|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Can the US Republican Party be saved?
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Photo Geek:
A good first step might be for the GOP leadership to regularly call out all the "batshit crazy" members of the GOP clown car (I'm sure we all know who they are). ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Exhibit A.
quote:
The origins of this theory are long and complex and more than a little batshit crazy; see the link if you want the long version. The short version is that the conservative movement is absolutely batshit crazy, and a sizable portion of all the people they elect are similarly batshit crazy, and they all get their news from batshit crazy news sources staffed by batshit crazy people until everything is just a blur of crazy-ass conspiracy theories that they've convinced themselves of primarily because a bunch of equally batshit crazy people claim they believe them as well.
...
Her mind must be a horrible place, a place of bats and alligators and carnival rides staffed by sad-faced clowns wielding axes in one hand and machetes in the other. I don't know how you get yourself down a path that leaves you believing things like that are somebody's secret plan
(Michelle Bachmann has said that Obama's keeping the migrant refugee children in the US so we can perform medical experiments on them.)
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
[ 02. August 2014, 05:36: Message edited by: ChastMastr ]
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amanda B. Reckondwythe
Dressed for Church
# 5521
|
Posted
The woman belongs locked up in a mental hospital, not in Congress.
--------------------
"I take prayer too seriously to use it as an excuse for avoiding work and responsibility." -- The Revd Martin Luther King Jr.
Posts: 10542 | From: The Great Southwest | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sir Kevin
Ship's Gaffer
# 3492
|
Posted
Before the next US Presidential election, I shall change my affiliation from one of the two major political parties to 'DECLINES TO STATE' if it is allowed where I am temporarily living as it was when I was a Field Deputy Registrar of Voters for Los Angeles County as it was when I was a teenager or 'Independent' if it's not. I am sick and tired of fielding calls to my wife trying to extort money for a political party! Were I a voter in the UK, I should think seriously about being a Liberal Democrat or a Tory: Lib Dem for their 'green' posture, Tory for their traditional conservative views on certain issues. Being a convert to RC from the Anglican faith, I am, of course, Pro-Life!
That said, I think the Republican Party in the United States is a bit past it!
--------------------
If you board the wrong train, it is no use running along the corridor in the other direction Dietrich Bonhoeffer
Writing is currently my hobby, not yet my profession.
Posts: 30517 | From: White Hart Lane | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ChastMastr:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
That seems to be applicable to both major parties. The campaign slogan of "We Suck Less" can't be too far off.
I would disagree here--I know the Democrats are a tad more conservative than they should be compared with the rest of the civilized world, but I think Obama is the best president we've had in my lifetime (I'm 46).
Seriously? I'm neither conservative nor liberal; but the only President I can think of that's been worse than Obama (IMO, of course) has been Bush Jr.
Clinton was a far better POTUS than Obama: economically, militarily, politically... He could actually work with congress and get congress to work together, instead of just taking to the pulpit to bitch-slap them every time they couldn't get along.
Obama couldn't lead/negotiate his way out of a paper bag. He hasn't even been able to complete his 'first act as President' and close Guantanamo.
I can see how one might find his positions and rhetoric to be more appealing than anyone in recent memory, but as a president I have found him to be almost benign: with the exception of the ACA, which I'm still on the fence about.
As for the GOP, in my current job I'm subjected to a day full of conservative talk-radio; and if what I hear there is any indication, I don't think Reagan himself would be conservative enough to pass muster with the current crop of right-wingers. I personally think that some of the establishment within the GOP could return the party to a more moderate state, and the Tea Party element seems to be growing more despondent as they lose GOP primaries. If they can eliminate the more radical elements from their ranks, the GOP may make a resurgence in a decade or so.
That said, Obama can still win the day for the current GOP if he can rally enough voters behind them with his handling of health care, domestic surveillance, and foreign relations. I'm fairly confident that the ACA would be doing severe damage to the DNC in the mid-terms if it were being implemented to the hilt: which is why there have been delays on implementation by executive order.
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
I'm fairly confident that the ACA would be doing severe damage to the DNC in the mid-terms if it were being implemented to the hilt: which is why there have been delays on implementation by executive order.
