Dems to take the House

[Wesley]

The Democrats are far from being able to "bully" through legislation.

True, but there are several subpoints. They can still bully through stuff to be shot down so that they can later point fingers. Or, conversely, they can stall legislation in committee for prolonged periods of time.

Also, it isn't just legislation. The dems have already announced a number of investigations and pundits are talking about censures and impeachment and a whole host of stuff that the Congress can do on its own without consulting the Executive Branch.


I actually think there's a chance Bush will work well with a Democrat-controlled legislature.

If by this you mean "cave, and give them whatever they want," I pretty much agree. If he doesn't he's a lame duck and his numbers are down. And it isn't like he has to face re-election for his choices. He'll go into 'thinking about his legacy' mode here shortly.

[shando]

I'm not holding my breath:

[quote]After calling for bipartisanship, President Bush surprised Senate Democrats late Tuesday by renominating a controversial list of judges – some of whom may be unacceptable even to a few Republican senators. “It’s an unfortunate signal,â€

[the_orf]

But the two-party system is in this country's political DNA. It's continuance is practically assured by the way the Constitution is written. And barring some kind of crisis that destroys the system of government that the Constitution enshrines, I don't see it going away.

Shannon, while you make valid points that the various players' desires to maintain power is a large reason for the two-party system, I think there is an even bigger reason that is even simpler to understand: our voting protocol.

Voting methods have been a vibrant topic about the AIC on various threads, and with good reason. They drastically affect how people vote. I personally feel the single-choice voting the U.S. now uses does voters a disservice. Many mathematicians agree with me. I know Wes is a big fan of approval voting, and Bob loves the rank-order or instant-runoff voting. Any of them would be an improvement over single-choice voting.

The most recent glaring example of this was the 2000 election, when the cry "a vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" was heard regularly. THAT is the thinking that keeps a two-party system in power: constituents fear to vote for a third party because it means that a hated candidate might get an edge over a tolerable candidate if they cast their vote for a loved candidate.

A vote for Nader should have been a vote for Nader, not anybody else. A vote for Robertson should have been a vote for Robertson. To force people to not vote for some candidate they desire just to keep a certain other candidate out of office is whack. But that's what our voting system does.

If you like A, and you think B is okay, and you don't like C, and you detest D, then you should get to vote that way. You should get to say "I'll take either A or B" or you should get to say "I'll take A first, and if A doesn't have enough to win, then I'll take B." But you shouldn't have to say "I like A, but I won't vote for A, because that would mean I can't have B as my second choice but rather that I'm stuck with D as my possible outcome."

If any of the multiple-vote options were allowed, I think you would see a lot of people voting for something like "both A and B" or "both C and D." This would lead to a strengthening of any third or even fourth parties, just because people wouldn't feel like voting for their most desirable candidate was a totally lost cause.

It wouldn't take a massive Constitutional overhaul to adjust this. It would just take a change in the voting methodology.

[the_orf]

I also have a pretty simple theory about voter apathy. It's called "Americans are comfortable."

In developing or unstable countries, people can see a direct correlation between who is in power and how they live. In America, there's not such a strong connection.

No matter who is in power in the U.S. Congress, most people are going to wake up in a decent house, turn on the electric lights (which will work), make use of (clean & sanitary) running water, drive a car they own on a decently paved to wherever they work, come home, turn on a color television, and eat some fatty food (and grow obese). How many people in the U.S. actually saw a major difference in their lifestyle due to some governmental policies? Not many.

In the 40s, LBJ campaigned in Texas on the issue of bringing electricity to the Hill Country. He got elected, and sure enough, power lines went up thanks the the Pedernales Electric Co-op. Texans suddenly could turn the lights on--a direct effect of their voting. And sure enough, they voted for LBJ again, with sizeable turnouts.

But now? What issues are out there that people really feel will affect their lives? Roads? We got 'em. Power? Water? Food? Got 'em. Housing? Poorer folks need some help, but most people have roofs over their head--and houses nowadays are gi-normous! Affordable medicine is a big issue for some people. Immigration to some, maybe, because they'll have more competition for their jobs. Global warming? Too vague and conceptual for most people. Foreign policy? Who'd want to travel where people don't speak American?

Point is, it's not just that people feel their vote won't affect the overall outcome, it's that they feel the overall outcome won't make a difference in their lives either. So why go through the hassle of trekking to the voting booth and learning about any candidates? There are more worthwhile things to do with our time--like catching up on TV.

[yodApollo]

While that might be true, the fact is that third party candidates are why Perry is still Governor in Texas.

Without Kinky and Strayhorn, I think it's fairly obvious that Bell would have carried that election.

The fact is, third parties do tend to appeal more to the left. As long the left is willing to split their vote, the right has an easy time getting into office.

While the "Democrats" proved strong in this election, it is easy to see that it was the more conservative arm of the party that really took home the gold.

I agree with you that it's sad that people can Campaign on things like "A Vote for Nader is a vote for Bush" but sadly, it is sometimes true.

At least for now.

[shando]

While the "Democrats" proved strong in this election, it is easy to see that it was the more conservative arm of the party that really took home the gold.

