Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Is the GOP legislatively out of ****s to give?

Is the GOP legislatively out of ****s to give?
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 07:14 PM
 
Given the current political landscape, are there any disincentives left for congressional republicans who want to pass unpopular legislation?

To put it another way "the most dangerous man is one with nothing to lose." The only thing the GOP seems to have left is donors, which they have adequately satisfied with this tax bill. Their political prospects are dire, and because of the drag of an unpopular president, there's probably nothing they can do legislatively to improve those prospects enough to keep control of the House. Losing the House, however, doesn't cost them anything they pass now, as the Democrats will not have the power to do anything, really with a Republican in the White House.

Which brings as back to the present. At this point, what's to stop the GOP from passing everything they've ever wanted? If you're in a swing district you're likely ****ed. If you're in a traditionally safe district, you're likely safe. The senate? Murkowski and Collins burned their bridge to moderates with this tax bill. They're also not up til 2020. They can go for broke. The can sell out then retire.

Note: I don't think the GOP is going to go on a spree of bad legislation here, I'm just exploring that from a political perspective, I don't think the downside is big enough anymore.


Here's the real kicker: Will anything they do matter in 8 years? Control of congress seems to be determined less by what they do than by who is in the White House. Bush sucked so hard dems got the House in 2006 but by 2010 were already kicked out with only two years of unified government. Now congress faces the same in reverse.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 07:46 PM
 
Most of the GOP members in Congress are i safely gerrymandered districts so yes they really are only beholden to their donors. Sure they may lose control of the House and perhaps the Senate but with a GOP controlled White House that doesn't matter. Their donor base wants certain legislation passed no matter how unpopular it is so it can be a done deal even if political control changes. So to answer your question ..... YES.

OAW
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 08:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Note: I don't think the GOP is going to go on a spree of bad legislation here ...
I've been seeing a string of bad legislation all year. What an odd thing to say. Unless you mean they'll be satisfied, and not continue?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 09:13 PM
 
Originally Posted by reader50 View Post
I've been seeing a string of bad legislation all year. What an odd thing to say. Unless you mean they'll be satisfied, and not continue?


The problem with these theory threads are they tend to be a cobbling together of a few extraneous thought is can't get out of my head.

Aside from the failed ACA repeal, I'm not sure what really unpopular legislation has passed this year, so I'd appreciate your perspective.

On your second point, the last great achievement they have left is entitlement 'reform'. I feel like it'll be a barometer of just how far gone the GOP is.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Most of the GOP members in Congress are i safely gerrymandered districts so yes they really are only beholden to their donors.
Well my argument is different than that. First off, gerrymandering can backfire during wave elections, which seems possible for democrats.

Second, I cite donors because they are kingmakers by way of the power and influence money now has in politics. You either humor them or they primary you. Why fight two elections instead of one?

Plus, if you acquiesce and fail, the donors will reward you in the private sector. If you ignore them, however...

This is what I mean by there being no (electoral) disincentives left for Republicans. Does an entire district of constituents wield as much influence on the future prospects of a congressman as spurned donor after he's kicked out of congress?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
On your second point, the last great achievement they have left is entitlement 'reform'. I feel like it'll be a barometer of just how far gone the GOP is.
Well, the GOP's argument is that entitlement cuts allow for tax cuts, although politically, tax cuts should be the popular bit while entitlement cuts are predictably unpopular. Now, even the supposedly popular part is extremely unpopular, so that makes entitlement cuts very unlikely.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 19, 2017, 09:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Well, the GOP's argument is that entitlement cuts allow for tax cuts, although politically, tax cuts should be the popular bit while entitlement cuts are predictably unpopular. Now, even the supposedly popular part is extremely unpopular, so that makes entitlement cuts very unlikely.
If they pass unpopular tax cuts, that's their excuse that entitlements must be cut. So my take is passing tax cuts gives them leverage to cut entitlements that otherwise would be even weaker. (They may even feel emboldened by the achievement)

Your problem is you're looking at this as a logical problem when my premise is a political one.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 04:58 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If they pass unpopular tax cuts, that's their excuse that entitlements must be cut. So my take is passing tax cuts gives them leverage to cut entitlements that otherwise would be even weaker. (They may even feel emboldened by the achievement)

Your problem is you're looking at this as a logical problem when my premise is a political one.
I don't think we disagree at all, I was just outlining the (rather facile) idea the GOP has here — but I am not in favor of it nor think it is the right thing to do.

