So here is my quandary

[Carmen813]

I do try my best to look at all candidates and parties before voting, yet here is something I've noticed. I tend to value substantive policy positions over a candidates moral positions (unless they are trying to legislate morals).

In the national elections, I have absolutely no idea what the Democrats are planning to do if they hold onto their majorities. None. They seem to have little, if any, plan for going forward. The only argument I'm hearing from them basically boils down to "don't turn back the clock!"

On the other side I've got blatant hypocrisy. The Republicans have this new proposal that just reads like a bunch of platitudes and empty promises. I do not see them being serious about tackling deficits when they mention wanting to spend $4 trillion on tax cuts while avoiding any type of changes to the major programs driving deficits(military, Medicaire/SS). Repealing health care reform is not going to happen as long as Obama is President, and underfunding it so the executive branch can't enforce the law strikes me as potentially unconstitutional...or at least very snake like.

Right now I find myself in a situation where I'm going to vote on candidates based on what they won't do. Pretty much any who've stated a desire to repeal health care isn't getting my vote, even though I think the reform that was passed does need further work.

In terms of state elections, I've pretty much decided who I will vote for governor. On a more local level, I'm totally lost. Both Democrats and Republicans in NYS Assembly/Senate are more or less incompetent, so I find myself looking for a third party.

Anyway, it's hard to find anything to get excited about right now. I like policy and both parties seem bereft of it.

 

[SandEagle]

I hate the word quandry. it should be removed from the English language

 

[Carmen813]

I hate the word quandry. it should be removed from the English language

Yeah I suppose I should learn to speel things.

 

[Moonbeam]

http://www.democrats.org/issues

 

[cubby1223]

That's politics today. I think it's been well demonstrated that *everything* can be spun in every way and attacked mercilessly. It's generally better for a candidate to do nothing and just attack his opponent. Put as little out there as possible, to minimize the attacks on yourself, then just attack attack attack attack attack.

We have here in Illinois a big governor & U.S. Senate race, and the only thing the majority of the population knows about the candidates are the attack ads. If the message is not an attack ad, then it's just a dumb little "I want to put Illinois on the right track to prosperity" with no details at all... as if his opponent wishes the state to crumble? That's what separates the two?

 

[drebo]

spend $4 trillion on tax cuts

You should not be allowed to vote. Period.

 

[Cheesetogo]

That's politics today. I think it's been well demonstrated that *everything* can be spun in every way and attacked mercilessly. It's generally better for a candidate to do nothing and just attack his opponent. Put as little out there as possible, to minimize the attacks on yourself, then just attack attack attack attack attack.

We have here in Illinois a big governor & U.S. Senate race, and the only thing the majority of the population knows about the candidates are the attack ads. If the message is not an attack ad, then it's just a dumb little "I want to put Illinois on the right track to prosperity" with no details at all... as if his opponent wishes the state to crumble? That's what separates the two?

So basically it's the same as P&N?

 

[soccerballtux]

I do try my best to look at all candidates and parties before voting, yet here is something I've noticed. I tend to value substantive policy positions over a candidates moral positions (unless they are trying to legislate morals).

In the national elections, I have absolutely no idea what the Democrats are planning to do if they hold onto their majorities. None. They seem to have little, if any, plan for going forward. The only argument I'm hearing from them basically boils down to "don't turn back the clock!"

On the other side I've got blatant hypocrisy. The Republicans have this new proposal that just reads like a bunch of platitudes and empty promises. I do not see them being serious about tackling deficits when they mention wanting to spend $4 trillion on tax cuts while avoiding any type of changes to the major programs driving deficits(military, Medicaire/SS). Repealing health care reform is not going to happen as long as Obama is President, and underfunding it so the executive branch can't enforce the law strikes me as potentially unconstitutional...or at least very snake like.

Right now I find myself in a situation where I'm going to vote on candidates based on what they won't do. Pretty much any who've stated a desire to repeal health care isn't getting my vote, even though I think the reform that was passed does need further work.

