2010 Election Thread - Results

However, I would suggest that people don't vote for candidates based on platforms, it means that Republicans with a more sensible platform don't get the support that the more extreme forces get, and it means that the sensible views aren't gaining strength in the party. It lets the problem just keep going. I think it's important to support people with good views, because if good views get the votes, politicians being what they are will shift toward those views.

 

I'd say it depends. If you're talking about an executive branch position at some level, like President or Governor, then I think it's a bit more justifiable. However, given the way our legislative branch functions, the party platform is very important. Because the Party leadership gets to decide what bills to bring to the floor, the ability to consider amendments, and the activities of various committees, it's very important to consider what sort of agenda they want. One would be fooling themselves if, for instance, they thought that even electing an extremely liberal Republican, they'd be able to see any movement on gun control, simply because even if the guy wanted to vote for it, Boehner/Cantor/McConell would never let that come up in the first place.

 

The only way we're going to get a better country and better government is with better political parties, and the only way that will happen on a legislative level is by having better legislators, and the only way THAT will happen is when the best candidate is supported based on what that candidate's platform is, not the party line (for or against). The more people are willing to vote across party lines in elections, and the less party lines matter, the more party lines will disappear in government.

[/political_idealist]

 

Four words: open primaries
term limits.

Peace,

V-03

 

Yeah, V, I also have to question why you're singling out the overall party's platforms instead of any specific candidate. I agree that specific representatives are more issued tied, and the President is more of an overall director, and perhaps more tied to the party, but a lot of what you're describing only comes into play once the issues get going. No party is going to get specific during campaign season beyond a general outline, because coalitions have to be formed and compromises proposed in the upcoming session. Not only that, but as others have mentioned,I'm not sure anyone wants the candidates to be locked in by the parties themselves.

The parties themselves are best at offering general guidelines and it falls to the candidates to actually "get things done." The key to capturing the public's support is how effective they are at moving their focus along once/if they're elected.

 

Well, there's been a few times where the generic candidate polling has been dismissed as not mattering because it won't be a generic candidate on the ballot.
However, there's a new polling being discussed in 70 districts, where the Republican candidates are outpolling the Democrats 47-42 in Democrat-held districts, and 53-37 in Republican-held districts. They do also argue that when you adjust for these by the party leans of the districts being looked at, since they tend to have a Republican-lean so the nationwide shift is a bit less.

 

Polls far out don't really mean much; the environment changes so rapidly that only the post-Labor Day narrative will truly dicate the direction of the election.

I find polls which predict massive shifting of seats to be suspect, at best. So much can change between now and then. Remember, a generic democrat was trouncing Bush in January '04, by almost 12 points in some surveys. He won a pretty decisive victory that fall.

Yes, I will concede that all politics is local and that parties only give a "platform"; however, if I disagree with major aspects of that platform, I am unable to "take it on faith" that a particular politician won't be forced to support that aspect of an agenda once elected. Therefore, I tend to list amongst my reasons for choosing a candidate the overall "comfort level" I have with the party they are representing. That is why I am somewhat reticent to support GOP candidates, because the national party always brings up, and try to enforce their views on, social issues; I usually fall on the more liberal end of the social issue spectrum.

Peace,

V-03

 

Is anyone else getting election fatigue without the elections having taken place yet? I am.

 

60 of the 70 seats were held by Dems, though. That NPR poll is indicating that the average GOP incumbent has a 49% re-elect number. The average Dem: 34%.

https://preview.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=127834800&live=1

It's not looking good for them. They tried to demonize the GOP nominee for South Dakota's at-large House seat as "South Dakota's Sarah Palin" - only to see her shoot ahead of Stephanie Herseth Sandlin. North Dakota's House seat also looks like it will flip, too.

 

That's North Dakota, a red state if there ever was one.

Where it matters is the midwest, to a lesser extent the Northeast, the Hawaii seat, the Mountainous West, and the Southwest.

All other regions of the country are pretty much set.

Trust me, Palin is a non-starter in Southeastern Pennsylvania; Murtha's seat should have gone GOP, but it didn't, by a comfortable margin. The "locality" goes both ways.

Another local example: despite the controversy, I think Sestak is much better positioned to edge out Toomey, who is far too conservative for my area. An endorsement by Palin or the Tea Party would hurt, not help him, in the race.

