US mid-term elections thread

[longfingernails]

Just getting it going - projections will start coming in the next couple of hours.

Personally, I hope that America will give Obama a real kicking!

Marking my place!

OP - what would that achieve, though? What would your ideal policy outcome be?

twocathedrals I don't know. I hated the Bush America too, to be honest - it was a mockery of Conservatism.

They have to cut their deficit though. Obama has to make big, big cuts in federal spending. There might have to be some tax rises for Republicans to swallow too, but the bulk should be done through cuts.

In many ways, a process where nothing can happen because a Tea Party House of Representatives can't agree with a filibusterable Senate and Democrat President might be a good thing for a while. No legislation apart from essential spending will get passed - and that is no bad thing.

I also want a more socially liberal America, but social issues aren't that important compared to the economy.

In general, I want Obama to take some pain out of national interest too, for his anti-British attitude. The Republicans seem so much more Anglophile these days.

The thing is, Obama doesn't have the power to make cuts - only the House and Senate do. So you're completely right that if you want cuts (any cuts), a divided House and Senate is the way forward. But if you want particular cuts, it would be better if House and Senate could work together, I think. And I don't like the idea of kicking Obama for something which is not strictly his fault. The Presidency is pretty weird, I think. It's 90% foreign policy, which is something only 10% of the electorate really cares about.

I some ways, I really admire the American budget system - everything the federal government spends is laid out in black and white. The disadvantage is the endless quid pro quo - I'll vote for your bridge if you vote for my forestry subsidy. It's interesting that, in terms of the British national interest, a strong US economy might be more important than a liberal social attitude. Personally, give me liberalism any day - but it might not be best for my wallet! The other thing is that I think I might be a Keynesian. I'm not sure that spending in a recession is really such a bad thing. And I think that some spending is morally obligatory - like sorting out the unpleasant US healthcare system.

Some video coverage on Fox and CNN:

interactive.foxnews.com/livestream/live.html?chanId=2

live.cnn.com/

I can't find a live video stream for MSNBC, ABC or CBS.

The trouble is that neither Labour nor Bush/Repub Congress acted in a Keynesian way.

No-one disagrees with reprofiling spending to spend more in a recession. The problem is, you need to pay for it, upfront, in the good times by running surpluses.

That is honest Keynesianism.

Bush passed unaffordable tax cuts for the rich, and wasted money on a pointless war in Iraq. A true conservative would have balanced the budget, cut a lot of current federal spending, devolved more power to the States, and invested in infrastructure. Instead we got trillion dollar deficits - under a Republican!

Whilst I don't think Obamacare is perfect, I agree that healthcare had to be sorted out - and federal mandates aren't that bad, in the grand scheme of things. However, the economy was more important. By spending so much time, legislative effort and political capital on healthcare Obama lost control of economic confidence.

Also I prefer using monetary levers rather than fiscal, because they are simpler, and depend less on the whims and favours of politicians.

However, I respect honest Keynesianism. I don't like the "spend spend spend because we've eliminated boom and bust" version advocated by Gordon Brown, and now, it seems, by Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

I was just thinking of agreeing with you at 20:49, especially on Bush, but now you've gone and spoiled it all by throwing Broon in with three non-homogenous Democrats! It's a shame we're all on our own here, really... I bet we could develop a nice disagreement with a little more input! The foursome you mention all have very different political motivations. And I suspect that Brown lost it just a little bit, whereas the other three still seem reasonably rational.

I totally disagree with Nancy Pelosi's political agenda - but she is extremely ruthless. She got what she wanted through, when others wouldn't.

By comparison Harry Reid is a spineless wimp. I hope he loses, even though Sharron Angle is crazy crazy crazy!

In a way it is a shame that the Republicans will probably win the House, and the Democrats will just hang on to the Senate. I would have preferred it the other way round - I have a strange soft spot for Nancy Pelosi!

President Obama has spoken of "ending bubble and bust economics" though. The arrogance of thinking you can abolish economic cycles isn't limited to this side of the Atlantic!

Nooo! Reid is a good guy (although I secretly agree with your assesment - and he's a waayyy better choice than the scary alternative!)...

Yes - cyclical economics seems inevitable to me too, so it's an odd thing to say.

Have you guys seen Paul Mason's guide to QE2? Scary stuff!

Obama might be rational but it seems America just isn't willing to listen to him at the moment.

Political leaders need to earn the right to be heard, and they need to keep re-earning it. It's why the Tories were ignored until Cameron came along and partially detoxified the brand.

Obama has lost all the fiery resolve and purpose he had during his campaign because he wasn't ready for the realities of governance.

I saw an unintentionally hilarious interview segment of him on the Daily Show. Jon Stewart asked: "What happened to Yes, we can?". Obama replied, "Yes, we can... but" - what a disaster!

jackstarbright Normally I disagree with Paul Mason, but that is a wonderful article. Thanks!

Fab article, jackstarbright!

First poll numbers are due soon!

I love election nights

Indiana and Kentucky have closed. Numbers coming any minute now.

Oops apparently there are two time zones in Indiana and Kentucky - only some of the polls have closed there.

LFN - I know what you mean about Paul Mason - but he provides a comprehensive and reasonably clear description of QE2 - which is a first, I think.

2cathedrals - glad you liked it.

Rand Paul has probably won Kentucky!

Dan Coats also seems to be romping home in Indiana.

If these numbers are replicated across America, Obama is in HUGE trouble.

FOX calls Indiana and Kentucky Senate seats for the Republicans.

Rand Paul has won Kentucky with 55% of the vote, says BBC news channel. 'One of the Tea Party's brightest stars...'

I have to say, I am fairly ignorant of the workings of the midterm election processes (Midterms for Dummies link, anyone?)but I love election coverage.

EightiesChick All the House of Representative seats are being contested, and 37 out of 100 Senate seats.

At the moment Democrats control both House and Senate (in the Senate they sit with 2 independents, and lost their "supermajority", which lets them force votes on issues if they want to, in a by-election when Ted Kennedy died).

Democrats are projected to lose the House but just hold on to the Senate.

Also - loads of State Governor elections are on today. Republicans are expected to make many gains.

Looks like Harry Reid will hang on because of a very heavy early voting effort.

Haha leftwing icon Alan Grayson looks like total toast.