And why couldn't they get anything done? Oh right republican obstructionism, but do trot out the lie about how the democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for two years, I love that one.
Don't be a goose Preacher. I said didn't / couldn't and I made no comments about the filibuster, and moreover your smartass remark is exactly the point I was making - there's no reason for optimism if the Democrats do actually gain majorities (which they won't).
So quick to take a cheap shot at me, you don't even process what I'm saying.
There's plenty of reason for optimism: now they know what happens if the filibuster stays put. That, and there are no possible Congress compositions that wouldn't be improved by flipping one of the R seats.
Only a blind partisan would say that Every Single Republican is worse than Any Possible Democrat.
I don't think the Democrats will blow up the filibuster, because they know they won't hold the chamber forever and without it, the minority is powerless to do anything but stand on the sideline and whine. You guys will suddenly love the filibuster if the Senate goes GOP. You'll love it so much.
@Thanatos so they were Democrats, but they weren't True Democrats, is what you're saying?
I guess you could say the same about Olympia Snowe.
The Republican party has had a better time of reliably getting their people to vote in block. There are always a few blue dogs or Lieberman that can be flipped on a vote. The GOP had Olympia Snowe. There are a decent amount of blue dogs.
What this suggests to me is:
a) The country is more conservative than you guys would like, and moderate Democratic senators reflect that
b) Reid is not a very good majority leader
Nah, it's more like:
1)The Republicans are better at party discipline.
If there were no consequences for being disciplined left-leaning Democrats, the Democrats would be more disciplined. It's not that the Republicans follow orders from the party leaders better, it's that both sides know their constituencies and do what they need to, in order to get re-elected. Republicans need to hold the line, and Democrats need to occasionally break ranks.
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
@Thanatos so they were Democrats, but they weren't True Democrats, is what you're saying?
I guess you could say the same about Olympia Snowe.
The Republican party has had a better time of reliably getting their people to vote in block. There are always a few blue dogs or Lieberman that can be flipped on a vote. The GOP had Olympia Snowe. There are a decent amount of blue dogs.
What this suggests to me is:
a) The country is more conservative than you guys would like, and moderate Democratic senators reflect that
b) Reid is not a very good majority leader
It's more along the lines that the Democrats are more ideologically diverse. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Joe Lieberman (formerly D-CT, now I-CT) were pretty freaking conservative, and the Democrats have a habit of going the 'big tent' route. This is one of the reasons Harry Reid has had a hell of a time getting things done - when they had the supermajority, it was the bare minimum and so they had to cater to Lieberman (who won his last election thanks to a lack of 'sore loser' laws and decided to flip the Dems the finger). When Reid actually decides to fight, it's when he knows he's already got the cards to win.
The Republicans have a tendency to demand vote uniformity, which can lead to easier times wrangling votes. But it can also promote ideological purity, and there you have John Boehner - one of the worst House Speakers of recent history. He's not only not good at his job, he consistently faces a revolt by the hard right of the Republican party, which is most of the elected Rs in the House now, as well as an imminent backstab by Eric Cantor.
@Thanatos so they were Democrats, but they weren't True Democrats, is what you're saying?
I guess you could say the same about Olympia Snowe.
The Republican party has had a better time of reliably getting their people to vote in block. There are always a few blue dogs or Lieberman that can be flipped on a vote. The GOP had Olympia Snowe. There are a decent amount of blue dogs.
What this suggests to me is:
a) The country is more conservative than you guys would like, and moderate Democratic senators reflect that
b) Reid is not a very good majority leader
Not really. The senate is a very shitty reflection of how liberal or conservative the nation as a whole is. It is only going to be selected by about half the population and favors rural states over very populated states. A much better reading of how conservative the country is would be through polling which shows while the country is more conservative than most other first world countries, the biggest tea party and other extremist proposals by the Republican party are pretty unpopular.
And why couldn't they get anything done? Oh right republican obstructionism, but do trot out the lie about how the democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for two years, I love that one.
Don't be a goose Preacher. I said didn't / couldn't and I made no comments about the filibuster, and moreover your smartass remark is exactly the point I was making - there's no reason for optimism if the Democrats do actually gain majorities (which they won't).
