US Midterm Elections Discussion 401
November 4th will be election day in the U.S. Though the presidential race is still forming, this midterm election has lots of close races that may give a hint about the likely outcome in 2016. Many pundits and pollsters see a strong chance that Republicans will gain a majority in the Senate in Tuesday's election. Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election: candidates, political advertising, voting technology, and the wisdom of voter ID laws. If you are voting, this chart of poll closing times might be useful. (And, as with the similar post from 10 years ago today, you can take a look at the current poll to see what the Zeitgeist looks like for Slashdot readers, and mentally fill in the past tense, if you're one of the many early voters; not much room in the poll question field.)
When Margin of victory less than Margin of fraud (Score:4, Interesting)
Do Democrats Always Win Close Statewide Elections? [thefederalist.com]
. For whatever reason, when statewide races are decided by less than 1 point, Democrats win almost three-quarters of the time. When the margin opens to 1-2 points, that advantage dissipates, and the Democrats win only half the races:
Re:When Analysis Goes Bad (Score:5, Informative)
And when the sample size increases, the trend moves toward equilibrium. I think this is a great example of someone not understanding statistics.
In an article that starts with an anecdote from 1986, and evaluating a Republican worry "Ever since 1986", why is the data only examined from 1998 ?
In 16 years of data for 50 states, there should be about (16/6) * 2 + (16/4) for each state, or about 266 elections. That's 6 year Senate terms, and 4 year terms for governors. 20 out of a subset of 27 hardly seems relevant - that's 1% out of 10% of the sample size.
If we take this quote at the bottom:
And combine it with the opening salvo:
It is fairly self explanatory.
The part that doesn't make sense is all the time spent on a case of Chicago voter fraud from 1982. The article characterizes it as "at least 100,000 fraudulent votes had been cast in Chicago alone", implying there is more to the story. The linked article is all about Chicago.
That last paragraph makes me really suspicious of this crackpot. That I can't access the data to check for missed analysis opportunities kinda bothers me. Maybe he's not a crackpot, let's see if I can find something to support that?
He basically says "Don't read too much into this" right there. But you apparently did.
it worked on me! (Score:2)
The more things changes... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:The more things changes... (Score:5, Interesting)
I hope
Don't look to hope. Despite liberal rhetoric claiming shutdowns hurt the Right, Republicans are doing well this cycle; the 2013 shutdown has done them no harm. Listening to the MSM one might think we had sent all Republicans to gulags after two shutdowns in '95-'96, but in fact they held majorities in both houses for another 10 years.
As Federal debt mounts you should anticipate more frequent and severe disruptions and develop alternatives for yourself. The odds of more shutdowns in 2015-16 are high.
Re:The more things changes... (Score:5, Informative)
The odds of more shutdowns in 2015-16 are high.
The 2013 shutdown came about because the House Republicans refused to do their job by producing a budget, sending negotiators to the joint House-Senate conference, and voting for the COMPROMISED budget. After a 16-day government shutdown and $20B in damages to the economy, the House Republicans accepted a budget deal that they would have gotten anyway if they done their job in the first place. If the Republicans shut down the government in the next two years, I fully expect President Hillary to take them to the woodshed.
Re: (Score:2)
GOP Congress does not poll well at all, though. Other issues like Iraq and Ebola seem to be spooking people. The right's FUD engine is well oiled with big money.
Re:The more things changes... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Not sure what I'm doing, but I'll bite.
The House is the chamber that produces the budget; it was controlled by the Republicans who produced budgets, and the Senate kept voting the budgets down. Several budgets were voted down by the Democrat-controlled Senate, actually, and they somehow blamed it on Republicans by saying "See! They won't send us a budget with everything we want, so it's THEIR fault!" Hissy fit drama at its finest.
Six Years Ago (Score:4, Insightful)
After the 2008 elections we were told the Republican Party was defunct; Democrats had an overwhelming and apparently permanent majority in both houses of Congress and a lock on the White House. Nancy Pelosi was rewriting the House rules to consolidate her control over her own party while Harry Reid had a super-majority in the Senate that prevented the Republican minority from blocking his agenda.
