I disagree with you there, since we aren't some monolith responsible for other people's votes. Vast portions of the country want the abortion bills to start flying which is the exact reason they are voting for the Republicans in the first place. This is still a deeply religious country (and some of our immigration policies are ironically insuring we stay that way for years to come). The rest of us will be stuck in the dark ages, but I don't see why we deserve it.

I think there's a sense of frustration, because we already saw the results of 2010, when a lot of voters stayed home to "punish" Democrats or because they felt the GOP would solve their problems. Instead, the economy got worse, the government was nearly shut down, and most of the focus was on impeachment talk and banning birth control and all forms of abortion.

Now we're in the same position. Yet again the public seems to believe the GOP can fix their problems, even though it will likely just be more abortion bans, more impeachment talk, more hysteria about Benghazi and ebola and whatever else, hysteria about religious exemptions and how the gays are threatening "religious freedom," more business boosting.

It gets to the point where you even wonder why you bother, because people always end up supporting the worst option.

And the media is so eager, practically panting for the GOP to romp. They love it. They have their stories already written up. It's hot and sexy and wild. Increasingly tabloid-ish sites I'd once expected better from, like TPM, recently had up articles boasting about how this year would be "The Year of the Republican Woman" in the Senate. Once someone realized how incredibly stupid that sounded, they changed the headline, hours too late. You have SNL, still tagged by many as "liberal" (why, I don't know) pushing for the GOP. There's so much time and money and media focus invested in a GOP Congress, and if they get their way, a GOP White House too. And apathetic voters or easily manipulated voters always seem to be fine with going along with it.

It's hysterical to me that Democrats think they can woo black voters even as the run from the nation's first black president.

It's beyond disgusting that the Dems would be using the slogan "If You Want To Prevent Another Ferguson In Their Future..." on a campaign poster. I thought the Dems are the party of facts, while the GOP is the stupid party, but the last I checked, Ferguson happened even though America has a Democratic president and Missouri has a Democratic governor. And furthermore, the Dems are the party of hope, while the GOP is the party of fear. (Or, so I have been told.)

The Dems fear they are going to get their asses handed to them next week, so I guess whatever race-baiting tactics are necessary, right?

The messages are coursing through the campaigns like a riptide, powerful and under the surface, largely avoiding television and out of view of white voters. That has led Republicans to accuse Democrats of turning to race-baiting in a desperate bid to win at the polls next Tuesday.

“They have been playing on this nerve in the black community that if you even so much as look at a Republican, churches will start to burn, your civil rights will be taken away and young black men like Trayvon Martin will die,” said Michael Steele, a former chairman of the Republican Party. “The reality of it is, the Democrats realize that their most loyal constituency is not as loyal as they once were.”

Edited October 30, 201411 yr by Max

I'm very angry/annoyed at the President though and his stupid White House for allowing him to say such stupid things on camera and on the radio with Al Sharpton (who I don't like). He knows what a tough environment Democrats were are facing and yet he's still saying stupid sh&&t like "my policies are on the ballot" and "these are folks who voted with me". Great job sir. Enjoy that Republican majority ole Mitch at the head.

The bottom line is that the President is not a net positive for these folks. And I think most black voters are smart enough to understand that and won't trip if a Democrat has to put some distance between themselves and the President. Esp in Kentucky where he's pretty much poison. It's just a necessity. And if I were living in KY I would be telling every black voter to vote for Grimes because she is no where near as bad as McConnell will be for the President.

Prince is exactly right that Obama is nothing but a huge drag on Democrats running this year. This article in the National Journal (which is a mainstream publication, not to be confused with the conservative National Review) elaborates upon this:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/against-the-grain/white-house-in-denial-president-obama-is-costing-democrats-control-of-the-senate-20141029

I don't know why President Obama's most zealous supporters are upset that Senate Dems need to run away from him. It is just the reality of the situation, and Obama is far from unique in this matter (the exact same thing was true when Senate Republicans ran away from Bush in 2006). With Obama's approval rating at 39 percent in New Hampshire, it's hard to make a case that race is a key reason for his unpopularity (if anybody here is thinking that).

Edited October 30, 201411 yr by Max

I think there's a sense of frustration, because we already saw the results of 2010, when a lot of voters stayed home to "punish" Democrats or because they felt the GOP would solve their problems.

You're touching on something that sets me off like no other and that's people who think that not voting is some kind of principled stand. I see these imbeciles saying things like "I'm not going to vote until things change" or "I refuse to participate in the two party system" and I just want to slap them until I get carpal tunnel. It shows how some people have completely confused democracy for capitalism. In capitalism if a business isn't doing what you want, withholding your money can be a great motivator. Withholding your vote, however, has the opposite effect. It actually rewards bad governing. There are so many options for showing up to the polls and still registering your displeasure: third party voting (which I will never do again), write-ins or voting "none of the above." Staying home and acting like you are sending a message is just ignorant, lazy bullshit.

Edited October 30, 201411 yr by marceline

I'm sorry that my response was nasty regarding the desperate racial attacks that the Democrats are resorting to, but it doesn't change how I feel about that disgusting campaign poster. I don't understand why the party can't motivate African-American voters to go to the polls without resorting to extremely negative ads.

Withholding your vote, however, has the opposite effect. It actually rewards bad governing. There are so many options for showing up to the polls and still registering your displeasure: third party voting (which I will never do again), write-ins or voting "none of the above." Staying home and acting like you are sending a message is just ignorant, lazy bullshit.