So quick to take a cheap shot at me, you don't even process what I'm saying.
There's plenty of reason for optimism: now they know what happens if the filibuster stays put. That, and there are no possible Congress compositions that wouldn't be improved by flipping one of the R seats.
Only a blind partisan would say that Every Single Republican is worse than Any Possible Democrat.
I don't think the Democrats will blow up the filibuster, because they know they won't hold the chamber forever and without it, the minority is powerless to do anything but stand on the sideline and whine. You guys will suddenly love the filibuster if the Senate goes GOP. You'll love it so much.
Nelson voted for the ACA. Snowe voted against it. So yes, Every Single Republican is worse than Any Possible Democrat because the one letter next to their name has a huge effect on the vote. (See: Brown, Scott).
And why couldn't they get anything done? Oh right republican obstructionism, but do trot out the lie about how the democrats had a filibuster proof majority in the senate for two years, I love that one.
Don't be a goose Preacher. I said didn't / couldn't and I made no comments about the filibuster, and moreover your smartass remark is exactly the point I was making - there's no reason for optimism if the Democrats do actually gain majorities (which they won't).
So quick to take a cheap shot at me, you don't even process what I'm saying.
There's plenty of reason for optimism: now they know what happens if the filibuster stays put. That, and there are no possible Congress compositions that wouldn't be improved by flipping one of the R seats.
Only a blind partisan would say that Every Single Republican is worse than Any Possible Democrat.
I don't think the Democrats will blow up the filibuster, because they know they won't hold the chamber forever and without it, the minority is powerless to do anything but stand on the sideline and whine. You guys will suddenly love the filibuster if the Senate goes GOP. You'll love it so much.
Snowe and Collins will vote wrong on the most important vote they cast, so I'd rather have a Democrat than either of them in office, yes.
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
Yeah Snowe and Collins will make a bluster about voting for something, but then turn around and vote in lockstep with their party, I don't believe either cast the deciding vote in a recent congress overturning a GOP filibuster. They are MINO's.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
Yeah Snowe and Collins will make a bluster about voting for something, but then turn around and vote in lockstep with their party, I don't believe either cast the deciding vote in a recent congress overturning a GOP filibuster. They are MINO's.
They voted against the ACA but they voted to pass it out of committee, which in that case was tantamount to voting for it.
Yeah, this election cycle its been the Dem's on the culture war front with womens rights stuff, the GOP apparently thought they could run their jobs jobs jobabortion bills through and no one would notice. I guess they didn't think that plan through shockingly.
If they'd run a bunch of jobs shit as a smoke screen they might be able to pull it off, but they basically went into office with full on 24/7 culture war and suddenly want to talk about the economy again.
The Dems have completely lucked into a perfect shitstorm of the GOP offending women AND having a legislative record the past two years that completely nullify the "oops, one minor mistaken phrase!" defense.
I do buy into the theory that Axelrod and Ploffee are very good at trolling the GOP. they way they presented some things like the bill control regulation seemed custom built to make the GOP completely lose their shit.
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
Yeah Snowe and Collins will make a bluster about voting for something, but then turn around and vote in lockstep with their party, I don't believe either cast the deciding vote in a recent congress overturning a GOP filibuster. They are MINO's.
They voted against the ACA but they voted to pass it out of committee, which in that case was tantamount to voting for it.
The vote that counted was the cloture vote. The committee hurdle and for that matter, the final vote are not the obstacles in passing a bill. This works both ways- if you vote for cloture and then vote against the bill (assuming it passes) then you supported it.
The rape and incest clauses that have been a part of party platform since 1976. But again party platform totally means nothing, I mean the GOP hasn't pushed recent abortion restrictions or anything, certainly not their current VP prospect and the disgraced congressman signing off on the THIRD FUCKING BILL IN THE JOBS JOBS JOBABORTION CONGRESS!
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
You realize you contradict yourself three times in three sentences here right?
You also realize that when issues are polled, or when adults (as opposed to likely voters or registered voters) are polled, the country comes out as solidly left center for American politics right?
