|
There are 518 pages of discussion on Romney versus Obama.
And on the surface, that's absolutely great. People are discussing who they want and why they want him, and with that much input it's easier to get both sides of the story and actually make an educated decision on who they want to vote for.
This thread is not about that.
The choice between Romney and Obama is a big one but it is not the only one. They are the head of the government but sometimes it's also important to look at the body. And alongside the presidency is 500 lesser-known men and women who play just as much, if not more, of a role in government than either Romney or Obama ever will.
In this thread I hope to not only bring up the congressional election alongside the presidential, but also bring up approval ratings, bills, term limits, etc. Pretty much anything congress-related since 2011. I'll use statistics liberally and make predictions conservatively. I'll try and keep everything as unbiased as possible. I'm not a fan of Congress but any examples I use to illustrate that are to provide examples for their extremely low approval rating.
So let's get started.
Part I: The Election of 2010
Congress is divided into 100 senators (53 D*, 47 R) and 435 representatives (242 R, 193 D). I'll go over why these numbers in particular are relevant later on, but for now I'll talk about how they changed.
In 2010 we had Obamacare first introduced, many more libertarians moving into the Republican Party due to the Tea Party Movement, and the Affordable Care Act. This led to two things - a much larger split between liberals and conservatives, and more flak to the Democrats when the programs displayed mediocre results, at least initially.
Coupled with the bailouts, stimulus package, and constantly high unemployment, the Republicans made record gains in both houses. Of the 13 new senators, 12 were Republican. 84 of the 93 new representatives were Republicans as well. In short, almost a fifth of the legislative branch were freshmen.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/AKpDH.gif)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/iThiy.gif)
The only noticeable effect the 2010 elections had on approval ratings were dropping the Democrats' approval to the same level as everyone else's. The biggest reason why would be the gridlock, of having a Democratic presidency and Senate (although Obama has shown to be been more centrist than the congressmen of his party) and a Republican House.
Among independents, the approval is only 8 percent, which means that the 2012 election will be especially volatile.
* There are actually 51 Democrats in Congress and 2 Independents, but both caucus with the Democrats and have similar ideologies. One is a former Democrat.
Part II: The Especially Volatile Election of 2012
Another reason the 2010 election happened the way it did is people blame the party in power for problems, even if it was the minority's idea. In 2012 senate elections, we have 23 (including the 2 independents) Democrats and 10 Republicans whose chairs are up for grabs. There are also 10 guaranteed freshmen due to retiring senators.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/08/2012_Senate_election_map.svg/500px-2012_Senate_election_map.svg.png)
The light red and blue states are retiring Republicans and Democrats, respectively. Connecticut's independent is also retiring.
I am going to predict that the Republicans will make gains in Congress in some part. First off, the low approval numbers are going hand in hand with people wanting to see incumbent politicians gone. There's more Democratic seats up for grabs, so more Democrats will be threatened. The second (and more probable) reason is that with the 2010 census, voting power has slightly shifted towards the red states.
That's moreso for the Senate than the House, because with the latter you also have to take into account urban areas vs rural areas and the math generally gets more complex there.
Part III: The 112th Congress and the Economy
Next up I want to talk about our current congress. In 2011 there was the whole issue with the federal budget being delayed. After two threats of immediate government shutdown, the budget passed with meager spending cuts and an increase in deficit growth (the budgets of the next two years would shrink the deficit to under 1 trillion).
In August of 2011 the problems emerged again when the US almost defaulted on its debt, and the Budget Control Act was passed. Debt growth was slowed and Obama received the right to increase the debt ceiling further with Congressional approval. S&P reduced the US credit rating 3 days later.
And here's where it gets tricky. If Congress keeps their current budget-related laws intact and lets the Bush tax cuts expire, the good news is that debt will go down. It's been around 70-ish since the 1980s, following this plan will get the nation's ratio down to under 60.
The flip side to this is that the tax increases and spending cuts would put the country into a second recession through 2013. Unemployment would stay about the same as it is now. This is generally undesirable (quoth the Fed's chairman Ben Bernanke), and also very unlikely due to few wanting to sacrifice in 2013 for a possible recovery in 2014 or later.
TL;DR - some part of the future is going to be shit one way or the other and there's no easy way out for Congress.
Part IV: Congress Approval vs. Obama Approval
In spite of all this, Obama's approval rating has shown modest increases this year, while Congress's has dropped to one twelfth of the nation.