How quickly things changed. A Republican elected to replace Ted Kennedy in Massachusetts? Unthinkable! Pelosi being voted out of the Speaker's job two years later. Republicans gaining enough seats in state legislatures that the Democrats complained about them redrawing congressional districts (*cough* pot meet kettle *cough*). And it looks like the front runner for the Democrats' Presidential candidate in 2012 will be 70 year old Hillary Clinton.
Re:Six Years Ago (Score:5, Interesting)
Now democrats who won in Obama wave of 2008 are defending deep red districts and might lose them. In 2016 the Republican senators who won in the 2010 wave will be defending. This Republican senate majority will not last long.
The House majority will last longer. The gerrymandered districts and the hold on the state election system is making the Republican primary the real battle to win. That is creating very very hard right wing reps who take extreme positions. They alienate all the emerging vote blocs with impunity because they invulnerable. It is creating big trouble for Republicans running for Statewide offices.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Republicans won the house after losing popular vote.
There is no nationwide "popular vote" for House seats. The election is district by district for House seats. Excess Democratic votes in a district in Los Angeles don't matter for an election in Dallas, Texas. The people that keep claiming that are either confused or engaging in dishonest rhetoric.
Re:Six Years Ago (Score:4, Insightful)
The Republican rep who got 50% + 1 in a low turn out safe red district primary does not care about any Republican running for statewide office or the national offices. His/her biggest concern is the next primary fight, coming in two years. They alienate every voting bloc in the larger nation to get through the next primary.
Re: (Score:3)
In a well designed system the House should match the vote. It does not.
What is this well-designed system? It's not an equipartitioned grid -- that would have the Republicans ecstatic and the Democratics up in arms.
In fact, the whole concept of local representatives is incompatible with the idea of representing the electorate in perfect proportions. Unless every neighborhood in the country is the same homogeneous mix of Republicans and Democrats, you're going to have to deal with the fact that some areas are going to have higher concentrations and dilute the impact specific
Re: (Score:2)
Because he's a European Socialist, and believes in mob rule.
Perhaps that's a bit harsh. And if we had open primaries, that would make things somewhat more representative.
Re: (Score:2)
The House matches the relevant vote perfectly - ever district that had a Republican win is represented by a Republican. When a Democrat wins the district is represented by a Democrat. That is the only metric that matters under the Constitution.
I can't say I'm surprised, but you ignore the point made already in this thread about Gerrymandering. [wikipedia.org]
If you have the power to play around with what a "district" is, you can give your party a majority in congress forever.
Re: (Score:3)
The USA IS a republic (right there in our national anthem folks) and the 'progressive' left would be thrilled to change that.
Someone please enlighten me why the fixation on those five words? The Soviet Union called itself a union of Republics. The republic of Yugoslavia was a hotbed of boiling ethnic hatred waiting for the death of a ruling strongman to fly apart at the seams.The Republic of the Congo was an autocratic dictatorship also ruled by a strongman. (for that matter so was most of Greece during the Classical Age when they invented the word} When so many different types of countries can identify as a "republic", it
Popular vote stats are trivia, not meaningful (Score:3)
The Republicans won the house after losing popular vote.
That is actually just trivia since neither side is trying to achieve the popular vote. Both sides are allocating their time, money, personnel and other resources to achieve the electoral/districts(*) vote. For the popular vote to be a meaningful statistics it would need to be what one side was actually going for. As it is the popular vote is merely highly correlated with the electoral/districts vote so it occasionally goes the other way, just trivia when it happens.
Losing sides like to bring up irrelevan
Re: (Score:2)
good example is texas, which should be far more evenly split between the parties, but they have cities like Austin divied up so much that the blues are completely negated. and they control most state legislatures too, and are expanding control to more. the PACs are now networking into local elections too.
in many states, almost half the people have no representation, and the delegates make no attempt to appeal to them (unless desperate like Cochran recently was in his primary). its disgusting.
we need to elim
Re: (Score:2)
After the 2008 elections we were told the Republican Party was defunct; Democrats had an overwhelming and apparently permanent majority in both houses of Congress and a lock on the White House. Nancy Pelosi was rewriting the House rules to consolidate her control over her own party while Harry Reid had a super-majority in the Senate that prevented the Republican minority from blocking his agenda.
