How many Democratic Senators will Lose Their Seats?

namelessfly wrote:I am still mystified about why the TEA party is being demonized for the failings of Congress.

It is the Democrat controlled Senate that failed to honor it's Constitutional mandate to pass a budget for four years.

Is there anyone who still thinks that the TEA party was wrong to link increasing the debt limit to a delay of implementing Obamacare or at least modifications?

Me for another. While I am an independent, I tend to vote for the person with a track record of accomplishment, Dem or Rep. I do support a majority of the Reps. platform (anything that cuts the size of government), their tactics have made sure I will vote for anyone not linked to the TEA party. If they had been willing to compromise at any time in those four years, a budget could have been passed. If they had said "We can't support 65B$ for that program but we can live with it if it is cut to 45B$" and then worked out a way to make that work, instead of "Cut it completely". I would be much more willing to vote for their people. Politics is compromise, not confrontation.

I'm not a US citizen so can't be specific, but can make a general point. In political on line debates here, a constant is the inability of conservatives to conceive that intelligent people would have a different opinion to their certified "true" understanding of the world (doesn't seem to apply to progressives, we expect all options). This is despite a number of international surveys indicating that the educational, career and IQ levels for progressives average higher than conservatives. Not saying at all that progressives always get it right, just that conservatives often have a narrower view of topics. In this case the question could possibly be "Which party will gain and which will lose seats?".

Daryl wrote:I'm not a US citizen so can't be specific, but can make a general point. In political on line debates here, a constant is the inability of conservatives to conceive that intelligent people would have a different opinion to their certified "true" understanding of the world (doesn't seem to apply to progressives, we expect all options). This is despite a number of international surveys indicating that the educational, career and IQ levels for progressives average higher than conservatives. Not saying at all that progressives always get it right, just that conservatives often have a narrower view of topics. In this case the question could possibly be "Which party will gain and which will lose seats?".

All sides think they understand the other better and how they decide things.

Then you turn around use this phrase, "This is despite a number of international surveys indicating that the educational, career and IQ levels for progressives average higher than conservatives."

Which as I posted back on 17 October that "Taxed Enough Already" has a slightly higher scientifically literacy rate.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2 ... itted=true
That statement might want revisiting. At least for the US and the "Taxed Enough Already" folk. Especially if you read the comments section and realize that this guy is not a conservative and agrees with little of what the "Taxed Enough Already" folk want. Got a cite available for those number of other studies. I would like to read them. If I got work to find the stuff it shows me you don't value convincing me. I then treat it as such. <shrug>


What I want more than anything in a politician. Some one who campaigns for something then follows through with it. I voted for him to do "X" and he actually tried to do it.

You know like that catchy phrase "Hope and Change". Or that other one "more transparent". Or that statement "I will close Guantanamo in a year"(this one might get a pass except it just shows how clueless he was when he made it, probably got a million votes out of it though, much like say "missile gap" type stuff). Or my all time favorite "You get to read it after you vote on it".

As far as President Obama and socialism by a liberal reporter, "He can't be a socialist he has caused the largest increase in the 1% income of any president." Somewhat paraphrased not recalling the exact quote. Said like this was a good thing. Huh?

Notice I haven't bitched about my retirement that I was "promised" just took a 1% hit yearly with the latest Republican "compromise". Because, "I am young enough to go back to work" makes it somehow more valid. Nope I suck it up and take it because people in DC are actually figuring out "damn we have a spending issue." Wish they would have done it somewhere else or something siginficant but at least we are doing something.

Oh well, have a good day,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:snip

All sides think they understand the other better and how they decide things.

Then you turn around use this phrase, "This is despite a number of international surveys indicating that the educational, career and IQ levels for progressives average higher than conservatives."

Which as I posted back on 17 October that "Taxed Enough Already" has a slightly higher scientifically literacy rate.
http://www.culturalcognition.net/blog/2 ... itted=true
That statement might want revisiting. At least for the US and the "Taxed Enough Already" folk. Especially if you read the comments section and realize that this guy is not a conservative and agrees with little of what the "Taxed Enough Already" folk want. Got a cite available for those number of other studies. I would like to read them. If I got work to find the stuff it shows me you don't value convincing me. I then treat it as such. <shrug>
snip
Oh well, have a good day,
T2M

If I might add the following link.
http://ricochet.com/main-feed/Conservatives-Understand-Liberals.-Liberals-Don-t-Understand-Conservatives
This illustrates a study where Liberal/Progressives are shown to understand their opponents less thoroughly than either moderate or consevatives. The study further suggests that liberals use a more limited scope of moral dimensions to evaluate decisions. One conclusion might be that the limited set of moral dimensions a liberal normally operatse under imposes a less flexible and less accurate tool to derive decisions with. The inaccuracy is greatest with those people/ideas that disagree with the liberal in question.

This is very like extending a time series regression model too far into the future. The assumptions required to make the model predictive will begin to fall apart the further out one goes.

KNick wrote:
Me for another. While I am an independent, I tend to vote for the person with a track record of accomplishment, Dem or Rep. I do support a majority of the Reps. platform (anything that cuts the size of government), their tactics have made sure I will vote for anyone not linked to the TEA party. If they had been willing to compromise at any time in those four years, a budget could have been passed. If they had said "We can't support 65B$ for that program but we can live with it if it is cut to 45B$" and then worked out a way to make that work, instead of "Cut it completely". I would be much more willing to vote for their people. Politics is compromise, not confrontation.

I don't see how the TEA Party folks can be blamed on not passing a budget in the first 2 years. Dem control of House and Senate was total. Those bodies did not want to vote out a budget. They preferred to vote on Continuing Resolutions which used the bailouts as part of the baseline spending for their proposed spending levels. Furthermore, those CRs did not have to be justified like the budgets.

