Democrats now have 60 Senators

[Michael]

Pennsylvannia Senator Arlen Specter has officially announced that he will seek to stand as the Democratic Party candidate when his term ends in 2010. In the meantime, he will caucus with the Democratic Party.

This is huge news, although not entirely unexpected. Specter has run into trouble trying to be a moderate Republican and was going to be challenged by (Club for Growth ex-president) Pat Toomey in a Republican primary for 2010. Toomey was likely to win that challenge, though would be expected to lose the seat to whoever the Democrats ran against him (as the state has been trending heavily Democratic over the last few years).

Specter is generally very popular in Pennsylvannia and is expected to easily be re-elected under the Democratic party label.

I'm personally no fan of Specter, but this is a smart move by Specter and the Democratic Party.

Here's Specter's official statement (http://politicspa.com/Specter%20Switches.htm?ref=fp1)

(actually, the Democrats now have 59 seated Senators due to the Republicans effectively using the courts to block the seating of Senator Frankin in Minnesota)

[partofme]

I wonder if there is a chance Olympia Snow will do this at some point.

[Michael]

I wonder if there is a chance Olympia Snow will do this at some point.
She isn't under the same pressures, so I'd say no.

If she was in danger of losing a Republican primary to a hard-right candidate, then yes, the same scenario could play out as the hard-right candidate would certainly loose in a general election in Maine.

I don't see any possibility of a credible 'hard-right' primary challenge to Snow in Maine. Without one, there's no personal need for her to switch parties. Besides, she isn't very much of a Democrat (nor is Specter for that matter - just that the Republican party is becoming increasingly intolerant of moderate Republicans).

[Donkey]

She isn't under the same pressures, so I'd say no.

If she was in danger of losing a Republican primary to a hard-right candidate, then yes, the same scenario could play out as the hard-right candidate would certainly loose in a general election in Maine.

I don't see any possibility of a credible 'hard-right' primary challenge to Snow in Maine. Without one, there's no personal need for her to switch parties. Besides, she isn't very much of a Democrat (nor is Specter for that matter - just that the Republican party is becoming increasingly intolerant of moderate Republicans).
It seems to me that the Democrats came to the center to regain power in Congress. The Republicans seem to be taking the opposite approach. I'm no "way of the Whigs" forecaster, but it does seem the wrong way to go about it.

[Michael]

Btw, for anyone who is curious about all the talk of 'bipartisanship' and how the US has become polarized along partisan lines, I personally think that's bullcrap.

Fact is, 'bipartisanship' existed in the past due to party labels being associated with regions instead of ideology. Traditionally, the Democratic party has included a significantly large number of conservative southern Senators that were entirely at odds with the rest of the Democratic party and had much in common with local Republicans.

Likewise, the Republican party has in the past included a significantly large number of moderate-centerist types mostly in the Northeast region - that were entirely at odds with the rest of the Republican party and had much in common with local Democrats.

Because of this fact, it was very easy for Democrats to get some Republican support for any given policy (from moderate NE Republicans) and likewise, it was very easy for Republicans to get some support for any given policy (from conservative southern Democrats). Thus, the myth of 'bipartisanship' was born. It was nothing more than a quirk of geography.

Now 99% of the old conservative southern Democrats are gone (except Byrd), and 99% of the old moderate northeastern Republicans are gone (Snow is probably the last one standing). Meaning, the old method of fake 'bipartisanship' is dead.

In other words, there is no actual history of any real 'bipartisanship' in Washington. It is as it has always been - the difference now is that the party labels are actually much more accurate or representative of ideology and the illusion of bipartisanship has evaporated in the process.

[Michael]

It seems to me that the Democrats came to the center to regain power in Congress. The Republicans seem to be taking the opposite approach. I'm no "way of the Whigs" forecaster, but it does seem the wrong way to go about it.
Fact is, the Democratic party in Congress has shifted notably to the left over the last dozen years (away from the center).

Arguably, the Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 because they had become too rightwing-centerist - and gained it back only because of Bush-hatred and the Iraq War.

Fact is, the Democratic party has never been very 'leftwing' - rather it has always been rather centerist. It is only now that it is actually shifting to the left.

The right of course is shifting from 'far-right' to 'extreme-right' and that's electoral suicide (but common for parties that haven't come to grips with a major electoral defeat - once they lose another couple of elections, they'll probably get the hint that 'more rightward' isn't the best policy).

[partofme]

It seems to me that the Democrats came to the center to regain power in Congress. The Republicans seem to be taking the opposite approach. I'm no "way of the Whigs" forecaster, but it does seem the wrong way to go about it.

