As we are getting down to the wire for this year's elections, we have plans for Tuesday evening, sitting in front of the t.v. with a bottle of something (wine? Spumonti? don't know yet) and watch it all unfold. For the past several months I have been listening to the pundits say how the Dems are going to lose one or the other chamber or even both of them and frankly, I just don't see it.

The Senate

There are 37 seats up for election (Obama, Biden, & Clinton's old seats, plus the late Robert Byrd's seat in W. Vir.) :  I am using THIS map:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2010-race-maps/senate/

According to the map, the Dems have 40 seats that are NOT up for election so that is their starting point. There are also 6 safe & 2 leaning towards the Dems. That brings it to 48. So, they will only need to win at least 2 more to hold on to the majority. The question is which 2. I have a feeling they are going to lose Arkansas-Blanche Lincoln's seat-but that is not figured in the 48.

I think they are going to take Alaska. You have Joe Miller who is self-destructing up against Lisa Murkowski who is a write-in candidate. Murkowski is a hard name to spell (and I'm not too sure if I even spelled it right and I don't feel like looking it up) and they do HAVE to spell it correctly on the ballot in order for it count. The state court has approved that a list of write-in candidates will be available at the polls but thanks to Joe Miller, there will be a list that will have 150 names on it.  :o :o :o Another thing that is working against Joe Miller is Sarah Palin. Palin is not very popular in her home state. Why? She quit! They see her as a quitter-even people who once supported her. So, having her endorsement can be a liability rather than an asset. So, as Joe Miller & Lisa Murkowski are in this circular firing squad canceling each other out, enter Scott McAdams who I think is going to win. That is my prediction!

I also see the Dems keeping California. They will probably keep Nevada. I can't imagine Sharron Angle winning-not especially since she pretty much lost the entire Latino vote. I also think they will keep W. Vir. John Raese seems to be self-destructing so I think Joe Manchin is going to win.

If the Dems win just those states, they will keep their majority-maybe not the "super majority" they hold now but they will keep the Senate.


The House


Using THIS map:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/2010-race-maps/house/


According to that map, the Repubs would have to keep all their seats plus pick up 61 seats to take the House and I just don't see them doing that.

Everyone is saying how the Tea Party has energized this election but looking at the numbers from yesterday's rally tells me that the Tea Party isn't as influential as they appear. Most of the Tea Party movement is astroturf trying to get people riled up. Yesterday's rally is REAL people, REAL voters, and that tells me that the election's outcome is going to totally different than what the pundits say.


This is my prediction for Tuesday.


Thoughts? Comments?



Cat

I also see the Dems keeping California. They will probably keep Nevada. I can't imagine Sharron Angle winning-not especially since she pretty much lost the entire Latino vote. I also think they will keep W. Vir. John Raese seems to be self-destructing so I think Joe Manchin is going to win.

Agreed; Barbara Boxer is up for reelection in California. She has a pretty good chance of staying put, as far as I can tell for now.




According to that map, the Repubs would have to keep all their seats plus pick up 61 seats to take the House and I just don't see them doing that.

Everyone is saying how the Tea Party has energized this election but looking at the numbers from yesterday's rally tells me that the Tea Party isn't as influential as they appear. Most of the Tea Party movement is astroturf trying to get people riled up. Yesterday's rally is REAL people, REAL voters, and that tells me that the election's outcome is going to totally different than what the pundits say.



I don't quite see it either, given all that information. I hope your predictions hold true. :)

It's probably gonna be a Republican House and the Dems keep a slim majority in the Senate.

I'm voting Green or other third party.  I have given the Dems two decades of patience and all they've done is betray me.  I'm finished with the jackass party.

If you have to ask why I don't vote Republican, I'll have to start a whole other thread.

Bay Staters: Vote Jill Stein for Guv!

She hasn't got a chance
:-\\

I'm swinging back to the Republicans again. I gave the Democrats a chance, but Ted Strickland did...nothing.

Lee Fisher is going for Voinavich's Seat...but I'm not voting him in.

Kasich for Ohio Governor is what I'm going for....

I'm swinging back to the Republicans again. I gave the Democrats a chance, but Ted Strickland did...nothing.


I hope you're a millionaire because John Kasich is no longer a politician, he's a FOX News pundit, and FOX News is all about favors for millionaires.  On the other hand, I can't blame you for turning your back on Ted.  I'm not voting for Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts.  I'm voting for Stein the Green.  Yeah, I know she won't win, but it's principle.  Remember the concept of principle.

I won't vote for either R or D because both acquiesce to the same fascist forces.  My friends are imploring me to vote for Patrick because things will be SOOOO much worse if Charlie Baker (or Tim Cahill) gets in.  Hmmph.  Maybe a little worse, but not much.  Patrick is a slimeball and everybody knows it.  What's the point of having a democracy if big-money interests can just bully you into voting for tweedle-dumb or tweedle-scum?

The United States has a future as a Third World tyranny.  It has ONE big business party, the Republicrats, which has two right wings.  One far-right and the other ultra-right. 

Hold your noses folks, we're going under.
8-P

I'm swinging back to the Republicans again. I gave the Democrats a chance, but Ted Strickland did...nothing.

Lee Fisher is going for Voinavich's Seat...but I'm not voting him in.

Kasich for Ohio Governor is what I'm going for....