In terms of state elections, I've pretty much decided who I will vote for governor. On a more local level, I'm totally lost. Both Democrats and Republicans in NYS Assembly/Senate are more or less incompetent, so I find myself looking for a third party.

Anyway, it's hard to find anything to get excited about right now. I like policy and both parties seem bereft of it.

do you have a tl;dr version?

 

[Craig234]

http://www.democrats.org/issues

One of my uncommon /thread posts. And don't dismiss the 'not Republicans' issue.

 

[nonlnear]

Carmen, it seems your biggest problem is that you believe that an election is an effective mechanism for influencing policy. Just stop believing that and your life will become a lot simpler. One possible place to go after abandoning the belief in elections as effective is to always vote against the incumbent. This is an especially important voting strategy for anyone who believes that power and seniority in Congress should not automatically go hand in hand. There are other strategies which can make voting seem more effective, like voting blindfolded, voting for the candidate with the plainest signs, or voting for the most viable non-lawyer. Just have fun with it, and don't let anyone tell you that only informed voters who sincerely believe they are voting for the best candidate (as judged by whatever meaningless criteria) should cast a ballot. Voters have power one day per term; lobbyists own all the others. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

 

[Craig234]

Carmen, it seems your biggest problem is that you believe that an election is an effective mechanism for influencing policy. Just stop believing that and your life will become a lot simpler. One possible place to go after abandoning the belief in elections as effective is to always vote against the incumbent. This is an especially important voting strategy for anyone who believes that power and seniority in Congress should not automatically go hand in hand. There are other strategies which can make voting seem more effective, like voting blindfolded, voting for the candidate with the plainest signs, or voting for the most viable non-lawyer. Just have fun with it, and don't let anyone tell you that only informed voters who sincerely believe they are voting for the best candidate (as judged by whatever meaningless criteria) should cast a ballot. Voters have power one day per term; lobbyists own all the others. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

That is ridiculous cynicism that's harmful and about as Un-American as it gets. These problems need activism, not popcorn. 'Eternal vigilance' doesn't mean to 'sit back'.

Benjamin Franklin's "a Republic, if you can keep it" doesn't mean "have fun with it... and enjoy the show".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Carmen, it seems your biggest problem is that you believe that an election is an effective mechanism for influencing policy. Just stop believing that and your life will become a lot simpler. One possible place to go after abandoning the belief in elections as effective is to always vote against the incumbent. This is an especially important voting strategy for anyone who believes that power and seniority in Congress should not automatically go hand in hand. There are other strategies which can make voting seem more effective, like voting blindfolded, voting for the candidate with the plainest signs, or voting for the most viable non-lawyer. Just have fun with it, and don't let anyone tell you that only informed voters who sincerely believe they are voting for the best candidate (as judged by whatever meaningless criteria) should cast a ballot. Voters have power one day per term; lobbyists own all the others. Just sit back and enjoy the show.

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

 

[nonlnear]

That is ridiculous cynicism that's harmful and about as Un-American as it gets. These problems need activism, not popcorn. 'Eternal vigilance' doesn't mean to 'sit back'.

Benjamin Franklin's "a Republic, if you can keep it" doesn't mean "have fun with it... and enjoy the show".

Your disdain for cynicism betrays (IMHO) unfounded optimism. What is the point in keeping the Republic if it is already lost? Best to fight against the bastardized monstrosity we have than to sing sweet lullabies to our children in hopes that they will believe the fairy tale instead of seeing reality.

On a more tangible note, I think you underestimate the strategic value of voting against incumbents - at least until we get term limits.

 

[Craig234]

Your disdain for cynicism betrays (IMHO) unfounded optimism. What is the point in keeping the Republic if it is already lost? Best to fight against the bastardized monstrosity we have than to sing sweet lullabies to our children in hopes that they will believe the fairy tale instead of seeing reality.

