05 Nov 09
Originally posted by whodeyWell, maybe. I think staunch Conservatives are going to have a very hard time winning the White House. The general populace will elect a right of center candidate, but they'll only go so far.
I don't deny that the Republicans need to get things "straightened out". In fact, I have no interest in them if they don't. What this means to me, however, is that they don't pander to moderates. It is what got us in the mess we are in now. For once, they need to stand on principle and let the chips fall where they may. Otherwise, what does it matter if ...[text shortened]... ace and why McCain lost. No conservative wants to get behind a wolf in sheeps clothing.
05 Nov 09
Tough to please the Republican stalwarts base when many moderates lost in their competitive regions, leaving the safely-republican seats in Republican hands as the representative to frame the issues for their parties, which many moderate Republicans would like to continue to support... however the pundits and media that gets to have so much fun out of the polarization of the Obama years are pushing all the buttons (as are many of the same stalwarts in the base) to push away from moderation.
It's a losing strategy, almost like market failures from adverse selection, if the party keeps moving right and the remaining leaders and core supporters push further right, and further right, the center and independents and moderates that help win the actual elections in most elections will go with the closer choice to their position, which would be the broader, big-tent Democrats.
Even conservative Reagan benefitted from a return to moderation from the far-left days of the 60's and 70's and the horrible economy by the end of those days (in part due to the oil-shocks, in part due to socialist inefficiencies trending increasingly worse)...
The economy and the center are dominant.
Where are the exceptions to this rule, we must surely be able to think of many, perhaps war-time presidents ... so make that the economy, the center, and national security are dominant.
05 Nov 09
Originally posted by eljefejesusYeah, I think that's right. As much as I disagree with the strong right conservatives and would like to see them lose over and over, we need them to get their head on straight and bring in some competition for the WH at the very least keep the economic liberals from bankrupting our country.
Tough to please the Republican stalwarts base when many moderates lost in their competitive regions, leaving the safely-republican seats in Republican hands as the representative to frame the issues for their parties, which many moderate Republicans would like to continue to support... however the pundits and media that gets to have so much fun out of th ...[text shortened]... time presidents ... so make that the economy, the center, and national security are dominant.
05 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionEnough!! You people talk as if the terms conservative and moderate are even defined. What the @###@ are you talking about?
Yeah, I think that's right. As much as I disagree with the strong right conservatives and would like to see them lose over and over, we need them to get their head on straight and bring in some competition for the WH at the very least keep the economic liberals from bankrupting our country.
What is it about the "right" that makes them right and what is it about the moderate that makes them a moderate?
In short, what must the Republican party do to appease your moderate ideal? What is it currently doing that makes them far right?
06 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76I find your contentment - and your analysis, for that matter - rather unconvincing and shallow.
Bloomberg wins in NY (which is good because he's a competent mayor); but the margin is kept low enough so that the people can express contempt for politicians who try to grab too much power.
And so would The Economist, it seems:
A shabby victory for Michael Bloomberg, but breakthroughs elsewhere
ON ELECTION day in Queens, one voter asked a fellow New Yorker a question about using the voting machine. “Honey,” she replied in a smoky New York accent, “as long as you vote for Bloomberg, it doesn’t matter.” And how right she was. Michael Bloomberg, New York’s incumbent and independent mayor, only narrowly defeated Bill Thompson, his far less well-known and much poorer Democratic rival. In what turned out to be an embarrassing nail-biter, Mr Bloomberg won by just 5%, days after polls had showed him to be ahead by double digits. This was a far cry from his 20% win in 2005.
Mr Bloomberg is reckoned to have spent $100m to win himself a third term in office, exceeding even the $85m he spent last time and the $74m he spent in 2001. Still, to a man worth some $17 billion, more than anyone else in New York, this is small change. Whether it is good for democracy is another matter. Mr Bloomberg was able to outspend his rival by around 16 to one.