And the opposite happened after 2002, people were saying that the Republican party now had a permanent lock on congress. Both parties are happy to morph to get more members, and their is no policy accepted by either party that wouldn't be accepted by the other party, if it became popular enough. Their changeability is the secret to their durability: parties that stick dogmatically to a single issue die with that issue (populist party and free silver).
In the 1790s, when the Federalist party won power in Wa
Here in Michigan, the Governor's race is the news (Score:2)
The Democratic challenger Schauer has pulled within the margin of error of most polls in the last few weeks. Gov. Snyder and the Republican legislature have run roughshod over Detroit and much of the state and along with a visit by President Obama, his opposition is motivated. It may come down to the weather on Tuesday.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh. Are you for him or against him? Because your link makes him look pretty good.
Getting black men out of jail for drugs, giving Detroit billions in tax breaks, and getting ghetto black kids into rich white schools.
So what, are those all code words for something sinister?
My #1 question for the candidates (Score:2)
I dont live in the USA but if I did, I would be voting and my #1 question would be "Which candidate is going to do what is necessary to fix the economy and create jobs". That said, everything I have seen indicates that US politicians dont care about fixing the economy or creating jobs, just about lining the pockets of Wall Street with money pulled from the pockets of the little guy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
my #1 question would be "Which candidate is going to do what is necessary to fix the economy and create jobs".
And what exactly would that be? I don't think most people understand macroeconomics well enough to know "what is necessary" -- so even if a politician did know what to do and planned to do it, he probably would not want to alienate 50+% of his potential voters by explaining to the public "what is necessary".
Re: (Score:3)
Probably the simplest solution to the whole "fix the economy and create jobs" thing is the one least likely to be tried: Stop monkeying with the system!
Instead, let's just leave the laws, rules and regulations currently in place alone long enough for things to settle down. Say, 20 years.
Then, if we don't like the result, let's change a few things, and wait another 20 years. Repeat as needed.
Alas, Governments, national and otherwise, don't like to d
Vapor voting on its way out (Score:3)
Few real choices for U.S. voters (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They forgot to tell Chicago that you could not win an election by fraud. [heritage.org] I know heritage.org is right-leaning, but the article is thorough and heavily footnoted documenting one of the largest voter fraud prosecutions ever conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice.
A Casual Observation (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>> in general, Democrat scandals have tended to involve sex and drugs, and hurt a few people (along with the status of a high political office). Meanwhile, in general, Republican scandals have tended to involve money and power, and hurt thousands or even millions of people
If you grew up in Illinois, you'd probably see the world the other way around. :)
Tea Party (Score:2)
One phrase I have not heard this election cycle is "Tea Party Candidate", nor have I seen any coverage of any Tea Party anything. They need to bring all that back, that much more fun to watch.
Voter ID (Score:2)
Are there any other countries in the world which do not enforce Voter ID for voting. I am pretty sure most of Europe and Asia insists on Identification before voting.
I am not an American. I was shocked when I first realised that the US doesn't need ID for voting.
Re: (Score:3)
In Australia, voting is compulsory, so turnout is in excess of 80%.
There is no requirement for IDs when voting, just making sure your name is crossed off the list in the seat you're registered for. This obviously means that you can, illegally, vote twice at two different locations, but the system will pick it up (when they scan the registers)
I'm not entirely sure, but I think the election officer can request some form of ID if they suspect foul play.
Anyway, it is possible to cheat, but the percentage of rej
You want more of the same? (Score:2)
Flamefest (Score:5, Insightful)
Think of the discussion attached to this post as the place to discuss the election:...
Yeah...you mean a giant flame fest.
