4 Takeaways From The American Midterm Elections In 2014

On November 4th, Americans trudged off to the ballot box to cast their votes in the midterm election. The Republican Party won decisively, taking the Senate, while increasing their numbers in the House. This means that for Obama’s last two years, he will face a hostile Congress that will not be receptive to working with him.

Generally speaking, midterm elections—typically—have significantly lower turnouts than years with presidential elections, so it is a bit tougher to draw lessons about the electorate and the future of American politics. However, there are some lessons to be drawn from the outcome on Tuesday night.


1. The Obama Era Is Over

It has been a tumultuous six years, but the Obama era is over. Obama has two years left as President, but he is the lamest of lame duck Presidents. Congress is firmly controlled by the Republicans and Obama’s supporters are as dispirited and demoralized as they have ever been. Outside of national crises, foreign policy, and Supreme Court nominees, his tenure as President will end with a historical whimper.

It has been an amazing run for Obama. From his historic election in 2008, the “shellacking” his party took in the 2010 midterms, followed by his fairly convincing reelection in 2012, it certainly has been a curious run for the man. He has gone from the golden boy of the West to a president who will end his tenure with the opposing party in control of Washington.

His crowning legislative achievement—Obamacare—is highly controversial. Unlike other important legislative acts—such as the American’s With Disabilities Act—it was a decidedly partisan bill that is still vehemently opposed by Republicans. It’s roll-out was a disaster and is little more than a doubling down on the dubious concept of employer-sponsored healthcare.

His presidency, much like his predecessor George W. Bush, will not be judged kindly. Much like Bush, he will spend his last years with the opposing party controlling Congress with a firm grasp, while he is left to ponder his legacy for America.

2014 Republicans

2. Republicans Have A Great Chance To Lay The Groundwork For 2016

The Republicans have not been handed a mandate by the people. Simply put, the Republicans have been handed an opportunity to make the case to America that they are committed to enacting policies to improve the economy, address social malaise, and correct the excesses of the Obama administration.

Without Obama on the top of the ticket, the Democrats got buried. A sluggish economy coupled with Democratic misdiagnosis of the issues at hand gave the election to the Republicans. Without Obama’s star power to lift mediocre Democratic candidates, they collapsed at the hands of highly organized Republicans who kept hammering Democrats about the economy.

In order to most effectively deal with the possibility of Hillary getting the nomination in 2016, Republicans needs to take advantage of this situation fully. They need to emulate what Democrats did after seizing control of Congress in 2006: Pass simple legislation that reflects the core ideological values of the party. Republicans need to prove that they can get things done.

They should start by directly addressing the voiced concerns of the average American. They need to avoid partisan recrimination—the sort of recrimination that hurt Republicans in Clinton’s final term—and prove they are first and foremost interested in advancing America’s progress.

3. The “War On Women” Talking Point Was Not Successful

In their inability to divine what exactly is bothering America, Democrats doubled down on the “War On Women” talking point. Access to abortion and governmental subsidization of birth control did little to sway voters—especially female voters.

With the economy in the tank, coupled with stagnant wages and a deteriorating social fabric, Democrats failed to prove to they are “the change we can believe in.” Their fall-back to naked appeals to women smacked them right in their face. Women need jobs and are worried about their social climate, not just their ability to balance a working life with their sex life.

Greg Abbott roundly stomped Wendy Davis in Texas for the governorship, all the while beating her by nine points with female voters. Even female voters got tired of the heedless and inflammatory rhetoric around the “War On Women.” Women voters are much more than their uteruses, and Democrats should have found that out in this election cycle.


4. The Republican Party Is Not Dead

As is to be expected with political hubris, Democrats have been calling the Republican Party dead the past couple years, as a doctor might prematurely pronounce a patient rushed into the ER. Examples are here, here and here.

Democrats—much like their Republican counterparts in the wake of George W. Bush’s reelection in 2004—vastly overplayed their political hand and assumed their political dominance wasn’t temporary, but rather spoke to eternity.

There is no such thing as a permanent, ideological majority.

While Republicans certainly didn’t win this election outright, Republicans reminded the nation why they are relevant and the growing party going forward. Democrats  combined an out-of-touch campaign strategy with a level of lethargy and got smacked in the mouth, rightfully.

Republicans have a chance to change America for the the better. Whether they will, only time will tell. I’m not holding my breath.

Read More: The Seven Ugliest Women In The Democratic Party

247 thoughts on “4 Takeaways From The American Midterm Elections In 2014”

  1. All I know about the election is that gun control pushes are gone for at least two solid years at the Federal level.
    The rest is up for grabs. I don’t trust the GOP whatsoever, however I trust the Dems even less since they’ve come out of the closet since about 2003 in being open, arrogant screaming socialists.
    Ideally I just want to be left the fuck alone to live my own life as I see fit. Neither party will grant me that, but right now the Dems make an open promise to enslave me, whereas the GOP does it a little slower and still has some “off limits” areas that they don’t have the balls to venture into…yet (see: gun control above).
    Fuck it. Move me to an anacap paradise full of gold, silver, the finest whiskeys, and an island policy of no women older than 28 and no dress size larger than American 4 and I think I’ll call it a life.

    1. 2003? I thought the socialism cat was out of the bag in 1993 when Bill Clinton tried his first push for nationalizing health care.
      Granted he moved far away from the left after he lost Congress.

      1. Right, but that was just Bill Clinton and his cadre of smug elitists. I mean leftists in general, such as your aunt who may be a democrat, or the neighbor who may be a democrat, they’ve all seemed to either have come out full tilt socialist (maybe without even knowing it) or they’ve left their party and started down the “independent” route out of disgust for what its become. At least that appears to be the case in my neck of the woods.

        1. Truth. Story of my life. Spent high school as a punk rocker reading Chomsky and Zinn. I registered as D at 16. At 20 I switched to independent and never went back. I’m now a proud vote-thrower awayer that will choose any third party over the corporate overlord donkey and elephant.

        2. “I’m now a proud vote-thrower awayer that will choose any third party over the corporate overlord donkey and elephant.”
          Same. People tell me I’m wasting my votes, but I get to tell both parties who screwed this all up to screw off while I’m helping to lay groundwork for one of these third parties to take off someday.

        3. “helping to lay groundwork for one of these third parties to take off someday.”
          Would that be before or *after* our sun goes nova? Dream on.

        4. LOL. The same thing happened to me. When I turned 18, my grandmother, a staunch democrat, dragged me down to city hall, signed me up to vote, and informed me that I was a democrat.
          I voted D for a few years until I realized how full of shit the democrats were, I then registered as non partisan and voted R for a few more years until the religious reich took over the republicans, and i realized how full of shit they were.
          I have proudly thrown away my vote for many years.

      2. Definition of Socialism: A system of slavery where profits are privatized and losses are socialized.
        How bout 1913, when they let a cabal of secret bankers write the federal reserve act and gave a private group of thieves the monopoly to counterfeit American money. Oh, and the IRS and income tax (slavery) just months later to keep these thieves happy.

    2. “Ideally I just want to be left the fuck alone to live my own life as I see fit.”
      This was once the foundation of life in the US. Now it’s something that we wish for.

      1. It used to be. Fuck this two party enslavement system.
        The defense of the natural rights is the only ethical use of government, let people free!

      2. “”Ideally I just want to be left the fuck alone to live my own life as I see fit. (…) This was once the foundation of life in the US. Now it’s something that we wish for.”

    3. Sounds like a plan. I have my weight in gold and silver, currently drinking a fine wiskey, got laid earlier today, ate a good home cooked meal (I cooked). Woman is over 28 though….but subject to change.

    4. The problem with ancap is that it creates a power vacuum which will necessarily be filled by forces less accountable to the people than elected government, especially in a global age with massive corporations that wield unprecedented political and even military power. And think about ultimate progress, things like the space program. There was no money in it initially, no reason for a purely money-motivated society to invest in it. We did it because of idealism and a cultural vision, to prove that we were better, qualities that purely money-driven capitalist leaders don’t possess because you can’t reach the head of the business world by exercising them.

      1. I wasn’t intending to debate you or others on anacap. I was relating a fantasy I knew would not and could not come true. Fantasy being the key word. My ideal. My utopia.
        Realistically, I’d settle for living someplace that just left me the hell alone most of the time.

