Only 233 days to November 4th. Will the Republican wave be a ripple or a tsunami?
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Countdown to the Shellacking!
Collapse
X
-
Don't get too excited. My money says if it occurs (and by it, I assume we're both talking about reclaiming the Senate), it will be a ripple. There may be tsunami-like impacts in places where folks like Mitch McConnell lose their seats to crazy tea partying folk.
So, in AK, whom do you like? Sullivan, Treadwell, Miller, or ????
-
2014 will not be kind to Democrats. They'll lose ground in the Senate, but I'll predict that they hold on to a majority, if only due to Biden as tie-breaker. It'll be close, but either way, the Dems will net-gain in the Senate between now and Nov 2016. In the House, as in 2012, it'll be a majority of votes for Democratic candidates overall, but Repubs will easily win the most seats; I'll be surprised if either party makes significant gains.
Comment
-
However many seats the Repugnants take Nov. 2014, whether few or many, the end result will be but a ripple. Leopards don't change their spots, and two-headed monsters are still monsters. A third option needs to be viable or there will be no significant change of direction. An electable 3rd party would create great pandemonium for the current political process, but great opportunity as well.
ain't no turn like tele!
Comment
-
Originally posted by James View PostThe idea of a third party is sort of like the third party we already have. Works great as an idea but not so much in real life.
As to it not working so much in real life...well, yeah, that's (part of) the problem! IMHO.
ain't no turn like tele!
Comment
-
Originally posted by stevesliva View PostA third party is always a great idea if it takes votes from the guys you don't like.
I've wondered lately if a bipartisan organization to certify candidates' funding might be a solution. Kind of a privatization of campaign finance reform since it's obvious the thieves aren't going to do it themselves. For clarity: it would be a contract that you didn't take a donation over a couple of hundred bucks or no funds from corporations during the election cycle and then you'd be accountable not to take special interest money or perks during your tenure. If it was bipartisan then the electorate could have an option between two candidates knowing that neither were corrupt. I've gotten mixed feedback on this idea. EYTers?
Comment
-
I meant the Libertarian Party but you can take almost any. My point was a lot of these parties start off with great ideas or at least good ideas but then get hijacked by some extreme whack jobs and don't work out so well in real life. I like the idea of third party or even multiple new parties but this does not always work out so well either. Look at the political horse trading that goes on in Europe that get coalitions formed to get certain people elected and how they constantly fall apart.
Comment
-
Originally posted by riser3 View PostIf at all and only because it is well-funded by the Kochs.
Comment
-
Originally posted by James View PostI meant the Libertarian Party but you can take almost any. My point was a lot of these parties start off with great ideas or at least good ideas but then get hijacked by some extreme whack jobs and don't work out so well in real life. I like the idea of third party or even multiple new parties but this does not always work out so well either. Look at the political horse trading that goes on in Europe that get coalitions formed to get certain people elected and how they constantly fall apart.
ain't no turn like tele!
Comment
Comment