Tuesday, October 14, 2014
House Dems in retreat
As the final stretch of the 2014 midterm election cycle comes into view, Democrats are faced with the unsavory reality that they must go on the defensive. Across the board, the DCCC is shifting funding away from candidates challenging Republicans and putting it instead towards incumbents with a questionable chance. This move shows the Democrats' concession that the Republicans, with a final influx of substantial outside money, could potentially come out of the election with their largest house majority since World War II.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If history is something to be learned by, then we should know that having the Republicans dominate the majority party isn't beneficial to anyone. I'm not just saying this because I personally identify as a Democrat, but because of the way the Republican Party has been operating and downgrading in the last 20 years or so. With a majority, who says they won't cause another halt in the government for weeks at a time. And with such deep divides in the party and Obama at the helm, I would be amazed if anything is done in the next two years.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Alexa. Thoughout history, as mentioned by Mike Lofgren, Republicans have notoriously cause political stalemate. If the Republicans remain in majority with a Democratic president, more ineptitude is to be expected. If a Republican president is elected, it can be expected that the government will undergo drastic changes, I'm predicting the repeal of Obamacare. The growth in the Republican party can be traced back to Democrats continuously loosing faith in their party. Democrats need to find some way to increase party loyalt, and fast.
ReplyDeleteI agree with both Alexa and Becky. I believe that by having a Republican dominated majority party, nothing is going to get done. And if things do it done, it will be in a very slow manner. However, I don't think that the Democrats are too worried because if they do loose in the race, the 2016 map favors the Democrats having more seats that the Republicans.
ReplyDeleteI agree with all of the above statements. Having a Republican majority will get nothing done because the executive branch is democratic. I identify more as a Democratic so anything majority Republican does scare me a bit. In the end though it is never good to have any kind of majority. However we would also get no where if it was half and half. In the end this is kind of endless because someone will always be unhappy.
ReplyDeleteWith a Democratic president, a House with a Republican majority will cause stalemate, as others have noted. Already with a Democrat majority Republicans have made Congress ineffective and useless. It's so strange to think that because of a few polls, the DCCC has completely shifted where their campaign money goes to, after so much work on potential candidates. As Lofgren said, I think private money should be taken out of elections so that both parties are more fairly chosen between, rather than who has the most TV ads or the like. I really hope both parties will become better at compromise in the coming years.
ReplyDeleteHowever most of the comments talk about a stalemate to come from the opposing ideas in the executive and legislative branches in government, I think that it is important to recognize that the government is designed to work as a bipartisanship. The rejection and rewriting of laws is natural and intended and yes there will be opposition to many laws. But the main point is that in order to fully enact a successful system the two parties need to be able to work together. A more general polite attitude between members of congress not only sets the role for citizens but to a more productive law-making system. We are meant to think differently and the item that comes out on top should not be solely decided by numbers, hatred, race, and money but by collective intuition.
ReplyDeleteI think that some of the above comments are failing to recognize that we presently have a House of Representatives that is dominated by republicans. If the mid term election turns out the way this article predicts, the government will get no more or less done than is presently being done. The Affordable Care Act will most likely not be repealed. The present House of Representatives has attempted to repeal it numerous times and the other parts of the legislative branch as well as the exectutive branch have prevented this. I agree with Rachel that private money should be taken out of elections. It makes is a contest over which party has the most money.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the government will come to a halt if Republicans gain an overwhelming majority... Rather, the government would experience less friction in enacting those measures it intends to, and there will be less danger of stalemate. Whether the policies and measures addressed are worthwhile and helpful to the lives of the American people remains to be seen. It is not at all impressive to me that our system of voting relies so heavily on IMMENSELY HUGE pockets being emptied so that candidates can get air time. I think it would be cool if we could have a system of air time sharing between candidates similar to the one Lofgren describes at the end of "The Party Is Over." All this excessive spending on the ELECTION does not reflect well on what the priorities of American politics are.