Sometimes I think the Slashdot editors treat Slashdot like a Fire Ant hill...poke it and watch them all scurry around furiously. I bet the popcorn is popped and the drinks are being poured at Slashdot headquarters right now.
Re: (Score:3)
I bet the popcorn is popped and the drinks are being poured at Slashdot headquarters right now.
I think the headquarters amounts to 2-3 cubicles in a Dice property somewhere, and those are empty.
Re: (Score:3)
I believe threads like this are designed to attract all the hate so as to keep it out of other threads.
Re: (Score:2)
Fire Ants FTW!
That is one of my favorite analogies, and I've never before heard anyone use it besides myself. I grew up in Florida, where I used to kick the tops off of ant hills all summer long. Free entertainment for out-of-school kiddies.
Just be sure to take a few steps back after kicking...
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but fuck you anyway. Because internet.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you wish to have employer provided time for this? Think about that for a second or two.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting - according to this here [nolo.com], employers have to give you time off to vote. Check your state to see which law applies to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
Here in Oregon all votes are cast by mail. If you can't mail it in time, then you drop it by a collection booth during a lunch break or something. Standing in line at the local school gym has become a thing of the past here. I've often wondered why more locales haven't adopted such a thing.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
More places haven't gone to mail-in-only voting because they don't want to disenfranchise the homeless, who have no mailing address, or the poor who might change their address upwards of three times per year often staying in transient housing. The poor often have a hard time finding a single place to live, and they already have the least time to deal with matters such as ensuring that their ballot is sent to the correct address.
An interesting point. So I checked into that.
http://sos.oregon.gov/voting/P... [oregon.gov]
I know the ballot would come with an official addressed envelope like our regular mail ballots. I suppose the issue then would be getting to the county clerk's office.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
Here in Oregon all votes are cast by mail. If you can't mail it in time, then you drop it by a collection booth during a lunch break or something. Standing in line at the local school gym has become a thing of the past here. I've often wondered why more locales haven't adopted such a thing.
Because that would mean more people voting, and if they're likely to vote for the party you oppose, that would not serve your interests. The two parties each have favored tactics when it comes to screwing the vote. Republicans prefer to use voter suppression in areas that are largely non-white. Democrats do their best to eliminate choices to the mediocre as they either 1) Chase progressives from the party and 2] Demonise third party progressives which might actually get the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
And that's horseshit.
It needs to be a mandated holiday at all levels, with elections taking place at the same time everywhere.
That would take a constitutional amendment at the very least, because the authors of the Constitution decided that States have the power to hold elections as they see fit, including Federal ones.
Re: (Score:2)
Meet the new boss. Same as the old.
Nothing will change until the system itself is changed. Not just the people in it.
Foolishly optimistic.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
How again is this News For Nerds?
Because Obama is thinking about granting amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US. So if legal H1-Bs overstay their visas, and become illegal immigrants . . . poof . . . they will become legal residents. For H1-B employers, mission accomplished. More people willing to work for less. And the employers will not need to go through the paperwork hassle for getting H1-Bs.
That's why.
Re: (Score:2)
(gratuitous insult removed) even if Obama wanted to "grant amnesty to all illegal immigrants in the US," he has no legal authority to do so. The administration does have the ability to change where enforcement is happening, which is why there's so much dispute over Obama's policies on deportations - the numbers are up, but the enforcement has in many cases shifted to border enforcement, recent immigrants and those convicted
Re: (Score:2)
Well, he said he would. Maybe he lied. We shall see.
Legal authority? How long would that take for the courts to decide? And what about Bohner suing him for the other illegal executive orders? I haven't heard anything about that in a while. He probably cried himself to sleep and forgot about it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, if Obama issues an executive order granting blanket amnesty after the election, as he has promised to do, and the Government is now gearing up for; would you change your mind?
And where did Poly say Fox?
Re: (Score:2)
I regard it as being like Obama's clear desire to implement incredibly strong gun control and take away all weapons and ammo, as evidenced by his deceptively avoiding anything related to gun control.