Recent studies have shown that almost everyone has experienced savings under ACA, with the exception of those poor souls in red states that refused to implement the Medicare expansion. Some people this has been rather modest savings (a slowing of the decades-long increase in massive health care costs); for others the savings are masked because their employer is the one footing the bill. And, of course, for a sizable minority the impact has literally been life-saving.
Obama has been ridiculously poor at getting the word out on this, while the GOP has been skilled at spinning lies (e.g. the numerous GOP poster boys/girls who ended up eventually getting their health care on the exchange at huge savings).
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP. (not that it couldn't have been much better had it been single-payer and with an adequate initial website).
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
HCH
Shipmate
# 14313
|
Posted
I think my answer to the question is "I hope not". I think the Republican party started down a bad path when it adopted the "Southern strategy" about 45 years, and that strategy has taken over the party: racism and isolationism.
Nowadays the party seems to be devoted to militarism (John McCain never hears of a war without wanting the U.S. involved), invasive government (the abortion controversy and gay marriage), and (especially) making hyper-rich people even hyper-richer. To these ends, they are willing to engage in willful ignorance (look at the Republicans on the House science committee) and deprive vast numbers of people of their rights (preventing people from voting).
I think the U.S. might be much better served by having more than two parties. How about having a Green party (environmental concerns), a Labor party, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? I doubt any of them would have a majority, so American politics would have to return to debate and compromise.
Posts: 1540 | From: Illinois, USA | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
I think the U.S. might be much better served by having more than two parties. How about having a Green party (environmental concerns), a Labor party, fiscal conservatives and social conservatives? I doubt any of them would have a majority, so American politics would have to return to debate and compromise.
Yes. And of course, most of those parties already exist within our system. We've just come to believe that you're "throwing away your vote" if you vote outside the two major parties-- with good reason-- look what happened when Nader ran for the Green party. No one wants to see that happen again. But if enough people get fed up with the two major parties to switch the balance of power you could have a real democracy-- one where they'll HAVE to work together and built consensus and compromise in order to get the plurality needed to get elected.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
I hope the GOP can be saved, because we need at least two viable parties to keep each other in check and keep our democracy healthy. But it looks like we may have to wait a generation for that to happen. There are no signs of the current GOP changing direction.
Perhaps they will go the way of the Whigs and the Democratic Party will eventually split into the more urban/progressive party and a more suburban/rural/(moderately) conservative party.
I certainly don't see a huge natural constituency for the GOP among even White Millenials, much less the rest of the population. White Millenials are comfortable with multiculturalism and secularism but pretty turned off with the uber-free market and corporatist rhetoric. These are people who went to university (or can't afford to) yet seem locked out of the the traditional American middle class dream. They seem pretty skeptical that their plight is do to their own laziness, or that it's all the government's fault.
Perhaps once the Baby Boomer generation retires and the Millenials trickle into GOP leadership things will change, but that is decades away.
[ 02. August 2014, 19:27: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
There are some who still remember the Summer of Love, and Woodstock, and the original hippies, and.... but it would appear that the majority of all those flower-power types went loony in the '80s (I blame disco, merkins and jumpsuits myself)and turned into the Tea Party as they retired.
They were so used to getting their way that they went extreme to see how strange they could get while still getting their way.
Since I'm (just) ahead of that wave (born '44) I'd say that a good dose of Kool-Aid laced with acid offered to the right people might save the GOP. Otherwise, it is clown-car status for the US until you guys wake up and form a government again.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
Unfortunately I suspect the Republican party will struggle along by gerrymandering and voter-id requirements despite becoming more a regional southern party. The Democratic party seems to have fallen into inertia and timidity and strategy to keep moving right to be adjacent to the ever rightward swing of the Republicans.
The current deadlock only exacerbates the fact that the extremely wealthy have effectively captured control of Congress. Both Democrats and Republicans are happy to keep taking massive campaign contributions in exchange for not taxing the rich and subsidizing Wall Street.
If there isn't another major economic collapse, it might take a generation for the former middle class to realize that class politics matter.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP.
I think that depends on the full impact of the ACA on employment numbers and our already staggering national debt (a third of which was incurred under the Obama administration).
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
irish_lord99
Shipmate
# 16250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
The woman belongs locked up in a mental hospital, not in Congress.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif) These days, what's the difference? ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics." - Mark Twain
Posts: 1169 | From: Maine, US | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
National debt is dropping rapidly (which is why it is no longer a talking point in the nuttier realms of cable TV). It only grew so large, because of the necessity to do something about the recession.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
National debt is dropping rapidly (which is why it is no longer a talking point in the nuttier realms of cable TV). It only grew so large, because of the necessity to do something about the recession.
