The next POTUS...Jackass or Elephant?

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
Well, this go around the republicans are just freaking retarded. I mean, really. I dont adhere to either party but damn, republicans politicians have been so damn retarded for years now. Its rather embarrassing as an american to see this.

It's not as bad as it could be. They don't have Palin, Bachman, Santorum (his name became a word for butt goo), or Herman Cain (lots of laughs pizza guy) duking it out in the primaries.
 
Last edited:
Oct 30, 2004
11,442
32
91
The Democrats could easily win if they could appeal to populist economic issues and find a worthy candidate to endorse them. However, they are only a little less corporatist and 1%-loving than the Republicans, which allows the race to remain competitive. Republican opponents who'd prefer someone other than Hillary are going to either have to hold their nose and vote for Hillary, abstain, or vote for a third party candidate in protest.
 
Last edited:

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,045
30,333
136
My point was I just don't see how term limits could make it any worse. A new batch of congresscritters being "wet behind the ears" doesn't necessarily translate into vulnerability. Besides, I'd take a somewhat vulnerable class of freshmen that might get taken advantage of over a complicit old guard who are too entrenched and selfish to care. Lobbyists only have as much power as we give them. Forcing them to deal with new people every few years substantially decreases that power.
As soon as a politician knows he doesn't have to answer to the public anymore he can just vote for whatever he is being paid the most to vote for. The only power voters hold over their reps is the threat of losing their vote.
 

Londo_Jowo

Lifer
Jan 31, 2010
17,303
158
106
londojowo.hypermart.net
Jackalope!!!

jackalope_in_the_wild.jpg
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,604
39,931
136
Forcing them to deal with new people every few years substantially decreases that power.

I used to think that too. The problem is, it's quite the opposite. Influence on The Hill is built through time, connections and personal relationships. As new people, it's a given that they have less of that under their belt than the lobbyists they are dealing with - who are often not just veteran lobbyists themselves, but also former politicians. They have become the dominant party in that mess, and can and do get senior party leadership to lean on the youngins if the nature of the relationship isn't understood.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Jackalope!!!

jackalope_in_the_wild.jpg
Hey, another possible candidate for whom I'd vote before Hillary!

I used to think that too. The problem is, it's quite the opposite. Influence on The Hill is built through time, connections and personal relationships. As new people, it's a given that they have less of that under their belt than the lobbyists they are dealing with - who are often not just veteran lobbyists themselves, but also former politicians. They have become the dominant party in that mess, and can and do get senior party leadership to lean on the youngins if the nature of the relationship isn't understood.
You're assuming that if everyone in Congress was new or newish, they would somehow be amenable to being controlled by old politicians not in Congress. I do not believe that is a valid assumption. Congresscritters tend to arrive full of ideals.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
I think we all knew by Bush's 6th year that whoever won the democratic primary was going to be the next president. Hell I made a 10k bet on it.

Liberals will say its a shoe in for Democrats this next go around.
Conservatives will say the same.

I know we don't know who the contenders are, at least not all of them. But honestly, is the general public favoring one party over another? Congress and most Governors are GOP, has the general public changed their minds since the mid-terms?

Gotta be a Dem POTUS and Congress, Repugs in minority and majority have gotton too good at keeping broke that which needs fixing.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,604
39,931
136
You're assuming that....



I like how you make an assumption in order to accuse me of one. I made no comment on the ratio or makeup of Congress along the lines of seniority, what is it with you and false attribution?

Sorry, I've seen you embarrass yourself too often in here to give a damn what you believe, that last thread on the dead organ donor being a great example. Run along now.
 
Feb 4, 2009
35,166
16,592
136
The only way to clean up Politics is to set some kind of reasonable standard for districts to eliminate gerrymandering and get big money out of elections. How to do that I don't have a suggestion.
 

kage69

Lifer
Jul 17, 2003
28,604
39,931
136
The only way to clean up Politics is to set some kind of reasonable standard for districts to eliminate gerrymandering and get big money out of elections. How to do that I don't have a suggestion.

Agreed.


Can't say I agree with everything Stan Caress says, but this is kinda what I was referring to: http://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2015/01/16/states-show-term-limits-wouldnt-work-for-congress

"While some pundits claim that imposing term limits on Congress will help cure many of its ills, evidence from states that have already adopted such measures actually suggests the opposite. States that have restricted their legislators’ time in office have seen no clear benefits but rather some unexpected negative results. There is no reason to expect that it would be different for Congress.

Some states began placing term limits on their legislatures in 1990, virtually always by voter-approved ballot propositions. Voters were persuaded that term limits were desirable by several different arguments. One of the more compelling was that such limits would create a new breed of citizen legislators more reflective of the public’s will. In turn, this would weaken the grip that special interest lobbyists had on lawmaking.

In fact, the backgrounds of state legislators elected after term limits were imposed closely resemble the backgrounds of those elected before such restrictions. They typically have previous political experience and are more educated and affluent than the voters who selected them. And while term limits have changed the way lobbyists do their business, they have actually increased their influence. The legislators elected after term limits were imposed often lack knowledge of the details of many complex policies and turn to lobbyists for information. These special interest groups actually report that they now work harder “educating” less knowledgeable legislators.

Others argue that term limits would open new opportunities for underrepresented minority candidates. This idea assumes that tenure restrictions would dislodge incumbent white males and allow others to take their place. After term limits were adopted, the number of women elected to state legislatures did increase, but this happened at the same rate as in states without such restrictions. Term limits provided no clear advantages for minority candidates either.

Instead, state legislatures with term limits have experienced some unforeseen problems. Newly elected legislators tend to be more partisan and ideological than their more seasoned colleagues. Long-serving lawmakers often become more understanding of the rival party and learn how to find workable compromises. Novice legislators, fresh from the campaign trail, often see the other party as an enemy. This can greatly inhibit the coalition-building needed to pass budgets and meaningful laws.

In reality, there is almost no possibility that congressional term limits will be enacted. In the past, some states attempted to impose term limits on their congressional delegations in the same way they restricted state legislators. However, in 1995, the Supreme Court ruled that states cannot force their standards on the national legislative body because it violates Congress’ constitutional right to determine its own rules. Also, the few times term limits have been brought up for a vote in the House of Representatives, they failed. It is clear that Congress is not inclined to restrict its own members’ right to be re-elected. Term limits could be imposed by a constitutional amendment, but to even propose such a change would require a two-thirds vote from both chambers or a constitutional convention.

Congressional term limits may sound appealing, but in truth, they could hinder an already fragile lawmaking process. Limits will most likely never be imposed on Congress, and that is probably the best thing for the nation. "
 
Last edited: