Battleground Georgia: Dems see 2014 flip (Atlanta: houses, move to, budget)

[bu2]

Originally Posted by Cameron H

In fairness, many rail against the Tea Party because they're by-and-large crazed wingnuts. Nevertheless, I strongly support their split from the Republican Party. Let the GOP return to the party of Eisenhower -- pro-business, fiscal conservatism and realist foreign policy -- and let the Tea Party represent the declining but still influential White Conservative Christian rump.

Make it so!

That's the liberal media's painting of them which you have bought hook line and sinker.

They're merely the Ross Perot voters of 92 realizing that those budgetary concerns threatening the future of the country are being ignored again.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by netdragon

Democrats vs Republicans is a continuation of the two-party system (originally federalists and anti-federalists) that has controlled the population through divide-and-conquer since the beginning of the country. If you can't have real balance, then people settle for balance of polarities. The system needs to be fixed.

Whereas, liberal vs conservative was concocted by the skull and cross-bones society and is another divide-and-conquer strategy.

Both of these systems are doomed as people become more aware. E.g. I expect the U.S. to become a multi-party system pretty soon.

Who's party #3 or #4? Greens? Libertarians? Tea Party?

The laws are written to favor 2 parties. It would be really difficult for a 3rd party to take hold. Now it did happen in Britain. The Liberal Democrats formed in the middle (or revitalized what had become a tiny party).

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by bu2

That's the liberal media's painting of them which you have bought hook line and sinker.

They're merely the Ross Perot voters of 92 realizing that those budgetary concerns threatening the future of the country are being ignored again.

Oh, okay. Thanks. They should definitely form their own party then, so they can throw more elections to the liberal (just like '92), who will then balance the budget (just like Clinton). It's a kind of genius when you think about it.

[JoeP]

That's the liberal media's painting of them which you have bought hook line and sinker.

They're merely the Ross Perot voters of 92 realizing that those budgetary concerns threatening the future of the country are being ignored again.

What BS. Nobody needs to "paint" them. They've painted themselves. They are nothing but a rebranding of base Republicans.


IF they were independent minded they wouldn't brand themselves as a sub category of Republican and "run" on GOP primaries. They would formally start their own party.

Also, if they were independent minded, they would have formed the same outrage over the massive amount spent during W's years, or hell, even during Reagan. Yet, there was nothing but crickets.

And even as the deficit is shrinking, you wouldn't know it from them. Probably because they spend most of their time pushing a warped version of Christianity that sounds awfully similar to the "states' rights" crowds from decades ago.


This is likely because the GOP has deployed the Southern Strategy for decades and it's all about what GOP strategist Lee Atwater described as the reason for "budgetary concerns."

[netdragon]

Originally Posted by bu2

The laws are written to favor 2 parties. It would be really difficult for a 3rd party to take hold. Now it did happen in Britain. The Liberal Democrats formed in the middle (or revitalized what had become a tiny party).

I agree, which is why we need a constitutional amendment referendum once the two parties are no longer drunk on their own power. My suggestion would be: (A) prevent parties from operating in more than one state. Coalitions would need to be formed between states. Coalitions would be a lot more volatile (B) Offer an approval voting system versus the current "winner takes all" system.

[Wayr2go]

Sorry to poke my not-so-aware nose in this, but why is this about a 'democrat' or a 'republican' rather than an individual willing to work for Atlanta/GA's progress ? Surely (I would imagine) that the interest of the state/city only strengthens the votebank for the political leader in-charge.

I'm not from ATL/GA but why, in concise if possible, is a republican is/has been bad for ATL/GA and why(if) a democrat will/would change things?

Being religious, I would imagine, does not make someone less progressive economically (perhaps only socially/morally).

[bryantm3]

Originally Posted by Wayr2go

Sorry to poke my not-so-aware nose in this, but why is this about a 'democrat' or a 'republican' rather than an individual willing to work for Atlanta/GA's progress ? Surely (I would imagine) that the interest of the state/city only strengthens the votebank for the political leader in-charge.

I'm not from ATL/GA but why, in concise if possible, is a republican is/has been bad for ATL/GA and why(if) a democrat will/would change things?

