|
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.
|
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
I agree it kind is where you are looking at it from I believe back then they pro were much smaller government (in comparison to current Dems) and much more fiscally conservative. But agree to disagee not what this thread is about lol. <3
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote: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=494We need more centrists, polarization and extreme politics is the hipster thing to do these days.
I was a hipster before hipsters were cool!
No, we need change- not more of the same. If you "moderates" want to paint Nader as a loon, for example, then call me bat-shit crazy.
|
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity.
|
On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity.
No abortion is not a centrist position. Most of the western world allows abortions in early to mid-stages of pregnancy.
|
On September 18 2012 08:03 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:58 forgottendreams wrote:On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote: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=494We need more centrists, polarization and extreme politics is the hipster thing to do these days. I was a hipster before hipsters were cool! No, we need change- not more of the same. If you "moderates" want to paint Nader as a loon, for example, then call me bat-shit crazy.
Well for one Nadar isn't a loon, neither is Gary Johnson, Barr, or Paul and Stein. They're just idealisitic, unrealistic and irrelevant is all.
I agree polarization isn't done yet, but the trend is already slowly dying as we speak. When you can't even get a House to do it's basic job of passing a budget, it might be time to reevaluate polarized politics.
|
On September 18 2012 08:12 BlackPanther wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity. No abortion is not a centrist position. Most of the western world allows abortions in early to mid-stages of pregnancy.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/128036/new-normal-abortion-americans-pro-life.aspx
Looks about 50-50 to me.
|
On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity.
Most people want single payer healthcare, common sense regulations and ethics reforms, campaign finance reform, and many other progressive policies. Somehow they are painted as "extremist" and irrational by pragmatic centrists. We are told that it is sane and rational to continue with these unsustainable policies of unfettered capitalism. Now THAT is crazy.
|
On September 18 2012 07:56 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +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.... ;_;
Come on, "He'll win the honest ones" is just a flame fanning statement. Like saying "Mitt Romney stands for the good guys", etc.
|
Absolutely excellent write up Sentinel! I've always said that who we send to Congress actually matters more than the president, but people just enjoy the sort of "personality contest" that is presidential politics, it's simpler to grasp than Congressional politics. Obama didn't single handedly pass Obamacare, it took the approval of Congress first!
Anyway, I think this can be an interesting discussion, though I doubt it will get even a tenth of the posts as the presidential thread. I live in California, which has been a Democrat stronghold for a long time... Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc. Ugh, I can't stand most of them, but I don't bother to vote because I don't expect it to make any difference in this state.
|
On September 18 2012 08:14 screamingpalm wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 08:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
We need more centrists because America is centrist.
Let's take abortion as an example. Republicans in Congress are almost completely pro-life, and Democrats in Congress are almost completely pro-choice. But most Americans fall somewhere in between (i.e. no abortion except for cases of rape, divorce, etc.) Without centrists in Congress, it'll just be a boat with two rowers who are pulling in opposite directions without a sense of unity. Most people want single payer healthcare, common sense regulations and ethics reforms, campaign finance reform, and many other progressive policies. Somehow they are painted as "extremist" and irrational by pragmatic centrists. We are told that it is sane and rational to continue with these unsustainable policies of unfettered capitalism. Now THAT is crazy.
Well not exactly. If everyone in the Congress swallowed their pride and made some logical compromises, we'd already have reform. We can have single-payer health care that is partially run by government and partially run by private enterprise. Such a system would also be centrist because it's a compromise between the two plans of the Democrats and the Republicans.
On September 18 2012 08:20 jdseemoreglass wrote:
Absolutely excellent write up Sentinel! I've always said that who we send to Congress actually matters more than the president, but people just enjoy the sort of "personality contest" that is presidential politics, it's simpler to grasp than Congressional politics. Obama didn't single handedly pass Obamacare, it took the approval of Congress first!
Anyway, I think this can be an interesting discussion, though I doubt it will get even a tenth of the posts as the presidential thread. I live in California, which has been a Democrat stronghold for a long time... Barbara Boxer, Nancy Pelosi, Maxine Waters, etc. Ugh, I can't stand most of them, but I don't bother to vote because I don't expect it to make any difference in this state.
Well I mean anything can happen. Pelosi's pretty deeply rooted in her district for example, but the senators I'd say it's a closer margin. Here in New Jersey we have somewhere close to a 2-1 Dem-to-Rep ratio, and people in the the state ended up siding with Republicans in most cases in the last few years. Although it might be because the Democrats screwed up so badly that there wasn't really a choice.
I'm a little surprised Pelosi's had as little trouble as she has. During election season of 2010, I took a road trip down to Florida and got to watch a shitload of campaign ads for the congressmen of the eastern seaboard. Virtually all of the Republican attack ads mentioned Pelosi in some way. I'd think it would make the numbers at least a bit more even than the 80-15 difference she won with.
|
On September 18 2012 08:15 urashimakt wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:56 cLAN.Anax wrote: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.... ;_; Come on, "He'll win the honest ones" is just a flame fanning statement. Like saying "Mitt Romney stands for the good guys", etc.
Erm. I think you're misunderstanding me here, and I didn't help things, lol. I meant, the voters who want an honest conservative who won't sell-out the right when he's elected (I use "when" because he's been a state Representative for a number of years; I'm not saying he's assured the Senatorial spot), rather than the folks who change their vote simply because the other candidate is more charismatic. This holds true for the left as well; you'd rather have someone who says they're liberal, and proves he/she is liberal when in office, instead of quietly passing off as a centrist, like Clinton did.
On September 18 2012 08:32 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I'm a little surprised Pelosi's had as little trouble as she has. During election season of 2010, I took a road trip down to Florida and got to watch a shitload of campaign ads for the congressmen of the eastern seaboard. Virtually all of the Republican attack ads mentioned Pelosi in some way. I'd think it would make the numbers at least a bit more even than the 80-15 difference she won with.
Holy junk. People there like her that much? O_O' I knew she had to be a little popular to keep getting reelected term after term, but if the margin is THAT substantial, then... frick. I just...wow. That's unbelievable to me.
|
On September 18 2012 12:06 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Holy junk. People there like her that much? O_O' I knew she had to be a little popular to keep getting reelected term after term, but if the margin is THAT substantial, then... frick. I just...wow. That's unbelievable to me.
Apparently so. She's been rolling high numbers since the day she got elected to the House.
Boehner's been pulling in sixties himself, which is high when you consider the fact that he lives in a notoriously purple state that the Republicans have to endeavor to win every four years.
Also concerning the rock and hard place Congress is in concerning the economy (and confronting the fiscal cliff), they have elected to do nothing.
The Federal Reserve has done its part to jumpstart the U.S. economy but a lack of action by Congress has prevented a recovery, Dallas Fed President Richard Fisher told CNBC.
Richard Fisher, president and chief executive officer of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Speaking just a few days after the central bank took the unprecedented step of declaring an open-ended quantitative easing initiative, Fisher said he objected to the program but understands why the Open Market Committee acted as it did.
Fisher is a nonvoting FOMC member who has been critical of previous QE programs.
"The efficacy of this program is where we disagree. There are costs and benefits. I argue more on the cost side, others argue on the benefits side," Fisher said on the "Squawk Box" program. "A decision was taken. But instead of hammering the Federal Reserve, point your fingers at Congress."
Specifically, Fisher said business owners are plagued with questions of "what are my taxes going to be, what kind of spending patterns are going to come out of the federal government, how do I deal with this explosion of regulatory morass that we have come out of Washington?"
|
I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/
I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied.
|
On September 19 2012 04:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied.
This is true, and not restricted to Congress. Oftentimes the presidential election is decided by money as well (because it goes into things like ads and campaigns). It's also self-promoting because the salary of a congressman is usually around $170k, so they make up for it by agreeing to lobbies and other stuff.
|
On September 19 2012 04:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied.
It's ridiculous if you ask me. We've been lax on reining in our representatives for quite a few decades now, and because of that, they've basically had no popular opposition to do whatever the flip they want, like raise their salaries to needlessly-ostentatious sums. Instead of, you know, important stuff like, balance the f-ing budget, lol.
|
On September 20 2012 01:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:It's ridiculous if you ask me. We've been lax on reining in our representatives for quite a few decades now, and because of that, they've basically had no popular opposition to do whatever the flip they want, like raise their salaries to needlessly-ostentatious sums. Instead of, you know, important stuff like, balance the f-ing budget, lol.
Congressional members really don't get paid all that much. I know $174,000 is a lot for a lot of people, but relative to the private sector a good many of the "rich" people in congress take pay cuts to move into public life. Basically, any time there's a "OMG Congress voted themselves a raise!" type rage in the U.S. it's a cover for the crap we really should be caring about.
Now, what does need to happen is that the voters need to make them do their job of oversight. It seems that it only gets done when the opposition is in power and frankly the legislative branch has been giving away it's constitutionally derived power to the executive for decades now.
