With Congress being so polarized does it really matter what the individual merits of a congressman are? It's all about having a bigger "team" than the other side; anything else is secondary. Might as well call them R1...Rn and D1...Dn. Names are unnecessary...

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Here's the thing: every community has voted it down, except (maybe) Springfield (and I'm not sure about it). This is something no one wants in their backyard. However, corporations and corrupt politicians have kept it alive.

There are lots of things people don't want in their back yards that are not simply about corruption.

This one is. The people don't want it. Corporations do. Corporations that propped up Patrick. Wynn casinos and others are heavily invested in this. I saw NO ads in favor of Question 3. Not one.

On that basis should we outlaw alcohol or heavily restrict bars based on public votes?

It would save a lot more lives than a gun ban would. Not only are there many thousands who die because of drunk driving, but the physical effects on chronic drinkers are expensive and often fatal.

However, I'd be satisfied with brutal penalties for drunk driving--like life without for your second conviction. In this State, people are convicted 3, 4, and 5 times before they even lose their licenses! It is positively insane.

The extreme was tried a while ago in the US and didn't really work very well. Similarly gambling - despite a lot of gambling laws in the US, a lot of people use illegal channels and I suspect they'd be better going through regulated bookies/houses, even if they are still stacked against the punter.

There are plenty of outlets without forcing one just to please the corporate overlords.

Like Sass, I like to gamble recreationally. Four days in Vegas was great fun with a few short sessions at the blackjack tables. I had a budget and spent it over the period, but a good streak also paid for a pretty good night out in between.

I can see why people don't want casinos, but at the same time I think we do need to treat people like adults as a default.

I suppose that includes respecting their vote. Hey, if 3 fails, I'll respect the vote. I'll never drive through Springfield, but I'll respect the vote.

Which states are y'all from? (obviously Dan and Sass are in the UK of course).

There are eight congressmen from Maryland. Except for Andy Harris, all are Democrats. All wiped the floor with their opponents via constituents who are basically used to them, or maybe other reasons are operative (the gerrymandering in Maryland was absolute genius on the part of Martin O'Malley).

Except Delaney...for a while, it was reported that Bongino, the Republican challenger, had won and he still can. Delaney is winning by less than 2,000 votes. So once the last few precincts are counted, and the absentee ballots, Delaney could find himself unseated.

How do you all vote? We were using a touch-screen system in Maryland for several elections now. Strange that computers take so long to count the damn votes, isn't it? An election worker said they're ditching the touch-screen voting next time, when I made the comment that I missed the old paper "fill in the arrow with a magic marker" ballots made of thick white paper. It was counted by an optical mark scanner. Which, I hear tell, is the most accurate, least susceptible to fraud, and if a hand recount is demanded, there's your piece of paper with which to do it. Before touch-screen, four different systems were operative in the state of Maryland, including (mostly in Baltimore city, go figure) the old voting booths where you pull the levers.

Oh, and fairly narrow win for Hogan, what an upset for the Democrats. And I hear we're not the only Democatic state that dumped the ruling party out of the governor's mansion.

freeman3 wrote:With Congress being so polarized does it really matter what the individual merits of a congressman are? It's all about having a bigger "team" than the other side; anything else is secondary. Might as well call them R1...Rn and D1...Dn. Names are unnecessary...

Really? Really? This is perhaps the most cynical thing I've ever read on these boards. The only thing that matters is the individual merits of the congressperson. Until people believe this, why are we shocked at all the electeds we're sending to prison?

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:With Congress being so polarized does it really matter what the individual merits of a congressman are? It's all about having a bigger "team" than the other side; anything else is secondary. Might as well call them R1...Rn and D1...Dn. Names are unnecessary...

Really? Really? This is perhaps the most cynical thing I've ever read on these boards. The only thing that matters is the individual merits of the congressperson. Until people believe this, why are we shocked at all the electeds we're sending to prison?

I've been saying the matter is integrity. Every once in a while, the voters punish a fraud, like Coakley.

