Down Goes Eric Cantor

Politics & Elections
341

Which is why Obama immediately abandoned his commitment to universal health care once he got into office. :dubious:

Hence the recent CO2 regulation of existing coal plants, because some other corporate interest had bigger money on the other side.

Could you remind me of which interest that was?

Talk like this would scare me if I thought it had any chance of catching on.

This is not to say I don’t think the big-money boys don’t wield substantial influence in the Democratic Party; of course they do. But there are still quite real differences between the two parties on a slew of economic issues.

The crazification of the GOP has advanced well beyond its 2005 levels. And if the GOP controlled government now, they’d have no hesitation in getting rid of Medicaid along with Obamacare, turning Medicare into a voucher program so 80 year olds would have to figure out which private insurer would fleece them the least, and phasing out Social Security so that today’s retirees would be the last generation to know that security, limited as it is. And of course they’d not only not increase the minimum wage, they’d repeal the minimum wage law, and ban the states from passing such laws.

After the progressives pull their support from the Dems, the GOP does its damage, and the Dems, having learned their lesson, give more weight to progressives, attempt to rebuild what the GOP has torn down, how long do you think it would take for us to get back to where we are now?

And in the meantime, the progressives will have devastated the men and women they say they are more devoted to helping than the mainstream Dems are.

Pardon me if I say: fuck that shit. And again: fuck that shit. Fuck it as many times as it needs to be fucked, before it shuts up and slinks away.

Look, I think the Dems should be more progressive from a moral POV, and I believe it would benefit them at the polls to be more unequivocally on the side of Joe and Jane Sixpack rather than splitting the difference between them and corporate interests as often as they do. Joe and Jane would be more reliable Dem voters if they knew they could count on the Dems to be on their side, instead of being so damned inconsistent about it.

But at least the Dems split the difference on a number of these issues. The GOP not only won’t split the difference, they’ll try to destroy the good things the government is already doing for working people.

342

I can’t say I have a visualization of Omg, but the Omg itself is the tipoff: it’s something from a 15 year old girl’s text message, usually said about some triviality.

Around here, people don’t say ‘omg’ in a post, let alone in a username. He does. And the ‘Omg a black conservative’ bit, as if we’d never seen one before - which is next to impossible if you pay any attention to politics at all, since the GOP and the right-wing noise machine do their best to showcase the few black and minority conservatives they have, whether it’s Clarence Thomas or Thomas Sowell, whether it’s Bobby Jindal or Nikki Haley.

Or women. How can we forget Sarah Palin? Thank you, GOP, for trying to place her a heartbeat away from the Presidency! Boy, what a brilliant move that would have been, had it succeeded!

343

I don’t get this either. I’m not sure I exactly believe in the Tea Party as a unified entity - from where I’m sitting they look like Republicans to me. But they’re activists. They don’t say that they’re not going to vote for Republicans until the party agrees to do what they want, they actively try to find people who agree with their positions and then work to get them nominated as Republicans and elected to office. This is the proper order of things.

If progressives aren’t going to vote for Democrats then there’s no reason to address their concerns at all. I mean, I’m a Texas Democrat myself so I’m used to getting obliterated, but packing up the ball and going home is never going to accomplish anything. It’s equally frustrating how you hear around here that all we’ve got to do is wait twenty years and demographics will turn the state blue. No, it doesn’t work like that, you’ve still got to make a positive case.

344

So the message I am getting is “vote Democrat: your only option.” The Tea Party can drag the Republicans further and further right, but no power on earth can move either party further left, because the Democrats are already left of the Republicans.

It may be true, but it’s depressing.

345

The depressing part is that our system only supports two parties, so really you do have to pick your poison. But what is to stop you from getting people you like nominated as Democrats? Or from running yourself, for that matter?

Keep in mind that the Tea Party sorts have been reasonably good at getting their people nominated but only so-so at getting them generally elected. Brat will presumably replace Cantor, but there are plenty of Tea Party darlings that have lost general elections, even to seats they reasonably should have been expected to win (e.g., O’Donnell, Christine; Akin, Todd; Mourdock, Richard; etc.). Step 2 after getting your people nominated is selling them to the general public, after all.

346

Thank you for this post. It beautifully illustrates another problem with an entrenched two-party system, which is that neither party really tries to bargain with smaller elements of the voting populace because they feel they are OWED their votes. It’s arrogant and stupid of them, as the 2000 election showed on the part of the Democrats, but when you’re part of an entrenched system, you tend to get arrogant and stupid.

Rather than bargain, Democrats will try to blackmail prospective voters on the left into voting for their candidates by saying, “Look at the Other Guys! They’re HORRIBLE. We’re the only ones with a chance of defeating them! If you don’t vote for us, THEY’LL WIN!” Meanwhile their candidates move closer and closer to the other party’s positions in an attempt to snag off voters in the middle, because they figure they’ve GOT the votes of people to the left of them, I mean, who else they gonna vote for, right?

