News, Spartan Daily
Overiew of Calif.’s 2010 Midterm Election
By Salman Haqqi
November 3, 2010
Print This Story
The Nov. 2 midterm elections reshaped America’s political map as Democrats lost the supermajority they had won in the 2008 general election.
House Democrats lost 60 seats, ending up with a 185 to 239 seat count while hanging onto a narrow 52 to 46 seat majority in the Senate, according to The New York Times.
In a post-election news conference, President Barack Obama referred to the loss as an electoral “shellacking” for the Democratic Party, but said he remains optimistic to have a reasoned discourse with Republicans in the months to come.
“I do believe there is hope for civility,” he said. “I do believe there’s hope for progress. And that’s because I believe in the resiliency of a nation that’s bounced back from much worse than what we’re going through right now.”
John Boehner, Republican speaker-elect of the U.S. House of Representatives, said the Republican victory reflected the American voters’ desire to “change course.”
“Across the country right now, we are witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of Big Government and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the people,” he said.
Senate majority leader Harry Reid, who won a hotly contested election against tea party-favorite Sharron Angle in Nevada, said the change in the balance of power means that the Democrats will have to find a way to collaborate with both House and Senate Republicans.
“History dictates that we have to work together,” he said. “Gridlock will not do the trick.”
Obama was conciliatory in his remarks, admitting that Tuesday’s election was indicative of the American people’s dissatisfaction with the progress that his administration has made since taking office in 2009.
“Too many Americans haven’t felt that progress yet, and they told us that yesterday,” he said. “And as president, I take responsibility for that.”
One Response to “Overiew of Calif.’s 2010 Midterm Election”
Ted Rudow III,MA says:
November 4, 2010
Well, I think it’s important to look at who the tea party are, what the tea party is. I mean, let’s remember, it’s many different organizations. They wouldn’t be there if it hadn’t been for an enormous amount of money from a few—well, Simon Johnson calls them the “13 bankers.”
13 Bankers is the rise of concentrated financial power and the threat it poses to our economic well-being. Over the past three decades, a handful of banks became spectacularly large and profitable and used their power and prestige to reshape the political landscape.
More remarkable, the responses of both the Bush and Obama administrations to the crisis–bailing out the megabanks on generous terms, without securing any meaningful reform–demonstrate the lasting political power of Wall Street. The largest banks have become more powerful and more emphatically “too big to fail,” with no incentive to change their behavior in the future. This only sets the stage for another financial crisis, another government bailout, and another increase in our national debt economic well-being.
The Wall Street world that Barack Obama told, “I’m the only thing that stands between you and the pitchforks,” turned around, and for all the compromising that Barack Obama did to Wall Street and to the banksters who had brought us the crisis that he inherited when he was elected president, they turned around and poured money into the organizations that we think of as the tea party. Other the people, as well, but, you know, $75 million from the US Chamber of Commerce, most of it, almost all of it, anonymous money.
Ted Rudow III,MA
class of 1996