jerseyhoya wrote:

traderdave wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Zogby has Runyan up three

Not that I'm going to get excited by that, because Zogby is the Jim Caple of the political polling universe, but at least it's not one of his completely useless online Interactive polls, so it might have some value.

My dad's been putting in a good bit of time volunteering at Runyan headquarters. He has thus far resisted my suggestions to wear a NY Giants shirt/hat to the office.

I am not asking this to pick a fight but purely out of curiosity; is your Dad volunteering because he believes Runyan to be the better candidate or because Runyan is GOP? Or is it impossible to separate those options? I just feel like any other year and Runyan would be down double-digits to a guy like Adler. And I really don't think Adler is any great shakes.

A congressman has three main functions: voting, constituent services, and crafting legislation. For junior members especially, voting is the most important. The most important vote any congressman takes is the vote for speaker. In the House, party control, even by a vote, is enough to dictate the agenda completely if you have party discipline.

Runyan wouldn't be beating Adler in a normal year, but it would be a competitive race. He's a freshman Dem in a swing district that tends to vote Republican in non-Presidential races.

How smart someone is or how "good of a candidate" they are is only worth so much, because it's really not that big of a part of the job. It's not like Adler is going to be writing any important laws any time soon either. He votes for Pelosi, Runyan will vote for Boehner.

Also, of course, a Republican always should vote for the Republican candidate, especially in the House--majorities really control the House agenda through holding leadership positions. The only reason to cross party lines is if you're in the minority party and you're voting for someone who will be in the majority party and hold a powerful leadership position.

Party is always the most important characteristic you should consider in deciding which candidate to vote for, but in the House, it's pretty much the only characteristic that matters. The only mitigating factor might be voting for someone who's in the majority and occupies a powerful position--if you lived in Newt's district in 1996 you'd be crazy to vote for anyone else. Or if you lived in West Virginia, you kept voting for Byrd despite his membership in the Klan.

jerseyhoya wrote:A congressman has three main functions: voting, constituent services, and crafting legislation. For junior members especially, voting is the most important. The most important vote any congressman takes is the vote for speaker. In the House, party control, even by a vote, is enough to dictate the agenda completely if you have party discipline.

Runyan wouldn't be beating Adler in a normal year, but it would be a competitive race. He's a freshman Dem in a swing district that tends to vote Republican in non-Presidential races.

How smart someone is or how "good of a candidate" they are is only worth so much, because it's really not that big of a part of the job. It's not like Adler is going to be writing any important laws any time soon either. He votes for Pelosi, Runyan will vote for Boehner.

This ranking of a congressperson's main functions seems decidedly from the point of view of someone representing a political party, rather than participating in a political body.

I believe this is what you mean to imply when you say things like "In the House, party control, even by a vote, is enough to dictate the agenda completely if you have party discipline", but it may be worth clarifying.

BuddyGroom wrote: both the Baltimore Sun and Washington Post released polling in the past few days putting Gov. Martin O'Malley up 14 points over Republican challenger and former governor Bob Ehrlich.

Ehrlich: appeared on "The Wire" (as an aide to the governor)

O'Malley: badmouthed "The Wire," despite (because of?) the fact that the Tommy Carcetti character is basically him.

Glad I don't live in MD anymore. That would be a mother fucker of a tough vote.

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:A congressman has three main functions: voting, constituent services, and crafting legislation. For junior members especially, voting is the most important. The most important vote any congressman takes is the vote for speaker. In the House, party control, even by a vote, is enough to dictate the agenda completely if you have party discipline.

Runyan wouldn't be beating Adler in a normal year, but it would be a competitive race. He's a freshman Dem in a swing district that tends to vote Republican in non-Presidential races.

How smart someone is or how "good of a candidate" they are is only worth so much, because it's really not that big of a part of the job. It's not like Adler is going to be writing any important laws any time soon either. He votes for Pelosi, Runyan will vote for Boehner.

This ranking of a congressperson's main functions seems decidedly from the point of view of someone representing a political party, rather than participating in a political body.

