While searching for “How I Voted” posts to include in my post about transparant ballots, I ran across these two Democrats who shared how they voted…but also their predictions for the outcome of the national election:
First we have Chris Nolan (from San Francisco) at Spot-on:
I am trying hard to get excited about the idea of Rep. Nancy Pelosi – my very own Congress person – being Speaker of the United States House of Representatives. A woman third in line to the presidency! It’s my feminist dream-come-true.
[...]
Which brings us to the real issue here. The Democratic Party as currently [run] by Nancy Pelosi doesn’t appear to have too many new, good ideas.
Chris spends a lot of pixles singing the praises of Ms. Pelosi — she loves the theoretical thought of a Speaker Pelosi, but the real prospect of a Speaker Pelosi? She’s not so sure.
Next we have Jeremy at Jeremy’s Jeremiad, who is a Democrat from Utah (yes, I know…a Democrat from Utah would be somewhere to the right of Mitt Romney in Massachusetts):
I also believe that Republicans will maintain dominance of both houses of Congress. I think Democrats nationally have done a very poor job stating why they are better than the Republicans in nearly every area of interest to voters. They haven’t said how they will help the already good economy (I don’t consider a raise in the minimum wage an improvement). They haven’t stated how they will do better than Republicans in keeping America safe from its enemies. They’ve done a good job cataloging the real and harmful errors of the Republicans in this area but they haven’t explained why they are a better alternative. Until they can do this we will continue to see Republican wins because by default most Americans have shown that they trust Republicans to do a better job keeping America secure even after seeing the Republicans fail time and time again in this effort.
Even these Democrat voters can see that the Democrat’s platfrom of “At least we’re not Republicans”, but backed by a complete lack of ideas is probably not going to be enough.
Frankly, a government that doesn’t shift our bills from the richest 1% to our children, doesn’t try to stop life-saving medical research, doesn’t get bogged down in unprovoked wars, and doesn’t go on vacation during national disasters sounds pretty good to me. Sometimes a negative agenda can be quite an improvement.
But if you want something more positive it doesn’t take much research. I believe I posted the same here.
Incidentally, anyone who thinks this a good economy probably wouldn’t be excited about Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House. Unfortunately for Dennis Hastert, most wage earners believe their own lying eyes rather than statistics in the New York Times.
Call me optimistic but I’m hoping that we can do better than a decrease in median incomes with a new government. Talk about a soft bigotry of low expectations.
Well, we reap what we sow. What is a household? More and more are single parent households. Fewer and fewer marriages but more people living together (probably counted as single). More divorces which take an enormous toll on the income of both parties. We’re headed for worse if this keeps up no matter who is the President.
Point taken, but I doubt if the average size of households decreased by 2.8% from 1999 to 2005. And the decreasing household size did not prevent incomes from rising in, say, the previous 30 years. (Though they didn’t rise much compared to the post-war era)
More reform legislation.
1. Clean Elections-style public financing.
2. An independent ethics agency.
3. 3 Day waiting period before voting on legislation preventing last-minute riders.
4. Same-day registration for voting.
5. Fix the voting machine mess.
Same-day registration for voting? Beggggs for fraud. We need voter ID cards!
You made some good points but where is medical insurance for all in your list? This has just got to be a workable, affordable priority by our legislators. Insurance is becoming unaffordable for many and some have none at all. But, we can’t have a program that makes you wait two years for cancer treatment (the program in the UK). And, we can’t have a program that creates high unemployment due to exhorbitantly high costs for employers (Germany). There just has to be a solution and I’m looking hard at Mitt Romney for President for this very reason. We have the best health care in the world and he has implemented a plan in Mass. that appears to provide benefits for all without sacrificing quality of care. I also like his stance on illegal immigration. And, even in your reference table for median incomes, Mass. is doing very well.
Dianne- that’s just reform legislation to clean up Washington. Fixing the broken Medicare Plan D program is a high priority but I wouldn’t expect more comprehensive reform until a Democratic President is inaugurated.
O/T
President Bush- for him or against him, at least you know where he stands.
“In many ways, the economy has not looked so good in a long time.
The price of gas at the pump has tumbled since midsummer. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest level in more than five years. On Wall Street, the Dow Jones industrial average has finally returned to its glory days of the late 1990’s, setting records almost daily. . . .”
Guess where that came from Preston.
Give up yet?
Your New York Times
Uh yeah, as I said, Unfortunately for Dennis Hastert, most wage earners believe their own lying eyes rather than statistics in the New York Times.
Sure, Wall Street brokers are doing great and compared to the insane gas prices of this summer things look better but even as median wages are stagnant, housing, health care, education, and, yes, fuel prices are at or near historic highs. In other words, even if you have more money you can buy less stuff.
But thanks for making my point for me.