    5. Ideally I just want to be left the fuck alone to live my own life as I see fit.

      Agreed. Either the Right wants to legislate Christian morality on you, or the Left wants to stick their hands in your pockets. The problem, as I see it, no matter who gets elected it’s more gov. It’s not Red vs. Blue, it’s the Gov vs. You.

      1. BOTH sides want to impose their morality on me and BOTH sides have their hands in my pockets against my wishes, to fund things I have not and would never approve of if asked.
        It’s not Red vs. Blue, it’s the Gov vs. You.
        I agree.

        1. I agree also but realize that we’ve been so far to the left that the repub’s victory may actually make a difference this time. Not just with gun control, but anti-male legislation, and immigration issues as well.

        2. The new generation of Repubs might be more savvy about the BS underlying the past 13 years of post-9/11 America as opposed to the previous majorities.

        3. I’m not sure if we’re allowed to mention “BS” and “9/11” in the same sentence here…

      2. “It’s not Red vs. Blue, it’s the Gov vs. You.”
        That’s the way it always is, and always was. And it cannot be any other way.
        Of all progresssivisms evils, the idea that there is a meaningful difference between good and bad government, is the most insidious. As it causes even people who ought to know better, to fumble around in the dark trying to make government “better.”
        In reality, there is no such thing. All government is bad. Always and everywhere. The only difference, given that it is all bad, is whether it is small or big.

      3. The right does not want to “stick the bible in your face.”
        Have you been to a Tea Party rally? Its the only movement in history which, if given everything it wants, will leave you the hell alone. Today’s Right is everything you libertarian types claim to want, but y’all are so busy painting us as no different than the socialist scum on the Left, to notice we’re on the same team.
        Why it’s so fashionable these days to claim there’s no daylight between the Dems and the GOP, I’ll never know. And don’t come with that “BECAUSE IT’S TRUE, YOU IDIOT.” Sorry. You’ll need more than that.

        1. The Religious Right still has a lot of power, even if it’s been dwindling lately. They’ve been a stalwart friend of the Right, so Republicans are careful not to piss them off. As long as the Religious Right is more dependable than the libertarians the GOP will stick with the Religious Right. I don’t have a problem with this, it’s just the way politics is.
          I understand the Republicans are “supposed” to be pro-Libertarian, and they sometimes bill themselves as such, but they aren’t. For one, just look at the incredibly costly wars in Iraq and Afghan. Now I’m not a pure isolationist, but good God, man. The GOP is also for big gov when they can pander to the their base, who tend to be older Americans. For example, Medicare Part D, which subsidizes prescription medication for seniors. That was pushed through by Republicans. If the poor voted Republican the way seniors do, the Republicans would probably give them free stuff too.
          We have a saying here in the manosphere, “never believe what a woman tells you, only what she does,” and I think that applies to politics as well. Hell, it applies to everyone. Republicans have been a reliable friend when it comes to gun rights, but Democrats have been reliable on things like Marijuana legalization. So, while Dems and Reps are not the same, the two parties are closer to two sides of the same coin than I think you want to admin. That’s why libertarians need and have their own party. The biggest hurdle they need to overcome is all the money that’s entrenched in the two parties, who don’t want to see a third party “stealing” votes from them.

        2. I am a conservative, andthe right DOES want to stick a bible in your face, this why they have been losing to the liberals for so long. The voters are justifiably terrified of a right wing theocracy.
          There almost no difference between the fascist right and the marxist left, they both want to control you and tell you how to live. Look at the cries of the right, get back to god, keep prayer in school, more god in government, use the bible in schools, use of public finds for religious projects, christianity as a de facto state religion etc.
          And the worst one of all, hobby lobby. It is an obscenity that a corporation is allowed to be exempt from the regulations that all other corporations have to follow because of it’s owners religion. I understand that an individual has religious rights, but a corporation does not, it is just a piece of paper.
          The hobby lobby fraud violates three constitutional amendments, case law back to 1879, several decades worth of corporate law, and the bible.
          The next time there is an accident or an injury at a hobby lobby store, the owner need to be held personally responsible.
          Since hobby lobby’s theocrat in chief thinks he can use religion to pierce the corporate veil in one direction, he needs to find out that liability can pierce it in the other.
          Cross, crescent, swastika, hammer and sickle, no difference.

        3. I agree. Republicans are in an awkward situation where they need the Religious Right for votes, yet the candidates who appeal most to that group literally terrify the rest of America. The Religious Right is also a reliable source of ammunition for the Left. Todd Akin, anyone?

      4. Yep..both sides do it. One does cash the other does credit. They both have a “religion” that they want you to follow.

    6. Eventually the nation will fracture and the white part will be pretty freedom loving so look forward to that.

    7. This country was founded as a Repubic. The act of voting gives your power away, the govt are supposed to be public servants and do what an honorable man requires. However in a “democracy”, it’s the other way around, voters are simply slaves.

    8. Agree. Neither party is looking out for my best interest. At the end of the day, all politicians are looking out for their own best interest (and many are doing very well these days – it’s something they don’t want average, working class Americans to pay attention to here).
      If you’ve been around for any number or years, the ball just goes back and forth (like two 5 years olds playing catch) with countless other Americans not even invited to the “game”.
      Democracy in this country is fleeting fast…we damn sure shouldn’t try to show other countries how it’s done….we’re too fucked up as it is now.

    9. You know, in light of this recent turn of events, it might do a lot of you guys some good to seriously rethink this ‘voting is for suckers’, poor man’s George Carlin act you got going on.
      Not holding my breath, of course.

      1. I didn’t advocate not voting. In fact, especially at local and state levels, I think it’s a powerful tool.

  2. Four actual takeaways:
    1. It doesn’t matter.
    2. It makes no difference.
    3. So fucking what.
    4. Big fucking deal.

    1. Yup. We need to see this as a system that is not designed to benefit us, but on the contrary, to extract as much work, wealth and resources from us and our country as possible.

      1. AfuckinMEN. Lets be frank here. They aren’t trying to extract resources from the “country” primarily…its just the MEN. Since we are the ones who get shit done…are more motivated, work harder and have the in born trait to sacrifice for others(family,friends,wives etc).

        1. Thus it is most important to be able to control us. Women being a perpetual achilles heel for our sex.

      2. Nope. We’re finally going to get some answers as to why our government left four people to die in Libya, why the IRS was sicced on conservatives, why we’ve been running guns to Mexican drug lords.
        If I had a dime for every person who’s gone on with this “it doesn’t matter” crap, I could buy an island.

        1. “Nope. We’re finally going to get some answers as to why our government
          left four people to die in Libya, why the IRS was sicced on
          conservatives, why we’ve been running guns to Mexican drug lords.”
          No you won’t. You may get some half ass report on these items but more shit will come up to “keep you busy”…and many Americans won’t care at that point…they need jobs, food, fuel, etc…that other shit only matters when all of the other requirements are met.
          I’ve watched the “game” for decades…and that’s how it goes (no matter the party).

        2. “No you won’t. You may get some half ass report on these items but more shit will come up to “keep you busy”…and many Americans won’t care at that point…they need jobs, food, fuel, etc…that other shit only matters when all of the other requirements are met.
          I’ve watched the “game” for decades…and that’s how it goes (no matter the party).”

    2. Agree. Nothing new to see here. A few of them may be new to the game on the hill…but it’s still the same game (with a few new players).
      You’re money will still be wasted on shit that we don’t need (whether it’s welfare for an individual, a social program or corporate welfare like military contracts).
      New pigs at the trough feeding on taxpayer money.

  3. The most interesting thing about this election was the disconnect between elected officials (conservative) and all the ballot measures passed (liberal – minimum wage, abortion rights, legal weed (!!!), etc.).

    1. I don’t get why anyone would vote to hike the minimum wage at all, but legal weed I think is an issue that transcends both political sides. There are many nominal conservatives who have no problem with not just legalizing weed, but ending the War on Drugs completely. There are also many flaming liberals who see weed as evil and wish to continue the War on Drugs.

    2. Fiscal conservatism, social liberalism.
      I want my taxes cut, I want spending brought under control, and I don’t care if you fire up a joint.

      1. Back in the olden days, way back when, we called that “libertarianism” and as it happens, it’s was the default position of most people, give or take. Seems it hasn’t quite died out the way the Left wanted it to.

