More 2024 Election Thoughts

There are a number of factors that went into the Democrats losing in 2024.  Below are just my very amateur thoughts:

1) Racism: I mean... there was a whole movement born out of Obama being elected.  Racism has been, for as long as I can remember, a dog whistle the Republican party would blow in every Presidential election but with Trump, that was now more open and obvious to the point of it being basically a bullhorn.  

2) Sexism: We just have to look back 8 years to see the impact of sexism in our Presidential races.  While Clinton wasn't a great candidate, if the same policy/behaviors had been from a male democrat, I think things might have been different... or that politician would have been a republican.  

Quick side note: It's also telling that we've only had 2 women Presidential candidates and 2 non-white Presidential candidates who have run in the general (and one of each wasn't there due to primary results).

3) Short memory span: nobody remembers how bad Trump was and certainly they don't remember how awful he was with covid... or they are in his base and think he did fine somehow.  

4) "It can't possibly be that bad therefore it's not and won't be": this is the same intellectual dysfunction that people have with all sorts of things, including covid and climate change.  It can't be that a white supremacist would be the nominee.  It can't be that a basic mob boss is the nominee of a party for the Presidency.  It can't be that he's being that openly dumb.  Therefore, it's not.  Also, Project 2025 is a nightmare scenario, so it can't be that they actually want to implement it.

5) Back and forth between the parties to resolve things: generally if the world is seen as being bad, it doesn't matter whose policies are actually better for the situation, one side had 4 years, give the other side a chance (even if the one side didn't actually have power during that time because they didn't have Congress).  I had a colleague who felt this way prior to Trump.  He and I are no longer talking so I don't know if he would still feel this way... but I can easily see this being a rational in combination with the third and fourth for many to decide that it was time to vote for a Republican.

6) It's the economy stupid.... but the economy is not an easy topic.  People know that things are more expensive now than they were.  Whatever the reason for that increased expense, they blame the current administration (a not uncommon scenario) and Harris was tainted by being in that administration.  

7) A general shift toward caring less about others.  In the spring of 2020, there was a general push to see everyone as part of the same community.  Republicans generally pushed against being concerned about the public's health.  As time went by, that push against taking precautions for the general public's safety became more and more accepted by the broader population.  By spring 2021, the "we're in this together" messaging from Democrats and media had been switched to "protect yourself for your own sake and don't worry about others."  A natural extension of this is that men shouldn't worry about women, whites don't have to worry about non-whites, straight people don't have to ... you get the picture.  And even if you were a member of a targeted population, as long as you're not overly concerned or think that you won't be more targeted than otherwise, well, then it's not like this election is actually that great a concern.

8) "Vote for me because my opponent is awful" worked in 2020 because we were in the thick of Trump-Terror... but it's a poor motivational message, especially when you combine with element 4 above.

First They Came For The Vulnerable (Post Election Anger and Pain)

First they came for the vulnerable...
and you said f' them, yolo, and promoted not caring about others for 3.5 years.
and then, well, here we are.... did you think promoting a society where we didn't care about those perceived as vulnerable would lead somewhere else?
Do you care yet? Still only about select groups?
#ItsSoMuchWorseThanYouThink #ItDidntHaveToBeThisWay #NotEveryoneSurvived #NotEveryoneWillSurvive #IDontKnowHowToMakeYouCare #DoYouGetItNow 

Alabama Special Election 2017

I'm thankful that Alabama elected Jones. That said, the exit polls point out several interesting things and I'm looking forward to looking at them more later. A few quick notes from a cursory review:

1) Had the write-ins been Moore votes, we would have seen a Moore victory, which suggests that this came down to Republicans / Right-leaning Independents not stomaching voting for Moore

2) In case you haven't seen it, take a look at the racial breakdown, it's amazing. 96% of blacks polled voted for Jones, 68% of whites polled voted for Moore, and 2% of whites polled voted write-in.

3) Younger voters continue to be more progressive than their elders. Voters under the age of 44 made up a minority of the vote (35%) but voted for Jones (60%) while a majority of voters over 45 voted for Moore, though not at the rate of 60%.

The exit polling information I've briefly looked through can be found here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2017/politics/alabama-exit-polls/?utm_term=.c687cadd54ed

Politics in the Age of Trump Part 1

It's fascinating to me to see people's reactions in the last year from a variety of groups.  I'll start by summarizing what I've seen.