On a more tangible note, I think you underestimate the strategic value of voting against incumbents - at least until we get term limits.

No, it doesn't. It betrays recognizing the thing that can help - that 'eternal vigilance'. I'm the one advocating 'fight against the bastardized monstrosity', not 'sit back and enjoy.'

And no, you overestimate the benefit of voting against incumbents - a harmful and mindless way to vote that removes the good with the bad.

You don't get the best candidate by picking a name out of a phone book, much less by letting the special interests get control over nominating their puppet strangers.

 

[nonlnear]

No, it doesn't. It betrays recognizing the thing that can help - that 'eternal vigilance'. I'm the one advocating 'fight against the bastardized monstrosity', not 'sit back and enjoy.'

To be fair the OP was only asking about election day. Thi seternal vigilance you speak of is not something I have ever argued against - not even in this thread. I simply don't see election day as the time when it is the most effective. This vigilance of which you speak is much more effective on non-election days.

And no, you overestimate the benefit of voting against incumbents - a harmful and mindless way to vote that removes the good with the bad.

There is no other reliable way to remove the bad. Also, very few of the good remain so for very long, so it's best to remove them before the need to do so becomes apparent. It does their legacies a favor.

You don't get the best candidate by picking a name out of a phone book, much less by letting the special interests get control over nominating their puppet strangers.

So what exactly are you suggesting? After all, by the time election day rolls around all we have left are the favorites of special interests. As I was saying, this vigilance of which you speak entails a lot of furious activity, but pretty much all of it is on days other than election day.

And just in case you needed a secret decoder ring to understand the gist of my first post, every voting strategy I suggested except for voting blindfolded actually contains a grain of insight into how to avoid voting for the candidate with the most special interests in their pocket. It wasn't just cynical claptrap.

 

[MotF Bane]

Carmen, at least you're looking to a third party, past the completely broken two party system.

 

[glenn1]

Right now I find myself in a situation where I'm going to vote on candidates based on what they won't do. Pretty much any who've stated a desire to repeal health care isn't getting my vote, even though I think the reform that was passed does need further work.

Mind if I ask what kind of "work" you feel that the Democratic healthcare reform needs? I've not heard anyone (or any political persuasion) who is really happy with the what resulted - most either think it needs to be scrapped altogether, or completely remade into something completely different than it is now (into single payer, etc). This is what the current reform reminds me of:

 

[Craig234]

To be fair the OP was only asking about election day. Thi seternal vigilance you speak of is not something I have ever argued against - not even in this thread. I simply don't see election day as the time when it is the most effective. This vigilance of which you speak is much more effective on non-election days.

There is no other reliable way to remove the bad.

Yes, there is. Reduce the money's role in the system to that the bad aren't so effectively puffed up and sold by costly advertising.

And a mindless vote against the incumbent is a vote FOR the bad new candidate.

Also, very few of the good remain so for very long, so it's best to remove them before the need to do so becomes apparent. It does their legacies a favor.

Hogwash.

Long-time serving congress members, such as to name a few, Henry Waxman, Pete Stark, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Peloi, Dennis Kucinich, do not need to be removed from office for the sake of their legacies. They need to remain and use their experience for the good of the country. No 'good' member of congress 'turning bad' comes to mind - they seem pretty consistent at being good or bad.

So what exactly are you suggesting? After all, by the time election day rolls around all we have left are the favorites of special interests.

Wrong. All the people named above, the people know what they're getting without any 'special interest' advertising.

It's when you introduce 'new faces' that the 'special interests' are at their strongest, getting to pick as kingmakers to back whoever will do their bidding and market them.
[/QUOTE]

 

[Moonbeam]

I too am of the opinion it is hopeless. I look and I see nothing but zombies who have been deeply brainwashed. To free oneself from that, it seems to me, requires the experience of a lot of pain. We were brainwashed by pain and told we were not to think carefully about thing or see that the Emperor is quite necked. Every time we move toward freedom of mind we experience greater and greater terror and then we fall back.

