Effect of the election on the housing market

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=UCGal][quote=Allan from Fallbrook]
Big Labor took devastating hits in previous strongholds like Illinois, Ohio and Pennsylvania and nearly all of the “goodwill” that Obama amassed in his run during the ’08 presidential run has evaporated. If you pay attention to the sums expended by Big Labor groups like SEIU and AFSCME (and they were amongst the leading spenders), they spent huge money and still lost.
[/quote]

I don’t think you can make that statement about Pennsylvania. The labor strongholds of Philly, Montgomery county, Pittsburg, Allentown – all went strongly Sestak.

James Carville described Pennsylvania pretty accurately: “Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle”

Remember Pennsylvania voted in Rick Santorum for a few terms. It’s not a solid blue state. It’s as purple as they get.[/quote]

UCGal: I don’t disagree. I was trying to make two points: (1) Big Labor dropped some HUGE dollars in this election and still lost some very key states, and (2) Organizationally, the Dems got pasted.

I hear what you’re saying about Sestak voters, but now juxtapose that against Toomey’s ideology and record. Look at the fact that Russ Feingold is now out of work. In my opinion, this had far less to do with Obama and far more to do with some keen organization and mobilization by the GOP, while attempting to co-opt the Tea Party on the fly.

Obama had a two year window to significantly position the Dems, along with a massive and ENERGIZED real grass roots infrastructure behind him. All of that is gone. And I don’t care what anyone says, the Dems have to be demoralized and dispirited after last night, and that also will have an effect in the run-up to 2012.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.

[briansd1]

[quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.[/quote]

Brian, I think you are being *slightly* judgemental here.
People come from all kinds of social and economic backgrounds. There’s a difference between being poor and being uncouth, and poverty doesn’t necessarily equate to uncouth and being rich doesn’t necessarily equate to being refined. And supporting one particular affiliation does not necessarily equate to being poverty or necessarily class for that matter.

What would be worse: a person who has the “shell” of looking/acting refined, but helocs/cc’s they hell out of things to make minimum payments on debt to “pretend” to be refined with artificial crap like Bimmers, expensive jewelry,fancy restaurants, trips, etc…Or someone make $30k in family income who lives within their means?

And sorry, a lot of the attorneys/partners I know in my ‘hood did support the Tea Party. Simply because they hated the direction of where the current government was going… That’s the irony, because like it or not it was more of less able to bring people from different economic background under one theme…(albeit, it’s a lot easier to unite because for an “angry” reason)….All this thing about unity and being politically pc regarding race/ethnicity…yes, I guess it’s important. But what really matters when it comes down to is money…Pure and simple…That’s how it’s entirely possible to have a completely backward, “hick” town in the south be completely ok with something like a Kia-ville, Georgia (look it up)….When it comes down to money, people care less about race.

The biggest problem this government had was they spent a hell of a lot of money, and average folks have no idea where the heck it went….And unfortunately, that played right into the stereotype of this party….Big government, big spending…zero accountability (even though the GOP isn’t really any better)….

Think about this.. Do you think average people really are going to get what the 600billion QE2 is going to be good for? That’s going to be a bruisemark in a few months too….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.[/quote]

Brian, I think you are being *slightly* judgemental here.
People come from all kinds of social and economic backgrounds. There’s a difference between being poor and being uncouth, and poverty doesn’t necessarily equate to uncouth and being rich doesn’t necessarily equate to being refined. And supporting one particular affiliation does not necessarily equate to being poverty or necessarily class for that matter.

What would be worse: a person who has the “shell” of looking/acting refined, but helocs/cc’s they hell out of things to make minimum payments on debt to “pretend” to be refined with artificial crap like Bimmers, expensive jewelry,fancy restaurants, trips, etc…Or someone make $30k in family income who lives within their means?

