Democratic Victories Sweep Nation; Christie Reelected

It's been a damn good day for Democrats: gay marriage was all but made legal in Illinois (and is on the way to Hawaii's House of Reps), Bill de Blasio became NYC's first Democratic mayor in twenty years, Annise Parker won reelection in Houston, Karin Uhlich won reelection in Tucson's city council, LGBT candidates Mark Kleinschmidt and LaWana Mayfield made surprising crucial wins in North Carolina, Darden Rice picks up a seat in Florida's St. Petersburg city council next to reelectee Amy Foster, and, biggest news of all, Terry McAuliffe beat conservative sweetheart/psychopath Cuccinelli in Virginia's gubernatorial race.

And these are just the people I can find in my Facebook feed.

The bad news comes from New Jersey, where Chris Christie was reelected, sending 2016 Presidential predictions sky-high.

How's OT feel about today's political show? Personally, as a gay man, the more D I see, the happier I become.

Props to Christie.

OMG I AM DYING LAUGHING RIGHT NOW!!! LOL!

Please tell me this wasn't intentional!

Oh and on-topic, I have heard that Christie was at least one of the better Repubs in office so I am not too torn up about his re-election.

Of course it was intentional. I love the D. I can't get enough D.

So a bunch of city council members and a governers race... Most urban populations lean democratic because the populations like free handouts which is why the swing left. I see you failed to mention one of the biggest amendments that was funded by Bloomberg and even the Melinda and Bill Gates in Colorado. The 1 Billion dollar tax hike that Dems sunk millions into that got slapped down emphatically which will probably mean the end of Democratic governors reign in Colorado after his term is done. Why? because the governor and other Dems took out of state money to support the tax hike, which goes against the law the same people tried passing banning such donations from out of state sources.

I like Christie.

Hopefully, coming off of the stupid shutdown thing, this sends a crystal clear message to the GOP.

@Chrypt22: I'm surprised you didn't mention the Colorado secession vote. How did that go?

It wasn't a secession vote, it was a symbolic vote to explore the option of creating a new state, Northern Colorado. Not to actually secede from Colorado, which I don't support. Anyways, it did pass, however a new measure would have to be placed to actually go through with it and then the battle of having it approved by State and Federal legislature.

Colorado is a smart state... Past governor's and representatives both Democratic and Republican are fairly moderate and typically do what is best. I am not a fan of the governor since he doesn't listen to anyone... more of an Obama / Liberal puppet doing what other people tell him rather than what the people of the state want. If I were to sum up the political climate in Colorado it would be somewhat of a libertarian stance, smaller government that is fiscally conservative while being socially liberal. "Live how you want, but do not bankrupt us like the rest of the country".

Haha sure "urban populations" like "free handouts". That is a fucking amazingly wrong statement because in the U.S. it's the conservative states/rural areas that survive on hundreds of billions of dollars federal subsidies paid for by taxes from the relatively prosperous and productive "liberal urban populations". Even the farmers in left-leaning states like California are vastly more productive and efficient than their Republican rivals in the Midwest. The main reason why urbanites in the U.S. lean left is simply because they're generally better educated at the tertiary level, more likely to work in high-tech or high-innovation industries and most importantly more diverse than their rural counterparts, it has nothing to do with "free handouts".

First off, California used to have an efficient agricultural industry until it was shut down because of a salamander. Sure, there is still farm land, but much of the imperial valley was shut down... you can thank the Dems for that. Also, if you are using California as some beacon of how states should be run then there is something fundamentally wrong with your reasoning.

Lets look at left leaning states like California and Illinois and why people and companies are leaving the states due to taxes. Lets look at how many people are on food stamps that do not need to be... why do people get free cellphones? I dont see droves of people that are making a decent salary voting Democratic. Not where I live anyhow...

Why do democrats scare people into voting for them by telling them that all of their free handouts are going to be taken away?

http://i.imgur.com/nmQMS.jpg

Looks like free handouts to me...

Edit:

here is another. http://i.imgur.com/Tt5gb.jpg Dems....

What do you consider to be a decent salary?

Firstly, at no point did I argue that California is a "model state". Its main problem comes from allowing its population to set taxes and spending directly which has effectively resulted in the state being actually unable to control its fiscal policy. This has nothing to do with the fact that its agricultural industry is bar none the most productive in the U.S. and is one of the most efficient on a per capita and per acre basis. Its economy is also easily the largest, most diverse and productive in the States as well as being the most attractive to foreign investment. There is no real relationship between taxes and attractiveness to investment. If this were the case, France with its 50% tax rates wouldn't be the third largest recipient of foreign investment in the world.

