The Grand Old Party has a chance to win the Senate next year - Polidicks

[quote]Washington (CNN) -- It's the biggest storyline heading into next year's midterm elections: Will Republicans succeed in taking control of the U.S. Senate? Republicans argue that an announcement over the weekend vastly improves their chances. Democrats vehemently disagree. The news from Montana's former Democratic Gov. Brian Schweitzer. The man known for his signature bolo tie said he would not run for Senate next year, as many Democrats had expected. Schweitzer captured nearly two-thirds of the vote in his 2008 re-election as governor of the red state and was seen by many as the best chance for the party to keep the seat of retiring Sen. Max Baucus blue. Schweitzer has recently faced potentially damaging stories about his ties to a political nonprofit group and its disclosure practices. But sources said that may have just been the tip of the iceberg when it came to opposition research Schweitzer may have faced had he decided to launch a Senate bid. But Schweitzer denied that impacted his decision.[/quote] [url]http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/15/politics/gop-senate-2014/index.html[/url]

Nate Silver's analysis says it's still too close to call but the GOP does have a chance of winning if they play their cards right: [url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/[/url]

This is the exact opposite of what this country needs. I am not implying Democrats will solve the world's problems, but it is clear which party is the superior of the two.

[QUOTE=person11;41488193]This is the exact opposite of what this country needs. I am not implying Democrats will solve the world's problems, but it is clear which party is the superior of the two.[/QUOTE] Calling Democrats superior is grating but compared to the GOP I'd have to agree.

Undemocratic breaches of privacy or Undemocratic breaches of privacy + the gutting of social services + the gutting of human rights for women, lgbt individuals, and minorities + further destruction of the economy As a kneejerk reaction to the first Americans are going to choose the second - super!

America (and, for that matter, the majority of countries) needs to get its shit together, politically.

[QUOTE=Political Gamer;41488028]Nate Silver's analysis says it's still too close to call but the GOP does have a chance of winning if they play their cards right: [url]http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/07/15/senate-control-in-2014-increasingly-looks-like-a-tossup/[/url][/QUOTE] Hes the one who correctly called the election right? Each state correctly at that.

Wish we would just overall eliminate political parties.

[QUOTE=matt000024;41488992]Wish we would just overall eliminate political parties.[/QUOTE] Impossible to do. One way or the other, people are going to organize themselves into similar ideologies and vote in groups in order to ensure their candidate will win.

Political Parties are as inevitable as families. Washington was probably right in saying they were shitty, but there is no way of keeping people from forming these types of groups.

[QUOTE=matt000024;41488992]Wish we would just overall eliminate political parties.[/QUOTE] There are third parties. The best thing people can do is try to get rid of the idea that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote" (because there is no such thing as a wasted vote, even if it's blank)

I'm so thankful we don't have a two party system like you guys. I mean, the Liberal Democrats are pretty shit, but they're better than nothing.

A better solution would be to push new electoral laws that would give third parties more of a chance. This is unlikely due to there being two parties deciding everything. Two party states are not necessarily bad, it is just how ours is structured that sucks. Multi-party systems lead to more gridlock and tensions in many cases (examples: the last 70 years of Latin America)

The GOP has a massively unfair advantage in the way the Senate is structured. The Democrat's power base is in the population centers on the coastlines and a handful of other states, while the GOP gets 2 Senate seats for every depopulated state in the middle of the country. A few thousand ultraconservative people in Montana get the same power in that body as the entire population of California. Plus, the seats up for grabs this year are nothing but seats the GOP is safe in, or Democratic Senators in largely Republican states. If they win a majority, we get one of two things: More complete gridlock as the Democrats obstruct for obstruction's sake in revenge for what the Republicans have done to them the last four years, or the Democrats roll over and Obama gets to veto one nightmare bill after another until the idiot American electorate gives the Republicans the White House in 2016 because none of our problems have been fixed. UUUUUUUUUUGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHH.

And the Republican gerrymander of 2010 makes it so there is no change the House will not be Republican for at least a few terms (though the Democrats also gerrymander at every opportunity).

what a relief.

