Why don't the Dems get it?

[Bubblehead1980]

Originally Posted by tater

Seemed real when I saw it. Didn't really think about ti one way or another. Pelosi as minority leader would be a gift that keeps giving, frankly.

I agree it was real and actually think he may turn out to be a good speaker.Pelosi just needs to fade away, she likes the limelight too much(even though she is horrible on camera) and is a true believer Leftist like Obama, she wants to be in on things, in her mind most people in America are with her LOL. True she will be a gift as minority leader BUT she just needs to retire and have no say so on national issues, she has proven what an idiot and ideologue she is, time for Nancy to go home to SF and argue with the voices in her head.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

and is a true believer

Oh lawdy the irony...

Oh lawdy the irony...

He just doesn't get it.

I am plenty of aware of how politics works BUT the Republicans learned from their losses and if they want to gain more seats and the Presidency, they will listen and have

Same rubbish as is spouted after every election which funnily enough is in tune with the same rubbish they spout during every election.

You say it was "just the mid terms" but congressional elections are a big deal.

Mid terms are mid terms , they are just the same deal as they are every cycle which is why they are just the mid terms which is why there is the expression "just the mid terms"

a far Left ideology

Bubble, if you think the D party are far left you really havn't the faintest idea what a far left ideology is.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

It been almost two weeks from the mid terms and you still don't get that its just the mid terms, yet even if it was the main elections you still end up with just a bunch of muppets.

There is no "just" about it. Congressional elections are held every two years. Representatives only serve for two years. Senators serve for six, and 1/3 of them are elected every two years.

The only reason the term "mid-term" is used is that they don't coincide with the presidential election.

Originally Posted by Bubblehead1980

I am plenty of aware of how politics works BUT the Republicans learned from their losses and if they want to gain more seats and the Presidency, they will listen and have.

That is exactly what the hard-core right were saying in 1994. Those of us who really aren't indoctrinated say "we'll see".

[tater]

The current crop of dems are indeed "far left" by US standards. The moderates were only moderate because they were in more conservative districts, and they just got creamed, so there are almost none left.

How they rate compared to politics abroad... I could not possibly care less.

The midterms here were a referendum on the Obama administration, as they are on any administration. The results are typically negative. The reason is that Americans prefer the center. This election put things back in "normal" territory, no super majorities, separation of power.

As it should be. Sad we had a supermajority screw things up in the interim.

[Platapus]

To decode American Politics, use this key

When your side wins it is called a "referendum"
When you side loses it is "inconclusive"

[tater]

The W midterms were a referendum on his admin as well. That's how it works.

The results are typically negative.

Indeed, plus they are typically with a lower level of voter participation, which is another reason why they are just the mid terms.

The current crop of dems are indeed "far left" by US standards

So a dwarf would be a "giant" if he was quarter of an inch taller than his dwarf neighbours, but cetrtainly he wouldn't be a giant by any credible measures.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

So a dwarf would be a "giant" if he was quarter of an inch taller than his dwarf neighbours, but cetrtainly he wouldn't be a giant by any credible measures.

Dumb analogy. There is a fairly universal range of size for dwarfism and gigantism. This is not true in politics. In general, the "left vs right" paradigm is a poor one anyway, certainly for discussing politics globally. At the very least a 2-axis system like that politicalcompass.com website makes more sense. That said, in the 2-party US system, left and right make slightly more sense than comparisons with other political systems with their myriad parties.

So for US politics, the critical measurement is really distance from the US center. Nothing else matters, and other countries and where we land relative to them doesn't matter—not even a little.

If you're looking at analogies, you might want to compare, say, US NASCAR vehicles to European F1. The two never compete with each other, and are optimized for entirely different track types as well as arbitrary rules limitations. Saying one is faster is meaningless, since they'd never be allowed to race one another.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by tater

In general, the "left vs right" paradigm is a poor one anyway, certainly for discussing politics globally.

Well said. I find it amusing that only two hundred years ago, 'Liberal' represented the ideal that self-described 'Conservatives' aspire to today.
http://www.thenagain.info/webchron/g...iberalism.html

I just stumbled upon a speech delivered fourteen years ago which sums up perfectly what I think America should be.
http://mises.org/etexts/classical.asp

Dumb analogy.

