Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The average current ACU rating for the entire delegation (including the Democrats) is 70, which is higher than either Alexander or Corker - suggesting that they are more liberal (or moderate, if you wish) than the "overall state profile". The ACU rating for the GOP delegation is 83 - illustrating that Alexander and Corker are more liberal (or moderate) than the average GOP Representative.
Of the 33 TN Senate members, 24 of the 26 Republican members are rated 80 or higher (with two rated 100). Of the 99 TN House members, 63 of the 71 Republican members are rated 80 or higher (with 19 rated 100). Again, this illustrates that Alexander and Corker are more liberal (or moderate) than the average TN GOP state legislator.
It is no wonder that they are being challenged from the right, since it seems that they've put so much room between themselves and the average Republican voter.
The average current ACU rating for the entire delegation (including the Democrats) is 70, which is higher than either Alexander or Corker - suggesting that they are more liberal (or moderate, if you wish) than the "overall state profile". The ACU rating for the GOP delegation is 83 - illustrating that Alexander and Corker are more liberal (or moderate) than the average GOP Representative.
It is no wonder that they are being challenged from the right, since it seems that they've put so much room between themselves and the average Republican voter.
This is the type of language I can't stand. If someone isn't as conservative as someone, they're "more liberal". If someone isn't as liberal as someone, they're "more conservative". That's how we get into this idiotic labeling of "RINOs" and "DINOs". It is this sort of divisive language that is tearing this country apart right now. What, do we only have two options now? The ultra conservative candidate against the ultra liberal one? Screw that noise.
I would also like to point out that, as you say, Alexander has a rating of 60, the average for the whole delegation (including Alexander and Corker) is 68. 60 is a lot closer to 68 than Joe Carr's 100.
Do you really think Joe Carr represents the views of the average Tennessean? I don't.
Well, the GOP is the big tent party, allowing much more variation than the Democrats. Sticking with the ACU ratings for Senators, the GOP's range is from 28 (Collins of ME) to 100 (Coburn of OK).
The Democrat's range is from 0 (Hirono of HI, Harkin of IA, Stabenow of MI, Gillibrand of NY, Sanders of VT - Socialist, Kaine of VA, Rockefeller of WV) to 28 (Manchin of WV).
Yep, if you include Alexander and Corker (and the Democrats) the rating averages 68. However, the primaries aren't really held for opposing parties to vote in each other's primaries - count me as someone who supports closed primaries.
I think Carr represents the views of more Tennesseans than Steve Cohen.
BTW I'm pleased with State Sen. Jim Tracy's (ACU 100 rating) chances against Rep. Scott DesJarlais in the 4th District Republican primary.
Well, the GOP is the big tent party, allowing much more variation than the Democrats. Sticking with the ACU ratings for Senators, the GOP's range is from 28 (Collins of ME) to 100 (Coburn of OK).
The Democrat's range is from 0 (Hirono of HI, Harkin of IA, Stabenow of MI, Gillibrand of NY, Sanders of VT - Socialist, Kaine of VA, Rockefeller of WV) to 28 (Manchin of WV).
I don't think I would call the GOP a big tent party at this point in time, especially as the tent is moving further to the right. I don't think the Dems are a big tent party, either, though. At certain points in history, both have been...but now neither one seems to give a damn about middle ground.
Also -- the ratings are rating conservatism. Of course that will lead to a greater range among Republican politicians. I bet a source rating liberalism would do the same for Democrats. What is being measured is less present in the other party by nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
Yep, if you include Alexander and Corker (and the Democrats) the rating averages 68. However, the primaries aren't really held for opposing parties to vote in each other's primaries - count me as someone who supports closed primaries.
What about voters that don't wish to declare a party? I think one of the great things about Tennessee is that they don't insult me by requiring me to register for a party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
I think Carr represents the views of more Tennesseans than Steve Cohen.
And? Steve Cohen isn't running for statewide office. He'd get crushed, and he knows it. That's not the question.