Unfortunately, young people don't vote enough, minorities don't (or can't) vote enough and immigrants often can't vote because they aren't citizens.
If Republicans actually believed the country was center-right, they wouldn't fight to have the lowest voter turnout possible.
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
The Republican party has identified sane, proven ideas as socialism, even ideas they came up with like the lukewarm ACA. Merely acknowledging that the government needs to fix healthcare is considered liberal purity these days!
Coincidentally, that might be why the Republicans have no healthcare plan, just as an example, because they've painted every single workable solution as socialism
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
I think adding Ryan to the ticket also closely tied the House races to the Romney's chances. Unless he changes gears and starts doing better I think he's going to be a huge drag on downticket races.
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
I meant specifically in this thread, with regard to whether it's better to have Any Possible Democrat in office, regardless of how terrible he might be in comparison to the Republican.
Not in the general sense of how opinions shake out within D&D.
I don't think anyone here will argue that, despite his behavior over the last month, Reid has been one of the worst majority leaders in the history of the Senate. Also, all the GOP "moderate" in the Senate sure talk a good game.
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
Wasn't true in Nevada or... Delaware? Was that the east coast state with the terrible Tea Party lady? I forget.
I think adding Ryan to the ticket also closely tied the House races to the Romney's chances. Unless he changes gears and starts doing better I think he's going to be a huge drag on downticket races.
It did, and again thanks to the Jobs jobs jobabortion congressional house of 2010, that record sucks donkey cock. Well they did do something for our credit rating...
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
I don't think anyone here will argue that, despite his behavior over the last month, Reid has been one of the worst majority leaders in the history of the Senate. Also, all the GOP "moderate" in the Senate sure talk a good game.
I'm honestly stunned he hasn't stepped aside or been removed. Like, legitimately amazed it hasn't happened yet.
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
That only works up to a point before you start realizing the alternative is literally insane. People (and the media) are more alert this cycle about the hard right antics of the Republicans, in no small part thanks to Romney backing down every time he was confronted by his governorship and nominating Ryan.
Spool's right. The Republican Party *is* heading for a major corrective cycle, and it won't be this one. Republicans will claim their loss (if they lose) this year to picking the wrong candidate like they did with McCain. Ryan might be the breaking point, but they need a real, genuine hard-right guy they can watch get crushed before they finally figure shit ou.
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
The Republican party has identified sane, proven ideas as socialism, even ideas they came up with like the lukewarm ACA. Merely acknowledging that the government needs to fix healthcare is considered liberal purity these days!
Coincidentally, that might be why the Republicans have no healthcare plan, just as an example, because they've painted every single workable solution as socialism
They do have a healthcare plan, though:
de facto remove every regulation and consumer protection on the health insurance industry, then wait for poor people to die from lack of healthcare.
I don't think anyone here will argue that, despite his behavior over the last month, Reid has been one of the worst majority leaders in the history of the Senate. Also, all the GOP "moderate" in the Senate sure talk a good game.
Harry Reid is the worst thing to happen in the history of the modern Democratic party.
No they won't. Conservatism has become a religion. They have a blind faith in tax cuts, and slutty sluts. Any evidence to the contrary is viewed as an attack on their religion.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
I meant specifically in this thread, with regard to whether it's better to have Any Possible Democrat in office, regardless of how terrible he might be in comparison to the Republican.
Not in the general sense of how opinions shake out within D&D.
Well yeah, because sometimes a blue dog will vote to not fuck me over
A Republican can't be a Republican in 2012 unless he votes to fuck me over
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
Wasn't true in Nevada or... Delaware? Was that the east coast state with the terrible Tea Party lady? I forget.
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Also the entire House.
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
Wasn't true in Nevada or... Delaware? Was that the east coast state with the terrible Tea Party lady? I forget.
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Also the entire House.
In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter was already going to be drummed out because he didn't toe the party line. The fact he swapped parties sealed his fate.
NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
@Thanatos so they were Democrats, but they weren't True Democrats, is what you're saying?
