quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: From the looks of things, Republicans might stand to gain some House seats, but the Senate situation is not favorable to them. Things could still change dramatically in the next year and a half or so, but as things stand right now, it's not looking very likely that the GOP will retake Congress.
Polling right now is actually so grim for conservatism that already you can sum up the 2010 election by saying that it cannot be won by the Republicans, it can only be lost by the Democrats. What Nate Silver discussed in The Republican Death Spiral has been happening with remarkable speed ever since the Inauguration. If my analysis of the current polling data is correct, unless the Democrats deliver a series of remarkable scandals and failures in the run-up to the 2010 election, there is nothing the GOP can do to avoid ceding more ground, especially given that the lines that the GOP has drawn in the sand — especially those relating to homosexuals, abortion, and healthcare — pit the majority of the newly eligible generations of voters against their tent.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: If my analysis of the current polling data is correct, unless the Democrats deliver a series of remarkable scandals and failures in the run-up to the 2010 election...
The only thing that makes me partially skeptical of the 'Republican Death Spiral's' duration and damage is that, the weaker they get, the more likely scandals and failures will accrue among Democrats. Just because lack of competition makes one sloppy, and shall we say I'm dubious of the Democratic leadership's ability to keep everyone toeing the necessary lines while the Republicans continue to wither.
quote:especially those relating to homosexuals, abortion, and healthcare — pit the majority of the newly eligible generations of voters against their tent.
This, though, I agree with. Every passing year draws closer the time when Republican voter-drawing issues become first less decisive for them, and eventually actually decisive for Democrats.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the democrats have proved anything though, it is that they are very, very good at losing elections.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rakeesh: The only thing that makes me partially skeptical of the 'Republican Death Spiral's' duration and damage is that, the weaker they get, the more likely scandals and failures will accrue among Democrats. Just because lack of competition makes one sloppy, and shall we say I'm dubious of the Democratic leadership's ability to keep everyone toeing the necessary lines while the Republicans continue to wither.
You're only dubious? Wow. I'm 100% positive that Democratic leadership is absolutely incapable of the necessary discipline to keep the party both in line, scandal free and toeing the necessary lines. They're going to gaffe and misstep their way through power that has been handed to them more by the mistakes of their opposition than by their own excellence. They didn't know how to get hold of it, I doubt they know how to keep it either.
quote:Rakeesh: This, though, I agree with. Every passing year draws closer the time when Republican voter-drawing issues become first less decisive for them, and eventually actually decisive for Democrats.
I agree too. That's the problem with most of your real wedge issues being social/moral issues in a country where those things (gay marriage, abortion, etc) are more and more acceptable to more and more people. We're growing more socially liberally and with more and more religious drift (not necessarily decay).
quote:From scholarette: If the democrats have proved anything though, it is that they are very, very good at losing elections.
That's certainly not what they proved this past November. If Obama decides not to cede party leadership to Pelosi and Reid, and he starts cracking the whip, I think you could see the rise of an extremely well disciplined Democratic party, and given the machine like efficiency of Obama's presidential run, it's proof that Democrats certainly know how to win an election.
We've yet to see how the behind the scenes wrangling is going to play out. It's way too early to see.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's certainly not what they proved this past November.
It would have taken a truly heroic series of feats of incompetence for them to have lost more than they won, referring to elections across the board.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The only thing that makes me partially skeptical of the 'Republican Death Spiral's' duration and damage is that, the weaker they get, the more likely scandals and failures will accrue among Democrats. Just because lack of competition makes one sloppy, and shall we say I'm dubious of the Democratic leadership's ability to keep everyone toeing the necessary lines while the Republicans continue to wither.
Normally I would give you full agreement with this, an understanding that lack of competition and the associated indolence would cause the pendulum to swing back to the Democratic Party's default state of bloated incompetence and stupidity!
But, for the time being (and this includes 2010) the Democratic party is being run by some canny operators in the white house, who have (rightfully) usurped a leadership role nominally held by the likes of .. say, Nancy Pelosi.
It's only when the party idles back to the Nancy Pelosis that you get a pendulum effect.
Yet at the same time we have to be careful to assume that because things have worked certain ways in the past that it will determine the power balance in the future. 2000-2008 changed politics a little dramatically in the United States.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's certainly not what they proved this past November.
It would have taken a truly heroic series of feats of incompetence for them to have lost more than they won, referring to elections across the board.
Not necessarily. I think if Kerry had been running in 2008, he not only would have lost to McCain, but he would have taken a lot of Congressional Democrats down with him. I think they still would have been in control, but it wouldn't have been as commanding as it is now.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not necessarily. I think if Kerry had been running in 2008, he not only would have lost to McCain, but he would have taken a lot of Congressional Democrats down with him. I think they still would have been in control, but it wouldn't have been as commanding as it is now.
Well, I qualify putting Kerry on the ticket as a pretty heroic feat of incompetence in and of itself, just as my personal opinion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other.
That is a terrible thing to call a "hard rule." And I am not just saying that because of the abuse of the word 'certainly.' :/
Then why are you saying it? Historically it has virtually always been the case that when the president is of one party, congress shifts towards the other because voters do not like power consolidated into one party. It's one of the only reliable principles in political science.
---- Lyrhawn: My use of "hard" was relativistic. As far as political science is concerned 98% of it can't be said with absolute certainty. Of course there are things that could happen that would allow a president to win election, win reelection, and all the while his party gains seats in congress. But generally speaking, that is not the case. At least, that hasn't been the case since "the era of good feeling" came to an end.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Rabbit: of course, optimal revenue generation is not really the goal of government.
I never claimed it was. I was simply trying to explain the ridiculousness of the claim that tax cuts will always result in increased revenue.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
who should be Speaker of the House?
IP: Logged |
posted
In the upper echelons of Democratic House leadership? Rahm Emmanuel would have been a much better choice, but he was far too junior for the job.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: Then why are you saying it? Historically it has virtually always been the case that when the president is of one party, congress shifts towards the other because voters do not like power consolidated into one party. It's one of the only reliable principles in political science.
---- Lyrhawn: My use of "hard" was relativistic. As far as political science is concerned 98% of it can't be said with absolute certainty. Of course there are things that could happen that would allow a president to win election, win reelection, and all the while his party gains seats in congress. But generally speaking, that is not the case. At least, that hasn't been the case since "the era of good feeling" came to an end.
I just checked the data BB and I don't think it supports your case. Since 1899, the President and the House Majority Leader have been from the same party 62.5% of the time. Prior to Eisenhower, the President and the House Majority Leader were of the same party 82.7% of the time. That just doesn't support the contention that Americans have a strong desire to prevent one party rule, in fact one party rule appears to be the rule and not the exception.
The only trend I could see was that when the house switched parties in a midterm election year, the party which won the midterm election always won the following presidential election. But that was only true when there was a switch in the midterm elections.
[ May 04, 2009, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just checked and the Senate data looks nearly the same. Since 1921, the President and the Senate Majority Leader have been from the same party 62% of the time. The house, senate, and presidency have all been held by the same part 53% of the time.
Your rule not only doesn't seem to be hard rule, it's just plane wrong. For more than half of the last century, we've had one party rule.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:One of the only hard rules in Political Science regarding American politics is that if the presidency is of one party, the congress will certainly fall into the hands of the other.
That is a terrible thing to call a "hard rule." And I am not just saying that because of the abuse of the word 'certainly.' :/
Then why are you saying it? Historically it has virtually always been the case that when the president is of one party, congress shifts towards the other because voters do not like power consolidated into one party. It's one of the only reliable principles in political science.
Why am I saying it? Because what you are asserting historically is as untrue as what you are asserting logically.
But discounting the historical element AND the use of your absolutes ('certainly') rendering this completely wrong for the moment, this is absolutely nothing that should be considered a 'hard rule' in terms of deductive logic. It's not even a rule of inference.
It is not a sound principle, when analyzed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I just checked and the Senate data looks nearly the same. Since 1921, the President and the Senate Majority Leader have been from the same party 62% of the time. The house, senate, and presidency have all been held by the same part 53% of the time.
Your rule not only doesn't seem to be hard rule, it's just plane wrong. For more than half of the last century, we've had one party rule.
OK, but length of time is not as important as when they were the same. I was not saying that voters go into the booth and say, "I won't vote for the same party for the presidency and my senator, and congressman/woman" indeed most voters do the opposite and vote mostly for the same party even if they call themselves moderates. What would be more telling is after a specific party wins the presidency, looking at the next midterm and reelection elections to see if the opposition party gains or loses seats.
What resources are you using Rabbit, I no longer have access to my university's resources, (No more JSTOR for me) I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.
Also I think you meant "plain wrong" not "plane wrong."
edit: While studying the last few semester I heard the following statistic stated numerous times without contest, "In the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the presidency and both houses of Congress were under single-party control in only 16 of the 50 years (1953-54; 1961-68; 1977-80; and 1991-92)"
Now my original statement was "since the era of good feeling..." so I might have to revise that.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
even if we were to use that statistic and turn it into a "hard rule" given, the "hard rule" did not apply universally, and that statement does not indicate whether it is because of the "hard rule" asserted or due to other factors that are mostly unrelated to who controls what, such as just dropping the ball on an effective candidate for the presidency two years later.
But what I've given in this analysis isn't even given, soooooo
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Samp: I confess I'm not quite sure what you are saying. To me, you said that I was wrong, and then in a very eloquent manner proceeded to call my idea wrong again.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
On the most basic level you can't call something like that a "hard rule" because it isn't a rule at all! Even if it is a semi-reliable observed trend in one part of a modern century of this particular nation there is absolutely no reason why it will necessarily continue! The use of the word 'certainly' is entirely unwarranted because we have no such guarantee and it is a bad habit in terms of logic because it is an indefensible absolute that tries to suggest that it is a certain outcome due to a 'rule' much as if political makeups of the country run like a mathematical equation.
No such rule exists, so it can't be used as evidence that congress will 'certainly' fall into the hands of the Republicans. Nothing you are saying is valid! It is a fallacious assertion!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So you're upset that I misused the word 'certainly?' I'm still convinced that the presidency belonging to one party is a major influence on moving the congress in the other direction. It's not an unstoppable force which I admit the word certainly tends towards, but it is a strong current.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:So you're upset that I misused the word 'certainly?'
Among other things that you are saying which are logically fallacious, you have abused a statement of absolutes which is one of the reasons but not all of the reasons why you are being silly when you speak of this "hard rule" and — more important — why it does not back up your conclusions.
It simply does not have the testable explanatory power you assume it to!
Do you understand that at all?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: ]OK, but length of time is not as important as when they were the same. I was not saying that voters go into the booth and say, "I won't vote for the same party for the presidency and my senator, and congressman/woman" indeed most voters do the opposite and vote mostly for the same party even if they call themselves moderates. What would be more telling is after a specific party wins the presidency, looking at the next midterm and reelection elections to see if the opposition party gains or loses seats.
What resources are you using Rabbit, I no longer have access to my university's resources, (No more JSTOR for me) I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.
Also I think you meant "plain wrong" not "plane wrong."
edit: While studying the last few semester I heard the following statistic stated numerous times without contest, "In the latter half of the Twentieth Century, the presidency and both houses of Congress were under single-party control in only 16 of the 50 years (1953-54; 1961-68; 1977-80; and 1991-92)"
Now my original statement was "since the era of good feeling..." so I might have to revise that.
BB, I simply used wikipedia to find the house and senate majority leaders and the Presidents over the time period in question. I didn't find data that gave the partisan break down of the house and senate over time so I really couldn't tell whether parties gained or lost seats in a particular election unless it actually changed which party had the majority.
I think the problem with looking at the last half of the 20th century (1950 - 2000) is that you have a limited data set that is dominated by other factors and you've picked rather arbitrary starting and ending points. 1950 and 2000 were not watershed time points politically.
