Are You Voting Tuesday?

[MS256]

Care to divulge which state legislator got a kickback from a lobbyist to build a mansion?

Nope. Don't even know which ones. Just the story of how it works.

I'm not going to name the lobbyist either.

[mmoan2]

That's why I said "most".

Many other states are not that lucky.

Hey, I've lived in New York, Massachusetts, and Arizona. I've never done a study on a cross-section of the upbringing of every politician in history, but the majority I've known were not Ivy League brats. My dad was on several local and national party campaigns in New York and I was a friend of a Congressional Senator's son in Boston; now I've been in State Government in AZ for five years, including over 2 in the Governor's Office, so I feel inclined to speak out on this topic. I'm starting to sound like the old curmudgeon in a golf forum, so I apologize, but I'm pretty sure "most" doesn't apply either. On the national level its worse, yes. Anyway,

[RandallT]

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHVsbnNNdXRoaUE5QThHclNWaTgzb2c&usp;=drive_web#gid=0

A good summary of the House of Representatives 2014 election results at the spreadsheet above.

Total votes for Dems: 32,862,237 (45%)
Total votes for Republicans: 38,273,656 (52%)
Total votes for Others: 2,090,573 (3%)
Total votes in 2014: 73,226,466

Compared to 2012 Presidential total votes: 128,657,119 (mid-term was a drop of 43%)

It'd be interesting to see if you counted all the votes per state and then applied the Electoral College math, who would've won a presidential election, Dem or Rep? With 52% of the vote, you'd think surely a Rep would've won... but electoral math is funny. Not that it would mean much, but interesting nonetheless.

Edit: Looks like that spreadsheet is constantly updated with results, so it is changing. Most data is there though.  A guy named Dave Wasserman ( @Redistrict on T witter) does it every election.

[Golfingdad]

Here's something that I think is really cool:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/this-rhode-island-governor-candidate-won-22-percent-of-the-vote-he-only-spent-35/

Maybe one day a person like this will actually win a race and it will open the floodgates of a big change in government and the party system as we know it.

[Lihu]

Here's something that I think is really cool: [URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/this-rhode-island-governor-candidate-won-22-percent-of-the-vote-he-only-spent-35/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/this-rhode-island-governor-candidate-won-22-percent-of-the-vote-he-only-spent-35/[/URL] Maybe one day a person like this will actually win a race and it will open the floodgates of a big change in government and the party system as we know it.

Great story. I even watched some of the debate. Just wait until voting is on line. Internet voting.

[Dave2512]

I didn't for the first time since I was able to and frankly glad I didn't. So tired of the negative ads and misleading BS that I pretty much hate all politicians. Doesn't matter who is in office my paycheck never changes and I am single so only myself to consider. My parents are fairly important people around town and I actually meet and talk to people like the governor and mayor often, have golfed with a few. Never met a politician that didn't have a serious ego/personality problem.

[newtogolf]

Here's something that I think is really cool:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/this-rhode-island-governor-candidate-won-22-percent-of-the-vote-he-only-spent-35/

Maybe one day a person like this will actually win a race and it will open the floodgates of a big change in government and the party system as we know it.

It's a cool story but a sad statement about the state of our government.  I'd guess that a majority of the 22% Healey won were disenfranchised democrats and republicans who were trying to send a message to their parties rather than actually wanting to vote for Healey.

[Lihu]

It's a cool story but a sad statement about the state of our government.  I'd guess that a majority of the 22% Healey won were disenfranchised democrats and republicans who were trying to send a message to their parties rather than actually wanting to vote for Healey.

Healey was certainly treated in a disenfranchised manner during the debates. Especially by the moderator. The two mainstream candidates spent the entire debate accusing each other of misusing taxpayers money. The take I got is that both of them are guilty of not working hard enough for the people voting for them. It's hard to say what Healey would have done if elected as governor, but his use of friends' walls and frugal campaign certainly sends a message to everyone that government does not have to be so wasteful.