I'm a Republican and yes the 2010 round of gerrymandering helped us, but this really needs to stop. That there's really only about 30 seats in play due to how districts are drawn rigs the elections for the two major parties. For example, I'm in the GA 6th (yes, Newt was my congressman when I was in High School) and Tom Price won in 2010 with 99.9% of the vote. We need more seats in play, and more debate not less.
|
On September 20 2012 01:46 ey215 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 20 2012 01:07 cLAN.Anax wrote:On September 19 2012 04:19 NeMeSiS3 wrote:I have a question, in Congress it is rather well known that 50% of congressmen (at least recently) are millionares while 1% of the American public reside in that ratio. Is that not a little strange? http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/11/47-of-congress-members-millionaires-a-status-shared-by-only-1-of-americans/I apologize if this is a bit offtopic I just feel like the meaning of the job has went from getting things done to maintaining your position because it's pretty nice. Also running for congress would take a large portion of cash restricting the position to the wealthy or easily lobbied. It's ridiculous if you ask me. We've been lax on reining in our representatives for quite a few decades now, and because of that, they've basically had no popular opposition to do whatever the flip they want, like raise their salaries to needlessly-ostentatious sums. Instead of, you know, important stuff like, balance the f-ing budget, lol. Congressional members really don't get paid all that much. I know $174,000 is a lot for a lot of people, but relative to the private sector a good many of the "rich" people in congress take pay cuts to move into public life. Basically, any time there's a "OMG Congress voted themselves a raise!" type rage in the U.S. it's a cover for the crap we really should be caring about. Now, what does need to happen is that the voters need to make them do their job of oversight. It seems that it only gets done when the opposition is in power and frankly the legislative branch has been giving away it's constitutionally derived power to the executive for decades now. I'm a Republican and yes the 2010 round of gerrymandering helped us, but this really needs to stop. That there's really only about 30 seats in play due to how districts are drawn rigs the elections for the two major parties. For example, I'm in the GA 6th (yes, Newt was my congressman when I was in High School) and Tom Price won in 2010 with 99.9% of the vote. We need more seats in play, and more debate not less.
Yeah, I'd care a lot less about their salary size if they actually did their job. You're right, though, that it's a drop in the bucket to our other major financial difficulties. But the more they argue about what number to raise their income, the less they debate actual issues. That's primarily what bugs me.
|
They'll always find a way to ignore the big issues while finding a way to pull in big numbers.
Arnold Schwarzenegger actually addressed this issue when his State Senate was pretty much doing the same thing. There might be a way to fix this issue, but it'll take a lot of voting power and a lot of time to fix.
Concerning wage increases, I'd actually support it if they passed something like South Korea where lobbying was banned in return.
![[image loading]](http://bawaal.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/arnold-letter-fuck-you.jpg)
|
I don't actually know who my congressmen are yet, but in my defense I only moved to this state three weeks ago!
|
sigh the problem is it takes serious balls (or the metaphorical female equivalent for the honored congressmen of the opposite gender) to do any real reform
for instance debt:
try telling seniors medicare benefits are being cut. try raising the age of retirement or messing with social security. can't really cut defense spending esp with tensions ramping up everywhere and carrying a big stick does help a lot. where do you cut? cut this and seniors gut you, cut that and you get accused of not caring about national security. can't cut education spending either because it bascially is a blip and everyone will cry. ok yea you can cut out some of the fat but its a numbers game for a lot of the government's spending: if you spend less you help less people. its easier to not give things away than to take them back.
and to be quite honest, its not even a cynical view to say it almost doesn't matter who gets elected. ok yes if obama wins (probably) and then the house swings blue, dems get an easier way, but they still don't dare propose serious cuts to spending for instance. no one ever wants to raise taxes: good times, why do we need to? bad times, we can't!
and then for instance campaign finance. the supreme court ruled on citizens united and it did its job: judicial review. it upheld obamacare because it was constitutional just like its constitutional to have superpacs and the like. itd be such a huge fight to get through a constitutional amendment to bar it.
green energy? no one can agree on what to do. its just everyone proposing a different one and shooting all the other ideas down. nuclear energy? unsafe. wind? unsightly and ineffecient. water? unsightly and not practical. solar? costs too much. natural gas? releases toxins. import oil? national security concerns....
to be completely honest what is needed isnt the results of individual elections but a truly charasmatic leader to push forward reforms AND change the public mind to agree with it (i.e. FDR)
|
Ok, spending cuts don't work as tax increases / tax cuts because nobody wants to lose their funding. Especially defense and social security because most of these people are old (enough to collect benefits on these programs), and/or are veterans (president pro tempore Daniel Inouye is a WW2 vet, many others are also vets or relatives of vets)
Space gets a big boost from the President if the President wins Florida. Bush made huge investments into the space program primarily for this reason. Green energy, things come through, but you also have the lobbies to consider. Congressmen can generally get along on things like this but the coal lobby or the corn lobby will come in and make sure their demands are heard and (usually) met. Sometimes it works too well (Cash for Clunkers, the green car initiative, nearly bankrupted that part of the government).
And you don't necessarily need the public to agree. Nixon only did it enough to get re-elected. The moon landing had negative response from the public at the time, but they went and did it anyway in the name of the space race. Same goes for Bush-41's policies (although Desert Storm was actually pretty popular).
|
I really wish there were a chance to vote out my Congressmen, but I live in such a deep red area that the shit I hear from them actually appeals to the dumbasses who live in my district. I'd be much more at ease seeing them elected to another term if their #1 message wasn't to "oppose Obama," but to work out something to help me and the middle class.
|
Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for.
|
Lean towards anyone who supports the repealing of the travesty called "Obamacare"
|
On September 18 2012 07:58 forgottendreams wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2012 07:46 screamingpalm wrote: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=494We need more centrists, polarization and extreme politics is the hipster thing to do these days.
I don't know about centralists and non-partisan is possible in the next election. The Democratic party had shown it was more "centralist" in terms of not having people agree with each other and momentarily gridlocking the government last time, but the party discipline of the Republican party is astounding. Two major government gridlocks that nearly lead to a budget crisis, perpetrated mainly by the Republicans? The Democrats haven't been so far left of central as to risk two budget crises. I don't really see this as a moment to introduce more centralists and restrain the government when we have several issues on our hand that demand immediate action.
|
Dear lord. I wish I knew more about state politics, but the Presidential election thread is already a handful.
I just hope American citizens have the sense to vote based on state/local issues, and not simply party lines.
|
On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.Show nested quote +
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for.
Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!).
EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here
|
On September 22 2012 20:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for. Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!). EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here
So you're saying things should get a little better between now and November since all the congressmen are out campaigning?
I have to say maybe we should go a little bit left. America is far more conservative than say, Western Europe or Japan. I'm a Republican but I wouldn't mind going a little left (and the Democrats going a little right) if that meant that we could finally start checking off things on our to-do list. I haven't paid attention to much of the legislation that's been passing, but a lot of the bipartisan bills out there are the ones where both sides are being lobbied (SOPA) or where it benefits both sides but not the people they represent (arresting people for protesting at a political speech).
|
On September 22 2012 20:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for. Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!). EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here
And women. 
You raise a good point on a stalling Congress and Senate: the less they do, the less pork that gets passed. I agree with you totally on that. Unfortunately, I feel we need to do something about our debt and budget, and I don't think people will like it because it would have to be some substantial cuts to the budget. Then the issue becomes, "What do we cut?" And that's tough because no one can agree on what we will allow ourselves to sacrifice. :-\ (I've a hundred different things I want to can and nix, but it'd never get past our current Senate....)
I gotta wonder why, back in the earlier two years of Obama's presidency, the Dem-controlled House and Senate didn't pass tons and tons of legislature. Sure, it's probably for political purposes; when it passed, and if it didn't work, people would vote them out. However, now that folks think they just sat on their hands when they had majority control of both parts, they're likely to get voted out anyway for inactivity.
Now that they're leaving for a whole seven weeks to campaign,... *facepalm* I think the best campaigning this season in my eyes would be to keep working to get our government money and spending under control. Ads be darned; they just show work that these reps aren't doing.
On September 23 2012 00:50 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 20:34 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for. Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!). EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here So you're saying things should get a little better between now and November since all the congressmen are out campaigning? I have to say maybe we should go a little bit left. America is far more conservative than say, Western Europe or Japan. I'm a Republican but I wouldn't mind going a little left (and the Democrats going a little right) if that meant that we could finally start checking off things on our to-do list. I haven't paid attention to much of the legislation that's been passing, but a lot of the bipartisan bills out there are the ones where both sides are being lobbied (SOPA) or where it benefits both sides but not the people they represent (arresting people for protesting at a political speech).
What sort of "lefty" things would you propose/support?
|
I would support tax increases and defense cuts. Obamacare wouldn't be too bad with a few tweaks such as fixing the scales, because depending on where you are the premiums the average person pays doesn't justify the few added benefits at that level. I'll elaborate more on this when I get home.
|
The moment I discovered that both Boxer and Feinstein supported PIPA and SOPA, I voted against them. That said I don't see any reason why they'd lose their seats. They are not unpopular from what I can tell in California, which is sad because that popularity is just a result of incumbency and not much else.
