FWIS3

http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics ... both-sides

You know, I get it. The Republican party is run by a bunch of good ol boys who don't want a nigger as President.
What a bunch of twats.
At least they provide comic value to the world while they are the opposition.
Fear naturally when they get in power.

The color of their skin may change, but to quote the British Poet Society known Collectively as Led Zeppelin.......

The Song Remains the Same

In 1934, critics of Roosevelt's New Deal reforms categorized him as a "prickly Julius Caesar."

What I find fascinating about the whole thing is per here Obama has done 182 executive orders, GWB did 291 and Clinton did 364... Bush 166 but he was only there for four years... and Reagan did 320. (Previous presidents in wartime did thousands.) It does not take more than a fraction of a second to realize Dictator Obama is a really crappy dictator by those standards. I guess the argument that'll be made is unlike Bush they don't agree with Obama's decisions...

Yeah, I'm sure this'll be a totally rational debate when discussed with my dad at some point where all the arguments will hinge on logic.

The real question is: will Joe Average reward the 'pubs with the Senate in November? because if they do the "HNIC Dictator" will be busy writing vetoes instead of executive orders........

What amazes me is how short the electorates memory is. A crooked politician last week is this week's champion of justice.

another factor that I see a lot is that many very intelligent people have decided that somehow Obama is responsible for EVERYTHING that has gone wrong with the country since 2006. (yes, I deliberately chose a date 2 years before he was even elected).

Sigma_Orionis wrote:The real question is: will Joe Average reward the 'pubs with the Senate in November? because if they do the "HNIC Dictator" will be busy writing vetoes instead of executive orders........

I think this will have zero impact on Joe Average. Joe Average already either hates Obama or doesn't and their vote for a senator will be little influenced by that.

The individual senate races are ultimately local races, and in close races often turn on something of concern to the locals (or turn on personalities). So, for example, the candidates positions on immigration probably sell well in the southwest, but don't count for much in Maine (for example).

I agree with swift- mid-term elections are local ones.

The interesting thing about it all to me though is there's a good chance if the Republicans gain ground then they can still get complacent and pummeled in 2016, because gerrymandering and the like doesn't necessarily mean that because they gain ground doesn't mean everyone is now going to vote Republican. Namely because they have done jack shit.

As usual, I tend to give Joe Average in the US more credit than you guys (probably because it's local equivalent: ie "Juan Bimba" has voted for Chavez & Co for the last 15 years).

According to Real Clear Politics the thing is right on the knife edge. Although 6 of the 8 tossup states are "Red States" so, it looks like the Senate might fall in Republican Hands anyways. Ergo, this time looks like I'll be wrong in assuming that Joe Average will use his head.

Rommie wrote:The interesting thing about it all to me though is there's a good chance if the Republicans gain ground then they can still get complacent and pummeled in 2016, because gerrymandering and the like doesn't necessarily mean that because they gain ground doesn't mean everyone is now going to vote Republican. Namely because they have done jack shit.

I disagree about gerrymandering. The Republicans were pretty brilliant (or their friends like the Koch brothers were). They made a deliberate push to get hold of state legislatures and governorships, for multiple reasons. But one of the consequences is that it has allowed them to control the post-2010 census redistricting in those states, and they have gerrymandered like crazy. I feel this is a big part of their control of the House.

But this doesn't have really have effect in the Senate, at least not directly, since an entire state is the district.

One thing I'm unsure about is the strong anti-Congress feeling in this country (the not doing jack shit part). The feeling seems to cross party lines among voters. One might think that this would lead to a lot of incumbants, both Senate and House, Republicans and Democrats getting tossed.

But its funny. I've seen lots of elections where people will say...
"Yeah! Toss the whole lot of 'em out!".
"Does that mean you're going to vote against your Congressman Joe Pol?"
"Vote against Joe? Oh no, he's a good guy and he's brought a lot of money and jobs to our district. Look at the sweetheart deal he got to fund the Joe Pol Senior Center for the Study of Whatever the Heck We Do Around Here; that was brilliant. Or all the FEMA money we got after that plague of locusts. Yep, we need a lot less government... well, we don't need less, but everyone else does!"

Question about gerrymandering: Why the hell don't you fine folks have a non-partisan commission draw up district boundaries at every re-districting rather than allow partisan hacks to have their way with things?

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Question about gerrymandering: Why the hell don't you fine folks have a non-partisan commission draw up district boundaries at every re-districting rather than allow partisan hacks to have their way with things?

