Incumbents from both parties defeated in primaries - first time since '80


SactoGuy18

macrumors 68030
Sep 11, 2006
2,737
242
Sacramento, CA USA
I'm not surprised this is happening because American citizens are finally realizing that:

1) We need to reign in the excesses of Wall Street.
2) We need to MASSIVELY overhaul our income tax system to encourage American citizens and businesses to keep as much of their savings and capital investments in the USA as possible.
3) We need to reign in the size of government.

The result could be the biggest change in Congress since the 1994 elections.
 

Sky Blue

Guest
Jan 8, 2005
6,860
10
Is Specter really a Democrat incumbent though? He's been a Republican for the vast majority of his 30 years career. I'm glad to see him go.
Wishing and hoping that Halter wins the run off with Lincoln.

I'm not surprised this is happening because American citizens are finally realizing that:

1) We need to reign in the excesses of Wall Street.
2) We need to MASSIVELY overhaul our income tax system to encourage American citizens and businesses to keep as much of their savings and capital investments in the USA as possible.
3) We need to reign in the size of government.

The result could be the biggest change in Congress since the 1994 elections.
I don't see how any of this relates to the results last night. Halter and Sestak are more progressive than those they were challenging, Dems won in PA-12 and Paul isn't as teabagger-ish as he makes out.
 

CaptMurdock

Suspended
Jan 2, 2009
577
1,966
The Evildrome Boozerama
Don't pop the champaign corks yet, bunkie.
I'm not surprised this is happening because American citizens are finally realizing that:

1) We need to reign in the excesses of Wall Street.
True.
2) We need to MASSIVELY overhaul our income tax system to encourage American citizens and businesses to keep as much of their savings and capital investments in the USA as possible.
Income tax rates are at historic lows. What are you on about?
3) We need to reign in the size of government.
Outside of the Teabaggers, nobody cares about this. None of the people who do care were particularly worried about it when Jr. was expanding the government and tapping our telephones.

The result could be the biggest change in Congress since the 1994 elections.
Doubtful. Most of us haven't forgotten who got us into this mess in the first place.
 

yg17

macrumors G5
Aug 1, 2004
14,888
2,480
St. Louis, MO
Given the fact that Sestak is currently serving in Congress, is it really an outsider beating an incumbent or an incumbent of one house beating the incumbent of another house?

Given that the more progressive candidates in PA and KY won the Democratic primary, PA-12, John Murtha's seat, which was expected to flip to R was held onto by a progressive Democrat (and, btw, the only district in the nation to vote for Kerry and McCain in 2004 and 2008), and the AR primary is headed to a runoff, and still anybody's game (the results are a lot closer than polls indicated), I think it could be considered a rejection of conservatism, not necessarily incumbents.
 

obeygiant

macrumors 601
Jan 14, 2002
4,003
3,774
totally cool
Outside of the Teabaggers, nobody cares about this. None of the people who do care were particularly worried about it when Jr. was expanding the government and tapping our telephones.
Equating the patriot act with the nationalization of the auto industry and the banking industry? Thats a new one.

Doubtful. Most of us haven't forgotten who got us into this mess in the first place.
George Bush started community reinvestment act and the housing crisis?
Whoa!
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,533
8,156
Colorado
Glad to see Spector out. Switching parties just because he thought he would have an easier time getting re-elected is despicable.
 

mcrain

macrumors 68000
Feb 8, 2002
1,768
11
Illinois
Equating the patriot act with the nationalization of the auto industry and the banking industry? Thats a new one.
Yeah, I know. That's such a ridiculous comparison. The patriot act is a massive expansion of federal power and many, including myself, believe that it violates the Constitution. It has been used to allow the Feds to spy on American citizens, search and sieze without warrants, and otherwise trample on Americans' rights. The so-called "nationalization" of the auto and banking industry saved the economy from spirallying out of control, have rescued us from a massive depression, and are looking to be really good investments. Sales of bank stock have made the government a LOT of money. The auto industry is turning around nicely, and those equity positions will likely make the government a sh**pot full of money.

I can't believe anyone would equate such a terrible law like the patriot act to the auto/bank bailouts.

George Bush started community reinvestment act and the housing crisis? Whoa!
The Republican party is the party that pushed for the repeal of Glass-Steagal, deregulation, and ask the guys on wall street who they vote for.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,986
I'm counting on you guys to get rid of that fool next time around.
I haven't gotten a chance to register to vote yet unfortunately. That's up next. Unfortunately I don't think enough people around here really look that much into politics so he may still be viewed somewhat favorably.
 

itcheroni

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2005
547
1
CA
The Patriot Act v. Auto/Financial firms bailout discussion here highlights the problem. It's like arguing child abuse v. murder. It is telling how quickly people here defend the actions of their own political party by pointing fingers at the other party. It's particularly frustrating because any criticism on Obama is met with "well, Bush...." and any criticism of Conservatives is met with "Obama/socialist..." It shows just how partisan you are when you think anyone who disagrees with you must be a member of the other political party. Just to be clear, I think Bush and Obama have been two of the worst presidents we've ever had, and we've had them back to back.

The fact that Rand Paul won by such a large margin gives me some hope.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
I haven't gotten a chance to register to vote yet unfortunately. That's up next. Unfortunately I don't think enough people around here really look that much into politics so he may still be viewed somewhat favorably.
Get on that, young padawan. It's the most important power you have.