Schiff (my representative) is a bit of a different story. Despite whatever differences on some views he may have with me, he's been an awesome congressmen holding telephone town halls and he or his staff respond promptly to whatever emails I've sent him.
|
On September 22 2012 19:41 Defacer wrote:
Dear lord. I wish I knew more about state politics, but the Presidential election thread is already a handful.
I just hope American citizens have the sense to vote based on state/local issues, and not simply party lines.
I find state politics here in Mass to be pretty sane. The democrats have the legislature locked up and voters bounce between dems and reps for governor. It seems to work well. The dems do a good job pushing things forward and when the government gets too bloated a rep governor comes in to reform and restructure it.
I think the people we send to congress aren't as good as they should be, but definitely better than average. My biggest complaint about who we send to congress would be the perma-incumbants Barney Frank. I'm not a big fan of politicians for life.
|
On September 23 2012 01:39 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I would support tax increases and defense cuts. Obamacare wouldn't be too bad with a few tweaks such as fixing the scales, because depending on where you are the premiums the average person pays doesn't justify the few added benefits at that level. I'll elaborate more on this when I get home.
Woah a Republican that supports tax increases and defense cuts and isn't 100% opposed to Obamacare out of principle?
I actually really do want to hear what you have to elaborate on, because you sir are an anomaly.
|
On September 22 2012 20:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for. Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!). EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here
You realize that this sort of attitude is detrimental to a democracy right? You simply cannot have an elected representative government operate without compromise. If both sides refused to budge from their political talking points you'd have a government that simply failed to operate.
|
On September 23 2012 03:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 01:39 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I would support tax increases and defense cuts. Obamacare wouldn't be too bad with a few tweaks such as fixing the scales, because depending on where you are the premiums the average person pays doesn't justify the few added benefits at that level. I'll elaborate more on this when I get home. Woah a Republican that supports tax increases and defense cuts and isn't 100% opposed to Obamacare out of principle? I actually really do want to hear what you have to elaborate on, because you sir are an anomaly.
I think he's recommending these things to compromise so that stuff actually gets done. It seems to me to be more of a situational decision rather than one based on a strict precept.
I, for one, don't like those ideas because I'm so stubbornly "right" politically. But perhaps at the national level, such compromises should be made. ...Hmmm. Perhaps the larger issue we're seeing here is entrusting too much power to the federal government, and not able to sort things out at the state and even local level. For example, I'd be much more pleased with a locally very conservative (or liberal or libertarian, etc.) government, and in D.C. a far smaller, more centrist government. That way, people would have more power over their individual governments and wouldn't be quite as affected as what's decided upon in D.C.
Basically, more power to the states; less to D.C.
|
On September 23 2012 01:54 Vindicare605 wrote:
The moment I discovered that both Boxer and Feinstein supported PIPA and SOPA, I voted against them. That said I don't see any reason why they'd lose their seats. They are not unpopular from what I can tell in California, which is sad because that popularity is just a result of incumbency and not much else.
Schiff (my representative) is a bit of a different story. Despite whatever differences on some views he may have with me, he's been an awesome congressmen holding telephone town halls and he or his staff respond promptly to whatever emails I've sent him.
That's a definite plus for Schiff. Here in NJ our governor does something similar to that and not only did it make his approval rating go up, but he's adjusted his policies based on what people asked him about. We need more politicians like this since it gives transparency and generally makes voters and politicians more in-touch with each other.
On September 23 2012 03:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 01:39 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
I would support tax increases and defense cuts. Obamacare wouldn't be too bad with a few tweaks such as fixing the scales, because depending on where you are the premiums the average person pays doesn't justify the few added benefits at that level. I'll elaborate more on this when I get home. Woah a Republican that supports tax increases and defense cuts and isn't 100% opposed to Obamacare out of principle? I actually really do want to hear what you have to elaborate on, because you sir are an anomaly.
Time to elaborate then!
On Facebook I'm getting notifications from the pages both Obama and Romney, as well as two Republican pages and a Democrat page. All of this reminds me day by day how both sides are virtually the same, with only one very small difference.
The difference between the fans of the Republican pages and the Democrat pages are that the former believe what the Republicans have to say, and the latter believe what the Democrats have to say. That is the only difference. Were they to watch CNN, they would find broadcasts of both parties. Were they to watch FOX or MSNBC, they would find broadcasts of both parties.
However, FOX knows that its viewers believe more of what Republicans have to say and commentate accordingly, and MSNBC (and to a much lesser extent CNN) knows its viewers believe the Democrats more and commentate accordingly. There is nothing stopping either side from changing the channel and hearing out the other side.
There are people on the far right, as there are people on the far left. But only some of those people are there because they have taken everything in consideration. If they have weighed all the facts and strongly support either party, more power to them. The rest just grew up that way (family or environment, not a lot of Democrats in Alabama), jump on the first boat they see, or just vote for the guy who (is/isn't) black.
Obamacare isn't perfect, and honestly it's useless for me. My family and I are still receiving the same benefits, except now we have to pay for the people who are receiving more. We have gained zero from this. But it's a good first step towards something that does work. Something closer.
So here's where all of this comes in. I believe that the middle class gets shafted so much because the Republicans are too busy appeasing the rich, and the Democrats are too busy appeasing the poor. Which leaves nobody for the middle. I'd be willing to concede things like tax increases which, although I'm personally not in favor of a tax increase and I'm straddling the fence on defense cuts, it's things that might work if the Democrats are given some leeway to work in that area, and in return give the Republicans some leeway to put forward some plans of their own.
The whole point in electing Presidents and Senators is to find people who represent the whole country, not just their party. We need one Congress which agrees with itself on what to do, not two groups of squabbling zealots in a large room who engage in a dick-measuring contest for periods of two years before going out campaigning so they can get invited to the next dick-measuring contest.
|
So basically you believe in compromise for the sake of progress. What a novel idea.
|
Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to "Peter Schiff?"
Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government?
|
If I do vote, I'm voting Bongino.
|
|
|
On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government?
I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness.
|
I'm dissapointed in the recent changes in North Dakota. I used to be so proud of our three, Dorgan, Pomeroy, and Conrad. All three I had a lot of respect for. In a red state, these three democrats were able to hold their positions for a combined 62 years, and were all able to reach powerful positions within congress. Unfortunately, Dorgan did not run again in 2010, Pomeroy lost, and now Conrad, current chair of the Senate Budget Committee, will be retiring this year.
Our former republican governor, John Hoeven, won the senate spot in 2010, and republican Rick Berg won the House seat.
This year, Rick Berg, has decided to not run for reelection to congress, but instead run for Conrad's old senate seat. He is opposed by Heidi Heitkamp, our old tax commissioner, who had previously ran for governor but lost to our current senator, Hoeven, in 2000. Heitkamp is unfortunately trailing in the polls and unlikely to win.
Republican Kevin Cramer will certainly be winning the House spot left over by Berg. So what this leaves us with is Hoeven and Berg in the senate. And Cramer in the House. This is quite the fall from our star trio of Pomeroy, Dorgan, Conrad, unfortunately. Luckily, North Dakota has so much money now that it really doesn't matter whether we have competent congressman to represent us at a federal level. What I worry about, though, is what effect these fools could have on the rest of the country.
There's really no hope for the election here, so I'm looking forward more to 2014. All the rising stars in North Dakota are unfortunately republicans, so I'm not seeing a very bright future for our democratic party here anyways, though.
|
So you're saying things should get a little better between now and November since all the congressmen are out campaigning?
I have to say maybe we should go a little bit left. America is far more conservative than say, Western Europe or Japan. I'm a Republican but I wouldn't mind going a little left (and the Democrats going a little right) if that meant that we could finally start checking off things on our to-do list. I haven't paid attention to much of the legislation that's been passing, but a lot of the bipartisan bills out there are the ones where both sides are being lobbied (SOPA) or where it benefits both sides but not the people they represent (arresting people for protesting at a political speech).
When Congress is in recess, that is.
Like, I'd rather have debates on the nature of government regulation of the insurance industry after repealing PPACA, rather than how to change PPACA to make it a good universal health care system. I see the nature of far right and far left as shifting leftward since the 1960s, when there were many more Democrats supportive of a small government model, and Republicans of both the tax-cutters and tax-raisers side. The conservative wing of the Democratic party was marginalized amongst quite a bit of other trends and movements within. I'd like to reverse that trend, have conservatives take a hard line on pork barrel legislation until the big tax and spenders bleed a little. Then we start getting some real spending cuts in (Not baseline budgeting shenanigans) and see about the reverse side of tax increases.
And women.
