Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On November 4, 2014, Americans voted to punish the party in power for not fixing the mess caused by the other party, which was pushing the same policies that caused the mess they elected the party in power to fix.
Anyone have a rational explanation for this?
Still blaming bush is why the dems lost . 6 years in charge and the best the dems can do is blame bush
On November 4, 2014, Americans voted to punish the party in power for not fixing the mess caused by the other party, which was pushing the same policies that caused the mess they elected the party in power to fix.
... They didn't want to vote for the other party, so they didn't vote and therefore let people like me decide. Not voting is voting.
(emph. mine)
Bold is very well put, and note that the same point could be applied to people who vote 3rd party. If you're a persuaded individualist and vote Libertarian, you're handing a gift to the collectivists, i.e. the Democratic party. If you're a persuaded collectivist and vote Green Party, you're handing a gift to the individualists, i.e. the Republicans. There are exceptions, but generally this applies.
My family members, who are long-term almost blindingly loyal voters of "the party in power" that you speak of, chose not to vote this time because they, and most of their neighbors, personally are worse off financially now than in 2008, when they thought they were electing a savior. No community has suffered greater economic losses than the president's base. They didn't want to vote for the other party, so they didn't vote and therefore let people like me decide. Not voting is voting.
Which in my opinion is a lesson no political parties EVER seem to consider. In the private sector, the question is "how can we get this segment of the market to come to us?" In the political sector that question seems never to be asked.
After the 20122 election, the Republican and right wing sources would talk about the (two million, then four million, and finally) six million Republicans who sat out the election, and so Obama won. Nobody I can recall ever did the most basic of research as to whether or not this was true, and if true, were those absentees in states where their voting might have been a difference.
Let's pretend the assertion was true of 2021, that 6 million Republicans sat it out. Why would they? Because they did not like Romney because of Romneycare in Massachusetts? Because they did not like the policies that Romney expressed during the campaign? Because they were anti Mormon bigots?
In 2014 why did the Republicans do so well? Because of the stubbornly high unemployment? Because voters were tired of the stalemate in the legislature? Because of Benghazi and the IRS scandal and the VA scandal and the NSA scandal? All of the above.
I have not seen any talk of how many millions of Democrat voters may have sat it out. If they had, is it possible that they were sick and tired of Obama and his lack of interest in his job as President.
I agree with you that not voting IS voting. The problem is, who cares? Not the Republicans or the Democrats, for sure.
Bold is very well put, and note that the same point could be applied to people who vote 3rd party. If you're a persuaded individualist and vote Libertarian, you're handing a gift to the collectivists, i.e. the Democratic party. If you're a persuaded collectivist and vote Green Party, you're handing a gift to the individualists, i.e. the Republicans. There are exceptions, but generally this applies.
Not voting is not "voting." In this country, in order to have your voice heard, you must vote.
Obama intended to imply that "the two thirds that chose not to participate" were in support of his policies. This is arrogance, and it is a slap in the face to those of us who did vote, and voted against his policies.
Not voting does not count, in this country, and one cannot presume to know what those who did not vote support or do not support. What is clear to me is that if these non-voters supported the Presidents policies, they would have taken the time to vote.
Not voting does not carry equal weight as voting, which is what Obama and the Democrats intended to imply.
The fact that the Republicans not only increased their control of the House, but took control of the Senate with a comfortable majority, but they also increased their control of State governorships and State legislatures is not to be discounted.
For Obama and the Democrats to claim that the results of the election meant nothing, but were some kind of fluke, or aberration, is downright insulting to my intelligence, and the intelligence of all those who voted.
Obama and his policies were rejected. Period.
Last edited by nononsenseguy; 11-17-2014 at 12:56 PM..
Not voting is not "voting." In this country, in order to have your voice heard, you must vote.
Obama intended to imply that "the two thirds that chose not to participate" were in support of his policies. This is arrogance, and it is a slap in the face to those of us who did vote, and voted against his policies.