Whole article: http://www.economist.com/world/unitedstates/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=14803102&CFID=89947258&CFTOKEN=85765187
Outspend sixteen-to-one - to get a win by a 5% margin?
Do you ever worry about the real world impact on the quality of your democracy of people like Bloomberg?
06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by FMFThe reason Bloomberg won by such a narrow margin is much simpler than that.
I find your contentment - and your analysis, for that matter - rather unconvincing and shallow.
And so would The Economist, it seems:
[quote][b]A shabby victory for Michael Bloomberg, but breakthroughs elsewhere
ON ELECTION day in Queens, one voter asked a fellow New Yorker a question about using the voting machine. “Honey,” she replied in a smoky N ...[text shortened]... ver worry about the real world impact on the quality of your democracy of people like Bloomberg?[/b]
70% of New Yorkers who voted approved his job performance. But a quarter of those people voted against him. Why? For the same reason the election was so much closer this time than last time.
First, some background. In the late 1990s, NYC passed, for the first time, passed term limits, limiting the mayor to two terms. In 2001, after 9/11, there was some talk about Giuliani asking the city council to change the law to allow him a 3rd term so that he could clean up after 9/11, etc. Well, Mike Bloomberg, then a prospective candidate, railed against that, arguing that no one person is bigger than the law, etc.
Well, Giuliani decided not to pursue it and Bloomberg was elected Mayor in 2001 and re-elected in 2005 by an even larger margin.
In a breathtaking display of hypocrisy, Bloomberg, last year, pressured the city council to change to law to allow him to run for a third time. Eventually, the city council caved and passed the law.
The 25% of the people who approve his job performance and voted against him almost all did so because they were annoyed at his power grab. This explains the narrow margin.
Why am I not overly bothered by Bloomberg's actions? Simple. I don't believe in term limits; with the possible exception of President of the United States (that's a powerful enough position that you don't want the power to concentrate too heavily in one person). For other politicians, we have term limits. They're called elections.
As far as spending limits, I wouldn't mind seeing spending limits put into place (it should be noted, by the way, that Obama might not have won but for his massive ability to outspend McCain after his breaking his campaign pledge to accept matching federal funds... one of the worst and most embarrassing broken promises in his career). But as long as they're not in place, I'm not going to blame Bloomberg for playing within the rules.
06 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by sh76I wonder if part of the reason some people voted against Bloomberg was because he was spending so much money on his campaign. I wonder if people resented the idea that Bloomberg was acting like a college football power running up the score against a hopelessly overmatched opponent.
The reason Bloomberg won by such a narrow margin is much simpler than that.
70% of New Yorkers who voted approved his job performance. But a quarter of those people voted against him. Why? For the same reason the election was so much closer this time than last time.
First, some background. In the late 1990s, NYC passed, for the first time, passed term li as they're not in place, I'm not going to blame Bloomberg for playing within the rules.
Also - my general assumption was that Bloomberg was going to breeze past whatever token opposition he faced. Then I noticed a LOT of Bloomberg ads were appearing, and I started wondering whether the opposing candidate actually had a chance to win. It seemed like the main effect of the ads was to make me aware of who Bloomberg's "no-name opponent" was.
I've also found that when a candidate (or product) starts to "saturate bomb" me with an inordinate amount of ads, I develop an increasing dislike for the person or product. "ANOTHER ad??..You just did the same ad in each of the last two commercial breaks. Enough already!! That does it. I'm now going to go out of my way to AVOID your product."
07 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76While your answer was interesting, it seems to me that you didn't really address the quesion: "Do you ever worry about the real world impact on the quality of your democracy of people like Bloomberg?" unless your answer was, as seems apparent, a blithe "no" swaddled in subjunctives.
As far as spending limits, I wouldn't mind seeing spending limits put into place (it should be noted, by the way, that Obama might not have won but for his massive ability to outspend McCain after his breaking his campaign pledge to accept matching federal funds... one of the worst and most embarrassing broken promises in his career). But as long as they're not in place, I'm not going to blame Bloomberg for playing within the rules.