80/20 Dems. I'm not totally against everything the Republican Party stands for, but I think they have become extremely stubborn, uncomprimising, and obstructionist. Whereas the Dems supported Greenspan and his lassiez-faire theories during the Clinton years, Republicans are showing no support whatsoever to liberal idea and are fighting against even minor changes towards a more liberal approach to economics. I also think Republicans are just plain wrong on social issues, sooner or later they're going to have to accept that it's not the place of government to support Christian values. If the Republican Party would abandon its social agenda and tolerate dissent within the party to the extent that they're not actively driving moderates away from their party I'd be for more balance, but there are a good number of Dems who are pretty conservative when it comes to economic matters whereas there is absolutely no diversity on the subject within the Republican Party right now, which is why I don't think one-party control is such a bad thing.
Ideally things should be as close to even as possible. I tend to agree more with democrats on lots of "hot button" issues gay marriage, abortion, etc) but I agree with republicans on more government-based things.
Unfortunately this poll is too simplistic.. Some democrats in congress can not really be seen as democrats, the same goes for the other party.. Southern democrats for instance may only agree with 1 or 2 issues with the democratic party, and share the rest with Republican.. But they chose to affiliate to the other party for multiple reasons.. Hell Elizabeth Snowe is a poster child for this.. She affiliates herself with the Republican party, and she really only agrees with 30 to 40% of the Republican motions.
Honestly.. you cant' get anything done when it's 51/49.. you really need the government to be represented by a majority of the same mind set to actually achieve anything.
IT depends, generally I'd say Republicans, as the Democrats are pretty much in control now. Not getting us anywhere good.
I don't feel like debating this.
This is a oversimplification, democrats do not share the exact same views between one another.. As I stated earlier on, the southern democrats, alot of times arn't even seen as democrats in the same party.. Because they share maybe 1 or 2 viewpoints, the rest are conservative republican view points.
Honestly.. you cant' get anything done when it's 51/49.. you really need the government to be represented by a majority of the same mind set to actually achieve anything.
EMOEVOLUTION
That's true in some ways...But when there's not a clear majority it causes actual bi-partisan comprises to happen. When there is a clear skew of ideologies, the weighted side can just say "this bill will pass whether you like it or not" so then what's the point of even trying to compromise? Laws and policies shouldn't be able to be enacted based on one side of the system. That's not really what a democracy is about.
From your poll, 51% Republicans, 49% Democrats. Hopefully that would be enough for the dems to keep the repubs from starting stupid wars, and overall government would do less.
I would prefer a poll option which there was a Republican majority in congress, and a Democratic president.
Unfortunately this poll is too simplistic.. Some democrats in congress can not really be seen as democrats, the same goes for the other party.. Southern democrats for instance may only agree with 1 or 2 issues with the democratic party, and share the rest with Republican.. But they chose to affiliate to the other party for multiple reasons.. Hell Elizabeth Snowe is a poster child for this.. She affiliates herself with the Republican party, and she really only agrees with 30 to 40% of the Republican motions.
Olympia Snowe? But yeah, I think the big thing with Republicans now is driving away moderates. There are some former Republicans who are socially conservative but are still open to certain forms of spending, they don't spend their time trying to obstruct all spending but they do ask for reasonable spending. They have been all but forced out because they refuse to just fall in line when the Party gives marching orders. Same thing with social issues, there are some Republicans who take a libertarian stance on government involvment in social issues and they've recently gotten torpedoed by the Party simply because they won't cater to the extreme social section of the contingency. You've got cases where the Party is pulling out funding and support for elections from these types of politicians for not taking the marching orders, as critical as the liberal media has been of the blue dogs they still aren't willing to sabotage popular politicians to make a point, and I've seen far more acceptance of blue dogs from liberal media than I have of red dogs from conservative media.
Honestly.. you cant' get anything done when it's 51/49.. you really need the government to be represented by a majority of the same mind set to actually achieve anything.
spazzx625
That's true in some ways...But when there's not a clear majority it causes actual bi-partisan comprises to happen. When there is a clear skew of ideologies, the weighted side can just say "this bill will pass whether you like it or not" so then what's the point of even trying to compromise? Laws and policies shouldn't be able to be enacted based on one side of the system. That's not really what a democracy is about. I know that, but I don't think much actually happens when you have almost two equally opposing forces. What you get in lots of important situations is a stand still and nothing happens.
Honestly.. you cant' get anything done when it's 51/49.. you really need the government to be represented by a majority of the same mind set to actually achieve anything.
spazzx625
That's true in some ways...But when there's not a clear majority it causes actual bi-partisan comprises to happen. When there is a clear skew of ideologies, the weighted side can just say "this bill will pass whether you like it or not" so then what's the point of even trying to compromise? Laws and policies shouldn't be able to be enacted based on one side of the system. That's not really what a democracy is about.
