Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/11/03/vote-the-bums-out-the-eight-worst-congressmen.html
The scorecard:
- Michelle Bachmann (R): re-elected by a razor-thin margin, defeating hotelier Jim Graves (D).
- Steve King (R): re-elected by a small margin, defeating literacy advocate and former Iowa first lady Christie Vilsack (R).
- Laura Richardson (D): defeated in a D-vs.-D match with Rep. Janice Hahn (D).
- Louie Gohmert (R): re-elected by a wide margin, defeating some Dem candidate I don't know.
- Scott De Jarlais (R): re-elected by a wide margin, defeating TN State Senator Eric Stewart (D).
- Jesse Jackson, Jr. (D): re-elected by a wide margin, defeating some Repub candidate I don't know.
- Joe Walsh (R): defeated by Iraq War veteran and former Assistant Secretary of Veterans Affairs Tammy Duckworth (D).
- Alan Grayson (D) (not currently in Congress): elected by a wide margin, defeating Todd Long (R) (who I think is an attorney but can't find other info about).
Well, this is gonna be interesting.
Note that Bachmann was running in a somewhat-Republican district (the most R-leaning in Minnesota, actually), King was running in a slightly R-leaning district, Gohmert and De Jarlais were both running in strongly R-leaning districts, and Walsh and Grayson were both running in D-leaning districts.
So the results are more reflections of their districts' political leans.
Recent years, with the polarization of the United States electorate, have seen the number of representatives successfully-elected on "hostile" turf decrease dramatically. Moderate and liberal Republicans have been defeated by more conservative primary-election challengers or defeated in the general by an Democrat the moderate/liberal electorate prefers for representation in Congress, while conservative Democrats have generally been defeated in their general elections by conservative Republicans.
@Fighteer's conspiracy theorist roast: #1, #6, and #10 are baseless. #2, #4, #7, and #8 are true, but there is no reason to believe Romney would have been any better. #3 and #5 are (mostly) true, and the fact that you personally think they are good things doesn't make them any less true. #9 is, as you said, debatable.
Ugh.
edited 8th Nov '12 7:34:56 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><"blowout" is a qualitative descriptor that carries no real meaning. "endless" fiat currency is not going to happen because people running the show here in the U.S. actually have an education and know how that's a stupid idea. However, the national debt being increased is true, though as Grizz said, practical policy options between the two parties are really not much different.
"Obamacare" is not government health care; it is government-subsidized private-sector health care.
Grizz: Please explain why "accelerated erosion of the bill of rights and civil liberties" is true.
^ Yeah, I'm a downballot guy, as opposed to a political philosophy and ideology arguer, usually.
edited 8th Nov '12 7:36:39 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
I just continue to laugh at people who classify Obamacare as "a dictatorial government intrusion". It is so not that. Giving private insurance companies 30 million new customers is "government intrusion" now? Have they ever been to Canada or Europe?
I suspect that the "erosion of civil liberties" deal is about the Patriot Act and NDAA, plus the "armed drones over U.S. soil" scare story. As we have discussed before, when over 90% of Congress supports these policies and the voters apparently don't give a fuck about them, there's nothing any sitting President can do about it.
edited 8th Nov '12 7:38:19 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Canada is a land of weirdo tree-hugging liberals with free healthcare that too many people demand, leaving dying people waiting in line.
Europe...well, that depends on where you are. If you're in Scandinavia, that's like Russia lite—socialism without the police state. If you're in Germany, though, enjoy the beer and funny music. Don't do business in France, because their workers are very lazy from getting lots of government handouts. And avoid the hell out of Greece, where the workers are currently rebelling against the government because they stopped getting handouts.
edited 8th Nov '12 7:41:19 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
Well, obviously there's a lot of hyperbole and deliberate scaremongering there. I'm not defending that.
All that means is the profits go to insurance companies. It's still dictatorial government healthcare.
There's been a steady erosion of our rights over the last decade or so, which Obama has done nothing to curb, although as I said there's little indication that a republican president would be better.
<><What is this alleged erosion of rights? Can you please supply enough examples to indicate a trend?
^ That's even worse than Canada.
Yes, it absolutely is! As was the New London eminent domain fiasco, and as is any policy which forces citizens to enter into a business transaction against their will, on terms dictated by the government and corporations.
<><So in that sense, eminent domain itself is a government intrusion. Heck...