And you think the Repubs are doing to do ANYTHING? They even said that their #1 goal is make Obama a one-term pres. That means that they will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the next 2 years-except maybe try to impeach Obama and close the government down. The Dems HAVE done quite a bit-even with the Repubs being obstructionists and becoming the "Party of NO." The Repubs had 8 years to totally f**k up this country and now people are expecting the Dems to clean it up in 18 months? And WHY do you want to give power back to the people who got us into this mess in the first place? 

To vote repub in this election is extremely dangerous. They want to set this country back to 1859-no sh!t!!! I implore you to really reconsider voting repub. Think about what is at stake here. And even if you don't like certain candidates, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the greater good.



Cat

And you think the Repubs are doing to do ANYTHING? They even said that their #1 goal is make Obama a one-term pres. That means that they will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING for the next 2 years-except maybe try to impeach Obama and close the government down. The Dems HAVE done quite a bit-even with the Repubs being obstructionists and becoming the "Party of NO." The Repubs had 8 years to totally f**k up this country and now people are expecting the Dems to clean it up in 18 months? And WHY do you want to give power back to the people who got us into this mess in the first place? 

To vote repub in this election is extremely dangerous. They want to set this country back to 1859-no sh!t!!! I implore you to really reconsider voting repub. Think about what is at stake here. And even if you don't like certain candidates, sometimes you just have to hold your nose and vote for the greater good.



Cat


I'll quote from Abe Lincoln himself...

"We need the Rich...to help the poor"!

The problem is...many people WANT to be poor because they can suck of the tits of the Government which don't deserve it and the ones that deserve it finds out that the well has run dry!


I hope you're a millionaire because John Kasich is no longer a politician, he's a FOX News pundit, and FOX News is all about favors for millionaires.  On the other hand, I can't blame you for turning your back on Ted.  I'm not voting for Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts.  I'm voting for Stein the Green.  Yeah, I know she won't win, but it's principle.  Remember the concept of principle.

I won't vote for either R or D because both acquiesce to the same fascist forces.  My friends are imploring me to vote for Patrick because things will be SOOOO much worse if Charlie Baker (or Tim Cahill) gets in.  Hmmph.  Maybe a little worse, but not much.  Patrick is a slimeball and everybody knows it.  What's the point of having a democracy if big-money interests can just bully you into voting for tweedle-dumb or tweedle-scum?

The United States has a future as a Third World tyranny.  It has ONE big business party, the Republicrats, which has two right wings.  One far-right and the other ultra-right. 

Hold your noses folks, we're going under.
8-P


Is there an Indie Candidate in Ohio?

And even if Kasich is in...he'll be in once! (Ohio hasn't been too healthy the past 10 years....)

I'll quote from Abe Lincoln himself...

"We need the Rich...to help the poor"!

The problem is...many people WANT to be poor because they can suck of the tits of the Government which don't deserve it and the ones that deserve it finds out that the well has run dry!





That is what Republicans WANT you to believe. Nobody wants to be poor. It is that "Us vs Them" issue again. "Oooh, they are going to take away what you have so therefore we have FEAR them. Vote for us because we will protect you from them." Don't buy into their rhetoric. By voting for the Repubs, you will only be voting against your own interest. Please trust me on this.



Cat

All I know, it's going to a long Tuesday, tomorrow.

::)

That is what Republicans WANT you to believe. Nobody wants to be poor. It is that "Us vs Them" issue again. "Oooh, they are going to take away what you have so therefore we have FEAR them. Vote for us because we will protect you from them." Don't buy into their rhetoric. By voting for the Repubs, you will only be voting against your own interest. Please trust me on this.



Cat


I feel the same thing about the Dems too...

They say they're for the poor...but they KEEP you poor.

I'm just going through this theory...Politics Suck!

I'm only voting because if I don't...I can't bitch about it!

BTW-I think Lincoln would be irate for what his party has become!

The problem is...many people WANT to be poor because they can suck of the tits of the Government which don't deserve it and the ones that deserve it finds out that the well has run dry!



What are you, nuts or something?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif  ;D

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't!

What are you, nuts or something http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif  ;D


Almond Joy's got nuts...

tits of the Government


...MOUNDS DON'T!

Predictions:  Federally, the Republicans take the House, but the Democrats keep the Senate.  In Kalifornistan, enough Democrats turn out to keep Boxer in power and hand the state over to Brown instead of putting it up for auction on eBay, but not enough will turn out to pass Prop 19.  A short and dull night for me, but it won't stop me from cracking open a BEvERage or two while scrounging the internets for what lulz may remain. 

(I'll miss Christine O'Donnell.  Pretty girl.  Nice mounds.  Shame about... her mound.)

Sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you don't!

Almond Joy's got nuts...

...MOUNDS DON'T!

Predictions:  Federally, the Republicans take the House, but the Democrats keep the Senate.  In Kalifornistan, enough Democrats turn out to keep Boxer in power and hand the state over to Brown instead of putting it up for auction on eBay, but not enough will turn out to pass Prop 19.  A short and dull night for me, but it won't stop me from cracking open a BEvERage or two while scrounging the internets for what lulz may remain. 

(I'll miss Christine O'Donnell.  Pretty girl.  Nice mounds.  Shame about... her mound.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s55QoIZScP4
Might as well have the band play that catchy jingle.

And remember, whether you're a fanatically-progressive Democratic partisan trying to bring about equality of outcomes through the force of law (or the tax code, whichever works), or a Republican who's just trying to bring the country back to Jesus (even if it means passing a law that authorizes the jailing, or even stoning, of anyone with whom you have a theological disagreement), remember to cast your vote on Wednesday November 3rd!  

