Do you think bipartisanship, pre-compromise, and saying political opponents are reasonable people...

[yurbud]

Poll question: Do you think bipartisanship, pre-compromise, and saying political opponents are reasonable people...

makes it easier or harder to win elections?

I just heard a statement from Mitch McConnell that Obama should have made in his inaugural and had as a guiding principle for his presidency, essentially they are the change people voted for, and the president and Democrats can either get on board or the rest of the Democrats will be voted out next election.


When Obama and Democrats won a far more sweeping victory, winning the White House and both chambers of Congress, they governed as if they had already lost and were begging a triumphant GOP for scraps from the table.

That will probably get worse now.

When it comes to dealing with the sociopaths on Wall Street, Obama and the Senate in particular acted too much like a district attorney prosecuting mafia kingpins while simultaneously auditioning to be their defense attorneys. That makes it hard for people to see a big difference between the parties or if they do see a difference, one is corrupt and dangerous, and the other is vacillating and impotent.

To the question in the subject line, do you think bipartisanship, pre-compromise, and saying political opponents are reasonable people makes it easier or harder to win elections (whether or not you try half-heartedly to demonize your opponent during the election season)?

[CakeGrrl]

1. Yay, another push poll!

[yurbud]

4. how would you reword it so it's not a push poll?

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

2. Other: Politicians should be truthful and let the electorate decide.

In an election, there are winners and losers. If everyone's honest domocracy works.
The problem is that many politicians are liars, cheats, and self-interested.
And honorably beating a candidate with no scruples is extremely difficult.

The truth is that there ARE reasonable political opponents. A differing philosophy does not make another person wrong or unreasonable in and of itself... that's a logical fallacy.

Bipartisanship can be effective given a time and a place. It directly leads to GOOD compromises when everyone is honest. Without some compromise, nothing ever really gets passed. Unfortuately, bipartisanship and compromise nowdays has boiled down to earmarks and how much money you throw at dissenters to shut them up.

[treestar]

3. good points

Also I think we can be blind - we thing the Rs never compromise, but they probably do, or they wouldn't have a tea party problem. We compromise and they do but we just can't see where they did.

[yurbud]

5. the problem is when one side is intransigent, the other pre-compromises before

negotiations start, then negotiates down to nearly nothing while their opponents stand firm.

That has been the dance between the GOP and Democrats since at least the 90s, and not acknowledging it makes Democrats look neurotic and weak.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

6. If it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, and acts like a duck...

In your own words, "...makes Democrats look neurotic and weak."
Perhaps the answer is that the democrats are (have been) neurotic and weak.

[yurbud]

7. or have a different agenda than we do--too many WANT to be the other corporate white meat