How Important are Tea Party Ideas?

[kalm]

The Universities, similar to most public schools, are decidely left wing organizations that can't contain their costs or improve efficiencies, tax their citizens mercilessly in the form of high and rising tuition, take care of their friends that supply the materials and protect their ruling class, the facilty, with strong unions. They are also extremly intolerant of any ideas other than their own. They act as a microcosim, for those of us that are concerned, showing how the progressive left is "transforming" all of our major insitituions.

Clean, safe, well maintained bastions of learning providing R&D and an educated workforce to private industry for free. Oh the humanity. Yep, egg is all over the left's face on that one. Oh the humanity.

[Chizzang]

Why do you think universities are so expensive and poorly run? They are left wing institutions built on unsound left wing ideas and promoted by left wing zealots that have no idea how to do anything in a practical manner benefiting all with open ideas and open forums. All they can think about is control, spending and their own material comfort and power.

You do realize this country has the finest University and collegiate systems in the world...

You do know that right..?

It’s kind of one of the things people come from all over the world to do here in this country – is to use our amazing colleges and universities… So I’m not really sure what point you’re actually trying to make but that one was really a terrible example

However your experience at NDSU might be something you want to share with us..?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

Why do you think universities are so expensive and poorly run? They are left wing institutions built on unsound left wing ideas and promoted by left wing zealots that have no idea how to do anything in a practical manner benefiting all with open ideas and open forums. All they can think about is control, spending and their own material comfort and power.

You do realize this country has the finest University and collegiate systems in the world...

You do know that right..?

It’s kind of one of the things people come from all over the world to do here in this country – is to use our amazing colleges and universities… So I’m not really sure what point you’re actually trying to make but that one was really a terrible example

However your experience at NDSU might be something you want to share with us..?

NDSU was a right-wing bastion. probably the most conservative public university outside of Utah and Idaho... don't let anyone tell you different

[JBB]

The Universities, similar to most public schools, are decidely left wing organizations that can't contain their costs or improve efficiencies, tax their citizens mercilessly in the form of high and rising tuition, take care of their friends that supply the materials and protect their ruling class, the facilty, with strong unions. They are also extremly intolerant of any ideas other than their own. They act as a microcosim, for those of us that are concerned, showing how the progressive left is "transforming" all of our major insitituions.

Clean, safe, well maintained bastions of learning providing R&D and an educated workforce to private industry for free. Oh the humanity. Yep, egg is all over the left's face on that one. Oh the humanity.

LOL. You lack perspective. Schools at all levels are failing because they are run on left wind ideology and it doesnt work. Tell me how large the next tuition increase will be. We can compare them to the ever rising tax increases the school districts in Minnesota are constantly seeking.

Next introduce a conservative idea in your classroom. It will be easier in first or second grade but by the time you reach high school and college it will be very difficult if not damaging to your grade.

[kalm]

I've never gone to a tea party rally in Minnesota but there are no well known republican names associated with the organization at all. None in the event promotions, none in the organizing realms...?

Except for Michelle Bachmann who founded the house tea party caucus.

[GannonFan]

Of course, your take assumes that the '06 and '08 elections were some kind of ascendancy for the Democrats, i.e. people bought into their ideas and voted accordingly, whereas you could very easily make the argument that people were voting against the Republicans in those elections and that the GOP base stayed home. Doesn't really change the outcomes though.

Regardless, the one area where you're kind of missing is the Independents - they broke very much for the GOP in this last election, even if total number of voters were down (they are always down across the board when comparing a Congressional voting year versus a Presidential one). It was pretty hard to not notice the large swing of Independent voters who did show at the polls and went strongly from very Democrat in '08 to very GOP in '10. Granted, they may have just been voting against the 4 years of Democratic Congressional control at that point, but they did vote pretty significantly. Saying the Dems had nowhere to go but down from '08 is fine, but going down to a defeat of historic proportions is not something to be brushed off either. You have to say the Tea Party had something to do with that.

honestly, there is no such thing as "independents" - it's a question of which sides lazy or infrequent voters show up in a given year - in 06 and 08 dems were motivated in 10 repubs had that...

Yes, independents don't exist. I'll take my continued existence on this planet, as an Independent, as proof that you're incorrect on that point.

[TwinTownBisonFan]

honestly, there is no such thing as "independents" - it's a question of which sides lazy or infrequent voters show up in a given year - in 06 and 08 dems were motivated in 10 repubs had that...

