Term Limits

[Setanta84]

It seems to me we already have term limits...elections every 2 years for reps and 6 years for senators. The problem is that usually nobody cares enough to vote them out. Congress has low approval but everyone seems to love their own reps enough to vote them back in.

Term limits are a straw dog thrown out to try to win votes; but even those who say they are in favor of it change their mind when it comes to their own limits.

Good theory but does not work in practice, which seems to be a common thread for a lot of political ideas.

It's not that nobody cares enough. 2010 was a redistricting election at a national level and the GOP gerrymandered the fuck out of the districts due to that. So, incumbents have the protection of incumbency plus insanely favorable districts.

On a statewide level, the states are becoming more and more skewed towards one party or another as people move to more conservative or liberal areas based on their own preferences. Most statewide races, for that reason, are basically just sbuclasses of national elections.

 

[ShySubSara]

It's not that nobody cares enough. 2010 was a redistricting election at a national level and the GOP gerrymandered the fuck out of the districts due to that. So, incumbents have the protection of incumbency plus insanely favorable districts.

On a statewide level, the states are becoming more and more skewed towards one party or another as people move to more conservative or liberal areas based on their own preferences. Most statewide races, for that reason, are basically just sbuclasses of national elections.

I agree to a certain extent, but it happens on both sides and I'm not going to only throw stones at one party. I was just commenting that in general even if people want to "throw the bums out" they don't want to throw their bums out. They want everyone else gone. It is out of control but I personally don't think term limits is the answer that will fix it.

 

[sr71plt]

I've already mentioned the main reason they don't often throw the incumbent out. The incumbent has gained seniority and a better pick of committees and is in a much better position to bring money and jobs into the district than a freshman rep or senator will.

 

[ShySubSara]

It is a shame. We should not elect people based on how much of our money they can spend. I don't want the government creating jobs, I want businesses doing it. Especially when those bills that create the new jobs a lot of the time have a limit on how long they are funded and then the responsibility shifts to the local government.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Truman was also that Washington outsider and "his own man" that a lot of folks keep saying is what we need in Washington. He's gotten pretty good marks in recent years on the job he did.

Of course he wasn't the superman that Setanta84 is--but then no one else is except maybe all the others of us who spend time jabbering about politics on a porn Web site rather than taking the heat of running for political office.

He wasn't that much of an outsider. He had been a US senator for ten years before being elected VP in 1944.

 

[sr71plt]

He wasn't that much of an outsider. He had been a US senator for ten years before being elected VP in 1944.

A back bencher, given few perks (although that probably helped him--he didn't gather enemies and competitors). Not all senators are equal.

I swear that there seem to be few here who have any understanding how government works in reality. For instance, so much is attributed to Obama, you'd think that he was a character in a Tom Clancy novel, where you have a Jack Ryan doing every job in the U.S. government, while he's personally hunting down terrorists in the center of Paris.

 

[Sean Renaud]

A back bencher, given few perks (although that probably helped him--he didn't gather enemies and competitors). Not all senators are equal.

I swear that there seem to be few here who have any understanding how government works in reality. For instance, so much is attributed to Obama, you'd think that he was a character in a Tom Clancy novel, where you have a Jack Ryan doing every job in the U.S. government, while he's personally hunting down terrorists in the center of Paris.

You weren't there when he ripped off Osama's head. I was. Don't you recognize your president?

http://www.atomicpopcorn.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iron-man-2-war-machine-jim-rhodes-rhodey-cropped-575x428.jpg

 

[mark_j]

Truman is a case of both. He was a henpecked/pussywhipped cretin, fucking moron, and lifelong failure until a wealthy donor wanted to show that he could literally install anyone he wished into any office he wished. He picked Truman as his candidate--the point being Truman was the human equivalent of that guy giving a literal yellow dog that much money.

Truman never wanted the job to begin with. FDR chose Truman to be his VP right before his last election. Since FDR had foreseen that he probably wasn't going to serve out his last term he wanted a VP who was less liberal than his current VP Henry Wallace. Roosevelt considered the qualifications of both men before this decision was made and he decided that he wanted someone who was not an idealogical extremist and less inclined to be aligned with the labor movement. In this way FDR made sure that he left someone in office who was more of a "man of the people" and would do his best to heal a nation after WWII ended.

