US Politics: The Day After The Political Earthquake

[peterbound]

Hmm, I will not post my initial response to this because I'm the first to admit that it's racially... insensitive, but I'm both not swayed that that projection will change much, and am not particularly looking forward to the 20 year wait that it's advocating.

Brother, this is not the time or place for the enforcement of an antiquated rank structure. Politicians are (supposed to be) public servants, and are owed no more respect than the waiter delivering my food. If the waiter does a good job, I'll tip more out of respect, if I think he's spitting in my food, I'll try to get him fired.

While I think the guy you're responding to is an idiot, I must defend his right to call the President whatever the fuck he wants.

Public servants don't deserve your respect?

Sure makes this Fire Fighter feel good.

[Sivin]

Public servants don't deserve your respect?

Sure makes this Fire Fighter feel good.

I'm sure we both can agree that there's a difference between someone who risks their life to protect those of others, and someone who risks their reputation to control the lives of others.

And I'm sure we both know public servants in the vein of Fire Fighters, Cops, or Soldiers who deserve absolutely no respect from anyone.

[peterbound]

I'm sure we both can agree that there's a difference between someone who risks their life to protect those of others, and someone who risks their reputation to control the lives of others.

And I'm sure we both know public servants in the vein of Fire Fighters, Cops, or Soldiers who deserve absolutely no respect from anyone.

Sure, but again, I respect the position. The President. Leader of the free world, and the man in charge of this silly little government we get so worked up for.

Maybe you're right, and I'm a dinosaur. But I like the idea of respecting something bigger than myself.

[karaddin]

Its probably a bad thread to point it out in, but you know that leader of the free world bit isn't actually part of the title right?

[peterbound]

Its probably a bad thread to point it out in, but you know that leader of the free world bit isn't actually part of the title right?

Ya, i get that, just bring some more gravity to the sentence. Sorry for the hyperbole.

[Shryke]

I find the american tendency towards pomp in their political leaders to be rather weird and not at all necessary.

Y'all treat your President more like royalty then alot of countries treat actual royalty.

I see no reason to respect the position beyond simply it's political power.

[Commodore]

the accuracy of polling is getting worse, in 2012 it skewed R and in 2014 it skewed D

leads to massive misallocation of resources

too bad the government shut down InTrade, would have been interesting to compare it to the polls

[Sivin]

I wasn't going to say anything to avoid jeopardizing the fragile peace Peter and I reached, but 'Leader of the Free World' in context of the U.S. President is about the whitest thing anyone anywhere can say, ever. :P

[Shryke]

But to be fair, Mr. Izzard and his ilk in the UK go a bit far by referring to Her Majesty as some frumpy queen, neh?

No.

And he doesn't just call her some frumpy queen, he calls her an imbred moron as well.

[Shryke]

the accuracy of polling is getting worse, in 2012 it skewed R and in 2014 it skewed D

leads to massive misallocation of resources

too bad the government shut down InTrade, would have been interesting to compare it to the polls

Is it? As far as I remember, any of the historical analysis Nate Silver was doing suggested it's always been bad.

[karaddin]

I wasn't going to say anything to avoid jeopardizing the fragile peace Peter and I reached, but 'Leader of the Free World' in context of the U.S. President is about the whitest thing anyone anywhere can say, ever. :P

I think I'd grant "leader of the anglosphere" as functionally true, but yeah :p That's not helping with what you pointed out lol. And I'll certainly take Obama over Harper or Abbott for my leader!

[TrueMetis]

I think I'd grant "leader of the anglosphere" as functionally true, but yeah :P That's not helping with what you pointed out lol. And I'll certainly take Obama over Harper or Abbott for my leader!

Talk about your damning with faint praise.

[Stubby]

I think I'd grant "leader of the anglosphere" as functionally true, but yeah :p That's not helping with what you pointed out lol. And I'll certainly take Obama over Harper or Abbott for my leader!

I'd take Mr Ed over Abbott.

[ThinkerX]

Ok...a bit late now, but...

RE: Democratic Party incompetence. Had an example of sorts of that here in the frozen north. Republican Don Young, congressional buffoon, has been pretending to represent Alaska for decades. This time around he had a serious Democratic Challenger, one Forest Dunbar. Operating on a shoestring budget, and with no national party support to speak of, Dunbar STILL managed to garner 40%of the vote in this state.

And...the State Dem's are in such disarray the best they could conjure for the Governors ticket was a Republican who switched parties at the literal last minute. On the bright side, it looks like this guy, Walker, will be Alaska's new governor. For Shryke: this guy has A) vowed to accept the Medicare expansion, AND views 'Obamacare' as a major disaster in need of excision. Sound familiar?

For myself, I voted mostly republican in the State house races. Reason being, those particular republicans have a 'presence in the community' and 'get it done' type reputation. I suspect this also applies at least somewhat in other states as well: Democrats may have the moral upper hand, but the Republicans are the ones who 'get things done.' Note this is more hypothesis than absolute, AND refers to mostly local or not so important state house reps.

One thing I have been wondering a bit about not mentioned thus far in connection with the Republican Sweep of state houses: Remember that screwball fringe movement to amend the constitution via state houses? Now, with this election, how many state houses do the republicans have...and how many are needed to pass such amendments?

