US Politics: Common Ground Between Democrats and Republicans

[The Notorious]

What happened to your thesis in 2012, commodore?

[TrackerNeil]

I'd rather it be the other way. Let elections have consequences, and the winning party get a chance to enact its agenda. There still needs to be some protections of course, but the current gridlock is way too extreme. And I worry that it does slowly disillusion voters with democracy altogether, and could lead them to eventually supporting an alternative.

Yes, this is why I favor the complete elimination of the filibuster. If a party is placed in power and expected to govern it must be permitted to govern; otherwise, you get voters blaming people for failing to accomplish the impossible.

[Suttree]

The lack of interalization/introspection from the left is notable, especially compared to the right after 2006/2008.

I'm not even sure what to say anymore. Its it a situation where you think the more grandiose your bullshit becomes the less likely people are to call you on it?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Yes, this is why I favor the complete elimination of the filibuster. If a party is placed in power and expected to govern it must be permitted to govern; otherwise, you get voters blaming people for failing to accomplish the impossible.

Better yet, eliminate the Senate.

[Commodore]

What happened to your thesis in 2012, commodore?

Perhaps it mirrors 2004. Obama got 5 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008 (Romney got a million more than McCain if I recall), but margins/trends are often ignored if the short term outcome is positive. The weakness of Kerry/Romney as candidates masked underlying dissatisfaction among the electorate.

[Commodore]

Better yet, eliminate the Senate.

Agree, and expand the House to the rep/population proportion it was when first conceived. Make it like 5000 members and have it scale based on the census.

A rep should be able to knock on every constituent's door during their term.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Perhaps it mirrors 2004. Obama got 5 million fewer votes in 2012 than 2008 (Romney got a million more than McCain if I recall), but margins/trends are often ignored if the short term outcome is positive. The weakness of Kerry/Romney as candidates masked underlying dissatisfaction among the electorate.

And what excuse do you have for the Democrats picking up seats in the Senate and House, and winning the overall popular vote for House races?

Agree, and expand the House to the rep/population proportion it was when first conceived. Make it like 5000 members and have it scale based on the census.

A rep should be able to knock on every constituent's door during their term.

How about that, I agree with Commodore on something. (although my preference would be proportional representation for the House)

[awesome possum]

More evidence is coming out that Greg Abbott, running for Governor of Texas, is more crooked than your normal politician

News reports now detail that Greg Abbott was engaged in a cover-up to prevent the discovery that nearly a quarter of a billion dollars in taxpayer money kept within the Texas Enterprise Fund was funneled to businesses without proper review and, in most cases, without even a formal application being submitted. Abbott himself has taken more than $1.4 million in campaign contributions from those who have received improper payments from the Texas Enterprise Fund.

To put the Abbott/Perry Texas Enterprise cover-up into perspective, it is a massive defrauding of Texas taxpayers. This Abbott/Perry corporate welfare scam is no different than corrupt bureaucrats conspiring to give over $200 million in food stamps to people who never applied or proved they met the qualifications for taxpayer assistance.

Chances this tanks his campaign and hands the win to Wendy Davis?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

More evidence is coming out that Greg Abbott, running for Governor of Texas, is more crooked than your normal politician

Chances this tanks his campaign and hands the win to Wendy Davis?

Doesn't look likely, considering that came out a month ago and hasn't become a big story.

[TrackerNeil]

Better yet, eliminate the Senate.

Word.

[Seli]

... The weakness of Kerry/Romney as candidates masked underlying dissatisfaction among the electorate.

The weakness of the candidate or the weakness of the platform? Looking at demographics of the last presidential election the GOP seems to be the issue, rather than any specific candidate they can field.

[Swordfish]

Now we have the irony of a guy who doesn't care about Reagan, talking about how weird it is to talk about Reagan.

I don't think you know what the word irony means.

And you're reading comprehension is also suspect if you think my point boils down to 'it's wierd to talk about Reagan'.

Man, you guys are defensive about this, huh?

Tracker,

What point specifically is it that you want me to concede?

[Ormond]

Sure, I meant mostly in terms of his serious unpopularity going out, with many Democrats campaigning on how they disagreed with him about everything.

Actually he doesn't "go out" until 2016. And it certainly remains to be seen if his unpopularity then will be anywhere near what George W. Bush's was in 2008.

[TerraPrime]

Yeah, and look at the outcomes of these "reflections" from the GOP: holding a workshop about reaching out to racial minorities in a conference room named after a slave plantation; reaching out to women voters using wedding dresses and dating choices as platforms.