Not voting does not count, in this country, and one cannot presume to know what those who did not vote support or do not support. What is clear to me is that if these non-voters supported the Presidents policies, they would have taken the time to vote.
Not voting does not carry equal weight as voting, which is what Obama and the Democrats intended to imply.
The fact that the Republicans not only increased their control of the House, but took control of the Senate with a comfortable majority, but they also increased their control of State governorships and State legislatures is not to be discounted.
For Obama and the Democrats to claim that the results of the election meant nothing, but were some kind of fluke, or aberration, is downright insulting to my intelligence, and the intelligence of all those who voted.
Obama and his policies were rejected. Period.
This is basically a game theory question. If you decline to participate, you have handed an advantage to those opposed to you.
Another way to see this is an old quote...maybe it was Pericles, maybe Trotsky: "You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you." As OldHag said, not voting is voting.
On November 4, 2014, Americans voted to punish the party in power for not fixing the mess caused by the other party
Sorry, no. Clinton-era liberals caused the 2008 financial crisis. The Clinton-era HUD imposed Affordable Lending Goal Mandates on the 2 biggest sources of mortgage financing in the U.S., Fannie and Freddie. Mortgage lenders HAD to make those little to no down payment and subprime loans because HUD mandates stipulated that more than 50% of the loans Fannie and Freddie bought and resold as MBS HAD to be made to low-income earners, exactly those who had little to no money for a down payment, and as it turned out, not enough income to make their mortgage payments.
The HUD low-income loan mandates forced Fannie and Freddie to loosen their "conforming loan" lending standards, thereby negatively impacting the entire mortgage industry.
Quote:
"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, government-sponsored enterprises (GSEs) in the secondary mortgage market, are the two largest sources of housing finance in the United States. They fund these mortgages by purchasing loans directly from primary market mortgage originators, such as mortgage bankers and depository institutions, and holding these loans in portfolio, or by acting as a conduit and issuing mortgage-backed securities (MBS), which are then sold in the capital markets to a wide variety of investors.
HUD is the mission regulator for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and a major aspect of this regulation involves setting minimum percentage-of-business goals for the GSEs’ mortgage purchases. These housing (or lending) goals deal with the enterprises’ support for low-income lending and lending in underserved geographic areas. Given the dominant role of the GSEs in the mortgage market, the housing goals play an important role in encouraging mortgage originators to undertake more affordable lending. The Department recently updated these goals, significantly increasing them for the years 2001-03.
In March 2000, HUD issued a proposed rule, significantly increasing the GSEs’ affordable housing goals for the post-2000 period, and this rule was finalized in October."
Countrywide was one of Fannie Mae's best loan originator partners, which is why Mozilo never went to jail.
Quote:
"...Countrywide tends to follow the most flexible underwriting criteria permitted under GSE and FHA guidelines. Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac tend to give their best lenders access to the most flexible underwriting criteria, Countrywide benefits from its status as one of the largest originators of mortgage loans and one of the largest participants in the GSE programs. When necessary—in cases where applicants have no established credit history, for example—Countrywide uses nontraditional credit, a practice accepted by the GSEs."
My family members, who are long-term almost blindingly loyal voters of "the party in power" that you speak of, chose not to vote this time because they, and most of their neighbors, personally are worse off financially now than in 2008, when they thought they were electing a savior. No community has suffered greater economic losses than the president's base. They didn't want to vote for the other party, so they didn't vote and therefore let people like me decide. Not voting is voting.
My family members, who are long-term almost blindingly loyal voters of "the party in power" that you speak of, chose not to vote this time because they, and most of their neighbors, personally are worse off financially now than in 2008, when they thought they were electing a savior. No community has suffered greater economic losses than the president's base. They didn't want to vote for the other party, so they didn't vote and therefore let people like me decide. Not voting is voting.
What does any of that have to do with the president's party?
The Democratic agenda that people claim to hate so much... its been stalled for the last 4 years in Congress. I was just asking where is the rational thought behind punishing Democrats for Republican obstruction?
Then again, this is a loaded question. Conservatives have never been rational to begin with.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
