Sassenach wrote:How many pro-choice Republicans are getting through the primaries these days ?

From the outside looking in I'd definitely say that the modern Republicans appear to be moving in an increasingly purist direction. This is worrying because the American system of government is not set up for outright antagonism between the parties. A certain amount of bipartisan cooperation is necessary for Congress to function, but if you're only selecting extremist candidates and actively punishing those who lend their vote to any measure proposed by the opposition then you're going to create a system where it becomes impossible to govern without controlling all 3 branches of government.

I think the right comparison is how many pro-life Democrats get through their primaries.

Sas, I think you are right, but what is the objective evidence that supports your position that the Republican tent is shrinking? There is conflict between the tea party and the establishment. And there's conflict between the traditional conservatives and the libertarians. There are pro-immigrant and anti-immigrant factions. It seems to me that this is a healthy incubator of ideas.

Tea party beating incumbents ...a Republican beating a Republican, great example to look for? So I take it any and all Democrats who are incumbent simply must be re-elected or it shows us party in-fighting? They simply run unopposed within their own party? That is exactly what you are stating here, what oh what are you trying to get at? and the example asked for "how many"? How many Democrats have been elected on a pro life platform (hmmmm, my guess is that number is almost certainly lower!)

Tom, my point is obviously that incumbent Republicans are being systematically targeted and driven out of the party for holding moderate views. I only specifically mentioned the abortion issue because you first brought it up, but it does happen to be a good indicator. It wasn't so very long ago that there were quite a few pro-choice Republicans. Can you even think of one these days ? The last that I can remember was Rudy Giuliani, and he's no longer involved in frontline politics. Opposition to abortion has become a mandatory pre-requisite for elected office in the Republican Party. To an extent the opposite is happening in the Dems but it's not so far advanced, and in any case that kind of polarisation is unhealthy on either side.

it is every bit as advanced or more, of that I have no doubt.
Some Pro-choice Republicans:
Lisa Murkowski, Meg Whitman, Mark Kirk, Susan Collins, Jean Schodorf, Christine Todd Whitman, Mary Bono Mack, Judy Biggert, Lynn Jenkins, Rodney Frelinghuysen, Charlie Dent, Shelley Moore Capito, Olympia Snowe, Kay Bailey Hutchison,
Brian Bilbray, Mary Bono Mack, Kay Granger, Leonard Lance, Greg Walden, Scott Brown.......

ray

Isn't it healthy when the incumbent loses his or her primary?

Not for the incumbent.

And not for the party if the new candidate loses the general election. As happened in two or 3? senatorial campaigns in 2012. But thats actually rare till the 2012 senatorial elections. Usually the candidate winning the primary of the incumbent party wins.

here's the most comprehensive report I could find. Mostly, congressional members have a problem getting the nomination if their districts are redrawn....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/1 ... Primaried#

Archduke Russell John wrote:Just out of curiosity Geo are you actively involved in politics beyond just reading about it.

No, I'm not in any traditional sense, involved in politics in any way; I'm just a citizen.

Also, thanks for the correction on the Blue Dogs, Fate. I had no idea they had shrunk so much. This has been a useful discussion for me. This issue is clearly not as black and white as it first appeared. What's going to happen? Will Hagel get confirmed eventually? Or do they need to find someone else?

rickyp wrote:ray

Isn't it healthy when the incumbent loses his or her primary?

Not for the incumbent.

And not for the party if the new candidate loses the general election. As happened in two or 3? senatorial campaigns in 2012. But thats actually rare till the 2012 senatorial elections. Usually the candidate winning the primary of the incumbent party wins.

here's the most comprehensive report I could find. Mostly, congressional members have a problem getting the nomination if their districts are redrawn....

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/07/1 ... Primaried#

It may be unhealthy short term, but healthy long term. It sounds better than a party that is solely filled with establishment candidates that always win and don't accept new ideas from an insurgent wing.

An article that I saw today on Republicans that support gay marriage:

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/26/us/po ... d=all&_r=0

BTW, yes Hagel will be confirmed.

ray

It may be unhealthy short term, but healthy long term. It sounds better than a party that is solely filled with establishment candidates that always win and don't accept new ideas from an insurgent wing

.