This means pretty much any regulatory action, or almost anything the government does apart from security and military functions.
Come to think of it, I'm surprised there hasn't been tea party raeg against mandatory car insurance. If there has been some, I haven't heard of it.
edited 8th Nov '12 7:49:26 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
Edwards Grizzly, government "forces" people to do all kinds of things. Pay taxes, drive on the right side of the road, label foods with allergens in them, etc. That's kind of the point. When you argue against any particular use of government power to compel behavior, you must provide more reasons than, "Government cannae make us doo stuff!" Yes, it can; that's why it exists in the first place. We vote for people who enact our will into law, and in case you didn't notice, universal healthcare is a very popular idea, both in the United States and around the world.
edited 8th Nov '12 7:52:54 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"As Fighteer said, the Patriot Act and its aftermath (which the Obama administration has continued despite our having even less reason for them now than we had then) has severely hurt privacy rights and due process rights. There's now serious talk about taking legal action to suppress free speech (remember the recent Chick-Fil-A debacle?). Congress continues to pass more and more laws limiting what we can buy and sell and do.
None of this is exclusively Obama's fault. The only people who really fight it are extremists like Ron Paul. But it is happening.
<><Fighteer, we've had this whole argument many times. I've explained why I'd have less objection to a single payer system than I have to Obamacare (though I would still oppose it), and why I consider some other governmental actions to be different in nature (and why I oppose others). I'm not going to reiterate that argument here, since it's really not that big of a deal. What's done is done, and at this point it's pretty much just another thing we'll have to grin and bear.
<><Well, fair enough, but I can't help but notice that you continue to ally yourself in principle with the party that's obstructed attempts to form a single-payer healthcare system and gotten us involved in wars with terrorists that were used as retroactive justifications for things like Patriot and NDAA.
This is why I can't take your complaints seriously. The worldview that prefers single-payer over Obamacare is one that ought to be voting for someone like Jill Stein, not Gary Johnson, and especially not Mitt Romney. You have to get over this single-issue abortion wonk if you want a government that will serve your interests. As much as I feel that Obama is not going far enough in his various positions, he's at least the most palatable of the viable alternatives.
edited 8th Nov '12 8:04:16 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm not sure I'd necessarily call this an "erosion" of rights. The term "erosion" implies a narrative process occurring in a certain direction. In contrast, one could point to a different narrative of discovering limits—and we know that behavioral rights do not exist without limits (take shouting "fire!" in a crowded theater as an example).
When individuals (people and business entities) take actions that cause social cost in excess of private costs, and these social costs are not internalized by any other reasonable mechanism (with reasonably low transaction costs), the government should step in to rectify the situation.
edited 8th Nov '12 8:10:13 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
![]()
Mine is a worldview that prefers single payer to obamacare while still thinking single payer would be a very bad thing.
It's true that I am no fan of certain elements of the republican party. However in most of those areas the democrats are little to no different, except for a consistent and dramatic difference on the subject of abortion.
edited 8th Nov '12 8:15:06 AM by EdwardsGrizzly
<><- denial of effects (it's not happening)
- denial of anthropogenicity (it's not caused by human activty)
- denial of agency (we can't do anything about it)
edited 8th Nov '12 8:22:17 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
@Edwards Grizzly: On a global left-right scale, it is true that both major U.S. parties are, overall, right of center. Within that limited zone, however, there are stark differences in areas like healthcare, abortion, immigration rights, climate change, taxation, gay rights, affirmative action, education, etc. It is disingenuous to cherry pick specific things like national security and call them evidence that the two parties are identical.
It's clear to me that you would feel at home in a Republican Party that took rational positions on these issues, but unfortunately (and I sympathize here), the party that showed up for this election was not the party you idealize, nor will it be for the foreseeable future. That leaves you in a bit of an uncomfortable place.
Edit: Climate change is the big issue on my mind as well. I'd like to have a planet that's suitable for human life in 100 years.
edited 8th Nov '12 8:27:33 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"

Don't you know, they're Conspiracy Theorists?
Anyhow, what are the odds of (say after losing 2016) of the Republicans doing what Labour did in Britain — re-imagining their party, losing the more troublesome parts of their base and ideology, and pushing hard for the centre and re-election? And can someone, for example, defect from Republicans to the Democrats without losing their seat?
Keep Rolling On