posted
So we spend a lot of time talking about the presidential race -- probably because we come from all over the place and have that in common -- but I'm trying to figure out who will screw up the country the least when it comes to the national congressional races and I'm curious what everyone else is thinking. Mostly, I'm curious about people's opinions on the following:
1. In truth, are we voting for people or parties? 2. If we're voting for parties, which one is better and why? 3. If we're voting for individual people, then which pieces of legislation (voting record) and what issues are you looking at when making your choice?
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I think that in primaries we vote for people and in national elections we vote for parties (this is with respect to Congressional elections). This varies wildly from district to district though. Really though, the answer to all three of your questions will depend on where you live. What kind of Ds and Rs are running where you live? If the choice is between an uberconservative Republican and a Blue Dog Dem, as it might be if you live in a more conservatice district, then your choice is really going to be between a liberal and conservative social policies, as BDDs from more conservative districts can really only get elected by borrowing a more centrist or right leaning economic policy in order to get elected. They're the ones who actually hold the swing vote of the right wing of the Democratic party. There are about 30 of them, most of whom were elected in the mideterms, and they are grumpy fiscal conservatives.
I think socially you'll find most Democrats are the same and most Republicans are the same. Most Republicans are going to vote against homosexual rights, most Democrats are going to vote against judges that would overturn Roe. Stuff like that. In that vein, I guess when you get to the box in November, you really are voting party and not person, but choosing which person is even on the ballot during the primary is where you get to choose between the variety from each party, and they do exist. That's when you get to choose between ultra left wing liberals and right wing centrists for Democrats, or between a Lincoln Chafee centrist Republican or a hardcore right winger.
Which one is better? Meh, depends on your ideology. I think both of them are pretty useless when it comes to good governing. But at the end of the day I think Congressional Democrats have better ideas on a range of issues that are better for the country long term. Things like healthcare and alternative energy, which are probably my two biggest issues. What they want to do will be expensive in the long term, but will reduce costs long term, to say nothing of the fact that I believe we'll be safer and healthier.
I guess your question is more geared towards independents. I don't consider myself a Democrat because I think the party as a whole is rather useless, but I'm a liberal, so I agree with their issues (with a few notable exceptions), and I vote for them. Considering my views, voting for almost any Republican is just out of the question. I would vote for a guy like Lincoln Chafee or maybe even Chuck Hagel if the Democrat running was an idiot or corrupt or I didn't like some of his divergent views. But the way the country works these days, moderates are getting squeezed out in most places as the extremists continue to gain power and influence, which they use to get more of their buddies elected by running roughshod over the guys in the middle trying to make things work. It's just too easy to manipulate the electorate and bump the centrists out.
I think to decide who you should vote for, you have to ask more, or at least different questions than those three. I have to go now, but I'll think more on it and post again later. 200 pages of reading on the Lincoln Douglas debates awaits me, followed by 300 on Lincoln's path to the White House.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My honest belief on that question will come from a number of things. I think the next four years will yield very little in the way of change from the last eight in terms of major legislation passed to get the country moving in a different direction. What will change will be an issue of perception from the Bush years to the *Obama years. It'll be more style than substance for the most part.
What could change that? Not the House races. It's pretty much accepted knowledge that the Dems are going to pick up 15-20 House seats net. That might change now that the anti-incumbent sentiment from the bailout bill is so hot, but that might die down by November. It's hard to say, but it's not even in question that the Dems will control the House by a wide margin. So who should you personally vote for in your local Congressional election? To be honest? I don't really think it matters, so vote your conscience I guess.
So what's that leave? The Senate races. The Dems need 9 seats (assuming Lieberman and Sanders stick with them, and Sanders will, though Lieberman is an open question). Five of those nine look like a lock at the moment, in VA, CO, NM, NH and AK (though that COULD change if Stevens is aquitted in his corruption scandal). Two more are looking like strong chances, in NC and OR. That's seven. Their best chances are in MN and MS. MN is a toss-up, and MS is a Leans Republican race at the moment. They have longshot but legitimate chances in TX, GA and KY as well. They need two of those five to flip with the other seven. Massive voter registration in many of those states (notably Georgia) and a huge black turnout both because of Obama and his ground game could lead to unprecedented downticket bonuses in states like GA and MS.
If the Dems get 9, they'll get to 58, With Sanders and Lieberman they get to 60. 60 means Republicans can't filibuster, and Democrats will be able to run the table and literally pass any piece of legislation they want so long as they vote as a bloc. They'd have unprecedented control of the government that neither party has enjoyed I think since Reagan. Given that circumstance, I think you actually would see some serious, life altering changes to the way our country works. Even the Republicans were occasionally checked by a Democratic filibuster in the Senate in the last 8 years.
As a side note, if Democrats can get 3 of the 5 iffy states that I mentioned above, Joe Lieberman will get socked. Not needing his swing vote, I can easily see Reid stripping him of his committee chairmanship position and all standing within the party. It's a dumb punitive move, since Lieberman still votes with Dems on social issues, but I think they'll do it anyway.
So what do you take away from this? Pay close attention to which party you really do want in control, because if you're from one of the seven or so states I mentioned with questionable Senate races, your vote really could determine what the next four years of the government (well, at least the next two) looks like.
*I really do believe that, barring some major unforseen "October surprise," Obama will win this election, probably in 300+ electoral vote blowout. I think he'll win every state Kerry won, plus New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, and maybe even Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and even Indiana. I think the next two debates will continue to be stalemates, and that McCain's tactics will continue to ellicit negative responses, and he'll have to keep pulling out of big states as the election comes down to crunch time.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:*I really do believe that, barring some major unforseen "October surprise," Obama will win this election, probably in 300+ electoral vote blowout. I think he'll win every state Kerry won, plus New Hampshire, Virginia, Colorado, and maybe even Florida, Missouri, North Carolina, and even Indiana.