Yes, independents don't exist. I'll take my continued existence on this planet, as an Independent, as proof that you're incorrect on that point.

lots of people CLAIM to be independent, and they do so for many reasons - some are genuine moderates who will occasionally cross party lines... others like to feel smart by claiming they align to no party... but in reality, when push comes to shove virtually all voters are either R's or D's - and while a percentage may split their tickets occasionally - for political science purposes... there isn't really such a thing as an "independent" voter

[kalm]

Yes, independents don't exist. I'll take my continued existence on this planet, as an Independent, as proof that you're incorrect on that point.

lots of people CLAIM to be independent, and they do so for many reasons - some are genuine moderates who will occasionally cross party lines... others like to feel smart by claiming they align to no party... but in reality, when push comes to shove virtually all voters are either R's or D's - and while a percentage may split their tickets occasionally - for political science purposes... there isn't really such a thing as an "independent" voter

I cross party lines every election. I can assure you, especially after the last two years, that I am solidly independent, and I don't think I'm alone. I'm guessing, given the see saw of elections the last 4 years that the numbers are growing quite a bit.

[GannonFan]

Yes, independents don't exist. I'll take my continued existence on this planet, as an Independent, as proof that you're incorrect on that point.

lots of people CLAIM to be independent, and they do so for many reasons - some are genuine moderates who will occasionally cross party lines... others like to feel smart by claiming they align to no party... but in reality, when push comes to shove virtually all voters are either R's or D's - and while a percentage may split their tickets occasionally - for political science purposes... there isn't really such a thing as an "independent" voter

And you honestly believe what you just wrote? And all of that is based on some hunch, right, since clearly there is no objective study that has ever proven anything like what you're describing.

I know it's tough for hardcore partisans like yourself that will defend your respective party no matter what, but like Kalm said, there are plenty of us out there who really don't have any true political party ties and who do cross over all the time when we vote.

Just did some quick math looking back through the years since I was able to vote since '92 - counting Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, and Gubernatorial elections, I've voted for 12 Republicans, 9 Democrats, and 1 Independent in those elections (wiki only had the Congressional races back through 2000). Where does that place me on your black and white only view of American politics?

[TwinTownBisonFan]

lots of people CLAIM to be independent, and they do so for many reasons - some are genuine moderates who will occasionally cross party lines... others like to feel smart by claiming they align to no party... but in reality, when push comes to shove virtually all voters are either R's or D's - and while a percentage may split their tickets occasionally - for political science purposes... there isn't really such a thing as an "independent" voter

And you honestly believe what you just wrote? And all of that is based on some hunch, right, since clearly there is no objective study that has ever proven anything like what you're describing.

I know it's tough for hardcore partisans like yourself that will defend your respective party no matter what, but like Kalm said, there are plenty of us out there who really don't have any true political party ties and who do cross over all the time when we vote.

Just did some quick math looking back through the years since I was able to vote since '92 - counting Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, and Gubernatorial elections, I've voted for 12 Republicans, 9 Democrats, and 1 Independent in those elections (wiki only had the Congressional races back through 2000). Where does that place me on your black and white only view of American politics?

a leaning republican slugger...

i am not talking about hardcore partisans - i'm not talking about "defending your party no matter what" i'm talking about votes in the box... and when it comes to that - there are NO real independents in a meaningful sense. there are the hardcore - the strong base, the leaners, and a very small group of "pure swing voters"... but they don't really tip elections - turnout among the leaners turn elections.

[GannonFan]

And you honestly believe what you just wrote? And all of that is based on some hunch, right, since clearly there is no objective study that has ever proven anything like what you're describing.

I know it's tough for hardcore partisans like yourself that will defend your respective party no matter what, but like Kalm said, there are plenty of us out there who really don't have any true political party ties and who do cross over all the time when we vote.

Just did some quick math looking back through the years since I was able to vote since '92 - counting Presidential, Senatorial, Congressional, and Gubernatorial elections, I've voted for 12 Republicans, 9 Democrats, and 1 Independent in those elections (wiki only had the Congressional races back through 2000). Where does that place me on your black and white only view of American politics?

a leaning republican slugger...

i am not talking about hardcore partisans - i'm not talking about "defending your party no matter what" i'm talking about votes in the box... and when it comes to that - there are NO real independents in a meaningful sense. there are the hardcore - the strong base, the leaners, and a very small group of "pure swing voters"... but they don't really tip elections - turnout among the leaners turn elections.