        1. Wouldn’t it be great if we ever got back to libertarianism?
          Not sure we can, though. Too many people have too much vested interest in getting government goodies.
          We won’t get it back until after we totally crash, default, and the country is in shambles. Then the appeal of small governments where people took care of themselves, their family, their neighborhood, community, etc, etc will return.
          Long after I’m dead unfortunately. Se la vi.

        2. Libertarianism has no real world application, it’s an abstraction. No society can really be organic and at the same time extend maximum freedom to all. Constraint and hierarchy, whether you like it or not is a social necessity.
          I think what most libertarians here really believe in is a patriarchy with a small, government.
          Someone must decide … I use Cincinnatus as an example.

        3. Libertarianism is not anarchy, Orange. It is small government, Constitutionally restrained, with very limited and defined roles that cannot be exceeded. To conflate libertarianism with what appears to be anarchy by reading your post, is wrong. There is an anacap movement in the libertarian party, but it’s small, the majority of members are Constitutionalist small government to the core. The split from the Republican party in 1971 wasn’t over “anarchy vs. hierarchy”, it was over the GOP becoming another statist big government party. Read the GOP writings from the 1950’s and they’d sound exactly like libertarian mainstream writings today.
          I think what most libertarians here really believe in is a patriarchy with a smal, government.
          I agree absolutely, and would add, even outside of here for most of them (some wackmobile fringe types to the exception notwithstanding).

        4. It is hard to nigh impossible to sell the notion of freedom and accepting full responsibility (good or bad) for one’s actions, when the competition promises free shit without consequences or judgment. Sure, they don’t deliver, but that’s their marketing campaign, and really outside of promising everybody free sex with beautiful people, provided by the government, there’s not a lot that can compete with it.

        5. You might believe yourself to be a libertarian, but I think if you examined what extending equal rights to all men ACTUALLY LOOKED LIKE, you would become a monarchist or a general republican of sorts. What libertarians always over look is that men are not equal, nor should they enjoy equal opportunity or rights.
          Society is organic, meaning you can create all the rules you want, but someone ultimately has to enforce those rules. Who decides who enforces those rules?
          An aristocracy, always. If you want to claim it’s the rule of law, fine, but that rule of law is never a product of the “people” … it comes from elites.
          America was never a libertarian society, it was formed by a natural aristocracy of men who were of extraordinary intelligence, far exceeding the masses. They created republican ideas which were centered around a free market and a meritocracy economy, but were enforced locally by an agrarian aristocracy of men residing in each state.

        6. “Constraint and hierarchy, whether you like it or not is a social necessity.”
          No one is advocating anarchy.

        7. I really have no interest in debating you on this. No offense, but I’m rather well acquainted with my politics, and am not an idealistic 19 year old fresh faced kid in college taking the Nolan quiz.
          The only equality I believe in is equality before the law, nothing else, nothing less. I’m not even entirely certain that’s possible in full, but one has to have goals.
          Equality of rights seems rather reasonable, as long as those rights are few and apply as self evident (the bill of rights comes to mind). Rights invented out of whole cloth we reject rather unilaterally (all the leftist invented rights).
          I also subscribe to the Aristocracy of Merit that the Founders adhered to, which is in fact not out of line with actual libertarianism. We talk about it all the time, it’s a fine way to approach things actually.
          It appears to me that you’re actually accepting actual libertarianism as most in the LP would espouse it, while telling me I don’t believe in it. That’s rather odd really. As I said, get rid of the notion that we’re a bunch of right wing anarchists, and instead examine real life. Nothing you said is alien to me nor disagreeable, nor to any actual LP member I know (anacaps to the exception of course).
          I was an officer in my state party for a while (whoopee friggin’ do, I know, right?), and this exact debate happened every election term. A small fringe of anacaps would bring up every point you do (except on the opposite side) and they’d be smiled at and eventually patted on the head and told to sit down.

        8. Exactly. The crash is in the pudding and will eventually will come to an end, but when of course is the question. Getting it back isn’t a given. Freedom only comes to those that fight for it.

        9. Free hookers and booze, or a lifetime of work, introspection, duty and diligence? Hehehe.

        10. Exactly. I hear this all the time from people, and it makes me both laugh and wonder where exactly they have come to their understanding of libertarianism. From the mainstream parties? lol, fie on that!

        11. Yup, freedom is a personal decision that cannot be guaranteed, only safeguarded by society (patriarchy).

        12. Who says that you can’t have anarchy and hierarchy? You can be a part of what every hierarchy that you like, which will be the case everywhere in anarchy because they form naturally. The key in anarchy is that these hierarchies are voluntary associations. They actually work quite well in everyday society even today if we only acknowledge them for what they are.
          Right now we are subject to every stupid fucking thing that Washington comes up with, by penalty of losing all of your shit and freedom if you don’t cooperate.

        13. You didn’t really refute what I said, you just aren’t interested in examining the premises of libertarian though, which are based on the optimism of the Enlightenment.
          My POV rejects post Enlightenment political philosophy as being careless and in consistent in real life application, much in the same way communism is inapplicable.

        14. Aristocracy, upper class, the illuminated ect. form naturally everywhere and will always exist. As you said, men are indeed not created equal. They should however be afforded by enlightened society an equal opportunity to succeed or waste their lives as they see fit.

        15. I know the arguments, I’m stating that right now it’s a no sell. We can’t even get people to buy small government, and constitutionally restricted powers. Trying to sell anacap in this environment would be like trying to ice cold lemonade to eskimos in the middle of December.

        16. But that’s an optimistic assumption. Someone has to be there to make sure that equal opportunity is available.
          Libertarians somehow believe ideas enforce themselves. That’s not human nature.

        17. I’m not interested in examining YOUR premises of libertarian thought.
          You are echoing actual mainstream libertarianism and you don’t seem to realize it. It’s like you’re picking a fight with somebody on your side simply because you’re bored. Have you noticed that the other libertarians here are agreeing with things like “hierarchies are good” and “natural aristocracies are good”, etc?
          Chill out dude, it’s Friday, you have real enemies in the outside world, there’s no need to pick arguments with people who actually agree with you, wot?

        18. Wrong. Again, you are presuming anarchist, not actual mainstream libertarianism. If you are going to beat a dead horse, at least pretend to have read our posts. Geez.

        19. Me thinks you don’t know what that word means:
          Anarchy – without ruler. That’s it. The rest is just inference of its result. Hierarchy would form in anarchy just as the sun rises. There is a difference in being ruled and being lead. I as a man accept that I will lead and I will follow. Being ruled, as a man is an option that I must concede only when I have no other options.

        20. I worked on the Paul campaign in 2008 and 12, I am well aware of what libertarians believe, I just don’t agree.
          But you are correct, we are virtually on the same team (against the left).

        21. Well to be more clear than, since I brought up the topic, *I* wasn’t advocating anarchy, but rather the cookie cutter understanding of libertarianism.

        22. I think there are times when it does not apply.
          Example: A random man pulls out a Tommygun at a football game, and starts firing *over* the heads of people in the stands, recklessly and clearly without a care who dies. Bullets are clearly landing across many parts of the stadium, but he’s not aiming at or trying intentionally to harm anybody.
          Guess what? I shoot him, dead.
          He hurt nobody, technically. I’m still capping his ass.
          And it’s called the non-aggression principle, which is a bit different than ‘anti-aggression’. Semantics to be certain, but every word counts.

        23. I honestly don’t know if Paul fills the Libertarian bill, but that may be just me being picky, heh.
          Slainte. Have a great weekend.

        24. Isn’t it? Natural order establishes itself all the time when allowed to. Isn’t patriarchy a natural phenomenon which springs from each of us without command and is only disrupted by unnatural government power?

        25. No worries, I was writing to Bart.
          In response though, I would gladly take libertarianism over what we have, but would prefer the least amount of government that society could handle.

        26. For sure! This society has the government it deserves. But we are men are we not? We should not discuss settling for shit, but instead debating the optimum society, and other lofty ideas, yes? If not us, whom?

        27. You worked on the Paul campaign, so what do you think about my thought:
          Although Rand has moved towards mainstream Republican values and away from some of his father’s values, he is only doing this to get elected, and will be much more like his father once elected.

