Sometimes I wonder if members of Congress spend too much time out-thinking themselves - political twists within themselves and blocs determined by political games within political games, thinking that come re-election time they will be rewarded for these efforts/games etc.I also wrote HERE:
But the theory of Congressional Stagnation tells us that most voters aren't really paying attention anyways, and, short of getting caught dating a Cub Scout, the odds that you will be re-elected in your district are incredibly high. Which means you probably don't necessarily need to do political grandstanding and gamesmanship-filled filibustering to keep your job. You can probably support things you think are actually good policy and make sense, without having to stoop to make yourself look like a clueless idiot/complete jackass for the party line, and still get re-elected with little to no worry.
When asked, people will always bitch about taxes and spending anyways, no matter what. We all do it; there will always be something. In the meantime you might as well have public policies and institutions that work and let those be the "scorecard," not political grandstanding and backs of phantom bubblegum cards.
Today some guy presumably a lot smarter than me says the same thing:
Not always, of course, but a representative can take a much more liberal or conservative line than the voters in his or her district or state, and still do fine when election time comes...Another way of saying all this is: Incumbent congressmembers almost always win reelection. And, when they don’t, they’re often losing as part of a national swing (as in the 1994 Republican sweep or the 2006/2008 Democratic shift). And when an incumbent does lose unexpectedly, it can be for something unrelated to their votes (remember the “check kiting scandal” of 1992?).
Put aside the basic childishness of your proposition (i.e., "good policy" that "makes sense" is prevented by icky, parochial politics), I think your premise is wrong.
ReplyDeleteThe folks who are weighing the massive issues offered by the Administration are rightly concerned. While a boatload of House seats are firmly in the camp of one party or the other,
in 2008, 23 incumbents lost; 19 open seats changed hands; and around 50 races were within 10 points. And while that was a good year for the Democrats (23 seat gain), a wallop year can see twice that number (54 in 1994).
Moreover, the Senate has changed parties in 1981, 1987, 2995, 2001, 2003 and 2007.
When you pass cap-and-trade and health care reform by 7 and 5 votes respectively, (even with a healthy majority), a normal year can be a very scary thing, especially in the House, where going from majority party to minority party is akin to going from the E Street Band to the Beaver Brown band.
Nonetheless, the way Pelosi and Reid need to enact this "good policy that makes sense" is to make their members "stoop to make [themselves] look like . . . clueless idiot[s]/complete jackass[es] for the party line." They gotta' keep the Blue Dogs, who would normally defect, on the reservation by hook or by crook.
your blue dogs point is well taken, but i think they can stay "on the reservation" (racist) without real fear of losing their seats. which is my point, you sorry, sorry, stupid fucking idiot.
ReplyDeleteyou save yourself with the E Street Band bit.
go easy on me today; i'm switching over to PALIN in 2012 today with my tail between my legs. working on campaign ideas/posters.
"but i think they can stay 'on the reservation' (racist) without real fear of losing their seats. which is my point, you sorry, sorry, stupid fucking idiot."
ReplyDeleteThat's easy to say when you come from NY's 11th, you fat fruit. The whole point is that the Blue Dosg do not come from there; thus, they have a legitimate fear, and your point, Super Husky, was that they should not be afraid, which is retarded.
More to the point, you also inveighed against folks made to look like jackasses for "the party line" when, in fact, the Blue Dogs are exactly the jackasses you need to bully into the party line to get all this "good policy" you talk about.
You're like Wahlberg in Boogie Nights in the firecracker scene. A really fat Wahlberg.
i almost couldnt read past "Super Husky" cause i was laughing so hard.
ReplyDeletemy original point, if I may lead you back to it by your little, grubby, Dan Snyder-loving paws, is that while they THINK they should be afraid, and people like you who actually keep up with shit 24/7 would think they should be afraid, they shouldnt be afraid of most ACTUAL VOTERS who are the ones that swing elections, not people like you or me. our vote doesnt count more than the guy who ahsnt been paying attention. so, to re-iterate since you probably didnt read it the first time cause you were crafting your next "quit picking on Sarah!" nonsensical steaming pile , Congressmen dont have to outmart themselves. are we clear, sweetheart? can I Fed Ex Field some pictures over to you?
But your point is asinine for folks in swing districts and well made, if pedestrian, for people in safe seats.
ReplyDeleteYou presume that voters in a swing district in Arkansas or Kentucky won't give a shit about your vote on cap-and-trade or health care reform, and while they may not be laser-like focused, they will be, which is why these votes are so close.
It ain't nuthin' but homo to say to these people, "Hey, just DO THE RIGHT THING. They ain't lookin' now."
And, again, in contradiction to your point, they must be bullied to tow the party line on health care reform and cap-and-trade, thus, by your own standard, achieving jackassery.
You got that, Corky?
congressional stagnation tells us that most voters, come election time, vote on the incumbent regardless of how they voted, unless, like I said in the original post, which Im sure you read because you were squealing some stupid shit about it earlier, they get caught up either in 1) scandal 2) sweeping national changes, like 2006. 2006 for example was "for fucks sake, get these people out of here, we need massive change," it wasnt the parsing of voting records broken down in each district. later you could backtrack to point out that by the numbers thats what happened, but thats not why people voted that way. also why a lot of people voted for your hero Dutch. and I dont mean Ed Oneill.
ReplyDeleteThat movie rocks!!!
ReplyDeleteBut your analysis is shit.
Yes or no?
If you are in a swing district, you will be more vulnerable if you vote for cap-and-trade and health care reform than if you voted against or if you did not have to make the votes at all.
(Xmastime's eyes glaze over, he wipes honey from his jowls, goes back to Pornhub.com)
i agree with my original premise. you made some good points about some specific districts et al, but you can't see the forest for the trees, which isnt your fault since youre probably in line right now to get tickets to that O'Reilly/Beck Comedy Tour Doubleheader coming up, giddy at getting one of those tings you shake up and it snows inside with them hugging in it. so we can agree to agree that Im right, youre wrong but also shorter than me, and always will be, you should probably stick to things you know (Lethal Weapon IX, DT & the Shakes 1986-mid 1986), and Dutch IS an awesome movie, that i watched the other night for the 1000th time. no idea why its not bigger than it is.
ReplyDelete