The rest of you - who just want to express a political opinion or otherwise be left alone - go ahead and waste your vote by trying to do it one day early on November 2nd.  Suckers :)

And remember, whether you're a fanatically-progressive Democratic partisan trying to bring about equality of outcomes through the force of law (or the tax code, whichever works), or a Republican who's just trying to bring the country back to Jesus (even if it means passing a law that authorizes the jailing, or even stoning, of anyone with whom you have a theological disagreement), remember to cast your vote on Wednesday November 3rd!  

The rest of you - who just want to express a political opinion or otherwise be left alone - go ahead and waste your vote by trying to do it one day early on November 2nd.  Suckers :)


The stoning was the OT.  Jesus said, Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.  And that's the so-called Christian Right.  The Holy Church of Throw the First Rock"!  Bringing it back to Jesus would be a good thing, these guys are bringing it back to Nero!
:o

What are you, nuts or something?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/cwm10.gif  ;D


Maybe? (Can being considered autistic count)?

I'm starting to get turned-off by this political sheesh now!

Maybe? (Can being considered autistic count)?



I have major depression with anxiety disorder...and some traits of Asperger's syndrome, so I don't mean to point the finger.  I did find your remarks regarding poverty at will for government handouts heartless and daft.  I spoke out of surprise more than anything else.  I am intimate with the adversity being poor in America presents and it is nothing anybody would seek in lieu of gainful employment. 

Mind you, I have met homeless men and women who told me it was their "choice" to drift.  These people fell into one or more of five categories:

a. Youths on on an extended road trip.
b. People with substance abuse problems who don't want treatment.
c. People with paranoia who attributed bad intentions to human services workers.
d. Fugitives.
e. Otherwise healthy people fallen on misfortune who find shelters, soup kitchens, and transitional housing less dignified than sleeping in the park.

I have sympathy for the last group.  However, they're generally not doing themselves much good.

Social welfare benefits in the U.S. do not provide one with a comfortable life.  Most people would rather not be caught up in the poverty trap.  America deludes itself into thinking it's an upwardly mobile society when, in fact, it is less so than Canada, Western Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.  Once you've been caught in America's poverty trap for a few years, it's hard as hell to climb out.

This was the first year that I basically voted straight Dem. I did vote for a few independents and I wrote Carlos' name in one place. He was going to write my name under his but chose someone else's name-and I followed his lead. That was for state rep. We can't STAND ours and they were running unopposed. 



Cat

Ohio is such a crazy state (maybe that's why I'm crazy too...) It's because I can't get the results until the next morning.

So Kasich now has a job, Fisher didn't get promoted, Kucinich...you might as well make him Representative-for-Life because they STILL vote for him, and I voted mostly Libertarian.

Looks like I'm STILL on my Election Winning Streak...which may be a good thing or bad thing.... :-\\

In California, Jerry Brown will be returning to the Governor's position, after he was first elected half his life ago... and Barbara Boxer retains her Senate seat. And it appears that the voters have defeated certain propositions, including #19 which would legalize marijuanica for "recreational" use.

I have to say that I am just flabbergasted. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of voters in this country are just absolutely STUPID!!!!! WHY in the world would they THINK that the people who have put the economy in the toilet will get us out of it? They just want to keep the status quo. And for the next two years, NOTHING is going to get done-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! They are going to try to impeach Obama-for what? Mainly for being black.  ::) They are going to make this country far worse than it is already.

Well, maybe the good thing here could be that after 2 years of doing nothing, the pendulum may swing back to the left and Obama just may win a second term.



Cat

Boehner is here to sow the earth with salt.  That man's got the devil in him, just like Gingrich.  I'm glad Jerry Brown in California won and I'm glad Charlie Baker lost in Massachusetts, but the Republicans' sole objective on the federal level is to destroy Obama and kill what little his administration has grown.  Cruelty to the vulnerable is the modus operandi of the GOP.  Quailing in the face of tyranny is the response of the Dems.  Snveling sh*ts sold out to the same evil forces and they point the spear at the Repubs while bearing a shield of glass.

Good morning.  Another sad day in America.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/coffee.gif

I have to say that I am just flabbergasted. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of voters in this country are just absolutely STUPID!!!!! WHY in the world would they THINK that the people who have put the economy in the toilet will get us out of it? They just want to keep the status quo. And for the next two years, NOTHING is going to get done-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! They are going to try to impeach Obama-for what? Mainly for being black.  ::) They are going to make this country far worse than it is already.

Well, maybe the good thing here could be that after 2 years of doing nothing, the pendulum may swing back to the left and Obama just may win a second term.



Cat


Karma Cat.  The American electorate couldn't find their a-holes if their necks weren't attached to 'em.
::)

Now, say after me:

Big gummint
Personal responsibility
Big gummint
Personal Responsibility
Ontray-penurship
Guns
Guns
Guns

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/jerk.gif

Boehner is here to sow the earth with salt.  That man's got the devil in him, just like Gingrich.  I'm glad Jerry Brown in California won and I'm glad Charlie Baker lost in Massachusetts, but the Republicans' sole objective on the federal level is to destroy Obama and kill what little his administration has grown.  Cruelty to the vulnerable is the modus operandi of the GOP.  Quailing in the face of tyranny is the response of the Dems.  Snveling sh*ts sold out to the same evil forces and they point the spear at the Repubs while bearing a shield of glass.

Good morning.  Another sad day in America.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/coffee.gif


Boehner salting earth...didn't Carthridge do the same thing?