[jamo]

Care to divulge which state legislator got a kickback from a lobbyist to build a mansion? I'm all ears, but this sounds like the kind of conspiracy theory that makes the American public over-the-top skeptical for no good reason. Here's the real explanation to your enigma: Most state legislators are part-time employees, and they usually already have successful careers going before they run for office. If you are organized, funded, smart, etc. enough to win a major political office, you usually are pretty good at your day job in the first place. Probably a lawyer, business owner, engineer, or something lucrative, and often with a spouse or significant other who has a good salary as well. I'm not naïve enough to deny lobbyist influence gets some people a little wealthier, but let's be realistic. No state legislator is funding their million dollar homes with a salary that an office clerk earns. The vast majority are not getting most of it from kickbacks either. Those guys usually end up in prison.

FWIW, 6 engineers: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A I don't know the exact why that stuff is organized (Obama, for instance, was a law professor; would that have put him under "education" or "law?"), but that's a decent wrap-up. (I had to look it up for a class when I was in school.) [quote name="Golfingdad" url="/t/77939/are-you-voting-tuesday/60_30#post_1072825"]Here's something that I think is really cool: [URL=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/this-rhode-island-governor-candidate-won-22-percent-of-the-vote-he-only-spent-35/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/11/05/this-rhode-island-governor-candidate-won-22-percent-of-the-vote-he-only-spent-35/[/URL] Maybe one day a person like this will actually win a race and it will open the floodgates of a big change in government and the party system as we know it. [/quote] Before I moved, and before the election got close, I was thinking about voting for a third party candidate in Massachusetts. I liked his overall positions the most, and the ones I didn't really like never would have gotten any play in the legislature anyway. I think he ended up with ~3% of the vote. (That's a squiggly line to represent "approximately," though it might as well be a negative sign.)

[Golfingdad]

Before I moved, and before the election got close, I was thinking about voting for a third party candidate in Massachusetts. I liked his overall positions the most, and the ones I didn't really like never would have gotten any play in the legislature anyway. I think he ended up with ~3% of the vote. (That's a squiggly line to represent "approximately," though it might as well be a negative sign.)

I would like to shake the hand of anybody who could somehow attain NEGATIVE votes, because that would be awfully impressive.

Could you imagine?  My neighbors heard that I was trying to get everybody in town to vote me onto the City Council as a write-in, and they were frightened as hell at the possibility that the entire town would skip mowing their lawn every other week and all of the city buildings would have a broken porch light so they eschewed voting for their fave and instead wrote in "NOT Golfingdad."

[mmoan2]

FWIW, 6 engineers: http://www.senate.gov/CRSReports/crs-publish.cfm?pid=%260BL%2BR%5CC%3F%0A

I don't know the exact why that stuff is organized (Obama, for instance, was a law professor; would that have put him under "education" or "law?"), but that's a decent wrap-up.

(I had to look it up for a class when I was in school.)

Before I moved, and before the election got close, I was thinking about voting for a third party candidate in Massachusetts. I liked his overall positions the most, and the ones I didn't really like never would have gotten any play in the legislature anyway. I think he ended up with ~3% of the vote. (That's a squiggly line to represent "approximately," though it might as well be a negative sign.

C'mon, man! I was just making the point that most people in office have second careers. Anyway, this is about federal politicians, and I was talking about state politicians when I made that comment.

[Lihu]

C'mon, man! I was just making the point that most people in office have second careers. Anyway, this is about federal politicians, and I was talking about state politicians when I made that comment.

I was going to note that I've only known a few engineers that could almost fit into politics. As I recall, they were not all that good at engineering either. :-D

[jamo]

C'mon, man! I was just making the point that most people in office have second careers. Anyway, this is about federal politicians, and I was talking about state politicians when I made that comment.

Uhh, okay? I wasn't arguing or criticizing. Just trying to be educational. Sheesh.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mmoan2

C'mon, man! I was just making the point that most people in office have second careers. Anyway, this is about federal politicians, and I was talking about state politicians when I made that comment.