And sorry, a lot of the attorneys/partners I know in my ‘hood did support the Tea Party. Simply because they hated the direction of where the current government was going… That’s the irony, because like it or not it was more of less able to bring people from different economic background under one theme…(albeit, it’s a lot easier to unite because for an “angry” reason)….All this thing about unity and being politically pc regarding race/ethnicity…yes, I guess it’s important. But what really matters when it comes down to is money…Pure and simple…That’s how it’s entirely possible to have a completely backward, “hick” town in the south be completely ok with something like a Kia-ville, Georgia (look it up)….When it comes down to money, people care less about race.

The biggest problem this government had was they spent a hell of a lot of money, and average folks have no idea where the heck it went….And unfortunately, that played right into the stereotype of this party….Big government, big spending…zero accountability (even though the GOP isn’t really any better)….

Think about this.. Do you think average people really are going to get what the 600billion QE2 is going to be good for? That’s going to be a bruisemark in a few months too….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.[/quote]

Brian, I think you are being *slightly* judgemental here.
People come from all kinds of social and economic backgrounds. There’s a difference between being poor and being uncouth, and poverty doesn’t necessarily equate to uncouth and being rich doesn’t necessarily equate to being refined. And supporting one particular affiliation does not necessarily equate to being poverty or necessarily class for that matter.

What would be worse: a person who has the “shell” of looking/acting refined, but helocs/cc’s they hell out of things to make minimum payments on debt to “pretend” to be refined with artificial crap like Bimmers, expensive jewelry,fancy restaurants, trips, etc…Or someone make $30k in family income who lives within their means?

And sorry, a lot of the attorneys/partners I know in my ‘hood did support the Tea Party. Simply because they hated the direction of where the current government was going… That’s the irony, because like it or not it was more of less able to bring people from different economic background under one theme…(albeit, it’s a lot easier to unite because for an “angry” reason)….All this thing about unity and being politically pc regarding race/ethnicity…yes, I guess it’s important. But what really matters when it comes down to is money…Pure and simple…That’s how it’s entirely possible to have a completely backward, “hick” town in the south be completely ok with something like a Kia-ville, Georgia (look it up)….When it comes down to money, people care less about race.

The biggest problem this government had was they spent a hell of a lot of money, and average folks have no idea where the heck it went….And unfortunately, that played right into the stereotype of this party….Big government, big spending…zero accountability (even though the GOP isn’t really any better)….

Think about this.. Do you think average people really are going to get what the 600billion QE2 is going to be good for? That’s going to be a bruisemark in a few months too….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.[/quote]

Brian, I think you are being *slightly* judgemental here.
People come from all kinds of social and economic backgrounds. There’s a difference between being poor and being uncouth, and poverty doesn’t necessarily equate to uncouth and being rich doesn’t necessarily equate to being refined. And supporting one particular affiliation does not necessarily equate to being poverty or necessarily class for that matter.

What would be worse: a person who has the “shell” of looking/acting refined, but helocs/cc’s they hell out of things to make minimum payments on debt to “pretend” to be refined with artificial crap like Bimmers, expensive jewelry,fancy restaurants, trips, etc…Or someone make $30k in family income who lives within their means?

And sorry, a lot of the attorneys/partners I know in my ‘hood did support the Tea Party. Simply because they hated the direction of where the current government was going… That’s the irony, because like it or not it was more of less able to bring people from different economic background under one theme…(albeit, it’s a lot easier to unite because for an “angry” reason)….All this thing about unity and being politically pc regarding race/ethnicity…yes, I guess it’s important. But what really matters when it comes down to is money…Pure and simple…That’s how it’s entirely possible to have a completely backward, “hick” town in the south be completely ok with something like a Kia-ville, Georgia (look it up)….When it comes down to money, people care less about race.

The biggest problem this government had was they spent a hell of a lot of money, and average folks have no idea where the heck it went….And unfortunately, that played right into the stereotype of this party….Big government, big spending…zero accountability (even though the GOP isn’t really any better)….

