Oh Arlen you better look at this Poll

[ALS]

Tuesday, April 28, 2009

For just the second time in more than five years of daily or weekly tracking, Republicans now lead Democrats in the latest edition of the Generic Congressional Ballot.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 41% would vote for their district’s Republican candidate while 38% would choose the Democrat. Thirty-one percent (31%) of conservative Democrats said they would vote for their district’s Republican candidate.

Overall, the GOP gained two points this week, while the Democrats lost a point in support. Still, it’s important to note that the GOP’s improved position comes primarily from falling Democratic support. Democrats are currently at their lowest level of support in the past year while Republicans are at the high water mark.


Looks like Barry and the fools are going to do a real job on the Democratic party over the next four years. Just over 100 days in office and many Democrat's are already having buyers remorse.


Rasmussen reports

[Guns4Fun]

In my opinion, it is just a cycle that we go through. The republicans run things for a while and screw something up---we vote them out--then the democrats take over for a while and screw something up---then we vote them out---and on and on and on.

What we really need is to get rid of the 2 party system and adopt more parties---that will give people more choices and then we would have less extreme swings from one side to the other.

It is buyers remorse----so many people hated Bush it wasn't funny. They just wanted something different. Then comes along an articulate black man with promises of hope and change---and everyone fell in love. Then reality hit and everyone realizes it is back to business as usual and just swinging radically left of what we had before. If we keep accepting the 2 party system, this trend of radical change will continue on and on and on.

[Eugene V. Debs]

In my opinion, it is just a cycle that we go through. The republicans run things for a while and screw something up---we vote them out--then the democrats take over for a while and screw something up---then we vote them out---and on and on and on.

What we really need is to get rid of the 2 party system and adopt more parties---that will give people more choices and then we would have less extreme swings from one side to the other.

It is buyers remorse----so many people hated Bush it wasn't funny. They just wanted something different. Then comes along an articulate black man with promises of hope and change---and everyone fell in love. Then reality hit and everyone realizes it is back to business as usual and just swinging radically left of what we had before. If we keep accepting the 2 party system, this trend of radical change will continue on and on and on.

I mostly agree with this, except for the "radical change" part-- I think what few big changes we've seen have been largely due to things beyond one politicians control (9/11, the economy), but I don't think we've seen much that was truly radical in the last several decades. Even what Obama's doing now isn't nearly as radical as what happened under FDR, and what happened under FDR wasn't nearly as radical as what happened under Lincoln.

The thing about a multi-party system (and I agree we could use one), however, is it typically cannot work in a first-past-the-post electoral system like ours or Britain's. You need a proportional representation and instant runoff voting system to have a multiparty system, and even in that case, two parties usually end up dominating, but the smaller parties have more power b/c the big ones often need them to form a coalition government.

Although I think a multi-party system would be a big improvement in this country, I think some fundamental changes to our economy and culture would be even better. Our society has become too atomized and individualistic (by individualistic I mean selfish, not that anyone actually cares about personal responsibility or individual rights), and power and wealth too unevenly distributed (I'm all for natural disparities of power and wealth due to individual merit, but I'm against those that result primarily from systemic advantages given to one class of people over another). This selfishness, social atomization, horribly uneven distribution of wealth and power, and lack of productivity (a "hard" goods-producing economy vs. the "soft" service/finance/consumer-based economy we have now) is wrecking this country.

[Coops]

Spector quitting was no great loss for the Republican party. He voted with the dems half the time anyway.

The pendulum is swinging back to the right after a huge overcompensation to the left. In 18 months we will have a Republican governor in New Jersey, and possibly in New York, Spector (PA) and Dodd (CT) will probably be replaced with Republicans and maybe a few other incumbents will be ousted.

Not that Republicans are that much different from Democrats, but opposing the Party in the White House is very important at this time. Hopefully, Obama can be delayed from pushing through his fiscally harmful agenda until the Congress is re organized in 2010.

[spratman]

I mostly agree with this, except for the "radical change" part-- I think what few big changes we've seen have been largely due to things beyond one politicians control (9/11, the economy), but I don't think we've seen much that was truly radical in the last several decades. Even what Obama's doing now isn't nearly as radical as what happened under FDR, and what happened under FDR wasn't nearly as radical as what happened under Lincoln.

The thing about a multi-party system (and I agree we could use one), however, is it typically cannot work in a first-past-the-post electoral system like ours or Britain's. You need a proportional representation and instant runoff voting system to have a multiparty system, and even in that case, two parties usually end up dominating, but the smaller parties have more power b/c the big ones often need them to form a coalition government.

Although I think a multi-party system would be a big improvement in this country, I think some fundamental changes to our economy and culture would be even better. Our society has become too atomized and individualistic (by individualistic I mean selfish, not that anyone actually cares about personal responsibility or individual rights), and power and wealth too unevenly distributed (I'm all for natural disparities of power and wealth due to individual merit, but I'm against those that result primarily from systemic advantages given to one class of people over another). This selfishness, social atomization, horribly uneven distribution of wealth and power, and lack of productivity (a "hard" goods-producing economy vs. the "soft" service/finance/consumer-based economy we have now) is wrecking this country.

With a true multi-party system (Israel comes to mind) you have far more difficulties maintaining any semblance of order. It takes little to throw things out of alignment. I don't think that is conducive to getting things done.

Secondly, redistribution of wealth, government run health care, nationalization of the banks and cars companies is very foreign to our country.

Redistribution of wealth: If you are able to work and do not, I am not responsible to feed and care for you. The government will tax us all until we are all the same. This leads to mediocrity and stifles any reason to "get ahead". See labor unions.