        28. No, patriarchy is organized violence. The powerful make the laws, and decide when to go to war, how much to tax, and what the laws will be.
          Libertarians believe these problems, which are fundamental to the human condition can be “solved”. The whole “you can’t tell me what to do” attitude is a luxury of an affluent society.
          Burke and Locke were wrong, in their as semen of individual rights. They don’t exist apart from the state legitimizing them, therefore the state is superior.

        29. Oh, I agree Rand is a fraud, his father was much more honest.
          But I really don’t care because libertarianism, as I have found out, is not based on principles, it’s based on abstractions.

        30. The state is legitimate in the defense of natural rights or individual liberty, because this allows society to evolve out of the mud huts.
          The question for society is this: Do we excercise our individual rights and make rules for ourselves as part of voluntary associations, or do we have rules imposed upon us and live as the governed?
          The US was founded by powerful men that knew that prosperity would come to this country where Men were allowed for the most part to govern themselves and their families as they see fit, and keep the product of their labor.

        1. Went up under Obamacare. FSA’s got reduced from 5k to 2.5k and can no longer use your FSA for over the counter medication except insulin. Kind of sucks if you or someone in your family has a chronic condition.
          Of course there were tax increases on dividends for upper income people and medicare tax increases too. Tax increases for tanning salon usage, tax increases for tobacco etc, SS cap tax increases.
          Depending on one’s spending and overall income, there were plenty of increases under Obama.

        2. That doesn’t refute those listed tax increases. Yes, under Obama, my taxes have in fact increased because my FSA was dropped in half. I’m a type 1 diabetic so I burn through that FSA pretty quickly on testing supplies and insulin.
          That means that i had $2,500 subject to more taxes as I used to max out my FSA (I highly suggest one take advantage of an FSA if they can, particularly if they have kids or chronic conditions). As I said, depending on one’s spending and overall income there were plenty of tax increases under Obama.
          Your links about the rich paying less does not make the above untrue. You asked if that poster’s taxes went up under Obama, not did the tax burden on the rich decrease.

        3. You cares about you personally. Overall, tax rates for more American’s than not decreased under Obama.

      2. Drug use is in and of itself non-violent and does not violate natural law, hence laws against its use is illegitimate.

        1. Exactly. While somebody might go psycho gonzo on an OD, generally speaking almost all of the violence associated with drugs comes from either enforcement by the LEO’s, or by the environment that is created by driving the market underground.
          You don’t see people shooting up shit and each other in the Netherlands.

  4. I was impressed that so many blue states elected Republican governors. Even liberals can get to the “enough is enough” point with regards to taxes.
    My prediction is the media will spend the next 2 years tearing down 0bama. They do this not because they wish him ill will, but rather because they need to set up a disconnect between him as being a failure so that the next Democrat presidential nominee can run without being seen as running for 0bama’s 3rd term.
    Mrs. Bill Clinton’s political brand has been severely tarnished, as all the candidates she endorsed lost. She may not be able to rebuild it in the next two years. Her age is also working against her for any 2016 campaign. I believe the Democrats will set her aside in favor of Elizabeth Warren, who is far more liberal than both her and even 0bama on most issues. The Democrats will pin their 2016 election hopes on promising to “give away more of the store” to the low information majority that we saw vote in 2008 and 2012.

    1. And another takeaway:
      If you are a straight white male, and especially if you subscribe to the Christian faith and even moreso if you choose to pursue a career which doesn’t require college, there is NO place for you in the Democrat party.
      This doesn’t mean the Republican party is for you, but the Democrat party has stopped at nothing to destroy this particular demographic in every possible way.

    2. “My prediction is the media will spend the next 2 years tearing down 0bama. They do this not because they wish him ill will, but rather because they need to set up a disconnect between him as being a failure so that the next Democrat presidential nominee can run without being seen as running for 0bama’s 3rd term.”
      That made absolutely no sense.

      1. Actually it does make good sense. These people work in tandem with each other, and they have long term goals instituted over nearly a century and a half now. They are the descendants of Fabian Socialists, whose entire plan was to implement the ideals of communism/anarcho-socialism over generations instead of one revolutionary push. In short, they are trained this way and they live for more than just the current election cycle.
        Something we need to start paying heed to before its too late.

      2. Most mainstream media outlets are just propaganda wings for the Democrat party. During the 2008 election cycle they did everything possible to prop up the message that 0bama was a messiah.
        Consider also the following, would any Republican president have been able to get fawning media coverage if he had done the following:
        1. Repeatedly make mistakes regarding politics. 0bama once said that Canada had a president, that Austrian is a language, referred to Marines as “corpsemen,” said that Hawaii was part of Asia, cracked jokes about Special Olympics competitors, called a female reporter “sweetie,” said there were 57 states, said that 10,000 people died in a Kansas tornado that killed only 12 people, etc. The same media that didn’t report these things skewered George W. Bush when he made similar mistakes.
        2. Run guns to Mexican drug lords (compare this to the media’s coverage of Iran-Contra).
        3. Use the IRS to go after political enemies (compare this to Nixon’s doing the same).
        4. Use federal funds to prop up failed wind/solar power companies, with no oversight on how the money was spent.
        5. Create a huge government-run website that still doesn’t work.
        6. Preside over a real “jobless recovery.” George W. Bush was repeatedly attacked as doing just that when there were more people working than there are now.
        7. Made the Veterans Administration into even more of a sad joke than it is.
        8. Refused to investigate, much less prosecute, any of the bankers involved the 2007-Present financial crisis.
        I could go on and on. The mainstream media carries this president’s water, and to a lesser extent, props up Democrats at every turn.
        Go read some of the posts on CNN about Elizabeth Warren, you’d think they think that she’s the next messiah or something like that.

        1. Hehehe… there was also a quote of his saying that certain east coast cities were on the Gulf Coast but I don’t remember the whole thing.

    3. I agree that they are likely going to have a battle between Hillary and Warren like the battle in the ’08 primaries, with the establishment supporting Hillary and the Daily Kos folks supporting Warren. If Warren wins the nomination, she can run as a leftist populist and probably get quite a few white working class votes.
      The recipe for the GOP to win in ’16 is to win the white working class — male and female alike. Warren would make that much harder, because she can spit leftist populism at the white working class with sincerity and conviction. It would really be a challenge for the Republicans to beat her with that demographic, and if they don’t get that demographic, there’s no way for them to win.

      1. I’d bet Warren doesn’t run because if Democratic primary voters/activists found out about her corporate work in private practice she’d be exposed as a massive hypocrite. And you can be sure Hillary’s! operatives have all that info teed up and ready to roll.

      2. I think Warren would be a pushover. Hilary can win because she’s a centrist whose last name is tied to economic prosperity. As the midterms show, a lot of people are tired of this leftist bullshit.

        1. Hilary is a centrist ???????? The poster child of the communist party. She is so lost and clueless, she belongs on a milk carton.

      3. Almost all demographics are against the republicans.
        They need to learn that christians are not the only people and voters out there.
        They need to stop alienating gays, non believers, other religions, minorities etc.
        Ronald Reagan’s era is over, you can no longer win elections by pandering to to christians.
        The religious reich is the democrats best friend. and will continue to cost the republican party votes and elections.

    4. The media will have fun trying to explain away legitimate health concerns about Clinton. Like her concussion from fainting due to dehydration along with that life-threatening blood clot that was in her brain.

  5. We’re only just beginning to hear this “War on Women” nonsense. It’s just a prelude to try to make Hillary immune to criticism. Critiques of Hillary will be met with a thunderous “misogyny!” Just wait and see. They tried to do the same thing with Obama and racism. I’d be surprised if the Left ever nominates another white man for President. White men aren’t immune to criticism, but women and minorities can play that victim card.
    The other Leftist strategy with the so-called “War on Women” is if you convince women they’re victims, then you make them think they need a Leftist in Washington to put an end to said “war.” It’s the old, “You’re a victim so you need to elect me into office to fix society for you,” tactic. Just look at how many times the Left repeats the Gender Wage Gap Myth, even though it’s been disproved hundreds of times. They know it’s bullshit, but they don’t care, they’re trying to grab power.

    1. And the average voter is too ignorant and/or lazy to discern the messages they are fed in MSM from reality. So the left is free to espouse their deception without consequence.

        1. It’s not me you should worry about. It’s the Chinese Joos. They are the real puppet masters. Inventors of gun powder, and now they are buying up massive US debt. They own the country.