You raise a good point on a stalling Congress and Senate: the less they do, the less pork that gets passed. I agree with you totally on that. Unfortunately, I feel we need to do something about our debt and budget, and I don't think people will like it because it would have to be some substantial cuts to the budget. Then the issue becomes, "What do we cut?" And that's tough because no one can agree on what we will allow ourselves to sacrifice. :-\ (I've a hundred different things I want to can and nix, but it'd never get past our current Senate....)
I gotta wonder why, back in the earlier two years of Obama's presidency, the Dem-controlled House and Senate didn't pass tons and tons of legislature. Sure, it's probably for political purposes; when it passed, and if it didn't work, people would vote them out. However, now that folks think they just sat on their hands when they had majority control of both parts, they're likely to get voted out anyway for inactivity.
Now that they're leaving for a whole seven weeks to campaign,... *facepalm* I think the best campaigning this season in my eyes would be to keep working to get our government money and spending under control. Ads be darned; they just show work that these reps aren't doing.
lol, my "boys" in Congress.
Woodward touches on the lack of leadership Obama projects from the White House in his new book The Price of Politics. This might be at the root of why, given such majorities in both, he failed to deliver on many campaign promises. The others, of unknown relative importance, is the feasibility of enacting them (How do we process and try terrorists apart from Gitmo) and the political cost of doing so (Universal Amnesty would cost him a lot of votes, so might a resurgence of Al Qaeda in Aftganistan and Iraq if he withdrew troops starting today).
On September 23 2012 04:05 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 22 2012 20:34 Danglars wrote:On September 22 2012 10:49 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Update: Congress is making its final session for the year.
It’s the earliest pre-election exit by Congress from Washington since 1960, though lawmakers will return in November after the election to deal with its stack of unfinished work.
The approval rating for the current Congress in a Gallup poll earlier this month sank to just 13 percent, the lowest ever for an election year. The GOP-controlled House and Democratic Senate managed to come together with Obama to enact just 173 new laws. More are coming after the election, but the current tally is roughly half the output of a typical Congress.
Even so, political pundits say Republicans are strong favorites to keep the House while Democratic chances of keeping the Senate are on the upswing with Obama’s rise in the polls.
The exit from Washington leaves the bulk of Congress’ agenda for a postelection session in which it’s hoped lawmakers will be liberated from the election-year paralysis that has ground Capitol Hill to a near halt.
Topping the lame-duck agenda is dealing with the so-called fiscal cliff, which combines the expiration of the Bush-era tax cuts on Dec. 31 and more than $100 billion in indiscriminate, across-the-board spending cuts set to strike at the same time as punishment for the failure of last year’s deficit "supercommittee" to strike a deal.
Also left in limbo is the farm bill, stalled in the House due to opposition from conservative Republicans who think it doesn’t cut farm subsidies and food stamps enough and Democrats who think its food stamp cuts are too harsh.
The current farm act expires on Sept. 30 but the lapse won’t have much practical effect in the near term. Still, it’s a political black eye for Republicans, especially those from farm states like North Dakota and Iowa.
The lack of productivity of the 112th Congress was the result of divided government and bitter partisanship. The looming presidential and congressional elections caused top leaders in both parties to play it safe and stick to party positions.
Well... at least now I'm 100% sure who I'm voting for. Damnit, apparently I haven't been giving my boys in Congress enough credit. Half the output of a typical Congress? I wonder where that sits in the least productive congresses of the 21st and 20th centuries. Congressional approval rate be damned, the less they pass the kind of pork barrel spending bills (and earmarks, and pork that's tacked onto other bills) and that come out of there, the happier I am. You know when the media complains of "bitter partisanship" in America that means the conservative side of the Republican party has been sticking to its guns instead of being dragged leftward (and the center with it!). EDIT: tip of the iceberg of the larger point I'm addressing here You realize that this sort of attitude is detrimental to a democracy right? You simply cannot have an elected representative government operate without compromise. If both sides refused to budge from their political talking points you'd have a government that simply failed to operate.
Au Contraire! Let's put it in simple terms. If the right and left compromise 50-50, the left gets half of what they want, and the right gets half of what they want. If suddenly, half the right's agenda is labeled "Too Right-Wing," "Not in keeping with other established democracies," now compromise involves the left getting maybe double of what they want, and the republicans half. Let me reiterate one more way. If the Republicans believe a freeze in government budgets is in order, and the Democrats propose 6 trillion more spending, you might say the compromise is Republicans allowing 3 trillion more dollars to go on the federal rolls. But maybe if you're one of those smart kids, you simply say 12 trillion dollars is absolutely vital to reduce poverty, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and the amount of rotten apples at supermarkets. So Republicans and Democrats compromise with 0 spending cuts and 6 trillion more dollars.
Smart politics is dragging your side one way so the center lies with more and more of what you want done. Republicans compromise on spending increases, and government spending rises to unsustainable levels. Republicans compromise on spending cuts, and nearly nothing gets done (Manipulation of statistics from the congressional genius of baseline budgeting. If you don't increase as much as we hardcoded is an acceptable increase, it's a cut!). If I don't want government telling my insurance companies they cannot use group health characteristics in their prices, the proper move is to oppose the change not to give government partial control of the industry. If you oppose slavery, you don't free half the blacks every year. Et cetera et cetera.
I hope maybe you can see quaint notions of the "spirit of compromise" wholly do not address the moving of the center within American politics. Founding-onward, we allowed this government very restricted controls over industry and personal choices in stark contrast with the rest of the world. Sometimes, failing to pass harmful legislation is a net win for the country.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
I was just reminded that the House passed a resolution last year claiming that pizza is a vegetable.
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House.
|
Was it an individual measure, or was it added to something much more pressing? I'm always leery of reading stuff like that. Surely there was more to the bill than that....
|
On September 23 2012 19:54 Souma wrote:
I was just reminded that the House passed a resolution last year claiming that pizza is a vegetable.
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House.
Anyone who buys into such a cheap news cycle should be banned from voting.
People complain about how bad the news is, but they can't stop masturbating to the "pizza-is-a-vegetable" story, which has a bigger spin than anything that was published in over a year. Never before did the media zoom in on such a trivial part, just to get a bigger part of the idiot-demographic.
|
On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government?
No. My representative is, Adam Schiff
Au Contraire! Let's put it in simple terms. If the right and left compromise 50-50, the left gets half of what they want, and the right gets half of what they want. If suddenly, half the right's agenda is labeled "Too Right-Wing," "Not in keeping with other established democracies," now compromise involves the left getting maybe double of what they want, and the republicans half. Let me reiterate one more way. If the Republicans believe a freeze in government budgets is in order, and the Democrats propose 6 trillion more spending, you might say the compromise is Republicans allowing 3 trillion more dollars to go on the federal rolls. But maybe if you're one of those smart kids, you simply say 12 trillion dollars is absolutely vital to reduce poverty, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and the amount of rotten apples at supermarkets. So Republicans and Democrats compromise with 0 spending cuts and 6 trillion more dollars.
Smart politics is dragging your side one way so the center lies with more and more of what you want done. Republicans compromise on spending increases, and government spending rises to unsustainable levels. Republicans compromise on spending cuts, and nearly nothing gets done (Manipulation of statistics from the congressional genius of baseline budgeting. If you don't increase as much as we hardcoded is an acceptable increase, it's a cut!). If I don't want government telling my insurance companies they cannot use group health characteristics in their prices, the proper move is to oppose the change not to give government partial control of the industry. If you oppose slavery, you don't free half the blacks every year. Et cetera et cetera.
I hope maybe you can see quaint notions of the "spirit of compromise" wholly do not address the moving of the center within American politics. Founding-onward, we allowed this government very restricted controls over industry and personal choices in stark contrast with the rest of the world. Sometimes, failing to pass harmful legislation is a net win for the country.
EDIT: You realize that the less our government does, the more we're basically paying them to do nothing right?
How in the world does that make efficient business sense? We're paying our Congress as tax payers to go to Washington and intentionally block any form of legislation from getting through just because doing that might prevent some negative business legislation from getting through.
How can you possibly classify that as a functioning government?
The thing is, you're already convinced that government is intrinsically disfunctional thus stripping it of its power to do anything is what you'd prefer to reforming it so that it functions better. You're aspiring to the whole, government can't solve problems, government is the problem mentality that the Tea Partiers love to support so much.
What I'm saying is that all you're REALLY accomplishing is wasting a ton of time and money with this sort of attitude.
|
On September 23 2012 07:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness.
Out of curiosity, what state do you live in Sentinel?
Because here in California I can't help but be a big believer in Federalism and States rights when I see the enormous differences between my state and others that I've visited and how much I wish California had more freedom in its social legislation.
|
No matter what i did think either side gets a supermajoirty, so we'll still be basically stuck on anything major
|
How can you possibly classify that as a functioning government?
