will there be a war?

God, I hope so!

NY-23 results last night show ya why. Had the Republicans left well enough alone, they would have held on to a seat that they've had for over a century. Instead, purity tests by party activists - who's politics didn't resemble that of the area - doomed their candidate and propelled the Dem to victory.

Cycloptichorn

The next point to watch is voter registration in NY-23. Rush and company basically told a lot of moderate Republicans in that district to stuff it. Will they continue to be Republicans or will they switch to independent? It's clear that only far right candidates will emerge from Republican primaries there. Will the moderates continue to take abuse and vote for the abusers?

Hard to say. I think it serves as a real warning to Conservatives that their third-party dreams are half-baked right now; without the infrastructure, and without some sort of unity amongst the non-progressive crowd, they can't get candidates elected, even within their traditional strongholds.

Cycloptichorn

I see fractures in the Republican party as a dangerous possibility, too. On the other hand, where would we go? I have noticed some Democrat dissatisfaction with Obama on at least a few issues. What if they had known ahead of time? I do not believe they would have switched votes to McCain/Palin. MeCain, maybe. McCain/Palin, no.

I was a miner
I was a docker
I was a railway man
Between the wars
I raised a family
In times of austerity
With sweat at the foundry
Between the wars

I paid the union and as times got harder
I looked to the government to help the working man
And they brought prosperity down at the armoury
"We're arming for peace me boys"
Between the wars

I kept the faith and I kept voting
Not for the iron fist but for the helping hand
For theirs is a land with a wall around it
And mine is a faith in my fellow man
Theirs is a land of hope and glory
Mine is the green field and the factory floor
Theirs are the skies all dark with bombers
And mine is the peace we knew
Between the wars

Call up the craftsmen
Bring me the draughtsmen
Build me a path from cradle to grave
And I'll give my consent
To any government
That does not deny a man a living wage

Go find the young men never to fight again
Bring up the banners from the days gone by
Sweet moderation
Heart of this nation
Desert us not, we are
Between the wars

People of all stripes are in a quandry. The two parties are not in synch with what voters want. What can you do, with no place else to put a vote?

Pick the lesser of two evils, same as always.

Anyway, I don't see either you or I running for office, and if you did, I would have to vote against you. Not you, but your politics.

Jeez, roger. I would elect you dog catcher in a heartbeat.

Right now, I would accept.

This is clearly false.

Why?

ebp believes you can, no, have to find at least one thing to admire in a candidate

i always vote for the one with the nicest hair

Parties have to offer the voters what the voters want. They are competing for votes... which means the voters (on whom the parties depend) are responsible for what they get.

I am certainly happy with my representatives (Democrats all)-- in fact, most people are happy with their representatives of one party or the other.

Well, there's an oddity. Most people do reelect their representatives, but very few are satisfied with congress in general. We continue to pick the least worse choice. Parties have to offer the voters just enough promises to look a little better than the other party.

That's a cop out. If you don't pick the best choice-- whose fault is that?

There are primaries in each party-- pretty much any position that has any representation in the electorate is present in the primaries (anti-war, single payer health care, guns in schools, criminalizing flag burning). If you can't get someone who represents you reasonably well elected in either party-- maybe it means you are outside of the manstream.

Then there are third parties. If a third party gets a majority of voters-- they win (just the same as any party).

Voters have the power to change the current system. Voters are responsible for the current system. And... parties clearly adjust their positions to the will of voters.

You are the problem (if there is a problem).

what a magical world you live in, are there unicorns and pixies

the theory of what you say is true and it must work in some places, but then there is this place called reality

This is an oft quoted comment, but it has a fundamental flaw. Most people are happy with their representative and unhappy with Congress. As long as their guy brings home the bacon, great. It's all the other guys (that they don't vote for) that they are unhappy with.

Maybe that is because we are responsible for voting for our representative. Ya think?

My Gosh ebrown we agree again. At least to the extent that most voters are satisfied with the candidates they vote for. Surely some people detest all of the available candidates and simply don't vote, but I suspect they are a small number.

This nonsense about civil wars within either of the main parties has been trotted out before and has never amounted to anything.

As for NY 23, DeDe S. is not a moderate Republican, she is a liberal. She is well to the left of Snowe and Collins. She should be a Democrat and probably will become one soon.

Right wing pundits and political figures didn't force her out of the race. They were also unable to force the GOP to withdraw their support of her

Hoffman didn't lose the election because he is perceived to be the personification of extreme right wing ideology and as much as left wingers would like to interpret his loss as some sign of calamity that overwhelmed far more significant GOP wins in VA and NJ, it just isn't the case.

Every third party candidate (no matter what their stripes) has to overcome inherent barriers relative to the mechanics of voting. Throw in the fact that Scarafozza (sp?) was on the ballot as the Republican candidate, even though she effectively withdrew, and it was tougher for Hoffman still.

More to the point though, Hoffman is a very unattractive candidate. I couldn't tell you what his position is on any topic, but I'll accept that he must be some sort of "conservative" based on the backing he got, but after seeing him live on TV last night, I can imagine why a lot of people would not vote for him irrespective of his positions: He is very creepy. He looks like Jerry Mahoney with glasses and has less of a personality.

There were candidates in the NJ primaries that were more "ideologically pure" than Christie, but neither the GOP nor the right-wing luminaries withdrew their support of him, and the same thing will happen in 2010 primaries across the nation.

Again, Scarafozza was not a moderate Republican she was a liberal. Conservatives are not going to support liberals anymore than liberals will support conservatives.

For those of you trying to stir the pot, did the Democrats abandon Lieberman because he was too "moderate?"