    2. The only possible way the GOP can respond to Mrs. Bill Clinton (she is nothing more than Bill’s wife and has accomplished nothing politically without that) is to take it as a shit test:
      “Do we want someone who is going to cower away from (Vladimir Putin|ISIS|whoever the enemy of the week is) and complain that she’s being treated “unfairly” because she’s a girl? Or do we want someone who will stand up to our enemies?”
      Make Mrs. Bill Clinton look like a weak victim, and some women might find that appealing, even if they won’t admit to it.

      1. You mean someone who will swallow Vladmir Putin’s havka and tell Uncle Sam that he is harassing her?

    3. Obamacare is the War on Women. Why do you think women turned so sharply on the Dems in this election?
      As long as women have to pay 5 times as much as they used to for health care, they will not vote Dem. Obamacare poisoned the Dem party. Plain and simple. As long as Obamacare remains in it’s current form, women will hate the Dem party, much like the rest of America.

  6. Now we just wait for King Obama to try some “executive action” and get impeached. May our cups runneth over with liberal tears.

    1. 0bama isn’t afraid of impeachment. He knows that even with 54 GOP senators (assuming LA and AK go GOP), there’s no way 13 Democrat senators would vote to remove him from office.

      1. Actually, that may not be true. A lot of these Dems want desperately to untether themselves from Obama and Obamacare, especially after this election has shown that adherence to the party line costs them jobs.
        Hopefully anyway.

        1. I look back at the Clinton impeachment trial. Many Senate Democrats then verbally chastised Bill Clinton and said they were very angered by his actions that led to the impeachment.
          But not a single one voted to remove him from office. And that is of course what counts. When it the rubber hits the road, the Democrats will always stand by ideology, no matter how “moderate” they may seem. As a conservative myself, I am honestly impressed with how well the Democrat party stands together on things.
          Consider Harry Reid’s tenure. Even though he was the sole cause of Senate obstructionism, not a single Democrat stood up to him. Now THAT is loyalty.

        2. Incredibly unlikely, as impeachment of a democratic president by democrats will undermine the party far more than an ineffectual president. Anyone with three brain cells can see that.

        3. You may not have noticed, but nobody is really interested in talking to you.
          Begone, leftist.

        4. Yeah, I know. I’m basically betting on a crazy 8 with my speculation. Chances are, nothing will nor can happen regarding this topic.

        5. This is the same reason why the Democrats did not impeach Bush when they ran Congress from 2007-9. It would be a difficult if not impossible task to remove him, and most likely it would have given momentum to the GOP. If anything, it would have been seen by the people as pure political spite that did not put the interests of the country first.

        6. Obama’s not getting impeached. The GOP isn’t that dumb, and besides there’s that old military adage “if your enemy’s destroying himself let him do it.” (or something along those lines)
          I could see Obama doing things to damage Hillary’s! bid though…executive action on amnesty would put her in a huge bind, for example.
          You know what would be really funny? Obama resigns in summer 2015 to allow Biden to run as an incumbent. Won’t happen but would be hilarious.
          Remember, 2016 isn’t just a nominating contest for the Dems; its also a fight between the Clinton and Obama wings of the party. Who controls the mechanism going forward.

  7. The whole system is rigged.
    They let the GOP take over so they can be blamed for the collapse that’s coming in 2015-2016 and pave the way for Hitlery and yet another “new era”.
    With any luck they’ll lose control of the collapse and it goes full bore. Then all those blue areas on the map become bombed out cities.
    Democracy needs to be on that scrap heap.

    1. I have thought as much as well. The “recovery” isn’t even pretending not to be a government caused bubble (the Fed pumping freshly printed money into the Stock Market – what could possibly go wrong?!?). All they have to do is pull the support or Yellen makes one snarky comment and boom, insta-depression. Which I’ll wager, much as you have, is precisely what is going to happen.
      But hey, two years without federal gun control, which hopefully means a drastic reduction in ammo prices so we can stock up even more than we have been.

        1. I hear ya’ brother. My son is out the door at the end of the school year and his sister isn’t far behind. Once they’re on their own (and we enforce a “you’re an adult at 18, not 36” meme in our household), we’re packing bags and moving to Wyoming. Ohio is great in some ways, but still too close to the bullshit as far as I’m concerned.

        2. I’m going back home to Florida.
          The Caribe.
          I’m reaching an age where it makes no sense at all to live in a region that has winter when you have the option not to. I’ve had opportunities to go live in the mountains and all that but choose not to spend all summer chopping wood and all winter huddled by a wood stove. Not while the latte slurping urban douchefag effete use their votes as a weapon against me. And there is no shortage of that in Seattle.
          What a waste of a city. So sad.

        3. Never been much of one for the heat I’m afraid. Folks moved to Florida to retire and it’s all I can do to make a trip there every year or two to visit. Oppressive heat. Blah.
          Besides, I like chopping wood, heh.

        4. Where in Wyoming? I moved from there a couple of years ago. Nice state by the way, no income tax, low pop. density, good hunting, some good jobs, but with problems like any other place in the US. Fucking cold and windy though.

        5. Looking at a couple of places. Jackson Hole, Buffalo or perhaps a short drive (less than 1.5 hours I mean) from Cheyenne. Prefer the mountains over the scrub, naturally, so probably going to err more towards Buffalo than Cheyenne.
          It’s all up in the air at this point, taking the old lady to Sturgis next year (yay 75th anniversary!) and we’re going to cruise through a lot of different places together to get a better feel.
          Yes, windy and cold, I know. Ohio is cold too, but not as cold as there I’m aware, but still, we’re not a couple of Arizonans coming in who have no idea what snow and ice looks like, heh.
          Why did you move?

        6. I’m in Florida now. I’m from Connecticut originally, and it’s too hot here for me.
          Gonna move to Tennessee at some point. Less severe summer, a little winter but not like Connecticut, and beautiful scenery.

        7. Tennessee is beautiful, and very, very right wing (in a good way). A bit too Bible pushing at times, but I can live with that as compared to the effete snobbery of the East Coast or California.

        8. Keep your heat. I’ll take care of the skiing, wood chopping and moose hunting. I will come down on vacation and oogle your nicely tanned women though…

        9. What part of Wyoming. I recommend anywhere but Rock Springs. Sorry, didn’t see the response below. Jackson is probably my favorite place in the world.

        10. The heat is not so bad. The thing is to eat accordingly for the heat. Read the book “Vinegar Joe’s War” for some information on their findings that the standard ration used in the Army for the mostly European theater was not cutting it in the jungles. They had to modify it.
          I was running 6 miles every other day in that heat for 9 years and survived.
          The coast is 10 degrees cooler in the summer and 10 degrees warmer in the “winter”.

        11. Yeah there’s plenty of bible thumping going on but they are easy to ignore. Unlike the equally zealous marxists and THEIR religion who won’t leave even one thing alone.

        12. Sounds good. Hey, let me know where you’re going…maybe we can setup our own town or camp!

        13. Jackson hole is beautiful, especially due to Le Tetons, but you will be shocked at how many liberals are there. Strange really to be in Wyoming and be around people that are incredibly liberal.
          On your way there check out Dubois, in the wind river valley, excellent hunting grounds nearby and some of the best snowmachining in the country.
          I left for work, had a chance to raise my kids abroad and took it. Has been an excellent decision.
          Enjoy Sturgis!

      1. The federal reserve has printed enough obligations from thin air to keep us and this country at the grind stone for a millennium.

    2. Left, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right…..and the illusion continues…..false hope springs anew once again!

      1. Have faith. It’s possible that enough voters press up up down down left right left right B A in the voting booth, we can unlock our utopian paradise on earth.

    3. My first reaction was “Hillary will be elected in 2016.” The GOP will not make any difference and they will be blamed like the democrats are now. the system is a joke,

      1. I call the GOP the “Bendovercan Party”. I’ve played this game before myself. People are going to be let down. If you like watching tears, the next couple of years will be full of them. I’ve been telling the democrats I know (wall to fucking wall of them around Seattle, complete with anti-NRA bumper stickers and they don’t know that real patriots hate the NRA for compromising too much) they should stop crying and they’ll see no difference between the parties.
        We might get the anti-war movement back though, then we get to see more hippie chicks in the streets. Get your protest-game on, fellas.