Welcome to Tea Party, USA.....\

Featuring soon to be President Mad Hatter, Vice President Dorr Mouse, and Secretary of State Jabber Wocky.

::)

In the California race for Attorney General, it appears that Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has pulled ahead of her Republican opponent, Steve Cooley; and according to this article, she has (officially) been declared the winner. Unlike the other races in the state, this one had been "too close to call" for hours, and now it's finally over.

2010, say hello to 1994.

2010, say hello to 1994.

More or less what I was thinking, in a sense...

Hey...1994 was a great year, so maybe the next two years will be great!

But the winners should be...YOU! The Voter!

The Voter elected for the people they thought were good...in their opinion, and many people didn't vote but the voter did.

So if you didn't like the candidate you did (or didn't) vote for...feel free to complain, if not... :-X

Hey...1994 was a great year, so maybe the next two years will be great!

But the winners should be...YOU! The Voter!

The Voter elected for the people they thought were good...in their opinion, and many people didn't vote but the voter did.

So if you didn't like the candidate you did (or didn't) vote for...feel free to complain, if not... :-X


It's hard to win at anything when you're outnumbered by idiots on a factor of about 1,000 to 1.

It's hard to win at anything when you're outnumbered by idiots on a factor of about 1,000 to 1.


Well...if you voted and the guy that you voted for didn't win, you can say "Don't Blame Me...I voted for someone else"!

It's hard to win at anything when you're outnumbered by idiots on a factor of about 1,000 to 1.


I'd even be grateful for THAT ratio!
::)

I'd even be grateful for THAT ratio!
::)


True...  I might have accidentally lapsed into an uncharacteristic moment of optimism.

I have to say that I am just flabbergasted. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of voters in this country are just absolutely STUPID!!!!! WHY in the world would they THINK that the people who have put the economy in the toilet will get us out of it? They just want to keep the status quo. And for the next two years, NOTHING is going to get done-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! They are going to try to impeach Obama-for what? Mainly for being black.  ::) They are going to make this country far worse than it is already.

Well, maybe the good thing here could be that after 2 years of doing nothing, the pendulum may swing back to the left and Obama just may win a second term.



Cat


Definetly agree with you on this, I saw the results on the front page of the paper at work.

Definetly agree with you on this, I saw the results on the front page of the paper at work.


Maybe Obama will resign.  He'll announce we are a bunch of ungrateful m*therf**kers and he's going back to Kenya ("Where I was really born, so haha, up yours), now have fun Joe!
;D

I think that oddly, it will work to his advantage, because now it will give the surge to work harder, in order to get things back in order.

I think that oddly, it will work to his advantage, because now it will give the surge to work harder, in order to get things back in order.

Hmm, good point.




And by the way...

In the California race for Attorney General, it appears that Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee, has pulled ahead of her Republican opponent, Steve Cooley; and according to this article, she has (officially) been declared the winner. Unlike the other races in the state, this one had been "too close to call" for hours, and now it's finally over.

I stand corrected on the Attorney General race for California; some sources (including the L.A. Times) are saying that it's still too close to call, despite Harris having a slim lead over Cooley and 100% precincts reporting. That's because some absentee ballots are still uncounted yet. I sure hope she officially wins.

My fantasy GOP ticket for 2012

Sharrrrrron Angle/Christine Brown or the other way around!
;)

My fantasy GOP ticket for 2012

Sharrrrrron Angle/Christine Brown or the other way around!
;)


A cute one, and an obtuse one?

My fantasy GOP ticket for 2012

Sharrrrrron Angle/Christine Brown or the other way around!
;)


My Fantasy Ticket is...Jon Stewart/Steven Colbert 2012!

A cute one, and an obtuse one?


I mean Christine O'Donnell.

Whenever somebody uses the word "obtuse," I always think of The Shawshank Redemption...

Andy Dufresne: How can you be so obtuse
Warden Samuel Norton: What? What did you call me?
Dufresne:  Obtuse.  Obtuse is deliberate.
(later in same exchange)
Dufresne: I'm done. Everything stops. Get someone else to run your scams.
Norton: Nothing stops. Nothing... or you will do the hardest time there is. No more protection from the guards. I'll pull you out of that one-bunk Hilton and cast you down with the sodomites. You'll think you've been f**ed by a train! And the library? Gone... sealed off, brick-by-brick. We'll have us a little book barbecue in the yard. They'll see the flames for miles. We'll dance around it like wild Injuns! You understand me? Catching my drift?... Or am I being obtuse?
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/10/vampanim.gif

I mean Christine O'Donnell.


Like you said, the other way around.  Just because the obtuse one isn't cute, doesn't mean the cute one can't also be obtuse :)

I have to say that I am just flabbergasted. I have come to the conclusion that the majority of voters in this country are just absolutely STUPID!!!!! WHY in the world would they THINK that the people who have put the economy in the toilet will get us out of it? They just want to keep the status quo. And for the next two years, NOTHING is going to get done-ABSOLUTELY NOTHING!!! They are going to try to impeach Obama-for what? Mainly for being black.  ::) They are going to make this country far worse than it is already.

Well, maybe the good thing here could be that after 2 years of doing nothing, the pendulum may swing back to the left and Obama just may win a second term.



Cat
CAT, I don't want CAP & Trade or The Healthcare Bill thats why I voted Republican this time and I did vote for Obama in 2008. I'm just not crazy about the poliicies. They aren't gonna impeach Obama. You progressives think that but its not true. You say the Republicans all are at fault for putting the economy in the current state that it is in but the Dems like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had something to do with it to with Fannie & Freddie.