Being religious, I would imagine, does not make someone less progressive economically (perhaps only socially/morally).

because republicans are completely restricted as to what they can or cannot do, due to the tea party which now makes up a significant percentage of their base.

if a republican was seen promoting transit, better infrastructure, making people have a license to own a gun, a belief that evolution should be taught in science classes, or any number of things most people would consider non-issues, the tea party would crucify that politician and ensure they were not elected again.

this is why during primaries, the republicans try to "out conservative" each other with each candidate claiming to be the "most conservative". candidates in democratic primaries, even in liberal states, don't ever claim to be the "most liberal", even though their party's voters are the only ones voting.

democratic politicians have much more leeway to promote whatever issue they feel is most important, regardless of their party's stance on the issue. this is why there are pro-life democrats, pro-choice democrats, democrats who want to cut the budget, democrats who want to spend more, etc.

this is why 90% of republican congressmen vote with their party 90% of the time or more.

if you are a republican, you simply do not have the ability to do what you feel is best. the tea party will eat you alive.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by JoeP

What BS. Nobody needs to "paint" them. They've painted themselves. They are nothing but a rebranding of base Republicans.


IF they were independent minded they wouldn't brand themselves as a sub category of Republican and "run" on GOP primaries. They would formally start their own party.

Also, if they were independent minded, they would have formed the same outrage over the massive amount spent during W's years, or hell, even during Reagan. Yet, there was nothing but crickets.

And even as the deficit is shrinking, you wouldn't know it from them. Probably because they spend most of their time pushing a warped version of Christianity that sounds awfully similar to the "states' rights" crowds from decades ago.


This is likely because the GOP has deployed the Southern Strategy for decades and it's all about what GOP strategist Lee Atwater described as the reason for "budgetary concerns."

Look at turnout in 2006 and 2008. They stayed home. And it wasn't until Obama that the deficit really went through the roof (even if you blame it entirely on the recession started during W's term, it still didn't get really big while he was in office). When it got big, that's when the movement started up again.

And again, you've bought the media's confusion of different strands of Republicans. The media is overwhelmingly liberal, so they don't really understand what they are writing about. Even some of the groups who claim the Tea Party label can be very different.

[bu2]

Originally Posted by bryantm3

because republicans are completely restricted as to what they can or cannot do, due to the tea party which now makes up a significant percentage of their base.

if a republican was seen promoting transit, better infrastructure, making people have a license to own a gun, a belief that evolution should be taught in science classes, or any number of things most people would consider non-issues, the tea party would crucify that politician and ensure they were not elected again.

this is why during primaries, the republicans try to "out conservative" each other with each candidate claiming to be the "most conservative". candidates in democratic primaries, even in liberal states, don't ever claim to be the "most liberal", even though their party's voters are the only ones voting.

democratic politicians have much more leeway to promote whatever issue they feel is most important, regardless of their party's stance on the issue. this is why there are pro-life democrats, pro-choice democrats, democrats who want to cut the budget, democrats who want to spend more, etc.

this is why 90% of republican congressmen vote with their party 90% of the time or more.

if you are a republican, you simply do not have the ability to do what you feel is best. the tea party will eat you alive.

And the same thing isn't true with the "progressives" in the Democratic party? The Democratic party (the people who vote in primaries) made a dramatic move to the left in the 70s and have kept moving left. The Republicans took a dramatic turn to the right starting in the 90s (again, the people who vote in the primaries).

[Cameron H]

Originally Posted by bu2

And the same thing isn't true with the "progressives" in the Democratic party? The Democratic party (the people who vote in primaries) made a dramatic move to the left in the 70s and have kept moving left.

That's not true. The Democrats hit peak Loony Left with McGovern, then moved right by nominating Jimmy Carter -- a social and fiscal conservative. The party nominated (losing) traditional liberals in the 80s before moving dramatically right with the DLC and Clinton's "New Democrats."

Unlike the Tea Party wing of the GOP, the progressive wing of the Democratic Party is extraordinarily weak, even in the wake of the Great Recession. You can see this in the 2016 polling, where centrist (to a fault) Hillary Clinton is a runaway favorite and most Democrats don't even know or care about progressive heroine Elizabeth Warren.