      1. Democracy works very well when the voters have some common sense, a work ethic, and a feeling of personal responsibility and a responsibility to the nation and society as a whole.
        This not happening much any more. The majority of the voters are now too stupid and lazy to govern themselves. The fact that a draft dodger or a marxist can “elected” over a war hero or a successful business man is proof.
        The first step is to restrict voting, it should be a priviledge, not a right
        Government ID required, no welfare voters, poll tax etc.
        There is no excuse for the “poor” being able to vote the rest of us off a cliff into socialism, there is no excuse for those who pay no taxes to be allowed to vote to raise mine.
        If this not enough, we may forced to go back to some kind of feudal monarchy type system, and this will be very dangerous, just look at European history.

  8. You can be as wishful as you want, Hillary is probably going to decimate any GOP challengers. This idiotic country elects Presidents based on who has the most compelling victimhood story rather than who is most capable of doing the job. Also noteworthy is the fact that the GOP also has won the popular vote once in the last 6 Presidential elections.

    1. I dunno, she couldn’t even beat Obama in her own party. The woman is unlikeable across the board, regardless of one’s politics. She may get votes from Team Vagina ™ but I wonder if that will count for all that much. There are plenty of democrats that hold her in contempt, she just has this awful record regarding being caught saying and doing inappropriate things since at least the days of her term as “first lady”.
      Now Warren on the other hand, I’d watch her. She’s a full frocked female version of Hitler on the half shell.

      1. That’s because voters have (had) more guilt over slavery than the “patriarchy.” And like you said, Warren is another femicunt so either way it is a loss to us. You could put the best candidate possible and I don’t think they have a chance in this retarded country. Too many self-hating white males that vote democrat to stave off all the democratic-leaning minorities and women.

        1. “That’s because voters have (had) more guilt over slavery than the “patriarchy.”
          Yep. And now it’s patriarchy’s turn in the world of Democrats.

        2. I hope you’re wrong, but suspect you’re right.
          It would be nice if, after 6 years of this utterly horrible asshole in the WH, along with his assortment of goons in the Senate, people would realize that these monsters hate us. But yeah, popularity contest rules win out over reasoned civil concern for the well being of society nowadays.

    2. Hillary! is a shitty politician. Bill has the skills in that combo; she’s ham-fisted, stiff and prone to gaffes. She’s got a glass jaw and is going to be tied to a failed administration…and a perusal of American political history indicates voters don’t give a third Presidential term to parties that have failed.
      Keep an eye on Jim Webb. Can hit Hillary! from the left on foreign policy and has a populist economic message.

      1. Mrs. Bill Clinton will have the feminist and mangina vote. As we saw in 2008 and 2012, those are formidable numbers right there. Worse yet, they will be drawn to her precisely because she can make herself look like a victim.
        They’re even willing to look over the fact that outside of Bill, she’s nothing, and that her whole political career is the result of her marriage. If that’s not an outright repudiation of feminism I don’t know what is.
        But these leftists are so brainwashed they won’t see it.

    3. This. People overestimate the importance of political policy in elections. Most of it is has become skin color, gender, charisma, and party. I’ll confess I’m just as guilty-I’d never vote for Hilary because she’s a Democrat woman.

      1. I won’t vote for another Clinton just like I vote for another Bush. Both of these families have enjoyed the good life for far too long and we need to break free.
        This isn’t England the last time I checked. We don’t have royal families here and we shouldn’t “elect” them to the “throne”.

      2. I’m not voting for Hillary because I don’t like her politics. I know she will push a feminazi agenda of she can.

  9. Yeah, but will the republicans actually **do something**? I voted straight Republican, and have for years as a “lesser of two evils” but they don’t seem to take any kind of voter mandate seriously. Watch a watered down amnesty bill pass and no serious challenge to Obamacare (which they couldn’t force anyways without a 2/3 majority)

    1. We need Gingrinch and the Contract With America crew back.
      I don’t care about his personal life or how much of an a-hole he was…that guy got stuff done; stuff that mattered and stuff that made a difference.

      1. Yeah … except there hasn’t been a right wing party in America in decades. The Gingrich revolution was a farce, as was Reagan. We have two left wing parties in America who, jointly support equality (as if that’s a good thing!) and mediocrity.
        Nothing will change until you shift voting power exclusively into the hands of males over 30 who own property. No one else should be voting.

        1. You are correct about the right wing party thing. That’s why many years ago I quit voting Republican. They were not the right wing, small govt party they claimed.
          But I still like what Gingrinch did overall.

        2. What did Gingrich do that has had a lasting effect?
          All of this Republican banter about abolishing the Department of Ed and shrinking government never happened! I believe the size of government on the federal level increased by 75 percent from 1980 to 88.

        3. Gingrinch wasn’t Speaker in the 80’s.
          The two main things were the budget was balanced, and welfare was reformed. There were also major tax cuts and a few other things. Most have since been undone, but that can’t be blamed on him.

    2. I am an independent voter and libertarian for the most part but I voted a “straight republican ticket” because:
      1. I despise democracy and I want those who worship it to despise it as much as I do by using it against them.
      2. I’m surrounded by douchefags who subscribe to “everything left” and this was a last resort way to fuck them off.

      1. We’re very much alike it seems Doktor. When hitting the “R” buttons I very consciously felt like I was giving the biggest middle finger I could to every hipster, feminist and sobbing pathetic college prof I’d ever met in my life.

      2. I feel the same way, I voted R last time, even though it made me want to puke. I felt that obama was so bad that I should stand with the political arm of the christian theocrats tot try and remove him.
        Too bad it did not work. The republicans keep shooting themselves in the foot by insisting on religion based politics. The voters rightfully give them the finger.

      1. Its actually the Illuminati that control everything, but they’re actually getting their orders from the Shape shifting Reptilians that live in the hollow Earth!

  10. It’s always interesting to see what a bunch of clueless average citizens think about politics. Historically, lame duck presidencies are very common, and this was expected from the very beginning. And do you guys really think that Midterm elections in any way will predict a resurgence of GOP in regards to the presidency? That’s pretty laughable.

    1. How superior you must be. I stand in awe of your aura of philosophical and political savvy.
      Next time, instead of calling us clueless and laughable, you can provide something a bit more substantive than a sneer? Just a thought.

      1. The GOP is in terminal decline … 2014 was all about older white voters showing up.
        Don’t count the on that continuing much longer… the future is going to be something akin to Brazilian socialism.

        1. If Obama, and select GOP sellouts to the department of commerce, gets their immigration wish, I suspect that you’re 100% correct.

        2. True. The country is becoming Brazilish over the medium term, very much by design of the American left. The cognitive elites will be fine, as they are in Brazil. As for everyone else — welcome to the mosh pit.

        3. Correct, Sir. The republicans insist on catering to the religious reich, and alienating those whom votes they need to survive.
          Like gays” HORRORS !, women “GASP !”, non christians ” godless heathens”, minorities ” damn furiners !”, young people ” clueless hippies !”, etc.
          Will anything like this happen, NO ! and conservative will continue to blame taking prayer out of school for it.
          I am a conservative, but the liberals are right when they label us as backward bible thumping fools.

        4. Yes, the leftist agenda, the very rich and the very poor, with party elites at the top.

      2. Coming from a man who says asserts that democrats “arrogant screaming socialists”, you immediately show your political ignorance. You clearly don’t even know what socialism is; it’s just an ad hominem you throw around.
        I am acknowledging all of these “i want low taxes, i want gov to leave me alone” types who’s hate of the democrat party renders them ignorant to the facts that the Obama spearheaded the financial recovery, more people are insured with premiums not going up, and there hasn’t been a terrorist attack on American soil. Oh, and employment is at 5.8%.

        1. Unemployment’s down because labor force participation is at approximately a forty year low. US growth rates are so anemic that millions have dropped out of the labor market. Job creation is basically at population replacement levels.

        2. To present yourself as an “intellectual” and then cite the low unemployment rate without looking at the proper context isn’t going to work very well.
          The unemployment rate is dropping because fewer people are looking for work, not because there are more people working. As this clearly shows, the percentage of people working continues to stay near an historic low.

        3. Liberals are effeminate men who should be beaten into the ground.
          This is why I reject democracy … it empowers the weaklings.

        4. See? I told you we were on the same side, Orange old bean.
          They’re smug behind a keyboard, but unnaturally quiet and meek in real life, assuming they have no actual power over you.
          To hell with’em; dust off and nuke’em from orbit, it’s the only way to be sure.