I''m not shocked the Dems lost the US House but how many seats they lost. I thought the Republicans would gain at best 52 seats.

As for the people(well Republicans as you say)that put the economy in the current state the only Republicans that were in Congress in 2008 besides the current crop of Republicans that were already there before the elections are  Reps Steve Pearce(NM-01) and Steve Chabot(OH-01.) .Pearce and Chabot left office in January in 2009.. Pearce lost his bid for a US Senate Seat in 2008 and Chabot defeated by Steve Drieshaus in 2008 whom he deafeated on Tuesday. Pearce beat Brad Teague on Tuesday.

I hope you're a millionaire because John Kasich is no longer a politician, he's a FOX News pundit, and FOX News is all about favors for millionaires.    On the other hand, I can't blame you for turning your back on Ted.  I'm not voting for Deval Patrick here in Massachusetts.  I'm voting for Stein the Green.  Yeah, I know she won't win, but it's principle.  Remember the concept of principle.

I won't vote for either R or D because both acquiesce to the same fascist forces.  My friends are imploring me to vote for Patrick because things will be SOOOO much worse if Charlie Baker (or Tim Cahill) gets in.  Hmmph.  Maybe a little worse, but not much.  Patrick is a slimeball and everybody knows it.  What's the point of having a democracy if big-money interests can just bully you into voting for tweedle-dumb or tweedle-scum?

The United States has a future as a Third World tyranny.  It has ONE big business party, the Republicrats, which has two right wings.  One far-right and the other ultra-right.

Hold your noses folks, we're going under.
8-P
Kasich hasn't been a pundit on FOX News for awhile now though.

I would probably would  have voted for Cahill if I lived in Massachusetts but thats just me.

Boehner is here to sow the earth with salt.  That man's got the devil in him, just like Gingrich.  I'm glad Jerry Brown in California won and I'm glad Charlie Baker lost in Massachusetts, but the Republicans' sole objective on the federal level is to destroy Obama and kill what little his administration has grown.  Cruelty to the vulnerable is the modus operandi of the GOP.  Quailing in the face of tyranny is the response of the Dems.  Snveling sh*ts sold out to the same evil forces and they point the spear at the Repubs while bearing a shield of glass.

Good morning.  Another sad day in America.

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/11/coffee.gif
It amazes me how you could think the worst Max but if the Republicans do nothing in the 2 years that their majority than they'll be thrown out too.

CAT, I don't want CAP & Trade or The Healthcare Bill thats why I voted Republican this time and I did vote for Obama in 2008. I'm just not crazy about the poliicies. They aren't gonna impeach Obama. You progressives think that but its not true. You say the Republicans all are at fault for putting the economy in the current state that it is in but the Dems like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had something to do with it to with Fannie & Freddie.


I''m not shocked the Dems lost the US House but how many seats they lost. I thought the Republicans would gain at best 52 seats.

As for the people(well Republicans as you say)that put the economy in the current state the only Republicans that were in Congress in 2008 besides the current crop of Republicans that were already there before the elections are  Reps Steve Pearce(NM-01) and Steve Chabot(OH-01.) .Pearce and Chabot left office in January in 2009.. Pearce lost his bid for a US Senate Seat in 2008 and Chabot defeated by Steve Drieshaus in 2008 whom he deafeated on Tuesday. Pearce beat Brad Teague on Tuesday.




The collapse was the result of repub deregulation of banking, and the collapse of the middle class.  The deficit the result of two wars and the Bush tax cuts - remember, we had a SURPLUS when Clinton left office.

CAT, I don't want CAP & Trade or The Healthcare Bill thats why I voted Republican this time and I did vote for Obama in 2008. I'm just not crazy about the poliicies. They aren't gonna impeach Obama. You progressives think that but its not true. You say the Republicans all are at fault for putting the economy in the current state that it is in but the Dems like Barney Frank and Chris Dodd had something to do with it to with Fannie & Freddie.


I''m not shocked the Dems lost the US House but how many seats they lost. I thought the Republicans would gain at best 52 seats.

As for the people(well Republicans as you say)that put the economy in the current state the only Republicans that were in Congress in 2008 besides the current crop of Republicans that were already there before the elections are  Reps Steve Pearce(NM-01) and Steve Chabot(OH-01.) .Pearce and Chabot left office in January in 2009.. Pearce lost his bid for a US Senate Seat in 2008 and Chabot defeated by Steve Drieshaus in 2008 whom he deafeated on Tuesday. Pearce beat Brad Teague on Tuesday.





You don't like Cap & Trade? Do you like industry to spew so much poison in the air? You don't like the Health Care Bill? You prefer insurance companies to deny people coverage because they get sick? And you prefer people go bankrupt because they get sick? Just so you know, a lot that is in the Health Care Bill was REPUBLICAN initiatives.

Ok, maybe the Repubs won't try to impeach Obama but they have been nothing but obstructionists since Obama got into office and they are not planning on changing that strategy. They will try to repeal the Health Care Bill but that will only be a tactic. Most of them really could care less about it one way or the other. They know that the bill was a crowning victory for Obama and therefore they have to say that it is wrong. By trying to repeal it, they will waste time-and probably A LOT of time. They know they don't have the votes to repeal it. But, by wasting time on it, that means that they don't have time to actually GOVERN-something they are totally at a loss as how to do. They only know how to obstruct.