The question is whether Carr represents the views of more Tennesseans than Alexander.
This is the type of language I can't stand. If someone isn't as conservative as someone, they're "more liberal". If someone isn't as liberal as someone, they're "more conservative". That's how we get into this idiotic labeling of "RINOs" and "DINOs". It is this sort of divisive language that is tearing this country apart right now. What, do we only have two options now? The ultra conservative candidate against the ultra liberal one? Screw that noise.
I would also like to point out that, as you say, Alexander has a rating of 60, the average for the whole delegation (including Alexander and Corker) is 68. 60 is a lot closer to 68 than Joe Carr's 100.
Do you really think Joe Carr represents the views of the average Tennessean? I don't.
Joe Carr has to best represent the views of the Republican Party to win the primary. If he is too extreme, vote for the Democrat.
Current objective data shows a range of ideology within the GOP of between 28 to 100 (compared to Dems range of 0 to 28); IMO that represents a big tent.
The range in the TN GOP delegation is from 60 (Alexander) to 96, compared to Dems range of 16 to 28. IMO that range also represents a bigger tent.
FYI the 'National Journal' provides a rating from the liberal side (name, conservative composite score):
Lamar Alexander (R) 64.5
Bob Corker (R) 64.8
Phil Roe (R) 84.2
John Duncan (R) 63.5
Charles Fleischmann (R) 89.7
Scott DesJarlais (R) 94.2
Jim Cooper (D) 39.8
Diane Black (R) 90.7
Marsha Blackburn (R) 84.7
Stephen Fincher (R) 86
Steve Cohen (D) 5.3
Many states (IIRC ~20) have some form of open primary, however most states have closed primaries (therefore most states insult you?). Voters who don't wish to declare a party can vote in the General Election.
IMO open primaries violate freedom of speech and association by allowing non-party members to elect party candidates. Open primaries are susceptible to shenanigans (e.g. Thad Cochran). Open primaries may allow more moderate candidates to represent the party - against the interests of party members (e.g. John McCain didn't win among registered Republicans but was still nominated in 2008 because of open primaries). Open primaries may allow independents to participate in the nominating process, but overall voter participation is higher in closed primaries (by incentivizing involvement in the process).
Yet I am still conflicted... How do other TN Independents deal with this situation? How do TN Democrats and TN Republicans feel about voters like me? Any other thoughts to share?
I early-voted and took a Republican ballot but did not vote in every primary race mostly due to lack of knowledge about those particular candidates and the job they perform. I did notice that there were a few candidates who identified as Independent on the GOP ballot and wondered if they also appeared on the Democrat primary ballot. I did like that I had an option to check a box that I did not want a few unopposed candidates for judge positions.
I can't vote against the TN person I most want to get rid of because he's not my representative. I could vote against the Senator I want out, though. He keeps misrepresenting himself in his ads and that ticks me off because he'll get re-elected due to name recognition. I wished Marsha Blackburn ran against him. I like her.
You just have to choose the ballot with the most candidates you want and don't vote in the races where you don't like any candidate.
If you want to get me started on voting, my biggest pet peeve is not rotating the states voting order in Presidential election years. I'm sick of Iowa, New Hampshire, Florida, etc., winnowing the presidential candidates before I get to vote. From now on I'm not giving any presidential candidate a dime unless he stays in the race for when Tennessee votes or he makes rotating state voting order a campaign issue.
IMO open primaries violate freedom of speech and association by allowing non-party members to elect party candidates. Open primaries are susceptible to shenanigans (e.g. Thad Cochran). Open primaries may allow more moderate candidates to represent the party - against the interests of party members (e.g. John McCain didn't win among registered Republicans but was still nominated in 2008 because of open primaries). Open primaries may allow independents to participate in the nominating process, but overall voter participation is higher in closed primaries (by incentivizing involvement in the process).
Open primaries violate freedom of speech? LMFAO. Now I've heard everything.
As an independent, I think having a closed primary violates my freedom of speech by not allowing me to pick which turd is the shiniest to run in the general election, reducing the probability of having a moonbat extremist represent me in the election.
