In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 928
The largest and most active MSU Spartans board on the web
The place to ask questions to SpartanTailgate's recruiting experts
"The Duff" is dedicated to Michigan State football recruiting discussion
"The Bres" is dedicated to Michigan State basketball recruiting discussion
This is your pulpit to preach to the masses about everything from politics to religion
The place to buy, trade or sell Michigan State tickets
For fantasy football and other fantasy sports discussion
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Why does it matter? Obama had great success in his first term with the stimulus, bailing out the auto industry, ACA passage, saving the economy, killing Osama, Libya, etc. All of this was done with the Republicans obstructing him in the House and Senate. Obicously he didn't need Congress to get all this accomplished. He got re-eleced resoundingly and the Republicans maintained a majority in Congress. You should be pleased with the outcome.
Time to move to another country you think functions better or will just stay here and complain?
I'm thankful mittens lost, yes. I had no desire to return to a Middle Ages economic model. I also find it disheartening that you and the rest of the connies think that doing what is needed and necessary for the country isn't as important as playing petty politics because your fee fees are butthurt.
Oh, and the repubs have a majority only in the House, and that is smaller than it was before Tuesday. If they truly want the repub party to ever have a chance of returning to relevancy, they are going to have to learn to play nicer instead of holding their breath until they get their way. The American people soundly rejected conservatism Tuesday and the sooner you and the rest of the repubs accept that, the better.
not to put too fine a point on it, but 29 of the states' governorships are held by Republicans (with 1 independent), and control of state legislatures by Republicans is at the highest it has been since 1960 (26 out of 50, with 8 being split or tied).
I think we should take some of these people, and send 'em up to Bear Mountain for a picnic.
You seem to be talking out of both sides of your mouth. On the one hand, you blame the Republicans for obstructing everything that the president tried to do in his first term. On the other hand, you trumpet all of the great accomplishments he achieved in his first term. So which is it? How could he have accomplished all that great stuff with a congress hell bent on stopping his every move?
I am not sure about your play nicer comment and hold their breath comments. I am assuming you mean obstructionism again. If that were the issue, the Republicans would have lost a lot more seats in the House because the Democrats were pouring their money into districts that elected teaparty candidates in 2010. They would also have given he Democrates a Super Majority in the Senate which you maintain is necessary for Obama to accomplish anything. Again, sort of a contradiction given his trumpeted accomplishments in his first term.
I sort of agree with you that the conservatives will have to change their message if they ever want the white house again - especially on social issues. I am curious though. If the Republicans put out a pro choice, fiscally conservative candidate in 2016, won't you consider that flip flopping instead of the party moving toward the center?
Yes but they are all red states! Oh wait......
So what? This just demonstrates the the fact that while everyone says legislators are all corrupt, they really mean all of them but theirs. Most incumbents win re-election, if they seek it. The turn overs usually occur when an incumbent decides not to run for re-election. That is what happened in Michigan when the repubs got control of both the house and senate in 2010. Too many dems couldn't run again and the teabaggers still had a lot of influence. Now that the teabaggers' influence has waned, the probability that the dems will retake one of the chambers in 2014 is very likely. The same thing will happen in other states. It's a cyclical thing.
It depends on the argument!
Nope. I would consider it a case of the Republicans actually trying to practice what they preach and becoming a true small-government party. Until they do that, they've got a major messaging disconnect.
Great stat and a reason we have a multitude of very safe Congressional districts but that doesn't explain why MI elected a majority of Republicans to Congress yet couldn't bring Hoekstra a win. Why with GOP governors since 1992 MI has never gone for a GOP presidential candidate. WI went blue with a native son VP and they elected a Democrat, female openly gay to the US Senate over a popular 4 time governor. Yet they have a GOP governor and legislature.
Your observation is butressed by the fact that many states elect governors in off year elections where there is lower voter participation and the GOP's ability to get out their vote better in those years.
That's easy to say now. I am going to take a wait and see approach. Of course, it is dependant upon the Republicans actually recognizing the change in this country and nominating the right candidate.
Are you seriously arguing that mcconnell and the Senate repubs didn't abuse the filibuster? Come on, even you can't be that partisan, or dense between your ears. Things got passed in spite of the obstructionism because of parliamentary tactics used by Reid to get around it. But that took a lot of time and a lot of good legislation was stalled or abandoned.
The repubs retained most of their seats because voters tend to vote for incumbents rather than challengers. It's the old all legislators are corrupt, except mine, mentality. Really bad ones like West do get thrown out occasionally, but that's more the exception than the rule.
It isn't their message that connies need to change. It's their mindset. And that won't happen, which is why the repub party that is totally conservative is going to keep slipping farther and farther into obscurity and irrelevance.
I have often wondered why voters behave differently when it comes to Congress, state elections and the presidency. Maybe you are right and it is voter turn out. Michigan is a prime example of that. So is Wisconsin for that matter. They voted to keep their governor a few months ago yet the state went for Obama. Ohio is the same way.
Uh, that's the repubs problem. The keep nominating Right candidates and the country isn't.
I'm not interested in causation, since the difference between a Democrat and Republican to me is like the difference between Lenin and Trotsky. I was just pointing that federal elections aren't the only means of assessing the relevance of one major party versus the other.
hell, I long ago stopped attributing rational thought to the reason one candidate is elected versus another, regardless of the level of the election.
Why do you care how congress is structured if the president and his party were effective in accomplishing their goals? They were very successful in getting the ACA quickly passed without one Republican vote in the house. The president also got a liberal justice on the supreme court too. He will probably get two more in his second term. He got a conservative supreme court justice to side with him on the mandate tax. You do a lot of griping about obstructionism yet Obama pretty much got all he wanted in his first term. What more could you ask for?
I will agree with you about incumbents. I will cite John Conyers and Charlie Rangel as prime expamples. The majority of districts are 'safe' districts. Michigan is a prime example of that.
I agree. The question was if the Republicans nominate a centerist Republican will you consider it flip flopping or a change in policy?
There is no such thing as a centrist repub any more. All repubs are rightwing extremeists.
When one house of Congress is hell bent on obstructing necessary and needed legislation for nothing more than partisan politics, I care because it affects everyone and the well being of the country. The economic recovery could have been a lot larger, and a lot faster, if mcconnell and boner hadn't decided the day after the 2008 election that their primary goal was to make Obama a one term President. I know you have no problem with repubs screwing the country over for partisan politics, but that's your problem, not mine.
moochelle bachmann is another good example.
At least you anwered my question honestly. No matter who the republicans put up you ain't gonna buy it.
You need a lesson in how the government works. Obama gets his way no matter what and the public approved of his actions. He doesn't need congress even when members of his own party don't support him.
In order to verify a claim to be a moderate, a persons entire voting history, and life choices would have to be examined. The sad fact is that there are no repubs today who could claim to be moderates based on their actions so far. The closest is Huntsman, who is still not a true moderate and the repubs have driven him from the party. So based on everyone mentioned for 2016 so far, if any claimed to be a moderate, it could only be taken as flip-flopping. Sad, but true.
Executive orders can be overridden by Congress. Try again?
So, by your logic, once a right winger always a right winger. Does that same apply to democrats too? The president was mentored by far left radicals and perported communists (Frank Marshall Davis). Does that mean he is a far left leaning liberal communist?
Based on Obama's voting history and his constant pattern of beginning negotiations from the right of center, there is no way he can be considered a liberal. Try again?
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports