You have it exactly backward. The Senate Democrats most likely to vote against their Democratic colleagues and with Republicans were defeated in November.
1
When votes in congress closely or almost exactly follow party lines, I wonder why we don't just elect 6 year-olds to congress. Anybody can vote as they are told and never have their own opinion on what is best for America. How embarrassing for our country. I remember thinking when Obamacare was passed "how is it possible that every Democrats thinks government control of health care it is a good idea and every Republican thinks it is a bad idea?". This one phenomena may be the single-most important factor in why congress is so ineffective and almost a joke these days.
3
This says more about Republican obstruction than Democratic unity. With filibusters taken as a given, setting the de facto threshold for passing legislation at 60 votes, and the prospect of only ever luring a handful of Republicans to vote with Democrats, the only times that were worthwhile for Reid to bring anything up for a vote were when virtually every Democrat was on board.
1
Thank you madam, two years in advance.
3
Had no idea she was still in the senate. Talk about an invisible (inconsequential) politician. Certainly no Liz Warren. And a strong argument for term limits.
4
Mr. Reid will have less trouble mainly because there no sensible options in most instances - thanks to the Tea partiers hijacking main stream Republicans.
1
You make it sound like voting along partisan lines with other Democrats means that she -- and other Democrats -- are only voting for liberal bills. Hardly. Most bills coming out of the Senate have been pro-corporate, anti-worker, pro-war, pro-military-industrial-complex, pro-Wall Street messes.
15
This article demonstrates the problem with the system. I would think that a percentage of voting the party line would be closer to 70%. Therefore allowing the members to use their own decision-making ability to give a voice to 1.) the peoples' will and 2.) the elected person's will.
Screw the party. Up with the people - or at least with the elected.
Screw the party. Up with the people - or at least with the elected.
3
given the obama administration's dominance over the party in recent elections (via ofa), a resurgence of party strength is the democrats' only chance to regain control of congress. charismatic leaders (obama, hillary) can't dp it.
as joe hill put it to the wobblies, "don't mourn, organize." up the party!
as joe hill put it to the wobblies, "don't mourn, organize." up the party!
I agree…and shall we also conclude that Republicans have shown a great propensity to 1) Vote their conscience and 2) Support (albeit not to a great extent) Democrat initiatives?
There's a reason that each caucus has a position called "whip".
She was a congress rep in my district and very good at that. But, being a senator was way over her head. No Pelosi or Feinstein, or even close to them.
I recall the campaign speeches from her first senate run, and thinking how can someone so mildly informed or competent become a senator? Many other Senators only proved competence and superlative mental aptitude are not prerequisites for holding office. She fit in that camp.
I recall the campaign speeches from her first senate run, and thinking how can someone so mildly informed or competent become a senator? Many other Senators only proved competence and superlative mental aptitude are not prerequisites for holding office. She fit in that camp.
4
Just goes to show why much of the rest of the country shakes their head in disbelief at CA voters.
And unfortunately, there are just as many on the right that have zero business bieng in public office as well.
And unfortunately, there are just as many on the right that have zero business bieng in public office as well.
4
I'm a constituent of Sen. Boxer as well. Let's compare her to the "competent" Diane Feinstein. Senator Boxer stood up when it really, really counted and voted "against" the Iraq disaster. Feinstein, along with Hillary, voted "for." Looking back over the past 14 years, does any other vote, any other action, matter more than that? I've got $1 plus trillion that says no.
13
Much of the rest of the country shakes it's head in disbelief that CA voters make up well over 10% of the country and still only get 2% of Senate representation.
2
Does this make any sense to y'all? It seems like a non sequitur to me. The ones who got defeated were the ones ~least~ likely to vote against the democratic party line. That's why there were defeated. Or am I missing something big here?