Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   News: Tea Party congressmen face primary challenges. Fark: Because they're too liberal   (slate.com ) divider line 156
    More: Asinine, tea party, Justin Amash, primary challenge, congressman, Scott DesJarlais, Thad McCotter  
•       •       •

4506 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2013 at 3:31 PM (2 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-10-07 03:32:02 PM  
img.fark.net

If this wasn't the case, we wouldn't be in this goddamn mess in the first place.
 
2013-10-07 03:33:40 PM  
This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.
 
2013-10-07 03:36:00 PM  
This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept
 
2013-10-07 03:36:17 PM  
...as long as they receive absolutely no opposition from the left (and they haven't for at least a decade), they'll keep going right and dragging their opposition that way.

/Goddammit, we need an actual leftist party again.
//Hell, at this point I might take a Communist party.
 
2013-10-07 03:38:13 PM  
There is no backlash because their base thinks they are in the right.  On top of that, most normal low information voters that would be against the T party based on these actions, have no idea what is going on. I keep hearing "omg congress just needs to cooperate". No, bad voter. There is no room for cooperation. One side is attempting to bypass the legislative and judicial process, the other is attempting to keep things going as they were voted and ruled upon.

super_grass: This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.



Differenet kinds of intelligence. You can be basically retarded when it comes to common sense or scientific type knowledge and still have the ability to inspire other morons to your cause.
 
2013-10-07 03:38:14 PM  

StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept


See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.
 
2013-10-07 03:39:24 PM  
Because dammit, they can't let those doomsday bunkers go to waste!
 
2013-10-07 03:39:42 PM  

nocturnal001: the T party

 
2013-10-07 03:39:44 PM  

nocturnal001: Differenet kinds of intelligence. You can be basically retarded when it comes to common sense or scientific type knowledge and still have the ability to inspire other morons to your cause.


Typical, another Fark religion bashing thread...
 
2013-10-07 03:40:39 PM  

IlGreven: ...as long as they receive absolutely no opposition from the left (and they haven't for at least a decade), they'll keep going right and dragging their opposition that way.

/Goddammit, we need an actual leftist party again.
//Hell, at this point I might take a Communist party.


The districts that have the most hardened members of the suicide caucus can't be challenged from the left. They represent districts that broke for Romney by about 24 points and broke for their representatives in the House by over 30 points.
 
2013-10-07 03:41:33 PM  
Their supporters want them to drive off the cliff into fiscal ruin.

It's their whole modus operandi, make the government small enough that you can drown it in the bathtub.

Hell, even the guy that came up with that idea when he was 12 has said they've gone too far.
 
2013-10-07 03:43:04 PM  
FTFA:If it's a struggle to find a generic right-wing Tea Partier who's in real danger now, that's because the map-makers wanted it that way

ZOMG IT'S A CARTOGRAPHIC CONSPIRACY
 
2013-10-07 03:43:10 PM  

Serious Black: IlGreven: ...as long as they receive absolutely no opposition from the left (and they haven't for at least a decade), they'll keep going right and dragging their opposition that way.

/Goddammit, we need an actual leftist party again.
//Hell, at this point I might take a Communist party.

The districts that have the most hardened members of the suicide caucus can't be challenged from the left. They represent districts that broke for Romney by about 24 points and broke for their representatives in the House by over 30 points.


...and with that attitude, they'll keep breaking that way.  It's gotten so bad that Boehner ran unopposed in 2012.  He might get a Tea Party challenger, but he must also get a Democratic challenger, even if it's token.
 
2013-10-07 03:43:56 PM  
pervegalit.files.wordpress.com
/dnrtfa
 
2013-10-07 03:44:53 PM  

super_grass: This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.


You admit they wanted this shut down and the subsequent suffering that's coming along with it?
 
2013-10-07 03:45:06 PM  

sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party


Maybe we should start our own Mr. T party where we pity those fools.
 
2013-10-07 03:46:05 PM  

IlGreven: See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections. Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.


If it wouldn't be so bloated, I'd say just turn the nation into one large chunk of 535 at-large districts and let candidates carve out their own constituencies. People go into the booth, vote for up to five out of all the oodles of candidates out there. Top 535 get seated.
 
2013-10-07 03:46:56 PM  

Crotchrocket Slim: super_grass: This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.

You admit they wanted this shut down and the subsequent suffering that's coming along with it?


Historically, fascist pieces of trash have been fairly effective at getting into office and causing massive suffering, while at the same time being violent, short-sighted idiots.
 
2013-10-07 03:47:22 PM  
435 because durr hurr i am disappoint at numbers
 
2013-10-07 03:48:51 PM  

IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.