I believe this is what you mean to imply when you say things like "In the House, party control, even by a vote, is enough to dictate the agenda completely if you have party discipline", but it may be worth clarifying.

No, in the House you don't need party discipline as much as you need a majority, because leadership controls the agenda.

We really need to strengthen political parties. I'm not sure if I entirely buy the "responsible party model" but strong parties are the only way a democracy can function. Our current system is messed up because parties are weak, and interest groups (which really are evil) have filled that vacuum. So go ahead and be all "independent" and "non-partisan" or whatever else you people do. But know this--you're basically handing power over to the US Chamber of Congress and fucking agribusiness and Halliburton. Meanwhile, Jerseyhoya and I will labor in solitude trying save what's left of American democracy.

TenuredVulture wrote:We really need to strengthen political parties. I'm not sure if I entirely buy the "responsible party model" but strong parties are the only way a democracy can function. Our current system is messed up because parties are weak, and interest groups (which really are evil) have filled that vacuum. So go ahead and be all "independent" and "non-partisan" or whatever else you people do. But know this--you're basically handing power over to the US Chamber of Congress and #$&! agribusiness and Halliburton. Meanwhile, Jerseyhoya and I will labor in solitude trying save what's left of American democracy.

I understand you both have stakes this being so. Is there a primer on the reasons why you believe it to be true?

All human institutions - and I get pretty inclusive, defining institutions as "groups of 2 or more people who maintain their group identity longer than a week" - are compromised. Among the implications is that none perform perfectly, which itself indirectly implies that some (more versions than one) may perform adequately.

So when you get all absolutist concerning "the only way a democracy can function" (I'm presuming you really mean ANY democracy), I find doubts creep in.

What's evil is willful human stupidity. I blame [insert your particular favored deity].

So apparently a woman was stomped on outside of the KY Senate debate.

like broke a toenail stomped or Cincinnati Who concert stomped on?

Held on the ground and stomped multiple times in the head. Had to go to the hospital.

Bucky wrote:like broke a toenail stomped or Cincinnati Who concert stomped on?

kinda confusing - looks like the guy was wearing made-in-China footwear, so is that Paul's brand of Randitarian, or a global markets Dem, or what

kopphanatic wrote:So apparently a woman was stomped on outside of the KY Senate debate.

Totally overblown. Watch the video.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/10 ... e.scuffle/

kopphanatic wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The headline on the article from The Hill is a little misleading--the stuff that they say they're not going to compromise on is hardly news. The interesting stuff is buried at the bottom--no shutdown of government over spending and Issa says he won't pursue impeachment.

And the idea that Republicans want Obama to be a one term President? Shocking.

Everyone needs to chill out a bit on this stuff.

Read it again. "The single most important thing we want to achieve".

Not finding a way out of Afghanistan. Not killing Osama Bin Laden. Not fixing the economy. Not reforming education or the federal government. Hell, not even cutting taxes for the wealthy, or repealing Roe v. Wade.

I agree with the Republicans. We've lived under his Muslim, atheist, socialist, Wall-street pocket lining ass for too long.

mozartpc27 wrote:

kopphanatic wrote:

TenuredVulture wrote:The headline on the article from The Hill is a little misleading--the stuff that they say they're not going to compromise on is hardly news. The interesting stuff is buried at the bottom--no shutdown of government over spending and Issa says he won't pursue impeachment.

And the idea that Republicans want Obama to be a one term President? Shocking.

Everyone needs to chill out a bit on this stuff.

Read it again. "The single most important thing we want to achieve".

Not finding a way out of Afghanistan. Not killing Osama Bin Laden. Not fixing the economy. Not reforming education or the federal government. Hell, not even cutting taxes for the wealthy, or repealing Roe v. Wade.

I agree with the Republicans. We've lived under his Muslim, atheist, socialist, Wall-street pocket lining ass for too long.

You forgot Nazi Commie Fascist

Okay, so she wasn't stomped in the head multiple times but I would hardly dismiss what happened down there. Absolutely disgraceful.