Liberals:  I've seen liberals fall into a couple different camps:

• Pragmatic + There but for the grace of God go I: "I don't understand those that voted for Trump and feel we should try to understand them so that we can work better at winning leadership of the country in the future."  This group is disgusted by Trump and extremely concerned with where this country is going.  Fixated on trying to resolve this by bringing at least some of those that voted for Trump into some semblance of what they find to be sane, they see the path forward is to reconnect the country, at least some.

• There not even by the grace of God go I: "I can't tolerate those that voted for Trump and am uninterested in engaging."  This group is so disgusted with what they perceive Trump to represent that they feel it is unreasonable to engage in the conversation.  Indeed, they see Trump as multiple forms of evil, some of which may be negotiated with, but some completely intolerable.  The path forward is to engage with the part of the country that they find to be sane.  Maybe in 2 and 4 years, this will be fresh in the minds of the majority of the country and Democrats will retake the House, Senate, and eventually the White House.

Conservatives: Conservatives tend to fall into a few different camps as well:

• Anti-Trump camp: O.k., let's break this down even further, shall we?
• Civilians (non-politicians/political leaders): "Holy @#$% what did my party just do?!?"  They tend to be horrified by what they've seen.  This group either sees most of the support for President Trump coming from the same "basket of deplorables" that Clinton referred to (racist, sexist, homophobic, religious intolerant groups) OR they feel that there is a way that a President should conduct him/her self and that President Trump's behavior simply isn't that.  For the latter, you can see this to be his utter lack of coordination within his administration, his disinterest in communication, and his off-the-cuff decision making.
• Politicians / party leaders: "Well, I have some concerns [but we're going to keep following his lead for the foreseeable future]."  Think people like Senator McCain.  They appear to be deeply concerned with what they've seen for either of the reasons that civilians are but are being significantly more careful about their actions so as not to anger the President.  They see that politics in this country has been turned somewhat on its head... o.k., it's not entirely turned on its head, it's just that what would have caused some panic for a normal President's supporters is not causing it for the last year for President Trump's supporters.  So, much the same as has happened in past administrations, on both sides, the politicians tend to keep with their party leadership and, while they may say they are concerned, don't ever say that they're particularly deeply concerned and certainly never act on that concern, including when questioning experts while in  hearings.
• Pro-Trump camp 1: "He's not your normal President, he's a normal-person.  You can't expect him to conform to your expectations of how a President should behave and to do so is showing partisan politics."  This group sees the Comey letter and says "he's just asking someone to drop something the way I would ask a colleague or friend... it's not obstruction, it's just one person to another person."  "There's no reason to be concerned when he invites deadly dictators to the White House because he's just trying to do what he does."  This group sees President Trump's not releasing his tax returns as something not to be concerned about because they trust him to not be swayed by his own financial and family ties.  They either don't see the comparison between President Trump's privacy regarding his taxes as being remotely hypocritical when compared to President Trump's obsession with President Obama's birth certificate or feel that everyone in Washington is hypocritical, so why judge.  They also don't necessarily believe everything President Trump says, but don't see it as a problem that the President is lying, there are bigger issues at stake after all.
• Pro-Trump camp 2: "Drain the Swamp!" O.k., liberals and the media have tended to take "drain the swamp" in the way they think of it: remove the Wall Street corruption.  From listening to people calling into various shows, I think this camp doesn't see Wall Street as the problem, but rather D.C. politicians.  Drain the swamp means that we should stop working with those that are in political leadership, from either party, and should bring in outsiders.  This is why the media was confused when they saw the cabinet being formed and why this group of supporters celebrated.  This is also why they feel that Speaker Leader Ryan was the one that made the folly with the American Health Care Act, not the President, because Ryan is not to be trusted as he is part of the establishment in D.C., part of the taint that must be drained.  They don't necessarily believe everything Trump says, but they also don't really mind that he's lying, just so long as he's breaking up the establishment and the normal way of doing things in D.C.
• Pro-Trump camp 3: "The world is lying and only President Trump is speaking it like it is"... I'm not sure if I can really go into more depth than that... This group is, simply put, blind.

More discussion of each camp to come...

That's it, I'm done, I just can't anymore.... o.k., maybe I can

I'm so tired of it all.

I'm tired of people on the Right feeling like they're the only ones that care about morals.  The Left has morals just as much as the Right does.  Our value systems and beliefs may be different, but both sides believe and rely just as heavily on their morals.