As such, Truman was a much more pragmatic man and fit much more closely to FDR's efforts during the war at that point. Even then, he had to be talked into it by both the DNC and his personal aides.

So I'm not sure where you are getting that Truman was a "henpecked/pussywhipped cretin, fucking moron, and lifelong failure" when it seems that, from what he had to do and the circumstances involved, he turned out to be a rather gutsy figure.

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

When you look at the 2010 election, it's pretty clear Obama wanted to lose the midterms. The ACA and everything about it is a big part of why the public turned on him and either sat that election out or voted against the incumbent party--but that's a whole other subject.

First, he hoarded ALL the money the DNC brought in--because they had stupidly turned over all their political campaign assets to his people after buying the hype that they were election geniuses and thus put him in the position to do this--for the 2012 campaign and basically told the DCCC and DSCCC to go fuck themselves.

Then, when the enlightened idiots at OFA ran the disastrous coordinated campaign in the general, it's abundantly clear they weren't trying to ID and mobilize midterm voters--they were hijacking Party resources to maintain the 2008 IDs for his reelection campaign. And extremely blatantly.

Losing the midterms wasn't just rooted in his megalomaniacal selfishness and the Stalin/Mao-like cult of personality built around him that is OFA.

No, if you look at the guy's budgets and who he appoints to make policy recommendations to Congress, his true face isn't that different from Boehner and Ryan.

The main policy goal of his entire term--literally from the Inauguration Day 2009 on--wasn't the ACA. It was the "Grand Bargain." In fact, the sequestration maneuver he now pretends to be an enemy of was put forth in the hopes of ginning up a manufactured crisis to rush the grand bargain through a GOP controlled House and a spineless Senate delegation before the lowly proles realized he was gutting what he refers to--and almost no other Democrat does--as "entitlements."

The Tea Party fanatics actually saved Social Security by making Boehner's term as Speaker a joke. If they had fallen in line after they swept the 2010 midterms, all our grandmothers would be eating out of catfood containers and offering to blow people in exchange for heart medication while Obama slept soundly thinking of how big of a trust fund his good friend Pete Peterson was going to give Sasha and Malia once he left office.

And this part of Obama's duplicitous nature is on full display again. Now that the GOP has both houses of Congress, he pays a ton of lip service to actual Democratic ideas that are now safely impossible to turn into actual laws. But what does he DO, rather than say, these days? He's trying to rush the TPP through without even giving Congress a chance to look at it--which basically overtly gives multinational corporations the direct ability to dictate our economic policy without having to bribe our elected officials first.

What a very long and incorrect string of assertions about the elections in 2010.

The reason for the Democratic losses in 2010 (and those in 2014) is simply this. Low voter turnout favors Republicans, this explains their efforts to suppress the vote every election cycle. Non-presidential elections tend to be low turnout affairs dominated by older, white, male and conservative voters who prefer Republicans. Over the last three decades, voter turnout has averaged nearly 60 percent in presidential elections and roughly 40 percent in mid-term elections.

http://www.fairvote.org/assets/Uploads/_resampled/ResizedImage600351-turnout-chart.png

 

[BotanyBoy]

A back bencher, given few perks (although that probably helped him--he didn't gather enemies and competitors). Not all senators are equal.

I swear that there seem to be few here who have any understanding how government works in reality. For instance, so much is attributed to Obama, you'd think that he was a character in a Tom Clancy novel, where you have a Jack Ryan doing every job in the U.S. government, while he's personally hunting down terrorists in the center of Paris.

Kinda like he and his communism are solely responsible for ALL...and I mean ALL....the worlds problems. Just ask every RW media outlet in America......

 

[about_average]

It seems to me we already have term limits...elections every 2 years for reps and 6 years for senators. The problem is that usually nobody cares enough to vote them out. Congress has low approval but everyone seems to love their own reps enough to vote them back in.

Term limits are a straw dog thrown out to try to win votes; but even those who say they are in favor of it change their mind when it comes to their own limits.

Good theory but does not work in practice, which seems to be a common thread for a lot of political ideas.

^^^ This.
Except for the "good theory" part. I think people should be able to vote for the person they want to. If we aren't willing to replace a member of congress who isn't performing well then we have the government we deserve.

 

[Sean Renaud]

^^^ This.
Except for the "good theory" part. I think people should be able to vote for the person they want to. If we aren't willing to replace a member of congress who isn't performing well then we have the government we deserve.

In fairness we don't share goals, the Founding Fathers (for what little it's worth) never expected us to share goals and incumbancy power is huge deal. I don't know anybody in California who is more than luke warm about Fienstien and Boxer, and realistically in this state we wouldn't be risking much to kick them out in the primaries, the Republican still wouldn't win. But he'd have a better chance and not everybody has the luxury/curse of living in a state where your vote really doesn't count for shit.

It might be interesting to see what happened if laws were passed that said you cannot run unopposed either in the primary or in the main election.

 

[about_average]

Well, I meant a majority of "we".
And I agree with the advantage of incumbents, but that comes down to campaign finance reform, not term limits.
In fact, if done right, I'd probably be in favor of 100% public funding of elections, not that I think it could ever be done right.

 

[Boxlicker101]

In fairness we don't share goals, the Founding Fathers (for what little it's worth) never expected us to share goals and incumbancy power is huge deal. I don't know anybody in California who is more than luke warm about Fienstien and Boxer, and realistically in this state we wouldn't be risking much to kick them out in the primaries, the Republican still wouldn't win. But he'd have a better chance and not everybody has the luxury/curse of living in a state where your vote really doesn't count for shit.

It might be interesting to see what happened if laws were passed that said you cannot run unopposed either in the primary or in the main election.

It would be very rare for someone to run unopposed in the general election. Even if the GOP doesn't bother to support a candidate in areas where they have no chance of winning, there are always candidates from the Green Party or the P & F Party or the AIP or some other fringe group.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, I meant a majority of "we".
And I agree with the advantage of incumbents, but that comes down to campaign finance reform, not term limits.
In fact, if done right, I'd probably be in favor of 100% public funding of elections, not that I think it could ever be done right.

Government funding has been done, but the problem is there are some candidates who just spend it supporting some pet issue, such as gun control or anti-abortion and make no real effort to get themselves elected.

ETA: Here is an example: http://constitutioncenter.org/timeline/html/cw12_12310.html

 

[about_average]

Government funding has been done....

And is currently done, if you notice the check box on your 1040. However, that's not 100% public funding..

 

[about_average]

It would be very rare for someone to run unopposed in the general election.

At least 10 in 2012 and 31 in 2014.

 

[phrodeau]

And is currently done, if you notice the check box on your 1040. However, that's not 100% public funding..

The only people who check those boxes are politicians.

 

[Wrong Element]

It's not that nobody cares enough. 2010 was a redistricting election at a national level and the GOP gerrymandered the fuck out of the districts due to that. So, incumbents have the protection of incumbency plus insanely favorable districts.

On a statewide level, the states are becoming more and more skewed towards one party or another as people move to more conservative or liberal areas based on their own preferences. Most statewide races, for that reason, are basically just sbuclasses of national elections.

I believe you could get some of the benefits of term limits with less obsessive gerrymandering. It wouldn't work in all cases because many parts of the country are too politically homogeneous to ever elect someone from the opposite party. But there's no reason why a state like Ohio, which is famously closely divided, should have a situation where every district is basically safe for the party that currently controls it.

If you term-limited out John Boehner, whose district has been carefully drawn to eliminate Dayton or any urban areas that might make it competitive, I can pretty much guarantee his replacement would be another conservative Republican who would exactly replicate Boehner's voting record (I know the Speaker doesn't always vote, but you know what I mean). So why should anyone care?

 

[Setanta84]

The reason for the Democratic losses in 2010 (and those in 2014) is simply this. Low voter turnout favors Republicans, this explains their efforts to suppress the vote every election cycle.

Non-presidential elections tend to be low turnout affairs dominated by older, white, male and conservative voters who prefer Republicans. Over the last three decades, voter turnout has averaged nearly 60 percent in presidential elections and roughly 40 percent in mid-term elections.

There isn't some unwritten rule that only older white people turn out to vote in midterms--and you point out above that's the makeup of the midterm electorate in much of the country outside the West--it's just that they are part of the last generation competently habituated to vote by political campaign staff.

And voter suppression doesn't really explain it, either--after the gutting of the VRA and campaign finanace laws, the case for voter suppression benefitting the GOP and the corporate wing of the Democratic Party is much stronger but you're referring to trends going back father than that.

