Had he lost the title would have been Baker Lets Big One Get Away:
Baker leads Coakley in Mass. governor’s race
Adding insult to injury is my printed copy which tells me Coakley led 47.9 to 47.2 with 70% of precincts reporting, and that is no fish tale. I look at the map and maybe my blue friends around here might start listening to thoughts of independence and secession, 'eh? Of course, that makes me a "terrorist," booga-booga-boo!
So the rich pooh-bahs in Bo$ton that run this state got the guy they are comfortable working with, great.
Continuing in state, the turnout was heavy where I was:
GOP picks up seats in Mass. Legislature
Seth Moulton beats Richard Tisei in run for 6th District seat
Election Night’s other winners and losers
So much for any surprise. That was a foregone conclu$ion in my mind, if you know what I mean. No way those machines and scanners going to allow us to tell that monied intere$t to take a hike. I did get to keep my five cents and got a real gas on the Q1 vote result (Q4 made me sick). I hope the Globe can answer any questions you may have beyond that.
Around New England:
Collins wins fourth US Senate term in Maine
Republican LePage narrowly reelected as governor in Maine
That brought a smile to my face.
Shumlin, Milne fail to get majority in Vermont, sending race to Legislature
Light turnout overall; US Rep. Welch easily wins
Shaheen defeats Brown in N.H.
Should have stayed here and run against Markey instead of taking a House in New Hampshire:
"Also on Tuesday, Republican Frank Guinta unseated US Representative Carol Shea-Porter, a Democrat, in their third matchup. With 84 percent of precincts reporting, Guinta had 51.4 percent to Shea-Porter’s 48.6 percent, according to the Associated Press. In the state’s other congressional district, Representative Ann McLane Kuster, a Democrat, beat back a challenge from Republican Marilinda Garcia, according to the AP."
That result also made me happy, and you can see why.
Gina Raimondo wins costly R.I. governor’s race
Two-time felon Cianci fails in Providence comeback bid
Do I really need to comment?
Malloy poised to stay as Conn. governor
He barely held on after Obama campaigned heavily for him. Even in the places he was supposed to help Obama hurt!
Nationally:
"Asked if her vote would change anything, Jane Dempsey glanced back at the empty sidewalk leading to the polling place. “I don’t know,” she said. “I really don’t know.” The bleak view of American politics resonated across the country on Tuesday, with voters heading in and out of polls expressing frustration and resentment against all things Washington. Optimism about the future was in short supply in this a-pox-on-all-your-houses climate. Whatever the health of the stock market or the encouraging drop in the unemployment rate, there was clear anxiety about the economy; Ms. Dempsey was not the only person who reported being unable to find a job. The issue that the White House might have expected to boost Democratic candidates — the economy, which by many measures is in far better condition than it was even two years ago — may have in fact proved to be a negative for the president and his party.
Then there really is no recovery (except for the political cla$$ and 1% that control them), and now you know why we are frustrated and angry with Washington disconnect and neglect.
In preliminary exit polls of voters conducted by Edison Research, a large majority of voters described the national economy in negative terms and most said the United States economic system favored the wealthy.
Looks like the American people are not so stupid after all, huh?
Despite all the negativity, a number of voters said they thought their votes mattered — in particular Republicans."
Hey, delusion isn't the sole providence of Democrats.
"GOP captures Senate, will take full control of Congress" by Noah Bierman | Globe Staff November 05, 2014
WASHINGTON — Republicans seized a majority in the US Senate on Tuesday, winning control of both chambers of Congress for the first time since 2006 as voters dealt a strong rebuke to President Obama.
The GOP, which needed a net gain of six seats, won nearly every close contest in which results were reported Tuesday night — from Colorado in the west to Kansas in the heartland to North Carolina in the South.
*******
Republicans framed the elections as a referendum on Obama, whose approval rating has dropped to near 40 percent nationally. It dipped even lower in several states that Republicans captured, most of which did not vote for him in 2008 and 2012.
Meaning they are likely a lot lower. He's in Bush country now.
In addition to contending with an unpopular president of their own party, Democrats faced an anxious electorate, put on edge by the beheading of two Americans by Islamic militants, the deadly Ebola virus arriving on American soil, an economic recovery that has been uneven, and qualms about Obama’s management of federal agencies.
Other issues once in the political limelight, including US military involvement in the Middle East and Obama’s health care law, receded into the background in many races.
Don't think I didn't notice. We are always treated to divisive social issues like race and gender. Thankfully, the gay card wasn't waved this year.
Without a unifying issue, Obama’s performance and declining popularity became the dominant theme of the midterm elections, the most expensive midterm elections ever, according to the Center for Responsive Politics....
The rush of negative advertising may have fueled a voter disillusionment that cut across party lines.