Because we have a corrupt government, and no matter that sometimes one district will see sense. Unless the whole country comes together and votes in people of like mind that want to make the country a better place, nothing short of revolution is going to bring lasting change at this point.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Question about gerrymandering: Why the hell don't you fine folks have a non-partisan commission draw up district boundaries at every re-districting rather than allow partisan hacks to have their way with things?

Because our system still has vestiges of the old political system which allowed the winners of elections to reward their supporters with things like jobs and other sinecures. The party that wins often gets to control things like re-drawing district lines. 200 years ago everyone thought it was ok to reward your supporters with jobs, more money for your redrawn electoral districts, and even things like massive building projects.

It actually makes sense in a strange sort of way. I could care less about what is happening in South Dakota but I sure think it's important for Sacramento CA to get money for road improvements. After all if they fix the infrastructure my commute may actually be more fun. So, when my state legislator says "hey, if you all vote for me I will be sure to vote for increased funding for roads in Sacramento" I want to vote for him. And then if he helps create a district that votes for increasing the funding for better roads (in Sacramento of course) why that just makes sense. Because the people who don't feel the same way would rather be in a district where they can vote for better roads in South Dakota... Right?

Of course, there is that fringe group in the district that feels disenfranchised but they can move to another district and become franchised. After all it is a free country.

And in reality what you suggest is more or less what is supposed to happen. The re-districting is supposed to align districts so that the state legislators are representing their actual electorate. But, on occasion one group will get enough political clout in the state legislation that they can rig the game. Like what has happened in Texas.

See, I get that - but what I'm asking is why it still happens given that it isn't supposed to anymore. Why are politicians with "enough clout" allowed to rig things? We have a very similar history when it comes to voting up here (in fact, it's probably a hell of a lot shadier than US history), but we managed to get that non-partisan committee in place. What I don't understand is why the US hasn't done so as well.

SciFiFisher wrote:Of course, there is that fringe group in the district that feels disenfranchised but they can move to another district and become franchised.

Because moving doesn't cost any time or money... Duh.

Gullible Jones wrote:

SciFiFisher wrote:Of course, there is that fringe group in the district that feels disenfranchised but they can move to another district and become franchised.

Because moving doesn't cost any time or money... Duh.

Hey are you matching my snark and sarcasm with snark and sarcasm back?

The Supreme Canuck wrote:See, I get that - but what I'm asking is why it still happens given that it isn't supposed to anymore. Why are politicians with "enough clout" allowed to rig things? We have a very similar history when it comes to voting up here (in fact, it's probably a hell of a lot shadier than US history), but we managed to get that non-partisan committee in place. What I don't understand is why the US hasn't done so as well.

The short answer is "because". The long answer is that most people don't realize that we really are not ONE big homogenous group. We really are a confederation of over 50 states and territories with a very fractured way of conducting our business. We really didn't want a strong central federal government. We only reluctantly allowed one because it was the only way we could do business with each other and the world. And keep the rest of the world from treating us like an ugly mentally deficient red headed step child that they could take advantage of every time they felt like it.

And at the local and state level they often go to great lengths to prove that they are still a happy little independent group who runs things their way dang it.

That's what I was afraid of. Maddening. "Because" indeed...

The USA is a bit like the EU, only not as consistent. lol

The Supreme Canuck wrote:See, I get that - but what I'm asking is why it still happens given that it isn't supposed to anymore. Why are politicians with "enough clout" allowed to rig things? We have a very similar history when it comes to voting up here (in fact, it's probably a hell of a lot shadier than US history), but we managed to get that non-partisan committee in place. What I don't understand is why the US hasn't done so as well.

It's definitely weird. I still vote in Ohio for example (rule is you vote in the last state you resided in) and during the last presidential election we actually had an amendment for a nonpartisan redistricting panel to be put in place- basically Ohio is so divided both parties realized they can be screwed over quite easily. But it was defeated- a lot of my friends on Facebook who are normally quite sane and lovely people in politics were hugely against it, so I asked why. I seem to recall it was something like people were worried that ZOMG there were going to be these unelected people in charge of something so important and there would be no accountability, and there were "flaws" that would be impossible to change if they were in the Ohio constitution itself.

Yes, you read that right. It was pretty fucking dumb.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:See, I get that - but what I'm asking is why it still happens given that it isn't supposed to anymore. Why are politicians with "enough clout" allowed to rig things? We have a very similar history when it comes to voting up here (in fact, it's probably a hell of a lot shadier than US history), but we managed to get that non-partisan committee in place. What I don't understand is why the US hasn't done so as well.