Nobody seems to see that to die to your brainwashing is just like really dying. Folk in general don't have the stomach for it because they don't know what happens to them when they start to awake.

Imagine a world in which everybody is mired in mud and folk are trying to crawl out and everybody still mired tries to pull them back in. Now look closely and you won't have to imagine.

This is a horrible point of view, I know, but it's real. Humanity is in a capsized ship and one has to dive before one can swim up. You will need a mirrored shield and a magic sword to slay this dragon.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, Carmen, it seems to me that if you want more of the same that put us in this situation you should vote republican, because that's what they're offering. Read the repub manifesto, the pledge to america- it's the same as the contract on america from 1994, with a little different emphasis. Realize that deeds, not words, are the true measure of anybody. What kind of deeds followed those words in the recent past? If you were the victim of a sweet talking date rape artist, would you go out with the guy again?

If you're not for 'em but are willing to let 'em win, vote third party.

Pretty simple, really. Not the greatest choices, just the real ones.

 

[StageLeft]

Vote for some third party candidate or not at all. It doesn't make you patriotic to not vote in an election when you hate all options.

 

[nonlnear]

Yes, there is. Reduce the money's role in the system to that the bad aren't so effectively puffed up and sold by costly advertising.

Of course there are ways to improve the rules, and I agree with you about some of them but I wasn't talking about changing the game. I was talking about removing bad people in the game we're given.

And a mindless vote against the incumbent is a vote FOR the bad new candidate.

Yes but thankfully with the seniority system of assigning powerful committee seats, a bad freshman can do a lot less damage than a mostly good long serving representative/senator who just acquired a taste for lobbyists' money.

Long-time serving congress members, such as to name a few, Henry Waxman, Pete Stark, Russ Feingold, Barbara Boxer, Nancy Peloi, Dennis Kucinich, do not need to be removed from office for the sake of their legacies. They need to remain and use their experience for the good of the country. No 'good' member of congress 'turning bad' comes to mind - they seem pretty consistent at being good or bad.

Interesting list you made there, lumping some of the best legislators in the Democratic party with some of the worst. Also very telling that your list is all Ds. (Granted there aren't more than a handful of decent Republicans but they do stick out like sore thumbs due to the contrast, so it shouldn't be hard for anyone but the most brainwashed partisan douchebag to pick out...)

Anyways...

You have to ask yourself: Given that politics is an arena which is going to be mostly populated by people who love power for its own sake, what should be the major considerations when setting the rules so that the people have a reasonable chance of good government? Yes, there are virtuous politicians, but the "good" ones will always be exceptions. That being the case, is it best to design a system (or encourage individual voting strategies) which focuses on maximizing the good that the few standouts can accomplish, or minimizing the bad that the majority of demented self-serving pigs accomplish? I look at the numbers and realize that if a voting strategy can reduce the impact of ALL politicians (yes, even the good ones), then that is a net win for virtue in politics. And in the long run, if the benefits that a selfish politician can reap are reduced, then the incentives for such people to go into politics in the first place are reduced, increasing the likelihood that the virtuous standouts might become the norm.

No virtuous individual or cadre is worth the whole system. You would keep every entrenched fatcat in the game just to keep the small handful of good people in there. (Never mind that we might not agree on exactly who the good people are, but our lists have significant overlap despite our policy differences.) Selfish politicians gain much more from incumbency than selfless ones do. Also selfish politicians don't ever become selfless, but selfless ones often lose their original spark after a couple decades in the game.

Wrong. All the people named above, the people know what they're getting without any 'special interest' advertising.

Some of them are great legislators but if your think there are ANY major power brokers in the inner circles of either party who aren't doing the nasty with special interests, all I can say is you shouldn't have taken the blue pill. Some are definitely worse than others, but you don't last thirty years in a whorehouse without turning a few tricks.