Re: (Score:2)
https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=op... [fbo.gov]
Well that does throw something into this doesn't it?
Re: (Score:2)
Not really - every green card issued during the 2005 fiscal year will be expiring and a replacement card (assuming renewal) issued. In addition, new cards will need to be issued for people who qualify for one through the regular channels (marriage, business sponsorship, lottery) and there will need to be replacement cards for those that are lost, stolen or damaged/destroyed. 4 million/year is what they expect and there is an option to buy an additional 20 million, just in case there is a need for it. (Th
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:5, Informative)
Because we are about to regain some freedom by telling the Democrat party to STFU and sit down?!
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent. Instead of trying to help the people, both parties are more worried about the agenda's the superpac's are paying them for.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. If it was up to me, I'd bitch slap both parties. The problem isn't Democrats or Republicans, the problem is Democrats AND Republicans. Both parties are very incompetent. Instead of trying to help the people, both parties are more worried about the agenda's the superpac's are paying them for.
I'm with you on this. And it is undeniable that a lot of the really bad stuff started under Bush. But it has gotten far worse -- and there has been a lot more of it -- under the Democrats.
Time to get some people with real principles back in office. Vote both the Republicans AND the Democrats out. Get some independent thinkers in.
Read George Washington's second Farewell Address. The part about the damage that party politics does to government By The People.
Re: (Score:3)
How in the world can you say that??? Together they get over 98% of the vote. Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
Maybe YOU can explain to us all what connection you imagine there is between getting votes and competence.
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because getting votes is all they are required to do. After that they just sign the papers their "donors" put in front of them until the next cycle. If they comply, they will get funding for reelection, put on big committees, free hookers and coke (don't think I'm kidding on that), if not, it's back to managing *Al's Tires and Wheel Alignment*. No competence required, only charisma, and not much of that either. Just sign here... and here... aaand here... thankyouverymuch
I really wonder how anybody can believe there is any honesty and what remotely could be called "honor" and respect in this business. These people couldn't be more overt. City sewers are cleaner than this. And here we are about to reelect over 90% of them back in. Maybe zombies are real.
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell us all once again, please, where exactly is the incompetence?
In governing. It's something different from winning votes in a duopoly.
Re: (Score:2)
No I'd say that the incompetence is on the part of the voters. They believe in voting for the lesser of two evils. E.g. in their heads the vote for one guy is a "no" vote for whoever else is likely to win. This is such a stupid idea it's pathetic because they don't pay the fuck attention to the fact that they're literally saying "yes, I want this lesser evil to be in power", but it's the choice they make nonetheless, and the rules of democracy stipulate that you have to live with it, good or bad.
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats! Because everybody knows, if you don't vote for one or the other, the cops will come and shoot your dog. Do you want that blood on your hands?
Re: (Score:2)
That's right! Vote the republicans back in! That'll work. And then, when you get pissed off with the republicans again, you can vote for... wait for it... democrats!
When times are bad, the incumbents get voted out.
Whether the position remains within the same political party tends to vary based on structural factors like gerrymandering.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe I'm up too late, but this post makes no sense to me whatseoever. It's the usual "major parties both suck" substance-free mantra that gets mod points, followed by some sort of assertion that people who vote for major party candidates believe cops will know how they voted and retaliate (clue: people who believe that vote libertarian. Or well some of them probably vote for extremist parties as well.) There are reaons people vote for major parties. They may not be right or even strategic reasons, but
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, can you actually elaborate in anything more intelligible than regurgitated Alex Jones or Glenn Beck talking points? Perhaps something with anything verifiable behind it?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:News For Nerds? (Score:4, Informative)
Although one could argue that the wheels were set in motion during Bush's watch, it was under Obama's Napolitano that we lost the freedom to not be groped or oggled at the airport.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Patriot Act was extended by Obama (Score:4, Informative)
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Actually the Patriot Act was extended by Obama in 2011, extended just long enough to cover his 2nd term. Obama owns the Patriot Act. More importantly, Obama **uses** the Patriot Act. He could have ordered the Justice Department, the FBI and all the other agencies under executive branch control to stop using it, but he **chose not too**.