Thanks, but I think we're doing fine here.

This mideterm election is actually, by historical standard, a win for the Democrats even if we lose control of the Senate by a seat or 2. Typically, the party in control of the White House tends to lose by larger margins. We're also putting some sure-win races for the GOP on the defensive, and that's a good outcome regardless of the ballot results.

[Swordfish]

Perhaps you're referring to this thread rather than the left at large, but there's been plenty of second-guessing of Obama on the left on several issues. Here are a few that come to mind:

-stimulus not being large enough (with the obligatory debate about whether they could have gotten a bigger package through Congress)

-not going after Wall Street (beyond Dodd-Frank)

-not including a public option in Obamacare

-having a surge in Afghanistan

-continuing Bush's NSA stuff

-trying to work with Republicans at all and taking way too long to realize it was hopeless

That's just a few, but it's not as if there's been no criticism from the left. Cornell West and Thomas Frank seem positive that Obama was terrible to use two somewhat prominent commentators.

Also, I know that there's this belief out there that Obama's was a failed Presidency. I don't think that's anywhere close to a safe conclusion at this point. I seriously doubt that Obama is going to be on the sidelines for his party once he's out of office.

Just like with Bill Clinton, the American right will likely one day, when they're having their collective freakout about the next Democratic President, look back at Obama and say he wasn't so bad. It's not the policies. It's the collective freakout. You cannot be a good Republican/conservative unless you agree that, as everyone knows, Obama is terrible. That will change one day once it's the freakout about the new person.

Bush's policies are going to likely be seen as disastrous for years because they were disastrous. I don't think Obama will have that legacy.

Except of course that he's mostly continued, and in some cases doubled down on, a lot of the more noxious policies instituted by Bush.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Obama's legacy is sure to be much better than Bush's so long as he doesn't launch an unprovoked land invasion and occupation of any foreign countries in the next two years. Safe to say that won't happen.

[Gneisenau]

Obama's legacy is sure to be much better than Bush's so long as he doesn't launch an unprovoked land invasion and occupation of any foreign countries in the next two years. Safe to say that won't happen.

LBJ could have gone down as one of the greatest presidents, but he threw it all away for Vietnam.

[James Arryn]

ETA on drone discussion: 11 minutes and counting.

[Swordfish]

Besides the NSA, what are some of the worst?

Do there need to be more? ;)

Drone strikes, rendition, gitmo.......

[awesome possum]

I can't remember if anyone else has posted this: Pew recently released its first report from a year long study on Political Polarization and Media Habits. The results, while not really surprising, are nonetheless alarming.

Overall, the study finds that consistent conservatives:

• Are tightly clustered around a single news source, far more than any other group in the survey, with 47% citing Fox News as their main source for news about government and politics.
  
• Express greater distrust than trust of 24 of the 36 news sources measured in the survey. At the same time, fully 88% of consistent conservatives trust Fox News.
  
• Are, when on Facebook, more likely than those in other ideological groups to hear political opinions that are in line with their own views.
  
• Are more likely to have friends who share their own political views. Two-thirds (66%) say most of their close friends share their views on government and politics.
  

By contrast, those with consistently liberal views:

• Are less unified in their media loyalty; they rely on a greater range of news outlets, including some – like NPR and the New York Times– that others use far less.
  
• Express more trust than distrust of 28 of the 36 news outlets in the survey. NPR, PBS and the BBC are the most trusted news sources for consistent liberals.
  
• Are more likely than those in other ideological groups to block or “defriend” someone on a social network – as well as to end a personal friendship – because of politics.
  
• Are more likely to follow issue-based groups, rather than political parties or candidates, in their Facebook feeds
  

The alarming part is just how insulated the Republican base is becoming and how far away from reality it is. 47% use Fox News as it's main source of news and those people also put Glenn Beck as one of their trusted sources. The only news sources they trust are Fox, Drudge, Breitbart, and the trifecta of Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity. The only major newspaper they trust is the WSJ, whose editorial page looks like the mixed up diarrhea from said trifecta.

And edit because surely the only reason Republicans in North Carolina would want to remove an early voting site at a university that leans Democrat is for freedom, right?

The Republican-dominated North Carolina State Board of Elections, among other efforts, has sought to remove an early voting location from the campus of Appalachian State University, which has about 18,000 students, many of whom lean Democratic. Last week, the board filed a petition asking the state Supreme Court to stay a judge's ruling in favor of the site.

For freedom!