SUPER CONGRESS! Reid announces his picks

[Uraniun235]

The Republicans could advocate for dropping A-bombs on Iran and abolishing Social Security and Medicare, and if the Democrats said "well we'll only drop conventional bombs on Iran" there'd still be people here lining up to vote Democrat "because I won't throw my vote away and give the election to the Republicans!" Outstanding.

You know it's possible to vote out democrats who make bad choices while still overall voting democrats right? It's called primary elections they exist, people ignore them but they are real! For christ stakes people, the Democrats are a far bigger coalition then the GOP and have more diversity in their party, when people say they're going to continue voting Democrat because the Republicans are worse, it doesn't mean they want to revote in the same politicians who screwed them over the last term. Unless you're claiming that Democratic leadership and the party as a whole is so against progressive policies that they'll basically remove and block any progressive members of congress. But to claim this would require you to prove that such a conspiracy exist and an even harder challenge in my opinion to prove that the current Democrats are competent enough to pull off said conspiracy.

How many incumbents actually ever get primaried out? The incumbent politician has enormous advantages, including the vote of the team cheerleader idiots who think "welp, we can't possibly let a repub get this seat, we'd better make sure it's the incumbent so the dems have the best chance of winning" and automatically vote incumbent no matter what.

So after the primary, when the same old shithead wins nomination, will you still vote Democrat?


EDIT: Also, not that there is a conspiracy per se, but I seriously doubt that the Democratic party leadership is at all progressive.

[SirNitram]

Depends. Are the Republicans still deranged and anti-fact? Still anti-human decency? Then yes, I'm still gonna push for their opposition with the best chance of winning. This usually means Democrats because third parties tend not to bother with party infrastructure, for reasons I have yet to fully deduce but probably stem from arrogance.

[TheHammer]

The Republicans could advocate for dropping A-bombs on Iran and abolishing Social Security and Medicare, and if the Democrats said "well we'll only drop conventional bombs on Iran" there'd still be people here lining up to vote Democrat "because I won't throw my vote away and give the election to the Republicans!" Outstanding.

Republicans and Democrats never get that extreme. Otherwise it WOULD open the door for third parties, who I expect, would then become mainstream and relegate Dems and Repubs to being third parties. And as others have pointed out, Democrats and Republicans aren't rubber stamps for each other. They disagree within their party over certain issues as well. They are coalitions the same as you see in any other government, its just that they don't identify themselves as being part of a third party openly. But if you note the various caucuses, they are themselves like third parties within the mainstream. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_caucus

[J]

Clyburn, Beccera, and Van Hollen added. They all voted for TARP in 2008.
My prediction stands; no good will come from this supercommittee.