Part of the reason would be that aforementioned gridlock with one chamber in the hands of each party. The other reason is that while Obama's been credited with positive things in addition to the negative (bin Laden, Iraq and Libya, hurricane response), Congress doesn't really have much to brag about other than ("We could've screwed up even worse but we didn't!")
We have SOPA and PIPA, alongside other lobbying shenanigans. We have the women's health committee without any actual women on it. We have the recent sex scandals, or congressmen just being plain stupid. Our most recent one, Todd Akin, is still running for Senator in the face of all this
Part V: Why This Thread Exists
So now that I've said virtually everything I could think of about Congress, the point of all of this is for more people to actually start paying attention to their congressmen.
A lot of people on the presidential election thread were claiming that Obama vs. Romney didn't even matter. Little would change no matter which of the two made it into the White House.
This couldn't be further from the truth. Both candidates have their separate affiliates, their separate key voters, their separate declared issues to answer to. The real difference nothing gets changed is because the same congressmen are voted in time and time again.
Sen. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) is running for his tenth term in the Senate at the age of 92. He's actually been in Congress ever since Hawaii became a state. Granted, Inouye is pretty competent (at least from what I've read about him) but in his mid-90's? I think it's time for him to retire and let a new person fill his shoes.
And do choose your congressmen. Your vote, if you can vote counts a lot given there's so many and it's done directly, not through an electoral college. The election of 2010 has proven that independent voters can make the election go pretty much however the hell they want, unless they live in a really extreme area or their congressmen are major players (like John Boehner).
If you can't vote but know someone who can, go out and convince them. Do some research on the available candidates. Take a look not only at their stances, but if any of them have already been in Congress see what accomplishments, if any, they have made.
That's enough out of me, time for polls.
Poll: If US Citizen: Will you be voting in this election?Yes (71) 87% Nope (10) 12% Unsure (1) 1% 82 total votes Your vote: If US Citizen: Will you be voting in this election? (Vote): Yes
(Vote): Nope
(Vote): Unsure
I can't really do the same as the presidential because there's 500 people here. So let's try this:
Poll: Do you know who your Senator and Representative are?Yes, I know both of them (45) 61% Only the Senator (16) 22% No, don't know either one (10) 14% Only the Representative (3) 4% 74 total votes Your vote: Do you know who your Senator and Representative are? (Vote): Yes, I know both of them
(Vote): Only the Representative
(Vote): Only the Senator
(Vote): No, don't know either one
Poll: If yes, do you approve of them?One is good, the other is bad/Both are okay (29) 49% Vote them both out! (12) 20% No opinion/Unsure (12) 20% Definitely, re-elect both! (6) 10% 59 total votes Your vote: If yes, do you approve of them? (Vote): Definitely, re-elect both!
(Vote): One is good, the other is bad/Both are okay
(Vote): Vote them both out!
(Vote): No opinion/Unsure
If your state doesn't have a senator running for this election, pick either one of the two senators if you know them.
Part VI: September Predictions
22 September 2012: Now that Congress is out of session and things are set in stone (moreso than they were before), it seems that the Democrats will get votes out of the partisan politics, as the Republicans are portrayed as the stone wall that blocks our way to... the future, I guess? Getting shit done? This might be balanced out by the fact that the Senate is the same way from the Republican perspective.
If Democrats controlled both houses and Obama wins, then we go back to 2008. Things get done, but it's a question of "is it for the better"? The 111th Congress (with the Democrats) was really hated for their actions, but given 2 more years for more actions, it might be different due to the improved economic situation.
If Republicans controlled both houses and Obama wins, then it's a toss-up between gridlock and compromise. The Republicans could keep passing through bills but unless they could figure out a way to make it at least somewhat bipartisan, Obama would just break out his vetoing stick at will. Given the new blood of this scenario, the key factor would be if they could learn from the mistakes of 2006-2008 and work with the President instead of trying to work around him.
If Romney wins and Democrats gain the house back, then it depends on who the Democrats are. Democratic freshmen? Then it's probably like the scenario above. Returning Democrats? Then we might see a repeat of the final Bush years. If Romney wins and the Republicans gain the senate, then we avoid the fiscal cliff but that debt won't come down anytime soon. But like the first scenario w/ Obama and the Dems, they might just screw things up even more because there would be no large impediment to their process.
I'd love to hear some of your opinions about this matter in general.
