Perdue: Cancel congressional elections

[Parkbandit]

North Carolina Gov. Bev Perdue has an odd idea to promote economic recovery – to suspend congressional elections for two years:

Speaking to a Cary rotary club today, N.C. Gov. Bev Perdue suggested suspending Congressional elections for two years so that Congress can focus on economic recovery and not the next election.

"I think we ought to suspend, perhaps, elections for Congress for two years and just tell them we won't hold it against them, whatever decisions they make, to just let them help this country recover. I really hope that someone can agree with me on that," Perdue said. "You want people who don't worry about the next election."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0911/Perdue_Cancel_congressional_elections.html?showall

Suspending the constitution has always worked in other countries.. maybe it will work here too!

[Gan]

LOL

[Cephalopod]

I believe this is a good case for mandatory, frequent IQ and drug testing for all government officials.

[Parkbandit]

Even better is the damage control spin... they are claiming she was kidding.

[Cephalopod]

They need to send her to Guam so it can capsize.

[Parkbandit]

They need to send her to Guam so it can capsize.

Hehehe.

[Warriorbird]

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract

[Kembal]

Well, you can't say that she said it to help Democrats out. The Democrats are in the minority in the House...they want the election to happen.

She's not getting re-elected, that's for sure.

[Parkbandit]

Well, you can't say that she said it to help Democrats out. The Democrats are in the minority in the House...they want the election to happen.

She's not getting re-elected, that's for sure.

You believe the Democrats in Congress want the elections to happen? Source?

Republicans have the opportunity to take even more seats in the House in 2012.. which would mean many of the Democrats will be looking for a job. I doubt many of them are looking forward to this next election cycle.

[Parkbandit]

http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract

You might want to listen to the clip... she's dead serious and there's no laughter in the audience.

[Warriorbird]

You might want to listen to the clip... she's dead serious and there's no laughter in the audience.

http://media2.newsobserver.com/smedia/2011/09/28/10/28/11veHD.So.156.mp3

Some commotion, about it. Then again, the recording's on a cell. Slightly more context than "ZOMG socialist takeover!" though.

[Androidpk]

I recommend we crush up the constitution, sprinkle it into a fat blunt, and smoke it. That way we can summon the spirits of our forefathers and they can help us write a new one.

[Parkbandit]

There was no "commotion" in that recording.. just quiet audience noise during the entire "joke". No laughter, no clapping, no nothing. There was no indication in her voice that she was joking.. there was no punchline, no inflection.. her tone was the same from beginning to end.

So, you honestly believe she was being sarcastic and it didn't translate well?

[Gan]

Its called strategic downplay.

[g++]

I recommend we crush up the constitution, sprinkle it into a fat blunt, and smoke it. That way we can summon the spirits of our forefathers and they can help us write a new one.

That would be awsome. It should be written entirely on a mobile phone.

[Warriorbird]

There was no "commotion" in that recording.. just quiet audience noise during the entire "joke". No laughter, no clapping, no nothing. There was no indication in her voice that she was joking.. there was no punchline, no inflection.. her tone was the same from beginning to end.

So, you honestly believe she was being sarcastic and it didn't translate well?

I believe there's a big difference in "what might be needed for Congress not to suck" and ZOMG suspend Constitution! It isn't satire if they spun it as that though, that's silly.

I'd just read the article.

[Parkbandit]

I believe there's a big difference in "what might be needed for Congress not to suck" and ZOMG suspend Constitution! It isn't satire if they spun it as that though, that's silly.

I'd just read the article.

You do understand the implications for suspending Congressional elections.. right?

I understand your incessant need to excuse any and all bad behavior from Democrats.. but even you can't possibly be dumb enough to believe she was just kidding around during this speech.

Maybe I'm giving you way too much credit...

[Warriorbird]

You do understand the implications for suspending Congressional elections.. right?

I understand your incessant need to excuse any and all bad behavior from Democrats.. but even you can't possibly be dumb enough to believe she was just kidding around during this speech.

Maybe I'm giving you way too much credit...

You missed that I did actually listen to the clip.

The implications would be total fucking Washington gridlock and nothing getting done and America sliding into the abyss. IE: What Republicans want. I think she thinks it might make Congress not suck so bad. You agree with her in that Congress sucks. I also agree, though I don't think it'd help.