Peace,

V-03

 

And a lot of that can be attributed to the higher Democrat turnout because of the hotly contested Senate primary Between Sestak and Specter. The PA-12 special election was always going to be decided by turnout, and the turnout heavily favored the Democrats because of the primary battle. That won't hold true in November, when a direct rematch for the seat will happen, and turnout is likely to be more typical.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Possibly, but the dems are very engaged around here. I am already seeing Toomey/Sestak ads. Toomey clearly stands against the health care law, which is not unpopular in the cities/suburbs of PA. His strength lies in the "conservative T" of the state, less affectionately known as "Pennsyltucky".

Peace,

V-03

 

I say again that Democrats will do well in November. They'll keep the House by a good margin and lose just 3-4 seats in the Senate. Mark my words on that. There will be a number of upsets, led by Harry Reid's triumphant re-election. The tea party folks will be looked at with increasing dismay by establishment Republicans after they cost the GOP several important elections, particularly that one.

 

Your optimism is more easily admired than shared, but I hope you're right.

 

I would hope so too, except that I know I'm right.

 

No, you have unquestioning faith in your own infallibility.

Once more, I ask for your sources and data to back up your claims. "I know I'm right" isn't a basis for discussion, and it's the farthest thing from a logical argument.

Without a logical argument backed up by data, you are simply talking out of your rear.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Oh, KK. You make me laugh so. And I need it today, too. It's like watching a computer try to solve an unsolvable equation, or something along those lines. You literally can't comprehend something like intuition and having a feeling about something. That's my impression, at least.

 

If the Democrats keep it local, connect to their local people, don't presume anything and stay humble, talk more policy and pragmaticism than ideology, and don't run "as a Democrat" but as themselves, then they will be able to retain their majorities and do fine.

But it really comes down to each individual race.

 

Spoken like a true atheist KK. You should bring some of this rationality to the Christianity/Atheism threads.

 

Then you don't know jack about me, and you never did.

Your intuition doesn't add anything to any discussion here because it lacks any substance. Without substance, what do we have to discuss in this discussion forum? We might as well just limit this thread to posting "My intuition says that X will happen" and then wait until after the election to post anything else.

The Senate has always been about discussing more than just the "what", but about the "why". It's not just about discussing what is happening, or what we think will happen, but why it is (or will be) happening. When you do your JCC-style drive-by posts, you completely ignore any pretense of the "why" behind your claims, and you expect everyone to take your intuition as the gospel truth.

I'm sorry, but that just doesn't cut it. And every time you drive-by with nothing more than your "intuition", I will continue to call you on it, because your intuition is worth jack squat around here.

Believe it or not, I do work by intuition and feeling quite a bit. Anyone who has ready any of my posts in religious-based threads can see that. The difference is that I don't ever demand that others take my personal intuition, feelings, or experiences as something definitive for them to base their positions upon. I'm willing to state what I believe and why I believe it, but I don't expect anyone else to accept it just on my say so.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Well, all you have is my say so, and that's all you're going to get.

Think of it as broadening your horizons.

 

Except you aren't broadening anything, because you aren't giving any context that would broaden horizons.

Broadening horizons requires understanding other points of view, but you can't understand another point of view by looking at only the "what" of what they believe. You have to examine the "why" as well.

For example, I could tell you that I think that the government should lower taxes, but does that broaden your horizons any? If you don't know why I think they should lower taxes, then how has my statement of "what" I believe helped you in any way? Do I want taxes lowered because I think lower taxes would encourage growth (and, in turn, higher revenues)? Do I want them lowered because I'm greedy and don't want to pay as much? Do I want them lowered because I think everyone should share the same tax burden? Or is it some combination of those reasons (or something else entirely)?

Without the "why", the statement itself is useless to help someone understand my position, and it is therefore useless for broadening any horizons.

Or, to use an example that you might understand a bit easier, you could tell someone that Catholics pray to Mary or various Saints, but until you explain why they do it (to put it into context), they really don't gain any understanding about Catholic beliefs at all. At best, they gain a very wrong and distorted idea of Catholic beliefs and teachings.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I'm being a smartass, KK. I'm not interested in discussing it, and certainly not with you.

The sum total of my contribution right now is to predict that Democrats will do as I predicted they'll do. I don't need to give a reason, as much as this drives you batty. You're just going to have to deal with it. I could give reasons, and in fact I did so to Lowbacca in person, but it doesn't really matter.

 

If you aren't interested in discussing it, then why are you even bothering to keep posting here?

Moreover, if you aren't interested in discussing it with me, why do you keep replying?

Kimball Kinnison

 

I've posted on the JCC for nigh on seven years now, and I've rarely ever read something there as funny as this KK/KW slapstick. Thanks for the laugh, guys. It's like watching a Road Runner and Wile E. Coyote cartoon.

edit: or perhaps Dreyfus and Inspector Clouseau.