Perfect anology, you are talking about two very similar parties that are both part of the interchangable mainstream establishhment. If you want "far left" you have to look at one of the many fringe parties you have over there which end up with a miniscule vote in elections.

That said, in the 2-party US system, left and right make slightly more sense than comparisons with other political systems with their myriad parties.

errrrrr....I hate to break it to ya but in the US you have hundreds of political parties, wouldn't hundreds of parties equal a myriad

So for US politics, the critical measurement is really distance from the US center. Nothing else matters, and other countries and where we land relative to them doesn't matter—not even a little.

Perfect, yet you are choosing to ignore US politics and US political parties to get that measure which is why the "far left" claim is pure nonsense.

[tater]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Perfect anology, you are talking about two very similar parties that are both part of the interchangable mainstream establishhment. If you want "far left" you have to look at one of the many fringe parties you have over there which end up with a miniscule vote in elections.

No, you cannot even compare parties that do not compete with each other in different systems (US vs everywhere else on earth). They are not the same, play in different arenas, and more importantly, no american cares.

errrrrr....I hate to break it to ya but in the US you have hundreds of political parties, wouldn't hundreds of parties equal a myriad

We have 2 parties that win in national elections in any meaningful way. the rest combined are statistically insignificant. If your voting record is on the left extreme of the democrats, you are "far left" in US politics, period. Ditto, "far right" if you vote far right relative to Rs. All americans will understand this continuum, and we don't care what you think about it. There is no "real" right/left metric, so any attribution is subjective. Given this, the one that US voters (no one else) understand is the only meaningful metric.

So any 3d parties are define solely (in the US) based on their position relative to the 2 "real" parties. Democrats that are left enough of center in the US are "far left." Anyone at or past that displacement from center is also far left. Mirror on the right.

Perfect, yet you are choosing to ignore US politics and US political parties to get that measure which is why the "far left" claim is pure nonsense.

Why don't you post some irish political threads? US politics is US politics. You can pretend that 3d parties are meaningful, or that the position of US pols vs world parties matter all you like. It's just not meaningful in the US. Yammer away, by all means, in 300,000,000 americans, maybe you'll find a handful that agree with you.

[Torvald Von Mansee]

Originally Posted by SteamWake

"Its not my fault we lost..."

Astroturfing is at fault.

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by tater

So any 3d parties are define solely (in the US) based on their position relative to the 2 "real" parties. Democrats that are left enough of center in the US are "far left." Anyone at or past that displacement from center is also far left. Mirror on the right.

You're moving the bar so as to make yourself look correct. The CPUSA is far left by any standards. The Green party is far left, but not as far left as CPUSA. They are both United States political parties. Therefore when you say the Democrats are "far left" you're wrong, even when you stick to your original benchmark of the realm of United States political parties.

No, you cannot even compare parties that do not compete with each other in different systems (US vs everywhere else on earth). They are not the same, play in different arenas, and more importantly, no american cares.

What is your comprehension problem today?
Where have I said about parties in other countries?
These are american parties in american politics.

We have 2 parties that win in national elections in any meaningful way.

Neither of which is far left.

the rest combined are statistically insignificant.

The far left and far right are usually statisticlally insignificant, it doesn't change the fact that they are the far left and far right and the central parties are not them.

So any 3d parties are define solely (in the US) based on their position relative to the 2 "real" parties.

Which is why you make no sense, if the democrats really were far left then where the hell would that put the real far left?
If what you are saying was a proper measure then the Republicans would automaticly be the neo nazi party. Are you saying McCain is a neo-nazi?

You can pretend that 3d parties are meaningful,

Tell that to all those who claim to be Libertarians

or that the position of US pols vs world parties matter all you like

Again with your comprehension problem...this is US parties vs. US parties . If the reality of that doesn't sit comfortably with your views then it speaks volumes about your views and your inability to face the reality of it.

Why don't you post some irish political threads?

Because you would get very confused by the republican party, the republican party, the republican party, the republican party and the republican party.