One of my Dip friends is a Democratic elected official on the municipal level. Even though he is as liberal as all get out, he is not liked by the Party power structure. Why not? Because he's honest. In fact, I have no problem saying it publicly. I disagree with him about most issues, but he's a straight-shooter.

As long as corruption is rewarded, we will keep getting it. We need more honest politicians, regardless of their philosophy.

I'm in Mass. Paper ballots with black marker for us.

Now that Obama has taken a shellacking, will he tack to the center? I sure hope so; we need some compromises on a range of issues. However, my sense is that Obama (and his advisors) are just not made that way. I think we will have 2 more years of gridlock. I hope I am wrong.

Ray Jay wrote:I'm in Mass. Paper ballots with black marker for us.

Now that Obama has taken a shellacking, will he tack to the center? I sure hope so; we need some compromises on a range of issues. However, my sense is that Obama (and his advisors) are just not made that way. I think we will have 2 more years of gridlock. I hope I am wrong.

I have the same sense, except . . . IF (wish I could make that like 24 point font) the Republicans are smart, they will pass bills that the vast majority of Americans want. If the President vetoes those, it won't be "gridlock," it will be more akin to political suicide. He'll have to explain why he knows better than Americans do--or, he can lie.

As with Lundergren-Grimes, I don't think such dishonesty will go unpunished. She refused to say she voted for Obama. It made her look like a run-of-the-mill hack. President Obama will be risking everything by playing political games.

Now, I'm not saying he will or should roll over on everything. However, if he keeps playing the same game--blaming the GOP for everything--while he's blocking popular legislation, his numbers will get worse. In effect, he will be turning the anti-Obama mood into an anti-Democratic mood, poisoning the Party label--as GWB did for Republicans.

See, there were FOUR different methods of voting used in our state prior to the touch-screen computerized ones: the paper with fill in the arrow with a black magic marker (optical scanner, most accurate!), touch screens in a couple counties, and even the very old voting booths with pull the little lever next to your choice....and they had the wisdom to go to the touch screens. Idiots.

My Canadian friend brags that in Canada they're counted BY HAND in two hours and then reported to the central office at the local board of elections) every time they have a general election. Impressive.

Except, of course, they don't have 15 or so different races to count, I don't think, when they have an election for the House of Commons when the govt (or whatever) calls a federal election...just the member of the House of Commons in that riding. Americans like to jam it all on one single ballot and vote ONCE because we're lazy. "You mean I have to vote AGAIN??? I just did that eight months ago!!!!" seems to be our attitude, on average.

Well....

Pennsylvania - My county (Bucks) uses a push-button electronic machine. It records all votes on a hard-drive and produces a paper tape with the vote totals so the counting can be done immediately upon polls closing.

We had an interesting night in the great Commonwealth of Pennsylvania last night. Our Governor, Tom Corbett, was the only Republican incumbent Governor not to be re-elected. However, the Republicans increased their majorities in the Senate, from 27/23 to 30/20, and in the House by 35, to119/84.

Now I know the first reaction is to say gerrymandering; however, a look at the numbers show that might not be the case. Corbett lost in some of the reddest of counties by the largest of margins, specifically those around State College also known as Penn State University's main campus. A very strong alumni association was extremely angry at the Governor for his actions as AG that interfered with the apotheosis of their patron saint JoePa.

However, it was probably just that fact that Corbett was a really bad candidate that won 4 years ago only because the Democrat at the time was even worse (he had to run a commercial about 2 weeks before the election on the correct way to pronounce his name).

hacker

My Canadian friend brags that in Canada they're counted BY HAND in two hours and then reported to the central office at the local board of elections) every time they have a general election. Impressive

For Provincial and federal elections where only 1 list of candidates for MP or MPP is on the ballot.
And two hours is a little excessive. When I served as a poll captain in elections we had our box counted and reported by phone (unofficial) in less than 20 minutes.
In Municipal elections, optical scanners of a paper ballot are now popular. But thats where you have 5 or 6 different positions being elected. Or like in Toronto where as many as 64 people regularly run for Mayor. Still it only took 90 minutes for all the counting in Toronto.

