Only if the state has a law on the books allowing a recall election of an elected official to a federal office. A lot of states don't have that.

ah pretty much what I thought, thanks Cartman

and I'm now burned on a personal level as my twin brother just minutes ago found out he's been furloughed. :(

Remember during the next election how hard both sides worked for the last year and a half or so and how they didn't just let it come to a showdown at the last minute. (And of course just keep voting for the lessor of two evils and complaining when you get results like this)

I would certainly expect a third party candidate further to the left or right from the Dems or Reps to be even more willing to sit down at a table

SI

I'm not really complaining, because I don't see an intellectually/philosophically acceptable way to avoid it.

It's the curse of split bodies in the legislature. If every person votes their conscience (or the conscience of their constituency) then loggerheads is the result if it comes down to each having a line they cannot/will not cross. And in a country as divided as we are, those splits are also consistent & predictable.

FTFY. 1.5 million more votes were cast for the Democratic candidates in the House elections, yet the Republicans hold a 232-200 edge in seats held.

I guess you could say Americans are different but the 3rd and 4th parties in other countries don't seem to have the same problems with issues like this that we do. (Again like I said the United States is a whole different animal but to say 3rd/4th parties will be just as bad is just as big of a leap as me saying they would make things better)

Well the 3rd and 4th parties would be the Libertarians and the Greens. They would be even more entrenched in their positions on this debate, not less. And I've said before that I would love a parliamentary, proportional representation system, but as long as we have first past the post, single member districts, we are going to have two parties. (Duverger's Law).

I fully admit that I vote for lesser of the two evils, but if the Democrats caved on this showdown, then I'd consider them more evil.

You are aware that 'law' indicates that the current system is biased towards two parties - not that its always the case ... there are lots of counter examples which can be dredged up showing coalition governments in similar setups (England today for example).

Fringe activists seem to think their plan is what everyone wants but they just don't know about it yet!

Sure, it's not always the case, but it's true that plurality, single member district systems have fewer parties than in a proportional representation setup by a statistically significant amount.

And even the counterexamples have significant differences. If the US President was selected via a coalition setup where the Dems/Greens could combine their numbers, and the GOP/Libertarians could combine theirs, then you'd end up with far more votes for the Greens and Libertarians than in our current setup.

You would also definitely see a Tea Party split from the GOP. That doesn't make sense now, because it would doom both their chances. A Dem could be very unpopular and get only 40% of the vote, while the GOP and Tea Party candidate got 30% each. The Dem wins in our system despite 60% of the public preferring a conservative candidate.

It's fantasy scenario stuff but I'd think a moderate Republican party without the Tea Party and religious fundamentalism would appeal to more Democrats and independents, at least in some elections. Especially if Dems in power took the opportunity to move further to the left.

On furlough... hopefully this doesn't go too long. There are cracks developing in the GOP caucus already.

The two party stuff is overblown. The parties have huge variances between members. A Republican in Illinois is not the same as a Republican in Alabama. Same for a Democrat in Montana vs a Democrat in New York.

If we had a bunch of other parties involved, it'd end up with a similar makeup in Congress with similar coalitions. When it comes to Congress, people are generally happy with their own representative.

At some point I wish Democratic constituents would take their party (or themselves?) to task for saying "Awww shucks they wouldn't let us have our way" while the conservative agenda marches on. This is a perfect case, where it's easy for most liberals like myself to point at the obvious distinctions of public intentions and say that there's only one party at fault, while ignoring that the Dems have been basically comically fumbling with the government like it's the clock on their VCR for the last 50 years, while essentially changing nothing. "Geez, we'd love to get some of these changes through, but it just keeps getting gummed up in the works. We've only been at this political stuff a couple hundred years....just give us a little more time. If only the other guys would play by the rules."

I'm starting to think I'd just prefer some sort of Thunderdome based government. Seems more honest and graceful.

You may want to study the roll call on this one.

