U.S. Politics, 9 trillion

[Shryke]

Your way of changing the status quo makes no sense whatsoever.

Why about it makes no sense?

You advocate a position, vote for it in primaries and force one of the parties to pick your position up as part of their platform. That's how it works. That how it has worked for a long time.

What's your alternative?

[Shryke]

Czar,

I'm saying that by going for the major party candidate who's "closest to my position" I'm ceding the field to the two major parties particularly when they aren't offering anyone who's close to my position. Democrats want to use government in areas I don't want government used. Likewise Republicans want to use government in different areas I don't want it used. Therefore supporting either party candidate seems like giving up because you can't win otherwise. Hence the Simpsons quote.

You aren't giving up though, you are merely choosing the better of the options available.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Why about it makes no sense?

You advocate a position, vote for it in primaries and force one of the parties to pick your position up as part of their platform. That's how it works. That how it has worked for a long time.

What's your alternative?

What if my position is that the two major parties are an unrepentant force for evil and need to be destroyed?

ETA

You aren't giving up though, you are merely choosing the better what is, in Shryke's opinion, the slightly less-worse of the options available.

FTFY

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Czar,

I'm saying that by going for the major party candidate who's "closest to my position" I'm ceding the field to the two major parties particularly when they aren't offering anyone who's close to my position. Democrats want to use government in areas I don't want government used. Likewise Republicans want to use government in different areas I don't want it used. Therefore supporting either party candidate seems like giving up because you can't win otherwise. Hence the Simpsons quote.

How many 3rd parties have meaningful primaries where you live? If none have then how voting in D or R primary to avoid the worst candidates is giving up?

Vote for the third party in the general but at least try to limit the damage in the primaries.

[The Progressive]

Are you and Lev reading what TM is saying? He said not to vote R/D, not "there's no point in voting at all".

Hey Coco is right. Sorry for misreading your post in haste, Tormund.

I tend to think that opting out of the primary process and/or voting for 3rd party candidates is a pretty useless act of protest, but after all is said and the votes counted, I'm just glad if you and Coco and Scot didn't vote for Republicans.

[Shryke]

What if my position is that the two major parties are an unrepentant force for evil and need to be destroyed?

Then I'd question what you think the alternative is and how you would go about accomplishing said destruction.

And I'd also call you slightly unhinged.

FTFY

Well, no, it would be YOUR opinion of what is the better/least-worst (these mean the same thing btw) option of those available. You are, after all, the one voting for yourself.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Then I'd call you slightly unhinged and question what you think the alternative is and how you would go about accomplishing said destruction.

Convincing people to stop voting to democrats and republicans is a good start. These guys have the system so stacked against everyone against themselves that most people don't realize how in the fix really is (30% of voters are "Independant" but Dems and Reps still get 99% of votes!?). Once you get some people who aren't beholden to either one they can start calling attention to, and dismantling the rigging that is propping these two up.

[Andriy Czarchenko]

Convincing people to stop voting to democrats and republicans is a good start. These guys have the system so stacked against everyone against themselves that most people don't realize how in the fix really is (30% of voters are "Independant" but Dems and Reps still get 99% of votes!?). Once you get some people who aren't beholden to either one they can start calling attention to, and dismantling the rigging that is propping these two up.

Doesn´t prevent them from voting in D/R primaries to help avoid the worst candidates.

[Shryke]

Convincing people to stop voting to democrats and republicans is a good start. These guys have the system so stacked against everyone against themselves that most people don't realize how in the fix really is (30% of voters are "Independant" but Dems and Reps still get 99% of votes!?). Once you get some people who aren't beholden to either one they can start calling attention to, and dismantling the rigging that is propping these two up.

Um, those Independents aren't actually Independent the way you seem to think. They are generally people who side with one party or the other, but just don't want to call themselves Democrat or Republican for various reasons. As Bush's poll numbers dropped, the number of Independents surged as Republicans began to not want to associate themselves with the brand. This didn't in any way change what they believed in and/or voted for though.

