Your thoughts on Obama - now and then

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Voting third party only works if so many people votes third party that it forms a viable third party in the electoral race. The progressives need a movement, which I feel does not exist in any real capacity. The closest thing I saw to a real progressive movement was the 2008 Obama campaign. And after Obama was elected, it was as if the entire movement evaporated.

You do realize you just confirmed exactly what I said about how we're boxed into the 2-party system because people are convinced that voting for a third party is a wasted vote, right? Thanks for making my point. You've accepted that the status quo is the only option.

I never disagreed about the way we're boxed into the 2-party system. But I never even implied that the status quo is the only option. I am saying the mere act of voting for a third party is pointless unless the said third party is viable. And there won't be a viable third party in America unless there is a large movement to convince a large sect of the American population to vote for that third party. Equating the idea that "merely voting third party is throwing away your vote" to "the status quo is the only option" is a misrepresentation of my statements. The status quo is NOT the only option but simply voting third party is not a productive solution either.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Wow. Did you figure that one out on your own?

No, I knew that before then, but have you figured out that you're a part of the problem?

My vote for a third party won't create a viable third party.

If you don't vote for a Third Party then you can't make it viable.

My point was that you need a movement to convince large swaths of the population to vote for said third party for a third party to be viable.

Yeah, and when we try and make one of those movements dipshits like yourself complain that they're not a viable Third Party yet and we'll 'throw away' our votes. Which is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, since continuing to vote Republcan-Democrat is no better as you're going to continue getting the same Right-Center Right bullshit we've been getting. The least you can do with your vote is 'waste' it on making a statement to the Democrats or helping to create a Third Party option.

And there won't be a viable third party in America unless there is a large movement to convince a large sect of the American population to vote for that third party.

You can't expect people to support a Third Party option if you yourself refuse to fucking vote for it because it's not viable.

In effect what you're doing is being as dishonest as the Democrats have been. You say you want fucking change, but you refuse to do anything about it.

[Illuminatus Primus]

This thread is yet another sublime monument to the lengths Palinite myth-worshipping illiterates will go to defend their nightly masturbation subject, while showcase the endless competence they have for repeating whatever the designated right-wing blog told them the right party line was on the topic.

Third-parties are not viable without massive constitutional and electoral reform. Its called Duverger's Law. Look it up. Its well-attested in the political science literature. Between Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party Competition", Maurice Duverger's Law, and Robert Dahl's "How Democratic Is the U.S. Constitution" explains all one needs to know about the fundamental structural roots of the dysfunction in the American political and electoral system.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

Wow. Did you figure that one out on your own?

No, I knew that before then, but have you figured out that you're a part of the problem?

My vote for a third party won't create a viable third party.

If you don't vote for a Third Party then you can't make it viable.

An extra vote for an obscure third party won't make it viable, you moron.

My point was that you need a movement to convince large swaths of the population to vote for said third party for a third party to be viable.

Yeah, and when we try and make one of those movements dipshits like yourself complain that they're not a viable Third Party yet and we'll 'throw away' our votes.

WHAT MOVEMENT?

Which is the dumbest thing I've heard in a while, since continuing to vote Republcan-Democrat is no better as you're going to continue getting the same Right-Center Right bullshit we've been getting. The least you can do with your vote is 'waste' it on making a statement to the Democrats or helping to create a Third Party option.

Such bullshit. The least you can do is vote Democrat to help ensure that the GOP won't do any more damage than it already can. That's the absolute least you can do. Voting for a non-viable third party will have the same effect as not voting at all.

And there won't be a viable third party in America unless there is a large movement to convince a large sect of the American population to vote for that third party.

You can't expect people to support a Third Party option if you yourself refuse to fucking vote for it because it's not viable.

I didn't say I want to create a viable third party, you illiterate douche. All I said was that you simply voting for a third party won't make it viable and won't even help an ounce to produce the change you want. In fact, if every single member of SDNET voted for said third party, it would do diddly squat. For a third party to be viable, massive social and political change has to occur. And guess what? The whole "Democrats disappoint me! I'm going to vote third-party!" mentality doesn't help one bit to enable that social and political change. You keep doing that and the most you'll ever do is repeat what happened in 2000 where a slightly significant voting electoral gave Bush the presidency by voting for Nader.

In effect what you're doing is being as dishonest as the Democrats have been. You say you want fucking change, but you refuse to do anything about it.

Fuck you asshole. I'm not going to do something that I know won't produce results. Contrary to your claim, I'm being brutally honest about my actions. You're the one living in some wishful fantasy land thinking that perhaps you voting third party is going to somehow magically translate into social and political change. I just happen to that think it's more practical for progressives to work to elect more progressive candidates for the Democratic party than it is for them to try to create the social and political change to make a third party viable.

[Pint0 Xtreme]

I hear people say all the time that they should either vote third party, GOP or abstain from voting. How does that move the progressive movement closer to their goals?

When the GOP loses an election, they figure they weren't "conservative" enough, so they shift boldly to the Right.
When the Democrats lose an election, they figure they weren't "moderate" enough, so they... shift meekly to the Right.

The USA is more conservative in general, but it gives the impression that there are no votes to be found on the Left, and no need to court those votes. Remember that if you hint that "maybe a little government regulation to deter unfair business practices" might be a good thing, you are shrieked at as a "socialist", and tossed in with folks like the Communist Party of the United States or the Socialist People's Party.

