2014 Midterms Thread

by Ugh

A thread to discuss the elections today specifically and our glorious experiment in representative democracy generally.  I guess things won't heat up until the polls start closing tonight, but it would be irresponsible not to speculate!  I know, not a traditional use of the internets, but let's try and break new ground.

This, of course, is a nice lead up to the 2016 POTUS party.  We might learn - should the GOP get a majority in the Senate - whether the Republicans are responsible enough to govern the country.  And by govern I don't mean "adopt my preferred policy positions," but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ.  Or think that FEMA is a good place to park super unqualified hacks - after 9/11 no less.

Beyond those specific examples, I guess I also mean a general recognition that government is currently set up to do certain things and, even if you think the government shouldn't be doing those things, a lot of people are relying on the government continuing to do them competently and so purposely wrecking from the inside shouldn't be an option - as opposed to coming up with a plan to wind things down publicly and responsibly.

Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we're far more likely to get the opposite.  But it will, uh, be interesting nonetheless.

What say you?

Comments

[bobbyp]

Chuck Todd listed the following as the "bellweather" races:

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, MaineMassachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Oregon, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming

[Countme-In]

That list is almost as long as the list of who might be Chuck Todd's father.

[Countme-In]

I take small comfort in this, via Washington Monthly:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/political-connections/the-tectonic-plates-of-2014-20141103

This midterm is pretty normal, numbers-wise.

Of course, a Philadelphia newspaper ran this ditty before the 1919 World Series of Black Sox fame:

Still, it really doesn't matter,
After all, who wins the flag.
Good clean sport is what we're after,
And we aim to make our brag
To each near or distant nation
Whereon shines the sporting sun
That of all our games gymnastic
Base ball is the cleanest one!

They should have replayed that Series, just to get a little closer to the sweet naivety of that poem.

Given the dark, lying vermin money advantage, the number of likely democratic voters deprived of the vote in many states, and the gerrymandered violence-threatening, racist, little hitlers being thrust upon us, I want a do over of this election too.

[thompson]

Obviously my view is that no such evidence will emerge from a GOP controlled Senate and we're far more likely to get the opposite.

Based on wj's thread, it doesn't seem like many commenters disagree. If the republican's are going to make an honest try at governing, this is pretty much their chance. Control of both houses (probably, but you never know) against an unpopular president.

If they wish to remain a relevant party moving forward, they will propose reasonable legislation over the next two years.

But I doubt they will. I'm on the fence if they'll be able to pass a budget.

[the once and future cleek]

the GOP will always be a relevant party. conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.

[Countme-In]

Why is this legal?

http://www.balloon-juice.com/2014/11/04/cloak-and-baggers/

Money is lying is speech is why.

[Countme-In]

Jon Huntsman speaks and Jack Welch projectile vomits:

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/-the-tea-party-has-completely---ruined-the-republican-party---jon-huntsman-sr--210121174.html

[thompson]

conservatism is not going away and it needs a party to represent it.

True. But that doesn't mean it will always be the RNC. If they can't govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.

If the leadership doesn't rein in the extreme wing of the party, it will push the party into irrelevance as national demographics shift.

I already know people that consider themselves conservative and end up voting Dem. Not because they view the Democratic party as conservative, but because they view the national republicans as far-out and impractical.

Granted, that's in CA, so maybe not representative of the nation. But still...the demographics aren't going to get better for the extreme wing of the GOP.

[thompson]

And as I write, Count has provided a link that brilliantly describes the split:

But Jon Hunstman Sr., a self-described "lifelong Republican"

[...]

Huntsman says he "not a great handicapper" but thinks Hillary "would be a fine President."

[Snarki, child of Loki]

"...by govern I don't mean "adopt my preferred policy positions," but things like not having people like Bradley Schlozman and Monica Goodling fill important positions at the DOJ."

I think you're injecting your "preferred policy positions" here, as any TeaBagger true-believer would tell you, but incoherently.

[the once and future cleek]

If they can't govern effectively, their donors will turn away, as will their voters.

but who "they" are changes every few years. every election cycle new candidates pop up and convince the money people that they can lead the country to glory.