I think that's a winning strategy for some candidates in some areas but not for most of the country and not anywhere in the long term. Here in Kentucky the tea party/religious right strategy is actually doing really well unfortunately.

[drgoodtrips]

I think that's a winning strategy for some candidates in some areas but not for most of the country and not anywhere in the long term. Here in Kentucky the tea party/religious right strategy is actually doing really well unfortunately.

But what does it matter? Instead of electing a Republican in a 70-30 ratio, they'll really crank up the heat and elect a Republican 80-20? :shrug:

[partofme]

But what does it matter? Instead of electing a Republican in a 70-30 ratio, they'll really crank up the heat and elect a Republican 80-20? :shrug:

I guess it doesn't matter to most people but since I live here it effects in terms of state and local government. Even little things like having to drive twenty miles to buy some beer drive me nuts and it hasn't changed mainly through the influence of local churches in politics.

[Michael]

I guess it doesn't matter to most people but since I live here it effects in terms of state and local government. Even little things like having to drive twenty miles to buy some beer drive me nuts and it hasn't changed mainly through the influence of local churches in politics.
You have to drive 20 miles to buy beer? :eek:

Do you live in a 'dry' county or something?

I have three beer stores (that's what we call them up here "The Beer Store") and two liquor stores within walking distance of my place. That's not including bars. I also have a 24 hour restaurant, 24 hour corner store and 24 hour grocery store - all within close walking distance. There's a reason I like to live in the city! :)

[partofme]

You have to drive 20 miles to buy beer? :eek:

Do you live in a 'dry' county or something?

I have three beer stores (that's what we call them up here "The Beer Store") and two liquor stores within walking distance of my place. That's not including bars. I also have a 24 hour restaurant, 24 hour corner store and 24 hour grocery store - all within close walking distance. There's a reason I like to live in the city! :)

It used to be a dry county but now it's what is called moist. A few years ago it got passed that restaurants that seat at least 60 people can serve alcohol as long as it doesn't add up to more than 20% of their revenue. Other than that for any alcohol I have to drive down to Tennessee for the closest place to get beer. To actually buy beer here in Kentucky I have to drive about 40 minutes. The only reason it got passed to have sales in restaurants is because there is a state university in this county which gave it a big bump. There are similar laws restricting the sell of any sort of pornography although the internet pretty much took care of that one.

[Michael]

We had a small section of Toronto's west end that was 'dry' up until the late 1970's - there were huge bars and liquor stores right on either end of the border of this 'dry section' (about a mile long).

They lifted the ban there when City Hall finally noticed that this section of the city was the ugliest part of the city and totally run-down. They had to have a local referendum to lift the ban - it passed with over 85% support of locals.

Lots of bars, restaurants and cafes there now - and quite a bit of it is very upscale.

[partofme]

We had a small section of Toronto's west end that was 'dry' up until the late 1970's - there were huge bars and liquor stores right on either end of the border of this 'dry section' (about a mile long).

They lifted the ban there when City Hall finally noticed that this section of the city was the ugliest part of the city and totally run-down. They had to have a local referendum to lift the ban - it passed with over 85% support of locals.

Lots of bars, restaurants and cafes there now - and quite a bit of it is very upscale.

One restaurant that was suspected of fudging it's numbers to meet the requirement of selling mostly food had a special in which drinks where very cheap and it turned into a really crazy night at the place so they kept sending the fire marshal to make sure it wasn't passed capacity and eventually passed a rule that no special on alcohol could be done passed 6:00 p.m. Many here want the revenue and want to be able to have a drink but don't want anybody to actually get drunk. What I think is worse about the whole dry thing is that people that have been drinking and need more booze have to get in their car and drive a much longer distance than they would otherwise. Overall I don't think the law stops anybody from actually drinking. It just makes Tennessee money and costs everybody more gas money and time.

[Dominick]

It used to be a dry county but now it's what is called moist. A few years ago it got passed that restaurants that seat at least 60 people can serve alcohol as long as it doesn't add up to more than 20% of their revenue. Other than that for any alcohol I have to drive down to Tennessee for the closest place to get beer. To actually buy beer here in Kentucky I have to drive about 40 minutes. The only reason it got passed to have sales in restaurants is because there is a state university in this county which gave it a big bump. There are similar laws restricting the sell of any sort of pornography although the internet pretty much took care of that one.
If that is moist then Belgium is diluvial :)
My bookshop sells beer, the baker does, the butcher does, the train station does, the beer shop does (go figure !), the wine shop does, etc. etc. I can't remember ever having been in an office either where there isn't a fridge or a vending machine with beer.
And then there used to be at least one pub per street anywhere. That has dimished though, both due to scale increase, sterner drinking and driving laws and the smoking ban.

Uhm, what was this thread about ? :o