As for compromise in general, please recall the Obamacare vote. There was no debate let alone compromise. That same mindset has permeated the dems in their approach to CR and debt discussions. Not really negotiations after all.

Obviously you uncritically accepted the liberal Democrat mantra that refusing to raise the debt celing = defaulting on the Federal debt. It simply is not true.

The best analogy that I can think of is a family that has maxed out it's credit cards because they keep paying interest only on their balance while continuing to make new purchases. The Democrat solution of raising the debt limit is analogous to this family either increasing the balance limit on their existing credit cards or open new credit card accounts. The TEA Party solution is to NOT raise their debt limit but instead reduce discretionary spending so that they can follow these spending priorities:

Pay the interest on existing debt! This means NO DEFAULT!
Pay Social Security and other retirement obligations.
Pay the military it's wages (may be with some force downsizing)
Pay existing contractural obligations to private providers of goods and services.
Carefully evaluate Federal Employees to determine which are essential and which are not.
Carefully evaluate other Federal spending such as infrastructure projects to determine which are essential.
Drastically reduce Federal wealth transfer programs including unemployment, welfare, farm subsidies, alternative energy subsidies and the entire spectrum of pork barrel crap.
Start paying down principle on the debt.

This approach of reducing spending rather than increasing the debt limit IS feasible. During the previous debt limit debate, Governor Palin presented an excellent analysis to demonstrate that the Federal budget can be balanced by spending cuts rather than mindlessly increasing the debt limit. She even bar rowed Carl Roves little White Board for the presentation.

The point here is that you should get YOUR facts straight before you start screaming "TREASON"

ksandgren wrote:

namelessfly wrote:I am still mystified about why the TEA party is being demonized for the failings of Congress.

Is there anyone who still thinks that the TEA party was wrong to link increasing the debt limit to a delay of implementing Obamacare or at least modifications?



Me for one. As far as I'm concerned as I pointed out last year, the Republican Party as backed by the Tea Party committed treason in the budget debates by bringing our ability to pay already outstanding debts to a halt. I may not like Obamacare, but tying the ability to pay existing debts to turn back a law that was passed and signed in my recent lifetime caused chaos and was to me treason. If they ever (probably after your grandchildren are dead)get control sufficient to repeal it, great. But to bring the financial markets to a halt over a political tif like that brings them down to Iran's level.

Your thought might be true if you had a voted and signed budget, but without one, every debt previously approved by Congress and signed into law(a la Havenite Legislaturalists) is a binding debt. If I decide not to pay my electric bill my lights go out. After you get a majority of congress to actually cut spending to those levels, then you have a balanced budget, until then without debt ceiling approval you have bankruptcy caused directly by a refusal to pay legally incurred debt. For congress people to prefer bankruptcy is to me TREASON.

By the way, I heard that Ho Palin speak to the faithful. She makes my want a Psycho shower seen, not to see her, but to watch the blood circle the drain.

By the way, I heard that Ho Palin speak to the faithful. She makes my want a Psycho shower seen, not to see her, but to watch the blood circle the drain.

BE NICE!!! Your first paragraph was a well reasoned argument. Not an argument I happen to agree with, but well reasoned. However, you completely destroyed your argument with the gratuitous sexist insult. Honestly would you treat a man that way???

biochem wrote:
The Republican candidates have a bit of a tightrope to walk. Tea party members are VERY angry and HIGHLY motivated and thus have an influence on the Republican primaries that outweighs their numbers.

And that is going to cause them to loose a fair number of votes among the more middle-ish folks.
Because THEY don´t want fanatics to rule.

biochem wrote:Their core positions also have widespread support among a large percentage of Republicans in general in a less extreme form than the tea party: government is out of touch, spending is out of control, the government debt is too high, fiscal responsibility, limited government etc.

But their lack of sanity scares away more than it draws in. Fortunately. Bloody looneys.

On the other hand the tea party is too purist.

Too stupid is probably a better description.

Their meetings looks like a de-intellectualised version of scientology coupled with a hardcore facist political rally.

And the proclaimed "purism" is inconsequent and lacks logic most of the time. I´m not sure if i can think of ANY-thing good to say of them.

namelessfly wrote:I am still mystified about why the TEA party is being demonized for the failings of Congress.

Why? It´s their shenanigans that is behind the messed up situation where congressmen and senators, mostly rep´s but also dem´s, are afraid to say or do some things, because it would either have them attacked by the tea loonies, or worse, given their outspoken support and loose even more support from moderate voters.



*****

And in the thread poll, i voted 2. Doubt more than 4 or <=none.

And i´m generally in agreement with ksandgren.
Which is kinda funny...

ksandgren wrote:Your thought might be true if you had a voted and signed budget, but without one, every debt previously approved by Congress and signed into law(a la Havenite Legislaturalists) is a binding debt. If I decide not to pay my electric bill my lights go out. After you get a majority of congress to actually cut spending to those levels, then you have a balanced budget, until then without debt ceiling approval you have bankruptcy caused directly by a refusal to pay legally incurred debt. For congress people to prefer bankruptcy is to me TREASON.

By the way, I heard that Ho Palin speak to the faithful. She makes my want a Psycho shower seen, not to see her, but to watch the blood circle the drain.

Appropriated or misappropriated expenditures are NOT debts as defined by the Consitution. The funds can and sometimes are sequestered by the President and Congress CAN refuse to fund programs that we previously enacted by law.

This last comment about the "Psycho shower scene" is an example of the type of crap that convinces me that not only should we need to revert back to being a republic that restricts the right to vote to the minority of the population that has demonstrated the capacity to manage their own affairs responsibly, incivility such as yours will soon provoke a civil war in this country.