As the GOP shifts hard-right, and the Dems shift center-right, the whole left field of the political spectrum is opened up for disaffected voters who are tired of the descent into lunacy. By writing off the Democrats as "GOP-Lite" and inflating the ranks of, say, the Greens party, the Democratic Party can realize that they can either, 1) continue to become the sissy auxiliary of the Republicans, or 2) realize that there are still votes to be harvested back on the Left and re-position themselves.

As it is, continuing to vote Democrat is saying "moderation and being the Republican's Poodles is the right course to take, and I'll reaffirm that by giving you my vote". But if people show the Democrats that Progressives votes cannot be taken for granted and that there are conditions and consequences for Progressive support, the Democrats will have to make their choice-- or continue their slide into irrelevancy as the Greens (or someone) takes their position as an actual opposition worthy of the name.

Like you said, when Democrats lose an election, they shift slightly to the right. In 2000, a lot of people voted for the green party. But as a consequence, I don't think the Democratic party felt that they weren't far left enough. Win or lose, the Democrats either stay in their place or shift slightly right in the political spectrum.

[Count Chocula]

And what's all the hoo-haa about TelePrompters? Reagan, Clinton, both Bushes used TelePrompters. Sarah Palin used notes written on her hand. What is this, a history test in Junior High?

Lots and lots of people (pardon the shit grammar) have used TelePrompTers, but Obama in particular seems to be just totally fucking lost when he doesn't have a script before him. I think it's ironic that the smooth talking silver-tongued devil turns into Elmer Fudd when his pre-packaged message goes tits up. All the former Presidents you mentioned were at least passable at off-the-cuff speaking. Frankly, I'd superficially respect Obama more (hint hint campaign strategists) if he did NOT use the 'PrompTer at every single solitary engagement, but sometimes stood at a lectern and referred to written notes. I may hate his message, principles and goals, but goddamn the man appears lost without a canned script, and in my mind reinforces the C2 hypothetical of a person with an obscure agenda.

StarshipTitanic handled the supermajority point well, so fair enough. Most legislation, the health care "reform" bill, for example, passed with a simple majority. I know, I'm shooting a dead horse, but again, HE DIDN'T NEED A SINGLE REPUBLICAN! The fucking health care bill passed IMO because Pelosi and Reid rammed the thing through. Even on possibly the most seminal legislation (for its scope and future influence it easily compares to the SS Act) passed in the last 2 years, the Pepsi-Can logo, Organizing for America, Union Guy, Blessed-Great-Holy-Anointed One, Bumper Sticker Maker Maker-Rich Barack Obama appeared out to lunch! Feh.

The DADT example was, as already mentioned, shitfart poor: it passed!

Pinto, it's nice to see the old-school SDN debate style again! Keep it up, you flaming douchebag, you!

What, nobody knows which three politicians I quoted a page or two back? For shame.

[Illuminatus Primus]

Obama deliberately aloofed the health care legislation to avoid the purported over micromangerialism of "HillaryCare" by the Clinton Administration in the 1990s; he wanted it to be Reid and Pelosi's problem, as well as to avoid the likelihood of upsetting some of his primary constituents (health care businesses). This was covered in reporting, but I'm sure you missed it.

Oh but I forgot, this is clearly just as likely as an explanation as "his intelligence in public is lacking because he's like Elmer Fudd hurrdy hurr hurr". Comparing him to an apparent literal moron like Sarah the Simple is just beyond the pale of reason, if we're discussing an ability to appear lucid and ineligible in public. "Off-the-cuff speaking"? You want to compare Obama's debate performances to major Republican candidates of the last two decades? I'll go there. You're just a fucking idiot too stupid to discern the difference between "I DONT LIKE DEM" and "that person is objectively retarded". Your schoolyard brain renders them identical.

[Lonestar]

Like you said, when Democrats lose an election, they shift slightly to the right. In 2000, a lot of people voted for the green party. But as a consequence, I don't think the Democratic party felt that they weren't far left enough. Win or lose, the Democrats either stay in their place or shift slightly right in the political spectrum.

Not really. 3% of the vote is nothing. The lesson I would have learned is that Al Gore was a shitty candidate who couldn't hold his home state.

If (say) the Greens got 10% of the vote in 2012 and the Dems lost the Presidency, then yes it would have sent a message and hopefully pushed the Dems left. 3% of the Vote when the Presidential Candidate couldn't hold his own home state(and thus lost the election)? Meaningless.

[Bakustra]

He had firm control of both houses of Congress and a sympathetic Supreme Court under Rehnquist that went further right under his administration. Oh snap! A Canadian, ignorant of the political system of a close neighbor? I thought only Americans did that!

Bush's Democratic party was shaken by 9/11 and went along with a number of Bush policies because the narrative was one in which they'd lose by objecting, and then became a more forceful opposition party once Bush began to piss away his popularity. Obama, meanwhile, inherited a Republican party fearful of revanchism amongst the Democrats, eager to get away from Bush's disastrous policies, and with a dissatisfied constituency. You're right, the situations are totally identical, and all the problems the Obama administration has faced are self-inflicted!

Unless wikipedia is lying to me, Obama's Dems enjoyed a larger majority in both the House and Senate than Bush's Republicans did back in his day. So bottom line is Obama can't get his shit together and actually lead his party. Part of the President's job is making sure his party has its shit together and fixing it so that he can get shit done, that's called leadership. All I'm hearing here is excuses.

