Why Democrats favor a Republican in Mass. « Columbus Underground Messageboard

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion » Politics

Why Democrats favor a Republican in Mass.

[65 posts] [26 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by Tenzo
Latest reply from Andrew Hall

Tags:

politics

« Previous 123 4 Next »

Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>
People are stunned that in a Democratic state people could be voting for a Republican.
To me it's pretty straight forward. No party, democrat, republican, green, whatever should have a 'super majority'. The news claims that losing the super majority will allow the Republicans to filabuster.
Looking at it from the other side it means that without a super majority, the merits must be debated in the open. Like maybe on C-SPAN.
Personally I think we need to go back to the origin. Congress was never supposed to be a full time job. It was scheduled to meet outside key agricultural schedules so that a representative could travel to DC to vote and put forward the desires of the people he represented.
What it has become now is nothing like the original intent

What I find straightforward about all this is that millions of centrist voters are still thirsting for change. Why do they feel that Obama is not delivering on the change he promised? This cyclical back-and-forth exchange of power between Republicans and Democrats every 2 to 8 years - whenever people get frustrated by the political process - it doesn't change anything. How does the status quo get maintained when there's so much outcry for change, from both sides of the political spectrum?

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

It's funny. Laugh.

Get the Flash Videos

Posted 2 years ago #
agtw31
columbus
Login to Send PM

hilarious

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

Brant Jones wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
People are stunned that in a Democratic state people could be voting for a Republican.
To me it's pretty straight forward. No party, democrat, republican, green, whatever should have a 'super majority'. The news claims that losing the super majority will allow the Republicans to filabuster.
Looking at it from the other side it means that without a super majority, the merits must be debated in the open. Like maybe on C-SPAN.
Personally I think we need to go back to the origin. Congress was never supposed to be a full time job. It was scheduled to meet outside key agricultural schedules so that a representative could travel to DC to vote and put forward the desires of the people he represented.
What it has become now is nothing like the original intent

What I find straightforward about all this is that millions of centrist voters are still thirsting for change. Why do they feel that Obama is not delivering on the change he promised? This cyclical back-and-forth exchange of power between Republicans and Democrats every 2 to 8 years - whenever people get frustrated by the political process - it doesn't change anything. How does the status quo get maintained when there's so much outcry for change, from both sides of the political spectrum?

Because you can get 90% in favor of changing the status quo and no more than 2% in favor of what we should change it to?

Posted 2 years ago #
howatzer

Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>

Bear wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
Was it that hard to make good on his basic promises?

The Obameter has him at 91 kept, 15 broken, 33 compromised, and 362 either stalled or "in the works" at present.
So it depends on how you look at it. 91 out of 500+ doesn't sound all that great, but on the other hand a 91-to-15 ratio isn't that bad.

What?
Since when can honesty be put forward on a ratio?
I only steal money out of the till on alternate Fridays, so overall, I'm an honest employee.
Why can't we hold people to their word (when it is their control)?

obama:"Will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government

I'm dissapointed that people would think partial honesty is all we can expect out of our representatives.

Now that's just silly. I wouldn't want a politician to blindly cling to a campaign promise when circumstances change, or they are presented with more information. I'm glad, and not surprised, Obama broke some of his promises. Much of it is the practical response to reality. The fault lies with the starry-eyed voters who actually bought the rhetoric. Anyone who actually believed that Obama was going to waltz in, close Gitmo, fix health care, make everyone love us in the middle east, and doing it all while televised on C-Span really needs to recouple with reality.

Posted 2 years ago #
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM

Bear wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
What?
Since when can honesty be put forward on a ratio? ...
I'm dissapointed that people would think partial honesty is all we can expect out of our representatives.

You were expecting 100%?
I'd actually love to see how past Presidents did on the same metric.

I'm not sure how comparing it to past people is any gage or excuse for present behavior. That is like stealing a towel from a hotel and saying; "everyone does it, they expect it".

Do I expect exceptional behavior from soemone representing me?
Heck yes, that is their job.

So my example was that C-SPAN should carry the debates. Saying that a person can not be expected to cling to his promises with changing data is a false argument called a "straw man" argument.

Posted 2 years ago #
drew

Login to Send PM

gramarye wrote >>

Brant Jones wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
People are stunned that in a Democratic state people could be voting for a Republican.
To me it's pretty straight forward. No party, democrat, republican, green, whatever should have a 'super majority'. The news claims that losing the super majority will allow the Republicans to filabuster.
Looking at it from the other side it means that without a super majority, the merits must be debated in the open. Like maybe on C-SPAN.
Personally I think we need to go back to the origin. Congress was never supposed to be a full time job. It was scheduled to meet outside key agricultural schedules so that a representative could travel to DC to vote and put forward the desires of the people he represented.
What it has become now is nothing like the original intent

What I find straightforward about all this is that millions of centrist voters are still thirsting for change. Why do they feel that Obama is not delivering on the change he promised? This cyclical back-and-forth exchange of power between Republicans and Democrats every 2 to 8 years - whenever people get frustrated by the political process - it doesn't change anything. How does the status quo get maintained when there's so much outcry for change, from both sides of the political spectrum?