Re: (Score:2)
Why do you idiots only have a memory lasting six years? Patriot Act was one of the worst violations of freedom as was the massive expansion of the NSA and creation of the TSA. Those happened on the previous watch. Stop being stupid.
Saying you are unhappy with Obama (or the democratic party) is in no way an endorsement of Bush (or the Republican party).
For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party. We've haven't had a competent president in over a decade, it's about time we get one (there are a few competent congresspeople).
Party loyalty makes you irrelevant ... (Score:5, Insightful)
For myself, the next candidate who seems reasonably competent will get my vote, doesn't matter what party.
And that is the only way in which real reform will occur. Voting for the more competent regardless of party, voting punitively against the misbehaving or those that act against the public good regardless of party.
Loyally voting for your party makes a person irrelevant. Their party can ignore them because they have their vote, the other party can ignore them because they cannot attain their vote.
Belonging to a party is fine, just don't let them think they get your vote automatically. If they put up a weak candidate, if the incumbent has a history of misbehaving or acting against the public interest then sorry, maybe next time.
Politics is darwinian. Votes are the true currency of politics. If votes are spent wisely, and punitively, politicians will adapt accordingly. This is how real reform can be achieved.
1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er (Score:3)
Nice theory, but the problem is (and has been for some time) that no matter *who* you vote for, you get the same type of person: one who follows the path the money lays out. There will be no reform. It's over. Welcome to the oligarchy.
Wrong. You missed an important point, punitively voting against an incumbent who misbehaved or went against the interests of the people regardless of whether he represents your party or not. This will discipline politicians, this will bring about reform.
You are making a classic mistake by focusing on money. Votes are the true currency of politics, a 1%'er has no more votes than a 99%'er, its still a one person one vote system. Money is just a tool to persuade the uninformed in search of those votes. The
Re: (Score:2)
Also, lobbyist and special interest can be helpful here. Many put out a report card. So, have an issue you care about, go to the biggest special interest group for that issue. It doesn't matter if you agree with their position or not. If you agree with them their high rating are a good sign, if you disagree with them then their low ratings are a good sign.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having second thoughts about Romney.
He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm having second thoughts about Romney. He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
I thought about that too, since he essentially ran on a platform of leadership and competence. Arguable though, if he really were competent, he could have won an election against a weak incumbent. Instead he kept around inexperienced campaign managers, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
Did he? I wonder how much of the campaign the candidate does, and how much the party does. But no, he didn't get that job done.
But Obama was not a weak incumbent 2 years ago. Battered, a little, but not weak. I wonder who could have beaten him. Gingrich? (Oh yeah, destroyed) Cain? (Also destroyed.) The doofus from Texas had no chance. (Yes, the glasses are helping, Rick.)
Re: (Score:2)
But Obama was not a weak incumbent 2 years ago. Battered, a little, but not weak. I wonder who could have beaten him.
The names I heard were Mitch Daniels (who apparently helped the Indiana economy grow very well), Paul Ryan, Chris Christie, and Marco Rubio. Notice how many of those were endorsed by Romney [wikipedia.org]. As much as he could, he cultivated relationships in the party, so the only ones remaining were the incompetent ones (like Gingrich).
Obama's approval rating hadn't been over 50% in three years, he pushed through an unpopular healthcare program, his economic stimulus program hadn't had much effect but was laden with por
Re: (Score:3)
I'm having second thoughts about Romney.
He could be a better speaker, campaigner, politician; yeah. But of the jobs he's had, he's gotten the job done.
Then again given that most of the jobs he's done have taken the form of eliminating the jobs of others, it's not a great accomplishment.
Re: News For Nerds? (Score:3)
So the Republican majority in the House was able to 'force' the Democrat-controlled Senate and the Democratic President (both of which, in your world opposed extending and/or expanding the Patriot Act) to extend AND expand the Patriot Act... Interesting.
