Post by jeaniebueller on Jun 11, 2014 9:19:19 GMT -5
Please tell me that someone else saw Brat on The Rundown this morning. Chuck Todd asked him policy questions and he basically said that he didn't realize he would be asked those questions and didn't want to answer them. Lol.
I'm concerned he might be confused about his term length and what office he ran for...lol.
And AH, I think we agree but I am less angry and more defeated. I feel like we've been shown this attitude in previous elections and it's frustrating and ignorant but it doesn't seem like people's minds are changing. I don't really see Cantor as some major difference or moment.
I also don't think all the fault lies with people. Certainly plenty are idiots but it's easy to think it doesn't matter too when no one aligns with your beliefs and all of them care most about reelection.
I personally think the solution is publicly funded elections where everyone who qualifies to run and meets the requirements gets $x amount of money and that is it. I think that's the only way we will see real change and quality candidates. And the only way we will get actual focus on issues vs talking points and marketing of a candidate.
This is absolutely a real solution. Take the lobbyists and the big money out of the equation. It would simplify the entire process and as you said, we would see real, qualified and quality candidates.
Taking that a step further, abolishing the electoral college from the presidential election would also simplify things but that's for another thread.
Please tell me that someone else saw Brat on The Rundown this morning. Chuck Todd asked him policy questions and he basically said that he didn't realize he would be asked those questions and didn't want to answer them. Lol.
I'm concerned he might be confused about his term length and what office he ran for...lol.
And AH, I think we agree but I am less angry and more defeated. I feel like we've been shown this attitude in previous elections and it's frustrating and ignorant but it doesn't seem like people's minds are changing. I don't really see Cantor as some major difference or moment.
I also don't think all the fault lies with people. Certainly plenty are idiots but it's easy to think it doesn't matter too when no one aligns with your beliefs and all of them care most about reelection.
I personally think the solution is publicly funded elections where everyone who qualifies to run and meets the requirements gets $x amount of money and that is it. I think that's the only way we will see real change and quality candidates. And the only way we will get actual focus on issues vs talking points and marketing of a candidate.
Sure it does. People voted for a guy who said he would rather shut down the government than raise the debt ceiling. You know what? Those people are fucking our democracy.
ETA: publicly funded elections wouldn't make a difference in this case, as Cantor outspent Brat by crazy margins and still lost. Because people have lost their goddamned minds in this country, and at this point, I'm starting to think they deserve a government that doesn't work.
Like I said - not ALL the fault lies with them (or all voters in general).
And this guy had to align with the TP to get those votes. If money and opportunity were equal we'd get better candidates who didn't have to align with the TP just to have a shot at beating someone who can outspend them 40-1.
Congress has done jackshit for a long time. They are not innocent in this mess and their actions have bred this attitude. Establishment republicans also have plenty of blame because they started this "we won't compromise" shit when Obama was elected and pushed it like it was a good thing and now it's biting them in the ass because another group has capitalized on that and used it against them.
Please tell me that someone else saw Brat on The Rundown this morning. Chuck Todd asked him policy questions and he basically said that he didn't realize he would be asked those questions and didn't want to answer them. Lol.
Making all elections publicly funded may help but it's not a "real" solution in that the chances of it happening are about zero. I agree that money is too entwined in politics and elections and I think we need more regulations (not fewer, looking at you SCOTUS) but it's not going to completely go away any time soon.
Besides, here, Cantor outspent Brat by a significant margin.
Making all elections publicly funded may help but it's not a "real" solution in that the chances of it happening are about zero. I agree that money is too entwined in politics and elections and I think we need more regulations (not fewer, looking at you SCOTUS) but it's not going to completely go away any time soon.
Besides, here, Cantor outspent Brat by a significant margin.
But that's my point. You're only getting people who can outspend 40-1 and people who can align with the Tea Party. You don't get rational people with real solutions running and offering voters a real choice.
That said, I agree that getting publicly funded elections passed will likely never happen. But I do think it would offer us quality candidates and actual choice. Like I said, I feel defeated so it's not like I think publicly funded elections will happen even if I think it would make a difference.