Actually the deficit is dropping. The debt won't start dropping until the deficit is negative (i.e. a surplus).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP.
I think that depends on the full impact of the ACA on employment numbers and our already staggering national debt (a third of which was incurred under the Obama administration).
ACA has a positive effect on both employment and on debt (or rather, deficit, as per mousethief's post). By lowering the rate of inflation of health care costs, it's improving the economy. By making it far, far easier for employers to add staff (by making health care costs more predictable) it raises employment.
The problem is, these changes aren't the sort of things you discern easily. A change in the rate of increase in cost of health care is a very very good thing-- but it's still going to be felt as an increase, even as the increase is far less than it's been for more than 2 decades. The rate of employment is a result of so many factors that no one is going to associate that directly to Obamacare, only one of many interwoven moving parts.
If we had been able to enact real, substantial change-- to a single payer system, which we would eventually see far greater positive impact in terms of cost reduction & employment. But the transition would have been greater, meaning even more immediate pain than we went through this time. In the end, I think we're going to have to end up there sooner or later, which means another rocky transition for whoever the next Prez might be.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
I do consider Obama a great president. He nailed Osama bin Laden. This is important because my daughter had vowed to do it, and she has gotten as far as Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. I far prefer the Navy Seals to undertake the work. Obama will always have my gratitude.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
It will be interesting to see how the unemployment numbers fall out. The one thing the ACA has given us is the beginning of the decoupling of health insurance and employment. People are less (though not entirely) dependent on employment for health coverage and can more freely change jobs or choose not to work altogether. No doubt, unemployment may go up because of this but is it an entirely bad thing of people have more choice and freedom?
As far as the deficit is concerned, the Congressional Budget Office projects that the ACA will reduce budget deficits over the long term (http://www.cbo.gov/publication/44176). Of course this will depend on many factors - how the law is implemented, whether court challenges change how it is provisioned, whether Congress passes additional laws that modify it. But it doesn't seem to be a deficit-buster in its current form.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Brenda. Why is that important? He's a great president despite it.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
Crazy Alert!!! I'm surprised she hasn't been burned by the cross she's wearing. ![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Komensky
Shipmate
# 8675
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Komensky:
That was my point.
Why are they whispering then? Why are you meeting so few "sane" Americans? The demographics suggest that most Americans do not actually support right wing politics, yet you claim the ones who don't act like they are members of a secret society.
I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
Thanks for that. This sounds very familiar. I have some relatives in Virginia and they live in a so-called 'gated community' which is almost entirely white—apart from the black and foreign staff at the clubhouse. It is surreal. I've certainly heard "what do you think of our American freedom?" before. I have to say—and this is extremely anecdotal—it's mostly in the South where the craziness flourishes.
K.
--------------------
"The English are not very spiritual people, so they invented cricket to give them some idea of eternity." - George Bernard Shaw
Posts: 1784 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I do consider Obama a great president. He nailed Osama bin Laden. This is important because my daughter had vowed to do it, and she has gotten as far as Bagram AFB in Afghanistan. I far prefer the Navy Seals to undertake the work. Obama will always have my gratitude.
Not just bin Laden. I think Obama's had a few other people bumped off without the tiresome and outdated formality of due process as well, hasn't he?
--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Kwesi
Shipmate
# 10274
|
Posted
What criteria make a president "great"? And how can those indices be measured?
As a non-American, I find it difficult to detect in what respect Obama, for example, can be described as "great".
Posts: 1641 | From: South Ofankor | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Well, as I say, Osama bin Laden. I was about to get on an airplane on Sept. 11, 2001. GWB could not nail him. Obama did. You won't find any American complaining about that; there are Lord knows few causes for unity in this country but you won't find anyone wishing he was alive.
The Affordable Care Act. We have been waiting for this one my entire lifetime. If you live in Europe, Britain or the Commonwealth you cannot conceive of how the horror of a health care disaster drives life in the US. Medical bills are the main cause of bankruptcy. I have friends who would be dead today, except that they managed to hang on until Obamacare saved them. What we have is not enough, but it is the crack in the door. Thank God! Now we can join the rest of the civilized world.