Which works as long as the parties can keep their candidates in line - if you get 4 democrats and 2 republicans running in an area and they split the vote roughly evenly (So something like R1=24% R2=22% D1=16% D2=15%, D3=13%, D4=10%), you end up with two republicans in the final ballot, even though with a primary system one of the Democrats would have won easily.

Essentially such a system would boil down to the party picking one candidate to run, and cracking down on anyone affiliated running without the party say so, effectively reducing the options the voter has and increasing the power of the parties over the individual politicians.
 
2013-10-07 03:49:10 PM  

IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.


we do this in Washington State.
its called a top two primary system.
So yes, you could end up with two republicans at the top of the ballot.  They made a small effort to do this with the Senate race against Patty Murray in 2010  where you had a typical* Tea Party type and a sniveling big business suck up as the top contenders.

*by typical, I mean the usual, "Government hand outs are bad and destroying the company, except for the $273,000 in farm subsidies I took.  But I wont do it anymore." type of asshole hypocrite.
 
2013-10-07 03:49:36 PM  
 No room for weak kneed Libruls in the Tea Party. They see a bright golden dawn on the horizon and people like that would just get in the way.
 
2013-10-07 03:49:54 PM  

IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.


We actually have this in Washington state. It's not ideal, as a large number of competitors from one side of the political spectrum can split the vote and lead to the general being between the two guys from the other side.

That said, you're right about segregated primaries (with turnout mostly from highly partisan voters) leading to radicalization of general election candidates, and I haven't thought of a better solution than the top-two primary myself. We're definitely up against the Arrow theorem here.
 
2013-10-07 03:50:00 PM  
Too liberal = not crazy/frothing/batshiat enough
 
2013-10-07 03:51:05 PM  

bdub77: sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party

Maybe we should start our own Mr. T party where we pity those fools.


I am already out campaigning.
 
2013-10-07 03:51:17 PM  
These aren't "Tea Party" congressmen. There is no "Tea Party". Every one of these assholes is a Republican, who ran for office with "R" next to their name after winning the Republican primary. They apparently have the full support of the Republican party leadership who refuse to bring a clean CR to the floor. They also have the full support of the rest of the Republican House, who refuse to sign a discharge petition that would allow a very conservative CR to go to a vote.
 
2013-10-07 03:51:21 PM  

IlGreven: Serious Black: IlGreven: ...as long as they receive absolutely no opposition from the left (and they haven't for at least a decade), they'll keep going right and dragging their opposition that way.

/Goddammit, we need an actual leftist party again.
//Hell, at this point I might take a Communist party.

The districts that have the most hardened members of the suicide caucus can't be challenged from the left. They represent districts that broke for Romney by about 24 points and broke for their representatives in the House by over 30 points.

...and with that attitude, they'll keep breaking that way. It's gotten so bad that Boehner ran unopposed in 2012.  He might get a Tea Party challenger, but he must also get a Democratic challenger, even if it's token.


Huelskamp won his election in 2010 with 73% of the vote. The last time (and ONLY time dating back to 1875) a Democratic Party member represented his district was back when Eisenhower was president. Trust me, it's impossible in these districts.
 
2013-10-07 03:52:03 PM  
They're going to keep purging themselves until the only candidate left who can make it through the primaries is a vial of George Wallace's preserved sperm.
 
2013-10-07 03:52:37 PM  

Serious Black: IlGreven: ...as long as they receive absolutely no opposition from the left (and they haven't for at least a decade), they'll keep going right and dragging their opposition that way.

/Goddammit, we need an actual leftist party again.
//Hell, at this point I might take a Communist party.

The districts that have the most hardened members of the suicide caucus can't be challenged from the left. They represent districts that broke for Romney by about 24 points and broke for their representatives in the House by over 30 points.


Hell my district cannot have a challenge from the left and Romney only won the district by 4.  The closest I have ever seen was a +15 when the seat changed by retirement.  Ever sence it was +25R.... and that is the way the dem legislature want it.
 
2013-10-07 03:53:03 PM  

sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party


Yeah?

So people can call the Democratic party "The Democrat Party" all day long but when I decide to be lazy and not type out "Tea" and it's news?
 
2013-10-07 03:55:18 PM  

nocturnal001: sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party

Yeah?

So people can call the Democratic party "The Democrat Party" all day long but when I decide to be lazy and not type out "Tea" and it's news?


Tea Party is a far-right political movement. T Party is a Taylor Swift concert afterparty. Leeeeeeeettle bit of a difference there.
 
2013-10-07 03:56:13 PM  

nocturnal001: sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party

Yeah?