Who said it was functioning? He was just describing the other viewpoint on the "Republicans caused this by refusing to compromise" bandwagon. The reality is that the "obstructionism" is equally the fault of the republicans and democrats for attempting to drag the center line of compromise further and further into their own camps. Real compromise is impossible if the people debating it aren't intellectually honest about things.
|
On September 24 2012 03:54 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? No. My representative is, Adam SchiffShow nested quote +Au Contraire! Let's put it in simple terms. If the right and left compromise 50-50, the left gets half of what they want, and the right gets half of what they want. If suddenly, half the right's agenda is labeled "Too Right-Wing," "Not in keeping with other established democracies," now compromise involves the left getting maybe double of what they want, and the republicans half. Let me reiterate one more way. If the Republicans believe a freeze in government budgets is in order, and the Democrats propose 6 trillion more spending, you might say the compromise is Republicans allowing 3 trillion more dollars to go on the federal rolls. But maybe if you're one of those smart kids, you simply say 12 trillion dollars is absolutely vital to reduce poverty, unemployment, teenage pregnancy, and the amount of rotten apples at supermarkets. So Republicans and Democrats compromise with 0 spending cuts and 6 trillion more dollars.
Smart politics is dragging your side one way so the center lies with more and more of what you want done. Republicans compromise on spending increases, and government spending rises to unsustainable levels. Republicans compromise on spending cuts, and nearly nothing gets done (Manipulation of statistics from the congressional genius of baseline budgeting. If you don't increase as much as we hardcoded is an acceptable increase, it's a cut!). If I don't want government telling my insurance companies they cannot use group health characteristics in their prices, the proper move is to oppose the change not to give government partial control of the industry. If you oppose slavery, you don't free half the blacks every year. Et cetera et cetera.
I hope maybe you can see quaint notions of the "spirit of compromise" wholly do not address the moving of the center within American politics. Founding-onward, we allowed this government very restricted controls over industry and personal choices in stark contrast with the rest of the world. Sometimes, failing to pass harmful legislation is a net win for the country. EDIT: You realize that the less our government does, the more we're basically paying them to do nothing right? How in the world does that make efficient business sense? We're paying our Congress as tax payers to go to Washington and intentionally block any form of legislation from getting through just because doing that might prevent some negative business legislation from getting through. How can you possibly classify that as a functioning government? The thing is, you're already convinced that government is intrinsically disfunctional thus stripping it of its power to do anything is what you'd prefer to reforming it so that it functions better. You're aspiring to the whole, government can't solve problems, government is the problem mentality that the Tea Partiers love to support so much. What I'm saying is that all you're REALLY accomplishing is wasting a ton of time and money with this sort of attitude.
We're going to have congress whether it does something or not so the cost of congress is a sunk cost - its irrelevant to the discussion.
BTW legislation and budgets are getting passed. Let's not act like the federal government has shut down.
|
On September 24 2012 04:10 Vindicare605 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 07:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness. Out of curiosity, what state do you live in Sentinel? Because here in California I can't help but be a big believer in Federalism and States rights when I see the enormous differences between my state and others that I've visited and how much I wish California had more freedom in its social legislation.
New Jersey. Yeah California's pretty fucked up on a state level (no offense) because from what I've seen those problems are pretty deep-running and there's no easy way out.
I think the problem with states' rights is that with the current state of the country, it could go a long way to polarizing the country even more. If blue states get more power, it might let them separate a little more from the red states, and vice versa.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
On September 24 2012 03:33 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On September 23 2012 19:54 Souma wrote:
I was just reminded that the House passed a resolution last year claiming that pizza is a vegetable.
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House. Anyone who buys into such a cheap news cycle should be banned from voting. People complain about how bad the news is, but they can't stop masturbating to the "pizza-is-a-vegetable" story, which has a bigger spin than anything that was published in over a year. Never before did the media zoom in on such a trivial part, just to get a bigger part of the idiot-demographic.
Excuse me, but when politicians try to pass a resolution defining pizza as a vegetable you kind of know where their priorities are, and obviously in this situation the health of children (and plain common sense) is second place to the interests of food manufacturers.
So once again...
Everyone who voted yes to that resolution should be kicked out of the House.
|
On September 24 2012 05:48 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 24 2012 04:10 Vindicare605 wrote:On September 23 2012 07:29 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On September 23 2012 06:55 cLAN.Anax wrote:Vindicare, is the Schiff you're referring to " Peter Schiff?" Sentinel: I think you hit a good point there. We emphasize the national elections far too highly, when we should be focused on more concentrated changes in states and cities. More zealots in the counties, and more centrists in the (albeit less powerful than it is today) national government? I don't really support states' rights. I think states should have nominal power or just run more specific affairs (like funding and property taxes, or regional things like farming or mining) while the federal government should be stronger. For it to be stronger, however, it must also be properly balanced and maintained by the people as effectively as possible. Hence centrism and congressional awareness. Out of curiosity, what state do you live in Sentinel? Because here in California I can't help but be a big believer in Federalism and States rights when I see the enormous differences between my state and others that I've visited and how much I wish California had more freedom in its social legislation. New Jersey. Yeah California's pretty fucked up on a state level (no offense) because from what I've seen those problems are pretty deep-running and there's no easy way out.I think the problem with states' rights is that with the current state of the country, it could go a long way to polarizing the country even more. If blue states get more power, it might let them separate a little more from the red states, and vice versa.
This is true. From what I hear, Cali.'s a mess right now. On the contrary, though, I believe the state should have the ability to fail based on the policies it chooses. I absolutely don't like the fact that it IS failing, but it looks to me like they dug themselves into this, so from a federal standpoint I'd argue to let them be.
I'd be okay with greater separation between the states. I see the states as 50 individual, diverse social laboratories, where the sucessful policies of the states should then be implemented on a national scale. If you compromise across all the states (like at the national level) for most things and you entrust the federal government to handle more and more issues, few will be happy with the results. Leaving more stuff to the states ensures better accountability and individual satisfaction, in my opinion.
|
On September 24 2012 05:04 BronzeLeague wrote: Who said it was functioning? He was just describing the other viewpoint on the "Republicans caused this by refusing to compromise" bandwagon. The reality is that the "obstructionism" is equally the fault of the republicans and democrats for attempting to drag the center line of compromise further and further into their own camps. Real compromise is impossible if the people debating it aren't intellectually honest about things.
One of my favorite quotes for this period of political divide,
The left’s gone left, but the right’s gone nuts!
There's clear evidence that what's happened to the right is much further from the center than ever before. I'd love to jump on the "it's everybody's fault!" train, but right now, it's just Republicans.
|
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.
|
On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.
This has been refuted a number of times in the US presidential thread, but I'll helpfully remind you of the mental gymnastics needed to consider a tiny 4 month window a "shining opportunity".
In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans.
Source
|
On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through.
Republicans won't pass ANYTHING with a tax increase in it, while Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases, otherwise only very minor cuts. Democrats represent a rather varied set of voters and ideologies, which makes it much harder to pass legislation even with a majority. Even with the "Super Majority" in the Senate, you had Democrat Senators that simply would NOT vote for a bill without a Republican endorsement of it. Only so much can get done when one party is solidified in denying the other party any "victories."
On the other side, you have Republicans that have only a winner-take-all approach to compromise. We saw this during the debt ceiling fiasco, where an extremely huge chunk of Congressmen would rather default on debt payments than come together on long term debt solutions. In the health care reform debate, you had Senators that supported a great number of the proposals in the bill back in the 90s, turn around and piss all over them 10 years later.
It's nice when your platform revolves around breaking government then complaining that government doesn't work, eh?
|
The House seat for my district is up for election but there's only one dude running.
Kinda made me laugh.
|
On September 25 2012 03:55 WTFZerg wrote:
The House seat for my district is up for election but there's only one dude running.
Kinda made me laugh.
Well what's your opinion on him either way?
|
On September 25 2012 04:05 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 03:55 WTFZerg wrote:
The House seat for my district is up for election but there's only one dude running.
Kinda made me laugh. Well what's your opinion on him either way?
I actually don't know much about him. There was a redistricting in 2010 that I didn't pay enough attention to.
I know he's a Republican, which comes as no big surprise, but I should probably go look into his voting record.
|
On September 25 2012 03:38 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through. This has been refuted a number of times in the US presidential thread, but I'll helpfully remind you of the mental gymnastics needed to consider a tiny 4 month window a "shining opportunity". Show nested quote +In January 2009, there were 56 Senate Democrats and two independents who caucused with Democrats. This combined total of 58 included Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.), whose health was failing and was unable to serve. As a practical matter, in the early months of Obama’s presidency, the Senate Democratic caucus had 57 members on the floor for day-to-day legislating.
In April 2009, Pennsylvania’s Arlen Specter switched parties. This meant there were 57 Democrats, and two independents who caucused with Democrats, for a caucus of 59. But with Kennedy ailing, there were still “only” 58 Democratic caucus members in the chamber.
In May 2009, Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) was hospitalized, bringing the number of Senate Dems in the chamber down to 57.