I read this and immediately scrolled to the bottom of the page to read OVER FOR OBAMA??? VOAT HEAR NOW!!111 from newsmax, again.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Unfortunately, I don't live in a swing state. From a certain perspective, that means my vote doesn't really count, but I refuse to see it that way. My choice in Kansas is between ultra-conservative republicans and moderate democrats (who are really republicans), which means on a personal level I'd definitely go democrat. But as an independent voter, I'm not convinced I want them to have unprecedented control of the government.
Before the bailout, I was leaning heavily democrat. On social issues, I agree with them. On financial issues, I don't agree with either party. Or perhaps I should say I agree with what the republicans claim to be and aren't. I at least have a grudging respect for the democrats for not pretending to be something they're not.
But the bailout really bugged me. As much as I dislike my ultra-conservative senator, he did vote against it. And as much as I wanted to reelect to the house my republican-wearing-democrat-clothing representative, he voted for the bailout.
I don't want this to be a one issue election. I've always been frustrated by people who make their decisions based on any single issue, but this new wrinkle has made me reconsider my priorities.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, was there a results page for Congressional races? Cause two more were just decided in Louisiana. The surprising thing is that William Jefferson (D), a 9-term congressman representing a heavily Democratic district of New Orleans, lost to Anh "Joseph" Cao (R), a long-shot Vietnamese-American immigration lawyer. Despite Jefferson's indictment for bribery, money laundering and misuse of congressional office, he was expected to coast to a win.
The other LA congressional race was expected to be close, and it was, but the GOP picked that seat up as well. These, coupled with Saxby Cambliss' larger-than-expected margin of victory lead me to think that, to some extent, the Obama coattails are somewhat short.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I voted party lines in the congressional race because I really don't know anything about the candidates and don't care enough to learn. Maybe that makes me a bad person/voter, but whatever. The main reason I was voting was for the presidential election, prop 8, and prop 4.
Posts: 2705 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Short coattails are not to blame in Louisiana. Jefferson, Democratic or not, needed to go and I wish I could be surprised that the race was close, but the people here sure do love their crooked politicians.
Parties don't mean much in Louisiana. Our choices are usually between a "value-voting" Republican and a Republican who decides to run on the Democratic ticket. With the exception of New Orleans, most of the state is still VERY southern and abandoning Democratic roots for religious Republicans who try and outdo each other with mud-slinging commercials and sickening-sweet videos of them and their beautiful families.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by SenojRetep: So, was there a results page for Congressional races? Cause two more were just decided in Louisiana. The surprising thing is that William Jefferson (D), a 9-term congressman representing a heavily Democratic district of New Orleans, lost to Anh "Joseph" Cao (R), a long-shot Vietnamese-American immigration lawyer. Despite Jefferson's indictment for bribery, money laundering and misuse of congressional office, he was expected to coast to a win.
The other LA congressional race was expected to be close, and it was, but the GOP picked that seat up as well. These, coupled with Saxby Cambliss' larger-than-expected margin of victory lead me to think that, to some extent, the Obama coattails are somewhat short.
There's a congressional results thread, but it's mostly about the Senate. I don't think I really even touched on the House.
I wouldn't put that to Obama's coattails for a variety of reasons. Georgia was always going to be a hard state for Democrats to pick up, in a presidential or Senate race. The fact that someone with Martin's electability issues got as close as he did might speak more to the coat tail effect of the Democrats and Obama in particular than it does to Martin. He's a relative no name that wasn't even close to being in contention until the "Lehman Leap" pushed Dems over the top nationally. If Democrats had known six months ago that they'd have a shot at the seat, they would have spent more time finding someone who actually had a shot at winning the seat. Instead, like Bruce Lunsford in Kentucky, they picked weak candidates because they didn't consider the seat a viable pickup to begin with.
Coat tails aren't magical, they give you an edge in a close race, or a push when you're a little behind, but they rarely take someone who was never even contention and hands him the seat, which is what would have happened here. Despite all that, he still pulled off a runoff, and even that was considered in doubt some months ago.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Louisiana is tending Republican, no doubt (although I would argue that Anh Cao doesn't match your description of "religious Republicans who try and outdo each other with mud-slinging commercials and sickening-sweet videos of them and their beautiful families).
More, I was just interested that a Democrat, thought by popular pollsters to be a shoe-in (even considering Lousiana's shift) lost by a relatively large margin. Similarly, Saxby Chambliss was considered a favorite, but not by the 15 points he eventually won by (he only won on Nov 4 by 3 points, IIRC). When Obama isn't on the ticket, Democrats (at least in the few elections we've witnessed) seem to be having a somewhat difficult time recreating the large margins they achieved on Nov. 4. This gives credence to the meme that the big gains this election were less about Democrats and more about Obama. You can also see it in the abysmal approval ratings for Congress, particularly Reid and Pelosi.
Posts: 2926 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:This gives credence to the meme that the big gains this election were less about Democrats and more about Obama. You can also see it in the abysmal approval ratings for Congress, particularly Reid and Pelosi.
You also have to factor in the fact that special elections by and large are outliers. They NEVER have the kind of turnout that general elections have, regardless of who is running for any office anywhere. I think Obama likely DID have an effect on turnout and a coat tail effect, but I also think the Democratic brand and the Republican brand played a part in that, and I think that special elections more than any other kind of election are turnout games.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