I'm sure that you think that you've scored a massive triumph against the American system, but you're ignoring the larger part of my post where I explained why the opposition acted differently. Now, I'll explain why the majorities acted differently. To begin with, Bush's Republicans were (and the current crop still are) fairly ideologically controlled. The Democrats were not to begin with, and their large majority was contingent upon conservative Blue Dogs who got themselves elected on anti-Republican and anti-war sentiment, but who couldn't be counted upon for the majority of the platform. Now, I'm sure your memory's failure is coincidental, but even with a healthcare reform bill that pandered centrist, most of the Blue Dogs had to be coerced to vote for it. The reasons that the Democrats are not so ideologically controlled are fairly long to go into, but it's better for them in many ways- take a look at the resentment that the Republican approach has cultivated in its constituencies, which was tapped by the Tea Party.

You won't see that in the Democratic base unless they decided to impose a single ideology on their Reps and Senators and proceeded to neglect the others, and then do so for years and years like the business conservatives and neocons have done with traditional and paleocons, and libertarians, all of whom contributed to the various ideologies of the Tea Party. Now, many progressives feel neglected, but you guys are a single group, and more importantly, this is mainly a result of the President's policies. The Democratic party hasn't endorsed right-to-work legislation nationwide, or officially been anti-affirmative action, or otherwise done its best to elevate one or two sections of the party to piss on the rest. So there is a reason why Democrats are often fractious, but it works out to the benefit of everybody involved in the long run.

PS: Have you guys remembered how to elect a majority government yet?

Does it matter? Our government is getting shit done. Your government is standing around with a limp dick in its hand.

Sure it matters, if you're concerned with things like the rule of law, the ideas and principles of democracy, the fact that you're so dysfunctional no two of your three major parties can form a coalition... but then again, I doubt that you are, seeing as you prefer to throw your stones from a glass house. The American system you conclude to be broken with two years of experience to draw upon. I can, by the same standard, say you're broken as well, because I have three times the time to draw upon, and the failure is not a result of the system working as intended like the American one is- you guys managed to break it all on your own. The US is justly criticized more because we're in the spotlight, but you Canadians have similar problems coming to the fore.

This thread is yet another sublime monument to the lengths Palinite myth-worshipping illiterates will go to defend their nightly masturbation subject, while showcase the endless competence they have for repeating whatever the designated right-wing blog told them the right party line was on the topic.

Third-parties are not viable without massive constitutional and electoral reform. Its called Duverger's Law. Look it up. Its well-attested in the political science literature. Between Thomas Ferguson's "Investment Theory of Party Competition", Maurice Duverger's Law, and Robert Dahl's "How Democratic Is the U.S. Constitution" explains all one needs to know about the fundamental structural roots of the dysfunction in the American political and electoral system.

Your method is faulty, so I will explain. Duverger's law states that in a plurality, FPTP, winner-take-all system, such as that in the US, forces act to reduce the parties in the system. In practice, this has lead to the formation of dominant-party, two-party, and 2.5-party systems depending on the situation. This combines with the presidential system to force the parties down to two (or less). This system thus prevents third parties from attaining power except by displacing one of the two, as the Republicans did to the moribund Whigs in the 1850s. Consider the Reform Party under Perot, which in 1992 received 19% of the popular vote... and 0% of the electoral vote. The only times in the twentieth century that electoral votes went to a third party were in 1912, 1948, and 1968, and in the first two, a candidate split from a major party, while in the third, the candidate ran on a regionalist platform. Regional political parties can create exceptions to Duverger's law; see Canada for an example that is demonstrating the instability of doing so simultaneously. The 1948 election should prove cautionary; left-wing groups formed the Progressive Party to nominate Henry Wallace, and managed to get no electoral votes.

[Count Chocula]

Hey IP, how ya doin? My younger brother just graduated and will chase his Master's at UCF, and my youngest brother is a freshman up there in G'Ville (entered with 50 college credits). Are you ever going to graduate?

I'm bored. I'm bored of pleasuring myself to Jenna Jameson videos, so tonight I think I'll get on the Interwebs and pull off to pix of a 40-something cougar with 4 (or is it 5? I forget) kids, because she's just so fucking hot that my rational circuits go on vacation. And I think I'll do it holding my double-barrel in my left hand while crooning "ooohhhh, you sexxy wittwe wabbit, youuww knowww juust whaaat I neeewwwd. I wwwwWUUUHhve the gwasses!" She's so hot I'll support her uncritically in all matters. Thanks for the inspiration! By the way, when did "aloof" become a verb? And "micromanagerialism?" WTF kind of made up word is that? Is this some new Poli"Sci" vocabulary joint you're throwing at us? Get out of Gainesville and into class envy politics where you belong, you little scamp!


On the third party thing: I'm a registered Independent. Whoops, just checked my voter registration card, make that No Party Affiliation. Assuming a party system is what we're going to have in American politics for the foreseeable future, it looks like the time is ripe for one: in Massachusetts, that formerly Democrat bastion, unaffiliated voters are the largest percent! It's true! Massachusetts is 52% non-affiliated, 36% Democrat, 11% Republican. Obviously, the Dems and Repubs have pissed off a lot of voters. The next 2 years could be a very good time to start a third party. I wouldn't give it good odds (I expect us voters to just do a "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle on politicians who disappoint us), but they look better than they did 4 years ago.

[Bakustra]

Hey IP, how ya doin? My younger brother just graduated and will chase his Master's at UCF, and my youngest brother is a freshman up there in G'Ville (entered with 50 college credits). Are you ever going to graduate?