To be fair, the Democrats have made halfhearted attempts to enact progressive legislation and their supporters point to whatever victories they secure as proof of their progressive cred. Hence Obamacare (formerly Romneycare and a FAR cry from an attempt to control the spiraling health care costs that have left us with the most expensive health care system in the world, that delivers the 37th best health care quality in the world) and the coal emissions standards, which will probably amount to nothing by the time Obama’s corporate-friendly regulators “enforce” them.

On the OTHER hand, the Democrats’ solution to the economic debacle was all about rescuing the big banks (which have been “Too Big To Fail” and “Too Lucrative to Even Prosecute”) and they did very little for the middle class homeowners left dispossessed and underwater by the scam-artist real estate banks that signed their loans.

The Democrats have also, and this is their greatest failing, done very little for the unemployed and underemployed created by our shattered economy. They continue to allow the One Percent to pretty much dismantle the American middle class piece by piece. Their economics are all about Wall Street and have nothing to do with Main Street. The OFFICIAL unemployment rate has gone down, but only an idiot believes them. There is a LOT of hidden unemployment and underemployment out there.

Meanwhile, the Democrats have done little or nothing to change our incredibly stupid and wasteful criminal justice system that leaves America with the largest portion of incarcerated citizens in the world, often for victimless crimes like drugs and prostitution.

The Democrats have done nothing to curb the militarization of our police forces that has made a significant portion of our police force behave like goons and rabid killers, given the opportunity.

Obama has also deported WAAAAAY more third world immigrants than Geoge W. Bush ever did.

Democrats … progressive … give me a fucking break. Or at least … a choice. I really don’t feel like there is much of a choice between Republicans and Democrats right now, most especially the economic issues that SHOULD be front and center in our political considerations.

So I believe I will vote … elsewhere. I know that Republicans and Democrats will still most likely win elections. I know that I am a part of American society and will have to deal with the stupid shit they come up with in lieu of sound public policy. But at least I will not have given the mess my seal of approval in the voting booth.

347

I can’t speak to the UK at that level of detail, but the answer in Canada is: “It depends.”

Yes, in some parts of the country, some parties have very strong support, while other parties have broad support spread widely. FPTP will tend to favour the first group. The NDP, for instance, has traditionally had a consistent level of support across the country, but has not usually had regional strongholds, so has almost always been the 3rd party. However, our system is much more fluid than the US system on this point. In the last federal election, the NDP had a major breakthrough in Quebec, displacing the sovereigntist Bloc Québécois and winning enough seats in Quebec and elsewhere to form the Official Opposition. FPTP didn’t stop that.

As well, my personal rule of thumb is that the larger the population density (ie big cities, big provinces), the better the chance that three parties will be competitive in the same district. Places like Toronto and Vancouver, for instance - all three parties are more likely to be competitive, so that any one of them could take a particular riding. Certainly, I’ve voted in elections where I thought a particular candidate was going to take it, but I’ve also voted in ridings where I could see any one of the top three candidates taking the seat.

The Liberal Democrats (successors to the SDP) have been so marginalised that their leader is the Deputy Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. :slight_smile:

I would say that it’s more than just the voting system. The politics in a particular region can be pretty significant, as can the electoral rules. I would say that our system is considerably more flexible. It’s a lot easier to establish a new party and get traction at the voting booth. For instance, in my province (Saskatchewan), the party in power did not even exist 20 years ago. When was the last time that a new party formed and took power at the state level in the US?

(Not meant as a snarky question; I’m curious: have there been any new parties taking power at the state level in the past century?)

348

Mostly the fact that to win an election is ridiculously expensive in terms of both time and money, and not something an ordinary person can afford to do.

Other countries manage to limit the campaign season to a few weeks. That is such a sensible idea, I don’t know why Americans won’t.

349

Well the OBVIOUS thing for Democrats to do is to lie to the Green party about all the progressive things they will do once they take office with the Green votes, then do nothing for the Greens until the next election comes around, at which point they will trot out a new series of promises they will break. Isn’t that the way it works on coalition governments?

350

Other countries don’t have the first-amendment-style protections on political speech.

351

That have been perverted into a belief that corporations are people and deserve free speech and can give candidates as much money as they wish to further their interests as opposed to that of the people who actually do the voting. You left out that part.

352

YOu left out the part where you don’t like individuals doing that either.

353

What in the world does that have to do with “limiting the campaign season to a few weeks”?

354

And for you, it comes right back to how you feel about the Democratic Party. And you would put your (quite justifiable) grudge with the Democratic Party way ahead of the well-being of the people who would have the most to gain or lose, depending on how upcoming elections play out. You would sacrifice their lives to your grudge.

You are not a progressive. You are a poseur.