I'm looking forward to a week from now, or really two and a half months I guess, when you guys have real things to complain about

(about the impeachment hand wringing, not the Kentucky thing)

traderdave wrote:Okay, so she wasn't stomped in the head multiple times but I would hardly dismiss what happened down there. Absolutely disgraceful.

Exactly, doesn't matter what candidate it involves. But watch Fox News try to find some false equivalency and use it as an excuse for what happened.

Violence has no business in our politics and we drift down a dark path when we allow violence to enter our public discourse. This is the kind of garbage that went on in the Weimar Republic.

The freaking Weimar Republic! People aren't dying all over the place from political violence. It's not like there's been an outbreak where this is happening all the time. It's an isolated, bad incident.

It's what happens in Lot M when you spill a beer on someone from Fishtown, except like 100x less bad because she didn't get her brains mashed in.

It starts with incidents like this. Same with Weimar or a number of other places. It starts with intimidation and physical attacks and then just escalates further if left unchecked.

You honestly can't make any connection between the violent outburst in Weimar Germany and some of the crap that's happened this year.

A major Senate candidate is talking about "Second Amendment Remedies". A woman was assaulted just last night.

And just to make everything fair, some of the stuff the Black Panthers have pulled over the years and events like the 1968 Chicago riots are awful too.

So I read something interesting last night at the gym which I'll call "Old White Guys to the Rescue": four former Senators and an old Beltway hand put the budget in balance, with a modest surplus and long-term solvency for Social Security, by 2020.

Be warned: this is an ultimately depressing story somewhat disguised as a feel-good. With a great kicker graf.

jerseyhoya wrote:The freaking Weimar Republic! People aren't dying all over the place from political violence. It's not like there's been an outbreak where this is happening all the time. It's an isolated, bad incident.

No, we're not remotely the Weimar Republic. But the trend line is distressing: you've got large clumps of people now who think the other side isn't incorrect or misguided, but actually and willfully eeevil. (The 24 percent of Republicans who think Obama "might be" the Antichrist probably saw their ranks swell when Rushbo said he looked Satanic.) A smaller number on the left thought/thinks 9/11 was "an inside job." This is what happens when information loops totally close--when all one knows about "the left" comes from Glenn Beck or "the right" from Daily Kos.

jh, you've been more than occasionally sanguine about the outcomes of divided government, and at times I've gone along with you there. We both look back to 1996-97 as a time when the federal government was functional. But the political climate was different then--which is why, in a weird way, many of the Republicans who hated Clinton at the time now look back on him with fondness, and to maybe a slightly lesser extent Democrats feel the same way about Gingrich and Dole and Lott. (Gingrich the Speaker was certainly more responsible than Gingrich the minority leader or Gingrich the aged, thrice married polemicist.)

Come the new Congress, I think any Republican outside, maybe, certain precincts of New England who tries to, y'know, govern by compromise with a Democratic administration, will be blasted by his national committee/s and likely primaried. So there's no incentive to do that work other than public service itself, which has proven to be not much of an incentive. No David Gergen type is going to show up on Fox News making the point that Michele Bachmann and Alan West and Sharron Angle have a responsibility not just to stroke "the base" with their crazyassery, but to do the country's business.

Thus politics becomes ever-more zero sum, and when the stakes are perceived to be that high, I think it's likely we do see more political violence. Rand Paul and his supporters aren't denouncing the act; they seem to be saying it's not a big deal. That's a scary sign.

dajafi wrote:So I read something interesting last night at the gym which I'll call "Old White Guys to the Rescue": four former Senators and an old Beltway hand put the budget in balance, with a modest surplus and long-term solvency for Social Security, by 2020.

Be warned: this is an ultimately depressing story somewhat disguised as a feel-good. With a great kicker graf.

Very good read. Hart is right at the end. It's funny/sad because both parties do have people in Congress that really don't give a shit about being unpopular, and who could sit down at the table and do something like this.