I'm bored. I'm bored of pleasuring myself to Jenna Jameson videos, so tonight I think I'll get on the Interwebs and pull off to pix of a 40-something cougar with 4 (or is it 5? I forget) kids, because she's just so fucking hot that my rational circuits go on vacation. And I think I'll do it holding my double-barrel in my left hand while crooning "ooohhhh, you sexxy wittwe wabbit, youuww knowww juust whaaat I neeewwwd. I wwwwWUUUHhve the gwasses!" She's so hot I'll support her uncritically in all matters. Thanks for the inspiration! By the way, when did "aloof" become a verb? And "micromanagerialism?" WTF kind of made up word is that? Is this some new Poli"Sci" vocabulary joint you're throwing at us? Get out of Gainesville and into class envy politics where you belong, you little scamp!


On the third party thing: I'm a registered Independent. Whoops, just checked my voter registration card, make that No Party Affiliation. Assuming a party system is what we're going to have in American politics for the foreseeable future, it looks like the time is ripe for one: in Massachusetts, that formerly Democrat bastion, unaffiliated voters are the largest percent! It's true! Massachusetts is 52% non-affiliated, 36% Democrat, 11% Republican. Obviously, the Dems and Repubs have pissed off a lot of voters. The next 2 years could be a very good time to start a third party. I wouldn't give it good odds (I expect us voters to just do a "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle on politicians who disappoint us), but they look better than they did 4 years ago.

Would it, like, kill you to argue honestly or behave well in an argument? Did the Metatron descend from the heavens and say, lo, Count Chocula, thou shalt act like a right ass in any situation involving politics, or there shalt be serious boils in thine future, to say the least?

But I see the ol' class envy card brought out. I thought that all liberals were middle-class and in college? But maybe you're part of the upper class, the power-holding class, the, mmm, bourgeoisie proper. In that case, you're kinda validating Marxism just by being your lovable self. Just reading your post made me sympathize with Maoists, you sick bastard.

Foremost, I love how you just ignored my post altogether. Any third party that forms will just assume the position of one of the other major parties. There is no way short of major system reform for a legitimate shift in the political climate, and so if you want a third party, you should realize that this is therefore an omnipartisan issue, seeing as every third party wants that to change

[K. A. Pital]

Federal diktats on what can be put in the chilrens' vending machines at school!

Um... Considering the utter crap food America has, isn't this actually a good thing? From what I know, when a state standard of high quality food is put in place and made mandatory for producers or suppliers, the quality improves.

Frank in their beliefs, with few apparent secrets and a mostly successful track record and business experience, with a somewhat rough around the edges public manner.

Just like Hitler George W. Bush. He was also very frank, wasn't he? And also rough edges with public manners and talking issues. But he was frank! That's a good thing, right? A frank authoritarian nutjob is better than a spineless pussy? Is that what I'm hearing?

open about political beliefs ... obscure about political beliefs

Being open about your political beliefs is not an automatic good. It just isn't.

[aerius]

I'm sure that you think that you've scored a massive triumph against the American system, but you're ignoring the larger part of my post where I explained why the opposition acted differently. Now, I'll explain why the majorities acted differently. To begin with, Bush's Republicans were (and the current crop still are) fairly ideologically controlled. The Democrats were not to begin with, and their large majority was contingent upon conservative Blue Dogs who got themselves elected on anti-Republican and anti-war sentiment, but who couldn't be counted upon for the majority of the platform. Now, I'm sure your memory's failure is coincidental, but even with a healthcare reform bill that pandered centrist, most of the Blue Dogs had to be coerced to vote for it. The reasons that the Democrats are not so ideologically controlled are fairly long to go into, but it's better for them in many ways- take a look at the resentment that the Republican approach has cultivated in its constituencies, which was tapped by the Tea Party.

You won't see that in the Democratic base unless they decided to impose a single ideology on their Reps and Senators and proceeded to neglect the others, and then do so for years and years like the business conservatives and neocons have done with traditional and paleocons, and libertarians, all of whom contributed to the various ideologies of the Tea Party. Now, many progressives feel neglected, but you guys are a single group, and more importantly, this is mainly a result of the President's policies. The Democratic party hasn't endorsed right-to-work legislation nationwide, or officially been anti-affirmative action, or otherwise done its best to elevate one or two sections of the party to piss on the rest.

That's nice, but it's not important. What counts in the end are the results, and the bottom line is the Dems are a bunch of useless twats who can't get things done. The Dems are so worried about making everyone happy that they end up pissing off everyone and screwing up damn near everything they actually manage to do.

So there is a reason why Democrats are often fractious, but it works out to the benefit of everybody involved in the long run.

Benefit of everyone? Are you out of your mind? The only people benefiting from fractious Democrats are the Republicans and their supporters.

Does it matter? Our government is getting shit done. Your government is standing around with a limp dick in its hand.

Sure it matters, if you're concerned with things like the rule of law, the ideas and principles of democracy, the fact that you're so dysfunctional no two of your three major parties can form a coalition... but then again, I doubt that you are, seeing as you prefer to throw your stones from a glass house. The American system you conclude to be broken with two years of experience to draw upon. I can, by the same standard, say you're broken as well, because I have three times the time to draw upon, and the failure is not a result of the system working as intended like the American one is- you guys managed to break it all on your own. The US is justly criticized more because we're in the spotlight, but you Canadians have similar problems coming to the fore.

Nowhere in the Canadian constitution does it state that we must have a majority government or a working coalition. Our system is working as intended, minority governments are allowed for, historically, a full 1/3 of our Parliaments have been minority governments like the current one. Oh, and by the way it's 4 major parties.

As for the US system I've been saying it's FUBAR for longer than I care to remember. The last 10 years just makes it blindingly obvious.