The practical flaw behind this two-step strategy is evident — “forcing yourself” to do the unpopular bit will never work if you can just continue to borrow money. I fully expect that it will remain half-done — only taxes will be cut while spending on “entitlements” remains roughly the same (it might decrease somewhat, but as long as the big ticket items such as military aren't touch, this won't do a thing). Plus, if the GOP loses its majority before step 2, then, well, there won't be a step 2 anyway. Nope, you have to do the hard part first, and then you can do the easy thing.

That's what the Democrats did with the ACA: they knew they would take a hit, but they did it anyway. You may agree or disagree on the law, but they had the gonads to do the hard thing first.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 09:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
If they pass unpopular tax cuts, that's their excuse that entitlements must be cut. So my take is passing tax cuts gives them leverage to cut entitlements that otherwise would be even weaker. (They may even feel emboldened by the achievement)
Your math there is spot-on, and it's exactly what the Republicans have planned. Ryan has pretty much admitted as much.

At this point, the Republicans are operating according to pure, blind doctrine without any real concern for what the general public might think, or what the real-world results of their actions may be. Gutting (probably via block grants and privatization) Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is in their sights next, and it'll be done before the mid-terms get here. I think they've run the numbers and are pretty confident that, even if they lose the Senate, they'll retain the House (and, of course, the White House) and they'll be able to thwart any Democratic attempts to undo their actions.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 02:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Well my argument is different than that. First off, gerrymandering can backfire during wave elections, which seems possible for democrats.

Second, I cite donors because they are kingmakers by way of the power and influence money now has in politics. You either humor them or they primary you. Why fight two elections instead of one?

Plus, if you acquiesce and fail, the donors will reward you in the private sector. If you ignore them, however...


This is what I mean by there being no (electoral) disincentives left for Republicans. Does an entire district of constituents wield as much influence on the future prospects of a congressman as spurned donor after he's kicked out of congress?
The highlighted part is spot on.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 02:49 PM
 
Another point on legislative nihilism: CHIP has been unfounded for nearly three months and they won't fix it in the CR. States are already having problems keeping the program running with funding running out.

It's a literal 'wont someone think if the children' and democrats are too chickenshit to do anything about it. GOP doesn't seem to care.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 03:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
It's a literal 'wont someone think if the children' and democrats are too chickenshit to do anything about it. GOP doesn't seem to care.
I agree about the Republicans. It's not that they don't seem to care so much as they, in fact, actually don't care.

As for the Democrats...I'd like to think it's more a matter of them acknowledging the reality of their being frozen-out by the Republicans, and are unable to get bills so much as heard. Orrrrr...They know CHIP will be a lovely weapon to use against Republicans in the mid-terms, but want to stay silent on it for now, so as to not tip their hand. Orrrrrrrr.......yeah....they're chickenshits.

Knowingly letting CHIP run dry is unconscionable.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 03:45 PM
 
They have the tax bill to hammer in the mid terms. Kids insurance is not something to delay for political gain.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 11:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The practical flaw behind this two-step strategy is evident — “forcing yourself” to do the unpopular bit will never work if you can just continue to borrow money.
You make a good point, but there's a dichotomy here: The part is unpopular with voters, not the GOP. The GOP always wants to slash entitlements.

I do think that following through on this will be similarly difficult to the ACA debacle, thanks to GOP moderates, but in this political reality I feel like conventional wisdom is ...unreliable.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I fully expect that it will remain half-done — only taxes will be cut while spending on “entitlements” remains roughly the same (it might decrease somewhat, but as long as the big ticket items such as military aren't touch, this won't do a thing). Plus, if the GOP loses its majority before step 2, then, well, there won't be a step 2 anyway. Nope, you have to do the hard part first, and then you can do the easy thing.
The idea is to get this done next, before the 2018 elections. That plays into my 'out of ****s to give part'. Slashing entitlements before an election would be a Kamikaze move – but one hard to reverse after they potentially lose the House.


Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
That's what the Democrats did with the ACA: they knew they would take a hit, but they did it anyway. You may agree or disagree on the law, but they had the gonads to do the hard thing first.
Here's the really galling part: Democrats did their best to make sure the ACA was fully funded. As in it didn't add the the deficit.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 11:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Your math there is spot-on, and it's exactly what the Republicans have planned. Ryan has pretty much admitted as much.

At this point, the Republicans are operating according to pure, blind doctrine without any real concern for what the general public might think, or what the real-world results of their actions may be. Gutting (probably via block grants and privatization) Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security is in their sights next, and it'll be done before the mid-terms get here. I think they've run the numbers and are pretty confident that, even if they lose the Senate, they'll retain the House (and, of course, the White House) and they'll be able to thwart any Democratic attempts to undo their actions.
Other way around. House is projected to be lost but the Senate has only gone from Nearly Impossible to Highly Improbable Dem majority. Too many Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2018.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 11:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
You make a good point, but there's a dichotomy here: The part is unpopular with voters, not the GOP. The GOP always wants to slash entitlements.
Of course, for the same reason that people also like “entitlements”* but aren't willing to pay for them in taxes or would really like ice cream without getting fat.

* I don't think the name is apt, but anywho.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I do think that following through on this will be similarly difficult to the ACA debacle, thanks to GOP moderates, but in this political reality I feel like conventional wisdom is ...unreliable.
I don't think GOP moderates will pose much of a threat to Ryan and McConnel. They had the best bargaining position ever in the Senate, and all of them folded. Be it Mr. Not-a-single-dime-in-debt or Mrs. What-about-my-constitutents's-health-care. I don't see any of them putting up a fight.
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
The idea is to get this done next, before the 2018 elections. That plays into my 'out of ****s to give part'. Slashing entitlements before an election would be a Kamikaze move – but one hard to reverse after they potentially lose the House.
We should not forget that this may bring about the exact opposite: because the ACA is being dismantled, at a certain point it needs to be fixed. And the current solution is Medicare buy-in, that could easily morph over time into a single-payer system. That'll be a giant own goal by the GOP, because they have offered no alternative to the health care problem (≠ health insurance problem).
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Here's the really galling part: Democrats did their best to make sure the ACA was fully funded. As in it didn't add the the deficit.
It is often really tempting to start using the same shady shit as your opponent, because it gave them an unfair leg up. You can say the same about gerrymandering, how Supreme Court and federal judges are appointed now and so forth. But it is bad for the country and the people living in it, because it destroys trust in the political system.

I honestly don't know whether being honest will help you here, but I know that this way you'll be able to look in the mirror at night.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 20, 2017, 11:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Other way around. House is projected to be lost but the Senate has only gone from Nearly Impossible to Highly Improbable Dem majority. Too many Democratic Senators up for re-election in 2018.
If you look towards 2020 and include state elections, the GOP is facing a stiff breeze at the moment. Remember it took several years for the GOP to take over both houses, starting from a supermajority.

But the real trouble is that they could permanently lose “old school” conservatives and wealthier, socially liberal types.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2017, 01:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I don't think GOP moderates will pose much of a threat to Ryan and McConnel. They had the best bargaining position ever in the Senate, and all of them folded. Be it Mr. Not-a-single-dime-in-debt or Mrs. What-about-my-constitutents's-health-care. I don't see any of them putting up a fight.
Tax cuts are a different animal. For one, congresspeople can benefit from them. Not so much entitlement reform. Tax cuts are theoretically an easier sell.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It is often really tempting to start using the same shady shit as your opponent, because it gave them an unfair leg up. You can say the same about gerrymandering, how Supreme Court and federal judges are appointed now and so forth. But it is bad for the country and the people living in it, because it destroys trust in the political system.
I'm not advocating don't tax and spend, just highlighting the hypocrisy – that Democrats act more fiscally responsible than Republicans, they just don't admit it because they don't like how it's done.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2017, 01:14 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
If you look towards 2020 and include state elections, the GOP is facing a stiff breeze at the moment. Remember it took several years for the GOP to take over both houses, starting from a supermajority.
Looking to 2020 is looking too far ahead. The only chance we have of slowing or stopping the dismantling of the government and reverse wealth transfer is 2018. If we can't do that we'll be hollowed out by 2020. 2020 is when we start trying to reverse the damage.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2017, 03:48 AM
 
Is America headed for a Russian or French style revolution?