I can't "look at how many people", how about you provide me the numbers for the number of people who are "on food stamps that do not need to be"? Because every figure I've seen suggests that SNAP fraud is about one percent and its fiscal multiplier of 1.7-1.8 means that it is one of the worst possible examples anyone could use to demonstrate government waste. The reason why the Democratic party attacks the G.O.P. on their welfare cuts is because "Republicans want to starve poor people" is a great way to make them sound like bad guys and because austerity policies are a good way to drive a weakened economy into a recession.

Overall, your quaint little story that "liberal urbanites" are leeches on the backs of productive Americans is total nonsense, because "liberal urbanites" form the backbone of the American high-tech industry, education system and research and development sectors and hence are basically responsible for its great wealth. While G.O.P.-supporting rural states basically eat twenty billion dollars in agricultural subsidies annually plus hundreds of billions of dollars of other kinds of federal spending.

@Barbariser California might be "productive" form a business sense, but its almost un-afordable to live their due to the taxes imposed on the population. Regardless... You also assume that just because I oppose dems means I am a GOP fanboy.. lol. No. Honestly, there is very very little difference between both parties and most of the arguments are bs trying to make it look like there are differences. There are none. Things that I support such as negative income tax, and flat tax are not really supported by either party because those ideals support more of a free market and a balanced budget.

Helping the poor and giving generous handouts like we have today are two different arguments. In one hand the government throws an endless ammount of money at a problem in hopes that it will solve it which hasn't worked ever. Prime example is education. We spend the most money per student and yet our results are shit. Why? Because there is no accountability, largely because of unions and wasteful spending. Its no surprise why legitimate charter schools tend to do so much better than public schools. You can spout all you want about voting lines, and all of that, and honestly, the demographics for drawing voting districts are really f'd up so I am not going even go there.

You can believe all you want that the government is the best solution to everyone's problems and its not... proof is in the data and facts. I can put chart after chart showing the data... http://i.imgur.com/0Gx9L.jpg http://i.imgur.com/0Gx9L.jpg http://i.imgur.com/ECzcs.jpg http://i.imgur.com/bCiNb.jpg

That last one is my favorite. I have no problem with helping people that actually need it... key word actually need it. Fact of the matter is that these programs keep getting expanded, more hands in the pot, more taxes, more inefficient government, more debt. The people and government, Most dems and a lot of the GOP keeps sticking their head in the sand. Sure, the GOP puts on a good show but at the end of the day they still want to spend money continuing wars and other shit... no one is innocent in this mess. I suggest you look at the sustainability of country and take a hard look at both parties instead of just one side.

Ugh... Only a fucking MORON would vote for a fucking democrat...

Q: How many democrats does it take to screw in a light bulb?

A: None. They'd rely on the Conservatives to do it because they're too fucking lazy.

Got that right...

lmao this idiot never disappoints

At least I don't vote for democrats...

It's amazing how your entire rant is basically two goalposts on a moving train. I don't even know how we ended up in this random topic about "government inefficiency" when the original discussion was your inane assertion that urban areas are liberal because they want free handouts and how it doesn't at all mesh with reality. I'm going to post a bunch of refutations to your points anyway because some of them cause me great grief as an econs student.

1. There are significant and obvious differences between the two parties. Democrats are pro-immigration, prefer to raise taxes on the upper classes, prefer to raise taxes as a means of maintaining fiscal solvency, support government spending on social welfare programs, support business regulations, are pro-choice, support same-sex marriage, etc. Republicans are anti-immigration, prefer to "equalize the burden", prefer spending cuts, support government spending on national defence and corporate welfare, are strongly against regulations, are pro-life, dislike same-sex marriage, .etc. The only reason why some people conflate them is because a lot of Americans have this weird idea that America is a plutocracy and all the politicians are "corporate whores" or something equally outlandish.
2. The negative income tax is not supported by Democrats because they don't perceive it to be useful when there are so many other existing programs to transfer wealth to lower-income groups, and it's not supported by Republicans because it is the most direct form of wealth transfer to lower-income groups. That's assuming that they are actually aware of the idea, which a great deal of people and politicians are not. The flat tax is supported by nobody important because it's a really dumb idea. Also, I don't understand how you can advocate both a flat tax and a negative income tax at the same time, because that is the very definition of a fiscally unsustainable government handout that reaches everyone regardless of whether they need it or not.
3. While I'm sure that the U.S. education system isn't as efficient or effective as that of, say, the Finns, in reality U.S. students are actually improving in performance over time, not stagnating or becoming worse. Comparing the U.S. to other developed nations also isn't very indicative because most of the developed nations that really beat it are relatively homogenous, like Finland and South Korea. When you compare it to other large, diverse states like France or Italy, its international test scores aren't actually too shabby. The reason for this is that unfortunately, students of African, South American or Middle Eastern descent tend to be perform worse than those of European or East Asian descent for reasons unknown, and the U.S. has a lot more of the former group than most other developed nations.
4. Your links are almost all from a site called "Grandfather Economic Reports", and considering that I've never heard of it and its web design layout looks like something fresh out of a porn site I am not inclined to trust that those graphs are accurate. And even if they were, the fact that the public sector is expanding relative to G.D.P. is hardly an inherently bad thing nor does it show that those programs are "wasteful".
5. Your assertion that the U.S. is faced with a crisis of ever-expanding government or whatever is inaccurate for several reasons. Firstly, there is significant movement in the general population now for debt reduction, and it's managed to cause things like the Sequester and two debt-ceiling crises. It is unnaturally high now as a result of the 2008 Great Recession and the A.R.R.A of 2009 and it is projected to decline for the next few years as a % of GDP. Secondly, the national debt is not really a major problem because the U.S. government borrows at bond yields that are below inflation. Thirdly, the elevated levels of government spending are basically keeping the U.S. economy out of recession by acting as an economic stimulus. Significant cuts would crush your currently moderate economic growth and cause quite a bit of suffering in the same way that the Europeans are suffering now.