[Bakustra]

Well, take a look at what's happening with the Republican base. The Tea Party grew out of the Republican base, and is feeding on dissatisfaction with the party. This can almost certainly be traced to the quashing of libertarian and paleoconservative sentiments by the party leadership. The Democratic party is not facing revolts from its base. The Republicans achieved short-term success with the problem of long-term resentments. The Democratic party is facing a lack of successes right now, but still has an intact party which can continue forward and which can build on its existing successes. Which would you say is the better strategy for a political party? A political party should be able to think long-term, in my view, and the Democratic method of not forcing ideological conformity makes passing legislation difficult in the short run but ensures steady support in the long run. For the selfish, keep in mind that if the Democrats went all Republican, the progressives would not be likely to wind up on top.

Minority governments are problematic because, unlike a majority or coalition government, they don't really represent the majority of the people. Stephen Harper holds power, but the Conservatives were not supported by a majority of Canadians in the '08 elections. This has been theoretical so far in Canadian politics, but you could take every underlying argument you have for the quality of Canada's political system, and apply it to the American one; it's traditional, it's not really that bad, you're taking too small a sample size. If America has a broken electoral system (and I agree it does) so does Canada, because the Canadian one apparently cannot reliably produce a government representative of the majority of its citizens- at least the American one can do that!

Fine, you have two large parties, and then two small parties that vacillate between electoral significance and insignificance. You can call it a four-party system if you like, but I go by the idea that two half-parties make a whole.

[StarshipTitanic]

StarshipTitanic handled the supermajority point well, so fair enough. Most legislation, the health care "reform" bill, for example, passed with a simple majority. I know, I'm shooting a dead horse, but again, HE DIDN'T NEED A SINGLE REPUBLICAN! The fucking health care bill passed IMO because Pelosi and Reid rammed the thing through. Even on possibly the most seminal legislation (for its scope and future influence it easily compares to the SS Act) passed in the last 2 years, the Pepsi-Can logo, Organizing for America, Union Guy, Blessed-Great-Holy-Anointed One, Bumper Sticker Maker Maker-Rich Barack Obama appeared out to lunch! Feh.

I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "rammed the thing through" since you acknowledge that the bills were democratically passed by Congress by a majority in each chamber. It's not like Reid used procedural trickery to force the bill through with fewer than 50 senators approving.

Is it because there wasn't any Republican involvement? Who cares? People elected Democrats in 2008 to carry out Democratic policies. Apparently many were surprised that this happened so they voted for the other people in 2010. This is generally how a republic works.

On the third party thing: I'm a registered Independent. Whoops, just checked my voter registration card, make that No Party Affiliation. Assuming a party system is what we're going to have in American politics for the foreseeable future, it looks like the time is ripe for one: in Massachusetts, that formerly Democrat bastion, unaffiliated voters are the largest percent! It's true! Massachusetts is 52% non-affiliated, 36% Democrat, 11% Republican. Obviously, the Dems and Repubs have pissed off a lot of voters. The next 2 years could be a very good time to start a third party. I wouldn't give it good odds (I expect us voters to just do a "wash, rinse, repeat" cycle on politicians who disappoint us), but they look better than they did 4 years ago.

This has usually been the case and it doesn't mean what you'd like it to mean. In November, the Democrats lost about 15 seats in the state House of Representatives, but they still hold around 130 out of 160 seats. In the Senate, they gained one seat and now have 36 out of 40. Deval Patrick defeated a Democrat-turned-independent challenger along with the Republican. And the governor before him, Romney, considered his proto-Obamacare as his signature accomplishment. Also, all 9 incumbent Democratic congressmen were returned to Washington and the Democrats won an open seat that covers Scott Brown's strongest districts. Brown himself has repeatedly sided with Senate Democrats because he is likely (and justly, I think) concerned for his reelection chances in 2012 where Obama is certain to carry the state strongly.

Massachusetts independents are left-leaning while you are right-leaning. They even voted to keep a 6.25% sales tax rather than reduce it to 3%! You surely would not vote for any third party born of Massachusetts independent voters.

[Simon_Jester]

Well, take a look at what's happening with the Republican base. The Tea Party grew out of the Republican base, and is feeding on dissatisfaction with the party. This can almost certainly be traced to the quashing of libertarian and paleoconservative sentiments by the party leadership. The Democratic party is not facing revolts from its base. The Republicans achieved short-term success with the problem of long-term resentments. The Democratic party is facing a lack of successes right now, but still has an intact party which can continue forward and which can build on its existing successes. Which would you say is the better strategy for a political party? A political party should be able to think long-term, in my view, and the Democratic method of not forcing ideological conformity makes passing legislation difficult in the short run but ensures steady support in the long run.

This begs the question: steady support for what? If over time this results in the Dems becoming a watered-down version of the Republicans, it's going to destroy the Democrats as surely as internal dissensions would destroy the Republicans. On the left you'll see defections to third parties (something that bit the Dems in the ass in 2000 and will likely be a problem in 2012). On the right, the Democrats can't reliably compete with the Republicans, because they're chasing the Republicans to the right when that's their home territory. In competition for increasingly right-of-center voter blocs, the Dems will be perpetually hamstrung by the very effective job the Republicans have done at painting them as the part of "liberal elitists."

They'd be better advised to at least try to mobilize the voter base that played such a role in the 2008 election: the youth vote, the minority vote, people who will almost certainly not vote Republican.

Warring over the 'purple' section of the electorate is a losing game for Democrats, because it forces them to accept into their tent political figures who will predictably vote Republican on sensitive, hard-fought votes. What good does it do the Democrats to have 59 senators instead of 58 if the 59th senator is Max Baucus or Joe Lieberman?