Links for further reading:
+ Show Spoiler +
|
I think people underestimate the power of Congress and the Senate. We get all hyped about THE PRESIDENT, but quickly forget that there's three branches to the government, lol.
Guh. I have Akin (anyone but McCaskill, lol). X-D My parents know him personally from somewhere. I'd say I agree with his principles, and that his controversial statements were slips (that were conveniently sensationalized), and I believe he's apologized for them too. I admit, he's on the extreme side, but I'd still vote for him. Kinda sad I can't vote for Kit Bond anymore, though. 
For Congress? I forget which District I'm in. I'll look that up and get back to this.
|
Regarding Akin, it seemed for show, like there was nothing about the apology that really seemed sincere, except for the fact that he did actually address the issue. A lot of politicians caught with their pants down like that (i.e. Tony Weiner) try and apologize-but-not-really, where they just issue a vague statement and move on.
How was it sensationalized? I'm interested.
|
My district recently saw Wu's scandal and resignation. It's a Democrat stronghold, and his replacement (Bonamici) is a centrist democrat who was voted in by a special election. My district seems to get the bottom of the barrel since there is really no challenge to the Dems, nor any way in hell they will lose here. I will likely support the Greens across the ballot.
Unlike popular opinion, I do like my state's representatives for the most part though. Senator Wyden and especially DeFazio in the House have done a really good job. If DeFazio was running in my district, it would be a no-brainer vote for me. One of the few remaining Democrats that I feel is actually doing their job.
There is always more hype about the POTUS, and in some ways local elections are actually more important... except when you find a candidate you like that gets run off by the establishment by gerrymandering etc.
|
No one here in Georgia is up for Reelection that I can vote for as far as I know but I will still be watching really close. The Republicans will probably make big gains but won't get that super majority that they want most likely. Can't wait to see how that goes down because even if Obama wins with big wins in the House and Senate we could see Pro Obama policies grind to a screeching halt if the Republicans grow some back bone.
|
On September 18 2012 06:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
Regarding Akin, it seemed for show, like there was nothing about the apology that really seemed sincere, except for the fact that he did actually address the issue. A lot of politicians caught with their pants down like that (i.e. Tony Weiner) try and apologize-but-not-really, where they just issue a vague statement and move on.
How was it sensationalized? I'm interested.
Perhaps that wasn't the right word for it. But I saw stuff like this, and I felt that was an overreaction to a flippant statement. We saw that happen with the Boston mayor with the whole Chick-Fil-A deal: politician makes hastily-contrived remark, doesn't word it absolutely perfectly, people misunderstand the message because it's not worded absolutely perfectly, and the politician gets slammed by the media and the populace. They then apologize for it, sincerely or not, but people still make a big deal out of it as if it's legitimate ammunition to bash candidates, rather than actual beliefs and their track record.
Pretty much, I'm more interested in a representative's genuine stance on issues, as well as what they've actually done and how they voted while in previous offices; the odd, easily-misunderstandable remark now and again doesn't really bother me. And on the highly-charged topics of abortion, rape, or both, everything can be easily misconstrued.
|
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
Also there's Joe Kennedy vs. a hippie and a person from the Lyndon LaRouche party.
(the hippie is a committed hippie, the LL person was assaulted in my town for showing images of Obama as Hiter on her campaign table. I live in a predominantly Jewish liberal town, so it was to be expected).
|
Akin's an idiot. He seriously might cost the Republicans the Senate.
|
On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers.
|
On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers.
I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views.
|
On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers.
I personally hate everything about the Democratic Party, but Elizabeth Warren is not that bad.
|
On September 18 2012 07:18 BluePanther wrote:
Akin's an idiot. He seriously might cost the Republicans the Senate.
*sigh* This is precisely what I'm referring to.... I think he's a tad extreme (farther right than me, and that's sayin' something o.o), but I agree with him principally on too much to not vote for him. He appears rather consistent, and while he may not be the brainiest egg in the dozen, he's probably the most honest, in my opinion. Frick, I'd trust him over Romney any day.
On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
Also there's Joe Kennedy vs. a hippie and a person from the Lyndon LaRouche party.
Oh Lord. A Kennedy, a hippie, and a conservative who's not really a conservative. That...that sounds terrible. X-D I normally scorn upon the idea of abstaining from an election, but I don't have any idea whom I'd rather suffer out of that group.
|
On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views.
MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D
From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist policies are a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc).
Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice.
|
Akin is a relatively honest person. I don't agree with him on many things, since I like people based on leftist social policy and centrism, but I could see how one would.
However, although cLAN brings up excellent points, he's not going to succeed in his bid since McGaskill can capitalize on that with advertising.
(when I say centrism I actually kinda mean between reasoned liberalism and reasoned conservatism. I did not mean more liberals, as you seem to have though I did).
|
On September 18 2012 07:33 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:18 BluePanther wrote:
Akin's an idiot. He seriously might cost the Republicans the Senate. *sigh* This is precisely what I'm referring to.... I think he's a tad extreme (farther right than me, and that's sayin' something o.o), but I agree with him principally on too much to not vote for him. He appears rather consistent, and while he may not be the brainiest egg in the dozen, he's probably the most honest, in my opinion. Frick, I'd trust him over Romney any day.
If he's going to stay on the Committee for Science, Space, and Technology he needs to pick up a science book instead of phoning it in with what he knows "deep in his gut".
On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists.
I must've missed that meeting...
|
On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist politics is a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc). Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice.
Actually the Democrat party was almost all centralist for a long time and slowly shifted left in this day Jimmy Carter would probably be a Republican.
|
On September 18 2012 07:42 CajunMan wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist politics is a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc). Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice. Actually the Democrat party was almost all centralist for a long time and slowly shifted left in this day Jimmy Carter would probably be a Republican.
Must be perception, as I would disagree with that- I feel they have shifted right compared with JFK, LBJ, FDR, etc. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Eisenhower are probably to the left of modern day Dems. :D
|
Compared to most of Europe the Democrats are actually on the right. Especially Northern Europe.
Personally I'm voting out Bob Menendez in New Jersey because I think he doesn't know what the hell he's doing concerning the economy. The Republican running against him put in really good economic measures for education (i.e. putting all that taxpayer money to good use).
Democratic representative, Republican senator, Democratic president, Republican (unregistered) voter. I just love being neutral.
I honestly don't know which way Democrats are shifting. Originally they were the conservatives through the 19th century, while Republicans were the more progressive, pro-industrial party. I don't know when they traded places, but I'd say both Roosevelts were liberal so somewhere between the two.
|
On September 18 2012 07:39 Praetorial wrote:
...he's not going to succeed in his bid since McGaskill can capitalize on that with advertising.
Yap. I'm afraid this is true. He'll win the honest ones, but he'll lose everyone else because politically he's a step below McCaskill. Reminds me of Talent.... ;_;
|
On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:42 CajunMan wrote:On September 18 2012 07:36 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:25 Praetorial wrote:On September 18 2012 07:23 screamingpalm wrote:On September 18 2012 07:17 Praetorial wrote:
I'm in MA, so we have Brown vs. Warren coming up.
Personally, I favor Brown since he's been an exemplary representative and shown himself to be a committed partisan. I regard myself as a Democrat, but there's a point where we don't need more partisans in Congress.
I absolutely LOVE Elizabeth Warren! I wish we had that kind of excitement in elections over here lol. I wouldn't think twice about supporting her, she is one of the few out there standing up for consumers. I know, I have nothing against her, but honestly Congress needs more centrists, and that ideal is more important, in my opinion, then my personal views. MORE centrists?! I will definately have to agree to disagree there. :D From the left's POV... the Democratic party has been taken over by centrists. The choice for us is whether to try to take the party back or sever from it completely. Also, in American politics, centrist is pretty much right of center compared to the rest of the world. Centrist politics is a big part of what brought us to the current mess we have (Clintonites etc). Elizabeth Warren is one of the few politicians that actually champions consumers and the working class, and not just with rhetoric. I wish I was in a state that had such a meaningful choice. Actually the Democrat party was almost all centralist for a long time and slowly shifted left in this day Jimmy Carter would probably be a Republican. Must be perception, as I would disagree with that- I feel they have shifted right compared with JFK, LBJ, FDR, etc. Hell, Teddy Roosevelt, Nixon, and Eisenhower are probably to the left of modern day Dems. :D
Instead of wandering around in vague perceptions and personal opinions you could always shed some actual light to the process? http://voteview.com/blog/?p=494
We need more centrists, polarization and extreme politics is the hipster thing to do these days.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://thefbm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Senate-chamber.jpeg)
