Politics suck!

[Sean Renaud]

-snip-​

Are you under the impression that all 435 members of the House have the same tenure? That no incumbents ever loses a primary? That no incumbent has ever been thrown out of office in a general election before term limits could possibly apply?

-snip-​

I'll field this. The incumbency rate is sufficient that yes it is safe to say that no incumbent loses a primary. You're gonna come back with numbers about how it happens but people win the lotto, get struck by lightning, eaten by sharks, killed by terrorists and murdered by cops. However the math suggests that none of these things will happen.

Now my personal problem isn't the incumbency rate, as I stated above I think a shame of our system is that not only that we in some cases have official term limits but that our combination of ignorance and habit means the wrong folk both win and lose. And by that I mean without looking at the facts I'm willing to say that a lot of the seats that jostle are in purple districts. . .which I bet are the same people most likely to reach across the aisle and people right now are largely voting about the lack of motion at all.

 

[KingOrfeo]

ISTM that if we have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits. I.e., if you serve one term in an office you have to sit out the next term, but then you're free to run for it again. (In the interim, of course, you remain free to run for any other office.) That eliminates the electoral advantage of incumbency while still assuring us an abundant supply of experienced pols.

 

[Sean Renaud]

ISTM that if we have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits. I.e., if you serve one term in an office you have to sit out the next term, but then you're free to run for it again. (In the interim, of course, you remain free to run for any other office.) That eliminates the electoral advantage of incumbency while still assuring us an abundant supply of experienced pols.

I could consider this meeting halfway. I think it seems that people are unlikely to change ships when things are working and if they aren't working are just kind a screwy but you can't fix the latter.

 

[Que]

I'll field this. The incumbency rate is sufficient that yes it is safe to say that no incumbent loses a primary. You're gonna come back with numbers about how it happens but people win the lotto, get struck by lightning, eaten by sharks, killed by terrorists and murdered by cops. However the math suggests that none of these things will happen.

Now my personal problem isn't the incumbency rate, as I stated above I think a shame of our system is that not only that we in some cases have official term limits but that our combination of ignorance and habit means the wrong folk both win and lose. And by that I mean without looking at the facts I'm willing to say that a lot of the seats that jostle are in purple districts. . .which I bet are the same people most likely to reach across the aisle and people right now are largely voting about the lack of motion at all.

So everyone on the right and the left should be expressing gratitude to the tea party movement for the miracle knocking off some VERY tenured, VERY safe incumbents. Bennet in Utah and Cantor some to mind. Democrats should be thrilled that some powerful Republicans are GONE. Democrats should have their own movement since they decided to not join with the Tea Party movement. They should be organizing to unseat incumbents that do not meet with the approval of their parties ideals.

That was the original point of the movement. People forget the term was coined by a host on CNBC. Initially the idea was to keep social conservatives from opening their idiotic mouths and make it a non-partisan movement to unseat the fiscally irresponsible. The early rallies had plenty of Democrats in attendance (mostly elderly concerned about the raid on Medicare)

The party in power at the time WAS the Democrats that held complete control of the legislative and executive branches. The Democrats fought back in order to retain power and to repudiate the grassroots movement first (falsely) calling it astro-turfing and then (egregiously falsely) calling it a racist movement. Once effectively tarred as a "right wing" rather than an "Anti-my-goddamn-legislator-is-not-listening-to-me-in-the-townhall-meetings movement" the tea party movement moved harder right and started incorporating RW social engineering ideas. Democrats were not on-board because they LIKED their guys steamrolling over the will of the people.

ISTM that if we have term limits, they should not be lifetime limits. I.e., if you serve one term in an office you have to sit out the next term, but then you're free to run for it again. (In the interim, of course, you remain free to run for any other office.) That eliminates the electoral advantage of incumbency while still assuring us an abundant supply of experienced pols.

I'm on the fence on your idea. My friend mentioned above is now, again, a serving US Congressman. I like him so I am OK with that but realize that is a selfish viewpoint. He took a break for about a decade from public life and is back when his seat was vacated by his friend who went on to become a US Senator.

Because California term limits are not retroactive, it allowed Jerry Brown to now serve up to two more terms. Between his father's long tenure and his 3, possibly to be 4 terms, I have a hard time believing there isn't not a better choice available in all of California.

Because he is an experienced pol, he has been able to do some extremely dishonest accounting and claim to have balanced California's Budget while not only not actually doing that, he has actually put them into much more dire peril in the future. Those chickens will roost long after he is gon and be blamed on his successor. So, sometimes being an experienced pol, simply means they know all of the back-doors into the hen-house, and I fail to see why that is a good thing.