Socialized medicine: In every iteration, social medicine has failed. Any person in the world who has the means, comes to this country for treatment. We have the best healthcare system in the world. When students take aptitude tests, as in Europe, the best and brightest are not the ones that always get to be doctors. The government decides that for you. There are not incentives to be the best. More mediocrity applied in healthcare. Not to mention weeks and months for treatment and procedures.

Nationalization of the banks: The government has never had the ability to control the banks. Now they do. Using our tax dollars to control debt while creating massive amounts more than will ever be paid off.

I'd say radical is a good verb to use.

As far as goods and services, I agree that most manufacturing jobs that have been the stalwart of the American economy is gone. In both instances, corporate and union has been greed driven. This is in large part the demise of the auto industry. In order to raise the stock share price many of these companies moved off shore.

Pick the industry, it's the share holders, i.e. you and me with our 401K's that drive this as well.

There are a mulitude of factors that must be dealt with today and again, I agree that one individual cannot be saddled with natural disasters, man-made disasters, the economy, etc.

[BSH]

With a true multi-party system (Israel comes to mind) you have far more difficulties maintaining any semblance of order. It takes little to throw things out of alignment. I don't think that is conducive to getting things done.

But if you read our constitution, there really is very little that the Federal government is SUPPOSED to get done. It's designed that way. So, having a multi-party system really wouldn't cause any problems - except to the extent that the government exceeds its constitutional limits.

Back to topic, I think Spector bailed out because he knew he'd lose his next primary anyway. He has a better chance of winning a Democratic primary.

[Halftrack]

Back to topic, I think Spector bailed out because he knew he'd lose his next primary anyway. He has a better chance of winning a Democratic primary.

It's too bad we can't get enough dems to cross over and vote his sorry ass all the way out.

delusions ........ yeah, I get like that from time to time.

[King 5.45]

It's too bad we can't get enough dems to cross over ...

I sense someone in the audience feeling a sense of loss and disappointment with a, wait, no, it's something like, um Barry? No, wait, it's actually longer than that, sort of Middle Eastern sounding? The last name starts with an O, no wait, an S? It ends with one of the vowels? Hold on, it has most of the vowels, no, wait, they both do? Wow, that's audacious!

[Eugene V. Debs]

With a true multi-party system (Israel comes to mind) you have far more difficulties maintaining any semblance of order. It takes little to throw things out of alignment. I don't think that is conducive to getting things done.

Yeah, Israel is in chaos, with the best economy and standard of living in the region by far and the ability to thoroughly kick the asses of much larger military forces that surround it simultaneously. What a train-wreck!

Redistribution of wealth: If you are able to work and do not, I am not responsible to feed and care for you. The government will tax us all until we are all the same.

When did I say I want government to redistribute wealth, give money to those who choose not to work, or not financially reward innovation, talent or hard work?

All I want is for workers to get more of what they produce, have more say in the production process (sharing in both the risk and rewards of self-management), and to have an economic and political system where disparities of wealth and power are limited (but not eliminated), and those which exist are the result of merit. But I don't believe the government should have a major role (if any) in this, and I think both free-market and Marxian economic theory, while both containing some truths, are ultimately utopian and unworkable in their pure form.

This leads to mediocrity and stifles any reason to "get ahead". See labor unions.

Yeah, sure, that's why, when the United States had much higher levels of unionization in the 1940s, 50s and 60s there were no innovations and poor productivity.

Socialized medicine: In every iteration, social medicine has failed.

100% bullshit. Western and Southern Europe has a much healthier population than the US, and there is no movement among people in any of the industrialized countries to abandon single-payer health insurance and replace it with a US-style system. If single-payer health insurance were such an abject failure then why aren't people in Europe, Canada, Australia, etc. demanding it be changed? I guess they're all fuckin stupid and don't realize that we in the U.S. of A. always know best and that our supposedly capitalist society hasn't yet been corrupted by the entrance of Commie bullshit into our health care system (oh, except for the fact that we already spend billions of tax dollars on health care with little to show for it).

And if you think the plan Obama and the Dems are pushing in Congress is anything even remotely close to socialized medicine, I've got some grape Kool-Aid for you to drink. It's gonna be just another big corporate welfare plan-- socialism for the rich.

As far as goods and services, I agree that most manufacturing jobs that have been the stalwart of the American economy is gone. In both instances, corporate and union has been greed driven. This is in large part the demise of the auto industry. In order to raise the stock share price many of these companies moved off shore.

Yep, most of that's true, though there are some other factors at play too-- but that's too much to get into at the moment.

Pick the industry, it's the share holders, i.e. you and me with our 401K's that drive this as well.

I gotta DB plan.

There are a mulitude of factors that must be dealt with today and again, I agree that one individual cannot be saddled with natural disasters, man-made disasters, the economy, etc.

Well, at least we agree on that point. Sorry for sounding so sarcastic, nasty and smart-ass above, but sometimes I can't help myself-- although I think some of your points are all wrong I also think you raised some good ones.

[Eugene V. Debs]

But if you read our constitution, there really is very little that the Federal government is SUPPOSED to get done. It's designed that way. So, having a multi-party system really wouldn't cause any problems - except to the extent that the government exceeds its constitutional limits.

Agreed.

Back to topic, I think Spector bailed out because he knew he'd lose his next primary anyway. He has a better chance of winning a Democratic primary.

He has to bank on the PA AFL-CIO not aggressively and intelligently backing a viable contender in the Dem primary-- given organized labor's historic cowardice and myopia when it comes to political affairs, it may not be such a bad bet for him. If he votes for cloture on EFCA (which he's claiming he still won't) he won't have to worry about it, which makes me wonder if he doesn't have a contingency plan to run as an independent in advance of the primaries if it looks like the AFL has a good contender to beat him by then.