        5. He knows all of this. His “points”, delivered with smug superiority, are standard boilerplate that we’ve all seen and refuted countless times. He’s just here to troll.

        6. Actually, it is going to work. This is because the Bureau of Labor Statistics is a consistent measure of unemployment throughout the years, while there can be a lot of reasons why people are not looking for jobs (those who previously needed jobs don’t anymore because their husbands are earning more income etc). Essentially, why people are not looking for work is a variable while the statistic is a constant in which Democrats and Republicans consistently refer to to measure economic success. Statistics aren’t perfect, but trying to assert your definition of ‘context’ without the underlying motivations is unhelpful.

        7. But you claimed that a “low” unemployment rate was a “good” thing and that those who disagreed with you were somehow mentally challenged.
          You neglected to consider the reason why the rate is low, which is not good. Even if you want to get into the partisan side of it, the same link which you didn’t read showed that under W, the percentage of people working was higher. When you factor that there are more people now than there were when W left office, and that the percentage of workers has gone down, the only conclusion to be reached is that there is a net total reduction in the number of jobs out there.
          None of that can be used to show that this presidency is some kind of economic success story.

        8. Firstly, I did not claim that those who disagreed with me were mentally challenged. You and I both don’t know the ‘real’ reason the rates are so low, its merely speculation. Therefore, I chose to use the one consistent indicator of employment that we have.
          Secondly, you neglected to acknowledge any other indicators of success, such as more insured with low rates, and no terrorist attacks. Furthermore, tax rates for the middle class are amongst historic lows, and the ‘number of jobs created'(a better indicator of economic growth), is at 5 year high.

        9. Unemployment numbers have always been a sham (no matter the party). They use (or don’t use) all of the data on hand when reporting it.
          This time around…it was the fact that so many Americans had stopped looking for work. It’s bullshit…don’t ever believe those numbers (they are usually higher).

        10. OH PLEASE, the democrats caused the recession with clintons housing bubble.
          There has been no terrorist attack because obama kept fighting “Bushes war”.
          The democrats and their war on anyone with a job or a business. More taxes, more regulations, more handouts, more catering to unions.

  11. Get ready for more unprovoked bombings of some backwater country – all in the name of keeping us safe from “them damn terrrarists”.
    The Welfare party has been usurped by the Warfare party. The game of musical chairs continues while the shit house continues to go up in flames.

    1. Agreed. Keep in mind however that until recently, it was the Left alone that was the Welfare-Warfare state. With the new batch of libertarian-lite types (tea party) infiltrating the part, maybe we’ll see a return to that.
      Not this cycle, but perhaps sooner rather than later.
      Yes, I dream out loud. Sorry.

    2. I don’t know. I think even the GOP is tired of the bombing. They resisted the urge to bomb Syria. They’re resisted the urge to bomb Russia.

    3. Why is it so hard to understand that bombing or fighting they in some back water country is better than fighting them here ?

  12. So? Why should things change with Republicans – beside different words – all essential programs will run the same course:

  13. Control of all economic activity is essentially the goal of both national parties. Things will not get better with Republicans in office. All that will happen is a different variant of socialists policies will be put into effect. But their policies still have the same result as Democrat policies: the siphoning off of resources from their natural owners into the hands of government. Republicans claim they are for conservative values, or patriarchal values, but in advocating government control of education, healthcare, saving for retirement (Social Security), national “defense”, money creation, legislation etc. etc., Republicans actively clamor for more government power at the expense of the financial and moral stability of every family. The decline will go on.

    1. Yes, people forget Bush’s (black) HUD Secretary calling Democrats racists every five minutes because of their concerns about lower-income/minorities defaulting on subprime mortgages that were getting handed out like candy.
      The Compassionate Conservative bullshit also relied on government-funded corporations running lots of things. So free market. So conservative.

      1. That law will be sued out of existence. The left set an interesting precedent by suing to have state referendum results overturned, so it will be nice to see this one used against them for once.

  14. Don’t like so many people saying dems and repubs are the same.
    Republicans have problems, but democrats have become so blatantly anti-male, anti-family, more tax, more liberal bullshit that you have to vote republican to have any chance.
    Glad to see so many liberal fags got voted out of office

    1. I’ll agree with the “anti” remarks with Democrats but at the end of the day it’s all a game to them (both of them). It’s all about getting you to willing give up your tax money – without a fight – so they can promote their agenda, ideas, etc…and set themselves up for civilian life (after politics).
      One party does cash, the other party does credit…but they both play the same game. It may take you a few decades to figure it out but that’s how it really is in this country.

      1. Im a small business owner, and I believe small to medium sized businesses are the vehicles for job creation. Low(er) tax republican states have more suitable systems for profit incentive.
        The fact that billionaires have agendas on both sides, well I don’t really care

        1. Ain’t it funny how the Left claims to be “anti-rich”, and yet all their leaders put their right-wing counterparts to shame when it comes to wealth size?

  15. They wont change. In 2001 it was Bush and a stacked congress of GOP. I thought they were going to lower taxes. I thought goverment bureaucracy was going to get peeled back by decades. I thought we would stop “nation building” None of that happened. Not even close and 9/11 is not an excuse.
    Nothing will change.
    Likewise the Dems had the goverment stacked in 2008. Poverty was supposed to end. We were supposed to have a socialist paradise as the “racists” had finally been beaten back and everyone would finally be equal… not even close.

    1. Agree. The game will just continue with passing blame back and forth.
      Parties always want to do something or like to do something but even when they have a majority there is some bullshit reason why it can’t get done.
      Dems talk about abolishing one thing or another and Reps talk about shrinking government. In my lifetime, I have seen both of these parties sit on their hands and do nothing. It’s great theater…and it’s all bullshit.
      They have both become great at pointing fingers (like women).

  16. eh i just want to be able to run a cannabis dispensary without having jackbooted .gov thugs kicking in my doors, taking all my shit, and leaving me out of tens of thousands of dollars. This has happened in california at a constant clip since that fuckwad Obama got elected. People invested their life savings in the med scene and thrived throughout most of the 2000’s only to get robbed towards the end of the decade & going forward. Fuck that guy and fuck democrats. Libertarian Republicans are where it’s at.

  17. Sadly, Obama’s era is NOT over; there are too many RINO’s among the right-wing politicians.

  18. Too many of you out there think of Bush as Republican example, but he’s a RINO and a progressive.
    After Eisenhower, all presidents, with the exception of Reagan, have been progressives.
    Oh, and Reagan was an Alpha.

    1. Reagan was a union man nicknamed Red Ronnie when he was governor. His reputation as President is all PR smoke, mirrors and acting. So was his presidency for that matter; Bush Sr. was the actual big man from at least the time Reagan was shot.

      1. Bush Sr. was friends with John Hinckley’s dad, and even had dinner with the dad the night before Reagan was shot.

    2. Eisenhower was a progressive to. He whined about the ” military industrial complex”, conveniently forgetting that they pay the ruinous taxes that support the welfare state.

      1. 1.) I wrote, AFTER Eisenhower.
        2.) The military industrial complex IS too big. He, of all people, would have known.
        3.) The “Welfare State”, didn’t actually exist, (or at least wasn’t a problem), until LBJ’s time as president.

  19. “1. The Obama Era Is Over”
    But Obamacare is still with us like an incurable STD. Any chance you’ll see the republicans get rid of it? I highly doubt it….

  20. 5 – It’s going to be harder to pass anti-gun legislation. And with the nature of the internet and its concomitant information dissemination, that ship might have sailed.

  21. The War on Women is complete and utter bull shit. I would even go so far as to say that most women who haven’t been brainwashed and indoctrinated by Leftist ideology would agree that there is no war on women, as evidenced by the large numbers of women who voted for Abbott over that scourge Wendy Davis in Texas. The War in women is an outright, Absolute fabrication by Feminism Inc. and it’s minion, the mainstream media.

  22. Happy to see from the southern hemisphere that many americans still have common sense.

  23. Obama’s “star power,” huh? He campaigned in 4 deep blue states for dem gubernatorial candidates and lost 3 (would’ve been 4 without Malloy’;s vote fraud machine), including his “home” state. Every dem Senate candidate avoided him like plague.
    Obama has no “star power.” He has merely the power to draw black voters out in droves to vote for him because they’re too stupid to figure out he’s no more black than Al Jolson was.