I'm tired of people on the Left saying that it all falls down to <x> whether that be racism, sexism, stupidity, backwardness, or whatever.  I'm tired of hearing that the reason that people didn't come out to vote for Clinton was because of sexism, or that both sides are the same... something that has been said in past elections by many many people without there being a woman on the ballot.  I'm tired of feeling like those who I should be allies with consider me to be part of the problem because I try to understand the other side rather than just assuming what we've come up with is the answer to why they voted the way they did, or the reason they didn't come out to vote.

I'm REALLY tired of hearing that the only reason to dislike Hilary is sexism and that the honest-to-God reasons that I dislike her (I voted for her but she was the lesser of two evils) are invalid and cannot possibly be real, never mind the reasons that the Right might have voted against her given their positions on things such as: taxes, being pro-choice, wars, trade, and while not a position, her being the face of the Big Bad Establishment.

I'm tired of feeling on the wrong side of everything.  Regardless of what side I'm talking to it seems, I'm on the wrong side of it.

I'm tired of realizing that so many people in this country are so angry and are, I hope, blinded by that anger and blinded by some of the rhetoric, that they vote, in my opinion, against they're better interests and against the interests of those they love.

I'm tired of it all.

I'm so tired that I want to just give up.  I can't do it anymore.  I'm not going to post anymore about anything political on Facebook.  I'm not going to comments on others' posts.  Given that a lot of the people I'm dealing with on Facebook are OPENAIR Circus folk and I can't handle how they must think of me based on what they've said and what I've said, I'm going to disengage from that community....

I can't leave the OPENAIR Circus though... o.k., so I'll teach and organize but I won't engage with people on a personal level.  I can do that.  I can teach and organize the other teachers without really talking to any of the adults ... or the other teachers beyond discussing the program and their classes.  I can generate the schedule, update the website, generate the registration forms, organize the performances, hold stilting workshops, I can do all of it and retreat from the friendships I've formed over the years....

All those friendships... the ones I've valued so much and have helped keep me going throughout it all... I can dismiss them... right?  I can turn away from those I like, those I love, those I respect... I can do that....

O.k., maybe not...

Romney Insults Minorities, Women, and Young Adults for Loss

Alright, let's ignore for a moment that this was a tight election.  It was a lot tighter than many would lead you to believe and it was a lot tighter than it should have been given that Romney was the one running... and why is that important?.... that is the topic of this post.  Romney claims to understand what was wrong but the claimed understanding points to why he should have lost in a true landslide, not the shrug that nation gave while re-electing a moderate Democrat.

Romney spoke to his financial backers on November 15th and laid out his vision of why he lost.  Essentially, it's because Obama bribed minorities, women, and young adults.  And no, he doesn't mean that Obama went out and gave money to people to vote for him, he means that the initiatives Obama backed were those that minorities, women, and young adults would appreciate and would find financially beneficial to them.  Putting aside that this essentially means that Obama was better for these groups ON THE ISSUES and that he did his job in a way that these groups would approve of... a discussion for later on in this post, this is an astonishing claim.

For one thing, Romney made plenty of mistakes during the campaign.

1. He held firm with his message that he was the Governor of Massachusetts.... and every time he said anything about us, we retaliated with "you're a lying sack of sh@# and we're glad you're not our Governor anymore, now stop mentioning us you fu@#ing a$$hole".  Our education system was one of the best in the nation before you stepped in and kicked it around and it's still one of the best in the nation despite your best efforts to destroy it.  Our economy is good because we've invested wisely and have a great education system (see previous sentence).  Admittedly, our health care is almost half-way decent but 1) you're running away from the improvements you made to it and 2) again, it was already half-way decent before you came to down.
2. He ran to the far right at the start of the campaign and one of his staffers let it out that he would shake up his stances on the issues after the primaries.... yes, it's widely known that you pivot after the primaries, but you don't tell everybody about it, and you don't pivot as wildly as everybody knew he'd have to and as wildly as he did in October starting with the first general election Presidential debate.
3. Speaking of debates, while he was strong in the first debate, which was the first good step he had made since June, he then proceeded to try to man-handle the woman moderator of the second debate, got her so pissed off at him that she stepped into the debate and shut down one of his arguments.  He also spent the entirety of the second debate claiming he would create more jobs than Obama... the entirety minus 10 seconds where he repeated "Government doesn't make jobs" twice while speaking over the moderator.... classy move dipsh$%.
4. He made various public and private statements that ended up hurting him, such as that 47% of the country didn't pay taxes and therefore were going to vote for Obama no matter what he did (which is ridiculousness considering the make up of that 47% and the fact that many of them vote Republican) and his attack on the President in the midst of the Benghazi incident that came across as opportunistic and decidedly not Presidential in addition to highlighting his pathetic level of foreign policy knowledge and experience.
5. Speaking of foreign policy, his trip overseas was a disaster and yet he continued to try to attack the President on Obama's foreign policies toward Israel and the overall Middle East/Northern Africa region.
6. Because his credentials as a true Conservative were a bit shaky, he tried to sure up the base by taking on GOP wonk Representative Paul Ryan.  This was a bit interesting because it brought the budget to the forefront of the discussion... wait, no, it didn't because the very first thing every news company did after the announcement was go to how Ryan was a health nut.  After that we got to start talking about the budget.... except that their plans were too complicated to explain on news shows, so we didn't get to discuss them really, just the hypotheticals, sort of, in a distant far off kind of way to avoid specifics such as how we'd end up paying for the tax cuts and the military spending they wanted.
7. Republicans didn't help him out either, with a pathetic Republican Convention and with various Republicans running for office and touting that science isn't real (women's bodies have a way of shutting down a pregnancy if it's unwanted) and rape isn't so bad (if a pregnancy is the outcome of a rape, that's God's will and it's a blessed thing... which, by less stretching of the statement than Ryan's stretching the truth on his marathon run time, means that rape is a blessed thing).

