Posted on 11/03/2014 4:12:18 AM PST by Jim Noble
By Tuesday night about 90 million Americans will have cast ballots in an election that’s almost certain to create greater partisan divisions, increase gridlock and render governance of our complex nation even more difficult. Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote...
The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
And they wonder why we need large cap mags...
Why not make him king?
How utterly void of logic and decency these overlords in the media show themselves to be - I find it chilling.
Hey, Duke prof, better idea: let’s cancel tenure. It made sense once, when colleges needed to hang on to the few Ph. D.’s there were, but now it’s a buyers’ market. Pack your bags.
Summation: “My side is losing. Let’s change the rules. It’s only fair.”
If only we could stop all this voting and just let democrats have their way with America.....
If the Dems were cruising to victory, the Slimes would not run a piece like this.
This is what makes me want to vote. Gawd, these people are arrogant. They will not accept any outcome other than they win, AND YOU? You wouldn’t even get a vote, ever.
So, because democrats are going to lose, there should not be an election.
The times has lost all claim to be a valid newspaper and should go out of business.
I don’t remember this rhetoric being used by the NYT when midterms came during a Republican incumbent president?
They just couldn’t fall back on that tried-and-true mantra Democrats spout incessantly when they lose: “Republicans will now have to lead, and that means WORKING [capitulating to] with their American brothers and sisters across the aisle.”
They are even tired of that - “let’s just do away with the mid terms altogether”. We can’t win on ideas - we have to depend on a concocted charismatic chameleon to sweep our dredges into office.
News flash! Elections have consequences. Yours are coming tomorrow.
Another creepy shill piece from the Party of the Single Party State:
> The main impact of the midterm election in the modern era has been to weaken the president, the only government official (other than the powerless vice president) elected by the entire nation. Since the end of World War II, the president’s party has on average lost 25 seats in the House and about 4 in the Senate as a result of the midterms...
“...and while that doesn’t concern us when a Republican is President...”
Thanks Jim Noble.
“My side is losing. Let’s change the rules. It’s only fair.”
Exactly.
Also, why does it always take TWO pinheads to write crap like this.
(snip) “Ninety million sounds like a lot, but that means that less than 40 percent of the electorate will bother to vote... “
So what are the best case losing 49% of that forty percent whining about those who win? Seems like 60% couldn’t give a crap. Maybe that is where the socialists at the NYT ought to be focused on, but then again, maybe it has more to do with their reporting of the news that foments apathy in the first place.
I don’t know. So much time, money and psychic energy go into elections like this . . . and then whatever positive outcomes may result are soon eliminated by the ruling elites, either through unelected regulators or unelected judges. Democracy in the United States is effectively over. Why pretend otherwise?
Certainly not in 2006, when George Bush was the president.
Correct. There was certainly no call for canceling the mid-term elections back in 2006.
There is merit in electing half the House every four years and extending Senate terms to eight years. I’d like to see congressional and Senate terms capped at eight years so no one in Congress serves longer in Washington than a sitting President could.
That’s exactly though why its DOA. No congressional incumbent will voluntarily give up their lifetime tenure, certainly not in exchange for more time in office. And Senators would never agree to give sitting House members the ability to replace them when their term of office is up.
For better or worse, midterm elections will always it seems, be fated to be with us.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.