Statists want to cancel mid-terms

[dm1333]

Welcome to Obama's America:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/3/wh-tuesdays-vote-not-true-national-election/

Despite signs pointing to Republican gains in Tuesday’s midterm elections, White House aides said President Obama won’t change his leadership style because the contests in red states don’t represent a “true national election.”

With the GOP in striking distance of regaining control of the Senate, White House press secretary Josh Earnest said Monday that “the vast majority of [Senate races] are actually taking place in states that the president did not win in the last presidential election.” And he said the Republican-friendly nature of this year’s electoral map would be a reason for the White House to limit any lessons learned from the outcome.

“The electorate is different this time than it is in a traditional presidential election,” Mr. Earnest said. “That will be part of the calculation that’s made as we consider what sort of conclusion should be appropriately drawn from the election.”

He added, “Any analysis that you do is different than the analysis that you would do on a true national election.”

On Tuesday, all 435 House seats, 33 Senate seats and 38 governorships are up for grabs.

What a bunch of bafflegabic bullshit.  Republicans increase their majority in the House, increase the number of governor's to 32 (? is that right) and took over the Senate.  That is the kind of stupid sh*t you say when you just got your *ss handed to you and you don't understand how that happened!


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/3/wh-tuesdays-vote-not-true-national-election/#ixzz3IF4odR6Q
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

[wmenorr67]

Explain how you lost the Massachusetts Governor's office.

[erictank]

I agree. I think even the crappiest Republican administrations seemed to have a pretty strong respect for the election process and term limits and "following the rules". Progressives are much more liable to want to bend the rules or use legal tricks to get what they want. Example, when they all wanted to kill the electoral process because of Gore. Had things gone the other way, they would have been staunchly defending the Electoral process.

They *WERE* defending the electoral process, right up until it stopped going for them and went against them. Leading up to PE2K, I remember report after report, article after article, quoting or talking to leftist after leftist droning on and on about how, "Even if the POPULAR vote goes for George W. Bush, as long as the ELECTORAL vote goes for Al Gore as we expect it to, Mr. Gore will be the President of the United States." They were absolutely ready to run roughshod over the "clearly expressed will of the people," (as determined by the popular vote) when they thought the rules were going to work FOR them. Once it became clear that the situation was the other way 'round, respecting the "clearly expressed will of the people" became FAR more critical to them.

That was one particular reason I so enjoyed all those Sore Loserman signs that kept popping up during the extended selected recounts that still couldn't put Gore over the top.

[makattak]

What a bunch of bafflegabic bullshit.  Republicans increase their majority in the House, increase the number of governor's to 32 (? is that right) and took over the Senate.  That is the kind of stupid sh*t you say when you just got your *ss handed to you and you don't understand how that happened!


Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/nov/3/wh-tuesdays-vote-not-true-national-election/#ixzz3IF4odR6Q
Follow us: @washtimes on Twitter

It's what Democrats firmly believe. It's why they don't think that voter fraud is wrong: "All those people that don't vote REALLY would vote for us Dems, so if we cheat, it's just making up for those 'voiceless' people who don't vote."

[Jamisjockey]

Obama's not out of office yet. Even with no tinfoil I think it is less than 100% that he leaves in Jan 2017.

Nah.  But I bet his administration trashes the white house on the way out, like bad renters.

[MechAg94]

I heard mention this morning that Hilary Clinton campaigned for several Democrat candidates and they all lost.  That might mean she is out for the next election and new Democrats will be running.

[Ben]

Nah.  But I bet his administration trashes the white house on the way out, like bad renters.

I won't bet against it. Even Clinton's team did some of that. I predict Obama's people will be worse (at least if an R wins).

[roo_ster]

Funny enough, the Left thinks exactly the same thing of the Right. They follow the rules, that the Right buys more politicians and are more likely to break the rules to get what they want.

Thinking about it, the Left is probably more correct, but not by much. Most recent "next thing to a coup" was LeMay during the Cuban missile crisis. Before that, Banker Plot against FDR. Neither was even close to a real coup. LeMay was probably unlawfully exceeding his authority and arguably trying to start a war, not drive tanks down Pennsylvania Avenue. Probably, it's hard to tell, the Joint Chiefs were insane at the time.

Yet another instance of the supposedly "reality-based community" getting it wrong and ignoring pertinent research.  One of the moral bases conservatives have more respect for is authority, rules, laws, and such(1).  One reason why when they lose, conservatives don't whine about the electoral college relative to the common plaints about the EC when liberals lose the POTUS race.




(1) Liberals are just as moralistic, they just have different moral bases:  http://projectimplicit.net/nosek/papers/GHN2009.pdf  I find it interesting due to the subject matter itself, but also in the way is monkey wrenches "homo economicus," the stand-in used by both marxist and market economists and theories.