Because the people in power want it this way. The party in power tries to stay in power, the party out of power complains bitterly how unfair it is and we need a nonpartisan system. If and when the party in power changes, suddenly their positions change too.

Isn't if funny how the Senate Republicans hated the filabuster when they were in power, but when they became the minority, suddenly it was the best things since sliced bread.

In my youth I would have followed this up with a rant that the voters are fundamentally to blame, for not standing up for their rights and voting the bums out. But I've grown to doubt that too. The system is broken and just seems to be getting worse and I don't think anything will really change it. At least I feel powerless to do anything about it and I have other things to take care of....

DENNIS: You're fooling yourself. We're living in a dictatorship.
A self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes--

Swift wrote:[
In my youth I would have followed this up with a rant that the voters are fundamentally to blame, for not standing up for their rights and voting the bums out. But I've grown to doubt that too. The system is broken and just seems to be getting worse and I don't think anything will really change it. At least I feel powerless to do anything about it and I have other things to take care of....

Welcome friend!
Remember, don't vote, you'll only encourage the bastards!
I say that for laughs but the reality is they need no encouragement from us, they get it from the rich.
We're going where they want us to go.
Voting only marginally slows the process making your pain and misery longer.

Rommie wrote:

The Supreme Canuck wrote:See, I get that - but what I'm asking is why it still happens given that it isn't supposed to anymore. Why are politicians with "enough clout" allowed to rig things? We have a very similar history when it comes to voting up here (in fact, it's probably a hell of a lot shadier than US history), but we managed to get that non-partisan committee in place. What I don't understand is why the US hasn't done so as well.

It's definitely weird. I still vote in Ohio for example (rule is you vote in the last state you resided in) and during the last presidential election we actually had an amendment for a nonpartisan redistricting panel to be put in place- basically Ohio is so divided both parties realized they can be screwed over quite easily. But it was defeated- a lot of my friends on Facebook who are normally quite sane and lovely people in politics were hugely against it, so I asked why. I seem to recall it was something like people were worried that ZOMG there were going to be these unelected people in charge of something so important and there would be no accountability, and there were "flaws" that would be impossible to change if they were in the Ohio constitution itself.

Yes, you read that right. It was pretty fucking dumb.

...

Pardon me while I scream forever.

Swift: But it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe the question I should be asking is how places outside the US have managed to create redistricting systems free from undue political influence and gerrymandering. Because it's absolutely possible to do that.

The Supreme Canuck wrote:Swift: But it doesn't have to be that way. Maybe the question I should be asking is how places outside the US have managed to create redistricting systems free from undue political influence and gerrymandering. Because it's absolutely possible to do that.

I'll take you at your word that such places exist, I don't know for sure. And if so, I don't have a clue as to how you get to such a place from where the US is now.

Though I disagree with lots (most) of their positions, I thought the Tea Party might shake up the system. But they have just become a new version of the hyper-conservative Christian Right, mixed in with a good dose of the CT crazies (Obama is controlling our minds with HAARP mind rays). They are only making things worse and leading to more polarization and more gridlock.

I thought the Occupy Wallstreet types might have an impact, but they've completely disappeared and only made a bunch of noise while they were around.

After that... I've got zilch.

@FZ - I'm not sure how much of what you said if funny or serious; my guess is all of it is serious and some of it is funny. Maybe I'm stupid or its some disease or whatever, I really can't not vote. Some sort of Civics disease I caught as a child. And I have to make my vote as informed as I can.

But I don't really think it will make a difference, either better or worse. And I've given up giving any of them my money, even the ones I like.

It doesn't make me happy, it doesn't even make me particularly angry, just kind of mopey-sad-I don't give a damn.

You nailed it.
It's serious and some of it is funny in a sick kind of way.

Swift wrote:Maybe I'm stupid or its some disease or whatever, I really can't not vote. Some sort of Civics disease I caught as a child. And I have to make my vote as informed as I can.

But I don't really think it will make a difference, either better or worse. And I've given up giving any of them my money, even the ones I like.

It doesn't make me happy, it doesn't even make me particularly angry, just kind of mopey-sad-I don't give a damn.

That's pretty much me, except rather than mopey-sad, I am angry. Impotent, infuriating anger. I can only hope the stories I'm working on will make a difference, because my voting sure as hell doesn't, no matter what brite says.