The Patriot Act v. Auto/Financial firms bailout discussion here highlights the problem. It's like arguing child abuse v. murder. It is telling how quickly people here defend the actions of their own political party by pointing fingers at the other party. It's particularly frustrating because any criticism on Obama is met with "well, Bush...." and any criticism of Conservatives is met with "Obama/socialist..." It shows just how partisan you are when you think anyone who disagrees with you must be a member of the other political party. Just to be clear, I think Bush and Obama have been two of the worst presidents we've ever had, and we've had them back to back.

The fact that Rand Paul won by such a large margin gives me some hope.
I have yet to hear what exactly is so bad about Obama that doesn't involve some mention of "socialism". Seriously, I have my problems with the guy, but what exactly makes him so terrible?
 

itcheroni

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2005
547
1
CA
I have yet to hear what exactly is so bad about Obama that doesn't involve some mention of "socialism". Seriously, I have my problems with the guy, but what exactly makes him so terrible?
Not to derail this thread but, for me, the most worrisome aspect of Obama is the deficit spending. I think we're already on our way to the worst sovereign debt crises we've ever seen. But, if over the next 5-10 years, we don't have a currency crisis in the U.S., I will happily eat my words. And, in a broader context, his economic policies are based on a flawed understanding of economics. I can't really blame him though, since most economists have a flawed understanding of economics.

I've had this debate on other threads so forgive me if I don't respond to the usual arguments against my point of view.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Not to derail this thread but, for me, the most worrisome aspect of Obama is the deficit spending. I think we're already on our way to the worst sovereign debt crises we've ever seen. But, if over the next 5-10 years, we don't have a currency crisis in the U.S., I will happily eat my words. And, in a broader context, his economic policies are based on a flawed understanding of economics. I can't really blame him though, since most economists have a flawed understanding of economics.

I've had this debate on other threads so forgive me if I don't respond to the usual arguments against my point of view.
Oh- deficit spending is indeed bad. But in order to fix that, he's gonna have to raise taxes. There really is no choice. But raising taxes is always unpopular, so he'll be screwed no matter what he does. I don't think that makes him a bad president, I just think that puts him in an unfortunate, no-win situation.

BTW- I have been against bailouts from the beginning, and do not want to see anymore happen.
 

itcheroni

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2005
547
1
CA
Oh- deficit spending is indeed bad. But in order to fix that, he's gonna have to raise taxes. There really is no choice. But raising taxes is always unpopular, so he'll be screwed no matter what he does. I don't think that makes him a bad president, I just think that puts him in an unfortunate, no-win situation.

BTW- I have been against bailouts from the beginning, and do not want to see anymore happen.
You're not one of the people I'm frustrated with. Whenever you respond to my posts, I at least get the feeling you've read it even if you completely disagree with me.

He'll have to raise taxes for sure, but the more important thing is reducing spending. And both will be political death. So it is a matter of doing the right thing or doing the popular thing. And in my opinion, forget about political parties, no president has done the right thing in a very long time.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,533
8,156
Colorado
Oh- deficit spending is indeed bad. But in order to fix that, he's gonna have to raise taxes. There really is no choice. But raising taxes is always unpopular, so he'll be screwed no matter what he does. I don't think that makes him a bad president, I just think that puts him in an unfortunate, no-win situation.

BTW- I have been against bailouts from the beginning, and do not want to see anymore happen.
Why no mention of cutting spending? I think it is so bad that cutting spending and raising taxes are going to be needed to fix the mess we are in. Either by itself isn't going to do the job.
 

leekohler

macrumors G5
Dec 22, 2004
14,162
19
Chicago, Illinois
Why no mention of cutting spending? I think it is so bad that cutting spending and raising taxes are going to be needed to fix the mess we are in. Either by itself isn't going to do the job.
Sure. Get us out of Iraq and Afghanistan for starters. Let's spend our money on our own people for a change.

I agree that spending needs to be cut, and that's the biggest and worst spending we do. How popular do you think that move would be?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,986
You're not one of the people I'm frustrated with. Whenever you respond to my posts, I at least get the feeling you've read it even if you completely disagree with me.

He'll have to raise taxes for sure, but the more important thing is reducing spending. And both will be political death. So it is a matter of doing the right thing or doing the popular thing. And in my opinion, forget about political parties, no president has done the right thing in a very long time.
Both raising taxes and cutting spending (we can start with the military projects that are years overdue and billions over budget) are the right thing to do. BOTH.
 

.Andy

macrumors 68030
Jul 18, 2004
2,946
583
The Mergui Archipelago
And, in a broader context, his economic policies are based on a flawed understanding of economics. I can't really blame him though, since most economists have a flawed understanding of economics.
Presumably you consider yourself to understand economics better than most economists?
 

itcheroni

macrumors 6502a
Sep 23, 2005
547
1
CA
Why no mention of cutting spending? I think it is so bad that cutting spending and raising taxes are going to be needed to fix the mess we are in. Either by itself isn't going to do the job.
I actually don't think it's possible to even maintain our current deficit. It will simply keep getting bigger until we default, either formally or through inflation(by that I mean inflating the money supply). Bush had the best chance but he blew it. Not only that, he made people believe he was for smaller government when it couldn't be further from the truth.

To bring this thread back to topic, I'm very glad to see both parties get booted out. I hope we can get some people in office who aren't afraid to do the right things even when they are unpopular. A default isn't the worst thing. We could default and regroup. Inflating our way out of this mess would destroy our middle class.