One thing that you should be aware of is the fact that many of those Republicans in Washington could care less about you. They do not have YOUR best interest in mind. They only care about their rich donors and will work for THEIR best interest-not yours or mine.



Cat

The collapse was the result of repub deregulation of banking, and the collapse of the middle class.  The deficit the result of two wars and the Bush tax cuts - remember, we had a SURPLUS when Clinton left office.
CAT, what pieces of legislation led to the deregulation of banks during the Bush(W.) Administration are you talking about? The liberal media and Dems always say deregulation but what pieces of legislation are you talking about in the Bush(W.) administration?

As for the Deficit did you take September 11th, 2001 into account? I mean some of the surplus had to be used with events having to do with those events in my mind. The tax cuts and the two wars I agree with you on since neither were paid for.

You don't like Cap & Trade? Do you like industry to spew so much poison in the air? You don't like the Health Care Bill? You prefer insurance companies to deny people coverage because they get sick? And you prefer people go bankrupt because they get sick? Just so you know, a lot that is in the Health Care Bill was REPUBLICAN initiatives.

Ok, maybe the Repubs won't try to impeach Obama but they have been nothing but obstructionists since Obama got into office and they are not planning on changing that strategy. They will try to repeal the Health Care Bill but that will only be a tactic. Most of them really could care less about it one way or the other. They know that the bill was a crowning victory for Obama and therefore they have to say that it is wrong. By trying to repeal it, they will waste time-and probably A LOT of time. They know they don't have the votes to repeal it. But, by wasting time on it, that means that they don't have time to actually GOVERN-something they are totally at a loss as how to do. They only know how to obstruct.

One thing that you should be aware of is the fact that many of those Republicans in Washington could care less about you. They do not have YOUR best interest in mind. They only care about their rich donors and will work for THEIR best interest-not yours or mine.



Cat
CAT, they are gonna spew dirty poison into the air with or without cap & trade. It really doesn't make a significant difference in my opinion.

On the healthcare bill there is no cost containment in the bill.  I agree with you on the pre-existing clause in the bill however. Is there anything in the bill to contain out of pocket costs to prevent going into bankruptcy because of health care bills? I mean I  haven't heard about a provision in the bill to contain out of control out of pocket costs for people.
I especially don't like 111 new agencies being created due to the passage of the Health Care Bill. Thats crazy.

The Healthcare Bill yeah it was a victory for Obama I'm not gonna doubt that. The Health Care Bill has to be changed and revised. Some of the language has to be repealed and replaced but not the whole bill in my opinion. The Republicans should just do just that and come to the table with Obama and strip some of the provisions out and replace them rather than trying to repeal the whole bill. That seems like a better strategy to me.

The Republicans better care this time around or else they are gonna be thrown out in a couple years. They know they are getting a second chance here. Your right the Republicans have to prove that they can govern.

About Republican Obstruction the Dems never wanted to sit down with Republicans and negotiate wisely. The Dems just wanted to write the bills and have the Republicans negotiate with them after the Dems wrote the bills in my mind. If one political party writes all the bills than the bills are gonna turn out like crap in my opinion because your not moderating any of the billls in any kind of way.
There was a bipartisin Health Care Bill in the Wyden-Bennet Bill but I guess the Dems wanted a postion for the US Government in the delivery of health care so bad.

About the Special Interests the Dems have their own special interests like The Unions and Trial Lawyers and the Republicans have theirs like the Health Care Companies. The Dems have George Soros too who is a billionare.

It amazes me how you could think the worst Max but if the Republicans do nothing in the 2 years that their majority than they'll be thrown out too.


Obama won because his campaign ran a brilliant marketing strategy aimed at young people who don't usually vote.

I don't anticipate a repeat.

TV, you seem to think I am a partisan Dem.  I'm disenchanted with both parties.  

We have an uncontrollable forest fire in our political system.  The fire is unaccountable power.  Most of the power in this country is retained by the top deciles of the top deciles of the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the world.  The power will do what it wants.  The Jackass party and the Horton party are just toys for them.  I think the wealthiest people in the world will not save capitalism or the environment.  They will destroy it.  People say all kinds of glowing things about Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, George Soros, and so on ad nauseam.  These billionaires with their inspirational high-profile philanthropy are deceivers.  Ralph Nader even got seduced into thinking only they can save us.  Sorry Ralph, they won't.  They won't because they can't.  We're done.  We're over the cliff.  We don't feel it because yet because we haven't hit the rocks yet.  

Armageddon is coming.  It's not going to look like the Biblical visions of Armageddon, but it's coming.  After it's over, the survivors will return to hunter-gatherer cultures...and you can write your own dystopian novel from there.

I don't expect any of you to agree with me and that's okay too.
:)

CAT Carlos, what pieces of legislation led to the deregulation of banks during the Bush(W.) Administration are you talking about? The liberal media and Dems always say deregulation but what pieces of legislation are you talking about in the Bush(W.) administration?

As for the Deficit did you take September 11th, 2001 into account? I mean some of the surplus had to be used with events having to do with those events in my mind. The tax cuts and the two wars I agree with you on since neither were paid for.


The  legislation was past by the repub congress under Clinton.  It dissolved the separation between commercial and investment banks.  During GWB's admin, what regulatory authority the fed had was ignored while the bankers invented exotic instruments that no one understood.  Some $$$ had to be spent as a result of 9/11, sure, but it need not have effected the surplus.  The tax cuts killed it.

