US Politics: Is Obama Yossarian

[ThinkerX]

Heck...let the Republicans make a clean sweep - house, senate, and presidency. Better yet, let it be by the far right branch of the party. Then we get to see what happens when 'conservative values' have a head on collision with 'reality.'

Be especially interesting with a few international crises and natural disasters thrown in: say we have a repeat of Katrina, and the president/congress say flat out (on conservative ideological grounds) the government has no business supplying relief of any sort.

Or, given how lousy the economy is, and how much worse conservative idealism would make it, imagine their reaction to a literal 'million man march on DC' by the unemployed. They really might be stupid enough to resort to a massive use of force.

That's the box these people are putting themselves into: they are promoting policies and agenda's that cannot stand up to reality. So, they either move themselves to the left or they self destruct.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Heck...let the Republicans make a clean sweep - house, senate, and presidency. Better yet, let it be by the far right branch of the party. Then we get to see what happens when 'conservative values' have a head on collision with 'reality.'

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt with George W. Bush's grinning mug.

[thetitansbastard]

US is doomed. Democrats are the express train, Republicans the local. Sad state of affairs.

[ThinkerX]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt with George W. Bush's grinning mug.

But Bush II was not a True Republican!

[Fez]

Been there, done that, got the T-shirt with George W. Bush's grinning mug.

Bush was never as bad as what the far right is currently promoting. He was right there on the social stances and the corporate cronyism, and nearly as bad on the deregulation and tax cuts (although at least he wanted tax cuts for everyone). But he still believed the government should be spending money on things (especially if it flowed to friends of the administration), he never tried to eliminate governmental agencies (not even the EPA- although he did make it rather toothless- and especially not things like Commerce or Education), and he believed in overseas humanitarian aid (despite occasional hiccups, PEPFAR is the great, unheralded accomplishment of his administration). His administration even oversaw some pretty positive accomplishments in very underreported areas, like implementing new grant programs for substance abuse treatment providers.

Overall he was one of the worst presidents we've ever had, but he's nothing compared to what a President Ryan or President Huckabee would do with a Republican Congress.

[awesome possum]

Let's never ever ever ever ever find out, okay?

But yea, I have to agree. If Republicans are being forecasted to win the Senate a year after shutting the government down, then government shut downs don't really mean anything. That or Americans have just gotten dumber in that their attention spans have shrunk even more. Shutting down the government for petty reasons should mean punishment, but Republicans are going to be rewarded.

In other news, Rick Perry is trying perhaps the lamest "don't look at me, look over there" trick ever in history

It’s a “very real possibility” that individuals with the extremist group ISIS may have crossed into the United States at the southern border, Texas Gov. Rick Perry said Thursday, though he added he doesn’t have any evidence.

Because the border is insecure, Perry said that “individuals from ISIS or other terrorist states could be” taking advantage of the situation. “I think it's a very real possibility that they may have already used that,” he told an audience at the Heritage Foundation in Washington.

“We have no clear evidence of that,” he continued.

I can't decide if that is idiocy or lunacy, or a mixture of both.

[TrackerNeil]

Heck...let the Republicans make a clean sweep - house, senate, and presidency. Better yet, let it be by the far right branch of the party. Then we get to see what happens when 'conservative values' have a head on collision with 'reality.'

Umm...let's not do that. Last time it got us two disastrous wars and untold corruption. If that didn't teach Americans the dangers of unrestricted Republican rule, nothing will.

You know, isn't it funny that no matter how much damage Republicans do to the party brand, they still manage to gather around 50% of the vote in presidential elections? Clearly, the Republican brand is immune to destruction.

[aceluby]

Umm...let's not do that. Last time it got us two disastrous wars and untold corruption. If that didn't teach Americans the dangers of unrestricted Republican rule, nothing will.

You know, isn't it funny that no matter how much damage Republicans do to the party brand, they still manage to gather around 50% of the vote in presidential elections? Clearly, the Republican brand is immune to destruction.

Oh, but don't you know, those aren't "real" Republicans.

