As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

US Congressional Elections 2012: Scott Brown, Diviner of Ancestry!

1121315171875

Posts

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • SpoitSpoit *twitch twitch* Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing the Congressional races in California as a result of their redistricting. In the discussion, they mentioned that California has what they were calling a "jungle primary system" where it's a general primary (everyone running against everyone regardless of party affiliation) and the top two (again, regardless of party affiliation) move on to the general election. This sounds awesome, since I would think it would allow more moderates to win Congressional races. I would think that, theoretically, if two people from the same party ended up in the primary the moderate would attract all the votes of the people from the opposite party as well as the moderates of their own party.

    But I've been conditioned to assume that anything that sounds good under a cursory examination is almost always a chocolate covered piece of shit. So can anyone enlighten me?
    Realistically, it means that no one other than the 2 parties will ever be on the real ballot. And like you said, the case where gerrymadering means that it's a choice of two people of the same party

    steam_sig.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    I was listening to NPR yesterday and they were discussing the Congressional races in California as a result of their redistricting. In the discussion, they mentioned that California has what they were calling a "jungle primary system" where it's a general primary (everyone running against everyone regardless of party affiliation) and the top two (again, regardless of party affiliation) move on to the general election. This sounds awesome, since I would think it would allow more moderates to win Congressional races. I would think that, theoretically, if two people from the same party ended up in the primary the moderate would attract all the votes of the people from the opposite party as well as the moderates of their own party.

    But I've been conditioned to assume that anything that sounds good under a cursory examination is almost always a chocolate covered piece of shit. So can anyone enlighten me?

    One, it's Constitutionally questionable (freedom of association).
    Two, Louisiana almost elected an unrepentant member of the KKK to the governorship thanks to a similar system.
    Three, the argument for it is a load of gooseshit (this ties into Argument One above.)

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Okay, it's amazing me that I have yet to see a Rehberg ad.

    Seen plenty of anti-Tester ads, though.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

  • BagginsesBagginses __BANNED USERS regular
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Oh, they're all over the place. In fact, they even have their own party.

    The Democratic Party.

  • TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.

    California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.

    California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.

    FTFY

  • TheCanManTheCanMan GT: Gasman122009 JerseyRegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.

    California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.

    That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.

    California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.

    That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.

    I think it's because, and I know this is a verboten thing to say, there is such a thing as too much democracy.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    TheCanMan wrote: »
    Moderates suck and should be violently destroyed?

    Intelligent, hard-bitten moderates who prefer reasonable action and aren't caught up on ideology are fine. Idiot moderates who say "Well why don't we just give half the funding to the road" as a compromise between funding road/no road suck and should be violently destroyed.

    I think even your idealized, non-existent moderates would be ineffectual, but sure.

    They're non-existent in the halls of power because they can't get elected. There's a lot of us in the citizenry. Most of us don't vote, because we're leery of voting for the lesser of two evils and are kind of retarded, but we're out there!

    Exactly, because the more common election system favors the crazies. I would think in a system like California's you'd get more situations where it's a sane moderate versus a batshit insane extremist from the same party. So the moderates could team-up with the other side to get the sane person elected.

    California's elections system, from what I understand, is pretty fucking terrible.

    That was my starting assumption. I'm just trying to figure out why something that seems to make sense in my head is actually a steaming pile of shit hidden behind a pretty facade.

    That's because it is a system that does work - California has instituted a two tier general election, similar to the system the French are currently using to elect their leader. What's problematic is that they're not honest about it. There's also what happened in LA too, to consider - I doubt you'll see many other elections where "vote for the crook" was a popular sentiment.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    If you can't get people to believe government is broken, then break the government:

    http://www.salon.com/2012/05/04/sabotage_the_new_gop_plan/

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    Honestly, compulsory might yield better results than the system used by California. I'm no fan of the idea, but there is some truth the fact that the politicians would have to start being a little more moderate and in tune with the majority of the voting population since the 45-50% that weren't voting aren't less likely to go for obvious batshit crazy guy or doesn't endorse a reasonable chunk of their values.

    Of course as Angel pointed out, the CA system would be more effective if they didn't pass the first round off as a primary.

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Dick Lugar faces a tea party challenger on Tuesday, and polls show Lugar down by 10 points.

    So long, senator with the absolute greatest name ever.

  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    What about Dick Armey? (was he a senator? I don't actually care...)

    If Lugar gets primaried, does that put his seat within reach for the Democrats? I don't know what state he's in.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.

    And Armey was in the House.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • TheBlackWindTheBlackWind Registered User regular
    The numbers on lugars opponent actually look decent for the challenger, plus we might get Lugar to call his party nutso.

    PAD ID - 328,762,218
  • MillMill Registered User regular
    There's also nothing to stop Lugar from telling his own party they can go and fuck themselves by running third party either.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Trusting Indiana is... not a good idea. Fuck Indiana.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • KalTorakKalTorak One way or another, they all end up in the Undercity.Registered User regular
    Maybe we can get Lugar to pull a Specter.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    Except he agrees with the Dems on literally nothing except like... missile defense.