Hi, readers!
A national CNN exit poll found that 58 percent of voters said they were angry or dissatisfied with Obama; 59 percent were angry or dissatisfied with Republican leaders in Congress; 53 percent viewed Democrats unfavorably and 56 percent felt that way about the GOP....
We don't like either one because they have both failed and are part of the two-headed corporate war party.
The strong performance suggested Republicans had narrowed the gap with the Democrats over their tactical advantages in technology and organization, which had helped the party get voters to the polls in recent elections.
Or they rigged the machines better this time.
--more--"
Also see:
Republicans take top seats across the country
New regulations add to poll challenges in several states
It's a challenge reading and posting this stuff.
"Midterm election results may force President Obama to shift course" by Matt Viser | Globe Staff November 05, 2014
WASHINGTON — When President Obama swept into office six years ago, Democrats had firm control of almost every lever of government and a broad mandate for change.
And they failed. We got more wars, more spying, Wall Street got off the hook (save for the self-serving kickbacks known as fines), more wealth inequality, more police beatdowns, and on and on and on. All we got was a crappy health care law from that filibuster-proof Senate and Congress.
But as Obama monitored election results from the White House on Tuesday night, he confronted a painful message from voters: They wanted a different kind of change.
That's right.
Republicans won control of the Senate and expanded their grip on the House, likely forcing him to shuffle his staff and recalibrate his attempts to work with Republicans. Obama’s window of power is also now closing, with the political class in Washington already turning its attention to 2016 and who will replace him.
Two years is a long, long time.
Related: Democrats Desperate to Hold Senate
“It’s critically important for the president to recognize the political terrain has changed dramatically,” said Tad Devine, a longtime Democratic strategist. “If Republicans have control of the House and the Senate, it’s a whole new ballgame. He’s going to need to make serious adjustments in the ways he deals with the opposition.”
The new dynamics set up a potentially vicious battle between Congress and the White House, with Obama likely relying on his pen far more, both to veto legislation he does not like and to write executive orders that he does.
A Republican majority in the Senate will make it even harder for him to win confirmations, particularly if there is a Supreme Court vacancy. It will complicate efforts at far-reaching legislation, such as immigration or tax policy reform.
And after an election in which he was avoided on the campaign trail by many members of his own party, it may be more difficult for him to galvanize Democratic support.
Obama, who is expected to have a press conference on Wednesday to discuss the results, is planning to issue an executive order on immigration reform before the end of the year.
Yeah, he didn't issue the amnesty order before because bringing up immigration for electoral and political effect backfired. Turned out Americans are for rule of law. Now he is going to sneakily dictate with a dictatorship directive.
Working with Republicans — something that has happened infrequently in the past six years — is going to get even more difficult. Obama has little personal or political rapport with Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, who won his bid for reelection and is expected to become the new majority leader.
You know, so what? They are doing a job. Do you get along with everyone you work with (if you are lucky enough to have a job)?
*********
McConnell has never made much of an effort to be chummy with Obama, either. He has tried to defeat almost every Obama proposal, and in 2010 he said his top goal was making sure that Obama was a one-term president.
Related:
"McConnell’s weak approval numbers were false hope for Democrats and their allies. Campaigns tend to move partisans toward their respective corners. Campaign advertisements and messages emphasize the ideological differences between the candidates and polarize voters along party lines."
We call it the $hit show fooley now. Sorry.
Then the same politicians and media come back and decry the division and partisanship, blah, blah, blah (although the Israeli aid bills and war budgets seem to pass easily enough).
Obama’s best hope may be that Republicans will recalibrate their strategy for the 2016 elections, in which they have to appeal to a broader national electorate and become more amenable to cutting deals, particularly on immigration.
Why? Immigration turned out to be a winner for them.
But analysts view that possibility as remote.
“A horrible situation on Capitol Hill is going to only get worse,” said Julian Zelizer, a political historian at Princeton University. “The idea that there’s going to be room for compromise is a nice idea, but it’s not likely. Republicans are going to feel emboldened and they’re going to push the president much further than he wants to go on domestic policy.”
I have been saying that for years, months, weeks, days. Every time we "vote(?)" for change things get worse.
Most presidents see their party struggle to win during midterm elections. President George W. Bush called the 2006 midterm losses — when Republicans lost 30 House seats and six Senate seats and control of both chambers — a “thumping.”
Back then I actually thought such things mattered, did extensive work to make sure another election was not stolen from Democrats, was happy they took power -- and then got a surge into Iraq and capitulation to Bush on the bank bailouts.
Obama called the 2010 midterm losses — when Democrats lost six Senate seats and 63 House seats and control of the latter chamber — a “shellacking.”
The purpose of these staged and scripted results seems to be to provide cover for future actions with the illusion of influence by voters. You voted for change! How can you then complain?