[James Arryn]

Umm...let's not do that. Last time it got us two disastrous wars and untold corruption. If that didn't teach Americans the dangers of unrestricted Republican rule, nothing will.

You know, isn't it funny that no matter how much damage Republicans do to the party brand, they still manage to gather around 50% of the vote in presidential elections? Clearly, the Republican brand is immune to destruction.

Part of it is the flaw of a 2 party system. Dissatisfaction with A brings B, even if B is worthless.

[aceluby]

Part of it is the flaw of a 2 party system. Dissatisfaction with A brings B, even if B is worthless.

Which is then a flaw of our constitution as the two party system is built in.

[The Marquis de Leech]

You know, isn't it funny that no matter how much damage Republicans do to the party brand, they still manage to gather around 50% of the vote in presidential elections? Clearly, the Republican brand is immune to destruction.

It's the two party system. 38.5% of US voters in 1964 voted for Goldwater (that's more than 27 million people) and 37.5% (over 29 million people) voted for McGovern in 1972.

The only way you can really destroy a party is via splits, where voters move from one ideologically similar party to another.

[Commodore]

Part of it is the flaw of a 2 party system. Dissatisfaction with A brings B, even if B is worthless.

you're ignoring the primary process

the alternatives to A includes B and also all primary challengers to A

[James Arryn]

you're ignoring the primary process

the alternatives to A includes B and also all primary challengers to A

No, you're assuming the variables are more significant than the constants. (president/party)

I am not.

[James Arryn]

Which is then a flaw of our constitution as the two party system is built in.

How do you figure? There were no parties at all when it was written.

[Fez]

How do you figure? There were no parties at all when it was written.

Yeah, but the experience of just about every democratic country on earth shows that parties are naturally forming, and the Constitution's set-up of first-past-the-post elections means limiting us to two of them.

Maybe the founders didn't realize this about democracies (although they could've just looked over at Parliament), but that doesn't mean its not still a flaw.

[Commodore]

No, you're assuming the variables are more significant than the constants. (president/party)

I am not.

The GOP has lots of competitive primaries with different candidates (variables) to choose from.

The Dems, not so much, they usually hash it all out behind closed doors before the voters weigh in (Hawaii was the only exception this year). But that can always change. If there is enough demand for an alternative, the supply will appear.

[TrackerNeil]

The Dems, not so much, they usually hash it all out behind closed doors before the voters weigh in (Hawaii was the only exception this year). But that can always change. If there is enough demand for an alternative, the supply will appear.

Yes, the 2008 Democratic primary was totally under the radar. I mean, you couldn't find out who the candidates were if you tried. I think I read it was Hillary Somebody and some guy from Kenya.

[Commodore]

Yes, the 2008 Democratic primary was totally under the radar. I mean, you couldn't find out who the candidates were if you tried. I think I read it was Hillary Somebody and some guy from Kenya.

I said usually.

I help compile results for primary elections. The number of competitive D primaries this year you could count on two hands.

[Fez]

I said usually.

I help compile results for primary elections. The number of competitive D primaries this year you could count on two hands.

Its true that Democratic primaries are usually less competitive than Republican ones, but that's a feature not a bug. Primary turnout is so low that the only way to upset an incumbent is running as far to the right (or left) as possible, which means that in the general election, the vast majority of the party is stuck between voting for someone likely too radical for themselves or for the other party. It deprives voters of a candidate that represents their views.

Whereas for the most part Democratic nominees (and Republican nominees prior to the rise of the tea party) are people that worked the party machine and are pretty much the median party voter for their district/state, and thus allow party members to have a candidate reflective of their views.

If primary turnout were higher this wouldn't be an issue, but since its not, less democracy is a good thing in this case.

[aceluby]

I said usually.

I help compile results for primary elections. The number of competitive D primaries this year you could count on two hands.

A 'competitive' primary means jack shit when all of the candidates are espousing the same talking points. We're having a governor primary in my state and I can't tell the difference between any of the candidates. Sure, it's 'competitive', but whoever wins the primary will say and do the EXACT same thing during the general election, so in the end it's meaningless.