Either you are correct and the votes are all over the place or you are wrong and the votes are strictly along party lines. Please feel free to rebut what I am saying and show me the Democrat in Montana who voted to shutdown the government or the Republican in Illinois who voted against the shutdown. All I am seeing votes strictly along party lines.

A company I used to work with (as a consultant) just completed a benefits study for the next two years. The good news is, they plan to continue to offer their employees health care. The bad news is that their size was just big enough to cover it. As the HR guy just told me, if you are worried about going onto the healthcare exchanges, maybe look at switching jobs to a bigger company over the next year or so. He thinks a lot of small businesses will be dropping coverage. Just an FYI.

***EDIT - To be fair, the guy is fairly conservative and I just talked with someone else who doesn't think it's that dire. Still, I do think there needs to be a real debate on the impact of this and not the "We are turning into 1980s USSR with bread lines" from the right and the "no one will lose coverage options and all costs will go down" from the left.

My payroll company, who i suppose I technically work for, included a letter with our last paychecks informing us that we will not be receiving healthcare from them. Im freelance so I never thought I would, the only way I get healthcare is to work a set amount of union hours, but it was interesting to all of us.

Lot of other issues they vote on which sees party lines crossed. Baucus from Montana hasn't supported the Democratic budget in the Senate. 10% of the Dems (mostly in red districts) voted for repealing the Medical Device Tax the other day.

Do you really think Mark Kirk and John Cornyn are similar? What about Bernie Sanders and Jon Tester? There are pretty huge gaps in what members of a particular party support.

As a small business owner I get a nice credit for offering health insurance under this new plan. Not sure how big the company you're talking about is, but for my company, it works out well. The tax credit goes up I believe in 2014 which will be nice too.

I think it's more for companies in the 25-100 range. If you have under 25, you get a credit. But, if you are between 25 and 50, there's a pretty big incentive to move a bunch of people to part-time to avoid the new cost. From 50 to 100, it might be worth just paying the fine as well.

+1

Probably all local issues there. A number of Minnesota democrats were against the tax due to the significant medical device industry in the state.

Mostly because they have drawn the lines in such ways that there aren't even that many real races anymore. How many congressional races are decided before an election even takes place?

I wish everyone had to adopt the Iowa redistricting model.

SI

I'm furloughed but I'm counting on them to give us back pay. Maybe.

A lot ... but like tends to attract like, at both the state level and the district level. You can't simply attribute that to how district lines are drawn, not by a long shot.

my buddy at NASA is having to use his vacation time.

Sure, but gerrymandering plays a part. Look at Pennsylvania, a reliably blue state. The congressional delegation is 13 GOP and 5 Dem.

I've seen the worst of gerrymandering possible, the infamous donut hole district in Georgia a few years back. Makes it hard to flinch at something that looks like this:

That fraud had a perfect chance to play the leader today and instead he acted like a 5 year old blaming his sister for the mess. What a punk move. It's that kind of politics that got us in the mess, do you seriously think that is the right move. If so, you have proven that you are not anywhere close the leader that the country needs.

What can he do, pass a budget? Fund the government by executive order?

So making a whiney speech is your choice of action for the leader? He can try to get the sides to negotiate for one. Instead he pounded a wedge farther between them with that speech. He is not a leader and that shows quite clearly by that speech.

In most countries, when a leader reaches the point where he can't lead, rather than blaming those who think his policies are wrong, he or she resigns.

In America, for whatever reason, we have this stupid two-party system where the process ensures that whomever reaches a high level of office is utterly incompetent.

How is he supposed to lead people who have clearly stated, without reservation, they are going to oppose him on everything he does?

He deserves a lot of grief for a lot of things, but what is happening here isn't on him at all. If you don't like the thing, get an idea of your own and get it passed or get the numbers to repeal the law. If we're going to just start attempting to stop legally passed laws that are verified by the courts, then wtf is the point of even passing anything anymore?

This is hilarious. So in order for Obama to be a great leader, he'd have to cave in. But if he did that, everyone would be calling him weak.

I'd say he's doing a good job of being a leader since the public backs his position by a pretty wide margin.

