So please don't make it one...

I am not surprised because I think the reason that the Democrats did not garner more support is because Barack was not on the ballot. As much as I dislike his policies I think he is a charismatic figure that people generally like. Without his draw I think many of these races were bound to flip.

The next two years should be interesting. I wonder how often the Senate and House will need to file lawsuits against the administration for circumventing Congress via executive action.

I saw one report that said the reason voter turnout for "millenials" was so low was that the candidates did not discuss topics they felt were pertinent - examples given were lowering interest rates on student loans and legalizing marijuana.

So i guess any candidate in a runoff needs to make their slogan "I propose lower student loan interest rates so you can afford to buy more legal marijuana."

Sound Tactic, I disagree with your link to Obama. His charm has faded as evidenced by his sinking popularity numbers.

He was here in my home state, along with Mrs BO and Bill Clinton, stumping for the Dem candidate for governor. I think their appearances, especially POTUS', caused more harm than good. Many Dem candidates have been distancing themselves from him and I'm betting the lady candidate here wishes she had too.

How is a topic about politics not politcal??

Just wondering.

Topic is about voting. You can spin any discussion into politics if you want.

I was not saying he has popularity but he has charisma sufficient to bring out his base. An election is all about who votes not actual approval. You can have a net negative approval rating and win an election if your voting base is motivated.

Not sure if i count as a millenial, but as someone who's relatively young, I feel that the whole system is broken. Very few candidates really stand out to me. I may agree with one or the other on an issue or two, but they all seem phony and beholded to the status quo. Basically, i dont see a big difference. Yeah, on some social issues they make a big show of it, but none of them are trying to reform lobbying or donations or gerrymandering. It's all a bunch of corruption and greed.

I dont even care that a candidate will push the exact things i am in favor of. I would prefer a candidate who had actual evidence and logical arguments who disagreed with me but was thoughtful and open-minded. I mean, when was the last time a politician admitted they were wrong in the past or changed their mind or said "hey, i dont know what exactly will work".

And it's our own fault. If a candidate was that honest and acknowledged the complexities of situations, they'd be run out of town. We want simple answers and clear lines between good and bad. We want a superman who has all the answers to tell us we're awesome and we'll be safe. And since that doesn't exist, we're left with liars who are willing to SAY that that's who they are. And we buy it.

So it's not that the candidates dont talk about pot or lowering student loans. it's that none of them have any substance beyond empty rhetoric. None of them say anything worth getting excited about.

Very well said

Well said, Stupendous.
My comment at the end of the evening yesterday was that I hope the next election doesn't focus on race or gender or what someone has done wrong in the past. It's the quality of the grey matter between the ears that make a candidate worth voting for.

For a different point of view: it would seem that candidates love to hide among complexities, using supposed complexities like a smoke screen to hide what they actually believe and what they actually will do as our elected officials. They acknowledge the complexities far too much. The true answers to the nation's issues are actually quite simple but the gullible voting public willfully embraces the notion of complexities.

SM, I think the problem with most candidates (almost all) is they are willing to do or say anything weather they believe it or not. They have no affiliation to you and do not stand up for their constituency.

Not trying to make this political but for the sake of argument I will use a name of a person I supported. In 2012 and 2011 I was a big Paul Ryan fan.

In 2009 and 2010 Paul Ryan submitted some excellent budgets for the Senate and I thought, this guy represents what I want America to be like. Then he ran for VP on the Romney ticket. I didn't like the choice as much because I wanted him to stay in the Senate and fight for rational spending. But then in 2012 the Republicans (him included) approved a budget that had massive spending. Their justification was, well we are slowing the rate of increase (commonly known as the sequester cuts). The problem is, that last year, Ryan was instrumental in actually removing almost all of the sequester cuts. Thus, the entire budget was not only excessive, any controls in place to reduce the amount of ridiculousness fell by the way side. http://www.politicususa.com/2013/02/24/p...ey-anymore.html

These people are all frauds. The majority of them are not qualified to be making the major policy decisions they are taking part in (although. to be fair, some are).

I consider myself conservative but I do not think that Mitch McConnel or John Boehner (SP?) should be the two people who are the face of conservatism. Neither are conservative and both of them want to negotiate. This means, allow for more liberalism provided they get a few things to go their way (IE liberalism in their jurisdictions).

You can find it both ways. I am just using these examples because these are a few I have followed.

Oh! Voting!! OK.

I've never once voted on American Idol, have you?

I did however, vote for the best jack o lantern recently. That thing was awesome!

Being in Iowa, elections are a really big deal. Apparently we're important on the national scale, though most people (myself included) don't see why. I find that most elections, I find myself voting against the person I dislike the most. Rarely do I ever feel I'm voting for anyone. I'm not overly pleased with my state's results, but in the end, I don't expect it would have made much difference one way or another. Lots of emphasis on electing our first female US senator, but I won't comment on her one way or the other, lest it get political.

I was pretty impressed with the amount of discussion and prompting I saw among people in my own age group and younger about getting out to vote, and being educated on the candidates. Not sure if it translates to a state-wide trend or not. Maybe it's just another sign of me getting older though, and not of younger people getting more involved/interested.

You think subjects like the economy or the middle east or taxes are simple? OK, but I disagree. How could they be when there are thousands (millions?) of interconnected variables that we can't even measure (and may not even realize exist) and we have a small sample size with tons of random variation we dont even realize. There's no way to control the variables to measure their impact.

Yes, we've noticed.

Thanks for contributing.

I agree 100%. Several of my votes were based on my dislike of the "other" candidate. Sometimes dislike of their positions and other times just a general dislike/distrust. Although a trustworthy politician is more rare than a unicorn.

I voted. Surprised in your pole that 25% did not.

I had a date with a much younger chick. Sorry.

The ethnic, economic, political(as in relative balance of power as bound up in various treaties), historical, and geographic variables wrapped up in the Axis powers' expansion prior to World War II were immensely complex; way more complex than anything we're facing in the middle east today but, until the Allies came together and spent much time, blood and treasure swatting the Axis in the manner illustrated by Sound Tactic's avatar, the issue festered. The end solution was simple and would have been simpler if addressed sooner rather than later. Instead, the world had to sustain a First World War, an ineffective League of Nations, a Maginot Line, U.S. isolationism, and a dithery Prime Minister Chamberlain proclaiming that he'd secured "peace for our time."

Taxes are needlessly complex because we are manipulated and stand for it and not because it is a necessary method of filling the treasury.

The economy is needlessly complex because of bureaucratic albatrosses and the tax burden (see above).

Yeah ... simple solutions can be found with the will to do so.

OK

Who are you, Lena Dunham?

No idea what this means.

Thanks for contributing, Scrappy.