In July 2009, Sen. Al Franken (D-Minn.) was finally seated after a lengthy recount/legal fight. At that point, the Democratic caucus reached 60, but two of its members, Kennedy and Byrd, were unavailable for votes.
In August 2009, Kennedy died, and Democratic caucus again stood at 59.
In September 2009, Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Mass.) filled Kennedy’s vacancy, bringing the caucus back to 60, though Byrd’s health continued to deteriorate.
In January 2010, Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) replaced Kirk, bringing the Democratic caucus back to 59 again.
In June 2010, Byrd died, and the Democratic caucus fell to 58, where it stood until the midterms. [Update: Jonathan Bernstein reminds me that Byrd's replacement was a Dem. He's right, though this doesn't change the larger point.]
Wallace believes the Dems’ “filibuster proof majority in the Senate” lasted 24 months. In reality, he’s off by 20 months, undermining the entire thesis pushed so aggressively by Republicans. Source
You should still be able to get a fair bit passed in a mere four months of a filibuster-proof Senate. Also, while that does mention independents (which is good that they mention that), a few left-ish Republicans, in my experience, can be convinced to vote with the Democrats. 57-59 isn't enough, no, but you only need 1-3 more members to join your cause, and it's naturally easier to accomplish than 5-10 members when the two sides are more evenly numbered. You might say it's true the other way around too, but it appears to me to be much rarer for Dems to vote conservatively, especially when they have a majority, even if it's not filibuster-proof. (that goes into part of my reasoning about government size, but that's a bit of a tangent off of this specific topic of Senatorial majority)
On September 25 2012 03:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Lolwut? Dems won't pass a bill that cuts programs and government spending; Reps won't pass a bill that raises taxes. (that's what I keep hearing from them in the news, anyway) I think Bronze's quote that you bolded hit the nail on the head: nobody wants to compromise because everyone's too entrenched in their own side on the political spectrum.
Democrats had their shining opportunity back in 2008-09 to pass stuff like mad when they had majority in both Houses and in the White House. Now they're gonna blame Republicans for being "too partisan?" As if they can only pass stuff now and not earlier? Uh-uh, they lost their chance. It's now back to the slow, slow process of incessant debate and very little getting through. Republicans won't pass ANYTHING with a tax increase in it, while Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases, otherwise only very minor cuts. Democrats represent a rather varied set of voters and ideologies, which makes it much harder to pass legislation even with a majority. Even with the "Super Majority" in the Senate, you had Democrat Senators that simply would NOT vote for a bill without a Republican endorsement of it. Only so much can get done when one party is solidified in denying the other party any "victories." On the other side, you have Republicans that have only a winner-take-all approach to compromise. We saw this during the debt ceiling fiasco, where an extremely huge chunk of Congressmen would rather default on debt payments than come together on long term debt solutions. In the health care reform debate, you had Senators that supported a great number of the proposals in the bill back in the 90s, turn around and piss all over them 10 years later. It's nice when your platform revolves around breaking government then complaining that government doesn't work, eh?
I see Republicans in the same light: you have a strong, highly-conservative base, but also many other left-leaning politicians as well. For example, it was difficult for me to choose a candidate from the GOP in 2008 because I didn't agree with them on at least a couple of key issues, and they tended to vary from candidate to candidate. Romney for his inconsistency, Ron Paul for his view on international policy, Huckabee for his stance on some social issues, etc. I'd say the current atmosphere of Reps is largely strongly conservative, but it's in the face of nothing but center-left and left politicians, so they kind of have to look ultra-right-wing so that voters can tell the difference between them and the opposing party.
Stimulus passed. That's probably as much compromise as enough Reps would allow, but it's compromise nonetheless. Based on how they interpreted the results of the stimulus, however, I doubt they'll cave in to even moderate bills. I haven't followed the health care debacle as well as I should (methinks no one really, fully understands that enormous document, lol), but personally I wouldn't support the parts of it for the same reasons that I wouldn't support the whole thing.
I think the reason why government doesn't work so well is because it's not "broken" enough. Actually, the way I see it, conservatives see the government as so large from the right-wing ideal that the changes being made through Congress are too minor; thus the government stays too big for them, and they (along with myself) complain.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
So I just realized that with the new California districts, my Congressional district has changed... argh. This is all so confusing. The new districts look interesting though, to say the least. Seems like Democrats are an easy lock for my new district (high Latino population with a Latino representative running).
|
|
|
On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Republicans won't pass ANYTHING with a tax increase in it, while Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases, otherwise only very minor cuts. Democrats represent a rather varied set of voters and ideologies, which makes it much harder to pass legislation even with a majority. Even with the "Super Majority" in the Senate, you had Democrat Senators that simply would NOT vote for a bill without a Republican endorsement of it. Only so much can get done when one party is solidified in denying the other party any "victories."
On the other side, you have Republicans that have only a winner-take-all approach to compromise. We saw this during the debt ceiling fiasco, where an extremely huge chunk of Congressmen would rather default on debt payments than come together on long term debt solutions. In the health care reform debate, you had Senators that supported a great number of the proposals in the bill back in the 90s, turn around and piss all over them 10 years later.
It's nice when your platform revolves around breaking government then complaining that government doesn't work, eh?
Somewhat untrue and dismissive of the facts. Many Republicans have tried to compromise with Democrats. The Speaker of the house pushed a proposal sometime last year that offered 800 billion in tax increases,of course with appropriate spending cuts as well. As you so fondly put it " Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases", well in this case Democrats reneged from the deal. Surely if the House's top Republican is ready to come to the table, the rest will follow. Remember Paul Ryan (Romney's running mate) compromising with Ron Wyden? Their plan serves as a model of how congress should act.
Dont blame the debt-ceiling fiasco on Republicans soley, Democrats had a part in it too.
Oh and healthcare reform in the 90's, are you referring to Hillarycare? Democrats at the time shunned it, Republicans even more.
|
On September 30 2012 21:02 th3j35t3r wrote:Show nested quote +On September 25 2012 03:29 cLAN.Anax wrote:
Republicans won't pass ANYTHING with a tax increase in it, while Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases, otherwise only very minor cuts. Democrats represent a rather varied set of voters and ideologies, which makes it much harder to pass legislation even with a majority. Even with the "Super Majority" in the Senate, you had Democrat Senators that simply would NOT vote for a bill without a Republican endorsement of it. Only so much can get done when one party is solidified in denying the other party any "victories."
On the other side, you have Republicans that have only a winner-take-all approach to compromise. We saw this during the debt ceiling fiasco, where an extremely huge chunk of Congressmen would rather default on debt payments than come together on long term debt solutions. In the health care reform debate, you had Senators that supported a great number of the proposals in the bill back in the 90s, turn around and piss all over them 10 years later.
It's nice when your platform revolves around breaking government then complaining that government doesn't work, eh? Somewhat untrue and dismissive of the facts. Many Republicans have tried to compromise with Democrats. The Speaker of the house pushed a proposal sometime last year that offered 800 billion in tax increases,of course with appropriate spending cuts as well. As you so fondly put it " Democrats, for the most part, are willing to pass relatively large cuts for some tax increases", well in this case Democrats reneged from the deal. Surely if the House's top Republican is ready to come to the table, the rest will follow. Remember Paul Ryan (Romney's running mate) compromising with Ron Wyden? Their plan serves as a model of how congress should act. Dont blame the debt-ceiling fiasco on Republicans soley, Democrats had a part in it too. Oh and healthcare reform in the 90's, are you referring to Hillarycare? Democrats at the time shunned it, Republicans even more.
Concerning the Speaker, I think he's actually one of the most open people out there, even if he's pretty deep into his party.
Obama and Boehner have been buddies on Congressional matters compared to some of the other inter-party relationships out there.
|
I hope Art Robinson beats Peter DeFazio!
|
i'm jealous of my brother, he gets to vote for Issa.
i have to settle for Duncan D. Hunter
|
One more month till election day.
Those ads are really getting vitriolic now. Five ads in one commercial break, all of them contradicting each other. And all five talking shit about candidates. No positives.
|
On October 02 2012 01:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
One more month till election day.
Those ads are really getting vitriolic now. Five ads in one commercial break, all of them contradicting each other. And all five talking shit about candidates. No positives.
Still waiting for my absentee ballot. Brother already got his and we go to the same school. How did that work out, lol? X-D I know who I'm voting for though, so at least I can send it in quickly once it arrives in the mail.
I was at a Buffalo Wild Wings this past weekend, and since there are a bajillion TVs, of course I was gonna see some political ads. Both/all sides' commercials looked terrible, I can't believe they're so effective on the populace when they're 30-second blurbs dispersing totally misconstrued falsities of their opponent. Honestly, none of them change my mind on the candidates at all. >_<
|
On October 02 2012 02:02 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 01:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
One more month till election day.