I was going to note that I've only known a few engineers that could almost fit into politics. As I recall, they were not all that good at engineering either.

Good!  We got them out of harms way.  At least the bridges won't collapse due to them!

[Mr. Desmond]

Good!  We got them out of harms way.  At least the bridges won't collapse due to them!

Correct ... they will collapse because Congress refuses to pass an infrastructure bill that will stimulate the economy, promote more jobs and provide safer transportation...

But maybe the new guys, same as the old guys, but more of them, will pass something so they can pat themselves on the back and show the American people they can govern. They just did not want to govern when they could not control the gavel... because the other guy might get credit.

So infantile ... the last 4 years.

[newtogolf]

Correct ... they will collapse because Congress refuses to pass an infrastructure bill that will stimulate the economy, promote more jobs and provide safer transportation...

But maybe the new guys, same as the old guys, but more of them, will pass something so they can pat themselves on the back and show the American people they can govern. They just did not want to govern when they could not control the gavel... because the other guy might get credit.

So infantile ... the last 4 years.

Don't  you think posts like yours do nothing more than divide the sides further?  You seem quick to blame Congress and defend Obama.  The way I see it, Obama didn't do much to reach out to the other side to foster a cooperative environment.  Even now, instead of working with the GOP he threatens to pass policies regarding Amnesty without their blessing if they don't succumb to what he wants.

There's a system of checks and balances built into our government and whenever the POTUS thinks he's above the system we have a problem, no matter what side of the room he's representing.

[boogielicious]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mr. Desmond

Correct ... they will collapse because Congress refuses to pass an infrastructure bill that will stimulate the economy, promote more jobs and provide safer transportation...

But maybe the new guys, same as the old guys, but more of them, will pass something so they can pat themselves on the back and show the American people they can govern. They just did not want to govern when they could not control the gavel... because the other guy might get credit.

So infantile ... the last 4 years.

Don't  you think posts like yours do nothing more than divide the sides further?  You seem quick to blame Congress and defend Obama.  The way I see it, Obama didn't do much to reach out to the other side to foster a cooperative environment.  Even now, instead of working with the GOP he threatens to pass policies regarding Amnesty without their blessing if they don't succumb to what he wants.

There's a system of checks and balances built into our government and whenever the POTUS thinks he's above the system we have a problem, no matter what side of the room he's representing.

And your posts helps how?

[Mr. Desmond]

Don't  you think posts like yours do nothing more than divide the sides further?  You seem quick to blame Congress and defend Obama.  The way I see it, Obama didn't do much to reach out to the other side to foster a cooperative environment.  Even now, instead of working with the GOP he threatens to pass policies regarding Amnesty without their blessing if they don't succumb to what he wants.

There's a system of checks and balances built into our government and whenever the POTUS thinks he's above the system we have a problem, no matter what side of the room he's representing.

Just stating the facts ... the Party of No has had control of the House for four years and has blocked any legislation it wants in the Senate because the Dems do not have 60 votes. So they blocked jobs bills, bipartisan immigration bills, infrastructure bills, etc.

Where is the "defend Obama?"

Obama is  a center-left President who is insular and lacks the ability to form coalitions ... He doesn't even backslap his own party members. Of course, he is to blame for not courting people -- Congress is like the girlfriend you want to date. But you don't get that date unless you do some courting and flirting. He fails miserably in the courting and compromise department.

From what I understand, Congress passes laws and send them to the President for veto or signing ... so pass them and lay it at the President's feet for signing or veto.

As to immigration, why should he wait? They've already blocked a bipartisan bill. You think it's going to get better? LOL!

Executive Action means enforcing the laws and regulations on the books in a more aggressive manner. If he goes beyond the law, then Congress has a case. The President may interpret the law broadly; this Congress will interpret it narrowly.

I suggest this Congress gets off its butt, brush aside the dust that has collected on its collective hynies, and pass decent legislation that helps solve problems, not create new ones.