[Inigima]

Ted Cruz laid out a governing agenda for 2015. Impeachment and shutdowns are missing for some reason. Hopefully Obama will not be an obstructionist.

GOP Congress becoming more diverse.

Mia Love, first black GOP congresswoman

Tim Scott, first black senator from The South since Reconstruction

Elise Stefanik, youngest woman ever elected to Congress

Rep. elect Colonel Martha McSally, first female combat pilot

Lt. Colonel Joni Erst, first woman ever elected to Congress from Iowa

Carl DeMaio, first openly gay Republican elected to Congress

A couple thoughts on this:

1. I notice that repealing the ACA is still on it. And of course government shutdowns aren't on it, they are unpopular. We'll see what they actually do.

2. The fact that Ted Cruz is releasing Republican priorities rather than the official Republican Party leadership speaks volumes about who's really running the show.

3. A personal pet peeve. "Ninth, repeal Common Core, so that local curriculum is not mandated by Washington bureaucrats." This is a microcosm of Ted Cruz's know-nothingism. If you don't like Common Core, you know, fine, but Common Core isn't curriculum and it never has been. Cruz either has no idea what he's talking about or is exploiting people who don't.

Also, I didn't have a chance to comment on this earlier, but I think you are wrong that there will be a lot of discrete, single-issue funding bills. I think the GOP will bundle poison pills into popular stuff to force a Presidential veto so they can say that Obama is obstructing them.

GOP Congress becoming more diverse.

Mia Love, first black GOP congresswoman

Tim Scott, first black senator from The South since Reconstruction

Elise Stefanik, youngest woman ever elected to Congress

Rep. elect Colonel Martha McSally, first female combat pilot

Lt. Colonel Joni Erst, first woman ever elected to Congress from Iowa

Carl DeMaio, first openly gay Republican elected to Congress

This actually would be real cool to me if I wasn't going to hate them all within two weeks.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Shryke,

re: Impeachment

They are already trying to sue him, remember?

They are already willing to basically impeach by another name in hopes that this way it will be less horribly unpopular.

Attempting to use the Courts to require an elected official to behave in a manner consistent with the duties set out (as the Plaintiff's believe those duties are set out) in the descritption of the duties for that office are a long way from accusing that same official of "high crimes and misdemenors" and removing the offical from office. The first is a civil action. The second, arguably, criminal.

Further, I thought "living constitution" advocates see the Courts as the proper place to go to resolve disputes over what powers a particular branch of the Federal Government actually possess. That is precisely what suits against the President regarding his use of various powers are doing. You may not like it but defining Executive Authority and duties is a long way from removing a sitting President from office.

[TrackerNeil]

Running away from their accomplishments. Leaving a ton of districts with no candidates or with candidates with no funding or support. Look at the links I posted earlier in the thread about Steve Isreal and the DCCC and DSCC.

That of course assumes that 1) those districts were winnable (lots of Democrats ran unopposed as well); and 2) more funding would have changed the outcome. I'm not certain of either. I suppose we'll soon see studies as to what made Democrats lose, and we can go from there.

Wait, by the definition of the term, the 'voters' endorsed the republican vision. You can hide behind some other nonsense, but the folks that show up made their voices heard, and it was one that supported the right's ideas.

I did not realize I was "hiding", but instead voicing the opinion of many political scientists about structural factors being more important than specific candidates or issues. However, maybe they are also "hiding"; I'll let you debate that with them.

Yes, those who showed up spoke, but I know that in New Jersey the turnout was 24%. That means that in the Garden State we heard from fewer than one in four voters. I wouldn't take that as a sign that New Jerseyians believe anything. If that turnout is typical of the nation, then I think I'm quite justified in believing that 2014 was not an accurate measurement of what Americans think about liberalism.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Tracker,

Still hate my idea of a quorum requirement for elections? Throwing out the candidates offered and having a new election if the turnout is below a certain point?

[Sivin]

Shryke,

Attempting to use the Courts to require an elected official to behave in a manner consistent with the duties set out (as the Plaintiff's believe those duties are set out) in the descritption of the duties for that office are a long way from accusing that same official of "high crimes and misdemenors" and removing the offical from office. The first is a civil action. The second, arguably, criminal.

Further, I thought "living constitution" advocates see the Courts as the proper place to go to resolve disputes over what powers a particular branch of the Federal Government actually possess. That is precisely what suits against the President regarding his use of various powers are doing. You may not like it but defining Executive Authority and duties is a long way from removing a sitting President from office.

I've got two questions that my highschool education have raised.

Can't the executive branch strike down any lawsuit against any part of the government? I'm fairly sure that's a thing, with the rational being 'national security' or whatnot, but isn't it applicable to any situation?

And can the president pardon himself? My first instinct is to think 'no', because I'd imagine Nixon would have used it on himself rather than make Ford do it. But then I guess it wouldn't have stopped The House for impeaching him, or would it? Does the law check and balance that particular power?

[TrackerNeil]

Tracker,

Still hate my idea of a quorum requirement for elections? Throwing out the candidates offered and having a new election if the turnout is below a certain point?

Did I hate that? I don't even remember. However, I don't know how much we can do about low turnout except make voting mandatory, and I expect most Americans would hate that idea. (Hell, many don't even want to insure their health, so I can't imagine they'd take well to a voting mandate.) This election sucked for Democrats (although liberals did pretty well, weirdly), but maybe that's just the way it goes.