Because you can get 90% in favor of changing the status quo and no more than 2% in favor of what we should change it to?

Or, OTOH, could it be because neither party has a good idea as to what the electorate wants? I do think there's a sweet spot that would resonate if found... it has happened before. It probably wouldn't make for major, fast, sweeping change but it would allow for some positive momentum.

To a degree, I am sympathetic to Tenzo's point - it is sad how rarely pols keep their promises. Percentages are nice, but they hide the potential significance (or appearance thereof) of major promises that are broken... and everyone has their favorite. In the aggregate, disillusion is the effect.

Posted 2 years ago #
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-18-2010/mass-backwards

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>

Bear wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
What?
Since when can honesty be put forward on a ratio? ...
I'm dissapointed that people would think partial honesty is all we can expect out of our representatives.

You were expecting 100%?
I'd actually love to see how past Presidents did on the same metric.

I'm not sure how comparing it to past people is any gage or excuse for present behavior. That is like stealing a towel from a hotel and saying; "everyone does it, they expect it".
Do I expect exceptional behavior from soemone representing me?
Heck yes, that is their job.

No argument -- but my point is, what constitutes "exceptional behavior"? One answer is to tell me what constitutes an acceptable absolute standard (and why). From the above, you seem to believe that there's some absolute metric, like 100% of promises kept, unconditionally, and that a single promise not kept (out of over 500 made) represents a breach of honor that's beyond the pale. (Shocked, shocked I am....) By a standard like that, any politician is bound to fail, and as Howatzer pointed out, any good one probably should, for good reasons (changing circumstances) or understandable ones (lack of perfect foresight). That's why I was trying to suggest an alternative criterion for what constitutes exceptional behavior -- exceptional relative to other Presidents. Yes, it means voting for a guy because he steals fewer towels than his predecessor (or, to Drew's point, maybe he steals fewer important ones), but if the alternative is waiting for the guy who never steals a towel, when political expediency (or lack of foresight) occasionally requires a towel... well, I'm just not holding my breath....

Posted 2 years ago #
berdawn
near that stretch of N. High Street in the Short North
Login to Send PM

howatzer wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>

Bear wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
Was it that hard to make good on his basic promises?

The Obameter has him at 91 kept, 15 broken, 33 compromised, and 362 either stalled or "in the works" at present.
So it depends on how you look at it. 91 out of 500+ doesn't sound all that great, but on the other hand a 91-to-15 ratio isn't that bad.

What?
Since when can honesty be put forward on a ratio?
I only steal money out of the till on alternate Fridays, so overall, I'm an honest employee.
Why can't we hold people to their word (when it is their control)?

obama:"Will maintain fiscal responsibility and prevent any increase in the deficit by offsetting cuts and revenue sources in other parts of the government

I'm dissapointed that people would think partial honesty is all we can expect out of our representatives.

Now that's just silly. I wouldn't want a politician to blindly cling to a campaign promise when circumstances change, or they are presented with more information. I'm glad, and not surprised, Obama broke some of his promises. Much of it is the practical response to reality. The fault lies with the starry-eyed voters who actually bought the rhetoric. Anyone who actually believed that Obama was going to waltz in, close Gitmo, fix health care, make everyone love us in the middle east, and doing it all while televised on C-Span really needs to recouple with reality.

Yes, let's not blame the actual members of congress or anything. Let's blame the people who thought that with a fucking super majority, SOMETHING might get done. Hell, the Franken amendment was a great leap forward, but it's not as thought that were a WH project. I'm hardly starry-eyed, but getting legislation through to end DADT and DOMA could have been done in the first three months. He bet the house on health care and now every other progressive issue will need to go live in a cardboard box for another eight years.

Posted 2 years ago #
Brant
Gahanna
Login to Send PM

Brant Jones wrote >>
What I find straightforward about all this is that millions of centrist voters are still thirsting for change.

At least Obama agrees with me.

Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.

RTWT.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Brant Jones wrote >>

Brant Jones wrote >>
What I find straightforward about all this is that millions of centrist voters are still thirsting for change.

At least Obama agrees with me.

Here's my assessment of not just the vote in Massachusetts, but the mood around the country. The same thing that swept Scott Brown into office swept me into office. People are angry, and they're frustrated. Not just because of what's happened in the last year or two years, but what's happened over the last eight years.

RTWT.

Read as: It's still Bush's fault?

If that's the best they've got, they deserve to crash and burn.

Posted 2 years ago #
gramarye
In Exile
Login to Send PM

They're going to be blaming Bush right up until they realize that people aren't buying it. And since the choirs to whom they preach will be the last to stop buying it, they're actually going to keep blaming Bush well past the time when it's no longer really effective at winning elections. (Browsing around left-wing blogs like C&L, I also note that they have a somewhat darkly romanticized view of just how long Reagan was able to keep blaming Carter for everything, and think that Obama should be able to do the same with Bush Jr.)

That said, I stand by what I said earlier in this thread: I'm not seeing the Mass. election as a rebuke to Obama as much as to the Mass. Democrats. If this were a presidential election, Obama would still have carried the state handily.