That's assuming everyone votes down party lines, though, and that there can't be support for two seperate ideologies within one party. That's the problem I see with Republicans, is that there is just about zero dissent from leadership. In fact, while most Republicans have resolved to completely refuse any participation in health care legislation the blue dogs, as much as I dislike them, have managed to get conservative policies included in legislation. Who's doing more for conservative economics there?
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] I know that, but I don't think much actually happens when you have almost two equally opposing forces. What you get in lots of important situations is a stand still and nothing happens. Yeah, that may very well be true.
That's assuming everyone votes down party lines, though, and that there can't be support for two seperate ideologies within one party. That's the problem I see with Republicans, is that there is just about zero dissent from leadership. In fact, while most Republicans have resolved to completely refuse any participation in health care legislation the blue dogs, as much as I dislike them, have managed to get conservative policies included in legislation. Who's doing more for conservative economics there?theone86
I would like to think that politics can be blurry when talking about 'party lines'. It's better for everyone when a politician acts on their feelings rather than going with the flow of what their party believes. Of course, there are times when that isn't appropriate...But just because someone is X doesn't mean they can't also be Y.
Unfortunately this poll is too simplistic.. Some democrats in congress can not really be seen as democrats, the same goes for the other party.. Southern democrats for instance may only agree with 1 or 2 issues with the democratic party, and share the rest with Republican.. But they chose to affiliate to the other party for multiple reasons.. Hell Elizabeth Snowe is a poster child for this.. She affiliates herself with the Republican party, and she really only agrees with 30 to 40% of the Republican motions.
Do you mean Olympia Snowe? and yea I agree, the scale has really shifted in these times. Things have really opened up in terms of affiliation.
Eh, it's not that big a difference either way - I really only care when it comes to single issues, and whether or not what the party is behaving rationally. Right now health care is the main issue that I care about, and the Republican party isn't coherent in the slightest bit, so as of today I prefer the democrats.
[QUOTE="EMOEVOLUTION"] I know that, but I don't think much actually happens when you have almost two equally opposing forces. What you get in lots of important situations is a stand still and nothing happens.spazzx625
Yeah, that may very well be true.
That's assuming everyone votes down party lines, though, and that there can't be support for two seperate ideologies within one party. That's the problem I see with Republicans, is that there is just about zero dissent from leadership. In fact, while most Republicans have resolved to completely refuse any participation in health care legislation the blue dogs, as much as I dislike them, have managed to get conservative policies included in legislation. Who's doing more for conservative economics there?theone86
I would like to think that politics can be blurry when talking about 'party lines'. It's better for everyone when a politician acts on their feelings rather than going with the flow of what their party believes. Of course, there are times when that isn't appropriate...But just because someone is X doesn't mean they can't also be Y.
I agree, I just think the Republican leadership has resolved to make all of their politicians in major positions X and not Y. Like I said, I don't support a total lack of a conservative voice, I just think that the argument that you need both parties to have successful argumentation loses credence when there's this total and unbreakable solidarity among one party. So far Democrats are responsible for all the conservative changes to health care legislation, what are the Republicans responsible for? I can name three Democrats off the top of my head and one Independent that caucuses with them who have been lobbying for conservative positions, and there are a handful more, and yet I can name only one Republican who has shown any support for health care legislation and even then she's not as far to the left as the blue dogs are to the right. I just don't think the discourse coming from the Republican Party as of late has been helpful or constructive in any way, shape, or form and if that's all they have to offer then I do think having a Democratic supermajority is a good thing, for conservatives and liberals.
Very few people want near parity in power among the 2 parties. Is it because the perception is that congress will be gridlocked and never get anything done or because everything will be watered down due to compromise?
Also, those who want strong majority for their party, is that because of complete disagreement with the opposing party?
Very few people want near parity in power among the 2 parties. Is it because the perception is that congress will be gridlocked and never get anything done or because everything will be watered down due to compromise?
Also, those who want strong majority for their party, is that because of complete disagreement with the opposing party?
I want near control for my party. I am not a registered Democrat, but I hardly ever agree with the any right-wing viewpoints.
In general, I prefer the Democrats to be in power. Ideally, both parties would be fairly moderate (both in their platforms and in their elected officials) and neither was obstructionist (also, no filibuster so as to help prevent the obstructionism that we are seeing right now), in which case I'd prefer a small majority for Democrats.
I agree, I just think the Republican leadership has resolved to make all of their politicians in major positions X and not Y. Like I said, I don't support a total lack of a conservative voice, I just think that the argument that you need both parties to have successful argumentation loses credence when there's this total and unbreakable solidarity among one party. So far Democrats are responsible for all the conservative changes to health care legislation, what are the Republicans responsible for? I can name three Democrats off the top of my head and one Independent that caucuses with them who have been lobbying for conservative positions, and there are a handful more, and yet I can name only one Republican who has shown any support for health care legislation and even then she's not as far to the left as the blue dogs are to the right. I just don't think the discourse coming from the Republican Party as of late has been helpful or constructive in any way, shape, or form and if that's all they have to offer then I do think having a Democratic supermajority is a good thing, for conservatives and liberals.
theone86
I was pondering a reply...But the best I can really muster is just: That's politics! *cue sappy jingle and laugh track* I agree the repub. party is in a bit of a shambolic situation...But I wouldn't say the dem. party is far from it. People need to stop trying to identify themselves with a party and rely on the issues at hand. Everyone should be an independent with left or right leaning tendencies...But that's just my wishful thinking.
How about no political parties period and term limits for the House and Senate?
MarcusAntonius
I agree with implementing term limits. But as for no political parties, then how are people supposed to vote blindly without researching the issues? :P
That would be nice. Then instead of voting for whatever their party says, we can actually vote on specific issues.
Snipes_2
If that could feasibly work, I'd support it. One of the main problems, of course, is the sheer amount of false information that would be disseminated by special interest groups. Sadly, the past couple years has shown people are altogether too willing to believe worthless lies.
I agree, I just think the Republican leadership has resolved to make all of their politicians in major positions X and not Y. Like I said, I don't support a total lack of a conservative voice, I just think that the argument that you need both parties to have successful argumentation loses credence when there's this total and unbreakable solidarity among one party. So far Democrats are responsible for all the conservative changes to health care legislation, what are the Republicans responsible for? I can name three Democrats off the top of my head and one Independent that caucuses with them who have been lobbying for conservative positions, and there are a handful more, and yet I can name only one Republican who has shown any support for health care legislation and even then she's not as far to the left as the blue dogs are to the right. I just don't think the discourse coming from the Republican Party as of late has been helpful or constructive in any way, shape, or form and if that's all they have to offer then I do think having a Democratic supermajority is a good thing, for conservatives and liberals.
spazzx625
I was pondering a reply...But the best I can really muster is just: That's politics! *cue sappy jingle and laugh track* I agree the repub. party is in a bit of a shambolic situation...But I wouldn't say the dem. party is far from it. People need to stop trying to identify themselves with a party and rely on the issues at hand. Everyone should be an independent with left or right leaning tendencies...But that's just my wishful thinking.
I see that as more of a side-effect of our incredibly skewed media. Accusations of extremism, some baseless and some not, are just flung around wildly, therefore people get disenchanted with both sides and decide neither is right, that's an extreme in itself. Personally I don't have any inane loyalty to the Dems, I'd consider myself leaning more towards the Green Party in terms of stances on many issues, but if I really thought there was no difference between Dems and Republicans I'd vote Green 100% of the time.
How about no political parties period and term limits for the House and Senate?
Engrish_Major
I agree with implementing term limits. But as for no political parties, then how are people supposed to vote blindly without researching the issues? :P
It's not just that, but the current structure doesn't really permit too many "mavericks." (no, not John McCain) Hell, it doesn't even permit independent thinking (aloud or otherwise) and it hurts the voters.
Because I'm an independent in California, I can't vote for candidates in primaries because we have a closed primary system, meaning I'm stuck voting for two extreme idiots in the general election. Nice!:roll:
Because I'm an independent in California, I can't vote for candidates in primaries because we have a closed primary system, meaning I'm stuck voting for two extreme idiots in the general election. Nice!:roll:
MarcusAntonius
They have that in my state too, MD :evil: Dumbest thing ever.
80/20 Democrats. I'm not a big fan of big government, but I shudder to think of what the country would look like with a huge Republican majority. Super rich living in walled cities to keep out the super poor; American Christianity becomes the national religion; a rapid colonial/military expansion to bring "democracy" to the rest of the world; and a complete destruction of personal liberties. Yikes!
Super rich living in walled cities to keep out the super poor; American Christianity becomes the national religion; a rapid colonial/military expansion to bring "democracy" to the rest of the world; and a complete destruction of personal liberties. Yikes!wstfld
Clearly you haven't been to California's non-Republican bay area much, have you? :lol: Complete destruction of personal liberties? You mean like the PATRIOT Act which was just renewed by Democrat controlled D.C. or the secret Anti-Counterfeitng Trade Agreement? Yep, clearly it's all the Republican's doing.:roll:
I prefer an even split of power with one party in charge of one part, and the other in charge of another. For example one controls Senate and the other the House, or one has a slight majority in both parts of congress and one has presidential control. This prevents the worst parts of ether party from manifesting.
The key is balance of power. I dont like to see either party have too much control, since both of their agendas suck massively. A good balance such as during the Clinton or Reaganyears is ideal.
The key is balance of power. I dont like to see either party have too much control, since both of their agendas suck massively. A good balance such as during the Clinton or Reaganyears is ideal.
sonicare
Again, there's too much emphasis on political parties here. That "balance" you speak of during the Clinton years led to two of the worst bills ever written to become law in the form of the DMCA and Defense of Marriage Act.
Log in to comment