Blue Dog Caucus decimated....

Hopefully they'll be replaced by real Democrats in 2012.Theokhoth

Not going to happen... Most of these bluedogs are from conservative areas to begin with, that the only way they could even compete was that were blue dogs to begin with.

Hopefully they'll be replaced by real Democrats in 2012.Theokhoth

I will miss Nancy's clapping enthusiasm whenever Obama says anything...Especially when she was next to Biden who looked pissed off every time he had to stand up and clap. Other than that, I think a little bit of resistance in the House could end up being a good thing...But we'll see.spazzx625

It really doesn't matter seeing as the Senate was stone walling everything to begin with.. I don't think we are going to see much change.. Or infact this may be a positive.. Because the repubs were filibustering everything for partisan reasons EVEN with bills like the one meant for small businesses that gave them loans, tex credits and breaks.. A bill proposed by a Republican.. Maybe we will not see as much pointless resistance on everything.

[QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Hopefully they'll be replaced by real Democrats in 2012.FragStains

It doesn't though. :| This is a candidate based system, not a PARTY based system.. There can be a WORLD of difference between candidate A and candidate B even if they are affiliated with the same national party.. ESPECIALLY for House and State elections.

I think we lost a lot of DINOs and RINOs this election cycle. wstfld

[QUOTE="wstfld"]I think we lost a lot of DINOs and RINOs this election cycle. MAILER_DAEMON

That's what they get. Why would I want a sugar substitute when I can have sugar? Same goes for Blue Dogs, why have a Republican substitute when they can have a Republican?

[QUOTE="wstfld"]I think we lost a lot of DINOs and RINOs this election cycle. MAILER_DAEMON

Our system is not set up to come any where close to a parlimentary system.. The Us is designed as a two party system, candidate based where parties are extremely weak, and to pass anything in congress you need a clear maority overall not a propotional majority.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="wstfld"]I think we lost a lot of DINOs and RINOs this election cycle. nocoolnamejim

We would have to fundamentally change EVERYTHING in how our elections work in which its a pluralist election system.. And how our legislature works.. Even then we would replace one set of problems for another, neither one can be claimed to be superior.

[QUOTE="FragStains"][QUOTE="Theokhoth"]Hopefully they'll be replaced by real Democrats in 2012.sSubZerOo

It doesn't though. :| This is a candidate based system, not a PARTY based system.. There can be a WORLD of difference between candidate A and candidate B even if they are affiliated with the same national party.. ESPECIALLY for House and State elections.

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="wstfld"]I think we lost a lot of DINOs and RINOs this election cycle. sSubZerOo

Our system is not set up to come any where close to a parlimentary system.. The Us is designed as a two party system, candidate based where parties are extremely weak, and to pass anything in congress you need a clear maority overall not a propotional majority.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Yep. Which can only be good for the country, if it leads to Congress becoming more parliamentary. The odds of that happening are... slim.MAILER_DAEMON

Our system is not set up to come any where close to a parlimentary system.. The Us is designed as a two party system, candidate based where parties are extremely weak, and to pass anything in congress you need a clear maority overall not a propotional majority.

It could never happen, because parties really mean something in other countries where people vote for the party.. While candidates really mean everything here, parties have little to no say in campaigns due to finance reform, how primaries are decided now, and numerous other things.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Yep. Which can only be good for the country, if it leads to Congress becoming more parliamentary. The odds of that happening are... slim.sSubZerOo

We would have to fundamentally change EVERYTHING in how our elections work in which its a pluralist election system.. And how our legislature works.. Even then we would replace one set of problems for another, neither one can be claimed to be superior.

IRV and Publically Financed Campaigns would fix that. Then you work on the filibuster. All three are HIGHLY unlikely now. Democrats will not do filibuster reform now that is their now their bludgeon to kill the upcoming House Resolutions. The Progressive effectively have majority control of the Democratic Party now in Congress. We are going to gridlock instantaneously come the 112th Congress :(

[QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"][QUOTE="wstfld"]I think we lost a lot of DINOs and RINOs this election cycle. nocoolnamejim

I won't shed any tears for them.chessmaster1989

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"] I'd really love to see a four party system in the U.S. and a reformed rule set around the use of the filibuster. Ultimas_Blade

We would have to fundamentally change EVERYTHING in how our elections work in which its a pluralist election system.. And how our legislature works.. Even then we would replace one set of problems for another, neither one can be claimed to be superior.

IRV and Publically Financed Campaigns would fix that. Then you work on the filibuster. All three are HIGHLY unlikely now. Democrats will not do filibuster reform now that is their now their bludgeon to kill the upcoming House Resolutions. The Progress effectively have control of the Democratic Party now in Congress. We are going to gridlock instantaneously come the 112th Congress :(

Finance reforms are already there.. Parties can donate extremely little directly, ($5000 limit).. Parties do not get a blank check to give what ever they want to candidates.. Nor do PAC's/interest groups or individuals.. They all have limits. The closet thing they do with infinite funds is create 527's which a good example is the infamous "Swiftboater" ads against Kerry in 2004.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Yep. Which can only be good for the country, if it leads to Congress becoming more parliamentary. The odds of that happening are... slim.MAILER_DAEMON

No not outright term limits, consecutive term limits on the house (unlimited non-consecutive terms). Instant Runoff Voting would cure our party system.