Those ads are really getting vitriolic now. Five ads in one commercial break, all of them contradicting each other. And all five talking shit about candidates. No positives. Still waiting for my absentee ballot. Brother already got his and we go to the same school. How did that work out, lol? X-D I know who I'm voting for though, so at least I can send it in quickly once it arrives in the mail. I was at a Buffalo Wild Wings this past weekend, and since there are a bajillion TVs, of course I was gonna see some political ads. Both/all sides' commercials looked terrible, I can't believe they're so effective on the populace when they're 30-second blurbs dispersing totally misconstrued falsities of their opponent. Honestly, none of them change my mind on the candidates at all. >_<
Well the whole point of those ads at this point is just to convince the people who haven't picked a candidate. A lot of those people are susceptible to those kinds of ads, especially if they're uninformed for whatever reason.
|
On October 02 2012 04:21 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 02 2012 02:02 cLAN.Anax wrote:On October 02 2012 01:42 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:
One more month till election day.
Those ads are really getting vitriolic now. Five ads in one commercial break, all of them contradicting each other. And all five talking shit about candidates. No positives. Still waiting for my absentee ballot. Brother already got his and we go to the same school. How did that work out, lol? X-D I know who I'm voting for though, so at least I can send it in quickly once it arrives in the mail. I was at a Buffalo Wild Wings this past weekend, and since there are a bajillion TVs, of course I was gonna see some political ads. Both/all sides' commercials looked terrible, I can't believe they're so effective on the populace when they're 30-second blurbs dispersing totally misconstrued falsities of their opponent. Honestly, none of them change my mind on the candidates at all. >_< Well the whole point of those ads at this point is just to convince the people who haven't picked a candidate. A lot of those people are susceptible to those kinds of ads, especially if they're uninformed for whatever reason.
Yeah, I know. But it's frustrating that people would use those ads to help them determine a candidate. I just wish we had a more informed citizenry, or at least folks that wanted to inform themselves, and refused the rhetoric offered by TV commercials.
|
Got my absentee ballot in the mail yesterday. Man, it's tough to decipher "law-speak." My local and state laws are getting a few amendments and they're hard as heck to comprehend, lol. (it's not a problem with the laws themselves, just the way they are worded)
Heard something interesting on the radio this morning. McCaskill had an ad poking at Akin, asserting that former conservative politicians (including Talent, Bond, and Ashcroft) don't recommend him as a candidate. Again, it's from the Akin's opponent specifically to jab at his run for the Senate, but I'll have to rethink if I want the Libertarian candidate or not instead.
Which brings me to another point: I don't like how deeply entrenched we're in the two-party system. I'd LOVE to have more prominent independent candidates. Can't vote for the Pres. or a Senator like that 'cause they don't stand a chance of winning. I think starting at the local level is best for bringing non-Dem and non-Rep politicians to viability. I sincerely think they represent America more accurately, and it's also partially led me to my statist/republic views.
Would love to hear thoughts on that: independents gaining ground, what will it take? Government requirement? "Grassroots," from-the-ground-up support? Trial and error through the states? Or SHOULD it even be espoused at all?
|
Agreed on having more independents in office.
I watched the senatorial debates on Wednesday and I noticed that it was probably the only time the non-incumbent candidate got a chance to voice his opinions. The incumbent guy, Bob Menendez, is probably one of the shittiest senators out there, but he's expected to get 70 percent of the vote because nobody knows who his opponent is.
|
*sigh* I can't stand watching debates, really of anything. It's as caustic as the TV ads, but with more awful speaking since they have to actually reply to their opponent(s). Gonna load up my state's debate and watch it tonight probably, though it likely won't change my views on any of them. The Libertarian guy might get my vote even, lol.
Speaking of which, do you (or anyone for that matter) plan on voting independent for any of the positions? Pres. and Senator seem too unlikely in my opinion, but the Congressional Representatives seem possible, and I'd argue it only gets more plausible as you go further down the ranks, like Mayor, Councilmen and -women, and judges.
+ Show Spoiler [RE: Akin] +So it was true. He was asked to step down because of his comments. A month later, though, after the apology I assume, they switched a second time and backed him again.
|
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements.
|
On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements.
Question, then: do YOU vote because of what you hear or see in the ads, or do you vote for the candidates whose policies align most with yours and whose track records are most consistent with your beliefs? I think you're right when you say most Americans are sick of the ads and probably tell you and I that they don't affect their position, and yet people are still affected by them. But these people gotta come from somewhere, and I just don't know where....
|
On October 15 2012 07:27 cLAN.Anax wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements. Question, then: do YOU vote because of what you hear or see in the ads, or do you vote for the candidates whose policies align most with yours and whose track records are most consistent with your beliefs? I think you're right when you say most Americans are sick of the ads and probably tell you and I that they don't affect their position, and yet people are still affected by them. But these people gotta come from somewhere, and I just don't know where....
It is basically a cycle of bullshit to be sure. The media has a whole has a more powerful effect on people than they really anticipate. On the other hand, the media also shows us what we will tune in to. People can criticize the media for the excessive coverage of celebrities, and Justin Bieber's haircut, but it would not be shown if it did not generate numbers. Same with any court case involving a pretty white woman/ missing white girl. In a way the criticism of coverage itself draws attention to the story.
Ultimately, our culture is a projection of the more common values. We are fed bullshit, but we also produce bullshit. It's a mess. To address it's source, we have to dig so deep into our history, our values, superstitions, fears, pride, etc.
To be fair these ads aren't meant to get undecided voters. Most people like one more than the other from the get-go (as well as do to the two-party mindless follower system). What the ads are supposed to do is appeal to your emotions, namely fear and hate, so rile you up enough so that you actually WILL go out and vote. People who aren't emotionally invested, and the apathetic, typically do not vote. We must rattle their world!
|
On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements.
Perry's a good governor (more liberal than people think), although I agree he shouldn't be president.
The real reason the ads are the way they are, however, isn't more about people falling for the same thing over and over again entirely. By this point, those kind of people have already made an educated decision about which of the two (if any) they're going to vote for. The ads, debates, and all that other nonsense is just for the undecided voters, most of whom respond well to this kind of advertising and blunt black-and-white politics.
They don't need to target the people making educated voting decisions because it would take too much time and effort and those people are already gone. When Romney said his thing about the "47%" who weren't voting for him, he's absolutely correct and all politicians have a similar mentality to this.
|
On October 15 2012 07:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements. Perry's a good governor (more liberal than people think), although I agree he shouldn't be president. The real reason the ads are the way they are, however, isn't more about people falling for the same thing over and over again entirely. By this point, those kind of people have already made an educated decision about which of the two (if any) they're going to vote for. The ads, debates, and all that other nonsense is just for the undecided voters, most of whom respond well to this kind of advertising and blunt black-and-white politics. They don't need to target the people making educated voting decisions because it would take too much time and effort and those people are already gone. When Romney said his thing about the "47%" who weren't voting for him, he's absolutely correct and all politicians have a similar mentality to this.
Also a good point. And I enjoyed that people were trying to paint Romney as an asshole for that comment, when it's actually the most honest thing I've heard a candidate say.
EDIT: OMG everyone I'm so sorry, I thought this was the Presidential Election thread, this is the congressional thread ahhhh dammit alllll Derailment, derailment, derailment.
|
On October 15 2012 07:48 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements. Perry's a good governor (more liberal than people think), although I agree he shouldn't be president. The real reason the ads are the way they are, however, isn't more about people falling for the same thing over and over again entirely. By this point, those kind of people have already made an educated decision about which of the two (if any) they're going to vote for. The ads, debates, and all that other nonsense is just for the undecided voters, most of whom respond well to this kind of advertising and blunt black-and-white politics. They don't need to target the people making educated voting decisions because it would take too much time and effort and those people are already gone. When Romney said his thing about the "47%" who weren't voting for him, he's absolutely correct and all politicians have a similar mentality to this. Also a good point. And I enjoyed that people were trying to paint Romney as an asshole for that comment, when it's actually the most honest thing I've heard a candidate say. EDIT: OMG everyone I'm so sorry, I thought this was the Presidential Election thread, this is the congressional thread ahhhh dammit alllll Derailment, derailment, derailment.
Eh, it was interesting to get some comments in here for once, and also your points are still valid for the congressional election.
Now I won't feel as guilty when I bump this thread in about a week.
|
On October 15 2012 07:48 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On October 15 2012 07:45 [UoN]Sentinel wrote:On October 15 2012 06:59 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
At least Rick Perry won't be our president. Although our two frontrunners only look better by comparison, than by merit alone.