Fareed Zakkaria addresses some of this in his book "The future of freedom"
I would have tended to agree with your stance 10 or 15 years ago. However, the quality of candidates seems to have tailed off remarkably since the primary system has taken hold in the US.... Now, candidates that are well qualified haven't got a chance against mouth breathers who toe the current party (i.e tea) line of orthodoxy. Why ? Because they have to appeal to the extremists who make up a large segment, often a majority, of the small number of involved people who actually vote in primaries...
So you end up with, rather than a congress of policy makers a congress of ideologues who aren't capable of compromise or even critical thinking.

Reminds me of this quote:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

H. L. Mencken

I tend to agree with some of what Ricky just stated, but in his attempt at a slam on the tea party he has to accept Obama is an even better example, a freaking shiny example of exactly what he has to say!
He appeals to extremists, he is ill qualified, toes the party line, rally's the small number of involved people, not capable of critical thinking. Sounds exactly like our President!

I love HL Mencken. Got to be the most quotable man ever born. This one seems to work even better:

When a candidate for public office faces the voters he does not face men of sense; he faces a mob of men whose chief distinguishing mark is the fact that they are quite incapable of weighing ideas, or even of comprehending any save the most elemental — men whose whole thinking is done in terms of emotion, and whose dominant emotion is dread of what they cannot understand. So confronted, the candidate must either bark with the pack or be lost... All the odds are on the man who is, intrinsically, the most devious and mediocre — the man who can most adeptly disperse the notion that his mind is a virtual vacuum. The Presidency tends, year by year, to go to such men. As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.

geojanes wrote:No, I'm not in any traditional sense, involved in politics in any way; I'm just a citizen.

I am not trying to portray any negativity or dismissiveness in your opinon with my question. Rather, just trying to understand. Working in the trenches gives a completely different understanding of where politics are in this country.

geojanes wrote: Will Hagel get confirmed eventually? Or do they need to find someone else?

I believe he was confrimed today

Archduke Russell John wrote:

geojanes wrote:No, I'm not in any traditional sense, involved in politics in any way; I'm just a citizen.

I am not trying to portray any negativity or dismissiveness in your opinon with my question. Rather, just trying to understand. Working in the trenches gives a completely different understanding of where politics are in this country.

What would you say are the major differences between politics in the trenches and politics as displayed in the news media?

From what I see, the news media is certainly left leaning (some more than others) and tend to report on that slant. However, if you include talk radio as "news media" then they lean FAR to the right. It's only natural as "most" journalists are liberal in nature and have been for a very long time. I get that, but when people assume the media is not slanted, then they are shocked when things don't go as expected.

Ray Jay wrote:What would you say are the major differences between politics in the trenches and politics as displayed in the news media?

Thank you for asking the question RJ. I read this article today and decided to post about it here to further explain what I was trying to say to Geo. The article discusses a recent journal article by a political scientist from Stanford. His journal article talks about the mistaken "facts" of political pundits. The article gives 5 short take aways from the article.

While all of them are pertinent to what I was saying, parts 1 & 4 are what I think most answers your question.

The first part talks about the difference between polarizing and sorting in the electorate. The definitions seem to be

An electorate is "polarized" if voters are increasingly drawn to extremes -- the right getting more conservative, the left getting more liberal, and moderates dwindling. An electorate is "sorted" if voters are increasingly settled into ideological camps...

It goes on to say that the American electorate is not polarizing. Rather it is just sorting. Essentially, the self-identification numbers are essentially the same, i.e. moderates have made up between 20-30% of the electorate since 1972. Further, Americans essentially feel the same about most issues as they did 20 or 30 years ago. What is different now is the homogenity of the political parties.


Part 4 discusses how the media tends to overstate the level of division. The author puts it this way

"closely divided" and "deeply divided" are two different things. This goes with his earlier point about polarization: Many people (as many as ever) are not strongly partisan, and might like both candidates almost equally, but in the voting booth, they have only two choices, and will choose the one they prefer, however slightly.

This is what you see by "working in the trenches" as oppose to just looking at poltical reporting.