[QUOTE="nocoolnamejim"][QUOTE="MAILER_DAEMON"]Yep. Which can only be good for the country, if it leads to Congress becoming more parliamentary. The odds of that happening are... slim.MAILER_DAEMON

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

We would have to fundamentally change EVERYTHING in how our elections work in which its a pluralist election system.. And how our legislature works.. Even then we would replace one set of problems for another, neither one can be claimed to be superior.

sSubZerOo

IRV and Publically Financed Campaigns would fix that. Then you work on the filibuster. All three are HIGHLY unlikely now. Democrats will not do filibuster reform now that is their now their bludgeon to kill the upcoming House Resolutions. The Progress effectively have control of the Democratic Party now in Congress. We are going to gridlock instantaneously come the 112th Congress :(

Finance reforms are already there.. Parties can donate extremely little directly, ($5000 limit).. Parties do not get a blank check to give what ever they want to candidates.. Nor do PAC's/interest groups or individuals.. They all have limits. The closet thing they do with infinite funds is create 527's which a good example is the infamous "Swiftboater" ads against Kerry in 2004.

CAMPAIGN finance bro. Citizen's United vs FEC allows501(c)(4) tax status to accept unlimited andspend unlimited on political activities. Look at organizations likeAmerican Crossroads and Freedom Works.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

IRV and Publically Financed Campaigns would fix that. Then you work on the filibuster. All three are HIGHLY unlikely now. Democrats will not do filibuster reform now that is their now their bludgeon to kill the upcoming House Resolutions. The Progress effectively have control of the Democratic Party now in Congress. We are going to gridlock instantaneously come the 112th Congress :(

Ultimas_Blade

Finance reforms are already there.. Parties can donate extremely little directly, ($5000 limit).. Parties do not get a blank check to give what ever they want to candidates.. Nor do PAC's/interest groups or individuals.. They all have limits. The closet thing they do with infinite funds is create 527's which a good example is the infamous "Swiftboater" ads against Kerry in 2004.

CAMPAIGN finance bro. Citizen's United vs FEC allows501(c)(4) tax status to accept unlimited andspend unlimited on political activities. Look at organizations likeAmerican Crossroads and Freedom Works.

There have been two campaign finances BRO. FECA, and BCRA.. 501 can't aire ads 30 days before a primary nor 60 days before a general election.. Nor can they donate unlimited funds to a candidate.. Furthermore the closest thing they can do for "political" activities is do voter drives and what not. So I say again, no they can't.. There are huge finance reforms in place.. Candidates can not get a blank check from these organizations, the only thing right now that needs to be closed down is 527's.. Which can aire ads any time with unlimited funds as long as it only effects elections "generally" but they are really there to effect specific elections.

So yet again.. Candidates are not controlled by these parties or groups, because they at best can only do very little overall in campaigns.

[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]

[QUOTE="Ultimas_Blade"]

IRV and Publically Financed Campaigns would fix that. Then you work on the filibuster. All three are HIGHLY unlikely now. Democrats will not do filibuster reform now that is their now their bludgeon to kill the upcoming House Resolutions. The Progress effectively have control of the Democratic Party now in Congress. We are going to gridlock instantaneously come the 112th Congress :(

Ultimas_Blade

Finance reforms are already there.. Parties can donate extremely little directly, ($5000 limit).. Parties do not get a blank check to give what ever they want to candidates.. Nor do PAC's/interest groups or individuals.. They all have limits. The closet thing they do with infinite funds is create 527's which a good example is the infamous "Swiftboater" ads against Kerry in 2004.

CAMPAIGN finance bro. Citizen's United vs FEC allows501(c)(4) tax status to accept unlimited andspend unlimited on political activities. Look at organizations likeAmerican Crossroads and Freedom Works.

I'm so pro-term limit....I say everyone gets 3 terms.....after a decade in politics you are no longer "in touch" with the everyday American....Omni-Slash

I give it one year before people realize how the Republicans are just as inept as the Democrats. You would think eight years would be enough to convince people of this. I am neither a democrat or a rupublican, rather I am a force of chaos.

I give it one year before people realize how the Republicans are just as inept as the Democrats. You would think eight years would be enough to convince people of this. I am neither a democrat or a rupublican, rather I am a force of chaos.

Darthmatt

"...one issue is on their minds like no other this year: the economy. Nearly 40 percent of voters in a recent Washington Post poll rated the nation's fiscal situation as their top concern in the days leading to the election, a far higher proportion than those concerned about immigration, health care, Afghanistan, taxes, the deficit or dysfunction in Washington." Source

So what is the first thing our probable new Speaker of the House says to the press?

"Boehner vows to repeal Obama healthcare reforms." Source

I swear if they spend the next two years tearing down health care instead of repairing the economy I'm... well there's not much I can really do about it, I've got my own life to lead.:| I don't care what party has majority, our elected officials never seem to represent us; or me, at least.

Boz