    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Pi-r8Pi-r8 Registered User regular
    Hedgethorn wrote:

    So long, senator with the absolute greatest name ever.
    truly, America's Dicks, Boehners, and Weiners are our greatest national treasure.

  • HedgethornHedgethorn Associate Professor of Historical Hobby Horses In the Lions' DenRegistered User regular
    Except he agrees with the Dems on literally nothing except like... missile defense.

    He is from the generation that thinks you shouldn't filibuster every single piece of legislation ever, which is itself a small victory. He also voted to confirm Sotomayor and Kagan, which is a large part of the primary challenger's case against him.

  • sportzboytjwsportzboytjw squeeeeeezzeeee some more tax breaks outRegistered User regular
    Okay, it's amazing me that I have yet to see a Rehberg ad.

    Seen plenty of anti-Tester ads, though.

    I see them in little windows and banners in Youtube. If you have adblocker though you might not get those.

    Walkerdog on MTGO
    TylerJ on League of Legends (it's free and fun!)
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.

    And Armey was in the House.

    Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.

  • AngelHedgieAngelHedgie Registered User regular
    Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.

    And Armey was in the House.

    Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.

    Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.

    XBL: Nox Aeternum / PSN: NoxAeternum / NN:NoxAeternum / Steam: noxaeternum
  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.

    And Armey was in the House.

    Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.

    Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.

    Good. gooooood.

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Lugar is from Indiana. It makes it theoretically possible (as opposed to no chance in hell), but still unlikely.

    And Armey was in the House.

    Last I checked Donnelly was even with or leading Mourdock. I wouldn't call that too unlikely.

    Once again, we have a case of Teapers cutting off the GOP nose to spite the party's face. If Mourdock wins (and lets face it, that's looking likely now), the GOP is going to have to spend real money and other resources to just keep the seat that they wouldn't have had to.

    Good. gooooood.

    darth-sidious-7.jpg

  • Just_Bri_ThanksJust_Bri_Thanks Seething with rage from a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPA regular
    So my co-worker got an E-Mail survey from Vern Buchanan today, which I advised her to ignore.

    I get home, and I see that I have a mailing from this same Vern Buchanan.

    Interestingly enough, I notice it doesn't have his party listed on it.

    I look up his website, and it doesn't show a party affiliation either.

    Wikipedia reveals he is a Republican.

    Sorry Vern, no vote for you. Your party has shown that you can't be responsible with the car keys.

    ...and when you are done with that; take a folding
    chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
  • UnknownSaintUnknownSaint Kasyn Registered User regular
    A lot of Republicans are probably fearing the anti-surge to follow the huge gains from 2010. It's a historical trend, and they're going to be saved from significant losses by redistricting, but yeah, I can see why he'd want to hide from his own party affiliation.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited May 2012
    Title updated. And he's down 20 with 15% reporting.

    EDIT: NBC calls it, title updated again.

    enlightenedbum on
    Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    This is the second Senate race conservatives have torpedoed for themselves in two cycles, as well as the second six-term incumbent to lose a primary in those same two cycles.

  • AManFromEarthAManFromEarth Let's get to twerk! The King in the SwampRegistered User regular
    Won't the Republican still win? Or will Lugar Lieberman it?

    Lh96QHG.png
  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    Mourdock has been running around even against Donnelly. I think it's pretty much a coin-flip at this point; Lugar would have made it no contest.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    I'd love to see an indie Lugar run, but I have a feeling he's too classy for that.

    I think he was pretty much the last Republican in the Senate I had any respect for, so it makes sense the party loyalists couldn't stand having him around.

  • iTunesIsEviliTunesIsEvil Cornfield? Cornfield.Registered User regular
    Lugar can't run as an independent, Indiana law bars doing that. (I can find the name of the statute in my Twitter feed if anyone's really curious)

    Mourdock will most likely beat Donnelly. No one's excited about Donnelly; the dude seriously stood up on the floor of the House and told everyone that we needed the BBA that the Republicans were pushing for during the debt-ceiling fight. The only hope he's got is if Lugar's supporters are either pissed enough to vote for him out of spite, or that they're so pissed about Mourdock that they stay home. Neither of those are likely to happen in IN. So, in back-to-back elections we'll have sent Dan I-Think-The-Line-Item-Veto-Is-Great-Lets-Bring-That-Back Coats BACK to the Senate, and we'll send this Tea Party backed asshole there too.

    We (Hoosiers) deserve to be put in a very deep, very dark place in The Hole.
    I am a very angry citizen of the state of Indiana tonight. Very angry.

  • Captain CarrotCaptain Carrot Alexandria, VARegistered User regular
    You do recall plenty of polls showing that Donnelly can beat Mourdock, right?

This discussion has been closed.