What a disgrace, leeching off of other people's hard earned money.

I'm surprised he knows how to use a computer, really.

Lawl, stay classy.

I don't entirely like Christie but it almost feels that I do considering he isn't in the same zone with the most conservative Republicans.

How can you be so anti liberal if you use their safety net systems?

Considering the recent United States government shutdown, I would have been surprised if Republicans posed much competition in terms of who was elected.

I agree; the more D, the better.

I agree. There are situations in which defamation is tactful. This is not one of them.

Other people use social programs because they have to as well. It's funny how you recognize the necessity of social programs when you use them but not when others do. One would think that you'd actually sympathize with the needs of others if you had to make use of disability, but your ugly political ideology and your lack of maturity prevents you from doing so.

I only sympathize with others who need it. Like the disabled and the elderly. Anyone else who accepts government handouts is lazy.

What about those people who are unable to get decent paying jobs?

You have no idea if these people are lazy. You are merely saying that because your ugly political ideology tells you that must be the case. You do realize that welfare, in most cases, is used to supplement income that one works for, right? Who are you to call somebody lazy just because they work a low income job that must be supplement by welfare? Or are you one of the chuckleheads who thinks that one can't work hard at low-paying job? Perhaps you're one of the chuckleheads who thinks people on welfare simply sit at home all the day and collect their checks, not realizing that most welfare programs require that one be working or seeking employment. Just because some people cheat the system doesn't mean that everybody who uses these programs is lazy.

Also, who are you to determine who "needs" the welfare? Really, you sympathize with the disabled not because you are a mature person who can sympathize with other people, but because you are trying to justify your own use of the social safety net.

I love how Barbariser is mercilessly demolishing the Chrypt22's talking points.

Well, when you put a schmuck like Lhoda up against a good-looking, well-spoken guy like de Blasio, you can rest assured knowing it'd be an easy Dem victory.

Most important thing is that Christie won with a very good margin in a heavily blue state. That bodes well for a national run in 2016.

Unfortunately our town supervisor won, again, because of the Hasidic bloc vote. I've never seen such a corrupt politician in my LIFE. Thankfully, though, my Republican candidate won for county executive. I put signs up for that guy every damn weekend.

@The-Apostle: So who is your pick for the next president?

I think the most amazing thing to come out of today is that Detroit elected it first white mayor in over forty years.

Having a bad day?

Seriously though cry more, your tears taste fantastic.

Not sure yet, but it'll be a Republican. I'd rather vote Libertarian but only Republicans and Democrats ever win. The Republicans are the lesser of the two evils.

Glad to see Christie won. Also glad to see Ken Cuccinelli lost, I have no love for Terry McAuliffe but Cuccinelli is a moron and I want there to be no chance of him being a possible presidential candidate.

Are you really saying that even after their near-fiasco that happened last month?

Another election result I find interesting is the one in Alabama, where the Tea Party candidate lost to the more mainstream GOP candidate. Between that and Christie I'm hoping we see a return of the moderate GOP members being in power an less of these extreme assholes that pretend that they are really the majority in Congress.

The moderate GOP members are in power. Those who identify with the tea party are in the minority when it comes to the Republican caucus in the House.

Yes. I don't agree with the Republicans continuing to fight Obamacare though. They already know it's a failure. They need to just back off and let the Democrats have Obamacare for now. That way, when Obamacare officially fails the Republicans are in power for the next 20 years.

yup, thats why I said they pretend they are the ones in power.

He's too busy collecting welfare to cry.

Not if they keep suppressing the votes of blacks and latinos.

I don't know how stupid the republican party thinks those groups are, but being targeted for discrimination isn't usually something people take lightly or forget, even decades or generations later.