Also, I'm not sure where you think these people "who aren't beholden to either party" are going to come from or what they are going to do. Any serious political movement will get swallowed up by either party and/or undermine the party closest to them and/or replace one of the already existing parties. It's Duverger's Law at work.

And if you dismantle a party, another will simply rise in it's place and you've really changed nothing. The things you seem to hate about the 2 parties are merely a function of US political system. They exist as they do because all that size and money and influence is what you need to succeed and win elections and get your policies in place.

The only way to change that would be to radically alter the US system of government. And the only way to do that is to get elected in the first place.

[ThinkerX]

If I'm reading this correctly (and maybe I'm not) single payer health plan is probably very difficult to impossible with the current people in power or their likely replacements.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/5/907997/-Daschle-admits-Public-Option-Was-Never-Option

It was taken off the table as a result of the understanding that people had with the hospital association, with the insurance (AHIP), and others," Daschle told Wonk Room's Igor Volsky. "I mean I think that part of the whole effort was based on a premise. That premise was, you had to have the stakeholders in the room and at the table. Lessons learned in past efforts is that without the stakeholders' active support rather than active opposition, it's almost impossible to get this job done. They wanted to keep those stakeholders in the room and [the public option] was the price some thought they had to pay."

Which means the whole thing probably will collapse in a few years, with fraud investigations and finger pointing all the way around.

[Swordfish]

Doesn´t prevent them from voting in D/R primaries to help avoid the worst candidates.

I think the point is that that is setting the bar way too low.

[Shryke]

If I'm reading this correctly (and maybe I'm not) single payer health plan is probably very difficult to impossible with the current people in power or their likely replacements.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/10/5/907997/-Daschle-admits-Public-Option-Was-Never-Option

Which means the whole thing probably will collapse in a few years, with fraud investigations and finger pointing all the way around.

I don't know where the hell you get that from what Daschle said.

Daschle's point was that, based on past attempts, the only way they thought they were gonna get the Health Care Reform passed was to bring the industry people on board because they couldn't afford their opposition. And dropping the public option was the price some felt needed to be paid to secure that support.

[DanteGabriel]

And this was almost entirely based upon the lesson of the Clinton's attempt at reform. Ultimately, the Dems this time got either support of neutrality from all the major players other than Big Insurance. One never knows for certain that it was necessary, but I would bet that it was. Not that I'm thrilled about this. It just shows how entrenched special interests are.

By "ensure support from all the major players" I think you mean "ensured they'd still get campaign contributions from them." Both parties will let us get fucked by big business, but the Dems will at least try to negotiate a reach-around on our behalf. And won't tell us that it was all in Jesus' name.

[DanteGabriel]

Actually, just as much as campaign contributions, I meant to imply that they would avoid facing any organized backlash from them as well during the push for the vote. They didn't want Big Pharma, Big Hospitals, the AMA, Big Medical Device Makers, et al pushing back against them with ad campaigns and what not.

You're right, that's a good point.

They probably got hosed on that deal too though. Anonymous donations to right wing political campaign groups are way up since the Supreme Court sold us out.

[DanteGabriel]

Here's a fascinating look into the rats' nest: emails that reveal the squabbling between the Palins and the new Tea Party candidate for Senator in Alaska, Joe Miller. Now, Joe Miller is a hypocritical douchebag who encapsulates his own party's hypocrisy in decrying government spending while accepting government funds, but I can't help but feel for him now that he's gotten on the wrong side of the Wasilla mafia.

In May, the then-dark horse Republican/Tea Party Senate candidate Joe Miller gleaned an endorsement from long-time friend Todd Palin, followed on June 2 by an official endorsement via Facebook post from Sarah Palin. Miller's subsequent stunning upset over Republican incumbent Lisa Murkowski may have had more to do with a ballot proposition calling out social conservatives, but has been widely credited, at least in part, to the Palin nod. Certainly, the Palins' endorsement helped Miller receive an official endorsement, as well as substantial financial backing, from the national Tea Party Express, which made possible a massive media buy in a small, easily-dominated market.