Alright, back to his statements of bribery though... "The president's campaign, if you will, focused on giving targeted groups a big gift... He made a big effort on small things"... such as what, Romney? Don't stop there, give us something particularly juicy to sink our teeth into.

1. Free health care, he claimed, was highly motivational to black and Hispanic voters as well as voters making $25k to $35k/year.  
2. The administration's promise to offer "amnesty" to "the so-called DREAM Act kids" was a big influence on the Hispanic vote.
3. The administrations plan for partial forgiveness of college loan interest and being able to remain on their parents' health insurance plans were big for the young adult vote.
4. Free contraception coverage under the heath care plan had pushed young women to be in favor of Obama.

I don't know about you, but to me, these seem like stances on issues that are backed by the Democratic platform.  The DREAM Act was an important piece of legislation that the Democrats brought forward and was prevented by the Republican held House.  This legislation was then partially put into practice by the Obama Administration's stated priorities in what cases they would pursue, a perfectly legitimate movement considering that there is far too much work to be done on the U.S. immigration front than can be reasonably expected to be done, so we have to prioritize the work that can be done.  Romney essentially said "Obama ran on the Democratic Party's platform, and that's not fair."

The explanation that these priorities and stands on the issues of the day are equivalent to bribery is somewhat interesting and the idea that people voted for Obama because they got free things plays directly into the 47% statement that Romney gave at another donor discussion that was also leaked.  Each of his statements was insulting to every group that the Republicans have to work on if they are going to be at all successful in the future.

It almost seemed like this Romney committing Seppuku for the Republican Party.  By deliberately insulting every group that he had alienated during the campaign, he places the blame for the loss squarely on the shoulders of his complete lack of understanding of the electorate and his utter lack of connection with the less fortunate (aka, the bottom 99.99% of this nation).  By taking the hit, he distances the Republican Party from himself and they have the opportunity to say "wow, can you believe that nut job?" just as they did with W. Bush.  I would be willing to bet that Romney won't appear at the nominating convention in 2016, just as W. Bush didn't appear at the nominating convention in 2008 or in 2012.

The future of the Republican Party?

So, I have this problem.  There are two things I want to happen, and they are drastically different from eachother... and neither one will truly come to be.

1. The Republican Party learns from the 2012 election and determines that they should come to face facts about certain things.  
• Global climate change is real
• Women should be treated as full-fledged citizens and equal in every way to men.
• There is no evidence that cutting taxes on rich people grows the economy... none, zero, zilch, and it's been tried again and again for the last century.
• The Bureau of Labor Statistics did not make up a fake unemployment rate in October to help Obama look better, the economy really was improving.
• Evolution is real, as is science in general... and scientists may not know everything but they're not lying about the crazy sh@# they discuss.
• Saddam Hussein did not have weapons of mass destruction and the intelligence agencies knew he didn't.
• Moderate regulations on the insurance and financial services industries are not communism, or even socialism, they're the government doing part of its job: protecting its citizens.
• ... and with all these things accepted, we can start discussing actual policies and not the BS... and perhaps make some progress with the discussions needed
2. The Republican Party ignores the lessons from 2012, follows the Tea Party even further off the cliff and end up losing their power to the point of no longer being a viable political party (similar to the Green Party and Libertarian Party).  If this happens, I see a couple options for what comes next:
• We pretty much have a one-party system, which would hopefully mean that essentially we have no political parties and people have to run on their stances on the issues.
• Another party springs up in the power vacuum but hopefully one that is more sane and we have the result found in the Republican Party learning from their mistakes.

