Questions for our American friends

[bombermouse]

It's certainly perceived as that bad. Our elected representatives' approval rating is somewhere around 15%, meaning 17 out of 20 Americans find their performance unacceptable.

[9876543210]

bombermouse,

Originally Posted by bombermouse

Our elected representatives' approval rating is somewhere around 15%, meaning 17 out of 20 Americans find their performance unacceptable.

Thats what you keep hearing. But there is one statistic from the last election that doesn't fit. Heard this earlier today. There were 22 incumbent Senators up for election this year and only one lost (Brown from Massachusetts).

If people really don't like these guys why do they keep electing them?

[bombermouse]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

bombermouse,



Thats what you keep hearing. But there is one statistic from the last election that doesn't fit. Heard this earlier today. There were 22 incumbent Senators up for election this year and only one lost (Brown from Massachusetts).

If people really don't like these guys why do they keep electing them?

Excellent question and one I ask myself. Might be that the candidates running against them looked even more unpalatable but I don't think that's it. Maybe the American public really is as stupid as the people making political ads think we are.

[DTravel]

Originally Posted by mizlaplan

Now that the dust has settled after Obama's victory I was wondering what our US colleagues hoped/expected for the next four years?

I expect the Republican party to be bad losers and continue to do everything in their power to keep any useful legislation from being passed so the President and the Democratic party can't get any positive credit.

[9876543210]

DTravel,

Originally Posted by DTravel

I expect the Republican party to be bad losers and continue to do everything in their power to keep any useful legislation from being passed so the President and the Democratic party can't get any positive credit.

I guess I agree. I don't think there will be much difference at all. From what I've heard from Boehner and McConnell so far they don't sound like they're going to change. So the Dems won't either. Pretty much expect status quo.

Just read that Harry Reid is going to try and do something about limiting the use of the filibuster but we'll see if that goes anywhere. I hope so but doubt it.

http://news.yahoo.com/dems-gop-fight...123939041.html

[magnut]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

bombermouse,



Thats what you keep hearing. But there is one statistic from the last election that doesn't fit. Heard this earlier today. There were 22 incumbent Senators up for election this year and only one lost (Brown from Massachusetts).

If people really don't like these guys why do they keep electing them?

It is a very curious thing, but surveys suggest that most voters think the bloke for whom they voted is okay and it's the other ones (especially the ones in the other party - for practical purposes we have only two parties here - that are to blame for everything.

Also name recognition is very important here, where many voters do not have a strong attachment to any particular political party, and many challengers are not well known to voters.

[haroldeye]

Originally Posted by DTravel

I expect the Republican party to be bad losers and continue to do everything in their power to keep any useful legislation from being passed so the President and the Democratic party can't get any positive credit.

Were I an American I would have voted Obama. I would have voted for him because I think he was the least worse choice. I think your politicians of whatever persuasion, are just as incompetent mean minded and grasping as politicians in every country in the world (especially ours).

It would appear that you voted for him because you hate the republicans.

[scoundrel]

Ultimately legislation has to pass both Houses in order to become law. Whatever deal (if any) is struck over the 2013 Federal budget will require the assent of the Republicans in the House of Representatives, or at least enough of them to combine with the Democrats there and outvote the remainder. It is not encouraging to hear Speaker Boehner start by saying that he will not countenance any tax increases on the top earners. Despite losing the presidential race and losing seats in the Senate, the Republicans have a lot of leverage. But the so-called "fiscal cliff" will mean extensive tax rises on the top earners and simply fillibustering will not prevent that. The Republicans are under pressure as well.

It is now time to see if this constitution really works. If it does, a compromise will be arrived at. But if the minority party refuses to compromise, or if the majority party refuses to negotiate, the constitution will need to change in order for government to be able to function. That is not a good outcome. The United States shouldn't want to end up as an elected dictatorship; something from which Britain has suffered throughout the 20th century and from which she is slowly inching away. Bi-partisan governance isn't frightfully exciting but it is more truly democratic than having both sides talking tough in front of the media to play to the gallery back home; eventually, that gets tired and their own voters will start to wonder why they can't get any work done. All this fillibustering makes the Republicans look bad but a moments thought makes me wonder what the Democrats are doing in terms of offering to negotiate. They need to be able to show that it is only the Republicans who are making trouble and that they are not refusing to engage with the Republicans. I have a suspicion that they are refusing. But it not an encouragement to negotiate when people on the other side try to link fiscal issues to abortion law changes, as some did during the debt ceiling crisis of 2011.

[kennyjackson]

Originally Posted by 9876543210

bombermouse,



Thats what you keep hearing. But there is one statistic from the last election that doesn't fit. Heard this earlier today. There were 22 incumbent Senators up for election this year and only one lost (Brown from Massachusetts).

If people really don't like these guys why do they keep electing them?

This odd fact has been proven time and time again - Most people hate congress except when it comes to their own congress people. I personally think that the election season should be much shorter like I understand it is shorter in GB. This way candidates aren't so preoccupied with campaigning that they can't focus on trying to do their jobs.

[kennyjackson]

Originally Posted by DTravel

I expect the Republican party to be bad losers and continue to do everything in their power to keep any useful legislation from being passed so the President and the Democratic party can't get any positive credit.

You hit the nail right on the head. It will be another 4 years of obstructionism from the right. "Crying man" Speaker Boner has already told Republicans to "fall in line." The conscious choice by the Republicans made shortly after Obama's election to office in 08 will continue - obstruct first; ask questions later regardless of what impact it may have on the American people. The key is Filibuster reform. Don't eliminate it - reform it. The Republicans have used a record number of filibuster or threats of filibuster to not only stop legislation but even to stop debate on legislation. (Believe it or not filibusters used to be used extremely rarely by either side and certainly not to stop mere discussion of policy.)
I personally wished that Obama had had just one term where the house and the Senate were controlled by the Dems in this way his whole, unedited policies could have had a chance to come to fruition. (We can't count the slim Dem majority in O8 since some one seat was in question - Franken's - and some of those Dems who constituted the majority were DINOs (Democrats in Name Only) Blue Dog Dems like Ben Nelson (D-NE)