He may be the tying or ahead vote. So he at least has the possibility of holding a few things hostage to get some shit, just like the NDP.
Just as importantly it shows it's winnable. Maybe we get more like him. Baby steps.
Independent leads in Nebraska Senate Race
- Thread starter Butler1000
- Start date
Just as importantly it shows it's winnable. Maybe we get more like him. Baby steps.
I think we have had many U.S. politicians liberal, conservative, moderate claim to support term limits. It's kind of an easy thing to support because it's likely never going to come up for a vote. Both parties strongly reject the idea when the rubber meets the road.
Platform — Dan Osborn | Independent for U.S. Senate
Read Independent U.S. Senate candidate Dan Osborn's plan to take on the billionaires who control Washington, the “billionaire economy," and multi-billionaire Senator Pete Ricketts in Nebraska.osbornforsenate.com
It's right there dude. Start with term limits.......work your way up. You think 80 year old Nancy Pelosi and any other Democrats support that?
Wait, does not accomplishing anything mean you are lying or not?
And I'm all in favor of him winning that seat.
Moving from far right to moderate centrist is absolutely the kind of small improvement, lesser of two evils thing I always support.
I'm surprised to see you so gung ho for taking my approach.
I agree, incredibly difficult. A rare combination of integrity and follow through would be needed. Something surely lacking in both parties.
Wow, that word salad and twisty logic is worthy of Kamala!
It's got a lot of support from the general public.
It isn't a progressive policy position. In fact, I would say it is more associated with conservatives over all, but probably not by much. Like you said, it gets brought up by politicians all across the spectrum.
Of course, the problem is it gets touted as a fix to all kinds of corruption problems, but where it has been implemented it has shown to not really do anything to address that.
There are people who want it just as a generalized ideal of "All positions should be limited on principle", kind of like the "could we make things work better with sortition" and so on, and that's fine, though.
It's an interesting campaign that only a somewhat political novice can pull off.
If he wins, I think he will have a challenging time staying out of political trouble in his solidly Red State. He can be a gadfly for six years à la Kyrsten Sinema. Now his situation is different than Sinema. Sinema was attacked from the left and right. She found herself without a base. If Osborn doesn't fall solidly into the Dem caucus, he could possibly find long-term success offering Nebraskans something beyond hardcore conservatives. Of course, the Nebraska Republicans could wise up and put up a more flexible candidate to challenge him in 2030 in the event he wins.
The Manchin thing is so unique that I don't think we will ever see this type of situation anytime soon. Popular moderate Governor sees his state solidly turn to the other party. I think it's conventional wisdom that Manchin would have trouble getting re-elected this year if he ran.
The only advantage I see that is when a Congressmen has reached the end of the line you could possibly see more votes of conscience. Now that doesn't mean that the incoming replacement won't vote the party line and countermand their predecessor.
It also doesn't prevent the outgoing Congressmen from seeking employment with law firms, lobbying firms and think tanks with strong political allegiances. Hell, we've seen Congressmen become talking heads based on their strong party allegiance.
I support term limits because it couldn't hurt to shake things up. First, it might drain the cash of political groups who buy support in Congress. Second, maybe we would periodically get votes contrary to strong efforts from the gun lobby, defense industry, the teacher's unions, etc. Last but not least, term limits are a de facto age limit for members of Congress.
Yes.
He can run it this specific way only once.
But you still have to be good at campaigning to pull it off (I mean even be competitive. Winning will still be hard.)
If he wins, he would have trouble no matter whether his state was red or blue.
Independent is a hard line to walk given the system and when so much of his support is "screw the incumbent" that's a hard coalition to keep together.
He is in a much different position than Sinema and is running a very different campaign.
She wasn't much of a gadfly, either, which is one of the reasons she lost her base.
A gadfly would have a much more consistent political position than she did.
How he caucuses will be a big deal and I stand by my prediction that it will depend on who is in power and what the numbers are.
He has basically said he would caucus with the majority (although he's hedged it in various ways).
The fact is that unless the numbers are very close, he will pretty much only be along for the ride in many ways and have very limited things he can do.
Most predictions seem to have it at 51-49 or 52-48 for the GOP.
But those include Fischer keeping it.
If it ends up 50-49, I expect him to caucus with whoever controls the presidency. (Since that will allow the VP to tie break and he can demand a lot if the Dems have the white house and siding with the Dems gets him nothing if the GOP does.)
If it ends up 51-48 GOP, I kind of figure he officially doesn't caucus with anyone since he is ignorable except when there is a chance a GOP senator might defect.
He's talked about reaching out to Collins and Murkowski and trying to make some sort of "Independent" bloc that would hold the balance of power, but I find that extremely unlikely.
(Maybe on a couple of specific votes, but not as an actual caucus bloc of their own.)
It is.
The Manchin comparisons were primarily about him being the right edge of the Democratic caucus in an extremely tight situation and therefore being able to wield a lot of power to get his preferences on things.
That only happens in the 50-50 situation with a Harris win, above.
In practice that isn't what has really been seen, though.
It appears to encourage that, actually.
"I know I'm only here short term, so make me an offer for what I get when I leave and I can prove my worth to you."
Of course it can hurt to shake things up.
It's not a given in either direction.
As in they have to bribe more people?
Maybe.
But since the people are there for a shorter time and have less of a power base, it might also make it much cheaper overall.
The de-facto age limit is an argument.
Personally, in the "rollover is a net good" or just "the principle is that people should expect to leave eventually" mode, I think there is a pitch to be made.
I'd want a long enough limit that they get good at their jobs and aren't so easily bought off.
If I had to grab a number out of the air I'd want it to be a generation or so. 20-25 years. (So I guess 24 makes the most sense in the US system.)
Probably better would be to look at the mean or median tenure of congress and double or triple it. That might not work given the length of the Senate terms, so maybe 1.5 there.
I'm not sure when we've seen term limits in practice. In your response, perhaps you were alluding to Congressmen announcing retirement in today's Congress do not exercise votes of conscience or more willingness to compromise.
We know human nature is such that people don't want to piss off people that they considered supporters and allies. So maybe there wouldn't be radical changes in voting at the end of tenure. I was just thinking at the fringes perhaps. I don't actually see radical shifts in political thought by outgoing Congressmen.
I'm just thinking that every two years there would be a large bloc of retiring Congressmen. This bloc would together be more willing to compromise. They wouldn't have to please McConnell or Schumer. Just a hope.
"I know I'm only here short term, so make me an offer for what I get when I leave and I can prove my worth to you."[/QUOTE]
I think Congressmen already craft their positions to appeal to certain groups and donors.
I don't think it could work any worse than the present inflexibility of Congress.Of course it can hurt to shake things up.
It's not a given in either direction.
Right now, the Democrats have more party discipline in Congress. Certainly, they do in the House.
I kind of seeing that influencing your perspective above.
We're all unburdened.That saying a lot without saying anything at all is logic worthy of Trump!
Mostly at the state level across the country.
I was not.
"Not having to please McConnell or Schumer" isn't the pitch, though.
It's "not having to please their corporate sponsors".
You just need to accept the bribe and never need to face the voters.
This isn't about "inflexibility", it is about corruption.
(I believe the evidence is that it results in a more polarized legislature as well, though, so it isn't like it does better there, either.)
In what way?
I've had this view on term limits for decades, back when the GOP were the ones notorious for party discipline.
Give me there names here and I will go after them.
Seriously, I never said term limits were a panacea. I simply think you might get some independent votes from outgoing Congressional members.