IF (wish I could make that like 24 point font) the Republicans are smart, they will pass bills that the vast majority of Americans want.

So how likely do you think this is ? I'd say they're far more likely to pass bills that the Republican base wants and waste the next two years on politically motivated Senate inquiries.

Sass has it right , I think. RJ, when you say tack back to the center what specific policies would he need to do? And DF what popular bills are you referring to ?The only thing. I could think of was corporate income tax rates. Here's the thing: if Republicans want to get things they like then they have to give the president things that he wants. If they are unwilling to compromise because of principle, that's fine, but who's going to get blamed if there is gridlock over the next two years? Obama is a lame-duck president and Republicans control the House and Senate so the answer is pretty clear--Republicans. It's not whether Obama goes back to the center, it's whether Rrpublucans are willing to make deals. And,yes, that means doing things they would rather not do. I think Sass is right,however, and Democrats are well-set up for 2016.
Negotiate, compromise, make deals--hopefully,that describes Republicans hence forth--but I doubt it.

Did the Democrats do that for Bush in 2006?

Yeah,George, that statement was pretty cynical. It seems to me, however, that we have some systemic issues in our society that make that statement mostly true. First of all, the elites in our society are taking too much wealth and we seem to have no mechanism for stopping it. Obama did not even try to get single-payer because of opposition of health insurance companies and big Pharm. After the financial crisis we gave a lot of money to the people that caused the crisis and were unable to get either get rid of banks that were too big to fail or institute necessary minimum capital requirements so we will probably have a repeat at some point in the future. Citizens United has exacerbated the problem of money in politics (or "soft" legal corruption of Congress)

The reason ( I think ) Obama is not popular even though the economic stats are mostly good is that most people are not happy with how things are going in their own life. And that is a lot to do with our government not restraining the top few percent from taking too much of the wealth and paying too little taxes. That's what wealthy elites do in every country until there is a middle-class that demands a more equitable distribution. Now, we already went through that period where a rising middle-class was able to effect a more equable wealth distribution but we are in a post- class period where there is no group countering the interests of the wealthy . We are all supposed to get rich so there is no need for that ...

The dissatisfaction is diffuse and the general anti-government culture in the South (reflected in uncompromising Tea Party members) makes it near impossible to have the government rein in corporations and the wealthy. Unions have not survived a post blue-collar world. The Democratic Party even with almost a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate and control of the House was not able to get anything accomplished that was opposed by powerful business interests. The Dow has gone up how much under Obama?

So forgive me if I am a bit cynical that individual congressman can make it to Washington without becoming beholden to economic interests that oppose changing the status quo. And even though Democrats are centrists in action if not thought for fear of the money spigots going dry, they are still far to the left of the Republicans. So bi-partisan deals are hard to come by because the views of each party's members so rarely intersect with those of the other side. That being the case , unless you are concerned about a congressman bringing projects to your state, the merits of each congressman are debatable; they simply serve to add to a vote to the party whose views are closest to your own views. Convince me of the merits of the individual congressman , George.

freeman3

So forgive me if I am a bit cynical that individual congressman can make it to Washington without becoming beholden to economic interests that oppose changing the status quo.

You have every right to be enormously cynical.
Republicans have already pledged to repeal Obama care. even though they have nothing to replace it with but the status qua. And secure in the knowledge that Obama will veto any serious attempt at dismantling the ACA and the they don't have the votes to over come a veto.
They have committed to fighting a minimum wage increase even though over 80% of Americans are in favor of an increase.
Now they have to actually offer nw laws and policies for consideration , rather than just oppose. If they can rein in their party extremists like Cruz..

The campaign by republicans was bereft of any ideas, and based largely on an expression of irrational fear and vague unfocused disappointment. (Including ebola Freeman)
The campaign by democrats was bereft of courage or the conviction that many of the Presidents policies were working. (health care, economy).

All because all these guys depend on a small sliver of the nation, less than 0.5% to fund the most expensive election in US history. ($4 billion+).
If they want to be reelected they rely on not upsetting thr 0.5% ...