And as long as that keeps happening, Democratic politicians will not be able to establish themselves as a viable cadre of leaders for the nation with a distinct 'brand' compared to the Republicans. The liberal Democrats are shackled to the conservatives, who prevent any aggressive action on a liberal agend. Their conservatives are shackled to the liberals, which hampers conservative Democrats in campaigns against Republicans, because the people they're appealing to are often loath to vote for anyone with a (D) by their name.

The resulting party is bigger, but it doesn't seem much stronger.

For the selfish, keep in mind that if the Democrats went all Republican, the progressives would not be likely to wind up on top.

This is a real possibility. On the other hand, there's a lot of depressed turnout among demographics that the Democrats could mobilize to their own advantage, if they deliberately pitched themselves as a center-left party instead of a center-right one.

It's also possible that if the progressives outright lost such a leadership struggle, they might well be able to split out into something that would, over the long term, prove more viable than their current position as piggyback riders on a center-right Democratic party. I suspect that they'd be more effective as a demographic mirror image of the Tea Party than they are as a silent fraction of the overall Democratic base.

Granted, they'd be a minority, but at least they'd be a minority able to form a coherent caucus with well defined leaders that shared their agenda, instead of getting their marching orders from people several miles away from their own position on the political left-right spectrum.

[Simon_Jester]

Ghetto edit:

I'm reminded of the Whigs in the 1850s. They failed to come up with a position on the issue of slavery that satisfied both northern abolitionists and southern pro-business voters who supported the Whigs against the era's agrarian Democrats... and the party splintered, with the Republicans rallying the largest single piece around a platform that boiled down to "Whiggism plus abolitionism."

Sooner or later, the basic issues threatening American domestic society- decaying infrastructure, rising corporatism, increasing Gini coefficient and the fall of the middle class- are going to grow to the point where they can't be concealed with smoke, mirrors, and rhetoric. If the Democrats are too dominated by conservatives to address those problems, someone else with a more credible position on them is liable to steal their voter base out from under them.

I'm not looking forward to that, and I hope it doesn't happen because of the inevitable political chaos (which will delay trying to fix anything). But I can certainly imagine it.

[MKSheppard]

Warring over the 'purple' section of the electorate is a losing game for Democrats, because it forces them to accept into their tent political figures who will predictably vote Republican on sensitive, hard-fought votes. What good does it do the Democrats to have 59 senators instead of 58 if the 59th senator is Max Baucus or Joe Lieberman?

Thank you for elaborating the case for primarying a whole bunch of RINOs out of the party as their terms come up. You said it better than I could.

[Uraniun235]

Nowhere in the Canadian constitution does it state that we must have a majority government or a working coalition. Our system is working as intended, minority governments are allowed for, historically, a full 1/3 of our Parliaments have been minority governments like the current one. Oh, and by the way it's 4 major parties.

Good to hear that a Canadian government with a hard-on for sucking off the US is "working as intended".

[Bakustra]

Warring over the 'purple' section of the electorate is a losing game for Democrats, because it forces them to accept into their tent political figures who will predictably vote Republican on sensitive, hard-fought votes. What good does it do the Democrats to have 59 senators instead of 58 if the 59th senator is Max Baucus or Joe Lieberman?

Thank you for elaborating the case for primarying a whole bunch of RINOs out of the party as their terms come up. You said it better than I could.

Thank you, Shep, for revealing that there are actual Republican voters, not just powerbrokers, who believe that the current structure is awesome and perfect. Do you own a violin? I mean, if you followed through with your Torquemada impersonation, you'd end up losing a number of seats to the Democrats. So you're saying that you'd rather have a Democratic Congress than compromise an imaginary ideological purity. You're a treat, Shep.

But let me address both of you simultaneously. People complain endlessly about Lieberman here, but where would he go if he were kicked out of either caucus? We only have a two-party system; if one party decides that diverse viewpoints are for communists, then the other will take them in, in order to gain their votes.

[Coyote]

Well, take a look at what's happening with the Republican base. The Tea Party grew out of the Republican base, and is feeding on dissatisfaction with the party. This can almost certainly be traced to the quashing of libertarian and paleoconservative sentiments by the party leadership. The Democratic party is not facing revolts from its base.

I don't know about that-- Obama talked progressive in the election, but turned DINO once in office. There are a lot of pissed-off Democrat Progressives out there... true, they are something of a minority; the types of folks that are likely to bolt for the Greens when the opportunity for a protest vote comes up, but they are also very motivated and can be counted on to turn out. You can say they're like the Tea Partiers or other Conservative action types, the comparison would not be totally off (although, since I am sympathetic with them, I'd say they are "more sensible" but that is my bias talking).

The Tea Party, we hoped, was going to fracture the GOP for the reasons you outlined... they represented frustrated Libertarians who weren't getting enough of what they wanted. Unfortunately, their energy and momentum got noticed by the Talibangelicals and the Tea Party has now, IMO, become yet another political movement hijacked by the Christian Fascist brigades. And it looks like the Libertarians in the party aren't going to fight back because it brings more numbers to them. So the long-awaited conservative civil war between the "small government" wing and the "interfering Christian government" has been put off for awhile longer.

A political party should be able to think long-term, in my view, and the Democratic method of not forcing ideological conformity makes passing legislation difficult in the short run but ensures steady support in the long run.