The only people that seem to support closed primaries are the rank and file members of the majority party.
Perhaps it would not be so bad if Tennessee had a viable group of candidates that would run as independents. But that is not the case. It is either Democrat or Republican...and in state-wide elections, it's almost certainly going to end up Republican. Why on earth would any moderate or independent want the most extreme possible candidate for either party? If Carr was still running for the 4th, I could understand that. But the entire state isn't like the 4th district. A Carr nomination by the Republican party would pretty much be an F-U to anyone left of Sarah Palin.
It should be no surprise that I am not a fan of party politics. That's why I support open primaries, because I think you're more likely to get candidates that are more palatable for the state as a whole.
It is no wonder that they are being challenged from the right, since it seems that they've put so much room between themselves and the average Republican voter.
I disagree. They haven't put lots of room between themselves and the average Republican voter. IMO, Alexander and Corker actually stayed the same. The space was created when the most vocal members of the Republican party veered hard right, leaving everyone else behind.
Here are a few graphics I made based on actual demographics from polling data:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nashvols
Do you really think Joe Carr represents the views of the average Tennessean? I don't.
No, based on actual demographics as shown in the top two graphs (as opposed to perceived demographics shown in the last two graphs), Joe Carr would be classified in the extreme right of the spectrum, and would therefore only be satisfactory to the extreme right of his constituency. His constituency is the entire state, everyone from a resident of the Memphis slums to a farmer in the Delta to a survivalist in the mountains. Alexander is solidly in the "Right" to "Far Right" of the spectrum, and is much closer to representing the average Tennessean.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Emigrations
Joe Carr has to best represent the views of the Republican Party [members who vote] to win the primary. If he is too extreme, vote for the Democrat.
I agree with both those sentences, after adding the phrase in brackets. Unfortunately, the primary isn't necessarily representative of the whole Republican party, because people who are most vocal in the party are the extremists. Conservative talk shows, campaign rallies, donation drives, and even the primary voting booth are all dominated by extremists. Then when the general election rolls around the moderate members of the party must choose between an extreme Republican or a token Democrat, neither of which is satisfactory.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
Current objective data shows a range of ideology within the GOP of between 28 to 100 (compared to Dems range of 0 to 28); IMO that represents a big tent.
The range in the TN GOP delegation is from 60 (Alexander) to 96, compared to Dems range of 16 to 28. IMO that range also represents a bigger tent.
Regarding the bold phrases, see the last graph above. If you were referencing a neutral source you would have a good point. The problem is that the ACU freely admits they are biased. They favor conservative candidates; the more conservative the better. Any data produced by such an organization would be heavily skewed toward favoring extreme candidates.
The Republicans ceased to be "big tent" around the time the "southern strategy" took hold after the Civil Rights Act. Currently, the majority of immigrating Hispanics are religiously and economically conservative. The Republican Party would be a perfect fit for the vast majority of them... but as a general ethnic group they despise the Republicans because of their attitude toward immigration. No, the Republicans are a long way from "big tent".
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reactionary
FYI the 'National Journal' provides a rating from the liberal side (name, conservative composite score):
Lamar Alexander (R) 64.5 [40th]
Bob Corker (R) 64.8 [38th]
I added the bold numbers in brackets, taken from the same NJ report. Their ranking as the 38th and 40th most conservative Senators actually somewhat tracks with Tennessee's ranking overall as a state. The extremists don't like this fact because they believe the state (and the rest of the country) looks like the third graph above.
Last edited by An Einnseanair; 08-06-2014 at 11:30 AM..
Rank and file members of a political party are exercising their First Amendment right to association (implicitly included in the right to petition). The Supreme Court has ruled that "requir[ing] private citizens who organize a parade to include among the marchers a group imparting a message that the organizers do not wish to convey violates the First Amendment", in addition to a body of law protecting freedom of association. In other words, a political party has the right to control its own message and candidates.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