Here are a few more: Obama's Top 50 Accomplishments
[Link shortened to fix scroll lock -Gwai]
[ 04. August 2014, 14:12: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Obama is "great" because he looks good in comparison to such notables as GW Bush or most of the present crop in Congress. He would have been an actual great if he had had a lighter skin tone, which would have allowed him to avoid the absolute dead end blockade by certain members of said Congress (who apparently didn't notice that he had an absolute majority in his election)
But then Clinton did pretty well (except on health care), and Carter would have been a roaring success in almost any other developed country (hamstrung by having religious principles which he actually lived by)
There certainly hasn't been a GOP president since Nixon who achieved anything positive.
And, unfortunately, Canada has been not-blessed by having too many GOP-wannabes in the now-no-longer-Progressive Conservative Party. I suppose you could say the GOP has had that success: leading astray a once-great party in another country, thus causing the undevelopment of said country. But you can hardly call that a Positive development.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kwesi:
What criteria make a president "great"? And how can those indices be measured?
It's fairly subjective. Usually it's along the lines of "did he accomplish his policy goals?" and "were those goals worth achieving?" You often see lists compiled by historians (or by people polling groups of historians) ranking U.S. presidents. The top three are almost always George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, and Franklin Roosevelt. The order may change from list to list, but there's a general consensus that those are the top three. These presidents are notable because they faced crises during their terms that threatened to destroy the U.S. (or alter it so radically that it would functionally be a completely different country from the one that exists now). The obvious corollary is that if you happen to be president during a time when the Republic isn't threatened with extinction (i.e. most of its history), historians are going to consider you a second-tier president at best.
Near the bottom you get folks like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding, presidents who did substantial harm to the country through ineptitude or corruption.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
I note that Lincoln has been replaced as "great" by Ronald Reagan, in certain parts of the US, presumably because he got the whole idea of freedom wrong.
And Roosevelt is now being attacked strongly by the uber-rich and the Tea Party because he got the idea of equality wrong.
One of the greatest existential threats to the US has come from within, in terms of the loss of freedoms after 9/11 and the ascendancy of the new Gilded Era (for which the GOP can bear a lot of the responsibility). I don't think there can be a "great" President until those problems are dealt with.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The judgment of history is what GWB is waiting on. I guess it'll be a while.
Historians spend time shuffling the list, but I am on board with the Washington-Lincoln-FDR nexus. There is an argument that dangerous times call out greatness in men. Which is comforting, because then the losers, whiners and toilet fish we are now oppressed in Congress with show that the times are really quite good.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
sabine
Shipmate
# 3861
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
quote:
Originally posted by seekingsister:
quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
[q]I share Komensky's experience, simply because of a personal circumstance. My visits to the US are generally to drive my mother down to Florida where she lives a life of golfing and birdwatching. She is very social and has many friendships among the country club set. I have been astonished with the virulence and irrationality of political views among these settings--- I have sat through more than one conversation where we Canadians are viewed as victims of the socialist tyranny of Stephen Harper and are pitied because we do not rise up with the spirit of 1776. It can be quite surreal at times.
Sure, but you admit that it's a country club set.
I'm a black American with a graduate degree from the Northeast. Such views are as alien to me as they are to a Canadian or a Brit. The only Republicans I know are purely economically conservative and feel the GOP has been hijacked by Southern religious fundamentalists.
I'm only repeating this because that's why I believe the GOP is in long-term trouble. It's defending a version of America that no longer exists. America is becoming less white, more educated, and more urbanized. All of these things are correlated with support for the Democratic party.
To claim that "Americans" broadly agree with the fringe views in the Republican Party is to buy into their claim that they represent Americans better than the Democrats do. The numbers don't match this assertion, however.
Amen, amen, and a further amen.
I'll add an amen here. And also mention how sad and pathetic is seems to watch white men of priviledge clinging to the power they seem to take as their entitlement (a word they love to use prejoratively against the poor) as this power slips from their hands like sand. No wonder they come up with bogus emergencies like voter fraud to pass laws that make it harder for people (mostly minorities and the elderly) to vote.
The conservative perspective can be a valid perspective. It can lead to collaboration with other political POVs.