ReplyDeleteThis is a great example of the chess match that modern politics is. The republicans are trying to fill the house with the largest majority seen since Truman's presidency. Now the thing i disagree with in the earlier comments is house run by republicans is set up for failure. That is not true. During Truman's era everything worked just fine and it was one of the best times for our government ever. However today the republicans stand for something completely different. They just want the majority to turn down democratic bills. This will then led to more disagreement and nothing getting done.
ReplyDeleteMackenzie is right; the House currently has a Republican majority, so a few extra seats will most likely not result in any major legislative decisions until there is a new executive. However, the Democrats' withdrawal of campaign funds from challengers in order to hold incumbent House members afloat is telling. The fact that Democrats are accepting this last resort option with nearly three weeks to go before election day reveals the momentum that Republicans have gained since Obama's reelection. The Republicans' opportunistic mobilization of their base in response to the destruction caused by Obama's second term point to a possible Republican majority in the Senate, as well. Let's just hope this potential wave of Republicans is more successful once they get to Washington than the one that took over the House in 2010, the last time the GOP made a splash in the midterm elections.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with some of the above comments regarding the correlation between a majority government and a stand still in progression. The possibility of having an overwhelming majority in the House of Representatives is a very frightening concept and will only continue this frustrating period of getting little done in the government. Especially in today's political climate, the idea of compromise between the republicans and democrats would be unheard of. It seems that decisions in the House are made, no matter if you're a democrat or republican, on the base of political advances and not for the general good.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Rachel that outside money needs to be taken out of election. Winners should be determined based off of how well they will support their citizens, not off of how much money they have. In regards to the idea of a stalemate, I agree with Jaime. Having a Republican majority could lead to less friction, therefore leading to less of a standstill.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the government would have any issues with having a republican majority but the officials we elect must make decisions based off of those they're representing rather than just their party's beliefs. Overwhelming majorities aren't necessarily a good thing whether it be a democrat or republican majority however if the decisions made can fly on both sides of the spectrum then progress can be made in this country.
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, I believe that the use of private contributions to help win elections is not something that should be happening to this extent in American politics. That being said, I still notice and respect the fact that the Republicans have utilized this money wisely, as I thought it was very intelligent for them to save their money for commercials toward the end of the campaigning season because that is when the voters are paying the most attention. I also do not necessarily think that a Republican majority in the House will be terrible for the government, as although they may oppose many measures proposed by the executive branch, they also offer the views of the other party, and bipartisanship is very important in the American system of government. As for whether the government will be better or worse off by this increased Republican majority, we will have to wait and see.
ReplyDeleteI think the problem with the government won't just be resolved by a change in party dominance, but a change in overall mindset of the peple in power. I agree with what Jaime said that Spending money and focusing on elections is irresponsible, especially when there are people and causes that need money. Even if the election spending is cut back, it can make a significant difference. Perhaps if parties aren't emphasized as much, there won't be as much of a need to spend money.
ReplyDeleteFirst, the Republicans already control the House and after the midterms, likely the Senate as well. Second, many of you fear that a Republican majority in the House (which already exists) would be detrimental and dysfunctional; however, that is not the case. The House has passed hundreds of Bills that are collecting dust in the Senate, a statement supported by many sources, partisan and non. That being said, a majority of any party is the opposite of detrimental to productivity. If everyone agrees then stuff gets done, the issue then is whether it's the right kind of productivity. As for outside contributions, I support them completely. Both parties receive small donations from average citizens and large donations from affluent citizens. It is a method of participating in government, perhaps directly influencing the outcome of the election. It is completely Democratic. Whether you're a Hollywood Liberal or a Midwest Business Giant Conservative, or even just a regular guy, everyone hast height to contribute as much as they please.
ReplyDelete**has the right
ReplyDeleteI am going to have to disagree with Noah. A Republican majority in the House not only would be, but is detrimental and dysfunctional to government. As we have clearly seen through Mike Lofgren's book the Republicans have notoriously caused stalemate and dysfunction over the last couple decades. I also agree with Matt that the fact that the Democrats are putting all of there money towards incumbent House members as oppose to some of their most promising challengers is telling. One fact in the article that was very shocking was how the Democrats could possibly lose a seat in which Obama once won by 14 percent. Clearly, things are not going to look good for Democrats come Election Day.
ReplyDelete