Do short term memories doom us to the two party cycle?

[Craig234]

It seems to me elections - put aside the larger issues of multiple parties etc. - should be about 'which choice is better'; but that they rarely are.

They're more about 'do you want the people in office to stay in office', and if the answer is no, people elect the one alternative - without almost any consideration if they're worse.

In 2008, there wasn't much question about the Republicans and their policies. They'd largely brought the country to a very bad place. Democrats said this; Republicans claimed they never heard of this man 'George Bush', but whoever he was it was clear he wasn't actually a Republican.

But now, the voters largely only ask 'do they want Obama', and if not rush to vote Republicans without much consideration whether they're going to be worse.

And then if they don't like them, they can rush to the Democrat in 2016.

The issues comparing the parties are basically the same in 2012 and 2008. It should be a debate about the Republican policies, seen 2001-2008, versus Democratic policies.

Instead, billions are spent on campaigns with advertising having little to do with the actual policies - rather mostly negative ads finding things to make voters not like a candidate.

This issue is nothing new, but I think a reminder is useful seeing that it's once again an election far more about horse race and marketing than issues and policies.

 

[fskimospy]

No, the structure of the US electoral system dooms us to 2 parties.

 

[Texashiker]

Do short term memories doom us to the two party cycle?

I think people are so afraid of change, they can not bring themselves to vote for anyone besides the major 2 parties.

 

[Fern]

No, the structure of the US electoral system dooms us to 2 parties.

^^This^^

Fern

 

[Printer Bandit]

US only has one party. Until people realize this, things will never change.

 

[MovingTarget]

I came in here to post what it seems many have already posted - that short term memories alone are not enough. It takes collective short term memory and a winner-take-all system in the Electoral college to doom us to a 2 party cycle. Perhaps if we divided our electors proportionally in each state, we would come out better. There's not much we can do about our nation's short term memory.

 

[ElFenix]

I came in here to post what it seems many have already posted - that short term memories alone are not enough. It takes collective short term memory and a winner-take-all system in the Electoral college to doom us to a 2 party cycle. Perhaps if we divided our electors proportionally in each state, we would come out better. There's not much we can do about our nation's short term memory.

nm on that paragraph was thinking of something else


electoral college, but also the entrenched position of the majors would make change difficult (gerrymandering in particular) even if electoral votes were all split. and, afaik, both major US parties have historically been big tent compared to european parties.

 

[cubby1223]

It seems to me elections - put aside the larger issues of multiple parties etc. - should be about 'which choice is better'; but that they rarely are.

They're more about 'do you want the people in office to stay in office', and if the answer is no, people elect the one alternative - without almost any consideration if they're worse.

In 2008, there wasn't much question about the Republicans and their policies. They'd largely brought the country to a very bad place. Democrats said this; Republicans claimed they never heard of this man 'George Bush', but whoever he was it was clear he wasn't actually a Republican.

But now, the voters largely only ask 'do they want Obama', and if not rush to vote Republicans without much consideration whether they're going to be worse.

And then if they don't like them, they can rush to the Democrat in 2016.

The issues comparing the parties are basically the same in 2012 and 2008. It should be a debate about the Republican policies, seen 2001-2008, versus Democratic policies.

Instead, billions are spent on campaigns with advertising having little to do with the actual policies - rather mostly negative ads finding things to make voters not like a candidate.

This issue is nothing new, but I think a reminder is useful seeing that it's once again an election far more about horse race and marketing than issues and policies.

We totally should judge today's Republicans based on the Republican policies of the Benjamin Harrison administration!

 

[CallMeJoe]

We totally should judge today's Republicans based on the Republican policies of the Benjamin Harrison administration!

"Conservatives" on this board are always wanting us to judge today's Republicans by the policies of Abraham Lincoln...

 

[Doppel]

Fear does, fear of anything different. People prefer the evil they know so they choose one of the two sh*tdump parties available now.

 

[cubby1223]

Barney Frank 2003:

"Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in crisis. The more people, in my judgment, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the possibility of serious financial losses to the treasury, which I do not see, I think we see entities which are fundamentally sound financially, and withstand some of the disaster scenarios, and even if there were a problem the federal government doesn't bail them out. But the more pressure there is there, then the less I think we see in terms of affordable housing."

Charles Schumer 2005:

I think Fannie and Freddie over the years have done an incredibly good job and are an intrinsic part of making America the best-housed people in the world. If you look over the last 20 or whatever years, they've done a very, very good job."

John McCain 2006:

"For years I have been concerned about the regulatory structure that governs Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and the sheer magnitude of these companies and the role they play in the housing market. The GSE's need to be reformed without delay."


Or:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/09/11/b...ed-to-oversee-freddie-mac-and-fannie-mae.html


Bottom line is, we were fucked by both political parties, and anyone who tries to prop up one party as a saint over the other is a damn fool.

 

[cubby1223]

"Conservatives" on this board are always wanting us to judge today's Republicans by the policies of Abraham Lincoln...

Link?

You might be able to say that conservatives want some of the policies and ideals of Lincoln brought into today's Republicans. But I will bet dollars to donuts you cannot find someone who said you should vote Republican today based on what Abraham Lincoln did.

 

[CallMeJoe]

Link?

You might be able to say that conservatives want some of the policies and ideals of Lincoln brought into today's Republicans. But I will bet dollars to donuts you cannot find someone who said you should vote Republican today based on what Abraham Lincoln did.

Do I really need to search for the threads citing Abraham Lincoln and liberal Republicans of the early 1960s to prove that Republicans are the true party of Civil Rights and that Democrats are the segregationists?

 

[cubby1223]

Do I really need to search for the threads citing Abraham Lincoln and liberal Republicans of the early 1960s to prove that Republicans are the true party of Civil Rights and that Democrats are the segregationists?

Yes.

And the post you find cannot be in a response to a liberal who wrote in his post about how the Republican Party is inherently racist.

 

[cubby1223]

Back to the main topic of this thread - the notion Craig makes that you should vote Democrat today because of the policy differences between the two parties from 2001 through 2008.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxMInSfanqg

I've been searching, where is even a single quote of a single Democratic congressman warning of the problems in the housing market?

If it is so clear that this country would have been better had Democrats controlled the government from 2001 through 2008, show me the proof. Which Democrat in the federal government tried to take action to prevent the coming housing crisis?

Republicans dropped the ball, no one will dispute that. But, Craig, you come here to claim the Democrats would have been better, where is your proof?

The issues comparing the parties are basically the same in 2012 and 2008. It should be a debate about the Republican policies, seen 2001-2008, versus Democratic policies.

Do it. List out the Democratic policies of 2001-2008 that would have steered us clear of the housing crash. That would have controlled the derivatives market. And list out which elected Democrats in the federal government were pushing these policies.

 

[Lemon law]

I would submit Craig234 is wrong, at at least one point in US history, namely the great depression, As Hoover economic policies laid a giant egg, and the GOP got clobbered in subsequent elections.

After which the GOP did not win Senate Control for a decade and a half, did not see A gop President for at least 2 decades, and did not win control of the House for over 60 years.

As for today, maybe we can maybe blame the democrats for losing that dominant position, but dimocrat or Republirat, can any of us say, the USA is not slipping in terms of world influence and economic dominance?

As our balance of trade went south in 1980, and is slipping at an even more accelerated rate now.

 

[cubby1223]

As for today, maybe we can maybe blame the democrats for losing that dominant position, but dimocrat or Republirat, can any of us say, the USA is not slipping in terms of world influence and economic dominance?

As our balance of trade went south in 1980, and is slipping at an even more accelerated rate now.

The U.S. only had dominance in economics and world influence after World War II when the rest of the world destroyed itself. Europe was in shambles, Japan & China were in shambles. Before WWII, the U.S. was not a major player in global affairs.

I say our balance of trade went south as the rest of the world caught up in their development. It was more a natural progression of the world that neither political party had much control over.

Today, Europe is sinking once again. Asia is rising fast, though we will see how much longer the Chinese government can maintain control over the vast population of, basically, slave labor.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

No, the structure of the US electoral system dooms us to 2 parties.

The point isn't that we need a "good" (by whatever metric one may choose) third party to change the cycle. The point is that people should remember that Republicans are bad.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

Wait who are you guys voting for again?

Oh that's right this guy.

 

[shadow9d9]

US only has one party. Until people realize this, things will never change.

False equivalence. When was the last time democrats sponsored a bill attacking women's health or asked the US to apologize to BP for their oil spill?

 

[bgcpen]

is either party a good choice anyway?!?!

 

[cubby1223]

Do I really need to search for the threads citing Abraham Lincoln and liberal Republicans of the early 1960s to prove that Republicans are the true party of Civil Rights and that Democrats are the segregationists?

I still haven't seen you provide a link to a post you claim is in abundance.

Doesn't matter anyways. The opinion of this thread was to judge today's candidates primarily on policies of former party administrations. I say we should instead judge a candidate based on his individual opinions and his past activity in public service. Do you agree with me, or do you agree with the creator of this thread?

 

[hal2kilo]

All I know is that it sure makes find'n the car keys a pita.

 

[Mxylplyx]

This country is plagued by the over-engagement of it's citizenry in the day to day decisions of governing by our leaders. Every single vote is scrutinized, graded by some stupid political score keeping organization, and reduced to a little soundbite that the politician is eventually attacked with. Many people are incapable or unwilling to think for themselves, so they turn to blogs and cable news to do the thinking for them, and those venues scorn compromise and pragmatism. Compromise is now capitulation. Moderation is now unprincipled. Our brand of open democracy mixed with our out of control media culture is broken. China is right to tell us to piss off when we push democracy on them. Our system would destroy them.

 

[trenchfoot]

I still haven't seen you provide a link to a post you claim is in abundance.

Doesn't matter anyways. The opinion of this thread was to judge today's candidates primarily on policies of former party administrations. I say we should instead judge a candidate based on his individual opinions and his past activity in public service. Do you agree with me, or do you agree with the creator of this thread?

Allow me to interject. You're dismissing one important point: The ideology that drove the Bush admin. policies is the exact same ideology that drives the Repub Party and it's members now. So too for the Dems and their ideology.

As far as I know, both parties core ideologies haven't changed much in recent history, aside from the fact that the Repubs have pulled even further right, somewhat dragging along the Dems with them.