Think about this.. Do you think average people really are going to get what the 600billion QE2 is going to be good for? That’s going to be a bruisemark in a few months too….

[Coronita]

[quote=briansd1][quote=Arraya]Actually brian, poor people, in general, don’t vote – or at least in tiny percentages. Education, political leanings and socioeconomic status have nothing to do with gullibility. Most tea baggers are not poor either[/quote]

Tea Partiers are not poor but they are one or two steps away from poverty so they are scared.

That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

One of my cousins in Ohio is married to one of them. I feel sorry for her.

If you’re a well educated person living in Carmel Valley, do you really want to be associated with the loud-mouthed, vulgar Tea Partiers? If so, I do hope that your daughter ends up married to a Tea Partier.

And if you’re a traditional conservative, how do you feel about “winning” thanks to crass antics that have nothing to do with intellect and reason?

It’s not politically correct to say so, but there’s a reason Tea Partiers tend to be concentrated in the East County rather than on the coast of San Diego.[/quote]

Brian, I think you are being *slightly* judgemental here.
People come from all kinds of social and economic backgrounds. There’s a difference between being poor and being uncouth, and poverty doesn’t necessarily equate to uncouth and being rich doesn’t necessarily equate to being refined. And supporting one particular affiliation does not necessarily equate to being poverty or necessarily class for that matter.

What would be worse: a person who has the “shell” of looking/acting refined, but helocs/cc’s they hell out of things to make minimum payments on debt to “pretend” to be refined with artificial crap like Bimmers, expensive jewelry,fancy restaurants, trips, etc…Or someone make $30k in family income who lives within their means?

And sorry, a lot of the attorneys/partners I know in my ‘hood did support the Tea Party. Simply because they hated the direction of where the current government was going… That’s the irony, because like it or not it was more of less able to bring people from different economic background under one theme…(albeit, it’s a lot easier to unite because for an “angry” reason)….All this thing about unity and being politically pc regarding race/ethnicity…yes, I guess it’s important. But what really matters when it comes down to is money…Pure and simple…That’s how it’s entirely possible to have a completely backward, “hick” town in the south be completely ok with something like a Kia-ville, Georgia (look it up)….When it comes down to money, people care less about race.

The biggest problem this government had was they spent a hell of a lot of money, and average folks have no idea where the heck it went….And unfortunately, that played right into the stereotype of this party….Big government, big spending…zero accountability (even though the GOP isn’t really any better)….

Think about this.. Do you think average people really are going to get what the 600billion QE2 is going to be good for? That’s going to be a bruisemark in a few months too….

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

[/quote]

Brian: That’s a rather sweeping and simplistic analysis of the average Confederate soldier’s reasons for fighting the Union during the American Civil War. Yes, there were some who fought to preserve the Southern way of life (in essence, “voting” against their own interests), but there were also many who understood the war as being between those who were fighting for state’s rights and those who wanted a federalist system. There is a huge body of writings that survived the war, and much of it exists in diaries, letters to loved ones, etc., where average soldiers on both sides explain what they were fighting for. McPherson’s “For Cause and Comrades” and Eaton’s “A History of the Southern Confederacy” both cover this topic and debunk a lot of the mythology (Union soldiers wanted to end slavery and Confederates fought to preserve the Old Order) surrounding the American Civil War.

Speaking of the passing of an age: How long do you think it will take Hillary Clinton to put some cold steel between Obama’s shoulder blades? I personally think its happened already. Gotta figure Marc Rubio is going to get the call to be VP in 2012 and a genuine threat for Prez in 2016, which means Hillary needs to run in 2012 (she’ll be too old for a legitimate 2016 shot). So… That means Obama is officially in the way, and we know what that means when it comes to the Clinton Machine. Plus, I have to figure Bill and Hillary are still smarting from that ass-whuppin’ they took in ’08. Its gonna be fun to watch.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

[/quote]