    1. No need to insult Black voters. Whatever pros and cons of Obama, the political mainstream has to face the facts that the son of a Kenyan won the Presidency of the greatest country in the World two times!! Stop the jealousy and accept the defeat and grow from it. It took the Republicans until 2014 to get it together. Looking at the big picture, Obama defeated the mainstream on their own turf in 2008 and 2012. It is part of history that cannot be erased.

      1. You can call it an insult; I call it the truth. It’s bad enough blacks give away their votes year after year to a party that does nothing for them but cut welfare checks; but to be so blind as to think a man with a white mother; raised in Hawaii by his white grandparents; who attended Occidental, Columbia, and Harvard; hangs with Hollywood celebrities and tech billionaires; vacations at Martha’s Vineyard; is a Muslim (yes, he is and you know it); and whose favorite occupation is golf – to think that guy has anything whatever to do with black America is intentionally delusional.
        It is interesting you characterize Obama’s election as a “defeat” for half of the country – which it most assuredly was intended to be all along. Well, at least you haven’t bought into the “post-racial” nonsense.
        Actually, the Republicans “got it together” in 2010. Read up on it. It was an even bigger drubbing than this year. As for 2012, Obama got 51.5% of the vote. A good part of that victory margin was arrant fraud; and without huge black turnout voting 97% democrat, Obama loses. His track record of actively supporting winning democrat candidates is below abysmal – it was the same story in 2010. So I stand by my statement: Obama’s only political skill is pretending to be black to draw out minorities to vote for him. Beyond that, he’s nothing.

        1. Obama never pretended to be Black. He was very clear about his complex foreign background and multicultural experiences. I think you are oversimplifying things as a White and Black issue. Now that America has a large number of immigrant or partially immigrant families you cannot really draw lines along Black v. White or Republican v. Democrat. The old school White Republican is very different from the conservative immigrant who might be part of the Republican party but very pro immigrant.
          As an aside, I should let you know that there are plenty of Black people in America who have gone to highly ranked universities in this country so you are insulting Black people by saying that he is not Black because he has a good resume. I am sure you would say he was Black if he were a “gangster rapper”. We need to move on from these stereotypes.

        2. He never pretended to be black, huh? I guess I’m hearing things when he lapses into that black dialect in front of black audiences. I wonder why he’s never objected to being characterized as black all the time. Oh, I know – because he WANTS to be perceived as being black.
          I’m not making anything a black/white issue, or a dem/republican issue. I’m merely making observations about blacks voting for Obama. Those observations go out the window once we’re talking about, say, Ben Carson.
          I did NOT say Obama wasn’t black because he had a good resume. I said his resume meant he had nothing in common with the black Americans who flocked to the polls to vote for him because they thought they were voting for one of their own kind.
          And don’t presume to lecture me about blacks attending highly ranked universities. I was friends with several black guys in law school, and I’m fully aware there are many intelligent, hard-working, educated, ambitious black Americans. Most of them comprise the small percentage of blacks that did NOT vote for Obama.

        3. Well we are both lawyers who actually agree on one issue but you are coming from a different angle.
          You are saying he is not Black.
          My position is that there are a diversity of Black people on the planet and when they migrate to America and have children here, they may not culturally fit in with Black Americans but they are STILL Black. You see, this is mistake that Americans (Both White and Black make). Black American culture is FAR FROM BEING THE ONLY BLACK CULTURE. We should not be defining who is Black by Black American cultural definitions.
          One of the keys to him being elected is that his timing was excellent. In 2008, 25% of United States citizens where foreign born. This does not include the children of these 25% who are of voting age. It was the foreign background crowd combined with the under 45 Ivy League crowd that really took him over the top. It was not the Black vote. (We actually have a strange sort of agreement here). Remember that Black people voted for Hillary in the primary but Hillary’s mistake was she forgot about the foreign background crowd and the younger demographic of Ivy League graduates. The Republicans made this same mistake in 2008 and 2012. Keep in mind that the Black Congressional Caucus supported Hillary in 2008 and did not jump on the bandwagon until after Obama pulled off the primary victory.
          I think the key to this discussion is that in the political arena, if you ignore the foreign background crowd you risk a surprise defeat.
          With regards to the educated Blacks not voting for Obama, I do not think that was as large a demographic as you might believe with regards to voting against Obama. However, the real issue for some Black Americans was that there was some jealousy issues. Some segments of the Black American community did not like the idea that an “African” was the one to break the barrier. This is an internal issue that has been around for some time. (i.e. Jesse Jackson thought Obama was talking down to Black Americans during a father’s day speech about father’s being more responsible. Later on Jesse Jackson correctly apologized because Obama was actually correct in his message).
          This allows me to segway into my final point about dialect. Just for an example, White people do this as well in Europe. France is a good place to start. Politicians will change their style of French based on the crowd they are talking to. French president Francois Hollande has been dealing with this issue in France recently as he is trying to convince his people that he can somehow save their economy. No one accuses him of trying to be someone he is not. They are rather critiquing him for not “relating to the common people”. Dialect change in order to reach your audience is actually not a bad thing. In fact, it is often necessary if certain humor is to work within a political speech.
          Anyway, I need to get back to this memo but I am sure I will here from you soon.

        4. When he needs to gin up his minority base, Obama puts on the blackface and does his “Mammy!” routine. The rest of the time, he’s as lily white as his party’s leadership and financiers.
          Believe what you want.

  24. Men overwhelming voted for Republicans. We put them back into power.
    But what the fuck are they going to do for us? Not a damn thing.
    The will renew the Violence Against Women Act. They will continue to fund the Title IX federal mandates that are put on universities to create a myth of “rape culture” and then harass young men on campus. They will continue spending much more money on research for female diseases than those for men. They will continue to put women, especially white women, on a pedestal.
    Men get fucked by the feminist state no matter who we vote for. The best thing to do is the take every legal angle to undermine the feminist state while also starving them of as much of your money as possible. There are multiple decisions you can make in this regard. Learn what they are and do them.

  25. If Gary Johnson runs for the republicunt party and actually gets nominated as their lead, then I’ll do the impossible; I’d vote republican. But they’re only going to put some psychos to the top. As for the democunt party I’m not seeing any good candidates so far, because usually there’s like 1 decent bloke there. I just don’t have any faith in the 2016 elections.. Consider it a ‘wasted vote’, but I’m giving mine out for third party. Get rid of the republicans and replace them with the Libertarians, modeled on Gary Johnson’s ideology.
    The reason why I’m backing Gary so much is because when he was the Governor of my shit state of New Mexico, it was actually much better off than it is now with that Martinez slut. Americans love to brag about our freedom, liberty and justice, yet we got the highest incarceration rate, a fucked up society and government, and a corrupt system. Most other countries with democracy have multiple parties who got a good chance to win, yet the last time a third party had a decent shot was Ross Perot back in the 80s or 90s. I mean, gary got 1% of the vote and I’m proud to have assisted this, but that ain’t nothing.
    Unless ‘murkans start voting third party and investigating things more, there isn’t much hope for the future. 07~08 gave us lots of hope after the shitbag dubya douche ruined this county but 2016 is feeling void of optimism.

  26. Tell me again how the current election result refutes the left-wing talking point that the Republican party is moribund? The whole basis of that talking point is that its base consists disproportionately of old white people. A fact that didn’t change with the current election. When considering the facts that this demographic has a relatively high midterm voter turnout, that there’s a general trend of the party of the current president to take a beating in the midterms, and a number of incidental one-time factors that worked against the Democrats, it’s entirely possible to dismiss the current election as a one-time blip, the proverbial dead cat bounce of the Republican party.
    Just saying that the position laid forth in the article is lacking. Not that I believe the Republican party is dead or moribund in the first place. It might be so in its current form, but that just means it will eventually face the music and reinvent itself in some politically viable form, just like both parties have done countless times over the course of their existence. Career politicians gonna do what it takes to keep their gravy train rolling.

  27. Next year Justin Trudeau, son of late prime minister Pierre Elliot Trudeau, and leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, will become the next Prime Minister of Canada. Canadians will grow tired of the nine year old Conservative government of Right Honorable Stephen Harper. Okay, I must be dreaming, right???

Comments are closed.