Poll: Don't Shut Down the Government Over Obamacare - NationalJournal.com

Polls: Americans put more blame on GOP for shutdown

POLL: Just one in four approves of Republicans’ handling of government shutdown standoff

A good leader wouldn't stand on camera and act like a whiney kid trying to blame his sister for breaking a vase. It's leadership 101.

Hows does that work? - I'm presuming that his vacation time is normally paid ... and I thought the whole idea was that people weren't being paid?

(if you're not being paid by a company then you're not on vacation - you're simply not working because they aren't paying you, entirely different imho ...)

No clue on the specifics. He just told me that he's using vacation time and that back pay isn't guaranteed for him.

Well, when the sister DID break the vase, and he accurately reports it, yeah, that's kinda sorta leadership.

The Republicans own this shutdown. They are cheering for this shutdown.

The Republicans Plan F has failed (In order: A) Defund B)Tie to debt-ceiling C) Delay entire law D) Delay mandate E) Go to Conference F) Mini-bills under rule.) What's plan G? Summon Cthulhu? Ninja Attack? The Spanish Inquisition? (no one expects the Spanish Inquisition!)

I feel like the other side of this coin is that ~2009, seemingly just after this debate began, this administration pretty much immediately gave up on the idea of single payor, because it supposedly wasn't politically feasible. This administration's attempt at healthcare and insurance reform resulted in 4 years of tooth & nail fighting, bringing the government to a literal stop, with the best possible result (as far as the Dems are concerned) to be a government mandate for it's citizens to buy private health insurance, while the cost and quality of healthcare and insurance continues to spiral away. I personally think it's fair to connect those dots up to today, and call the whole thing a resounding failure, though anyone else's mileage may certainly vary.

At this point both sides seem to be passionately suggesting we're still fighting over "free healthcare", wouldn't that be nice if it were true?

I honestly don't get the angst over the deadlock, I really don't.

I mean, we're talking about choices that are unacceptable to two very diverse groups of people (at least until the GOP weak-sisters cave in after a few days of giving themselves political cover).

Each body has passed a version. Right?

Each body has operated according to its collective conscience in rejecting the other body's version. Right?

And why would it ethically fall to either side to be the one that caves in to the other?

Now, when what I suspect will happen happens (the inevitable cave of the alleged right - which I believe the ones who will switch sides could already tell you roughly what day they will do so) THEN I'll all for blasting the hell out of those hypocrites. At least figuratively.

Maryland is pretty ridiculous these days. Basically redrawn to oust Roscoe Bartlett and cement the other seats. It actually went to a ballot measure, but most of the voters either didn't know what to make of it (didn't help that the wording was pretty ambiguous - a vote of NO implied you were voting against the Constitution) or didn't care (being Democrats).

Vote against Maryland redistricting - Washington Post

Maryland redistricting maps: Maryland's New Congressional Districts - The Washington Post

Yep, the world watches while Socialist, Dictator 4Lyfe Obama consolidates his decreasing power by closing the government and declaring free health care for all.

Or that's what you would be lead to believe by some.

whatfuckingever.

Don't let your personal feelings creep in here, every president from my memory has given speeches chastising the opposition for one thing or another. He can't make them come back and just do it. Boehner had every opportunity to get the govt funded, but his bowing to the vocal minority really shows his stripes as a leader.

Just like Syria, he is told nearly by every hawk in Washington that nobody wants to go to war and that they need a clear vision of what they want to do or they won't authorize it. The hawks thought they had one over on him politically and that he would have to give to get. So he end runs, and gets a solution that politically is more in line with his personal beliefs and keeps +80% of the public happy and he is called out by the very same Hawks for being a weak leader and caving.

It is however it's spun. The right is way out of control here and this whole situation is just what they wanted. The waiting game favors the left here, and Boehner knows it. He is scared out of his mind. You can see it on his face, and he is terrified this is all coming down on the right.

Yeah. He should really lead like Abraham Lincoln: