• DRAIN THE SWAMP - Voters send a strong "change" message by reelecting almost everybody
    19 replies, posted
[quote] Of 393 House incumbents who sought reelection, only five lost in the primaries, and only eight lost in the general election. For those of you keeping score at home, that's 97 percent of incumbents reelected. Only two incumbent senators, Mark Kirk (R-IL) and Kelly Ayotte (R-NH), lost. And Kirk, a Republican in a deep blue state, was always a long shot to win reelection. Of 466 seats up in both the House and the Senate, 445 stayed in the same party. Again, for those of you keeping score at home, that's 96 percent of congressional seats staying in the same party.[/quote] [url]http://www.vox.com/polyarchy/2016/11/15/13630058/change-election[/url]
I think the message was more towards Hillary and the concept of dynastic families ruling the country. But really, Hillary's biggest problems were her own problems. The running of the private email server. The foreign donations from foreign countries. The corruption in the DNC by her sycophants. I think that was really the message. Most of the Congress doesn't have that going on.
Not sure if that was because this forum is very international, but literally nobody talked about the House or the Senate here at all. Only the Presidential election was on everyone's mind. It seems to me that the Presidential Election is ending up just a distraction from where real change could happen.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51379189] Most of the Congress doesn't have that going on.[/QUOTE] Doesn't Congress have something like a 10% approval rating?
[QUOTE=Maegord;51379216]Doesn't Congress have something like a 10% approval rating?[/QUOTE] Well, I'm not sure. Got a source for that? And do you have specific approval rating of the Congress members that were up for re-election? Because the overall rating doesn't necessarily reflect on those specific people.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51379229]Well, I'm not sure. Got a source for that? And do you have specific approval rating of the Congress members that were up for re-election? Because the overall rating doesn't necessarily reflect on those specific people.[/QUOTE] Speaking in broad terms and without actual numbers, the approval rating for Congress as a whole is generally low, but the approval ratings of all the individual members are generally quite average.
[QUOTE=Kigen;51379229]Well, I'm not sure. Got a source for that? And do you have specific approval rating of the Congress members that were up for re-election? Because the overall rating doesn't necessarily reflect on those specific people.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/189848/no-improvement-congress-approval.aspx[/url] Though I do agree, it seems to me people are more fed up with the gridlock in congress than the actual member of congress themselves.
[QUOTE=Pelf;51379922][url]http://www.gallup.com/poll/189848/no-improvement-congress-approval.aspx[/url] Though I do agree, it seems to me people are more fed up with the gridlock in congress than the actual member of congress themselves.[/QUOTE] But cant that gridlock only be solved by voting out the more extreme members and voting in moderates.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;51379931]But cant that gridlock only be solved by voting out the more extreme members and voting in moderates.[/QUOTE] or you can solve gridlock by just voting everybody in from one party which is what they did
Well one of the things that Trump wants to do is impose a term limit on Congresspeople. So while it's not really "draining the swamp" - if he managed to get that idea through Congress - then he does make a somewhat decent attempt at "draining the swamp" (although people will still vote down party lines because lol your voting system).
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51380001]Well one of the things that Trump wants to do is impose a term limit on Congresspeople. So while it's not really "draining the swamp" - if he managed to get that idea through Congress - then he does make a somewhat decent attempt at "draining the swamp" (although people will still vote down party lines because lol your voting system).[/QUOTE] Congress voting on term limits of Congress lol no only if they get to throw a pay raise in it
[QUOTE=DogGunn;51380001]Well one of the things that Trump wants to do is impose a term limit on Congresspeople. So while it's not really "draining the swamp" - if he managed to get that idea through Congress - then he does make a somewhat decent attempt at "draining the swamp" (although people will still vote down party lines because lol your voting system).[/QUOTE] Why do people think term limits are such a great idea when invariably many of their favourite politicians would have been forced out by them? I mean, I'm applying this to the UK, but both Attlee and Thatcher (the favourites of left and right respectively) would have been forced out well before they came into their political prime under a two term limit, the most typically given term limit (which is ten years, so five terms in Congress) when this is proposed in the UK. I'm sure the same would be true in America.
[QUOTE=k2.;51380282]Congress voting on term limits of Congress lol no only if they get to throw a pay raise in it[/QUOTE] Sometimes they do vote against something that 'negatively' impacts themselves. [QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51380289]Why do people think term limits are such a great idea when invariably many of their favourite politicians would have been forced out by them? I mean, I'm applying this to the UK, but both Attlee and Thatcher (the favourites of left and right respectively) would have been forced out well before they came into their political prime under a two term limit, the most typically given term limit (which is ten years, so five terms in Congress) when this is proposed in the UK. I'm sure the same would be true in America.[/QUOTE] I'm not personally convinced on term limits - however if there were limits, then the current makeup of Parliament would change completely. It would result in more party members having a larger media presence even outside of Parliament.
For whatever reason historically this has always happened. People want to change congress because the institution has an abysmal approval rating. However, because when people look on a ballot they see what is familiar to them, they re-elect the same candidate that promises to change everything from the inside, when that person might be the actual issue in congress.
[QUOTE=Jsoldier;51380370]For whatever reason historically this has always happened. People want to change congress because the institution has an abysmal approval rating. However, because when people look on a ballot they see what is familiar to them, they re-elect the same candidate that promises to change everything from the inside, when that person might be the actual issue in congress.[/QUOTE] Ties into the whole apathy for local politics we have going on.
[QUOTE=thelurker1234;51380381]Ties into the whole apathy for local politics we have going on.[/QUOTE] Its also a problem with general education among voters. A lot of them only see whats on the surface when their representatives preach to their constituents
GOP insiders Have now realized huge problems, The Trump Coalitions isn't as stable as they would hope, In fact they say two to three months in which the Main GOP and the Trump Coalition start fighting, making it easier for Dems to block bills. And now it was announced Trump advisers are starting up a Organizing For Action style Organization. Basically Clusterfuck of previous years times two.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;51380289]Why do people think term limits are such a great idea when invariably many of their favourite politicians would have been forced out by them? I mean, I'm applying this to the UK, but both Attlee and Thatcher (the favourites of left and right respectively) would have been forced out well before they came into their political prime under a two term limit, the most typically given term limit (which is ten years, so five terms in Congress) when this is proposed in the UK. I'm sure the same would be true in America.[/QUOTE] Congressional term limits drastically reduce the incentive behind gerrymandering, massively hampers the corporate lobby, and will positively effect presidential elections since you'd have far less of a chance of a ballot populated entirely by corrupt shitheads. We need it.
This happened in 2014. A variety of progressive measures passed as state amendments across the country but people still decided to re-elect their Republican incumbents. Of course part of it this year could also be attributed to the Clinton Campaign and the DNC hoarding money meant to support state parties running against those Republicans.
[QUOTE=Jsoldier;51380406]Its also a problem with general education among voters. A lot of them only see whats on the surface when their representatives preach to their constituents[/QUOTE] And many of us are just disillusioned by the childish bickering and gridlock. [editline]16th November 2016[/editline] [QUOTE=Jsoldier;51380370]For whatever reason historically this has always happened. People want to change congress because the institution has an abysmal approval rating. However, because when people look on a ballot they see what is familiar to them, they re-elect the same candidate that promises to change everything from the inside, when that person might be the actual issue in congress.[/QUOTE] Some of it is gerrymandering. Congressmen have a massive incentive to make reelection as easy as possible, so when tasked with drawing district boundaries, they skew it heavily in their favor, make it as difficult as possible to lose their reelection bid.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.