But I think too many conservatives today are either afraid of the Tea Party (if they are elected officials) or are "low-information" voters who get their opinions fed to them by the likes of Fox News.
There is little breathing room left for thoughtful conservatives as the political landscape becomes shrouded in fear.
I used to have many good conversations with the conservtives I know, but those days seem to be gone.
sabine
[ 04. August 2014, 14:13: Message edited by: sabine ]
--------------------
"Hunger looks like the man that hunger is killing." Eduardo Galeano
Posts: 5887 | From: the US Heartland | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChastMastr
Shipmate
# 716
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Near the bottom you get folks like James Buchanan, Andrew Johnson, and Warren Harding, presidents who did substantial harm to the country through ineptitude or corruption.
I'd add GWB and Ronald Reagan to that list, most definitely.
--------------------
My essays on comics continuity: http://chastmastr.tumblr.com/tagged/continuity
Posts: 14068 | From: Clearwater, Florida | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tubbs
Miss Congeniality
# 440
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by irish_lord99:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Time is on our side. In time, as the full impact of ACA becomes evident, it will be the death knell of the GOP.
I think that depends on the full impact of the ACA on employment numbers and our already staggering national debt (a third of which was incurred under the Obama administration).
Only because he put the cost of Bush's war back on the books. Statistically, the GOP borrow more and increase the debt more often when they're in power.
The only way the debt is going to be reduced is if the US government cuts spending and increases taxes. Good luck with that. The UK government is equally crap.
Eventually, I can see them splitting into two - a more moderate rump and the Tea Potters. The death throes are unlikely to be pretty. ![[Frown]](frown.gif) .
Tubbs
--------------------
"It's better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it up and remove all doubt" - Dennis Thatcher. My blog. Decide for yourself which I am
Posts: 12701 | From: Someplace strange | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
Indeed. One of the biggest eye opening experiences of plunging into the U.S. political landscape was the realization the GOP really is the "borrow and spend" party and that "tax and spend" Democrats are far more financially responsible.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Simple counter-question from a foreigner to the one in the original title to the thread.
If it can't, does it matter?
Incidentally, to those who have said it would be better not to have to have a simple two party split, that is forced on you, as it is on us, by having a first past the post electoral system. It's only the fact that there are only two real parties which will be why nobody has had reason to notice this.
quote:
Originally posted by Sir Kevin:
Before the next US Presidential election, I shall change my affiliation from one of the two major political parties to 'DECLINES TO STATE' if it is allowed where I am temporarily living as it was when I was a Field Deputy Registrar of Voters for Los Angeles County as it was when I was a teenager or 'Independent' if it's not.
'If it is allowed'? Surely you don't have to state beforehand who you're going to vote for. Isn't the ballot secret? It is virtually everywhere else. I don't believe that uniquely where Sir Kevin you happen to live is an exception to this basic principle.
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
In most states in the US a party affiliation is required to permit one to vote in a party's primary. A few states permit any voter to vote in a party's primary. There have been and still are many states and districts where the primary level is where the real contest is held, as local culture is such that the general election is a foregone conclusion.
Friends in Oregon, NY, and California have all told me that it was possible to find other parties than the two principal ones, but that clerks sometimes had to be told how to go about it.
Folk outside the US need to remember that there are fifty-plus electoral systems in the US, not one.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
Isn't a primary part of a party's internal system, one of the ways available to it to choose what candidate to put up, and nothing to do with the state, electors' rights or the government at all? Or have I completely misunderstood how US politics work?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't a primary part of a party's internal system, one of the ways available to it to choose what candidate to put up, and nothing to do with the state, electors' rights or the government at all? Or have I completely misunderstood how US politics work?
In most states the primaries are conducted and paid for by the state, not the parties.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
The parties do get to decide however -- whether to have a primary, or whether to have a convention, for example. In Virginia the extremists prefer a primary. Then they can pack it with their people and elect someone to their taste. This is how the GOP got the slate of losers it ran last cycle. A primary system would ensure (some) more voters from a (somewhat) wider pool and therefore (in theory) a more sane candidate.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
US political parties don't have a notion of membership in the sense you may be thinking of, Enoch. People (or at least non-politicians) who say they're Democrats or Republicans typically mean that's who they vote for, not that they've necessarily "joined" a party in any formal sense.