You have to consider that the democrats controlled both houses of the legislature from 1933 - through 1981 with the exception of two years under Truman and the first 2 years of Eisenhower's presidency. When Reagan took office, the republicans were able to win a narrow majority in the senate which they held for 6 years but they were not able to win a majority in the legislature until 1995.
Saying that the two houses and the Presidency were only held by the same party for 12 of the 50 years is a bit misleading. You get a very different answer if you go from 1930 to 1990, or from 1953 to 2007. It would be more revealing to note that from 1959 to 1995, both houses and the Presidency were held by the same party whenever there was a democratic President.
I think analyzing the last half of the 20th century says more revealing things about the differences between Presidential electoral politics and legislative electoral politics than it does about peoples concern with single party rule.
I do however think that there is currently a perception that having the legislature and Presidency controlled by the same party is a bad thing and that because it has been relatively rare over the past 50 years, many people consider it exceptional.
I also never really heard anyone all that worked up about it until the republicans took control of both branches which may be because the republicans were able to act with far greater unity than the democrats ever were. For some reason, the republicans are able to leverage party loyalty much better than the democrats. I have a couple of theories that might explain that and I'm not sure which if either if true.
The democrats held a majority in congress for nearly 60 years. During that time the republicans maximized their influence when they acted as a unified block and so I think a republican culture of unity grew out of that time period.
I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority. I think that liberal tendency to question authority makes it more difficult to unite democrats in general. I can personally vouch for the fact that the far left is almost impossible to keep organized because people are so strongly against deference to any sort of central authority.
[ May 04, 2009, 04:32 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
also the rest of the world also preferred American 1 Party rule as that way foreign policy stayed consistent and wasn't skitsophrenic.
IP: Logged |
posted
Ha ha ha! Is anyone still naive enough to think there could be such a thing?
Everyone here is interested in getting reelected. Our politicians will support whatever the polls support about the time they need to win a vote. Since we've got our Senate staggered, we have someone up for reelection every two years. Start campaigning about a year ahead, and we're looking at a third of the Senate beholden to popular whim annually.
There's no way to have any sort of consistent policy on anything under those circumstances.
Posts: 2283 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I should hope not. "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results." The one thing that can be said about US foreign policy is that it is consistent... ...until well after the rest of the world* considers it to be insane.
* Including most informed Americans.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
it was brutal i think in the 1800's where every 2 years American foreign policy was derailed, it annoyed the hell out of the Great Powers.
IP: Logged |
posted
The best that could be said about the GreatPowers of that era would be "all brawn and no sane". Gotta be nimble when you're dealing with a buncha nutcases.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
I should clarify. By "authority" I did not mean experts in the field. What I meant by "authority" was a figure with political power. Conservatives are much more likely to show deference to their leader than are liberals. When placed on a team, conservatives are more likely to vest decision making authority in the team leader and then to follow that leader. Liberal teams are more likely to work based on consensus and expect a team leader to build consensus rather than give orders.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I should clarify. By "authority" I did not mean experts in the field. What I meant by "authority" was a figure with political power. Conservatives are much more likely to show deference to their leader than are liberals. When placed on a team, conservatives are more likely to vest decision making authority in the team leader and then to follow that leader. Liberal teams are more likely to work based on consensus and expect a team leader to build consensus rather than give orders.
I understood what you meant, but I still stand by my statement.
On security issues, conservatives are in my experience more likely to show deference to their leaders than are liberals. However, this is not the case across the board in my experience. Taxation being an excellent examples. Conservatives aren't very likely at all to show 'deference' to a political leader on issues of taxation, even when they agree with the tax structure and spending.
I believe it's more an issue-related trust in authority, and if in a liberal team there existed a dynamic, charismatic, and capable figure who was also liberal? Deference will be given to him or her as well.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If that is true, the fact that we didn't see "teabagging" parties and Fox News tantrums during the administration of President Bush is a bit curious.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:On security issues, conservatives are in my experience more likely to show deference to their leaders than are liberals. However, this is not the case across the board in my experience. Taxation being an excellent examples. Conservatives aren't very likely at all to show 'deference' to a political leader on issues of taxation, even when they agree with the tax structure and spending.
Well then we disagree. Look at how the republicans voted in block against Obama's stimulus package with nearly everyone standing behind their leaders. It's true that they didn't unite behind Bush's stimulus proposals, but at this point they'd pretty much rejected Bush as their leader and were doing their best to distance themselves from him.
Clinton was very charismatic. He had most of the world eating out of his hand but he couldn't get his own party to back him on just about anything. Obama is unquestionably charismatic and he is still having to work very hard to get democrats to follow his lead. In comparison, the republicans seemed to gulp down any and everything G.W. Bush proposed for the first 5 or 6 years of his term. And G.W. Bush isn't even particularly charismatic.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:If that is true, the fact that we didn't see "teabagging" parties and Fox News tantrums during the administration of President Bush is a bit curious.
Actually there was quite a bit of bitching during the Bush Administration, at least from the conservatives I know. But for most of the Bush Administration, the economy wasn't really a substantial issue for voters on either side. It was doing either well or at least well enough. Security and social issues were the biggies.
quote:Well then we disagree. Look at how the republicans voted in block against Obama's stimulus package with nearly everyone standing behind their leaders. It's true that they didn't unite behind Bush's stimulus proposals, but at this point they'd pretty much rejected Bush as their leader and were doing their best to distance themselves from him.
It wasn't especially hard for Republicans to 'vote in block' against Obama's stimulus package, because that stimulus package is at the least pretty contrary to Republican ideals. President Obama's stimulus package is extraordinary in many ways.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Actually there was quite a bit of bitching during the Bush Administration, at least from the conservatives I know.
I'm not talking about bitching, complaining is cheap. I'm talking about votes, most specifically about votes in congress and how easily the majority party is able to maintain control without crossing the aisle. The question raised was about single party rule and the influence it has on checks and balances. My observation is that single party rule is more worrisome to me when the single party is republican because republicans seem to be able to better enforce conformity to the aims of the party leaders.
When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
The only item I can think of that the republican congress didn't simply rubber stamp for G.W. Bush was his proposal for Social Security reform and that was largely because Bush couldn't get the AARP on board and they are too important as part of the republican base for anyone to ignore.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: I've also noted that conservatives in general tend to be more oriented towards respect for and deference to authority, whereas liberals are more apt to question authority.
In my experience this is much more issues-oriented than anything else.
On security issues, for example, I agree that conservatives are often more likely to defer to authority, liberals less. Taxation, though? Not so much.
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
As far as the tax agenda goes, yes, the GOP was the party of small government until bush pointed the herd in the other direction, and the new 'conservatism' was engaged upon largely without question.
In terms of the choice of appointees thing went, the serious conservatives and archconservatives joined the rest of the country in expressing massive rejection of his attempt to appoint harriet meiers.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: When did G.W. Bush ever have a serious opposition to his budget proposals from within his own party? When did republicans in the house or senate fail to back his tax agenda? When did republicans in the senate question his choice of appointees? When did the republicans in congress oppose his environmental proposals?
My personal opinion is that had we not been in the 'War on Terror' throughout most of Dubya's presidency, there would've been many fewer toes on the party line. It ties into what I said earlier about conservatives and security issues.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:In terms of the choice of appointees thing went, the serious conservatives and archconservatives joined the rest of the country in expressing massive rejection of his attempt to appoint harriet meiers.
Yes she was definitely exceptional in that regard. Of course she was both unqualified from a scholarly view point and unqualified from the far right ideological view point making her a truly exceptionally bad candidate.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah I guess it doesn't make much of a counterargument against Conservative deference because she was clearly an outlier example, with nearly universal inapplicability to the post. GWB may just as well have tried to appoint Elmo.Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sam, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.
I'm sure there are plenty of valid examples where conservative have bucked the party leadership, but I never intended to claim there weren't. My point wasn't that conservatives always defer to their leader and liberals never defer to the leader. It was solely that conservatives are generally more likely to defer to their leaders than liberals.