Miller has had a heavy schedule of fundraising in Washington D.C., and has made multiple appearances on Fox News in recent weeks. On September 19, he appeared on Fox News Sunday with Neil Cavuto who addressed the rumor of a Palin presidential run, and asked Miller if he thought Sarah Palin was qualified to be president.

Miller's non-committal response that there were "a number of great candidates out there" for the job fell far short of a Palin endorsement, and seems to have roused the ire of Todd Palin, who launched an angry email blasting Miller on behalf of his wife. Palin sent the email on the morning of the Cavuto interview to Tim Crawford, Joe Miller and the Palins' personal attorney, Thomas Van Flein (who also serves as Miller's attorney.) In the email, Todd Palin instructs SarahPAC treasurer Tim Crawford to "Hold off on any letter for Joe. Sarah put her ass on the line for Joe and yet he can't answer a simple question "is Sarah Palin Qualified to be President". I DON'T KNOW IF SHE IS."

[Shryke]

You're right, that's a good point.

They probably got hosed on that deal too though. Anonymous donations to right wing political campaign groups are way up since the Supreme Court sold us out.

It passed so I think at least many of them would think they got the good end of the deal on that.

[ThinkerX]

So has everyone heard about what's going on in the California's governor race? Meg Whitman (former Ebay CEO) has had a pretty staunchly anti-illegal immigrant stance, but it came to light that she'd employed one such person as a house keeper for years. She initially claimed that she had no idea, but it sounds like she did, and only fired the person once she realized that the truth was coming to light.

My two bits regarding her and others like her. These people are essentially corporate stooges, bought and paid for. Corporations, by and large, absolutely love illegal immigrants because they are willing to work for a lot less than a US citizen. She, like most other corproate owned politicians, sees immigration as nothing more than a rallying point so the dumb voters will elect her into office; at which point, she *will* sell them out.

And no, I don't see a truely major third party movement arising anytime soon. Any that do arise will be discredited and coopted in whole or in part by one of the 'big two'. What I do see is the rise of the 'Man on Horseback', a near future president potrayed as a strong, no nonsense type by the official media, but who actually makes the likes of Bush II look like a saint. Very very dark times. About the best we can hope for is that Obama wins in 2012 and finds a bit of backbone to stand against his corporate masters along the way.

[lokisnow]

what's teh point of a third party president if there are only two parties in congress?

that's why I initially thought the Tea Party was something, if they genuinely fielded and got elected a dozen candidates in the HoR and a handful in the Senate as a separate party from Republicans that would be truly awesome and they would then be in a terrific position to field a Tea Party Presidential candidate. But since the Tea Party is just an arm of the Republican Party with less of the Bush stench of putrefication, that's not what we got at all.

But you won't have a viable third party candidate until you begin by building up an entire third party from the ground up. Local elections, state legislatures, national office, you have to target all three with a movement of the Tea Party's scope. Then once you have people getting elected, then you have a real chance for a third party.

Florida is trying to get fair redistricting

I LOVE the non partisan redistricting law California passed a few years ago. even though the dem majorities opposed it, it is clearly the right thing to do. I'd like to see every state in the country institute fair redistricting, Missouri and Illinois have some particularly egregiously vile districts line squiggles.

[Gertrude]

On Whitman: It is hypocritical, but what politician isn't if they think they can get a vote? Her denials are pretty thin and I don't think anyone is buying it. I think it's pretty despicable, but anything associated with politics is a steaming pile so it's hard to get worked up about it.

I recently was talking to a relative who lives in New Mexico. She was complaining about the illegal immigrants and build the fence and send them all packing, yada, yada. Then without skipping a beat she went on to say she knows what they are like because her last two gardeners were illegal. It took a great deal of restraint not to smack her upside the head at a family gathering, so I politely excused myself instead.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Triskele,

I have wondered whether anyone should want to be in charge from a political perspective? If things keep going bad the control will just flip again in two years.