Skip to main content

View Diary: Poll: Shutting down government over Obamacare really, really unpopular (57 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I don't see any evidence for this: (6+ / 0-)
    The slimmer the House majority becomes, the more unified and extreme they will get.
    The GOP majority in the House is pretty slim now, and their caucus is anything but unified.  There are Teabagger members who are openly defying their leadership.  Boehner punished some of those rebellious members by yanking their cherished committee assignments, but many are unrepentant.

    So if the Republicans lose even more seats, Boehner's control of his caucus is likely to weaken even further, since the Teabaggers all come from solidly Republican districts, and any Democratic gains will probably come from unseating GOP members in swing districts.  Boehner will therefore have even fewer of the relatively reasonable GOP members who are willing to compromise and will thus be more dependent on the votes of the extreme Tea Party members.  Instead of greater unity, I think we'll see even more fights between the leadership and the extreme right than we've seen in this Congress.  

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:33:21 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  I Think It's Generally True (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Deep Texan, Fury

      The most "at risk" seats for the GOP at any given time are the swing seats... seats that have traditionally been held by a "moderate" Republican or a moderate Democrat.  It stands to reason that if they lose those seats, the representatives they are left with are going to be those further to the right.

      That said, I don't think it would have a significant impact on how they would govern since their moderates would still be significant enough in number that they'd still need Democrats to get certain things done.

    •  Boehner will be booted for a more extreme face, (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sfbob, golem, mperloe, a2nite

      and all those "reluctant moderates" (the ones who haven't lost their seats) will suddenly fall in line behind the teabagger caucus. His successor will magically have no trouble corralling votes for the hard-right faction of the GOP. All divisions will disappear.

      The Republicans who lose seats will likely come from more moderate areas; the teabaggers enjoy almost completely protected districts. The gerrymandering the GOP engaged in post-2010 was designed to ensure this.

      The smaller their majority, the more they harden and act as a coherent unit. The notion of a GOP divided and in disarray is just a feint to keep Democrats complacent and feed the media scandal mill.

      The bottom line is, they'll still manage to obstruct no matter how small their majority is. For that purpose a majority of one is the same as a majority of thirty or forty.

      And if the GOP wins the Senate they get to do more than just obstruct: they get to set the legislative agenda. Given how eager Obama was to compromise with the GOP when the Democrats held a big majority in both houses of Congress, imagine how eager he'll be when the GOP controls both Houses.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 09:53:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Agreed. What I don't understand is how this (0+ / 0-)

        stalemate will be any different with a new Democratic President-- no matter who she or he might be. The teabaggers in gerrymandered districts will be in the same position to obstruct and there's no reason (at present) to believe they'll come to their senses.

        Let's face facts: the minority of the minority has constructed roadblocks to inhibit any substantive progress and unless they change stripes (Unicorns, anyone?) we'll only have more of this BS until the next census.

        "Life is short, but long enough to get what's coming to you." --John Alton

        by Palafox on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:05:42 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  As in any political evolution (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Palafox

          the gains do not come from converting the hardcore opposition, although there are always a tiny number that come to their senses. The gains come at the margins. Republicans become independents, Independents become Democrats, Democrats become Progressives, quietly, out of the limelight. And most of all, Angry White Guys age out and die, to be replaced by much more Progressive young people, at the rate of about 1% of the population annually.

          The same is true for candidates. The only ones we can unseat are those in swing districts or those where Tea Party insurgents who knock of the moderate Republican incumbents turn out to be unelectable. In Indiana, where I live, that was Richard "Rape babies are God's will" Mourdock, who ran more than 10 points worse than Mike Pence did in the Governor's race. Instead we got Blue Dog anti-abortion Sen. Joe Donnelly, who has since evolved on Guns and Gays, even if not on God.

          Our plan for the midterms will be to unseat at least 20 Republicans in swing districts over issues such as abortion and immigration, install Nancy Pelosi as Speaker, and then fight with the Blue Dogs about what we actually need to get done, rather than with the Tea Parties.

          If we could then take on filibuster reform, we could actually discuss a serious infrastructure/renewable energy/stimulus bill, real financial regulation, Global Warming, voting rights, union rights…rather than Repeal Obamacare/Defund the Gummint. What the Wall Street Journal threatened the Republican crazies with.

          [Obama will] blame any turmoil or economic fallout on House Republicans, figuring that he can split the tea party from the GOP and that this is the one event that could reinstall Nancy Pelosi as Speaker. Mr. Obama could spend his final two years going out in a blaze of liberal glory.

          Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

          by Mokurai on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  The definition of reasonable has changed. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, Timeslayer

      "Boehner will therefore have even fewer of the relatively reasonable GOP members who are willing to compromise" Let's not kid ourselves, there are no Republicans who display a reasonable approach to government and even a minimal understanding of economics. We kid ourselves when we consider Boehner to represent a moderate view. Republicans have moved so far to the right, that we've made the NoNothing party into a new moderate center party. It just aint so.

      I'd buy Medicare rather than regular insurance given the option.

      by mperloe on Mon Sep 23, 2013 at 10:31:51 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site