I guess you could say the same about Olympia Snowe.
The Republican party has had a better time of reliably getting their people to vote in block. There are always a few blue dogs or Lieberman that can be flipped on a vote. The GOP had Olympia Snowe. There are a decent amount of blue dogs.
What this suggests to me is:
a) The country is more conservative than you guys would like, and moderate Democratic senators reflect that
b) Reid is not a very good majority leader
Nah, it's more like:
1)The Republicans are better at party discipline.
If there were no consequences for being disciplined left-leaning Democrats, the Democrats would be more disciplined. It's not that the Republicans follow orders from the party leaders better, it's that both sides know their constituencies and do what they need to, in order to get re-elected. Republicans need to hold the line, and Democrats need to occasionally break ranks.
No, I think the Republicans need to break ranks, as well. I mean, that whole War on Women and War on Brown People is working out really well for them, right? I'm sure that's not going to come around and bite them in the ass at the voting booth, especially as the demographics of this nation shift away from cranky old white men being the majority voting bloc. Women, Latinos, Gays, and African Americans? Merely a trend, nothing more.
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
The Republican party has identified sane, proven ideas as socialism, even ideas they came up with like the lukewarm ACA. Merely acknowledging that the government needs to fix healthcare is considered liberal purity these days!
Coincidentally, that might be why the Republicans have no healthcare plan, just as an example, because they've painted every single workable solution as socialism
Yeah, uh, as far as "ideological purity" goes, I personally am anti-abortion, although not in a vacuum. If we had universal comprehensive sex ed, universal access to a variety of contraceptive options which are subsidized for low income women, universal prenatal healthcare coverage, and if we expanded welfare support for low income single mothers rather than pillorying them for having the audacity to get pregnant and bring another child into the world, I'd support some restrictions on abortion. Although I would never, ever favor placing restrictions on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when it was potentially necessary to save the life of the mother.
I've always been pretty straightforward about this with just about every other Democratic politico or politician I've worked with, and no one's stopped inviting me to the parties yet.
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
Wasn't true in Nevada or... Delaware? Was that the east coast state with the terrible Tea Party lady? I forget.
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Also the entire House.
In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter was already going to be drummed out because he didn't toe the party line. The fact he swapped parties sealed his fate.
So why'd Toomey get in?
0
Options
adventfallsWhy would you wish to know?Registered Userregular
I feel for Boehner. He's a decent guy and the right wing has dragged him far from his personal rather moderate positions. You can tell he hates it... and Cantor has been sharpening knives for the backstab since day one.
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
Wasn't true in Nevada or... Delaware? Was that the east coast state with the terrible Tea Party lady? I forget.
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Also the entire House.
In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter was already going to be drummed out because he didn't toe the party line. The fact he swapped parties sealed his fate.
So why'd Toomey get in?
Toomey was going to be the guy who primaried Specter and drum him out. Switching parties just delayed their confrontation to the general.
NintendoID: AdventFalls 3DS Code: 3454-0237-6080
0
Options
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Well it is certainly Ideological Purity Central in here for you Democrats. I thought purging the moderates from your party was bad? But apparently they can be as awful as possible, as long as they follow orders and vote D they're cool by you guys.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
The Republican party has identified sane, proven ideas as socialism, even ideas they came up with like the lukewarm ACA. Merely acknowledging that the government needs to fix healthcare is considered liberal purity these days!
Coincidentally, that might be why the Republicans have no healthcare plan, just as an example, because they've painted every single workable solution as socialism
Yeah, uh, as far as "ideological purity" goes, I personally am anti-abortion, although not in a vacuum. If we had universal comprehensive sex ed, universal access to a variety of contraceptive options which are subsidized for low income women, universal prenatal healthcare coverage, and if we expanded welfare support for low income single mothers rather than pillorying them for having the audacity to get pregnant and bring another child into the world, I'd support some restrictions on abortion. Although I would never, ever favor placing restrictions on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when it was potentially necessary to save the life of the mother.
I've always been pretty straightforward about this with just about every other Democratic politico or politician I've worked with, and no one's stopped inviting me to the parties yet.