I understand why you might feel this way, but personally, if neither candidate deserves the job, or if both candidates are just "evil," I will most certainly not reward one of them with my vote. (And unless the TP or write-in candidate has a realistic chance of at least making a decent showing, I find it to be a useless waste of time to chose those options.)

Edited October 31, 201411 yr by Max

R.I.P. longtime Boston Mayor Tom Menino:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2014/10/30/thomas-menino-boston-longest-serving-mayor-has-died-age/zAuWXQ4ccPJSv7uuW0kcDK/story.html

I understand why you might feel this way, but personally, if neither candidate deserves the job, or if both candidates are just "evil," I will most certainly not reward one of them with my vote. (And unless the TP or write-in candidate has a realistic chance of at least making a decent showing, I find it to be a useless waste of time to chose those options.)

But not voting actually DOES rewards those candidates. Both of them. If you have 1,000 voters and they all go to the polls then the candidates have to work to get 501 people to vote for them. If 900 of those people decide to stay home then they only need 51 votes so your refusal to participate in the process just makes it easier for those evil candidates to become evil lifelong politicians. Also, keep in mind that most of the people who think they are taking a stand also don't vote on things like school levies or ballot initiatives. So even in situations were people worked hard, got signatures and put an issue on the ballot (you know, the things that actually CAN change the system) these petulant, lazy children sit home and tell themselves that they are making the world better by doing nothing. Because apparently they think all big social change came about by doing nothing.

Mind you, I don't consider third party or voting none of the above to be good options. I'm a strategic voter. If I can't vote for a candidate then I'll vote against one. But not voting at all isn't a statement, it's self sabotage.

It's often difficult or foolhardy to make predictions on elections that are two years away. Here is an amusing look back on what the "experts" first thought about 2014:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1112/83680.html

Hell, it's always possible that something totally unexpected could happen next week.

Edited November 1, 201411 yr by Max

I disagree with you there, since we aren't some monolith responsible for other people's votes. Vast portions of the country want the abortion bills to start flying which is the exact reason they are voting for the Republicans in the first place. This is still a deeply religious country (and some of our immigration policies are ironically insuring we stay that way for years to come). The rest of us will be stuck in the dark ages, but I don't see why we deserve it.

From the four corners of the country, the American people has allowed itself to be bamboozeled by the party of school shootings. There is nothing left to tell the people and it isn't just in Hick HQ, USA where all republicans yearn to live or something, but it is in NJ where their republican governor was getting 70% approval ratings even as he was one of the "a gun in every bassinet" crowd and who now pretends he has no opinion on global warming and says "I am not a scientist". The American people seem to believe we are not a society as a whole, but many individuals who coincidentally live on the same land mass. So "if my neighbor gets sick, !@#$%^&*] him because I am not coughing up a dime" is what the people want. That's what republicans are selling and apparently thats what a majority of americans seem to be buying, as well as a school shooting in every state. Not quite a chicken in every pot, but the NRA does what it can.

In a surprise move, The Boston Globe has endorsed Charlie Baker for governor.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/editorials/2014/10/26/charlie-baker-for-governor/r4Yymw55jVr20D53EhUIkK/story.html#comments

I can only imagine they are doing this because they have concluded that Martha Coakley has almost no chance of winning. I am no fan of her politics, but one would have to be heartless not to feel a bit sorry for her given the humiliation of being a Democrat who loses two statewide races in Massachusetts.

I cast my ballot for the Georgia gubernatorial and senate race yesterday. It was very crowded. Glad to see more participation and enthusiasm than the last election.

How did it compare to 2010? Or is that the one you mean?

How did it compare to 2010? Or is that the one you mean?

There was just overall lack of participation and interest in the last election. Our current governor's career has been plagued with accusations of things from stealing money and giving jobs to his friends. I thought more people would turn out to keep him out of office. Since being in office he has continued to show what a racist, elitist crook he is. Cutting the Georgia HOPE scholarship, his piss poor handling of the snowstorm we had this year, doing little to nothing about unemployment, and publicly defending a new Confedrate flag license plate here. Finally people's eyes are opening!

As for Perdue, I can not stand him either. I really hope neither race leads to a run off and Carter/Nunn get their 50+%. I want it made official Tuesday night.

I've read about some of that with Deal - declaring bankruptcy right after being elected seems a little shady to me.

I also hope they both get to 50+1.

It seemed like the Democratic Party in Georgia was moribund after 2002 wiped them out so seeing them so competitive this year was a nice surprise.

Perdue seems like a huge idiot to me, and a blatant business stooge. Between making fun of a primary opponent for not having a college degree, his love of outsourcing, and his attacking his opponent's FATHER for not voting to keep the Panama Canal, it's pathetic that he has a shot. Even more pathetic is that this is actually reasonable compared to many current GOP candidates.

I am going to take back my earlier prediction of the GA Senate race (in which I predicted a Nunn victory); with that race, the only thing I feel I can predict at this point is that a runoff will occur. All my other Senate predictions remain unchanged. (If I didn't state earlier, the GOP will win in LA, though I believe that race will also go to a runoff.)

A race-by-race analysis for the House is impossible, but my best guess is that the Republicans will have at least 240 seats, though less than the post-1930 peak of 246 seats achieved after the 1946 election. I also believe that GOP House candidates will win more votes than Democratic House candidates.

The gubernatorial races are very hard to predict, but I believe that the following states will experience changes:

*AK will have an Independent governor.

*Democrats will gain governorships in FL, ME, and PA.

*Republicans will gain governorships in AR, CT, IL, and MA.

Edited November 2, 201411 yr by Max