"The current GOP isn't fighting hard enough! Help me get to DC and I'll fix it, because I'm a True Conservative™!"

there will always be new people to step up and promise whatever people with money want to hear.

[wj]

The biggest speculation I have is that the GOP has made the mistake of not lowering expectations. That is, with everybody talking about them taking control of the Senate, if they gain a half dozen seats, but fail to take control, it will be seen as a disaster.

Whereas, with a little smarter messaging up front, it could be seen as a victory because they gained so many seats. Yes, given where the available seats are, they ought to gain enough seats to take control. But smart messaging is not about reality. It is about expectations. And there is where they goofed.

[Slartibartfast]

Proposed: American politics is really in effect more of a sport than a serious endeavor.

Discuss.

[Countme-In]

If you include this as a sport, I'd go along with your thesis:

http://www.ancient.eu/article/604/

I'm trying to imagine the pre-game trash talk among the, uh, talking heads.

[Countme-In]

wj: Fear not on the lowered expectations. There's always a sore winner cracker swine rooting around for the nihilistic truffle that will poison everyone's day:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/erick-erickson-haley-barbour-gop-victory

[Countme-In]

The fix is in:

Georgia

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/11/georgia-republican-secretary-of-states-voter-info-website-abruptly-crashes-on-election-day/

Do ya think the media, especially FOX News, will report the crash of the website like they did the Obamacare website, for months on end?

In Texas, you can use your gun permit as I.D. to vote, but not your college voting I.D.

Another thing I want the President to do tomorrow: order the distribution of AR-15 automatics and ammo to every registered Democrat and independent in the country and declare THOSE the only credential required at the ballot box.

[Ugh]

Proposed: American politics is really in effect more of a sport than a serious endeavor.

I'd say that's the national GOP's view of things these days. The whole point is to win the election, rather than it being a means to some other end. Or at least they end they're seeking is something other than running the country.

[Slartibartfast]

I'd say that the GOP would prefer to leave the running of most of the country to the states, and streamlining the Federal government so as to minimize the occurrence of redundancy, but the GOP managed to cough up the Department of Homeland Security and other monstrosities.

I conclude by professing no certainty at all as to what the GOP is really up to, or what it wants.

On the hopeful side, the GOP seems to be morphing itself into something that could answer to "no organized political party" that has no goals beyond the repeal of PPACA.

[the once and future cleek]

there's not much hopeful about yanking the insurance coverage out from underneath millions of people without having some kind of idea as to how to replace it.

nihilism only gets you so far.

[thompson]

but who "they" are changes every few years.

Sure. But as the demographics shift, the 'they' that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.

[Ugh]

Not looking good for the democrats. But, gotta count the vote!

[the once and future cleek]

the 'they' that is willing to support the extreme wing of the GOP shrinks.

sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.

[Doctor Science]

I though I commented already, but apparently not.

I'm back from my 5:15am-8:45pm shift as a pollworker. Young's Double Chocolate Stout and a bacon cheeseburger are my just rewards.

Turnout was very high for a midterm election, possibly because the weather was *perfect*, possibly because the Congressional race was for an open seat.

Best part: our oldest voter turned *100* in September. She is what my dad would call "a corker". "Spry" doesn't begin to describe it -- she *drove herself* to the polls, can still see/hear/walk with the best of 80-year-olds. When her age you are, look so good you will not -- she's merely "old-lady wrinkled", not the hyper-wrinkled normal for centenarians. And she's plenty cheerful and shares her opinions with all & sundry.

Meanwhile, her descendants -- of which there are many in the district -- are frankly looking a bit worn by her celebrity, and by the fact that people keep talking about her and asking for her opinions & insights. And yes, everyone in the polling place applauded when she came out of the voting booth.

[Countme-In]

As a conciliatory note, Democrats are worthless cowards, including Obama.

[wj]

Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn't go anywhere.

[thompson]

sounds like wishful thinking, IMO.

Maybe, but shifting demographics hurting the GOP is hardly a belief that is unique to myself.

No excuses for why bills didn't go anywhere.

Yep. I *hope* the GOP decides to govern. I am not optimistic. But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.