Of course, I was somewhat happy in 2010 because you had some TRUE Tea Party patriots, and not the bought-off impostors of corporately controlled opposition. Even those have been dispatched this time as the establishment blocked any of those candidates.
Obama’s struggle in 2014 has been particularly notable. Republicans blistered his record and few Democrats campaigned with him. The elections turned into a referendum on Obama’s leadership, with no one really leading the effort to defend him.
Core Democratic constituencies appeared unmotivated in the 2014 elections.
That's what happens when you take someone for granted and offer them lip service.
*********
Obama is likely to do what many presidents do in their last two years: turn to the foreign stage, where they may have more leverage to effect change.
Great, more wars on tap.
But even there, Obama faces difficult challenges. Relations are thorny with both historic foes such as Russia as well as historic allies such as Israel; conflict in Iraq and Syria has become a mess; and Ebola continues to have a hold in parts of West Africa.
One possible breakthrough could come with a nuclear agreement with Iran, but Republicans will likely be skeptical.
“There’s things there he can do, and there’s the potential for progress,” Devine said. “But the most important thing he can do right now is that he understands he needs to take a different tack.”
He's had six years to know that; why would he change direction now?
--more--"
I would like to leave you with this thought, and it explains my lack of enthusiasm the last few weeks and months for all this, as well as the cynicism regarding the $hit show fooley this year:
"Election Day Alert: When Democracy Broken, Progress Impossible
As most expensive mid-term elections in history take place Tuesday, a progressive voice wants Americans to remember this: 'When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial.'
by Jon Queally, staff writer
When democracy becomes numb to the desires of its citizens and
political campaigns become sporting events for television pundits, the
ballot box becomes a sad (if necessary) expression of populist will.
That's the argument put forth on Tuesday by one progressive candidate
who challenged the political status quo this election season.
In Guardian op-ed
on Tuesday, Zephyr Teachout, the Fordham Law School professor who this
year took on New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo in a primary challenge from the
Left, says that amidst many other valid theories about the source of the
"disgust and apathy" so many feel toward this year's election, the
simplest explanation may be this: "people don’t like being told falsely
they have power when they don’t."
What's essential for Americans to recognize this Election Day—set to be the most expensive mid-term in U.S. history—says
Teachout, is that confronting this reality of disempowerment is not
something to avoid, but the key to achieving the real progressive change
so many desperately desire.
"There is one issue that subsumes all other issues, upon which all other issues depend," she writes, "and that is restoring democracy itself."
"If we don’t have a responsive democracy, all the debates about charter schools, and fracking, and high-stakes testing, and the militarization of police forces – all of which are issues I care about – they aren’t real debates. When elections are not democratic, even the most populist discussions become superficial, disconnected from real power; they are theatre."
The key reason for this disconnection and disempowerment, argues Teachout, is clear: the massive amounts of money flooding U.S. elections. "The key to fixing public financing is to free politics from big money," she writes and offers state-level public financing schemes—as seen in Maine, Connecticut and elsewhere—as the most readily available solutions.
And as pollsters and pundits have focused like laser beams on whether the Republican Party will increase its majority in the House of Representatives or take majority-control of the U.S. Senate and watchdogs have reported on the astronomical levels of campaign spending, Teachout points out that the fundamental nature of the democracy is largely not part of the debate, especially in the mainstream and corporate media.
For Teachout, the key reasons for this are twofold. First, in a post-Citizens United world, private campaign spending has given nearly unprecedented power to the large corporations (and the wealthy individuals who control them) to sway policies and control the debate. Second, because so much of the campaign spending is driven by advertising dollars, the media system itself has a large financial incentive to maintain the status quo.
"In banking, energy, gas, cable, agriculture and search, we have a limited number of companies that have accumulated so much power they are acting as a kind of shadow government, controlling policy, vetoing laws before they can even be presented," she writes. "Candidates refuse to stump about a cable-TV merger because they’re afraid to get shut out of MSNBC. They don’t take on big banks because big banks have become too big to fail, to jail and even to debate about policy."
And the solution? Fight back, urges Teachout.
"We need a populist movement made of candidates and protests and clear demands," she writes.
Even as voting remains essential, she argues, it's clear that these battles cannot be adequately fought or won at the ballot box. Like so many other progressive voices have stated
recently, the key to reforming the state of American democracy is an
effort that will have to take place, not within the confined boundaries
of the current system, but one that challenges these institutions and
policies from outside and from below.
"We can keep protesting our own democracy, despite the facts, or we
can actually deal with the root cause: concentrated wealth taking over
our politics," Teachout concludes. "Like the best generations of
American reformers before us, we can change the basic structures. We can
actually build something – and the people will get the power back."
--MORE--"