So people can call the Democratic party "The Democrat Party"  "the democrat party" all day long but when I decide to be lazy and not type out "Tea" and it's news?

 
2013-10-07 03:56:40 PM  

Elegy: FTFA:If it's a struggle to find a generic right-wing Tea Partier who's in real danger now, that's because the map-makers wanted it that way

ZOMG IT'S A CARTOGRAPHIC CONSPIRACY


Actrually, let's a well-farking documented districting conspiracy that has resulted in gerrymandered districts that ensure Republican representatives are elected even if more Democrats in the state and country vote.
 
2013-10-07 03:57:27 PM  

Pants full of macaroni!!: nocturnal001: sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party

Yeah?

So people can call the Democratic party "The Democrat Party"  "the democrat party" "the dumbocrats" all day long but when I decide to be lazy and not type out "Tea" and it's news?

 
2013-10-07 03:57:30 PM  
Well, really the point of the article was that Tea Partiers are gerrymandered into safety in an overwhelming amount of districts, and the four cases in the original piece are outliers.
 
2013-10-07 03:59:22 PM  

sprawl15: Pants full of macaroni!!: nocturnal001: sprawl15: nocturnal001: the T party

Yeah?

So people can call the Democratic party "The Democrat Party"  "the democrat party" "the dumbocrats" "commulist libfarts" all day long but when I decide to be lazy and not type out "Tea" and it's news?

 
2013-10-07 03:59:23 PM  

nocturnal001: There is no backlash because their base thinks they are in the right.  On top of that, most normal low information voters that would be against the T party based on these actions, have no idea what is going on. I keep hearing "omg congress just needs to cooperate". No, bad voter. There is no room for cooperation. One side is attempting to bypass the legislative and judicial process, the other is attempting to keep things going as they were voted and ruled upon.

super_grass: This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.


Differenet kinds of intelligence. You can be basically retarded when it comes to common sense or scientific type knowledge and still have the ability to inspire other morons to your cause.


That explains FOX News.
 
2013-10-07 03:59:44 PM  
Has anyone actually read TFA? The whole article is about dismantling the claim that subby is trying to make.  It's all of four people, one of whom didn't enter Congress with the "Tea Party" wave, and another is facing pressure because of sex scandals.
 
2013-10-07 04:01:53 PM  

Mithiwithi: IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.

We actually have this in Washington state. It's not ideal, as a large number of competitors from one side of the political spectrum can split the vote and lead to the general being between the two guys from the other side.

That said, you're right about segregated primaries (with turnout mostly from highly partisan voters) leading to radicalization of general election candidates, and I haven't thought of a better solution than the top-two primary myself. We're definitely up against the Arrow theorem here.


Instant Runoff is pretty good. Every voter picks first/second/third choice candidates. The last-place guy is eliminated, and his votes get allocated to the voters' second-choice candidates. Repeat the process until someone has 50%+1 votes.

For example:
A gets 1,000 votes
B gets 1,000 votes
C gets 750 votes
D gets 500 votes
E gets 250 votes.

E gets eliminated, so his 250 get allocated to their second-choice candidates.
A has 1,050
B has 1,050
C has 800
D has 600

D gets eliminated, same process
A has 1,050
B has 1,550
C has 900

C gets eliminated.
A has 1,250
B has 2,250

B wins.
 
2013-10-07 04:02:35 PM  

sweetmelissa31: They're going to keep purging themselves until the only candidate left who can make it through the primaries is a vial of George Wallace's preserved sperm.


That's a particularly disturbing mental image.
 
2013-10-07 04:03:17 PM  
Of course they're not facing much of a backlash.

Gerrymandered districts have resulted in most of these tea-party reps coming from districts engineered to be ruby red.

The (large) part of the American public pissed off at the tea party folks does not live in these districts.
 
2013-10-07 04:04:30 PM  
That's how people drawing that maps want it.  In the primaries you only have the diehards vote, for Republicans that means Tea Party and the like.  And then the district as so safe generic R beats generic D in the general.  (Same is true for some Democratic seats as well).  It's the reason people that live 200 miles away from me are in my Congressional district but people who live 20 miles from me aren't.   Two cycles ago, the district went blue, so when the maps were redrawn we got another 50 or 60 miles of red counties to ensure that didn't happen again.  Do the horse farms in the northern part of the state share anything with the southern part of the state, nope.  But here we are.

/VA-5
//if you look it up, make sure its the new map from NC to north of I-66 around Upperville.
 
2013-10-07 04:04:35 PM  

Rhino_man: Mithiwithi: IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.

