This is two days before the election, but I figured its worth posting because I predicted this was coming:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/03/opinion/cancel-the-midterms.html?_r=0
I realize that these are nobodies, but the most important newspaper in the country decided it was worth running. Maybe to get the idea planted in the national discussion? Chris Matthews also once expressed this idea:
It’s an appealing idea just on the election fatigue thing alone. I mean, I realize its purpose, but it’d be nice to have a few years without an election either on or forthcoming within a very short time.
I don’t think it’s necessarily a bad idea for a President to have to face what is essentially a national referendum on his policies halfway through his term.
Call me skeptical. The New York Times, a paper that has not endorsed a Republican as President since 1956, criticizes midterms; it just so happens the current midterms are very bad for the sitting Democrat President. You can bet your bottom dollar this “national discussion” will all but disappear from the national discussion the next time a sitting Republican President and his Party face annihilation in the midterms.
My rule 1 of politics; both sides are as hypocritical and partizan as the other. Both sides promote agendas when they think it will help their cause, both sides will jetison parts of their agenda as soon as it hinders them.
It ain’t quite that symmetrical.
So you not like the results of this election. Therefore now you wish to change the rules of the game that have been in place for a couple hundred years ?
I would expect no less than that from the NYT. Wait…yes I actually do expect less.
Yes, because somehow a news network that went to court for its right to lie is more reliable than a newspaper with 112 Pulitzers. :rolleyes:
I’m not impressed by the timing, but there is something to the sentiment - midterms get ignored a heck of a lot. At the very least we need more outreach programs to impress on people “HEY GUYS, THIS SHIT MATTERS!”. Seriously, look at this shit.
Yes, a publication which employed the Pulitzer Prize winning Walter Duranty is to be applauded whilst “lying” news organizations are to be roundly condemned. Sorry, if you miss the greatest mass murder in history, and gain a journalistic prize whilst doing so, then im calling that media organization unreliable. Im also calling the body which awarded the prize as unreliable too.
Yes, but that’s the fault of the voters for staying home.
You’re all talking like this is some brand new idea that Democrats have suddenly decided to shove down the throats of decent Americans.
Talk about giving the House four-year terms so that they don’t spend half their lives campaigning goes back into the dim mists of history.
Here’s an article from that noted Commie bastion The Economist making the case for it.
As Little Nemo said, having a way for the public to speak between presidential elections is a powerful counter-argument. You could suggest that all the House races be set in the off year but that has its own pros and cons.
In short, this is a real argument and has been going on for decades along every point on the political spectrum. Only the most disingenuous ideologue would present this as a new partisan cheat. Unfortunately, the world has no shortage of such. :smack:
Just beause its not new does not make it any less partisan. The argument for doing away with midterms is a reasonable one, even if you disagree with it. However, the move for such an act is usually partisan. The next time Democrats are the beneficiaries of a midterm wave the issue will be dropped by most of those advocating such a move right now.
The same goes for any future Watergate type scandal involving a President. As soon as a newly elected President is caught in a major abuse scandal those opposed to midterms will be telling us of the benefits of midterms; of how lucky America is to have these checks and balances.
A newspaper is going to run an opinion piece about elections near election day because that’s when people are most interested in reading about elections. There was, of course, zero chance that the 2014 midterms wouldn’t happen and no one will remember this “discussion” by 2018 with the 2016 presidential election in between.
In other words, I think you’re seeing things that aren’t there. The NYT ran it because midterm election stories sell now, not in May of 2015.
If you mean FOX news, that turns out to be an urban legend:
I have to admit I believed it too when I first heard it, due to my low opinion of FOX.