I don't really see either of these hopes coming true though, so the inner conflict I feel wishing for each to happen is really a moot point.  The Republicans are already saying that there's no need to change their stances on the issues and that it's really only about messaging.  The cynic in me suggests that Romney's coming out and saying the truly idiotic rationalizing of his loss (that Obama bribed minorities, women, and young people to vote for him through things like health care reform and the DREAM Act... a discussion for a different post) was really a setup by the Republican Party where they said "we gave you a shot, now go say this so we can leak it and call you a crazy person so we're not tainted by you."  All this suggests that they're ignoring the lessons, and they are, but I see no reason to believe that they'll fail to continue pushing their agenda successfully.  This country voted for Obama 51%-48%.  That means roughly half the country is so far gone that they actually voted for Romney.... for Romney, not the Republican Party, for Romney, the guy who is so slimy that he can't give a press briefing without smirking at the end, even if he's talking about people who are dying overseas, the guy who changes positions on issues so fast you don't even realize it's happened (you remember the second debate where he argued for an hour that he would create more jobs than Obama and then interrupted the moderator to yell "Government doesn't create jobs, Government doesn't create jobs").  Yes, the nation is this far gone that they voted for Romney over Obama, because the Republicans have convinced them that Obama is a Socialist, Communist, Nazi who will take their guns and money away and replace their health care with government run health care... none of which is true (unless you happen to be in the top 5%, in which case only 1 of those items is true).  Republicans are amazing at messaging and convincing people that the truth is wrong and that their explanation is true... and for that reason, I don't see my second ideal coming to fruition either.

2012 repeats 2008's message to Republicans

Dear Republicans,

I know you love Fox News and your Right Wing Talk Radio, but I think it's time for you to pay attention to what the electorate is saying... here's a bit of a breakdown of the glaring signs that you should take as warning messages:

Women:
In 2008 and 2012, women voted of Obama approximately 55% vs the Republican opponent 44%.  Why do women like Obama?  Probably because they like the Democratic Party, in general, more than they like the Republican Party, in general.  Why?  Perhaps it has to do with the long standing stances on issues that Democrats and Republicans have taken.  Democrats are pro-choice, Republicans are a range of sometimes-pro-choice-but-not-always to the-woman's-life-is-over-if-the-pregnancy-endangers-it.  Democrats are in favor of fair-pay for women, Republicans are in favor of women cooking dinner.  Democrats are in favor of helping children through college, Republicans are in favor of removing the tax cuts and low-rate loans that have been put in place to that end.  Get the picture?  Thought you might.

Minorities:

• African Americans voted in favor of Obama approximately 94% vs 5% for his opponent, the percentages didn't change all that much and before you dismiss this as just being that Obama is the first African American President, Kerry got 88% of the African American vote in 2004 and Gore got 90% in 2000 (and Gore and Kerry are both very very white).
• Latin Americans voted for Obama over McCain 2 to 1 and over Romney 71% to 27%.  That's right, more Latin Americans voted for Obama in 2012 than in 2008.  Why?  It might have something to do with Obama supporting immigrant rights, or perhaps it has to do with Republicans being essentially an old, white, men's club.  This is an important factor, though, because Latin Americans are the fastest growing group of voters in the country.  If Republicans continue to push them away as they have been for the last decade, they're going to encounter more and more difficulties.
• Asian Americans also increased their voting for Obama, from 62% in 2008 to 73% in 2012.  Not for nothing but I think we're seeing a trend here... 
• "Other races" meanwhile decreased their voting for Obama in 2012, from 66% to 58%, but this is still a majority vote for the Democrat and continues to indicate that Republicans have a big problem with getting minorities to vote for them.