[Countme-In]

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/next-senate-majority-leader

I repeat, if Obamacare is overturned or crippled, that is genocide.

Genocide is already happening in the states in which Pol Pot Republicans refused to expand Medicaid.

Murdering human beings is not functional, it's murder.

It's not an election issue.

It's a violence issue.

[wj]

But if they do something functional, they might even have a shot in 2016.

Maybe they'll pass a bill to privatize Social Security. If Obama feels nasty, he might let that become law without his signature. Think how that might play in the 2016 elections.

[russell]

Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing.

Yes, the next two years should be very interesting.

Maybe they'll pass a bill to privatize Social Security.

My guess is that they don't have the guts to try that on, appealing as it might be to some of them.

It's one thing to propose legislation when you know it won't go anywhere. It's another to do so when it might actually come to a vote and be passed.

Then, you own it.

All of that said, I don't see anything as beyond possibility. I'm not sure the leadership in either the House or the Senate is going to be able to maintain any kind of discipline over the bomb-throwers.

[wj]

We live in interesting times. And closer to the events of unusual interest than we would, perhaps, prefer.

[Snarki, child of Loki]

wj: "Well, now we will see what kind of laws the Republicans really care about passing. No excuses for why bills didn't go anywhere. "

Fox News will scream about Democrat party "filibusters", that consist of a single Democrat senator asking a single, short question.

They'll also call upon Obama to "declare war on ISIS", even though that is a Congressional power, in the certain knowledge that the US electorate is too ignorant and the US media is too supine, to call them on it.

[Slartibartfast]

They'll also call upon Obama to "declare war on ISIS"

Nah, they'll just sit back and snipe during the next two years of foreign policy fail. I don't think anyone has any better ideas, including better policy ideas, so that is what I am going with.

My guess is also that overall the GOP is going to suddenly realize they don't have any good ideas and hire some Idea Men to help out with that.

I also don't have any good ideas in terms of policy, but I have other responsibilities.

[Countme-In]

Go ahead, Ted Cruz and company, f*ck with it:

http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/inside-the-ticker/like-it-or-not-obamacares-juicing-health-stocks/ar-BBd8dhb

[the once and future cleek]

they don't need good ideas, they have resentment and ignorance on their side.

why bother with ideas when you can just scream about ISIS death panels coming to give you gay ebola?

[russell]

the funny thing about all of this, to me, is that by wj and slarti's definitions, I'm a conservative.

[Slartibartfast]

I'm in better company than I had thought, russell.

[russell]

I'm back from my 5:15am-8:45pm shift as a pollworker.

Thanks Doc Science!!

[the once and future cleek]

Not looking good for the democrats.

the midterm curse is a pretty tough one. and only one president since 1938 has had a net gain of Congressional seats in his 2nd term: Clinton (+5 House, 0- Senate).

every other president has lost seats.

[wj]

Russell: by wj and slarti's definitions, I'm a conservative.

Not to worry. I get accused of being a liberal from time to time. Mostly by those who are conservatives only by redefining the word.

No liberal would ever make that mistake. At most, one might say "Well, but you're a tolerant conservative." It says something about what "conservative" has come to mean in America that this is considered anomalous.

[Countme-In]

http://dish.andrewsullivan.com/2014/11/05/a-victory-for-what/

The National Review is counseling the R's to avoid governing.

Funny hiring managers the R's are:

"We want to hire you for this job."

"What is it I will doing in this job?"

"Nothing."

I'd like a piece of that inaction.

[thompson]

So, as an aside, anybody else pleased that all three marijuana ballot measures passed?

Are we finally starting to unwind the massive failure that is the war on drugs? Or are these just hiccups that will not lead to real reform?

[Slartibartfast]

All three? The Florida one didn't pass.

[wj]

Legalization passed in Florida -- in the sense that it got 58% of the vote. It's just that the measure failed to get the required 60%.

So a failure, but hardly an endorsement for keeping marijuana illegal.

[Slartibartfast]

Yep.

I'm not a big fan of amending the constitution through ballot measures. It may have to come to that from time to time, but most often what you get is a constitution the size of Texas.

The legislature should handle this one. Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it. Classify it as a controlled substance similar to alcohol, limit sales to minors and then let 'er rip.

