a radio show that had pollster Scott Rasmussen on it and he said a couple of interesting things: 1) The number of seats that changed in the state legislatures is the most ever, and 2) though he is generally known is one of the most, if not the most accurate pollster, he has been underestimating the performance of Democrats in Nevada & California significantly in the last two elections. He had Angle up by 4 going into the elction. Let's think about what may make those two states overperform for Democrats...
ReplyDeleteJeff, that Quantitative Easing deserves a post of its own! Looks like the Fed is going to try to inflate its way out of the recession now!
ReplyDeleteThen we will be just about back to the Carter years of double-digit unemployment and double-digit inflation! Super!!
I notice! that I really like! exclamation points!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think its stupid that people can vote on raising property tax when they don't even own any property. They vote for a museum that mainly facilitates public school field trips. I got a bunch of poor east Portland people saying, "yeah, lets tax the property owners so my kid can go to free school and go on a free field trip to a stupid museum while I sit at home with my cheetos and watch soap operas with my comcast in my section 8 housing and my weed bong."
ReplyDeleteYeah, QE 2 deserves a good post. I will try if I have time if someone else doesn't get it done 1st. This is very big news and will impact us in the not too distant future and will future devalue the dollar. I have heard that energy and food prices are up around 10% which I found something on while researching stocks:
ReplyDelete"NEW YORK -(Dow Jones)- Procter & Gamble Co.'s (PG) fiscal first-quarter earnings fell 6.8% on the sale of its pharmaceuticals business last year, even as the company's margins took a hit from higher commodity costs.
Earnings topped the company's forecast.[...] Higher raw material costs, however, are now putting more pressure on manufacturers. P&G competitor Kimberly-Clark Corp. (KMB) earlier this week reported that third-quarter earnings fell 19%, hurt by rising commodities costs.
Raw materials have started to pressure a range of companies from makers of pizza to sellers of paper towels. Pulp costs have been a pressure for Kimberly-Clark, which makes such brands as Kleenex tissues and Scott paper towels. BMO Capital Markets analyst Connie Maneaty noted that prices for a key variety of pulp are off their peak to $975 a metric ton, but still 12% higher than the average of $870 a metric ton from early this year. Kimberly-Clark lowered its 2010 earnings guidance this week, partly because of input cost pressures. P&G also makes a variety of paper products like Charmin toilet paper and Bounty paper towels. Companies like P&G also use a variety of plastics and packaging for the shampoos and lotions they sell. In the three months ended June spot prices for plastic resin were up roughly 20% to 30% from a year earlier, estimates Caris & Co. analyst Linda Bolton Weiser. "We are now seeing those costs flow through," she said. P&G on Wednesday didn't break out the impact of different commodities on its earnings.
Speaking to reporters, Chief Executive Bob McDonald said consumer demand is still "dampened" in the U.S. Some food companies in the U.S. are starting to raise prices, with General Mills (GIS) recently announcing increases on some cereal prices. P&G said it will push to offset commodity price pressures with cost savings rather than price rises, McDonald said. In cases where price increases are necessary, the company will choose to do so through the launch of innovative new products, he said. P&G has been curbing costs to offset the pressure from commodities.
Commodities aren't the only challenge these companies face. While developing markets continue to grow fast, sales on daily consumer goods in developed markets and especially the U.S. have stayed sluggish. "
I have heard a lot of commentary on this and this doesn't seem to make sense at all. The German central bank called the Fed's action "Clueless". Other central banks have expressed concern over this action. BUT the markets reacted well to the news and will result in a higher stock prices over the short term.
This action will cause inflation to be a lot worse when it does come and is setting up for another boom-bust.
P&G and Kimberely-Clark don't need to raise their prices. They have such a huge margin of profits on their products simply from goodwill. For example Kleenex. You'll pay a buck fifty more for Kleenex then you will the generic brand and its the same thing. Their production costs are probably even lower then the generic brands because of their economy of scale and they still have higher prices and vastly larger profit margins.
ReplyDeleteI'm not arguing with your post but I'm bitching about P&G's prices.
ToeJamm, possibly when the economy gets to the point where you can sell your duplex for a profit, you move to the 'Couve. They have a little more sense over there.
ReplyDeleteI completely disagree with you Toejamm. Generic brands are not the same. It is the consumer who determines if the brand name is worth it. If they wanted cheaper brands, they would buy the store brand. The whole view is vastly incorrect from an economic standpoint.
ReplyDeleteGood luck selling your house in this market. It is a buyers market for me. I plan to swoop one up as they are very cheap here.
Once again, you take my comments out of context. You aren't disagreeing with me because you are don't understand what I said.
ReplyDeleteI already bought mine in a buyers market.
Economically I make total sense. Jeff and I know first hand the economic benefit of a corporation offering its products at lower prices. Frito Lay has high quality products and our prices beat competitors most of the time. Wal Mart offers the same products as others but at lower prices most of the time. Both these corporations are number one in their respective industries.
ReplyDeleteMy argument was not disagreeing with you (if you would have read it in its entirety) but I was merely trying to give P&G advice. I was bitching about their expensive prices.