Do You Plan To Watch The Election Results On Election Day? (voting, polls)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I love election day. I always watch the results with anticipation and surprise. Regardless of the party that wins, democracy in action is just one of those marvels of human ingenuity and sound government. I don't take my right to vote for granted and vote in every election. Remember to VOTE!
Let the President veto bills the GOP send him. Then it's up to the GOP to let the people know constantly and loudly about it. They need a really good spokesperson and they need to start with Keystone legislation and other energy legislation because in all polls since 2008, people have said "jobs" is the Number 1 priority. If I were them I'd ask regular people from North Dakota to tell people all over the country in ads how much drilling has paid off for them personally not just in the energy industry jobs but jobs in restaurants, construction, real estate, hotels, etc., that have sprung up behind the numbers of people moving there for work and the lowest unemployment rate since Obama was president. They can even tie in Middle East troubles and the GOPs goal for energy independence.
My thought exactly: at least if the bills come up for a vote, we will know action is being taken and the congress is doing something. When it was posted a few days ago, Reid just doesn't bother with unimportant bills or ones the president will veto anyway, it dawned on me: where does one man get the idea he has the right to decide what is and isn't important? It isn't like the congress, most of the time, is being overworked. Let the bills go forward, let the senate decide if they are worthy of action and let the President veto them; it will tell us who is working for or against the people.
Definitely. It's bigger than the Super Bowl at my house. DH has three TV's in his attic "man cave" so he can watch the returns on CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News at the same time.
We have been known on more than one occasion to have an election night party or to get together with family for dinner and election return watching. We have also gone to campaign headquarters more than once, but not this year. It is too dangerous to drive our windy roads after dark here, with all the deer crossing the roads.
I'll watch around 10 pm. It there are any close races that look like they're going to take hours to decide, I'll probably go to bed before all the returns are in.
Ditto. Here in the mountain time zone, we have the advantage of being two hours earlier than the east, so 10 PM here is 12 MN there. Those races should be decided by then. Of course, we're ahead of CA, and their polls close late, IIRC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cb73
I have Dish Network and they're still in their fight with Turner. So CNN, TCM and all the cartoon channels have been cut off.
I generally do prefer CNN on election night--more graphics, less interviews, but Fox will work. Every time they cut to an interview, I'll switch back to my local channel, that mostly just does California election results.
Ditto. I'm really peeved at Turner and Dish. We'll try FOX and maybe MSNBC.
No, not for the midterms. Many may be much later to actually find out who won. This isn't like the Presidential, I won't watch it live. Just find out the next morning, or a month later if there is a run off
Regardless where we stand politically we all need to remember this. How many other countries have the freedom to elect their leaders and the freedom to say what they think? We talk about things like voter fraud, yes it happens. We are fools to think it does not and yes, it has probably influenced more than one election, but few countries have system as honest as ours as well.
My thought exactly: at least if the bills come up for a vote, we will know action is being taken and the congress is doing something. When it was posted a few days ago, Reid just doesn't bother with unimportant bills or ones the president will veto anyway, it dawned on me: where does one man get the idea he has the right to decide what is and isn't important? It isn't like the congress, most of the time, is being overworked. Let the bills go forward, let the senate decide if they are worthy of action and let the President veto them; it will tell us who is working for or against the people.
Both sides have done the same thing, Boehner just takes it one sep further. Reid isn't allowing bills to come up for a vote that don't have enough votes to pass the Senate. While there has been a few exceptions, Boehner has generally held tight to the old Dennis Hastert rule when he ran the House. Regardless if it has enough votes to pass the House or not, he will not hold a vote on a bill unless the majority of House Republicans support it.
An example of this is Obamacare repeal vs Minimum wage Hike. The House has passed a repeal of Obamacare about 50 times, it has no chance of passing the Senate, so Reid doesn't allow a vote on it. There have been numerous minimum wage increase bills in the House, it doesn't have much Republican support, but enough that it would pass the House if brought up for a vote, but since the majority of the majority doesn't support it, Boehner hasn't allowed a vote. That is just one example of each, but there are others as well.
I'll be watching MSNBC because I have this, you know, sadistic streak.
I often tune into Fox News because I love theater of the absurd.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.