Age:

Alright, here's the real kicker.  Americans of two age groups reduced their support for Obama between 2008 and 2012: 18-29 year olds reduced by 6% and 45-64 year olds reduced by 3%.  But here's the thing, the young adult vote (18-29) still voted strongly for Obama (66% in 2008, 60% in 2012).  This is a problem for the old, white, men's club that is the Republican party because young americans are starting to vote more (they made up 17% of the vote in 2004, 18% in 2008, and 19% in 2012).  30-44 year olds are also strongly in favor of Obama vs his opponent, sticking with 52% in both elections, though they represented a smaller portion of the vote in 2012 than in 2008, dropping from 29% of the vote to 27%.  This, too, is bad news for the Republicans, because today's middle-aged voters will soon enough be the older voters.  

Income:

I think it goes without saying that lower income voters are more likely to vote Democratic, but in case you doubt that:

• 2012 - Those making $50k or less voted 60% for Obama, those making more than $50k, 45%.
• 2008 - 73% of those making less than $15k voted for Obama, 60% of those making $15k-$30k, and 55% of those making $30k-$50k.  Surprisingly, the Obama got nearly half if not a slight majority within higher income ranges, including 52% of those making $200k or more
• 2004 - 63% of those making less than $15k voted for Kerry, 57% of those making $15k-$30k, and 50% of those making $30k-$50k.  Those making more than $50k voted somewhat strongly for Bush (growing from 55% for $50k-$100k, 57% for $100k-$150k, 58% for $150k-$200k and jumping up to 63% for $200+)
• 2000 - 58% of those making less than $15k voted for Gore, 54% of those making $15k-$30k, and 49% of those making $30k-$50k (Bush got 48% of that group).  Like in 2004, the percentage of voters going for Bush in 2000 increased as the income range increased, peaking at 55% for $100k+.

The first three factors indicate a growing difficulty for the Republicans... the fourth is also a growing factor but only if the economy continues to the path it's been taking: larger disparity between the lower income and upper income and a larger percentage of the nation having a lower income.  I think the trouble is that Republicans are trying to pull a wool over women's and non-whites' eyes.  They're trying to convince people that they're on their side when they hold stances and vote in the opposite way.  Democrats have trouble here too, but it's about getting the word out that they are on minorities' and women's sides.  Many people have come to believe that all politicians are the same, but this can't be further from the truth, and all you have to do is look at how the two parties vote on a variety of issues and the party platforms.

So, what do Republicans need to do?  They need to change their plan and stop lying about who they are and actually change who they are.  They need to realize that doing lip service to people's issues isn't enough, you need to actually do something productive on those issues rather than hindering them.

compromise compromise, everywhere, but no sincerity in sight

O.k., election results are in, except for Florida for the Presidential race, because they've only had over 36 hours to tally up the votes and figure it out, not like they weren't expecting to be important or anything, just the state with the most electoral votes of the battleground states.  But I digress.  This post is not about the ridiculousness that is Florida, it's about the ridiculousness that is the Republican right.

Boehner came out and announced that "we're" eager for the President to lead, that "we" want him to succeed, and that "we're" willing to negotiate within limits.  The "we" could refer to the general population of the U.S., but I think it's more likely that he's speaking for Republicans in the House.  Let's take him at his word for a minute.  He's saying that Republicans are eager for Obama to lead (which he's been doing) and that they'll consider tax increases, but only if the tax increases are not only on the most wealthy.  I'm impressed that he actually came out and said it... the Republicans are unwilling to raise taxes unless they can raise taxes on the poor (Scott Brown admitted to this and Massachusetts kicked him out of office).  That being said, fine, let's just repeal the W. Bush tax cuts.  They helped the rich more than they helped the poor, but they did help the poor somewhat, so Republicans should be fine with it.  Admittedly, Obama said he wouldn't raise taxes on those making less than $250k, but that's compromise for ya, sometimes you have to break your campaign promises to avoid the precipice.

That being said, Boehner negotiated with the President before in 2011 and couldn't deliver his end.  That's how we got here, remember?  Boehner and the President and Reed negotiated the "grand compromise", Boehner came back the next morning and said "nope, can't do it, the Republicans in the House won't accept the compromise, they insist on having it completely their way."... so, with the Tea Party backed ridiculously far right remaining in control of the House, should we really take Boehner at his word that he can negotiate for these wackos?  They've just been re-elected, they'll be feeling that their constituents have affirmed their standing firm and not negotiating.  They're probably looking at Romney's defeat and saying "he wasn't one of us, that's why he lost, if he had been a true conservative, he would have won."  Without having learned anything, with everything the same as it was a year ago, I see no reason to believe Boehner will have any more ability to pull his side to the negotiating table with him.

Election's over, bullshit keeps flowing.