Obama won because his campaign ran a brilliant marketing strategy aimed at young people who don't usually vote.

I don't anticipate a repeat.

TV, you seem to think I am a partisan Dem.  I'm disenchanted with both parties.  

We have an uncontrollable forest fire in our political system.  The fire is unaccountable power.  Most of the power in this country is retained by the top deciles of the top deciles of the top 1% of the wealthiest people in the world.  The power will do what it wants.  The Jackass party and the Horton party are just toys for them.  I think the wealthiest people in the world will not save capitalism or the environment.  They will destroy it.  People say all kinds of glowing things about Bill Gates, Richard Branson, Warren Buffett, Steve Jobs, George Soros, and so on ad nauseam.  These billionaires with their inspirational high-profile philanthropy are deceivers.  Ralph Nader even got seduced into thinking only they can save us.  Sorry Ralph, they won't.  They won't because they can't.  We're done.  We're over the cliff.  We don't feel it because yet because we haven't hit the rocks yet.  

Armageddon is coming.  It's not going to look like the Biblical visions of Armageddon, but it's coming.  After it's over, the survivors will return to hunter-gatherer cultures...and you can write your own dystopian novel from there.

I don't expect any of you to agree with me and that's okay too.
:)
No, I know your not thrilled with the Dems or the Republicans for that matter.

I agree with you on Obama's strategy to engage young people to come to the voting booths and vote for him. However, I disagree with you I think that strategy will work for Obama in 2012 and the Dems will probably slighly win the US House again. Thats why Pelosi is staying put I think or at least part of the reason why she is staying.

I agree with you the rich aren't gonna save us.

The  legislation was past by the repub congress under Clinton.  It dissolved the separation between commercial and investment banks.  During GWB's admin, what regulatory authority the fed had was ignored while the bankers invented exotic instruments that no one understood.  Some $$$ had to be spent as a result of 9/11, sure, but it need not have effected the surplus.  The tax cuts killed it.
Sorry Carlos I mistaked one of your posts one of for your wifes posts.

Yeah "Glass Stegall" was the one bill passed by a Republican Congress and signed by then President Clinton. What I'm saying is the whole financial meltdown was both political parties fault in my opinion. You could be right about the exotic instruments invented but I don't know the details about them.

Sorry Carlos I mistaked one of your posts one of for your wifes posts.

Yeah "Glass Stegall" was the one bill passed by a Republican Congress and signed by then President Clinton. What I'm saying is the whole financial meltdown was both political parties fault in my opinion. You could be right about the exotic instruments invented but I don't know the details about them.


The Glass-Steagall Act was signed by FDR in 1933 and repealed by the nefarious Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act in 1999.  The Democratic Party held the majority in both houses of Congress in 1933.  Of course, the Democratic Party was radically different 80 years ago.

Sorry Carlos I mistaked one of your posts one of for your wifes posts.

Yeah "Glass Stegall" was the one bill passed by a Republican Congress and signed by then President Clinton. What I'm saying is the whole financial meltdown was both political parties fault in my opinion. You could be right about the exotic instruments invented but I don't know the details about them.


I don't know the details, but some of them were "derivatives", securities based on bundled mortgages, some were insurance derivatives, some were so complex that no one knew what they were based on.  There was also insider trading, and bankers ":betting" against their own clients.  And chances are the new regs will not be effective in curbing these abuses.

I don't know the details, but some of them were "derivatives", securities based on bundled mortgages, some were insurance derivatives, some were so complex that no one knew what they were based on.  There was also insider trading, and bankers ":betting" against their own clients.  And chances are the new regs will not be effective in curbing these abuses.


My old man used to say:

If you can't dazzle 'em with brilliance,
baffle 'em with bullsh**!

That's what "derivatives" are.  It was just stealing via deception.
::)

That's what "derivatives" are.  It was just stealing via deception.
::)


Derivatives, properly used, can be used to reduce volatility in one's stock holdings.  But that is when the derivatives are traded on an open exchange, and appropriate collateral is in place.

The problem with the mortgage debacle derivatives is that neither of these conditions were met.  Back in 1994 when I was studying derivatives at the University of Chicago, our prof (a Nobel honoree) explained why the various regs were in place and how not just anybody could go in and take derivatives positions that put the counterparty at great risk.  Unfortunately, various market regulations were lifted later in the 1990's and this opened the door to using derivatives as a gambling operation.

Derivatives, properly used, can be used to reduce volatility in one's stock holdings.  But that is when the derivatives are traded on an open exchange, and appropriate collateral is in place.

The problem with the mortgage debacle derivatives is that neither of these conditions were met.  Back in 1994 when I was studying derivatives at the University of Chicago, our prof (a Nobel honoree) explained why the various regs were in place and how not just anybody could go in and take derivatives positions that put the counterparty at great risk.  Unfortunately, various market regulations were lifted later in the 1990's and this opened the door to using derivatives as a gambling operation.


Didn't your alma mater also advocate deregulation and minimal governmental intervention in the marketplace?

(Whatever the marketplace is.  The pundits always speak of the market as though it is a singular great god doing battle with a singular evil god -- the government.)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/notworthy.gif

Didn't your alma mater also advocate deregulation and minimal governmental intervention in the marketplace?

(Whatever the marketplace is.  The pundits always speak of the market as though it is a singular great god doing battle with a singular evil god -- the government.)
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/14/notworthy.gif


I don't think that my boys were advocating the elimination of collateral requirements for naked derivative positions, or having a long position in a security when selling call options against it.