So I'm a leaner? Aren't you just arguing semantics now? In the big elections, I've gone with the GOP 54% of the time - that's a pretty even split in the grand scheme of things (and is pretty much a swing voter, but in your semantics I'm just a leaner). Why aren't I an independent then? I have a party affiliation solely because my state runs closed primary elections and I have to have a party affiliation to vote in those, but my voting record clearly shows a rather significant split in my voting. I favor neither Democrats or Republicans and solely go on the basis of the race in front of me. I think you're closing your eyes to the real, documented rise of Independent voters out there and trying to make yourself believe that we don't exist. Why the ostrich approach to this?

[houndawg]

I think of myself as "non-aligned".

[GannonFan]

i am not talking about hardcore partisans - i'm not talking about "defending your party no matter what" i'm talking about votes in the box... and when it comes to that - there are NO real independents in a meaningful sense. there are the hardcore - the strong base, the leaners, and a very small group of "pure swing voters"... but they don't really tip elections - turnout among the leaners turn elections.

honestly, there is no such thing as "independents" - it's a question of which sides lazy or infrequent voters show up in a given year - in 06 and 08 dems were motivated in 10 repubs had that...

Btw, I think it's interesting that you went from saying that it's just a question of whose side is energized or de-energized to vote that decides elections to now saying that it's the "leaners" that decide elections, all the while trying to avoid the fact that "leaners" are exactly the independents that the rest of us are talking about, i.e. voters who are not wedded to one particular party and do, by track record, frequently go back and forth in their votes for the two major parties.

[GannonFan]

I think of myself as "non-aligned".

Nonsense, you don't exist then.

[89Hen]

So I'm a leaner? Aren't you just arguing semantics now? In the big elections, I've gone with the GOP 54% of the time - that's a pretty even split in the grand scheme of things (and is pretty much a swing voter, but in your semantics I'm just a leaner). Why aren't I an independent then? I have a party affiliation solely because my state runs closed primary elections and I have to have a party affiliation to vote in those, but my voting record clearly shows a rather significant split in my voting. I favor neither Democrats or Republicans and solely go on the basis of the race in front of me. I think you're closing your eyes to the real, documented rise of Independent voters out there and trying to make yourself believe that we don't exist. Why the ostrich approach to this?

GF's party...

[GannonFan]

So I'm a leaner? Aren't you just arguing semantics now? In the big elections, I've gone with the GOP 54% of the time - that's a pretty even split in the grand scheme of things (and is pretty much a swing voter, but in your semantics I'm just a leaner). Why aren't I an independent then? I have a party affiliation solely because my state runs closed primary elections and I have to have a party affiliation to vote in those, but my voting record clearly shows a rather significant split in my voting. I favor neither Democrats or Republicans and solely go on the basis of the race in front of me. I think you're closing your eyes to the real, documented rise of Independent voters out there and trying to make yourself believe that we don't exist. Why the ostrich approach to this?

GF's party...

Hmmmm, waffles.

[Skjellyfetti]

GF's party...

Damn, 89. I agree completely. Independent voters are wafflers. They like to think of themselves as high minded individuals... but, they aren't. If you vote for George Bush one election, Obama the next, and then go back to John Boehner. You're schizophrenic. Gannonfan claims to vote around 50/50 for Republicans and Democrats in big elections. Sounds to me like he can't make up his mind.

[kalm]

GF's party...

Damn, 89. I agree completely. Independent voters are wafflers. They like to think of themselves as high minded individuals... but, they aren't. If you vote for George Bush one election, Obama the next, and then go back to John Boehner. You're schizophrenic. Gannonfan claims to vote around 50/50 for Republicans and Democrats in big elections. Sounds to me like he can't make up his mind.

The world isn't black and white skelly. Turn in your liberal card immediately.

[Appaholic]

GF's party...

Damn, 89. I agree completely. Independent voters are wafflers. They like to think of themselves as high minded individuals... but, they aren't. If you vote for George Bush one election, Obama the next, and then go back to John Boehner. You're schizophrenic. Gannonfan claims to vote around 50/50 for Republicans and Democrats in big elections. Sounds to me like he can't make up his mind.

That's one way of looking at it.....another might be that independent voters like to make decisions for themselves instead of having a national party dictate what they should & shouldn't believe in. What's wrong with assessing a situation & making the best decision for yourself & family at a given time? The Democratic Party might have been the best party for my grandparents in the 1940 election, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily the best choice for me in 2010 or even 2000. As my father states on a regular basis, he didn't leave the democratic party, it left him. And personally, I'm beholden to neither.....

[Skjellyfetti]

I'm not talking about voting in 1940 in one way and 2010 in another way.

I'm talking about going back and forth between candidates on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It's not about being open minded enough to switch parties. It's about voting for candidates that hold contradictory positions on every issue. It seems to me that someone that votes that way isn't sure how they stand on the issues.