[thompson]

All three? The Florida one didn't pass.

Whoops, my mistake. I was thinking D.C., Alaska, and Oregon. Forgot about Florida.

[thompson]

Actually, the US Congress should freaking step up and handle it.

Yeah. But I'm doubtful. It's terrible policy that destroys lives and wastes money, but nobody wants to be tied to standing up for people who do drugs.

It's like adultery is still a felony in 5 states ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery#United_States ). Stupid law that never gets enforced, but who wants to have to campaign as the guy that legalized adultery?

I doubt congress will take up the war on drugs until the states have broadly legalized.

[CJColucci]

The dog has caught the car it was chasing. Now what?

[Countme-In]

Woof!

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/07/23/1316080/-Meet-Republican-Jody-Hice-the-likely-new-craziest-member-of-Congress

They'll likely piss on the back right tire and then take a dump on the floor of the House and drag their asses around the carpet for the next two years, on account of the fact that they haven't been dewormed.

The Republican Party is a disgrace.

The rest of the world is laughing at us, as they should, because we're dumb enough to elect pig filth like Hice.

If I were a fellow conservative like Vladimir Putin I'd take this opportunity to invade eastern Europe because Hice and company got nothing.

I predict Hice will be shot in the head by a true American patriot and will leave office feet first.

[CharlesWT]

Texas has a constitution the size of Texas.

[bobbyp]

Like all good Democrats, I voted six to eight times (lost count after the 3rd drink)....all to no avail.

Congratulations, assholes.

[Zinsky]

The people who had the most to lose didn't bother to vote. Where there was high voter turnout (e.g. Minnesota), progressive candidates got elected. Far-right Republicans are a dying, rump political party, much like the Confederate Party during Reconstruction in the South. They use desperate, nihilistic tactics and a cult-like discipline of their adherents to control far more political turf than their numbers justify. They will be gone in fifty years.

[sapient]

They will be gone in fifty years.

Sad that most of us will be dead then.

[Slartibartfast]

Texas has a constitution the size of Texas.

A prize to the man who spotted the intended meaning, there.

Did I mention I lived in Texas for a couple of years?

I haven't lived in Georgia since I was 8, though.

[Slartibartfast]

sapient(adj): possessing or expressing great sagacity

Best start living up to the handle.

[sapient]

Slart, I'll work hard on that.

[joel hanes]

CJColucci skrev :

The dog has caught the car it was chasing. Now what?

My hat, sir. It is tipped.

This is the best synthesis of the election results that I've yet seen.

[Countme-In]

An appeals Court has upheld gay marriage bans in four states:

Two Rs for, one D dissenting.

But this reasoning, especially that first clause, popped out at me:

'"[T]he right to marry in general, and the right to gay marriage in particular, nowhere appear in the Constitution. That route for recognizing a fundamental right to same-sex marriage does not exist," Circuit Judge Jeffrey Sutton wrote for the court.'

We'll take a lengthy commercial break now while all of us explain to our spouses, our wedding guests, and especially our children, that our marriages are not recognized by the Constitution and are kaputnik.

Return the toasters, have fun divvying up the assets, and get thy selves to Adult Friend Finder, because the bets ..... they are off.

[Countme-In]

Meanwhile, the subhuman pig filth who have been destroying the country for the past 35 years are laying down their markers.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/conservatives-freak-out-bipartisan-senate

[Brett Bellmore]

Maybe it's worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.

How's this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more. Of course, that means running the place as though there were no Democratic Senators.

Oh, well, as you sow, so shall you reap. Have a heaping helping of payback.

[joel hanes]

Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was.

It has always confounded me that Republicans can play political hardball that flouts long-established norms (DeLay's TX redistricting, the shenanigans on the House floor to get Medicare Part D though, threatening the nation with credit default, not even inviting D. committee members to committee meetings, shutting off their mikes when they try to object to procedural shortcuts, the "Hastert Rule") and we're all supposed to be OK with it -- "it ain't beanbag", etc. ...

but on those rare occasions when Democrats play hardball, it's just horribly offensive to the Republican sense of political entitlement.

[Tony P.]

On the "as bipartisan" front, I look forward to counting the number of Democratic filibusters in the next two years.

On the "Brett Bellmore is still Republican" front, well, Generalissimo Fransisco Franco is still dead.

--TP

[Countme-In]

Reid was a boxer when younger.

Take it up with him.

I'm not a Harry Reid fan myself, but I like his left jab.

What Joel Hanes said, in spades.

I blame newt Gingrich and company for starting the, ahem, "decline" in political civility, dicey at it was in the first place, in our hallowed halls, which has now been institutionalized in both the House and the Senate.

It was a deliberate strategy to destroy the lifeblood of a functioning democracy -- civility.

They wouldn't even socialize with the elected representatives of we lesser liberal Americans.

Their delicate, cultish families couldn't move to Washington D.C. for fear of contamination.

If horse-trading is your game, it's not a good idea to shoot and eat the horse as your opening gambit.

Your guy, Gingrich was, Brett, though I know you stay above it all in Libertarian lalaland, except when you are being a Republican for purposes of eye-gouging.

Then of course, the recruitment across the board by the Republican Party of candidates whose number one platform plank is no compromise and labeling every single Republican who might err the other way as a RINO and ending their careers.

No more Bob Doles. No more decent human beings.

Just guys like Leon Wolf at Redstate, the putz, who uses the term "enemy" to describe Democrats (that's nothing new over there), when he gets a chance to talk during the few moments Erick Erickson's dick isn't in his mouth, not that there is anything wrong with that, although Wolf probably thinks there is.

Heck, Harry Reid, for all his incompetence, should have hit below the belt a few more times for good measure.

Unlike every other liberal on this board, I would surmise, I'm all for making the taste of crushed testicle reflux into these people's mouths, if indeed they are people.

Tease away, Brett. I liked it better when you were here, rather than getting disemvoweled at Crooked Timber.

I always though it a shame that Confederate traitor John Calhoun was permitted to die of natural causes. He should have been shot in the head and the Civil War allowed to commence 10 years before it did.

Letting these things fester is not good for the country.

[byomtov]

Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.

How would this be different than what they've been doing?

Do you really imagine that Republican senators have been trying to pass sensible legislation but have been blocked by the villainous Harry Reid?

I didn't think even you would believe that.

[Countme-In]

Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn't take the trouble to vote.

I don't blame those who were turned away from the polls by shithead voting restrictions.

That's why I'm now in favor of open carry on election day.

Can't you see my initials on this here howitzer?

[bobbyp]

We communists had better learn from Mitch McConnell.

After 2016, we might be in the same boat. Will we have the stomach to throw the monkey wrench into the works to the same extent? Could Dems hang together like the GOP has during their recent exile from power?

Since so many "moderate" Democrats have their heads up their butts in servile obedience to the Money Power, most likely not.

[the lone sniveler]

bobbyp @ 1: So tell me who won the Senate race in Puerto Rico?

[Hartmut]

Looking at the campaigns of some Democrats(?), I'd say they fully deserved to lose. One of the worst examples was Pryor's ad where all he did is waving a Bible and saying that this is his lodestone and North Star and that people should vote for him for that. Not knowing who he was one would have to assume that he was a Southern Republican. Another ad of of his promised tax cuts for companies and radical deregulation (he disguised himself as a farmer in that one). And then there was that woman in Kentucky that would squirm like a worm to not answer the simple question 'Did you vote for Obama?'
The 'lesser of two evils' becomes meaningless with people like these, when the choice becomes one between mental asylum escapee and corporate being of negotiable affection. Given the results of the ballot initiatives in many states, 'the people' seem not to be the 'center-right'* persons postulated in the mainstream media.

*center located so far to the right that most civilized countries consider the parties associated with it as fringe.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Democrats are to blame for this drubbing, by which I mean the ones who couldn't take the trouble to vote."

What, not the ones who couldn't take the trouble to give them a good reason to vote? The Democratic party is losing confidence in the American people?