Posted 2 years ago #
Bear
The woods
Login to Send PM

http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/senate-republicans/exit-poll-only-38-said-opposition-to-obama-policies-drove-massachusetts-vote/

Posted 2 years ago #
UncommonSense
Hilliard
Login to Send PM

Just when I thought Downfall spoofs were played, you had to prove me wrong Rus. That was funny.

Here's an honest question. If the current proposals (House and Senate) for healthcare reform were presented last year, would you favor them? Would you even believe Democrats wrote them? I don't think losing this bill is any great loss actually. Then again, maybe they will be forced to work with Republicans now and actually get something worthwhile.

Posted 2 years ago #
StowCbusCleveland
Jackson Township, Canton, OH
Login to Send PM

Bush did pretty much whatever he wanted when the Senate was 50-50. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't think 59-41 should cripple the 59.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

StowCbusCleveland wrote >>
Bush did pretty much whatever he wanted when the Senate was 50-50. Maybe I'm the only one, but I don't think 59-41 should cripple the 59.

it all depends on how the dem leadership reads it. the initial signals were pretty bad in terms of capitulation. when dem reaction to the loss is to say it's mathematically impossible for them to get anything done now, it's not a good sign (even if it's the baldest lie in the world).

frankly, the dem leadership in the senate is terrible (it will be a relief when reid loses/gives up his seat in his next election cycle). a better leader would've already figured out the lieberman just got a lot less important as #59, than he was at #60.

mass dems put up a terrible candidate and got the result they deserved w/ a lot of pro-obama people staying home or switching sides. i don't find the "fear" of super-majority registered in any of the polls (as if the dems actually knew what to do with their super-majority), but it's pretty clear enough dissatisfied pro-obama folk switched sides either for local reasons or they were just plenty po'd. obama's not really giving people a strong reason to stay with the whole team.

with the kind of candidates the dems have had up in nj & ma, i get the feeling their next bright idea may be to put up lloyd blankinfeld (sic) for a senate seat somewheres.

Posted 2 years ago #
J.R. Locke
Weinland Park
Login to Send PM

Our political parties have shown us exactly how they are really only good at dividing up districts so they continue to win local, state and most house districts without competition. These state wide elections will always follow our current war situation, economic situation and who slept with who scenarios.

I brought up Contract with America because in 1994 this was basically the same situation Bill Clinton came into. Ross Perot stoked the fires of fiscal responsibility and the Republicans used some moral issues along with this fiscal conservationism to gain a huge midterm election win in 1994. It strangled government in Washington and led to some of the most partisan politics we have ever had which became more magnified by the Clinton impeachment hearing in his second term (the term where all those contract with america republicans ran for re-election when they promised not to).

People forget the Clinton's came in with the same song and dance that Obama did. Hilary clinging to family's GOP roots, Bill as the great communicator they were going to change Washington. Clinton was not a real liberal by any means on the campaign trail or in office. But the Clinton's big accomplishment was "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and of course a free trade initiative.

We are seeing the same song and dance now. These tea parties are nothing different than the same Ross Perot styled voting block combined with some thinly guised racial, ideological hate on the fringes.

America is a socially, fiscally and morally a conservative nation (this board is wildly urban and radical from my perspective). The only reason the GOP doesn't own America is because of their racism (which could actually be how they toe the line so well though). The majority of black voters are conservative on wedge issues like gay marriage, abortion and most other issues that invoke morality. If the GOP could ever break even with the black vote (instead of getting 5-10%) they would reign over America like all polls say they should.

Anyway the biggest issue for me isn't how we are going to pay for anything but our wars. When very few sacrifice for war in a democracy that equals the greatest indicator of potential trouble. So go shopping. Oh wait you don't have a job.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

J.R. Locke wrote >>
America is a socially, fiscally and morally a conservative nation (this board is wildly urban and radical from my perspective).

you might want to re-read texts on numerous american historical periods that put the lie to such a massive, and meaningless, over-generalization (which frankly is nothing more than a xeroxing of a right wingerism, and not even a particularly novel one at that). i'd start with lincoln's dismantling of the "conservative" defense of slavery in his speech as a state senator.

a more proper statement would be "american conservatives are often socially, fiscally, and morally hypocritical (plus they frighten easily)".

if america was truly a conservative nation, we'd still be british.

as for paying for our wars, that's easy, we aren't going to, the chinese are (just like they have been).

Posted 2 years ago #
J.R. Locke
Weinland Park
Login to Send PM

myliftkk wrote >>

J.R. Locke wrote >>
America is a socially, fiscally and morally a conservative nation (this board is wildly urban and radical from my perspective).

you might want to re-read texts on numerous american historical periods that put the lie to such a massive, and meaningless, over-generalization
if america was truly a conservative nation, we'd still be british.

Currently we are a conservative nation in comparison to the world. Historically we may have been the opposite but currently we are conservative.

The difference between America is and not America was. I believe the trend towards conservatism comes from prosperity and a change in labor forces.

Posted 2 years ago #