Dole vs Clinton comes to mind.. Bush Sr. Vs Clinton also wasn't a bad choice. While the campaign was bad (southern strat) Nixon vs whoever wasn't so bad as well
My views vary based on how national the election is. At the national level we have one major party that throws scraps to the people every now and then while being beholden to corporate interests and another that is open about their corporate interests and follows an "Americans are temporarily embarrassed millionaires" philosophy, ignoring systemic problems that hold people back.
I find that we can get more things done when the media is opposed to the party in power compared to when they support the people (even if not their policies). There is a certain level of wagon circling both parties enjoy from certain sectors of the media.
On local issues it can be a strange thing indeed. If a state or local government is having problems with their unionized employees a Democrat is more likely to get concessions than a Republican even though while on the campaign trail the opposite is often eschewed.
While I used to vote Republican now I take a far more nuanced view and vote for the party that is least likely to make my life worse and most likely to get good things done while simultaneously have their ludicrous dreams held in check.
The current discussion about Scalia's empty SCOTUS seat is a great tell into how messed up our system is. We keep hearing Presidents say that they do not have an ideological litmus test (party loyalty) for nominations but the only justices that often leave their side of the court are ones that were appointed by Republicans. When a decision comes down with a 5-4 vote we can instinctively know the swing vote was Kennedy. That is messed up. In a way I like the court with an even number of justices, it insures major cases are not decided based on party lines.
In a way I like the court with an even number of justices, it insures major cases are not decided based on party lines.
That's wrong. It just means tied votes, and that just means no binding decision, and the lower courts' rulings stand. And those lower courts? Probably just as biased ideologically.
In a way I like the court with an even number of justices, it insures major cases are not decided based on party lines.
That's wrong. It just means tied votes, and that just means no binding decision, and the lower courts' rulings stand. And those lower courts? Probably just as biased ideologically.
Yup. President Obama has been very successful in getting judges confirmed for those courts. The courts below SCOTUS have moved heavily leftward over the last eight years. More importantly, when a decision is five to four (whether I agree or not with the result) I see a broken court that decided based on partisanship rather than logic or law.
I'm in the UK and I've decided to go along to a Liberal Democrat party meeting tonight because politically nobody else seems to want to go forward. The conservatives say we go back to the 50s and labour want us to go back to 80s. I'm finding politics so frustrating right now.
Comments
Bush Sr. Vs Clinton also wasn't a bad choice.
While the campaign was bad (southern strat) Nixon vs whoever wasn't so bad as well
I find that we can get more things done when the media is opposed to the party in power compared to when they support the people (even if not their policies). There is a certain level of wagon circling both parties enjoy from certain sectors of the media.
On local issues it can be a strange thing indeed. If a state or local government is having problems with their unionized employees a Democrat is more likely to get concessions than a Republican even though while on the campaign trail the opposite is often eschewed.
While I used to vote Republican now I take a far more nuanced view and vote for the party that is least likely to make my life worse and most likely to get good things done while simultaneously have their ludicrous dreams held in check.
The current discussion about Scalia's empty SCOTUS seat is a great tell into how messed up our system is. We keep hearing Presidents say that they do not have an ideological litmus test (party loyalty) for nominations but the only justices that often leave their side of the court are ones that were appointed by Republicans. When a decision comes down with a 5-4 vote we can instinctively know the swing vote was Kennedy. That is messed up. In a way I like the court with an even number of justices, it insures major cases are not decided based on party lines.
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/08/obama-courts-judicial-legacy-226741 the lower courts have moved towards the center.
I'm in the UK and I've decided to go along to a Liberal Democrat party meeting tonight because politically nobody else seems to want to go forward. The conservatives say we go back to the 50s and labour want us to go back to 80s. I'm finding politics so frustrating right now.