Please tell me that someone else saw Brat on The Rundown this morning. Chuck Todd asked him policy questions and he basically said that he didn't realize he would be asked those questions and didn't want to answer them. Lol.
Making all elections publicly funded may help but it's not a "real" solution in that the chances of it happening are about zero. I agree that money is too entwined in politics and elections and I think we need more regulations (not fewer, looking at you SCOTUS) but it's not going to completely go away any time soon.
Besides, here, Cantor outspent Brat by a significant margin.
But that's my point. You're only getting people who can outspend 40-1 and people who can align with the Tea Party. You don't get rational people with real solutions running and offering voters a real choice.
That said, I agree that getting publicly funded elections passed will likely never happen. But I do think it would offer us quality candidates and actual choice. Like I said, I feel defeated so it's not like I think publicly funded elections will happen even if I think it would make a difference.
You would if people wouldn't fucking vote for the tea party. So again, they're doing it to themselves. People who vote for those who campaign on a refusal to compromise deserve a broken government.
I've put way too much thought into this, and I should really close the board and get back to work. So here's my parting thought.
If anyone wants to complain about the old people screwing the younger generations, you can't turn around and say it doesn't matter who gets elected. It does matter. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the better choice. But it seems like this borderline apathy "it doesn't even matter" attitude is suddenly cool. Well, guess what? Old people do think it matters, and they turn out to vote. And that's why they're getting their way. Don't throw up your hands and act like it doesn't matter just because the choices are less than ideal.
If you think that voting for people who want less compromise is going to improve our democracy, I don't even know how to respond to that. The tea party held this country hostage because it didn't get what it wanted. And then when it did get what it wanted, it changed its demands and continued to hold people hostage. In no way is voting more of these people into office going to improve the climate of Washington. But go ahead and say it doesn't matter and watch the 114th Congress get even less done than the 113th. Have fun with that.
I saw an FB conversation where a friend of a friend works with a woman who had Brat as a professor. She likes him. Lol.
He may be a great professor but that doesn't mean he is going to be a good Congressperson. In fact, if his antics with Chuck Todd are par for course, he's going to be awful.
Oh! Let's not forget that voter turnout in primaries tends to be low. But of course, in the general election, now they have this guy as their choice, in a district that went for Ken Cuccinelli 65%.
But that's my point. You're only getting people who can outspend 40-1 and people who can align with the Tea Party. You don't get rational people with real solutions running and offering voters a real choice.
That said, I agree that getting publicly funded elections passed will likely never happen. But I do think it would offer us quality candidates and actual choice. Like I said, I feel defeated so it's not like I think publicly funded elections will happen even if I think it would make a difference.
then the solution is to have rational candidates run. KateAggie would vote for you. that's not snark. IIOY might too.
the people having an identity crisis with the GOP or independents need to run and run as GOP and then we can maybe see some solutions.
I totally agree that there needs to be involvement from rational people but there are a lot of barriers to running for political office and as much as I would like to consider it, financially and time wise, it's intimidating. Right now, I'm in the process of setting up a time to meet with the campaign manager of the guy running against Campfield in the primary. So I'm not doing nothing, but that's the most I feel like I can do at this time.
I still don't blame people for being disenchanted with incumbent Rs though. Overall I might find their choice stupid (voting for an anti compromise candidate) but that choice didn't happen in a vacuum or come out of nowhere.
But that's my point. You're only getting people who can outspend 40-1 and people who can align with the Tea Party. You don't get rational people with real solutions running and offering voters a real choice.
That said, I agree that getting publicly funded elections passed will likely never happen. But I do think it would offer us quality candidates and actual choice. Like I said, I feel defeated so it's not like I think publicly funded elections will happen even if I think it would make a difference.
You would if people wouldn't fucking vote for the tea party. So again, they're doing it to themselves. People who vote for those who campaign on a refusal to compromise deserve a broken government.
I've put way too much thought into this, and I should really close the board and get back to work. So here's my parting thought.