We actually have this in Washington state. It's not ideal, as a large number of competitors from one side of the political spectrum can split the vote and lead to the general being between the two guys from the other side.

That said, you're right about segregated primaries (with turnout mostly from highly partisan voters) leading to radicalization of general election candidates, and I haven't thought of a better solution than the top-two primary myself. We're definitely up against the Arrow theorem here.

Instant Runoff is pretty good. Every voter picks first/second/third choice candidates. The last-place guy is eliminated, and his votes get allocated to the voters' second-choice candidates. Repeat the process until someone has 50%+1 votes.

For example:
A gets 1,000 votes
B gets 1,000 votes
C gets 750 votes
D gets 500 votes
E gets 250 votes.

E gets eliminated, so his 250 get allocated to their second-choice candidates.
A has 1,050
B has 1,050
C has 800
D has 600

D gets eliminated, same process
A has 1,050
B has 1,550
C has 900

C gets eliminated.
A has 1,250
B has 2,250

B wins.


Yeah, but the rubes won't understand it, so it'll never be put in place. Sad but true. It would be seen as some type of rigged system.
 
2013-10-07 04:04:47 PM  
Fix gerrymandering and you fix a whole host of problems with what is wrong in Washington.
 
2013-10-07 04:04:55 PM  
Republicans are afraid of a vote on this because they want to pretend to Teatards the would have voted "no" and pretend to pro-business Republicans that they would have votes "Yes". So they are afraid to actually go on the record.
 
2013-10-07 04:06:13 PM  

Mithiwithi: IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.

We actually have this in Washington state. It's not ideal, as a large number of competitors from one side of the political spectrum can split the vote and lead to the general being between the two guys from the other side.

That said, you're right about segregated primaries (with turnout mostly from highly partisan voters) leading to radicalization of general election candidates, and I haven't thought of a better solution than the top-two primary myself. We're definitely up against the Arrow theorem here.


Some professional organizations use an unlimited-vote system.

If there are 6 people voting for office, you can vote for anywhere from 0 to 6 of them.  If you feel strongly positive about one or more candidates, you vote for them.  If you feel strongly *negative* about one or more candidates, you vote for everybody *except* them.  Helps to keep the loons and the single-issue candidates out.

I'd like to see that done in primaries.  2008 - I'm not sure if I prefer Obama, Richardson, or Biden - but I sure as hell don't want Clinton or Kucinich or Edwards.
 
2013-10-07 04:06:58 PM  

Doc Daneeka: Fix gerrymandering and you fix a whole host of problems with what is wrong in Washington.


Easier said ten done however. If you draw up lines one way or another then it can be gerrymandered.

California has passed it so at least it's not as political for the process.
 
2013-10-07 04:07:37 PM  

super_grass: This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.


Dumb and inept they are, but they are dumb and inept with power because dumb and inept people put them there.
 
2013-10-07 04:08:00 PM  

super_grass: This thread is where we mock the Tea Party for being dumb and inept yet keep getting what they want at the same time.


So the Department of Education has been disbanded? Abortion is illegal? The Paul Ryan budget is the baseline funding level? Obama was impeached and deported to Kenya?
 
2013-10-07 04:08:42 PM  

FrancoFile: Mithiwithi: IlGreven: StreetlightInTheGhetto: This is why I now vote in Republican primaries, even though I'd rather vote for Dems with balls.  It's between "try to reign in the crazy" and "actually make progress", which is a pretty f--king sorry state of affairs.

/registered independent
//get to choose which I want to vote in
///crazy concept

See, I think this is why our election system is broken: Segregated primary elections.  Put all the names on one ballot, take the party affiliations off the ballot, and let the two highest vote-getters and anyone else that gets 20% of the vote onto the general ballot, and let the general be the runoff.

We actually have this in Washington state. It's not ideal, as a large number of competitors from one side of the political spectrum can split the vote and lead to the general being between the two guys from the other side.

That said, you're right about segregated primaries (with turnout mostly from highly partisan voters) leading to radicalization of general election candidates, and I haven't thought of a better solution than the top-two primary myself. We're definitely up against the Arrow theorem here.

Some professional organizations use an unlimited-vote system.

If there are 6 people voting for office, you can vote for anywhere from 0 to 6 of them.  If you feel strongly positive about one or more candidates, you vote for them.  If you feel strongly *negative* about one or more candidates, you vote for everybody *except* them.  Helps to keep the loons and the single-issue candidates out.

I'd like to see that done in primaries.  2008 - I'm not sure if I prefer Obama, Richardson, or Biden - but I sure as hell don't want Clinton or Kucinich or Edwards.


That's approval voting.
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report