[QUOTE=areolop;41488926]Hes the one who correctly called the election right? Each state correctly at that.[/QUOTE] he's accurately predicted more than one election i believe. [QUOTE=person11;41488193]This is the exact opposite of what this country needs. I am not implying Democrats will solve the world's problems, but it is clear which party is the superior of the two.[/QUOTE] i would be hard pressed to use the word "superior" in the same sentence as the democrats. "less-atrocious" seems like a better way to put it. "only option that doesn't completely fuck over every oppressed class of society" is a much wordier way, but also works. but then again maybe the gop winning would be a good thing? if the gop gets control of the government maybe everyone will take to the streets and finally demand some change in the political workings of the united states. but that's incredibly optimistic, and i wouldn't bet mine or anyone else's already shoddy legal protections on it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41489755]he's accurately predicted more than one election i believe. i would be hard pressed to use the word "superior" in the same sentence as the democrats. "less-atrocious" seems like a better way to put it. "only option that doesn't completely fuck over every oppressed class of society" is a much wordier way, but also works. but then again maybe the gop winning would be a good thing? if the gop gets control of the government maybe everyone will take to the streets and finally demand some change in the political workings of the united states. but that's incredibly optimistic, and i wouldn't bet mine or anyone else's already shoddy legal protections on it.[/QUOTE] "Oppressed class of society" What But if people took to the streets and demanded change, what'll end up happening is that leaders and opposing groups will emerge, and then we'll have the exact same situation we had before, except with anarchy

It seems pretty likely, in my eyes. That's the general pattern of US politics. With our deeply flawed bipartisan system, the pendulum just keeps swinging. The inevitable shortcomings, disappointments, or outright failures that occur during one party's rule will cause the swing voters to look at the other side for answers.

[QUOTE=BFG9000;41489793]"Oppressed class of society" What But if people took to the streets and demanded change, what'll end up happening is that leaders and opposing groups will emerge, and then we'll have the exact same situation we had before, except with anarchy[/QUOTE] 1) i'm an anarchist so don't try and use the word anarchy in a conversation with me to try and disregard my post. it doesn't work, since i actually want "anarchy"(probably in a different way than you assume) 2) maybe we need opposing groups to move us forward. i would be happier with a democrat party which is conservative, and then a green party that is progressivist/centre-left. much better than a conservative democratic party and an ultra-conservative gop 3) oppressed class of society means anyone who is disadvantaged due to our economic, social, or political system. blacks, the poor, homeless, drug addicts, women, hispanics, etc. republican policies are much worse for the people disadvantaged by society than the democrats. though i won't praise the democrats since they tend to drag their heels at the sight of progress as well.

Honestly, it doesn't matter much who wins. We have had several changes in party dominance in my lifetime but little has come of it. Both parties are far too skilled at stopping each other from accomplishing things. Moreover, both parties suck. I would argue that the Democrats are the lesser of two evils but I cannot even say that any more. Even though they want to provide free healthcare (and maybe college), which I support, but they aren't very sound with the economic policies. The Republicans have the economics nailed down but are terrible with the Social aspect of government. Either way, neither party will do anything to stem the massive amounts of corruption or fix the stalemate in our government, which means that, no matter who wins, we lose.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41489836]:words:[/QUOTE] 1. I'm not saying anarchy is bad, I'm just saying the combination is bad 2. wait what I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here from what I see you want the political spectrum to shift left significantly? No, that would suck 3. wow, is everything "their fault"?

[QUOTE=BFG9000;41489962]1. I'm not saying anarchy is bad, I'm just saying the combination is bad 2. wait what I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say here from what I see you want the political spectrum to shift left significantly? No, that would suck 3. wow, is everything "their fault"?[/QUOTE] 1. most people use the word "anarchy" pejoratively. it's still a bit amusing when someone tries to argue with me saying "it will be anarchy!" and i say "well, good then?" i assume most people think of anarchy as a strictly bad thing, so sorry if i was quick to judge your intentions 2. as a leftist i would appreciate if politics did shift to the left significantly. in the usa we have a centre-right(democrat) and far-right(republican) political party. that's incredibly limiting as far as social progress is concerned. a centre-right and centre-left political party would at least result in some compromise and discussion that might actually benefit us. 3. not everything is their fault. no one party is to blame for the oppression of people. there are complex economic, social, and political systems in place that perpetuate oppression, which i am not very qualified to completely explain without grossly simplifying everything. however, the gop's policies regarding oppressed groups does more to perpetuate oppression and disadvantage than the democrat's policies. the democrats do their fair share of oppressing and stifling progress, but i would rather deal with a group that would resist progress rather than a group that would reverse it.

[QUOTE=yawmwen;41490034]1. most people use the word "anarchy" pejoratively. it's still a bit amusing when someone tries to argue with me saying "it will be anarchy!" and i say "well, good then?" i assume most people think of anarchy as a strictly bad thing, so sorry if i was quick to judge your intentions 2. as a leftist i would appreciate if politics did shift to the left significantly. in the usa we have a centre-right(democrat) and far-right(republican) political party. that's incredibly limiting as far as social progress is concerned. a centre-right and centre-left political party would at least result in some compromise and discussion that might actually benefit us. 3. not everything is their fault. no one party is to blame for the oppression of people. there is complex economic, social, and political systems in place that perpetuate oppression, which i am not very qualified to completely explain without grossly simplifying everything. however, the gop's policies regarding oppressed groups does more to perpetuate oppression and disadvantage than the democrat's policies. the democrats do their fair share of oppressing and stifling progress, but i would rather deal with a group that would resist progress rather than a group that would reverse it.[/QUOTE] Oh wait I read your political shift thing wrong yeah that would be nice

The reactionary and emotional based politics that the Democrats have been dishing out lately is all too much to take. I honestly don't care for either party at this point.

[QUOTE=Charades;41490130]The reactionary and emotional based politics that the Democrats have been dishing out lately is all too much to take. I honestly don't care for either party at this point.[/QUOTE] welcome to the club. i don't think there are many politically aware people that actually like either party at all. most people seem to hate both parties. for some reason though, instead of actually wanting to fight it or change it, it seems a lot of us just become cynical and resign ourselves that this is the way politics should have to be done. i think it's sad that so many of us think that choosing the "lesser of two evils" is the way things has to be done. participation in politics should be beautiful and empowering, not soul-crushing and depressing.

It would require a hive-mind to change from the bottom-up, that's the problem. Even if 20% of the people in this country started voting TP's, that would just split the vote and the main party who retained most of their base would get an easy win.

[QUOTE=Mr. Someguy;41491428]It would require a hive-mind to change from the bottom-up, that's the problem. Even if 20% of the people in this country started voting TP's, that would just split the vote and the main party who retained most of their base would get an easy win.[/QUOTE] there have been times when third-parties have been successful. teddy roosevelt, part of the progressive "bull moose" party, was able to win presidency. it's not impossible, although our electoral system makes it quite unlikely. there is hope for change in the political system, but it will require an incredible shift in attitude regarding the way politics should be done. idk if encouraging people to vote for a third party is enough.

[QUOTE=areolop;41488926]Hes the one who correctly called the election right? Each state correctly at that.[/QUOTE][QUOTE=yawmwen;41489755]he's accurately predicted more than one election i believe.[/QUOTE]Yep [url=http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/11/todays-polls-and-final-election.html]2008[/url]/[url=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/01/house-forecast-g-o-p-plus-54-55-seats-significantly-larger-or-smaller-gains-possible/]2010[/url]/[url=http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/fivethirtyeights-2012-forecast/]2012[/url] At this point I think we can trust Nate knows what he is doing.

[QUOTE=MaxOfS2D;41489100]There are third parties. The best thing people can do is try to get rid of the idea that voting for a third party is "wasting your vote" (because there is no such thing as a wasted vote, even if it's blank)[/QUOTE] Voting at all is a waste unless you are part of the actual influential. To illustrate an example, imagine a voting district. You need one more vote than the other party to win. As long as you get that vote, it doesn't matter, you win. If 50% of voters in that district blindly voted for X party each year, and the rest voted for Y party, quite suddenly you have a situation where a small number of people could easily change the results. It is this small number that politicians focus on mostly to come to their side. Everybody else doesn't matter. The safe states in elections should be ignored, those don't matter. Only the swing states matter in elections.