In my state (Massachusetts), when you register to vote you can choose a party designation of Democrat, Republican, or None (unenrolled), or some other political designation, and you can freely change it later (up to 20 days before an election.) As I recall, if you've specified a party you're restricted to that party's primary ballot, but unenrolled voters can choose which party ballot to vote on when they show up at the polling place.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
Isn't a primary part of a party's internal system, one of the ways available to it to choose what candidate to put up, and nothing to do with the state, electors' rights or the government at all?
Primaries became popular in the mid-twentieth century as a reaction against the party elite (a.k.a. "the smoke-filled room") choosing candidates. In essence they're a means by which party membership elects its candidates and, as MT points out, they're subject to the same regulation and scrutiny as any other election. Some states have closed primaries (only registered party members can vote) while other states have open primaries (any registered voter can vote in either party's primary, but not both).
There was a bit of a controversy recently about a Senate primary in Mississippi. The Republican primary initially yielded no clear winner so there was a run-off between the top two vote-getters. The Tea Party challenger lost and is alleging it was because a bunch of Democrats voted in the Republican run-off, which is a tricky allegation to prove since Mississippi does not register voters by party affiliation. Mississippi being Mississippi the main proof of this "Democratic interference" allegation seems to be a surge of support for the Republican incumbent from black Mississippians, so there's been a lot of hinting around with no one willing to just come out and say "of course they're not Republicans, they're black*!"
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The parties do get to decide however -- whether to have a primary, or whether to have a convention, for example. In Virginia the extremists prefer a primary.
Actually the Virginia Republican Party prefers conventions, at least for statewide office. I think they still use primaries for federal offices, though. Conveniently elections for state offices in Virginia are held in odd-numbered years so they never coincide with federal elections.
--------------------
*Mississippi being Mississippi, "black" is the word they'll use if they're feeling particularly genteel.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Some states have closed primaries (only registered party members can vote) while other states have open primaries (any registered voter can vote in either party's primary, but not both).
In our state, there is a single ballot, and you vote for your person, then the two candidates who get the most votes in the primary are on the ballot in the regular election, even if they're both from the same party. This is actually a compromise; we used to have a different system (which neither Josephine nor I can remember now!) but the Democratic, Republican, and Libertarian parties jointly sued the state and got it changed to what it is now.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Enoch
Shipmate
# 14322
|
Posted
This is all interesting. We hear in the news here about primaries, but the cognoscenti who comment either assume we know what they are, or don't know themselves and would prefer not to admit it.
So have I also got this right that the system varies from state to state, and applies to ordinary elections as well as the presidential one.
Mousethief, from your description, does that mean that where you live, a person cannot just stand for election but MUST put themselves through a primary first?
--------------------
Brexit wrexit - Sir Graham Watson
Posts: 7610 | From: Bristol UK(was European Green Capital 2015, now Ljubljana) | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
For Republicans and Democrats in Ohio, the first step at the local level is circulating a petition, which must be signed by a certain percentage of eligible voters. If more than one person from either party collects enough signatures, there is a primary on the first Tuesday in May. Winners get on the November ballot.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Photo Geek
Shipmate
# 9757
|
Posted
You do not have to declare a party affiliation when you register to vote. On primary election day you tell the poll workers which primary ballot you want.
--------------------
"Liberal Christian" is not an oxymoron.
Posts: 242 | From: Southern Ohio, US | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
Oh, you are right, Croesus. I get confused, because my son is a Young Republican and keeps on telling me about party tactics and strategy. Laughably, he joined hoping to meet girls. There are no young female Republicans in this state, the party having made itself repugnant to anyone with an ovary. There are only older white men.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Augustine the Aleut
Shipmate
# 1472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Oh, you are right, Croesus. I get confused, because my son is a Young Republican and keeps on telling me about party tactics and strategy. Laughably, he joined hoping to meet girls. There are no young female Republicans in this state, the party having made itself repugnant to anyone with an ovary. There are only older white men.
The nephew of a good friend of mine joined the Young Conservatives (the Canadian sort) for the same reason and found himself sandwiched between a posse of steely blonde and serious evangelicals with purity and purpose of soul, and several semi-closeted gays. He annoyed his complaining nephew by quoting the Rolling Stones to the effect that you can't always get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.
Posts: 6236 | From: Ottawa, Canada | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
