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.

(The Daily Beast)   Since 2010, Americans have voted out of Congress more people for the high crime of chairing a Congressional committee than for nondescript issues like committing massive criminal and ethical violations   (thedailybeast.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Thad Cochran, humans, Citizens for Responsibility, House Administration Committee, Pete Stark, Chris McDaniel, Dan Lungren, House Transportation  
•       •       •

693 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 11:41 PM (1 year ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2014-06-24 10:40:55 PM  
I'd prefer to see congress expel a couple of William Jeffersons.
 
2014-06-24 11:46:34 PM  
This is my shocked face.
 
2014-06-24 11:59:47 PM  
So what your saying is Darryl Issa is next on the chopping block, right?
 
2014-06-25 12:35:06 AM  
...a member of Congress has been more likely to lose reelection if they have chaired a congressional committee than if they have been the subject of an ethics investigation.

Well, that's 16 different flavors of farked up.
 
2014-06-25 12:41:30 AM  
unknown faces make the best case to change a broken institution

And are ironically much more vulnerable to lobbyists because of their inexperience.
 
2014-06-25 01:05:51 AM  
So, stay out of the media spotlight until you are too entrenched to avoid it?

Sounds like every congress critter/ senator with any longevity.
 
2014-06-25 02:16:34 AM  
To be fair, "6 of 78 ethics investigation subjects vs 9 of X committee chairs" isn't a comparable set of numbers.

Was X defined? I didn't see...
 
2014-06-25 02:47:49 AM  

StopLurkListen: To be fair, "6 of 78 ethics investigation subjects vs 9 of X committee chairs" isn't a comparable set of numbers.

Was X defined? I didn't see...


x is 48 or so including select and joint committees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_committee
 
2014-06-25 03:01:05 AM  
That same year, Sen. Bob Bennett, a senior appropriator from Utah, and Sen. Arlen Specter, a former Republican chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee and Senate Veterans Affairs Committee, both lost their primaries as their arguments of seniority fell flat for their parties' base voters who just didn't want them in office anymore, no matter what strings the senators said they could pull in Washington.

To be fair, Specter had some ethics issues.
 
2014-06-25 03:42:58 AM  

StopLurkListen: To be fair, "6 of 78 ethics investigation subjects vs 9 of X committee chairs" isn't a comparable set of numbers.

Was X defined? I didn't see...


There are 47 congressional committees that are permanent-ish.  So the rate of committee chairs losing elections is about three times that of targets of ethics investigations.

That said, some major selection biases here, because you only target people with ethics investigations if you think you  can'tget them to lose an election, so that is a group of stronger re-election contenders because of intentional selection.
 
2014-06-25 03:57:55 AM  
Hmmmm... maybe this is the start of something good. Not the bit about ethics not mattering but Congress should adopt an up and out policy. If you become chair of a committee, you've likely accumulated more power than is good for a single member of a legislative body to possess. So once you accept the chair of a committee, you can not run for re-election. Sure, this might make some less likely to accept a committee chair, but that just means others with less pull will end up in the seat. Power will be distributed and chairs will likely still get filled by someone who is ambitious. Since the chair will change each Congress, they'll only have two years to screw things up and will have no reason to accept campaign contributions from those who wish to influence the committee, though the usual "we have a place on our board for you when you retire" could still happen.
 
2014-06-25 03:59:48 AM  
StopLurkListen: To be fair, "6 of 78 ethics investigation subjects vs 9 of X committee chairs" isn't a comparable set of numbers.

Was X defined? I didn't see...

x is 48 or so including select and joint committees

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_committee

StopLurkListen: To be fair, "6 of 78 ethics investigation subjects vs 9 of X committee chairs" isn't a comparable set of numbers.

Was X defined? I didn't see...

There are 47 congressional committees that are permanent-ish.  So the rate of committee chairs losing elections is about three times that of targets of ethics investigations.

That said, some major selection biases here, because you only target people with ethics investigations if you think you  can'tget them to lose an election, so that is a group of stronger re-election contenders because of intentional selection.


Thanks!  But the time period covers three Congresses (111th through 113th) since the elections in 2010, have all chairs of those committees remained the same? (Almost certainly "no", the 111th was majority Democratic) Also has there been anyone who's served as more than one chair at a time? Or chairs that changed hands mid-Congress?

I think the elections of 2010 are producing a large bias here, since that's when Republicans got majority control of the House. It's more likely that Democrats who lost re-elections in that year are being counted as "chairs who were thrown out" when it's probably more reasonable to describe that they lost because they were Democrats in a year that voters preferred Republicans.

FTFA: "The trend of powerful chairmen getting the boot from unimpressed constituents exploded in 2010, when Republican challengers stunned Democrats by sweeping out four sitting committee chairmen in November's Democratic collapse." Well, that's four of the nine in the sample right there ... Were voters choosing the challengers because of party ID or chair-possession? I don't think anyone can really precisely determine that.
 
2014-06-25 09:23:41 AM  
Obvious tag on vacation?
 
2014-06-25 09:36:30 AM  
This is what happens when you run for government on the platform of destroying government. Doing your job and using government to help people becomes a vice.
 
2014-06-25 09:37:44 AM  
Charlie Rangle appears to have squeaked through and won again, cause ethics?
 
2014-06-25 10:07:38 AM  
Not sure this is such a bad thing. Lots of these ethics investigations are just blatant partisan maneuvering. Meanwhile, being chair of a committee is an important part of the job of being in congress.

So people are ignoring symbolic partisan bickering (within congress anyway) and taking job performance into account.

That's great.

Of course that's not actually a valid conclusion because, as pointed out by others, the sample sizes are not comparable and are heavily skewed by the political tides of 2010.
 
2014-06-25 10:19:33 AM  
So, I'm guessing *ONE* Congresscritter voted out for chairing a committee?
 
2014-06-25 10:29:56 AM  
I was wondering when the Charlie Wrangel butthurt was going to start, even if it's thinly veiled
 
2014-06-25 04:46:28 PM  

monoski: Charlie Rangle appears to have squeaked through and won again, cause ethics?


Identity Politics trumps integrity and everything else for Democrats.
 
2014-06-25 11:58:54 PM  

cretinbob: I was wondering when the Charlie Wrangel butthurt was going to start, even if it's thinly veiled


And Mussolini made the trains run on time so he's cool too.
 
Displayed 20 of 20 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
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