It's also keen to note that none of these things will ever happen, thus: abortions for everyone!
Well, okay; abortions for some, tiny American flags for others.
Posts
Only a blind partisan would say that Every Single Republican is worse than Any Possible Democrat.
I don't think the Democrats will blow up the filibuster, because they know they won't hold the chamber forever and without it, the minority is powerless to do anything but stand on the sideline and whine. You guys will suddenly love the filibuster if the Senate goes GOP. You'll love it so much.
If there were no consequences for being disciplined left-leaning Democrats, the Democrats would be more disciplined. It's not that the Republicans follow orders from the party leaders better, it's that both sides know their constituencies and do what they need to, in order to get re-elected. Republicans need to hold the line, and Democrats need to occasionally break ranks.
It's more along the lines that the Democrats are more ideologically diverse. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Joe Lieberman (formerly D-CT, now I-CT) were pretty freaking conservative, and the Democrats have a habit of going the 'big tent' route. This is one of the reasons Harry Reid has had a hell of a time getting things done - when they had the supermajority, it was the bare minimum and so they had to cater to Lieberman (who won his last election thanks to a lack of 'sore loser' laws and decided to flip the Dems the finger). When Reid actually decides to fight, it's when he knows he's already got the cards to win.
The Republicans have a tendency to demand vote uniformity, which can lead to easier times wrangling votes. But it can also promote ideological purity, and there you have John Boehner - one of the worst House Speakers of recent history. He's not only not good at his job, he consistently faces a revolt by the hard right of the Republican party, which is most of the elected Rs in the House now, as well as an imminent backstab by Eric Cantor.
Nelson voted for the ACA. Snowe voted against it. So yes, Every Single Republican is worse than Any Possible Democrat because the one letter next to their name has a huge effect on the vote. (See: Brown, Scott).
I don't agree with your contention that the Dems are more ideologically diverse because they go the big tent route. They NEED to be more ideologically diverse because otherwise they wouldn't win in lots of places... a Republican would win instead. By diversity, you mostly mean "more conservative", and I think the reason for that is the country is more conservative than leftwing Democrats would prefer.
By the same token, the GOP has some outliers as well. Scott Brown is a good example, Snowe was, McCain certainly is, and even Marco Rubio has some strong opinions you won't find in most of the GOP caucus.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's not like the GOP where hating gay people is enough to win 30% of the electorate absent any other stance
They voted against the ACA but they voted to pass it out of committee, which in that case was tantamount to voting for it.
I do buy into the theory that Axelrod and Ploffee are very good at trolling the GOP. they way they presented some things like the bill control regulation seemed custom built to make the GOP completely lose their shit.
The big tent route is partly because they don't drum people out of the party for failure to adhere to party orthodoxy. Republicans have increasingly lurched further to the right at the cost of alienating the Reagan Democrats, moderate Republicans, and many independents. Since the electoral system is set up that a third party/independent is implausible, they flock to the Democrats.
All those names you listed will vote in lockstep on the biggest issues in the most conservative ways. McCain essentially had to renounce his strongest opinions on nearly every subject to secure his base in 2008. Scott Brown poses as an outlier because he managed to get elected in liberal Massachusetts and his opponent was a horrible campaigner. Rubio exists because the Republicans drummed Charlie Crist out of the limelight for daring to compromise.
But the most damning thing is that Republicans have overestimated how conservative the country is, and that's why people are shocked at the lack of 'rape or incest' clauses and the like. Republicans thought the country was swerving hard right alongside them.
The vote that counted was the cloture vote. The committee hurdle and for that matter, the final vote are not the obstacles in passing a bill. This works both ways- if you vote for cloture and then vote against the bill (assuming it passes) then you supported it.
pleasepaypreacher.net
You realize you contradict yourself three times in three sentences here right?
You also realize that when issues are polled, or when adults (as opposed to likely voters or registered voters) are polled, the country comes out as solidly left center for American politics right?
Unfortunately, young people don't vote enough, minorities don't (or can't) vote enough and immigrants often can't vote because they aren't citizens.