355

Back in 1968 George Wallace said that there wasn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats. He was talking Nixon and Humphrey. If you are extreme enough, the parties look the same.
As for the horrible consequences, all those dead Americans and way more dead Iraqis might have agreed that there were real consequences when Nader siphoned off votes. Hell, maybe Gore wouldn’t have sat on his ass when warned of an attack.

Sure, a more universal system would be good. But how many millions of uninsured are now insured? How many more would be if Republicans didn’t obstruct Medicaid expansion? If you want progressive policies, start trying to beat Republicans, not Democrats.

At least some banks are getting prosecuted. Do you think any would be if McCain had won? Not to mention compare our growth with that of Europe under an austerity policy less severe than the Republicans would have implemented. I think we’re doing a lot better - but not as good as we could have done with a bigger stimulus and less cutting of government jobs.

The Tea Party is doing on the right what you want to do on the left. The Cantor race seems to have been interpreted as killing any chance of immigration reform, which is going to in the long run kill any chance of the Republican party winning nationally. The more rational ones know this, but the Tea Party doesn’t care.

356

This is such a tired old bit.

First, blame the people who DID NOT VOTE. These outnumber Nader voters by an enormous margin.
Then, when you have excoriated them, you can blame those who voted for Bush.
Finally, when you are through with those, you may blame the people who voted their conscience rather than strategically.

Rather than blaming them, you should be asking why they could not bring themselves to vote Democrat, and instead voted for someone they knew would (a) not win and (b) would cancel out Gore votes.

I can understand the annoyance at them, but I can’t understand why it is less than the anger at non-voters. who could easily have cancelled out the Nader voters had Democrats been able to get them to the polls.

357

Not much we can do about voters who don’t give a shit. Or for whom voting is a challenge. And they didn’t have helpful Republicans increasing turnout of Democratic voters by trying to keep them away from the polls.
Bush voters? Clearly most of them thought Bush was a better choice, deluded as they might be. I’d suspect most Nader voters aren’t that deluded. Maybe I’m wrong.
Sure Gore could have been a better candidate. But my rant was about EC implying that Dems saying that Bush winning had real consequences. Nader has never admitted that he was responsible even in the slightest way. Fully responsible, of course not.
In politics the best is the enemy of the good. What came out of that election was not in the slightest bit good.

358

The difference is that you think the TEA Party is losing, but** Evil Captor** and I think the ideology of the TEA Party is winning.

When one hates the idea that the government passes so much legislation, failing to pass much new legislation is not failure, but success. When you love tax evasion, gutting the IRS is “helping.” And so forth. The TEA Party is not dysfunctional. They are successful. They are in fact getting what they want, that’s why they are keeping up the same behavior.

Now, how many environmentalists, labor advocates, heck, even Planned Parenthood workers are getting what they want in the present environment?

359

FTR, I regret in hindsight that I did not campaign for Gore, but instead kind of turned against him by election day, threw up my hands, and voted for Nader rather than vote for either scion of the aristocratic, dynastic Washington culture.

I regret it not because he was a Democrat, but because he was, personally, an environmentalist, and apparently we needed the Kyoto Protocols in order to* survive.*

But I understand how* I *talked myself out of it; I was a kid from the religious right still having a hard idea with the idea of voting for the party of Bubba Clinton. I had voted against Bill Clinton twice, and while I liked Gore better than I liked Clinton, I was kind of down on the Democratic Party at that point.

How did y’all lose those *myriads *of other voters?

Better yet, how did Democrats lose in 2004, when the incumbent in the White House was literally arresting persons outside our jurisdiction and holding them indefinitely without trial?

For years, the Democratic Party used the votes of the anti-war, pro-rule-of-law sentiment in the USA. Without that movement, the Dems would have had no wins in 2006 and 2008, and the GOP would have *unbroken control *of Washington.

But we put Dems in office, and what did we get? Oh, yeah. Absolutely no consideration of our concerns.

No prosecutions. Even the Reagan administration had convictions. Nixon’s staff went to prison for years. Where were the prosecutions for the Bush administration? Since when is lying to Congress not a crime? Since when is kidnapping OK because it crosses jurisdictions?

Was there even a truth and reconciliation commission? Oh, no, that would imply admitting something was wrong!

Was there even a movement in the new majority to behave differently? No.

The Democrats played the anti-war movement, just another bunch of privileged fatcat families thinkin’ [O Brother Where Art Thou]“that REE-form”[/O Brother Where Art Thou] was a way to win votes, not in governance, but as an empty promise in a campaign, just for this election.

And you still wonder why you lost in 2010?

360

:confused: what the heck does the First Amendment have to do with the discussion?

There are no legal restrictions in Canada (and other parliamentary democracies, so far as I know) on campaigning outside the writ period of the election. It’s simply not a very effective electoral strategy in our system, so it doesn’t happen.