View Story | 47 comments
Comments: Expand Shrink Hide (Always) | Indented Flat (Always)
"The Democrats in Congress are spineless, useless, strategically challenged, bought off by corporations, etc. - and there aren't enough of them."
It's cognitive dissonance in its purest form. People apparently seem to think that the only thing preventing Democrats from having, you know, moral, ethical and political integrity is a lack of a majority.
Or, their idea is, elect more of them and then make them all reform. Because of course a party that's firmly in the majority is going to listen to people telling them to change how they operate. Hahahaha, I just made a funny.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is still choosing evil. -- teacherken
by Mehitabel9 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:38:05 AM PDT
stronger majority is that you can then throw the worst of them to the curb. right now, there are dems who will hold on to their seats only because the majority is so slim. people will vote for anyone with a D after their names. however, if the numbers were better, it would be okay to challenge some of the incumbents with more progressive candidates. if you lose a couple of seats, then the majority is still in place. a bigger majority will mean more choices.
I didn't get Jack from Abramoff...I'm not a Republican!
by nonnie9999 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:43:55 AM PDT
[ Parent ]
throw the worst of them to the curb.
In reality -- I don't vote in Nancy Pelosi's district so I can't throw her to the curb. Same goes for everyone in Congress except Patty Murray, Maria Cantwell and Jay Inslee (all of whom, btw, I'd like to see primaried out).
As long as Nancy's constituents love her, and apparently they do love her, she's not going anywhere.
I dunno what to do about that.
by Mehitabel9 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:50:04 AM PDT
all at once. it is still up to individual districts to pick their reps. we might not like them, but we have to live with them. i live in floriduhhhh. we have to live with bill nelson, because he is safe. if we had a bigger majority in the senate, then maybe people would feel more comfortable backing a better candidate, rather than sticking with the safe choice. maybe we can start making some demands on who we do have. what if we tell our reps that we will not support them if they intend to vote for pelosi to be speaker again? if we were not afraid of losing a few seats, then we have leverage. as it is now, we can't be with the ones we love, we have to love the ones we're with.
by nonnie9999 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:23:22 AM PDT
... and the advantages of incumbency.
i think that your general point is right on, but sometimes it seems like the least progressive democrats seem to float to the top at least in part due to seniority.
i think in general, if we want to get service after the sale, we are going to have to get much more involved in things like the election of leaders.
just a thought...
yoo broke the law, now the law breaks you
by joe shikspack on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 08:50:09 AM PDT
is not a guarantee. look at some of the senate seats we picked up last time around. incumbency means name recognition and lots of money. however, if we had a cushion, where we didn't have to be afraid of losing the majority, people might be willing to take a chance with someone new.
by nonnie9999 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 09:27:13 AM PDT
but i wonder, at the local level how many strategic voters are thinking about delivering the larger party a victory and how many are thinking about the strategic value of having a senior member of congress representing them and bringing home the bacon?
my bet is on the latter and that's why ditching the seniority system is a good idea, and perhaps better than invoking term limits which deny some voters the right to vote for the candidate that they want.
by joe shikspack on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:30:56 AM PDT
is all the money being taken out of the equation and allowing everyone to start out on a level playing field. of course, incumbency makes it somewhat unlevel, but i think all candidates should be allowed X amount of dollars. no more, no less. they get equal airtime. this should be part of the test as to who are the best candidates. who can make the most of their money and their time? isn't that what we really want in our representatives? fiscal responsibility and cutting out the bullshit? i doubt it will ever happen, as the 2 big parties are quite happy with the way things are now, as is the media who makes shitloads of money from the campaigns. we can still dream though, can't we?
by nonnie9999 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 10:56:39 AM PDT
further down the thread...
three main things that need to be done: public funding of elections removal of ballot obstacles to third party candidates removal of obstacles to getting fair access to public debates to third parties and candidates with significant followings but less than top tier polling
three main things that need to be done:
then somebody reminded me about gerrymandering, which is also an important thing to work out.
i'm thinking that we're on the same page. B)
by joe shikspack on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 11:13:31 AM PDT
we would be better off if we just put every citizen's name in a big box, pulled out one name for each seat in the house and senate, and did away with the election. i am thinking that it couldn't be much worse that it is now.
by nonnie9999 on Fri Dec 14, 2007 at 11:24:08 AM PDT
wide narrow
View Story | 47 comments