Or maybe the billionaires will start building castles with resident private armies. Neo-feudalism?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 21, 2017, 04:07 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Looking to 2020 is looking too far ahead. The only chance we have of slowing or stopping the dismantling of the government and reverse wealth transfer is 2018. If we can't do that we'll be hollowed out by 2020. 2020 is when we start trying to reverse the damage.
It would be naïve to believe that the ails of the current political system in the US could be cured by an election, the problem goes much deeper. At best, a change in one chamber would help stop the bleeding, but IMHO healing would require good faith efforts from two parties. Where politicians live in the same reality and don't just insist on principles if it suits their aims. I'm not claiming that I expect this to happen, but rather that putting the Democrats back in power is not a panacea.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2017, 06:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
It would be naïve to believe that the ails of the current political system in the US could be cured by an election, the problem goes much deeper. At best, a change in one chamber would help stop the bleeding, but IMHO healing would require good faith efforts from two parties. Where politicians live in the same reality and don't just insist on principles if it suits their aims. I'm not claiming that I expect this to happen, but rather that putting the Democrats back in power is not a panacea.
I slightly touched on this with this part:
Here's the real kicker: Will anything they do matter in 8 years? Control of congress seems to be determined less by what they do than by who is in the White House. Bush sucked so hard dems got the House in 2006 but by 2010 were already kicked out with only two years of unified government. Now congress faces the same in reverse.
If politics in the US remains a pendulum than it looks like both government and society will continue to deteriorate until it collapses or revolution of some sort occurs.

To beat a dead horse, we could upend the current system if we moved away from FPTP. It's keeping the two parties entrenched and reinforcing polarization. That can only be fixed working from the bottom up, though.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2017, 06:21 PM
 
On the bright side for the time being McConnell sounds like he doesn't want to take up entitlement reform, because he knows its ballot box poison.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2017, 06:50 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
To beat a dead horse, we could upend the current system if we moved away from FPTP. It's keeping the two parties entrenched and reinforcing polarization.
For those who didn't recognize FPTP like me, it means Winner Takes All, but is a direct acronym for First Past The Post, apparently a horses term. It tends to give more seats to larger parties, while stripping seats from smaller parties. This in turn encourages two big parties while squeezing anyone smaller, as only the top- and runner-up- positions have a shot at future wins without major shifts in voting patterns.

Winner-takes-all is heavily practiced in countries with democratic governments which are nevertheless unpopular and not very representative. ie - USA, UK, Canada, India, Pakistan. The best alternative appears to be Ranked Choice Voting (also called Instant Runoff Voting) where you choose several candidates in order of your preference. Essentially, it lets you have one election, but contains the data needed for runoffs if no candidate wins a majority outright.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2017, 07:41 PM
 
I'm intrigued by California's system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpar...lanket_primary

If Alabama had such a primary in place, the election would have been between the top two primary vote getters, Moore and Strange. Hard to argue that Alabama wouldn't be more accurately represented right now.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 22, 2017, 11:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm intrigued by California's system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpar...lanket_primary

If Alabama had such a primary in place, the election would have been between the top two primary vote getters, Moore and Strange. Hard to argue that Alabama wouldn't be more accurately represented right now.
I don't think this would fix anything. You need proportional representation in the US, that would fix gerrymandering issues and give proper representation to a whole blocks of voters who haven't been represented in the legislature in decades — think of many rural democrats or Republicans in San Francisco.

Furthermore, if you are not a white voter, you'd have no choice at all. That's really the sad part of the story, looking at the final tally, if you are black, you had the choice between a Democrat and not voting. That's not sustainable.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
reader50
Administrator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 23, 2017, 01:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm intrigued by California's system: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonpar...lanket_primary

If Alabama had such a primary in place, the election would have been between the top two primary vote getters, Moore and Strange. Hard to argue that Alabama wouldn't be more accurately represented right now.
Speaking as a CA resident, the idea was to give voters a larger pool to choose from. Not just two ideologues at the far ends of the spectrum. To place moderates within reach, instead of having them eliminated by both parties in closed primaries.