The Democrats, ironically, lose because they are too democratic. They don't, as you point out, enforce ideological conformity which means everyone pretty much does their own thing. The Democratic party leadership, IMO, hasn't helped in the years gone by, since in trying to be as "all-inclusive" as possible try to organize people based on what I've heard termed the "laundry list" of issues: they have an Environmental message, a womens' rights message, a racial equality message, a financial regulation message... and hope all the little groups motivated by these issues follow along. They don't have a unifying message that ties these all together, so to keep everyone on the bandwagon they have to devote time to each group. If at any time the Environmentalists, for example, feel they aren't represented, they jump ship and the Dems try to soldier on with the rest of the coalition... my take on the issue, anyway; others may see it differently.

[StarshipTitanic]

Do you own a violin? I mean, if you followed through with your Torquemada impersonation, you'd end up losing a number of seats to the Democrats. So you're saying that you'd rather have a Democratic Congress than compromise an imaginary ideological purity. You're a treat, Shep.

Not necessarily, at least in the case of the Senate (which is where Democratic legislation goes to die). Look at the Republican senators up for reelection in 2012:

Jon Kyl (AZ)
Dick Lugar (IN)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Scott Brown (MA)
Roger Wicker (MS)
John Ensign (NV)
Bob Corker (TN)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
John Barrasso (WY)

Lugar, Snowe, Ensign and Hatch will probably get primary challenges. Only Snowe is from a blue state and she might take Murkowski's route and run as an independent (I'm not sure about Maine election rules, but her name is far easier to spell on a ballot even if she can't register in time). Brown's in trouble, but Republicans know they can't get anyone more conservative into his seat.

But let me address both of you simultaneously. People complain endlessly about Lieberman here, but where would he go if he were kicked out of either caucus? We only have a two-party system; if one party decides that diverse viewpoints are for communists, then the other will take them in, in order to gain their votes.

Lieberman is so scared that he has u-turned and is now talking to the DSCC chair about running as a Democrat. Arlen Specter tried to go in the opposite direction and look what happened to him. He was essentially primaried of both Democratic and Republican tickets!

[Simon_Jester]

Warring over the 'purple' section of the electorate is a losing game for Democrats, because it forces them to accept into their tent political figures who will predictably vote Republican on sensitive, hard-fought votes. What good does it do the Democrats to have 59 senators instead of 58 if the 59th senator is Max Baucus or Joe Lieberman?

Thank you for elaborating the case for primarying a whole bunch of RINOs out of the party as their terms come up. You said it better than I could.

As a Democrat, I agree with you wholeheartedly and would love to see this happen. Go ahead. Make my day.

That said, the Republicans are in a different position because they're already concentrated around a solid ideological voter bloc; the Dems aren't. The Republicans gain nothing from trying to mobilize their base harder, because the only people left to mobilize are such lunatics that they wind up losing votes by encouraging those people to come out in public. Sharron Angle and Christine O'Donnell did the Republican Party no favors by running.

Whereas the Democrats have not even come close to that situation. They don't have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to find people capable of mobilizing sentiment to the left of the party's current position; they just have to offer more support to people who are already fairly credible and aren't spouting the counterpart of the young-earth-creationist, global-warming-denial, gays-are-the-Antichrist lunacy we've seen on the far right.

Such people exist on the left, but they're miles and miles to the left of where the Dems are now... whereas the Republicans can't shift much farther to the right without drowning in wingnuts.

But let me address both of you simultaneously. People complain endlessly about Lieberman here, but where would he go if he were kicked out of either caucus? We only have a two-party system; if one party decides that diverse viewpoints are for communists, then the other will take them in, in order to gain their votes.

Logical, but there's a catch. A party cannot function without some kind of a party line. If the party line is produced by a compromise integrated over too large a fraction of the political spectrum, it becomes vaguer and harder to defend to the party membership: people on the left and the right wings of the party have goals that are too incompatible, and anything that one wing approves will be hated by the other.

Eventually, the party's advantage of raw size is offset by its inability to come to some kind of internal consensus about what is to be done, and people from one end of the spectrum or the other start calving away in disgust. The same thing can happen if a party utterly fails to address some key wedge issue, because its emphasis on "big tent" means that it's stuck with large interest groups on both side of the issue. Again, remember the Whigs.

There are a lot of pissed-off Democrat Progressives out there... true, they are something of a minority; the types of folks that are likely to bolt for the Greens when the opportunity for a protest vote comes up, but they are also very motivated and can be counted on to turn out. You can say they're like the Tea Partiers or other Conservative action types, the comparison would not be totally off (although, since I am sympathetic with them, I'd say they are "more sensible" but that is my bias talking).

Let us say that they are the mirror image of the Tea Party, in terms of demographics, dedications, and being farther away from the 'center' of American politics than the major party that most commonly draws on their support and claims to represent their interests.

The Democrats, ironically, lose because they are too democratic. They don't, as you point out, enforce ideological conformity which means everyone pretty much does their own thing. The Democratic party leadership, IMO, hasn't helped in the years gone by, since in trying to be as "all-inclusive" as possible try to organize people based on what I've heard termed the "laundry list" of issues: they have an Environmental message, a womens' rights message, a racial equality message, a financial regulation message... and hope all the little groups motivated by these issues follow along. They don't have a unifying message that ties these all together, so to keep everyone on the bandwagon they have to devote time to each group. If at any time the Environmentalists, for example, feel they aren't represented, they jump ship and the Dems try to soldier on with the rest of the coalition... my take on the issue, anyway; others may see it differently.

This is partly true. On the other hand, there's a 'liberal' consensus that could be held together about as well as the 'conservative' consensus; left-wing positions on these issues correlate fairly well.

