To me, these are two different things. The 2nd one is true but the first is not. I would agree that the parties are less relevant in politicians' lives. But people are more likely now to just use the (R) or (D) as a signifier of whom to vote for. That's the opposite of being less relevant.
I think people are becoming more ideological. Given that the parties have both become more ideologically consistent/homogeneous, there's a correlation. But I think the distinction matters.
Said this earlier in the week in another thread: Saw this today ... Georgia Democrats are pushing Sally Yates to run for governor. https://t.co/Bilapmuq2F— Kyle Griffin (@kylegriffin1) February 17, 2017 Ultimately, she might decline to run because it's just not for her. But it would be malpractice if the Georgia Dems didn't at least try to recruit her for some office somewhere.
Well let see if the Democratic anti-Trump "movement" is as strong as the Tea Party. Over/Under on the number of Democrats that get primaried. I assume the guy in West Virginia will be one of the most hated Democrats as he will vote in favor of Trumps policy the most so he can have a chance of winning re-election in WV, but will the far left try to push him out? Or do you think it will be people in safe Democratic districts that get "Tea Partied" I mean many Republican in safe seats are the ones that were taken out by the Tea Party. http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/17/politics/kfile-mccaskill-on-2018/
I hope cooler heads prevail with regard to primarying people. Manchin is the most conservative Democrat and he votes with the Ds nearly 80 percent of the time (58 percent of the time on critical votes). No Republican is even remotely close to those numbers... Susan Collins is closest and she votes with the Dems less than half as often as Manchin. In deep red WV, he's far more likely to be replaced by a conservative Republican than by a liberal Democrat. All the energy should be channeled into replacing Republicans. If people are desperate to primary Democrats, find a few in safe blue states/districts who don't vote as often with the party as they could.
835290428429729792 is not a valid tweet id A primary challenge from the Sanders wing (assuming it's unsuccessful) might actually help his argument to maintain the seat in November.
They're coming. JusticeDemocrats raised half a mil in two weeks. "Brand New congress" and "We will replace you" are working this as well. Their goal is primary challenges of the establishment. The tea party had some success with it.
Oooooh, $0.5 million in two weeks? That's $36,000 a day! That's a big movement you got there. If you keep that up for the next year and a half, JusticeDemocrats will raise $23 million! If they target ten races to primary, that's $2.3 million per race! That's some big clout there. I'm absolutely shitting my pants in fear.
These ********ing idiots really think that replacing Manchin with a more left-wing, less pro-coal Dem is a winning strategy?
It would so appear, wouldn't it? Better to maintain a 100% level of authenticity than to besmirch one's purity by actually having to govern.
I don't think that that'll be a problem in West Virginia or Missouri. I'm pretty sure that a primary challenge from the left won't bother Joe Manchin and Claire McCaskill too much, and it'll give them an opportunity to put some daylight between themselves and the left wing of the party and blunt any possible attacks from their general election opponent that they're "too liberal for West Virginia/Missouri."
I'm not a fan of the far left rabble rousing, but in theory I'm OK with primary challenges. We have too many really old, really entrenched and really safe reps in Washington on both sides. For many of them a primary challenge is the only way you get them to respond. I wish it didn't have to be that way. I wish more reps would self impose term limits on themselves and not stick around to their 80s ...
IMO, a certain degree of turnover is healthy in a government. Keeps the incumbents honest and responsive to their constituents and keeps a steady flow of new ideas and approaches flowing in. Having 20+ year incumbents and the same actors fighting the same battles over and over again is stale, makes them complacent. I've never been a fan of term limits, but I wish people would vote out the incumbent more often than they do.
Do elderly lawmakers rehash decades-old battles at a higher rate than younger lawmakers? It's an empirical question with an answer. My gut reaction is that there is no correlation. Obama was young, and he tackled a century-old problem. But you may be correct. I'd like to know the answer.
I have no data to show you. But Obamacare is an interesting case as it relates to this discourse; Obama took an old Heritage Foundation idea implemented first by Ŕepublican governor Mitt Romney and used it as a blueprint for the entire nation. He tackled the issue with a fresh set of eyes that saw a Republican idea that he believed workeď well and made it his own, successfully implementing it. This was also how he framed and marketed the reform package, as a conservative idea, rather than allowing it to be framed as a liberal one like the failled attempts at reform in 93. One could argue that Obama's unique, fresh approach to selling the bill cut the Republicans off at the knees and factored into giving the Democrats political cover to succeed in 09 where they failed in 93. I'd also say that all you have to do is look at the Democratic Party leadership to see where stale, same old incumbents giving the stale, same old arguments gets you. Since 2010 the Democrats have been losing ground and Pelosi is still House leader while Reid made way for the 2nd-most stale face in the Senate, Chuck Schumer. Their primary race was pathetic, to the point where even Bernie Sanders, an old-school leftist if there ever was one, was considered new and exciting because he wasn't just saying the same Democratic talking points from twenty years ago in the Clinton administration. Hilary Clinton's baggage had baggage because the Republicans were wailing on her for over twenty years and her act was predictable. The Democrats presented a static, predictable target that hadn't been shaken up in decades outside of a brief period of life because Obama was a rock star. Voters like change. They like the idea of a new fresh approach, or even just a new fresh face to articulate the old approach. And if incumbents ever get too comfortable they eventually wear on those voters, and they get complacent in driving both country and party forward.