I haven't noticed much difference, but then, I haven't seen how things would have gone if it were not passed. Extremists have gained a lot of ground elsewhere, while things have remained about the same in CA. So it may have helped a lot in relative terms. I'd still like to try ranked-choice voting, especially for the big offices.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 09:29 PM
 
It turns out, you can statistically show the GOP really is out of legislative ****s.



Chart explanation:
The left axis is % of the time a senator votes with Trump.
The bottom axis is Trump's margin of victory in the senators' states.

For Democrats, there's a clear correlation between how red their state is and how often they vote with the GOP majority on legislation.
For Republicans, there's no correlation between how their state voted and how they vote. The line is practically flat.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 10:25 PM
 
What I got out of that article is that there is no center anymore.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 23, 2018, 11:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
What I got out of that article is that there is no center anymore.
Can you elaborate? Aside from the graph I posted, I'm not very fluent in all these statistics.
     
Brien
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Southern California
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 12:37 AM
 
Lots of left-left-wing candidates and such steering the dems away from moderation basically.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 01:55 AM
 
Originally Posted by Brien View Post
Lots of left-left-wing candidates and such steering the dems away from moderation basically.
I think that's a bit too simple: there are a lot of moderate conservatives out there which are politically homeless, so I reckon the Democratic party will remain relatively broad. To me the pertinent question becomes whether this will lead to a schism inside the party (e. g. Red State Democrats vs. Blue State Democrats).

After all, the overall problem is that you need two feasible parties to choose from, not crazy vs. the rest.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 10:16 AM
 
I wonder though is there truly no moderate candidates, or does it merely look like that because the conservatives have swerved so far right that moderates look liberal?
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 05:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I wonder though is there truly no moderate candidates, or does it merely look like that because the conservatives have swerved so far right that moderates look liberal?
Bingo.
Hell, most of the Dems in Congess today would have been pretty comfortable as centrist Republicans 40-50 years ago.
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 05:14 PM
 
Indeed. Political polarization in Congress has essentially rendered any ideological overlap between the Dem and GOP non-existent at this stage in the game. All Dems are now to the left of even the most liberal GOP member in the House or Senate. And all GOP are to the right of even the most conservative Dem.



We took the vote scores for every senator and representative in five Congresses, one in each of the past five decades, and ordered them from most liberal (scores of -1 to 0) to most conservative (0 to +1). Then we sorted them by party to see how much overlap — if any — there was between Democrats and Republicans (for simplicity, we excluded the handful of independents).

In 1973-74, there was in fact substantial overlap. In the House, 240 members scored in between the most conservative Democrat (John Rarick of Louisiana) and the most liberal Republican (Charles Whalen of Ohio); 29 senators scored between New Jersey’s Clifford Case (most liberal Republican) and James Allen of Alabama (most conservative Democrat).

A decade later, though, that had already begun to change. By 1983-84, only 10 senators and 66 representatives (except for Rep. Larry McDonald (D-Ga.), who scored more conservative than every single Republican) fell between their chambers’ most liberal Republican and most conservative Democrat. By 1993-94, the overlap between the most conservative Democrat and the most liberal Republican had fallen to nine House members and three senators. By 2011-12 there was no overlap at all in either chamber.
The polarized Congress of today has its roots in the 1970s | PewResearch.org

OAW
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 24, 2018, 08:24 PM
 
Also, according to that graph, two dems are voting with the GOP 50% of the time. That doesn't count as moderate or centrist?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 12, 2018, 09:06 PM
 
I'm wondering if in the case the blue wave happens, does the lame duck congress burn the place down on the way out (i.e., repeal ACA, fund the wall, god knows what else). I suppose the worst case scenario is they kill the filibuster to do it.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Aug 13, 2018, 04:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
I'm wondering if in the case the blue wave happens, does the lame duck congress burn the place down on the way out (i.e., repeal ACA, fund the wall, god knows what else). I suppose the worst case scenario is they kill the filibuster to do it.
Will that be possible if the blue wave happens? Or you think Trump will break out the XOs again?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:32 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,