Brecht sure had you nailed, Count:

The Solution
Bertolt Brecht

After the uprising of the 17th June
The Secretary of the Writer's Union
Had leaflets distributed in the Stalinallee
Stating that the people
Had forfeited the confidence of the government
And could win it back only
By redoubled efforts. Would it not be easier
In that case for the government
To dissolve the people
And elect another?

Job one for the Republicans once they take over: Stopping and reversing the Democratic party's relentless efforts to dissolve the people and elect another.

[wj]

Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was. And not one bit more.

Because God forbid that anyone even consider trying to make things better! If you think that the way that Reid ran the Senate was bad, it's just so obviously better to totally avoid doing anything to demonstrate that you might be a better party/human being.

Why subscribe "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you" when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming "He did it first!"? A race to the bottom is just so much better for the country.

[the once and future cleek]

Why subscribe "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you" when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming "He did it first!"?

i'm sure there's a deep libertarian principle at work here, and it only looks to us unenlightened folks that Brett is really nothing more than a GOP cheerleader.

[liberal japonicus]

I didn't think even you would believe that.

Brett believes we wouldn't remember all the times he claimed he wasn't a Republican so this isn't much of a stretch. I think Brett's next line is La Commedia è finita!

[Brett Bellmore]

Because you're not asking for fair play, if bipartisanship is something only Republicans have to do. You're asking for "Heads I win, tails you lose." You're asking the Republicans to be chumps.

We're already at the bottom, no need to race there. You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves. To late now for that.

[Marty]

I believe, sincerely, that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress. A functioning Congress, even with Obama vetoing some things is my yardstick for progress in this Congress. Committees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments.

[the once and future cleek]

that there is a chance that McConnell can restore order and some level of respect to Congress

McConnell could've restored that order any time in the past 6 years by not being a petty obstructionist tool. but he chose not to.

he chose to block and delay and fight everything he could for no other reason than to deny Obama any victories.

you can try to blame it all on Reid, but everyone can see that McConnell's hands are pretty dirty too.

[thompson]

What wj said needs to be made into a banner and hung from the walls of congress.

Why subscribe "Do unto to others as you would have them do unto you" when you can justify everything like a grammer school kid screaming "He did it first!"?

As a warning, not as an instruction book. As a reminder of how they look on TV when they bicker about meaningless crap rather than voting on legislation.

Is it really productive arguing about how much our various leaders need to act like adults? Can't the answer be 100%, all the time? Instead of, well, last year X did this bad thing, so Y should now be this intransigent?

At some point, somebody has to be an adult. And they are going to have to keep being an adult, even when 'the other side' is behaving like whiny children.

Politics should not be a sport. There shouldn't be teams, and we shouldn't feel righteous about playing as dirty as the 'other side'.

[the once and future cleek]

Politics should not be a sport.

agreed. but it is, because we're human, not vulcan.

[Hartmut]

It worked for them didn't it?
Plus we do not know who the speakers will be. Some TPers already went on record that they would NOT vote for the establishment guys.
I wouldn't either, it's just that the alternatives are too much Grand Guignol. And Cruz would not really want the job as long as he sees a chance of becoming POTUS candidate. Stabbing incumbents (and other colleagues) in the back is just more fun and furthers his credentials with the base.
I wonder, whether he knows that 'base' is also a personal insult ('are you so base as to...?).;-)

[thompson]

but it is, because we're human, not vulcan.

Is there no middle ground between vulcan and behaving like whiny children? Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?

Of course not.

[thompson]

heh. Of course *there is* middle ground.

[the once and future cleek]

there's all kinds of middle ground - and that's where we spend our time. it's where people sometimes act like human children and sometimes act like adult vulcans.

Is it impossible for humans to work with people that they disagree with?

i certainly didn't say it was impossible. but it's going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.

[Barry]

Marty: "MartyCommittees meet, there is actual floor debate, amendments get to be offered, bills pass, a budget gets completed. Reid made sure none of that ever happened. All other bad things the Republicans did, Reid shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments."

First, 'Reid made sure none of that ever happened.' is factually not true, and it's trivial to verify.

It might be a violation of the posting rules, but this is a flat-out lie.