I don't think that my boys were advocating the elimination of collateral requirements for naked derivative positions, or having a long position in a security when selling call options against it.


Hope not.  When they're long and naked, you know what's gonna happen sooner or later!  Pick yer position or I'll pick it for ya!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

Anyway, somebody was asleep at the switch.  Just like the S&Ls in the '80s, the crooks walk away with the booty and the taxpayers are on the hook for it.

Hope not.  When they're long and naked, you know what's gonna happen sooner or later!  Pick yer position or I'll pick it for ya!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

Anyway, somebody was asleep at the switch.  Just like the S&Ls in the '80s, the crooks walk away with the booty and the taxpayers are on the hook for it.

Well in derivatives talk, you can't be long and naked at the same time anyway.  Unless you're Johnny Wadd and the laws of physics no longer apply.  ;D

Well in derivatives talk, you can't be long and naked at the same time anyway.  Unless you're Johnny Wadd and the laws of physics no longer apply.   ;D


Det. Johnny Wadd goes to Wall Street and sets 'em straight! 
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/13/ky.gif

I don't think that my boys were advocating the elimination of collateral requirements for naked derivative positions, or having a long position in a security when selling call options against it.


Elimination/reduction of collateral requirements for uncovered (naked) short options positions was/is a Bad Idea.  There are reasons why your broker doesn't let you do this without you effectively signing in blood that if you screw up, your broker can come after you for everything you've got and then some, because you haven't just screwed yourself, you've screwed them too.  There are occasions where it's worth doing on a small scale, but they're few and far between.  Shoot, I do some dumbass things in the markets, but that's one trade even I've never made.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with being long a stock and short a call option against it.  The covered call, aka buy-write, is one of the most conservative options plays possible. 

But those paragraphs I've just written are about individual investors.  The options I'm talking about are traded on exchanges, and there's always a buyer for every seller, because the stocks upon which those options are priced are trading hundreds of times every day.

You know the old saying, "when you owe the bank a million, you have a problem.  When you owe your bank a trillion, your bank has a problem." 

That's where we went off the rails.  Because the derivatives that blew up the world a couple of years ago weren't traded on any exchange.  They were traded OTC ("Over The Counter"), which refers to the sorts of transactions that don't happen on exchanges.  One guy calls up another guy and says "Hey, my model says 20% of your mortgageholders are going to be underwater in a year.  I think yours says 25%.  I could be lying about my 20%, and you could be lying when you tell me whatever you think your model says.  You wanna buy/sell insurance in case one of us is wrong?"

Markets determine price.  If you want to know what IBM is worth today, ask the NYSE during trading hours, and you'll get the opinion of thousands of individual investors, institutional investors, pension funds, mutual funds, and yes, even the opinions of the people who programmed Goldman Sachs' robots.  You're playing something akin to Blackjack or Roulette, you're playing thousands of hands over your career, millions of hands are played every day, and everyone sees the outcome of every hand.

If you want to know that the rate of default on a tranche of mortgages in Orange County, well, you've gotta call some people who know some other people.  The game isn't blackjack or roulette - it's poker.  If you sit down to a poker table and you don't know who the sucker is, it's you.


I don't think that anybody thought through the implications. Deregulation was seen as benign. All of the measures that the SEC took to wring more easy profits out of the industry were justified in the name of helping the little guy, the small investor. We went from trading stocks on eighths to decimalization. But while deregulation was justified as being pro-consumer, the results do not bear this out. Look at the unintended consequences. The average holding period for stocks has dropped dramatically. It used to be something like 22 months, now it is well below a year. "Investors" can no longer be considered to be investors anymore.

   - My fave macroblogger Yves Smith, interview on financial economics, deregulation and OTC derivatives, February 22, 2010.

Now, that link was way too informatively wonkish for a thread that's rapidly into a discussion about the distinction between investing, trading, and gambling.

So, time for a cartoon about it: I Trade Size (Warning: CGI cartoon with Naughty Language, but the little cartoon gets right to the heart of the matter.  (I spewed coffee at "You go to work in your shorts!  You may as well be playing online poker!" ))

Serious Explanation:  Switch the roles and timeframes, and the guys in the funny jackets in the CBOE pits ("futures locals") are the ones talking about long-term (hours/minutes) holding, and they're complaining about the HFT (high-frequency trading) robots - computers who "add liquidity" and "trade in size", but which have holding periods measured not in hours and minutes, but in milliseconds.

Scary Thought For The Night:  And somewhere in China, there's someone watching that video and seeing their culture as the one that makes investments that pay off in timeframes measured in centuries and decades, and ours as the one that evaluates itself only in terms of quarters and 4-year Presidential election cycles.

I play poker, but not roulette.  In poker you at least know the value of the hand you're dealt. 

That bit about China is right on

Maybe Obama will resign.  He'll announce we are a bunch of ungrateful m*therf**kers and he's going back to Kenya ("Where I was really born, so haha, up yours), now have fun Joe!
;D


I don't want him to do that, believe me.

Regarding Foo Bar's quotation from Y. Smith, "Investors can no longer be considered investors" anymore...

I don't speak in market jargon because I don't have the bucks to play the market; however, I can say without being a market player that the culture of investing needs to underpin itself with ethics and and acting in the long-term public interest.  Perhaps that means less chance for huge overnight gains, but it diminishes the risk of hyper-speculation and illusory wealth dominating the marketplace, which apparently has happened.