Right, but we’re talking about a budget. The Republican budget proposal can’t be three and a half pages of generalizations and banalities like their alternative proposals for everything else have been for the past two years.
They also had the Senate when they tried to do it to Clinton. This time it wouldn’t even get to the President. It would die in the Senate, and the House would have to start over.
Under this scenario, they’ll propose a budget, but one that would be disastrous and clearly unacceptable to the Senate or the President, and then sit back and let the Democrats get the blame for the deadlock that results.
The Republicans would not escape blame. One thing that has to be understood about this election is that the Tea Baggers were able to win conservative districts, but did not fare well in state wide elections. That kind of obstinance and obstructionism plays to their base, but does not play on a national level. It would backfire on them.
Looks to me like the TP candidates did about as well as mainstream Pubs, for the most part.
Not at state wide levels. The Tea Baggers actually cost them seats in the Senate and turned at least one red seat blue.
Mainstream republicans would have destroyed Coons and Reid.
I mean mainstream candidates didn’t win the races they were in at a higher rate than TP candidates - and I question whether a Republican landslide could ever occur in Delaware.
Mike Castle was poised to walk away with it, until he lost the primary.
Kind of a contradiction in terms. How strong could a candidate who lost a primary to “I am not a witch” really have been?
Primaries are much easier to influence with a small but motivated group since most people don’t bother with them. I don’t think a primary failure necesarily indicates general election disinterest.
Because the people who vote in primaries are not the same people who vote in general elections.
In theory the Queen could refuse to sign something but of course all hell would break lose then. I think I New Zealand I remember some groups trying to persuade the Governor General not to sign something but that didn’t get anywhere.
I see a parliamentary system as being essentially a temporary dictatorship constrained by the desire to be reelected. There’s always the fear that a government could go bad and really run off the rails but on the other hand they have the power to easily force unpopular measures when necessary. In general it seems to work pretty well.
Of course if there are multiple parties in a coalition then it gets more complicated. The main party in power has to keep the minor coalition parties happy which adds other constraints on what they can do.
Primaries are decided by party bases, not be electorates at large.
In 2012, we may see a macro example of what happened in Delaware if the tea baggers nominate Palin over someone with any kind of minimal credibility like Romney and end up with a similarly comedic general election campaign and lop sided loss to Obama.
And, of course, there are mechanisms for elections to happen at almost any time, giving the electorate a chance to effect change. It’s rare for a parliamentary government to last for a full five years.
One other thing I’d like to point out:
I often see dopers say things like “an atheist could never be elected dogcatcher in this country”.
Well my congressman, Pete Stark, who is an avowed atheist, was just reelected by 72% of the vote.
Generalizations aren’t voided by a handful of exceptions. It’s not much of a comfort to atheists to know that, yeah, one guy managed to represent a liberal enough constituency that it doesn’t matter.
Your example of Pete Stark only defeats a generalization if you take it absolutely literally. So it essentially becomes a straw man. Run as a known atheist almost anywhere in the country, and you’re toast.
Has he always been public about his atheism? If not, was there a significant difference in voting between before and after he announced it?
That is reassuring, but I mean, there are districts that are 90% democrat so that even if being an atheist loses you 20% of the vote you’d still win handily.
If Pete Stark was a Presbyterian he probably would lose some votes.
When are Christians going to get a fair chance in this country?!