As for the rest, (a) the GOP set new records for use of the filibuster - they didn't want things to happen either; (b) either the Infernal Regions will experience a sustained breath of cool, pleasant air, or the GOP Senate will also 'shelved massive amounts of bills, limited debate,limited the ability to even discuss amendments."', and do it twice as much.

[Countme-In]

Wasn't Brecht a Groucho Marxist?

I believe he was called before the House unAmerican Activities Committee and blacklisted by Hollywood studios by your lot, who didn't so much think that the people should be replaced, but merely harassed and drummed out their professions, in a historic convergence of American Republican and East German totalitarian thinking.

Bill O'Reilly would be your more likely source for quotes, Brett, in this discussion. A day or two before the election, doubting that republicans could do as well as they did, he said the American voter may well be "stupid" for keeping Democrats in power.

Now, you tell me you don't agree that.

We're voters, and you've been calling us stupid for, what, six years and counting?

That's O.K. It's the internet.

Yes, as Hartmut pointed out, the Democratic political campaigns were incompetent pap. Furthermore, it never works to run from the leader of your political party in an election, like a bunch of cowards, unless he's about to be convicted of breaking and entering.

You are right. Democratic voters, including the base, whatever that is, were given nothing to vote for, in large measure.

Not an uncommon development in mid-term elections.

All I ask is that Democratic voters act more like the Republican base, and turn out to exercise their franchise and vote for their candidates, even if the candidate is a lunatic, a sociopath, or a can of Spam, or some combination thereof.

I want them to be more like you, a team player.

I realize you are just on loan to the Republican Party from the Deep Woods Libertarian Spear-Chucking League, and I think maybe your season is about to commence.

Hurry, switch jerseys.

[Countme-In]

thompson, I don't disagree that politics shouldn't be a sport.

If that is so, however, why do we keep score?

Like Coke and Pepsi.

Nothing wrong with answering a couple of pitches aimed at my head with a spikes-up hard slide at second.

Bob Gibson didn't even think baseball was a sport, let alone politics.

He dispensed with addressing the batters as his "esteemed colleagues".

It was life and death.

[wj]

You want standing to demand that the victors be gracious, you need to get that standing before the victory, by being gracious yourselves.

But Brett, I'm a Republican, not a Democrat. Have been for decades. So I ought to have standing to demand that my party be gracious. Not that I expect the folks who are in Congress to do so, mind. But I do have standing to say that they ought to.

[Countme-In]

Just saw this quoted by Tom Sullivan at Hullabaloo regarding the fact that even moderate liberals who hate sports, like Kay Hagen, were turned out of office in favor of fire-breathing cans of Spam.

"I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.
So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.
Rev 3:15-16"

I wish the goings-on in the Bible weren't so sporting what with the GOOD team and the EVIL team, and then the sacrifice bunt introduced in the New Testament.

[thompson]

Count:

however, why do we keep score?

Good question. I can't think of a reason other than some sort desire to "win" politically. A goal I view as orthogonal to governing.

i certainly didn't say it was impossible. but it's going to happen a lot less often than is good for us.

My misunderstanding. I'd agree, it happens far less than is good for us. And I don't see signs that's going to change dramatically.

But it's a goal worth working towards.

[hairshirthedonist]

There's been a bit of discussion about the demographics of the country moving away the GOP platform. It's something I've believed strongly over the last decade or more.

Maybe it's the heat of the moment, but I'm starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.

When is this demographic shift going to manifest itself? Yes, we elected a Black president. Yes, gay marriage is gaining ground. Yes, it seems the war on drugs is waning in certain respects, mainly where marajuana is concerned.

But Republicans are doing well, not just in federal-level elections, but in local and state elections - perhaps even moreso at the state and local levels. And that has not only more immediate implication for the kinds of policies people around the country will live under, but also longer-term implications for who runs for and wins national offices.

State legislators make the rules for elections and become members of congress and governors. Members of congress and governors become presidents.

I just don't see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.

[the once and future cleek]

I just don't see things getting better for liberals/progressives in this country anytime soon.

barring major scandal, it's going to be quite a long time till the Dems can hope to get the House back, simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered. that was the smartest thing the GOP did: get control of state legislatures in time to draw the best possible districts for themselves.

this could have been prevented, if nominal Dems would vote. but they choose not to.