If Republicans actually believed the country was center-right, they wouldn't fight to have the lowest voter turnout possible.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I agree that a correction is in the cards in the next 2-3 cycles. It's getting intolerable even for me, and I'm pretty committed to the party. Something has to give or we will start losing because the sensible conservative messages will get co-opted by moderate Democrats, who will marry them to a "look, I'm not totally conservative, but I'm a) pretty conservative, and b) not insane, so vote for me instead of the loon" approach, and win all over the place.
It certainly isn't ideological purity central in here, because we wildly disagree on health care, legalizing vs decriminalizing pot, abortion, gun control, etc. I mean there's a reasonably large consensus on those issues but we don't think in lock step or anything
The Republican party has identified sane, proven ideas as socialism, even ideas they came up with like the lukewarm ACA. Merely acknowledging that the government needs to fix healthcare is considered liberal purity these days!
Coincidentally, that might be why the Republicans have no healthcare plan, just as an example, because they've painted every single workable solution as socialism
The generic ballot has fluctuated wildly all year. I've seen it anywhere from like +10 to -7 for the Dems. Depends on the poll at the moment, I think.
Is it? The lesson from 2010 is that it doesn't matter how crazy you are, all you need to do is be the alternative and people will vote for you when things go wrong.
I meant specifically in this thread, with regard to whether it's better to have Any Possible Democrat in office, regardless of how terrible he might be in comparison to the Republican.
Not in the general sense of how opinions shake out within D&D.
Wasn't true in Nevada or... Delaware? Was that the east coast state with the terrible Tea Party lady? I forget.
It did, and again thanks to the Jobs jobs jobabortion congressional house of 2010, that record sucks donkey cock. Well they did do something for our credit rating...
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm honestly stunned he hasn't stepped aside or been removed. Like, legitimately amazed it hasn't happened yet.
That only works up to a point before you start realizing the alternative is literally insane. People (and the media) are more alert this cycle about the hard right antics of the Republicans, in no small part thanks to Romney backing down every time he was confronted by his governorship and nominating Ryan.
Spool's right. The Republican Party *is* heading for a major corrective cycle, and it won't be this one. Republicans will claim their loss (if they lose) this year to picking the wrong candidate like they did with McCain. Ryan might be the breaking point, but they need a real, genuine hard-right guy they can watch get crushed before they finally figure shit ou.
de facto remove every regulation and consumer protection on the health insurance industry, then wait for poor people to die from lack of healthcare.
Harry Reid is the worst thing to happen in the history of the modern Democratic party.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Well yeah, because sometimes a blue dog will vote to not fuck me over
A Republican can't be a Republican in 2012 unless he votes to fuck me over
Illinois, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin. Also the entire House.
*Heath Shuler excepted
In Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter was already going to be drummed out because he didn't toe the party line. The fact he swapped parties sealed his fate.
No, I think the Republicans need to break ranks, as well. I mean, that whole War on Women and War on Brown People is working out really well for them, right? I'm sure that's not going to come around and bite them in the ass at the voting booth, especially as the demographics of this nation shift away from cranky old white men being the majority voting bloc. Women, Latinos, Gays, and African Americans? Merely a trend, nothing more.
Yeah, uh, as far as "ideological purity" goes, I personally am anti-abortion, although not in a vacuum. If we had universal comprehensive sex ed, universal access to a variety of contraceptive options which are subsidized for low income women, universal prenatal healthcare coverage, and if we expanded welfare support for low income single mothers rather than pillorying them for having the audacity to get pregnant and bring another child into the world, I'd support some restrictions on abortion. Although I would never, ever favor placing restrictions on abortion in cases of rape, incest, or when it was potentially necessary to save the life of the mother.
I've always been pretty straightforward about this with just about every other Democratic politico or politician I've worked with, and no one's stopped inviting me to the parties yet.
So why'd Toomey get in?
Toomey was going to be the guy who primaried Specter and drum him out. Switching parties just delayed their confrontation to the general.
It's also keen to note that none of these things will ever happen, thus: abortions for everyone!
Well, okay; abortions for some, tiny American flags for others.