There are two major reasons Democrats don't participate in midterms:

1) National Democrats run horrible, horrible campaigns that are basically built on corporate team-building exercises. (Reid was supposed to be a goner in 2010. He told OFA to go fuck itself with its trading card "GOTV" plan and ran an actual GOTV operation in Nevada in the general after doing everything to make sure his opponent was the craziest fuck the Nevada GOP had to offer. California did pretty much the same thing. Guess what? The "Republican Tsunami" didn't reach their shores.)

2) The Democratic base understands the leadership of the Democratic Party hates them, views most of them as members of captured constituencies, and has no interest in acting on their values.

If you've ever done field interviews day in and day out for a Democratic campaign, many, many voters will tell you this directly.

For all the problems with the GOP, Republican voters are at least reasonably confident their electeds will do what they want--because the GOP fears rather than hates its base.

Also, nothing i said was incorrect. That Obama hoarded the Party money for 2012, ran a shitty campaign, basically guaranteed low turnout with the ACA, etc is easily verifiable if you actually look up political coverage from that year that isn't MSM horse race bullshit.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Dear God Sentanta you really need to start citing your research or admitting it's opinion, assumption and hearsay.

Well, I meant a majority of "we".
And I agree with the advantage of incumbents, but that comes down to campaign finance reform, not term limits.
In fact, if done right, I'd probably be in favor of 100% public funding of elections, not that I think it could ever be done right.

I don't think it can be done right unfortunately. I'd be fine with putting some sort of cap on it. I imagine a combination of public funding and a cap on donations could be done somewhat sensibly.

It would be very rare for someone to run unopposed in the general election. Even if the GOP doesn't bother to support a candidate in areas where they have no chance of winning, there are always candidates from the Green Party or the P & F Party or the AIP or some other fringe group.

You'd be shocked how often people run unapposed. I've seen plenty of times when the local judge or school board or once a mayor ran 100% unopposed. If your district is SO politically homogenous I think adding one more tick box to the ballot wouldn't hurt.

Democrat or Republican

Republican 1 vs Republican 2

Obviously the goal isn't to split the vote so having them vote for the party they want first and then the individual in the party could be a step in a positive direction.

 

[Setanta84]

Dear God Sentanta you really need to start citing your research or admitting it's opinion, assumption and hearsay.

I could do that, if I wanted to turn fucking message board posts into formal academic papers. Or, you know, you could be at least a modestly informed voter and take your responsibilities as a citizen of what is, in name, a democratic republic seriously. Either/or.

But I understand your preference for the option that requires me, not you, to do work to keep you informed and have an interior life that goes beyond "Team Blue = White Hat. Ungh Ungh. Team Red: Black Hat. Ungh Ungh."

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

I could do that, if I wanted to turn fucking message board posts into formal academic papers. Or, you know, you could be at least a modestly informed voter and take your responsibilities as a citizen of what is, in name, a democratic republic seriously. Either/or.

But I understand your preference for the option that requires me, not you, to do work to keep you informed and have an interior life that goes beyond "Team Blue = White Hat. Ungh Ungh. Team Red: Black Hat. Ungh Ungh."

No, you don't have to turn anything into a formal academic paper to cite something that supports your assertions. Insisting that "everyone knows" or "you should know" is a tactic usually employed by the woefully misinformed.

When you start making pseudo-factual statements and are called on them the onus of proof is on you. If the object is to inform, then sinple links backing your argument are good enough, telling those who call it BS to "look it up themselves" is a crock of shit.

 

[Setanta84]

No, you don't have to turn anything into a formal academic paper to cite something that supports your assertions. Insisting that "everyone knows" or "you should know" is a tactic usually employed by the woefully misinformed.

When you start making pseudo-factual statements and are called on them the onus of proof is on you. If the object is to inform, then sinple links backing your argument are good enough, telling those who call it BS to "look it up themselves" is a crock of shit.

Uh, things like knowing that Reid and the California Democratic Party managed to win--in fact every single statewide office in California went to a Democrat in 2010 and they won a supermajority in the lege--doesn't require a link. It requires the guys lecturing me about how little I know about "the real world" to know the basic results of elections that took place in that long, long ago of two cycles ago.

 

[Sean Renaud]

Knowing the outcomes is irrelevant. You claimed to know the why. I could claim that Obama won in 2008 because he was black and then it would be on me to attempt to prove that was some kind of advantage. Even if it is something that everybody knows, everybody is quite often wrong.