The lulzy conspiracy theorist in you might go ZOMG DEMOCRATIC TAKEOVER but we both know it wouldn't function like that and if you did listen to the clip you could tell she didn't mean it like that. You're not crb, even if you pretend.

[Parkbandit]

You missed that I did actually listen to the clip.

The implications would be total fucking Washington gridlock and nothing getting done and America sliding into the abyss. IE: What Republicans want. I think she thinks it might make Congress not suck so bad. You agree with her in that Congress sucks. I also agree, though I don't think it'd help.

So, just so I can nail you down on your position... you believe she was joking when she said that.. and your evidence is the commotion in the audience from the audio clip you linked?

Is that correct?

[Warriorbird]

So, just so I can nail you down on your position... you believe she was joking when she said that.. and your evidence is the commotion in the audience from the audio clip you linked?

Is that correct?

I believed she was joking because I hadn't listened to it.

I listened to it and I believe she didn't think it would seriously happen, but was expressing dissatisfaction at Congress.

Much like, oh, most of America.

Congress is pretty much election devoted.

Now you're playing CRB.

ZOMG DEMOCRAT TAKEOVER!

[Parkbandit]

I believed she was joking because I hadn't listened to it.

I listened to it and I believe she didn't think it would seriously happen, but was expressing dissatisfaction at Congress.

Much like, oh, most of America.

Congress is pretty much election devoted.

Now you're playing CRB.

ZOMG DEMOCRAT TAKEOVER!

No, that is your simple deflection from the point. My reason to post this story was to point out how dumb she is.. and how pathetic people are to make the claim that she was just joking around.

Thank you for illustrating my point to perfection.

[crb]

This is awesome, I can participate in a thread without wasting time posting!

Thanks WB!

(by the by, I'm a firm believer in the constitution and I don't like it when any party wants to fuck with it. Like Republicans with flag burning laws/amendments. When they tried that in the 90s I hated it so much I sent in (and had published) letters to the editor in a regional paper).

[Kembal]

You believe the Democrats in Congress want the elections to happen? Source?

Republicans have the opportunity to take even more seats in the House in 2012.. which would mean many of the Democrats will be looking for a job. I doubt many of them are looking forward to this next election cycle.

...

PB, simple probability theory says that its more likely for the Republicans to lose seats this year than the Democrats, because they have the majority of seats.

There's very few Dems left in swing districts. They all lost in 2010.

[Parkbandit]

...

PB, simple probability theory says that its more likely for the Republicans to lose seats this year than the Democrats, because they have the majority of seats.

There's very few Dems left in swing districts. They all lost in 2010.

You might want to look at the actual polling data... especially after NY 9th District loss. Or are you considering that a swing district too?

[crb]

You might want to look at the actual polling data... especially after NY 9th District loss. Or are you considering that a swing district too?

http://www.pacersdigest.com/apache2-default/images/smilies/burn.gif

[Warriorbird]

Way to ignore all the other circumstances RE: that seat.

[Parkbandit]

Way to ignore all the other circumstances RE: that seat.

You mean, like 3 to 1 Democrat advantage?

Or that it was the first time 1922 that a Republican held that seat?

Yea...

Now, back on topic.. I saw this on Drudge and thought of you:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/WB.jpg

[Warriorbird]

You mean, like 3 to 1 Democrat advantage?

Or that it was the first time 1922 that a Republican held that seat?

Yea...

Now, back on topic.. I saw this on Drudge and thought of you:

http://i36.photobucket.com/albums/e6/belike53/WB.jpg

Still missing it.

Heavily Jewish district and the Democrat running said dumb stuff about Israel.

Pitch on the seat being dissolved and its a great protest vote.... by Jews against an exceptionally dumb Jewish Democrat who they felt betrayed them.

You won't hear about it in the conservative media.

[Traelin]

TLDR version - blame it on the Jews!

[Stanley Burrell]

::briefly pauses from drinking the blood of Christians::

Oh, that was me, my bad. Shabbot Shalom.

[Parkbandit]

Still missing it.

Heavily Jewish district and the Democrat running said dumb stuff about Israel.

Pitch on the seat being dissolved and its a great protest vote.... by Jews against an exceptionally dumb Jewish Democrat who they felt betrayed them.

You won't hear about it in the conservative media.

Obama wasn't running for election in that district.. and he hasn't claimed to be Jewish (yet).. but everything else was spot on about him.

[Tgo01]

In other news a Gallup survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149759/Democrats-Dispirited-Voting-2012.aspx) indicates Democrats' relative enthusiasm about voting is lowest in a decade.

[Parkbandit]

In other news a Gallup survey (http://www.gallup.com/poll/149759/Democrats-Dispirited-Voting-2012.aspx) indicates Democrats' relative enthusiasm about voting is lowest in a decade.

That's Bush's fault.

[Tgo01]

That's Bush's fault.

Oh yeah.

[Latrinsorm]

I would love to see enthusiasm broken down by candidate - see if the Democrats believe in a Democratic challenger and see the Republicans' relative despisal per Republican candidate.

[Kembal]

You might want to look at the actual polling data... especially after NY 9th District loss. Or are you considering that a swing district too?

And the Republicans lost a few special election seats before that one. Using special elections for the House to derive the mood of the entire nation's voting populace isn't a valid statistical comparison. (special elections are low-turnout, only one district, etc.) The odds of NY-9 surviving redistricting are about zero anyway. (and it was that way even before Weiner resigned, which is why almost everyone expected him to run for NYC mayor. Well, before it came out about what he thought Twitter was used for.)

The Republicans hold more swing districts. They have more to lose in an election than the Dems at this point.

[Parkbandit]

And the Republicans lost a few special election seats before that one. Using special elections for the House to derive the mood of the entire nation's voting populace isn't a valid statistical comparison. (special elections are low-turnout, only one district, etc.) The odds of NY-9 surviving redistricting are about zero anyway. (and it was that way even before Weiner resigned, which is why almost everyone expected him to run for NYC mayor. Well, before it came out about what he thought Twitter was used for.)

The Republicans hold more swing districts. They have more to lose in an election than the Dems at this point.

I tell you what.. continue to ignore the polls. When the Republicans take control of the Senate and increase their numbers in the House, come back and tell us how historic the win was for the Republicans.

Or, if the Republicans lose more seats than they gained.. you should simply explain to us that it was inevitable because of the number of seats they already controlled.. that it really was very improbable that they could win more seats.

I have a feeling though.. you will somehow downplay their historic win or proclaim the Republicans done if they lose some seats.

[Warriorbird]

I tell you what.. continue to ignore the polls. When the Republicans take control of the Senate and increase their numbers in the House, come back and tell us how historic the win was for the Republicans.

Or, if the Republicans lose more seats than they gained.. you should simply explain to us that it was inevitable because of the number of seats they already controlled.. that it really was very improbable that they could win more seats.

I have a feeling though.. you will somehow downplay their historic win or proclaim the Republicans done if they lose some seats.

It would be a historic win if they gained a lot of seats. Proclaiming a "historic win" pre election makes you sound like crb. Political homerism.

[Parkbandit]

It would be a historic win if they gained a lot of seats. Proclaiming a "historic win" pre election makes you sound like crb. Political homerism.

You seem to have a real hardon for crb lately. Take it to PMs. Stop fantasizing that other guys are him.

[Kembal]

I tell you what.. continue to ignore the polls. When the Republicans take control of the Senate and increase their numbers in the House, come back and tell us how historic the win was for the Republicans.

Or, if the Republicans lose more seats than they gained.. you should simply explain to us that it was inevitable because of the number of seats they already controlled.. that it really was very improbable that they could win more seats.

I have a feeling though.. you will somehow downplay their historic win or proclaim the Republicans done if they lose some seats.

If the net change in seats in the House in either direction is more than 10, it will be a very big deal either way. That doesn't change statistical odds of which party is more likely to lose seats.

As for the Senate, I expect control to flip in the Senate just simply because of odds (22 Democratic seats up for election as opposed to 10 Republican seats, plus Joe Lieberman's seat), but you can plausibly come up with a scenario where the Dems hold onto control, 51-49.

I'm not really giving any weight to polls at this point, 14 months before the election.