This is a bunch of media bullshit and don't believe it. A handful (3 or 4 depending on how you slive them) of Dems in rural districts won. They also happen to have conservative views of social issues, like guns, abortion, and gay rights. So Heath Shuler and Brad Ellsworth get trotted ought to 'prove' that Democrats won by becoming more conservative. But they negelect to look at Shuler's attitudes about economics. He's an old school economic populist.

And that also neglects the the remaining 25 or 26 new Democrats in the house who defeated Republicans and who couldn't even remotely be described as conservative. People like Jerry McNerney, Dave Loesback, Joe Courtney, John Hall, Kirsten Gillibarnd, Jason Altmire, Carol Shea-Porter, Paul Hodes, John Yarmuth. And in the Senate, Tester's not a fan of gun control, be he's anti-Patriot Act, pro-environment, etc. etc. Sherrod Brown, Sheldon Whitehouse, Claire McCaskill, nice solid center-left choices all. And the abortion ban in south Dakota went down, as well as the anti-gay marriage ban in Arizona.

The notion that last Tuesday was a victory for conservatism is a fucking turd-steaked werewolf cooked up in the minds of Rupert Murdoch and Tim Russert that I will stab in the heart every day until it dies forever.

[arclight]

The notion that last Tuesday was a victory for conservatism is a fucking turd-steaked werewolf cooked up in the minds of Rupert Murdoch and Tim Russert that I will stab in the heart every day until it dies forever.

Aye. That's the sort of nattering that's expected out of the useless pundit class, just a tidbit assuage the mouthbreathing Fox News diehards and talking heads like Carville, etc. so they don't see "!RESOL" in the mirror every morning for the next 2 years. Between "that radical freak" Dean and the "delusional" types out in Left Blogistan (both of whom fell for that unworkable, resource-wasting "50 state strategy"), the Dems lost their chance to be also-rans this season and instead ended up controlling both houses.

More people voted, and more people voted for Dems than Republicans. That some of those voters were moderate and conservative independents and Republicans doesn't matter. I don't see that the Dem platform had shifted more to the right in any area since Clinton. Insurance, health care, employment, minimum wage, the justification for the Iraq war and prosecution of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, the sheer incompetence and naked corruption of the the current Administration and lapdog Republican Congress is enough to drive any but the hardcore authoritarian cultists out of the Republican party. There are some social or economic conservatives out that that voted Dem, but not because the Dems are conservative, but because the alternative was a pack of no-talent deficit-spending whores for Halliburton and/or mistress-choking pedophiles.

The Dems didn't win on a progressive platform - just ask uber-progressives Rahm Emmanuel & Chuck Schumer as they try to sweep Dean and the internet crazies who did all that fundraising and legwork under the rug now that the dust has settled. The Dems won because they and their candidates were on the whole much less vile than their opponents.

[York99]

In the 40s, LBJ campaigned in Texas on the issue of bringing electricity to the Hill Country. He got elected, and sure enough, power lines went up thanks the the Pedernales Electric Co-op. Texans suddenly could turn the lights on--a direct effect of their voting. And sure enough, they voted for LBJ again, with sizeable turnouts.

LBJ: The greatest president for Texas, the worst president for the United States.

Fun fact: Best President of the United States: William Henry Harrison

[yodApollo]

Shando,

You talk about how the election was not a "win" for conservatism. You use Arizona's defeat of the same-sex marriage ban as an exmaple. Tell me, how does that jive with the 8 other states (Alabama, Colorado, Idaho, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Virginia & Wisconsin) that PASSED same-sex marriage bans in the last six months, seven of them less than two weeks ago on election day? If this nation doesn't lean a little right, how do you account for some 27 of the 50 states now banning gay marriage?

You mention John Tester being pro-environment, and anti-patriot act. Tell me, should we still classify him as a left-to-centrist when it comes to gay-marriage or gay rights? In truth, Tester voted FOR Montana's gay-marriage ban as a state senator in 2004. Sure, he opposes amending the US Constitution, but only because he doesn't think that the Constitution should be amended at all. The fact is that it takes a dilligent eye to tell whether Tester would be a Democrat or Republican were he running against almost anyone other than Conrad Burns (who is a fucktard, by the way).

In reality, this election was a terrible election for Gay Rights. To say THAT isn't a win for conservatism is a little ridiculous. You can't overlook an issue when it involves equal rights to all citizens just because we want to feel better and be the "winners" for a change. I wish liberalism HAD won this election, but it didn't. We STILL live in a predominantly conservative nation that is still scared of change. I wish it weren't true. But, like I said, ignoring issues like that is a grave disservice to all those people who aren't getting to enjoy the freedoms that all straight Americans take for granted.

[York99]

yodApollo,
I have no idea who you are, but I agree with the sentiments that I assume you have in that all politicians are scum bags (I still am stamped out, by the way).

I will also amend my earlier post to give Reagan a voice of being the worst president... only because of the enormous shift to the right that the country took during the '80s.

I will also throw my vote in the ring for worst American of all time: John Hinckley, Jr. If that SOB would have had better aim, we wouldn't be in this mess at all... we'd be in an entirely different one.