You're not going to go far wrong if you expect people who want your party to promote strong regulation of corporations to toe the party line on Don't Ask Don't Tell, and vice versa. The potential for a more tightly coherent left-center coalition of all these different "messages" is very real. It would just require a significant leadership cadre willing and able to lead the charge- thinking more like FDR and less like Barack Obama.

[Bakustra]

Do you own a violin? I mean, if you followed through with your Torquemada impersonation, you'd end up losing a number of seats to the Democrats. So you're saying that you'd rather have a Democratic Congress than compromise an imaginary ideological purity. You're a treat, Shep.

Not necessarily, at least in the case of the Senate (which is where Democratic legislation goes to die). Look at the Republican senators up for reelection in 2012:

Jon Kyl (AZ)
Dick Lugar (IN)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
Scott Brown (MA)
Roger Wicker (MS)
John Ensign (NV)
Bob Corker (TN)
Kay Bailey Hutchinson (TX)
Orrin Hatch (UT)
John Barrasso (WY)

Lugar, Snowe, Ensign and Hatch will probably get primary challenges. Only Snowe is from a blue state and she might take Murkowski's route and run as an independent (I'm not sure about Maine election rules, but her name is far easier to spell on a ballot even if she can't register in time). Brown's in trouble, but Republicans know they can't get anyone more conservative into his seat.

Snowe, Lugar and Brown are the main 'RINOs' on that list, and more importantly, if you had a Republican party as Shep envisions it, then it would be running on a platform of expanding our nuclear arsenal and repealing New START, or in general, a significantly more extreme platform. Could those candidates really compete in the general election? Tea Partiers lost a number of elections and primaries because of their extreme opinions, and the Sheppublican party would be even more so. Even then, losing two seats altogether, as well as more seats in 2014 and 2016, would hurt the Republicans and swell Democratic ranks.

But let me address both of you simultaneously. People complain endlessly about Lieberman here, but where would he go if he were kicked out of either caucus? We only have a two-party system; if one party decides that diverse viewpoints are for communists, then the other will take them in, in order to gain their votes.

Lieberman is so scared that he has u-turned and is now talking to the DSCC chair about running as a Democrat. Arlen Specter tried to go in the opposite direction and look what happened to him. He was essentially primaried of both Democratic and Republican tickets!

Specter was too conservative for the Democratic primary, though, and that's why Toomey got in. Specter defeated Toomey in the '04 primary, and might well have been able to pull ahead, especially with his record. I don't know whether there's any Republican in Connecticut that could successfully challenge Lieberman, but he's too unpopular to pull off an independent run without support from the national party, I think.

But let me address both of you simultaneously. People complain endlessly about Lieberman here, but where would he go if he were kicked out of either caucus? We only have a two-party system; if one party decides that diverse viewpoints are for communists, then the other will take them in, in order to gain their votes.

Logical, but there's a catch. A party cannot function without some kind of a party line. If the party line is produced by a compromise integrated over too large a fraction of the political spectrum, it becomes vaguer and harder to defend to the party membership: people on the left and the right wings of the party have goals that are too incompatible, and anything that one wing approves will be hated by the other.

Eventually, the party's advantage of raw size is offset by its inability to come to some kind of internal consensus about what is to be done, and people from one end of the spectrum or the other start calving away in disgust. The same thing can happen if a party utterly fails to address some key wedge issue, because its emphasis on "big tent" means that it's stuck with large interest groups on both side of the issue. Again, remember the Whigs.

That point is much higher in the American system than in others, because we have stronger forces holding our parties together than in other nations, though.

[Simon_Jester]

Snowe, Lugar and Brown are the main 'RINOs' on that list, and more importantly, if you had a Republican party as Shep envisions it, then it would be running on a platform of expanding our nuclear arsenal and repealing New START, or in general, a significantly more extreme platform. Could those candidates really compete in the general election? Tea Partiers lost a number of elections and primaries because of their extreme opinions, and the Sheppublican party would be even more so. Even then, losing two seats altogether, as well as more seats in 2014 and 2016, would hurt the Republicans and swell Democratic ranks.

A Sheppublican Party that agreed with Shep would be interesting: much less focus on reactionary social policy and reflexive tax cuts, more emphasis on defense, possibly with an eye to keeping the high-tech sector strong so it could feed into the military-industrial complex. I wonder how they'd fare.

In practice, the farther the Republicans shift to the right the more Shep will be left behind, because the extreme far right does not, in their heart of hearts, care about the hypersonic bombers and mountains of nuclear reactors he desires.

Logical, but there's a catch. A party cannot function without some kind of a party line. If the party line is produced by a compromise integrated over too large a fraction of the political spectrum, it becomes vaguer and harder to defend to the party membership: people on the left and the right wings of the party have goals that are too incompatible, and anything that one wing approves will be hated by the other.

Eventually, the party's advantage of raw size is offset by its inability to come to some kind of internal consensus about what is to be done, and people from one end of the spectrum or the other start calving away in disgust. The same thing can happen if a party utterly fails to address some key wedge issue, because its emphasis on "big tent" means that it's stuck with large interest groups on both side of the issue. Again, remember the Whigs.

That point is much higher in the American system than in others, because we have stronger forces holding our parties together than in other nations, though.

Perhaps, but there has to be a limit, as the Whigs (or the brief rise of the Bull Moose Party and the ensuing demonstrated. If the internal dissension doesn't split the party, it's liable to provoke round after round of internal struggles for control, with similar results: a party that loses even when it wins, due to its inability to forge a narrative that compels people to keep supporting it.