Nobody has the data. You just came up with an interesting research idea. And here's a way to think about it - maybe the issues rarely change, but the mechanisms by which politicians consider them adapt with each new generation. And an alternative hypothesis - the mechanisms by which leaders get elected introduce a cautious, pro-SQ approach to policymaking. And perhaps this too has some testable implications. You may not know this, but you've given me a few ideas for research in the next 3-4 years. PM me with more of this, please. I'd like to pick your brain.
Well some Democrats owe their Congress seats to the Tea Party doing this. The left may have to learn the same lessons.
Feinstein is one anecdotal data point that comes to mind. I don't think she's more conservative than she used to be. It's just that the state has become much, much more liberal since she was elected to the Senate first in 1992. Her politics have not kept pace, and she's increasingly out of step.
Just did a head count of all House members who will be at their job for 20 years or more by the next election. Pretty shocking ... 55 Democrats and only 27 Republicans. And keep in mind that there's about 50 more Republicans in the House to start with. That's 55 freaking Democrats who've been at it since the Clinton administration or before. And this is supposed to be the party for younger voters? I'm no agist. There's a lot of value in experience and wisdom. But I think Matthaus Sammer used the correct word here ... stale. Part of the problem is gerrymandering ... Lots of these 55 come from districts that lean Democrat by at least 20%. And the other problem is that Democrats are just too nice. They defer to seniority, they lead from behind and they take no risks. Looking at these numbers I'm even more convinced that a little shakeup in these deep blue districts might not be the worst idea. Here's the list if anyone's curious ... Several names there that I actually like so I'm not exactly advocating to declare war on all of them. But there's definitely some other names of reps whose best days are clearly behind them. Mike Thompson - D - CA - 1998 Nancy Pelosi - D - CA - 1987 Barbara Lee - D - CA - 1998 Anna Eshoo - D - CA - 1992 Zoe Lofgren - D - CA - 1994 Brad Sherman - D - CA - 1996 Grace Napolitano - D - CA - 1998 Lucille Royal-Allard - D - CA - 1992 Maxine Waters - D - CA - 1990 Diana DeGette - D - CO - 1996 John Larson - D - CT - 1998 Rosa DeLauro - D - CT - 1990 Alcee Hastings - D - FL - 1992 Sanford Bishop - D - GA - 1992 John Lewis - D - GA - 1986 Bobby Rush - D - IL - 1992 Luis Gutierrez - D - IL - 1992 Danny Davis - D - IL - 1996 Jan Schakowsky - D - IL - 1998 Pete Visclosky - D - IN - 1984 Steny Hoyer - D - MD - 1981 Elijah Cummings - D - MD - 1996 Richard Neal - D - MA - 1988 Jim McGovern - D - MA - 1996 Mike Capuano - D - MA - 1998 Sander Levin - D - MI - 1982 John Conyers - D - MI - 1964 Collin Peterson - D - MN - 1990 Bennie Thompson - D - MS - 1992 Frank Pallone - D - NJ - 1988 Bill Pascrell - D - NJ - 1996 Gregory Meeks - D - NY - 1998 Nydia Velazquez - D - NY - 1992 Jerry Nadler - D - NY - 1992 Carolyn Maloney - D - NY - 1992 Joe Crowley - D - NY - 1998 Jose Serrano - D - NY - 1990 Elliot Engel - D - NY - 1988 Nita Lowey - D - NY - 1988 Louise Slaughter - D - NY - 1986 David Price - D - NC - 1996 Marcy Kaptur - D - OH - 1982 Earl Blumenauer - D - OR - 1996 Peter DeFazio - D - OR - 1986 Bob Brady - D - PA - 1996 Mike Doyle - D - PA - 1994 Jim Clyburn - D - SC - 1992 Sheila Jackson-Lee - D - TX - 1994 Gene Green - D - TX - 1992 Eddie Bernice Johnson - D - TX - 1992 Lloyd Doggett - D - TX - 1994 Bobby Scott - D - VA - 1992 Adam Smith - D - WA - 1996 Ron Kind - D - WI - 1996 Eleanor Holmes-Norton - D - DC - 1990 (non voting)
I don't have any problem with them being there this long. Term limits are a bad idea. But I do have a big problem with them being in House leadership this long. http://www.house.gov/leadership/ There have been basically no new fresh voices among the House Democrats in decades. The message and the messengers have gone stale.