I wonder why the House Republicans haven't used that same Jedi mind control to ram through any of the other 370 bills passed by the House and then left to languish in Harry Reid's desk drawer...
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's for a lack of trying though. One of the first things he tried to do when he was in office was ban Fox News from the white house, but because all of the other news organizations stood with them in solidarity it couldn't reasonably happen. His administration was also extremely aggressive at trying to make Snowden's life difficult (his passport was revoked within minutes of his name being attached to the leaks.)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: News For Nerds? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are absolutely not two extremes - they are two points clustered very tightly around the same extreme.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are some important things they'll be able to get done. The changes in the rules of the Senate that the Democrats under Harry Reid put in place will see to that. But now the shoe will be on the other foot.
Re:Republican gain a majority? (Score:5, Insightful)
As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.
Or did you really think that the Republicans were going to reinstate a rule that would handicap them?
And if the Democrats decide to reinstate the filibuster before they lose control, well, they've still established that it's pretty much okay to change the rules whenever it's convenient. So the Republicans will remove it if needed (I said when the Dems decided to ditch the filibuster that it would come back to haunt them next time they were the Senate minority - most /.'ers at the time insisted that the Reps would never have a Senate majority again)
Re: the filibuster (Score:5, Informative)
There were no changes to the filibuster for legislation (though personally I'd have loved to see it change from 60 votes to stop debate over to 40 votes to continue debate), and Mitch McConnell has indicated in the past that he doesn't see changing that should he become Majority Leader this fall.
As for the filibuster, I'd love to see it change just on the basis of "If you say you want to continue debate, don't say that then leave town." I'm fine with continuing "debate" (not that they ever actually debate the items they're delaying/killing), but by god if you're going to do it you'd better care enough to actually stick around.
Re: (Score:2)
"Well, it's the top of my list, but remember who's in the White House for two more years. Obviously, he's not going to sign a full repeal," McConnell said. "It would take 60 votes in the Senate. Nobody thinks we're going to have 60 Republicans. And it would take a president -- presidential signature. No one thinks we're going to get that."
Re: (Score:3)
As to the filibuster, keep in mind that the Dems changed the rules so you don't need that supermajority anymore.
Only for lower court (not Supreme Court) judicial nominees. And only because the amount of vacancies got to be alarming. The 2/3 majority to pass anything rule that we've all come to love over the past 10 years of Republican minority in the Senate is still in place, so never fear.
Re: (Score:2)
The real point is that we need term limits for congress.
It has become obvious that if we don't get them the country will face serious, perhaps devastating hardships in the not too distant future.
It has also become obvious that the political class will never ever let us have term limits for congress.
Re: (Score:3)
I think more stringent budgeting rules are far more critical than term limits. If you limit the power to spend limitless amounts of pork money, you're taking away a lot of their power, period. Less need for the term limits then. Congress has demonstrated time and time and time again that it doesn't have the political will to reign in the budget.
Of course, I don't think we have a snowball's chance in hell over either of these things happening.
Re: (Score:2)
The real point is that we need term limits for congress.
No.. No .. and NO! Term limits is stupid. You are just changing faces, not mitigating the corruption of the institution. The only problem is that voters won't vote out the corruption. I think they do so because it *brings home the bacon* and they want a piece. Term limits has not helped the presidency in any way. Henry Kissinger still has too much influence after almost 50 years! I will remind you too, if you want to see the ineffectiveness of term limits, look to Mexico.
I remember a whole bunch of fresh-faced Republicans who campaigned on platforms of term limits. Guess where every one of them stood on the issue two years later when THEY became the incumbents.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter to me. The democrats weren't doing anything with it.
What could the Democrats do? The Republicans filibustered the senate more than any other time in more than a century [motherjones.com], ever since the dems got the senate after 2006.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't get it. The dems never had any intention of doing anything
Really. Then how do you explain the fact that the 2009-2011 congress (during which the dems had both houses) was one of the most productive in history? [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You can thank the 17th amendment for that.