[jeff]

as Ugh told me the first time I commented here at OBWI "it's tribal".
I tried to get out the vote for Ami Bera against my highschool classmate Doug Ose. It is still to close to call but the California vote was down to less than half.
Perhaps we can put our faith in the women's vote in 2016 but I doubt it.
It appears I was unfriended by all my R-Tribe friends over politics and all of them were women.

[Marty]

Maybe it's the heat of the moment, but I'm starting to lose my belief in that, despite the survey results showing younger people being more liberal or progressive in their beliefs and policy preferences, and despite the changing racial, ethnic and religous composition of the American populace.

I would be curious to see if the young people today are more Liberal or progressive than we were, or my kids were. My youngest is incredibly liberal, my oldest not so much anymore. I think generations have hot button social issues, civil rights for mine, gay marriage today, that don't end with their maturing. I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age. They also get less likely to want massive social change period.

I am not sure Democrats will ever get quite what they hope for out of demographic change, as the country becomes more ethnically diverse then the "progressive" platform of equality gets less important as white men have less power by natural attrition, and without that plank, the conservative blacks and Hispanics(etc.) tendency will vote conservative. Just some thoughts.

[jeff]

Make that most of my R-Tribe friends, some of the men are still tolerating me.
Maybe it's my catcalling style of posting on FB

[thompson]

simply because of the way the districts have been gerrymandered.

Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult:

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/articles/its-time-to-increase-the-size-of-the-house/

Larger legislatures make it more difficult to gerrymander effectively.

The amendment is still pending:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Article_the_First

[CharlesWT]

There are fewer voters willing to call themselves Republicans than there are calling themselves Democrats. But both brands are on a decline.

Young adults tend toward being social liberals. And fiscal liberals until they are reminded where all the money has to come from. Then they tend to be more fiscally conservative.

[the once and future cleek]

most of what Marty said.

all the talk about the GOP aging and whiting itself out of existence seems completely nuts to me. if it comes down to a fight for its existence, the GOP will find a way to shed the things that minorities currently find so objectionable. and conservatism isn't going away.

[the once and future cleek]

Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult:

sounds good to me.

i think the last PP of that article says it all, though: representatives are unlikely to vote to lessen their own power.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Perhaps we should change congress to make gerrymandering more difficult"

Reforms I would like to see:

I would favor at large proportional representation. It doesn't make gerrymandering more difficult, it makes gerrymandering impossible. Perhaps that's why the federal government passed a law prohibiting states from using it for chosing their House members?

In particular, I would like to see votes treated like revokable proxies; Each candidate would get a vote in the legislature proportional to the number of votes they recieved in the election, and voters who became disgruntled with a particular office holder could revoke that proxy at any time.

I also favor the creation of an election corps, modeled on the Peace Corps, where young people, prior to embarking on their careers, could be trained in election administration, and then be randomly asigned precincts to administer the elections of. Realistically, who is best placed to commit ballot fraud? Elections officials. Randomly assigning them would make coordinating fraud extremely difficult.

Finally, and very timely in regards to what will be happening over the next couple of months, I would take away an incumbent's vote the instant they lost reelection. The Senate would have no trouble mustering a quorum, on a third of the Senators facing election in any given election year. And if enough House members lost reelection that a quorum could not be assembled, I'd say that would be significant enough to justify shutting the institution down until the new members took their places.

None of this is likely to happen without a Constitutional convention, though I think the last of these would be a nifty proposal for the Republicans to advance after they take over.

[hairshirthedonist]

I believe on a broader range of topics , particularly economics, people get more conservative as they age.

True dat.

[hairshirthedonist]

I might as well make it a double and say I like Brett's last comment. An unusual day on ObWi, this is. ;^)

[Brett Bellmore]

Of course people get more conservative as they age. After you've had 'good' ideas blow up in your face over and over, the appeal of leaving things that work well enough alone starts to grow on you.

[russell]

Maybe it's worth coming back, if only to tease the Count a bit.

How's this? Senate Republicans should be as bipartisan as Reid was

I guess I missed the part where the Count was calling on Republicans to be "bipartisan".