It's when you introduce 'new faces' that the 'special interests' are at their strongest, getting to pick as kingmakers to back whoever will do their bidding and market them.

Very interesting - that there are people who believe this, not that it's a compelling argument! I also find it fascinating that you probably don't think of yourself as a believer in oligarchy, and yet you espouse it so fervently... (Correct me if I'm wrong. If you are indeed a proponent of oligarchy then I apologize profusely!)

 

[Carmen813]

You should not be allowed to vote. Period.

Ah yes, because it's okay to borrow money from China so long as we call it a "tax cut" and not what it really is, which is an advance borrowed from the next generation (or rather, 3 or 4 generations from now). They want to spend $400 billion a year on tax breaks, than I expect a minimum of $400 billion a year in spending cuts. I don't see that in their proposals.

Glenn1,
I'd prefer to see some moderate tort reform, as well as some increases to Medicaid and Medicare payments. I'd also like to see licensed mental health counselors be given independent practitioner status for Medicare and VA, similar to what licensed social workers currently have. This would allow insurance reimbursement for LMHCs. Personally I'd like to see some more work on helping non-profit health insurance companies getting started as well.

I don't agree with total repeal as I think it made a lot of positive changes, as far as I'm concerned it needs further tweaking. I view practicality as important, single payer won't happen, and neither will repeal.

Jhhnn,
I'm actually more or less set on who I will be voting for in terms of federal elections (Congressman & Senate). I'm dismayed that neither party has any firm policy proposals other than "the other guy is bad !!!11!!1". For state politics (outside of governor), I'm totally lost.

 

[BoomerD]

Your disdain for cynicism betrays (IMHO) unfounded optimism. What is the point in keeping the Republic if it is already lost? Best to fight against the bastardized monstrosity we have than to sing sweet lullabies to our children in hopes that they will believe the fairy tale instead of seeing reality.

On a more tangible note, I think you underestimate the strategic value of voting against incumbents - at least until we get term limits.

But the Republic isn't lost...it's been bought and paid for by the corporations...and is firmly in their pockets.

You seem to think that by "throwing the baby out with the bath water" you'll make things better...when in reality, the new folks elected are stepping into the same slime pit that corrupted the old folks. You'll never change the system without getting rid of the money...the lobbyists, the campaign contributions, the PAC's, etc.
The business of politics pays far better than being a politician.

Our political system is the best money can...and usually does...buy.

I've been a Democrat my entire life. I started voting in 1972...first presidential election after the passing of the 26th Amendment.

I'm completely disillusioned by the whole process. Every election cycle of late, we don't get candidates worth voting for, only candidates that we accept because they seem to be "not as bad than the other guy." So...instead of voting FOR someone, you just end up voting AGAINST someone...and that's NOT what the process is supposed to be about.

It seems like the ultra-liberals have taken over the Democratic Party...the party of the working-class...and have instead, turned it into the party of the bleeding heart with the open wallet.
The Republicans have been driven to the far right by the NeoCons who only care about corporate profits, and not a whit about "the people."

While I believe we're ripe for a 3rd party take over, none of the current batch of 3rd parties seem like they're anything but the same-old, same-old...with a slightly different cover.

 

[drebo]

than I expect a minimum of $400 billion a year in spending cuts. I don't see that in their proposals.

I can certainly agree with that. In fact, I'd take the $400 billion/yr in spending cuts WITHOUT the tax breaks.

However, that still doesn't make letting people keep more of their own money "spending". A reduction in revenue is NOT an increase in expendatures. Wrong side of the T. The quicker you get that through your head, the better you'll feel. Not taking someone's money is not the same thing as spending money.

The fact that the government needs to borrow foreign money to finance itself is a problem which extends far beyond tax rates. The government could tax all people and all corporations 100% and it still couldn't afford to pay for itself. THAT's the real problem, not a $70 billion per year (CBO estimates) reduction in revenue.