[kalm]

I'm not talking about voting in 1940 in one way and 2010 in another way.

I'm talking about going back and forth between candidates on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It's not about being open minded enough to switch parties. It's about voting for candidates that hold contradictory positions on every issue. It seems to me that someone that votes that way isn't sure how they stand on the issues.

1) Two realistic choices is not a spectrum

2) On many issues those two parties are rhetorically on opposite sides but in reality provide basically the same results.

[GannonFan]

GF's party...

Damn, 89. I agree completely. Independent voters are wafflers. They like to think of themselves as high minded individuals... but, they aren't. If you vote for George Bush one election, Obama the next, and then go back to John Boehner. You're schizophrenic. Gannonfan claims to vote around 50/50 for Republicans and Democrats in big elections. Sounds to me like he can't make up his mind.

Nothing schizophrenic about voting for Bush in '04 and then voting for Obama in '08. I didn't care for John Kerry or for John McCain and thought both would make terrible Presidents. That's a perfectly rationale decision. It's not uncommon at all that a vote isn't always for a candidate as much as it could be against another one. Heck, the story of the '06, '08, and '10 elections was probably more so people voting against the party in power (against the GOP in '06 and '08 and against the Dems in '10) than anything either party was touting. People weren't hoping for a Pelosi/Reid-led legislature as much as they wanted the GOP out. Same thing in '10, it's not like the country was avidly pro-Boehner as much as they were anti-Pelosi. And really, the national picture is not how most people vote - I didn't vote for or against Pelosi or Boehner - I voted for Allyson Schwartz and Pat Toomey. And actually, I voted for those two more so because I didn't like their opponents.

Sounds to me like partisans like yourself don't like that people don't always fall into line with either party. Too bad.

[GannonFan]

I'm not talking about voting in 1940 in one way and 2010 in another way.

I'm talking about going back and forth between candidates on the complete opposite side of the spectrum. It's not about being open minded enough to switch parties. It's about voting for candidates that hold contradictory positions on every issue. It seems to me that someone that votes that way isn't sure how they stand on the issues.

1) Two realistic choices is not a spectrum

2) On many issues those two parties are rhetorically on opposite sides but in reality provide basically the same results.

This. Neither national party is so starkly different from the other that the choice between then two is so distinct. Tons of grey area between the two and often not lots of difference. Of course, partisans from both will disagree forever on that.

[kalm]

1) Two realistic choices is not a spectrum

2) On many issues those two parties are rhetorically on opposite sides but in reality provide basically the same results.

This. Neither national party is so starkly different from the other that the choice between then two is so distinct. Tons of grey area between the two and often not lots of difference. Of course, partisans from both will disagree forever on that.

And in light of this conversation, it's ironic that you and I typically disagree on most issues.

[Skjellyfetti]

1) Two realistic choices is not a spectrum

Interesting that you and gannonfan insist there's only 2 choices. Why not vote for the candidate that most represents your views on the issues? Even if that's Libertarian, Green, whatever.

2) On many issues those two parties are rhetorically on opposite sides but in reality provide basically the same results.

If they provide the same results...... what's the point of even voting? How can you even be an independent if both options are the same. What are you independent of?

It's not uncommon at all that a vote isn't always for a candidate as much as it could be against another one.

No. Actually... a vote is always for a candidate. A vote against a candidate would subtract a vote away from that candidate. No voting system in this country allows you to do that (that I'm aware of). A vote for a candidate adds a vote to that candidate's total. When you voted for Bush in 2004... you added a vote to his total... you did not subtract a vote from John Kerry's total. You voted FOR George W. Bush. All you're doing is rationalizing that vote.

If you didn't want to vote for George W. Bush and you didn't want to vote for John Kerry... you should have looked toward 3rd party candidates. If none of those interested you... you should have stayed home. Sorry, but you don't get a pass on your vote. You chose to vote for a candidate.

This. Neither national party is so starkly different from the other that the choice between then two is so distinct. Tons of grey area between the two and often not lots of difference.

Again... if both parties are the same... and there isn't really a choice between the two.... what exactly are you independent from? You said you vote about 50/50 between Democrats and Republicans... you always vote for the two establishment parties that are essentially the same, produce the same results, are indistinguishable from each other? If you believe that, you aren't independent of anything.

If you believe both establishment parties are indistinguishable... you always vote AGAINST candidates and never for (which is actually impossible).... you dislike Republicans. You dislike Democrats...

Why the hell don't you vote 3rd party? Wouldn't that be where true independence lies?