If anyone wants to complain about the old people screwing the younger generations, you can't turn around and say it doesn't matter who gets elected. It does matter. Sometimes the lesser of two evils is the better choice. But it seems like this borderline apathy "it doesn't even matter" attitude is suddenly cool. Well, guess what? Old people do think it matters, and they turn out to vote. And that's why they're getting their way. Don't throw up your hands and act like it doesn't matter just because the choices are less than ideal.
If you think that voting for people who want less compromise is going to improve our democracy, I don't even know how to respond to that. The tea party held this country hostage because it didn't get what it wanted. And then when it did get what it wanted, it changed its demands and continued to hold people hostage. In no way is voting more of these people into office going to improve the climate of Washington. But go ahead and say it doesn't matter and watch the 114th Congress get even less done than the 113th. Have fun with that.
I feel like we are maybe talking around each other because I certainly do vote and don't vote for anti compromise candidates. My statement of it doesn't matter is twofold in that it refers to constituents voting that way and apparently thinking that's a good thing (because we've seen this happen over and over the past few elections) and not being able to change that view even after a shutdown. It also refers to the fact that we've seen this continually happen even with non-TP elected officials and apparently not enough people have learned. Yet this attitude is still popular for some reason (maybe many) and I'm not sure why. I also don't think saying it doesn't matter is a cool attitude. I stated very clearly that it depresses me because we keep seeing the same damn thing. But as someone whose voice is continually drowned out, surely you can understand why I might have a negative attitude. It doesn't mean I won't do anything about it but a feeling of defeat and despair won't go away. Shitty options certainly doesn't make it any better.
I'm not going to condemn people for thinking something has to change. I don't blame them for wanting a new voice. I do blame them for continuing to vote for anti compromise candidates making the TP and others think this is what we want and drowning out reasonable voices, but I will reiterate this didn't happen in a vacuum.
I don't want to be all "I thought so," but... I thought so. You get a candidate that the other side hates enough then they'll go vote for his opponent.
FL doesn't have open primaries so this is just an interesting concept in and of itself. HOWEVER, it will only work if the Dems, Indies and moderate Reps get out and vote.
I didn't read the whole thread, but I live in the 7th district. I'm not sure who voted. I would not be surprised if the increase of the Tea party movement had something to do with the defeat. I've seen more of the movement here even in the 'burbs. But again the area that makes up the district is more rural, conservative, and Ole South. Big muddin' trucks jacked up with Confederate flags. It should be an interesting election in November.
I'm concerned he might be confused about his term length and what office he ran for...lol.
And AH, I think we agree but I am less angry and more defeated. I feel like we've been shown this attitude in previous elections and it's frustrating and ignorant but it doesn't seem like people's minds are changing. I don't really see Cantor as some major difference or moment.
I also don't think all the fault lies with people. Certainly plenty are idiots but it's easy to think it doesn't matter too when no one aligns with your beliefs and all of them care most about reelection.
I personally think the solution is publicly funded elections where everyone who qualifies to run and meets the requirements gets $x amount of money and that is it. I think that's the only way we will see real change and quality candidates. And the only way we will get actual focus on issues vs talking points and marketing of a candidate.
This is absolutely a real solution. Take the lobbyists and the big money out of the equation. It would simplify the entire process and as you said, we would see real, qualified and quality candidates.
Taking that a step further, abolishing the electoral college from the presidential election would also simplify things but that's for another thread.
Too bad SCOTUS basically destroyed this with Davis. McCormish, and AFAC. Sigh. Without matching funds, it is nearly impossible to have publically funded elections.
Maybe if he has Cantor money he could afford a good media coach.
If FB and Twitter are any indication of what's to come, October-November is going to make us all want to crawl under a rock. I can already cut the rhetoric with a knife and fork and it's only June.
That would be such a huge gamble (and possibly mistake) in November though. I'd love to see if there was any grassroots and/or online effort to get Ds to turn out and vote for Brat in droves. I kinda doubt that because Ds have a hard enough time turning out Ds to vote for Ds...
But perhaps people really were that fed up with Cantor? I don't know.