Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2014 11:23:00 PM (view original):
His point is that there is always turnover, regardless of the decisions, successes, and failures of the prior administration. GOP taking back control of the senate was probably happening regardless of anything obama did or didn't do.

That's not really a "point".  it's an observation.

The "point" would be an explanation as to why it happens.  Contrarian doesn't seem to be to providing an explanation other than "**** happens".  I think there's something more to it that that.

People don't tend to vote for change if they're satisfied that what's already in place is working well and meeting their wants and needs.

People say they like change but they don't.   People like comfortable. 

I guess all the gains that the House and Senate made in 2006 were not a statement about dissatisfaction with the policies of the Bush Administration.

Neither was Obama's election in 2008.

Funny though.  I seem to remember the Dems rhetoric was that a vote for McCain was a vote for four more years of Bush.

Anybody else remember that?

The blonde chick does.   Darkhaired girl seems a bit confused by the question.

One thing is for certain.


If it DOES happen it's definitely BUSH's fault NOT OBAMA's!

I don't think it's a mandate even if the numbers might say it looks like one.  The Republicans aren't running on anything at all.  No policies, no agenda, no plan, no nothing.

And it kinda ****** me off really.  As a conservative, I'm obviously not for much of anything the current administration is trying to do; but I have no idea what the republicans are going to try to do.

Oppose whatever Obama proposes.   That's their plan and agenda.  

Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2014 8:35:00 AM (view original):

Posted by bad_luck on 11/2/2014 11:23:00 PM (view original):
His point is that there is always turnover, regardless of the decisions, successes, and failures of the prior administration. GOP taking back control of the senate was probably happening regardless of anything obama did or didn't do.

That's not really a "point".  it's an observation.

The "point" would be an explanation as to why it happens.  Contrarian doesn't seem to be to providing an explanation other than "**** happens".  I think there's something more to it that that.

People don't tend to vote for change if they're satisfied that what's already in place is working well and meeting their wants and needs.

An observation can be a point but setting that aside.

He's showing that people do tend to vote for change anytime one party has held power for an extended amount of time. The reality of politics in America is that a large percentage of people will be unsatisfied no matter what.

Why do they become unsatisfied?

Politicians suck.  They want "the next guy" in hopes that he doesn't suck.  But then he sucks.  And it continues.

Part of the reason of why a politician may be seen as sucky is media-driven.  Saying someone is wonderful in office isn't a story, but making fun of someone or catching someone in a lie is.  Bush being seen as someone who doesn't have command of the english language is funny.  Bush did good things as well, but that's not fun to talk about. Obamacare is something very different in our country, and it's increasing health care costs to many people, which some people see as horrible in a still relatively struggling economy.  It's a better story than "x amount of people now have access to health care, yay."

So when what you hear about is "the president did this bad thing" people slowly begin to want to change.

But in general, politicians also suck.

Posted by tecwrg on 11/3/2014 12:35:00 PM (view original):
Why do they become unsatisfied?

Become unsatisfied? Roughly half the country was unsatisfied with Obama before he spent a day in office. If we're attaching everything to the President, only a tiny sliver of the population had to flip to put the Republicans in charge.

As a whole, people are unsatisfied with political leadership when they personally disagree with a political stance that will never change (pro-life/pro-choice, etc.), or they are poor, or they aren't poor but feel that their taxes are too high, or any of a number of things. 

In general, I think politicians should worry less about what people think and more about what the right decision is. For example, the 2009 stimulus is still considered a failure by some people (even the Wall St Journal ran an opinion piece calling it that the other day). In reality, the stimulus was a success by all objective measures.

Posted by burnsy483 on 11/3/2014 1:01:00 PM (view original):
Politicians suck.  They want "the next guy" in hopes that he doesn't suck.  But then he sucks.  And it continues.

Part of the reason of why a politician may be seen as sucky is media-driven.  Saying someone is wonderful in office isn't a story, but making fun of someone or catching someone in a lie is.  Bush being seen as someone who doesn't have command of the english language is funny.  Bush did good things as well, but that's not fun to talk about. Obamacare is something very different in our country, and it's increasing health care costs to many people, which some people see as horrible in a still relatively struggling economy.  It's a better story than "x amount of people now have access to health care, yay."

So when what you hear about is "the president did this bad thing" people slowly begin to want to change.

But in general, politicians also suck.

It's not that they suck(whatever that means).   It's just that their agenda becomes "How do I get re-elected?" at some point.   Then they stop making decisions that are "good" and more about what's "popular". 

Using Obamacare as an example, it went full on when he no longer had to worry about being re-elected.   I have no doubt that Obama believes it's good for the country even if the country doesn't seem to find it as appealing as he does.    But he doesn't try to push it thru in his first term.  Because he wanted a 2nd term. 

While we're never going to be a one-term country, it seems like term limits for all elected officials would be a step in the right direction.    The POTUS is allowed two terms.   Why not apply that to Congress?    Be rid of career politicians. 

Posted by MikeT23 on 11/3/2014 1:42:00 PM (view original):
While we're never going to be a one-term country, it seems like term limits for all elected officials would be a step in the right direction.    The POTUS is allowed two terms.   Why not apply that to Congress?    Be rid of career politicians. 

Love this. +1

70 members of the HoR have been in office over 20 years.    A guy from MI has been in since 1955.   Are you ******* kidding me?
16 senators over 20 years. 

Essentially 1/6th of our elected reps have been in office since 1994.