Presidential ads don't need to have any positive aspects. Americans respond to fear, to deep voices and scowling faces, to grayscaled candidates. People say they're tired of these kind of ads, but I am doubtful that were they not effective on a meaningful scale that they would keep using them, especially with the slew of people in a campaign office whose sole job is to study what voters respond to in advertisements. Perry's a good governor (more liberal than people think), although I agree he shouldn't be president. The real reason the ads are the way they are, however, isn't more about people falling for the same thing over and over again entirely. By this point, those kind of people have already made an educated decision about which of the two (if any) they're going to vote for. The ads, debates, and all that other nonsense is just for the undecided voters, most of whom respond well to this kind of advertising and blunt black-and-white politics. They don't need to target the people making educated voting decisions because it would take too much time and effort and those people are already gone. When Romney said his thing about the "47%" who weren't voting for him, he's absolutely correct and all politicians have a similar mentality to this. Also a good point. And I enjoyed that people were trying to paint Romney as an asshole for that comment, when it's actually the most honest thing I've heard a candidate say. EDIT: OMG everyone I'm so sorry, I thought this was the Presidential Election thread, this is the congressional thread ahhhh dammit alllll Derailment, derailment, derailment.
Noooo!! Stay awhile and discuss! Pleeeaaase! X-D
'Kay. Watched the debate. Akin and McCaskill couldn't stop stabbing at each other, and poor Dine stuttered his way through what I felt like was the most genuine platform of all three. This is going to be my personal rundown of the debate (written late at night so full of generalizing opinions and lack of care, lol), and since it's so long, I've spoilered it in advance if folks don't wanna read it. (TL;DR version below)
+ Show Spoiler +Akin's "Legitimate Rape"Akin took his "legitimate rape" questions and completely turned the discussion around to something different, and I was all "whtf is he doing?" until I realized that he was SUPPOSED to point out more important topics if he believed they were more imperative than his comments, lol. McCaskill then somehow turned from talking about how important his statements were,... by talking about other things. And finally Dine turned the conversation to his own honest policies. So I guess the end result is that Akin's remarks really were just a slip, like no big deal, and the most everyone could do was simply buff up their other stances by pointing out how trivial they believed it, and perhaps the matter of abortion itself in this election, was. Postal ServiceDine's in support of raising taxes on stamps to cover costs of improving the USPS. Lolwut? I thought he was the Libertarian here. X-D "The Postal Service is Constitutional. Government's supposed to be doing that." That first statement really threw me for a loop. The rest of Akin's answer to the Postal Service question I totally expected, playing on the heartstrings of the elderly, attempting to (I guess) harken back to "good ol' days" when everyone knew everybody and all that nostalgic fuzziness. Also when the Postal Service probably wasn't terrible, lol. His solution sounds good on principle at least. Taxes seem like a different issue altogether, but applying free market forces in the way he recommends made me nod. I think McCaskill shot herself in the foot on this one. Eventually letting the private sector handle mail (as it already does many packages via UPS, FedEx, and the like) leads me to believe it would lower prices instead. She too says it's in the Constitution. I'mma have to look this up now; I haven't thought about this issue all that much.... Her statement about USPS being comprehensive and comparably efficient to the rest of the world is accurate, I believe. It IS good, darned good, relatively speaking. But it could still be vastly improved in my opinion. MedicareI know very little about this whole topic, especially when it comes to "Obamacare." The libertarian in me says it's dumb because it looks like more government control, especially over our health, and the very, very high probability of a (or multiple) tax increase(s). But I have to ultimately shrug at it all 'cause it's not my area of expertise. Needless to say, the three replied in the way I expected. First time I've heard a Dem espouse any bit of capitalism though, lol. "Wild Card"I really wish I could believe McCaskill here. It's as if she wanted to throw her hands up and say, "Hey, Missouri, this is what your people said. I'm just followin' orders." In that respect, that's great for her, because she's listening to the people. But since I already disagree with a fair number of the policies she said Missourians wanted, then I have the citizens to get mad at. Of course, if she's being disingenuous here.... Then that's obviously even worse. I noticed that most of Dine's statements are almost verbatim from his own website. Not that that's a bad thing against him, but it again testifies to his inability to speak well in front of the camera. No comment on Akin's point; I just lost interest was all. Foreign PolicyDine said what I thought he'd say. Akin took an intriguing turn on it, going to Poland and the Czech first, then got predicatble with Egypt and the Middle East. Aaaaaaand Claire. Ooooohhhh Claire. m-D I find it interesting that Akin has two kids who've been over there; kinda throws a twist on the "millionaire's son" stigma, if you ask me, 'cause he actually CAN claim that his children are fighting this war. Dealing with the Deficit/BudgetCongress poked the Senate, and the Senate poked Congress. And then Dine poked both of them, hahaha! Obesityo_o I was puzzled by this one. McCaskill took a center-right approach by suggesting the government "back off," and then Dine says the government should "set the best example" out of all of us. And then Akin, while he still agreed with Claire that the people should choose for themselves, got all "soft-spoken" 'n' junk and tried waxing eloquence on "The American Dream" and "Try, Try Again." Seriously, where in the world did that come from, Todd?! Just... this whole segment made me scratch my head. X-D Closing RemarksOn Akin: Jefferson believed in a "Creator?" Really?... Will give credit to Todd on at least one thing: he did not attack his opponent(s) in either his opening or closing statements. Personally, I'm glad he didn't use his time to bash Claire, but instead to end on a positive note. On McCaskill: "We have a choice, not just between two candidates..." Dine is RIGHT, FREAKING, THERE standing NEXT to you, Claire! Seriously! Too soon! m-D On Dine: He didn't speak well, but he stole the whole show with that last joke. 
Overall, this debate turned out quite civil if you ask me. I expected far more negativity, but all of the candidates proved respectful, 'least enough not to talk over each other.
So "who won," you ask?
Politically: McCaskill. It was about even between Akin and her until the former didn't attack Claire in his final statement, while McCaskill gave a fair bit to rail on Todd. I appreciated his uplifting words at the end, but it looked flowery and almost like a distraction to Claire's caustic rhetoric.
Policy-wise: Dine. He stated almost all of his goals clearly (he seemed thrown off only by the USPS and obesity discussions) and his canderous attitude enforces his stance.
My Vote: If I had to vote on these three solely based on this one debate alone, with no other prior experience or information on them, I'd go with Dine to be honest. He seemed the one least stuck in the mire of politics, and I could understand his positions even with a few disagreements, whereas those of Todd and Claire were 15% stance and 85% attack on the other. Dine was the only one I took with some seriousness, while it was difficult for me to actually find the stances for the others underneath all their aggression.
Actual vote will NOT be Dine, just for the record.... Maybe.
|
Going through my absentee ballot this evening. Couldn't find third party candidates for anything lower than Attorney General. Decided to look up some voting stats from last election back in 2008, and I found them very troubling for anyone who wants to vote for a candidate besides Republican or Democrat. Literally less than 1% of the vote for many.... ;_; To be fair, this is in St. Louis County; I'm not sure how this would stack up against the more rural areas of the state (and Missouri has plenty of rural areas, lol).
Still, this worries me, as I thought the strongest option for getting independents into higher offices would be to start their respective parties off in the lower ones, like at the county and district levels. This info., however,... just doesn't make it seem plausible anymore....
|
That whole paragraph here as well. Looked at my absentee ballot, of the 10 candidates for president I have only seen advertising for three of them. Of the six men up for senator, there has only been ads for one because the Republicans have all but bailed on their man.
I've got a healthy mix of Republicans and Democrats on my wish list, but I still don't know enough about the third parties to cast my lot with any of them.
We have independents and various parties I've never heard of running for mayor and school board.
|
State results are in. Here're mine (with thoughts): + Show Spoiler +http://enr.sos.mo.gov/ENR/Views/TabularData.aspx?TabView=StateRaces^Federal%20/%20Statewide%20Races^488624884533
Yeah, Akin didn't stand a chance, lol.... Surprised how close Prop B was. It seems most of our Representatives are Republican, and Romney won our popular vote by over 9%, but we chose Democrats for practically everything else? Goodness. We're a weird state. X-D
Sentinel, how did things turn out in New Jersey? And everyone else, what about your state, if you don't mind sharing?
|
That clown Menendez got reelected... I wish I could make a really detailed results post for all states but I can't on my phone
|
Oh please, I'd let 'em find out for themselves. ;-P Unless, of course, you have something different in mind.
The New Hampshire "income tax ban" piques my interest, most notably. Looks like it "won" 57-43, but needed 2/3 of the vote to actually pass. D'oh!!
|
I live in PA where the Republican gerrymandering is absurd, went from 7 D, 12 R seats to 5 D, 13 R seats this time, even though adding up all the votes Democrats for house got more votes.
Here's what our absurd map looks like:
http://www.politicspa.com/pas-new-congressional-maps/30096/
I live in that ridiculous looking white 12th district that merged two districts barely controlled by democrats (and also barely geographically connected to each other), so they had to face each other in primary, and then the republican Rothfus barely took it in the general election.
|
Meh. At least your state has some balance between the parties.
Look at Missouri's.
Heard about it on the news this morning first. Reps definitely have a 2/3 advantage in the MO House right now. Everyone's talking about "bipartisan this and that," but with our Governor, Secretary of State, Treasurer, and Attorney General elected Democrat, I doubt we'll be seeing anything remotely related to cooperation anytime soon, lol.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://thefbm.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Senate-chamber.jpeg)