Brian: That’s a rather sweeping and simplistic analysis of the average Confederate soldier’s reasons for fighting the Union during the American Civil War. Yes, there were some who fought to preserve the Southern way of life (in essence, “voting” against their own interests), but there were also many who understood the war as being between those who were fighting for state’s rights and those who wanted a federalist system. There is a huge body of writings that survived the war, and much of it exists in diaries, letters to loved ones, etc., where average soldiers on both sides explain what they were fighting for. McPherson’s “For Cause and Comrades” and Eaton’s “A History of the Southern Confederacy” both cover this topic and debunk a lot of the mythology (Union soldiers wanted to end slavery and Confederates fought to preserve the Old Order) surrounding the American Civil War.

Speaking of the passing of an age: How long do you think it will take Hillary Clinton to put some cold steel between Obama’s shoulder blades? I personally think its happened already. Gotta figure Marc Rubio is going to get the call to be VP in 2012 and a genuine threat for Prez in 2016, which means Hillary needs to run in 2012 (she’ll be too old for a legitimate 2016 shot). So… That means Obama is officially in the way, and we know what that means when it comes to the Clinton Machine. Plus, I have to figure Bill and Hillary are still smarting from that ass-whuppin’ they took in ’08. Its gonna be fun to watch.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

[/quote]

Brian: That’s a rather sweeping and simplistic analysis of the average Confederate soldier’s reasons for fighting the Union during the American Civil War. Yes, there were some who fought to preserve the Southern way of life (in essence, “voting” against their own interests), but there were also many who understood the war as being between those who were fighting for state’s rights and those who wanted a federalist system. There is a huge body of writings that survived the war, and much of it exists in diaries, letters to loved ones, etc., where average soldiers on both sides explain what they were fighting for. McPherson’s “For Cause and Comrades” and Eaton’s “A History of the Southern Confederacy” both cover this topic and debunk a lot of the mythology (Union soldiers wanted to end slavery and Confederates fought to preserve the Old Order) surrounding the American Civil War.

Speaking of the passing of an age: How long do you think it will take Hillary Clinton to put some cold steel between Obama’s shoulder blades? I personally think its happened already. Gotta figure Marc Rubio is going to get the call to be VP in 2012 and a genuine threat for Prez in 2016, which means Hillary needs to run in 2012 (she’ll be too old for a legitimate 2016 shot). So… That means Obama is officially in the way, and we know what that means when it comes to the Clinton Machine. Plus, I have to figure Bill and Hillary are still smarting from that ass-whuppin’ they took in ’08. Its gonna be fun to watch.

[Allan from Fallbrook]

[quote=briansd1]
That’s why I view them as the conscripted foot soldiers of the new Confederate Army led by Jim Demint.

[/quote]

Brian: That’s a rather sweeping and simplistic analysis of the average Confederate soldier’s reasons for fighting the Union during the American Civil War. Yes, there were some who fought to preserve the Southern way of life (in essence, “voting” against their own interests), but there were also many who understood the war as being between those who were fighting for state’s rights and those who wanted a federalist system. There is a huge body of writings that survived the war, and much of it exists in diaries, letters to loved ones, etc., where average soldiers on both sides explain what they were fighting for. McPherson’s “For Cause and Comrades” and Eaton’s “A History of the Southern Confederacy” both cover this topic and debunk a lot of the mythology (Union soldiers wanted to end slavery and Confederates fought to preserve the Old Order) surrounding the American Civil War.

Speaking of the passing of an age: How long do you think it will take Hillary Clinton to put some cold steel between Obama’s shoulder blades? I personally think its happened already. Gotta figure Marc Rubio is going to get the call to be VP in 2012 and a genuine threat for Prez in 2016, which means Hillary needs to run in 2012 (she’ll be too old for a legitimate 2016 shot). So… That means Obama is officially in the way, and we know what that means when it comes to the Clinton Machine. Plus, I have to figure Bill and Hillary are still smarting from that ass-whuppin’ they took in ’08. Its gonna be fun to watch.

[Author]

Posts