Perhaps I see it that way because I've spent too much time in Utah and Utah republicans are overwhelmingly LDS and Mormons have a very strong respect for and deference to appointed leaders.
On the far left spectrum, I've done a lot of work with greens, socialist and anarchists and they have exactly the opposite problem. Far left groups are so strongly biased against central leadership that they are constantly tearing themselves apart.
I picked the ends of the spectrum I'm familiar with and interpolated between the two and concluded that there is a general tendency for conservatives to give more respect to authority figures. Perhaps this is something that doesn't exist e except among Mormon conservatives but I don't think Mormons are that much of an outlier among conservatives in general. Perhaps the far left groups aren't really part of a liberal spectrum they just attract a lot of people with anti-social tendencies. Its possible I picked two outlier groups data points, but I don't really think so. My experience watching national politics does suggest that although there are certainly exceptions conservatives generally have more respect for authority figures than liberals.
[ May 06, 2009, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sam, I can't tell whether you are being sarcastic or not.
No sarcasm. I'm saying straight up that my use of harriet meiers as a counterargument against conservative deference doesn't work because it's an outlier example.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, looks like Senator Specter is getting screwed by the Democratic leadership. According to a voice vote yesterday, he's lost his seniority. He's claiming he was promised he'd keep it, Reid's spokesman denies.
I guess if the Democratic leadership sticks to that, it might not be a very painful decision. He can hardly go back to the Republicans now, after his talk of big-tent politics and whatnot.
Though as my father was saying, savvy Republicans could turn this into a coup if they approached him and invited him back, no harm no foul (publicly), and with promises to take it easy in the primaries.
That actually would be a pretty decent gesture of 'big tent' politics.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Would never happen. Pat Toomey will be a primary challenger regardless of what Steele or McConnell say.
They can offer not to give any funds to Toomey, or to support Specter in the primary, but he'll still be there, and I think regardless he's going to have his hands full.
Frankly I think Specter is going to face a primary fight from Democrat Joe Sestak as well, so regardless of what he does he's going to be in trouble, and his chances of making it to the general and then winning the general aren't guaranteed regardless of party.
The GOP could invite him back, but to what end? He'll still vote the same way, so they don't really get any legislative power back, and he'd have to face Toomey in the primary. Regardless of his position in the Democratic party, he was never going to be Chairman anyway with another Democrat above him, and he likely only has one more term in him anyway.
He'll stay where he is, though he'll be less likely to bend to whatever Reid asks of him as a result.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Would never happen. Pat Toomey will be a primary challenger regardless of what Steele or McConnell say.
Well, if the GOP decides to quash or at least not lend support to Toomey, that certainly changes the status quo.
quote: The GOP could invite him back, but to what end? He'll still vote the same way, so they don't really get any legislative power back, and he'd have to face Toomey in the primary. Regardless of his position in the Democratic party, he was never going to be Chairman anyway with another Democrat above him, and he likely only has one more term in him anyway.
Note that I'm not suggesting it's likely, however the benefit I was speculating on was PR.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The republicans WANT specter in the democratic party, though.
Any democratic candidate who can at least stand up straight and possess at least a 300 word vocabulary will beat Toomey. With Specter there, at least Toomey is losing to a "Democrat," as opposed to a Democrat.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specter never intended to vote with the majority on any substantive matter anyways. He proved that by voting with the Republicans on the budget. And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to make him a junior member.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specter never intended to vote with the majority on any substantive matter anyways. He proved that by voting with the Republicans on the budget. And after he spat in their faces, Senate Democrats paid him back by unanimously voting to strip him of his seniority.
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wonder why Democrats and the rest of the media are so obessed with making sure everyone hates Limbaugh? Why don't the have the same obession with someone like Maddow? or Olbermann? Rall? Jesse Jackson? or even following the gaffe machine Biden?
Posts: 1918 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
I'd like to do some crunching myself instead of asking you to do it.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
