Democrats or Republicans: which party has to bend over more for the other side?

It's been said that a Republican president/politician has more more leeway to exact his and his party's ideals/platform issues without worrying about affronting the Democrat demographic, because few expect a Republican politician to go out of their way to appease Democrats, or care what they think. It's also been said, however, that the opposite is true on the flip-side; that a Democratic president/politician often has to play nice with Republicans (or at least more frequently than the other side does) and try to walk a tightrope to keep both parties pacified.

Do you agree or disagree?

Definitely a Republican president has to walk a tighter rope. Well, I shouldn't say they HAVE to as much as they DO. Republican presidents typically cave MUCH easier than Democratic presidents. So I'd say Republicans tend to kiss ass more than Democrats. Neither party HAS to. But the Republicans do it anyway. (Not that it makes things better of course. lol )

There's no question that an elected Democratic has to more go out of his way to keep Republican house/senate members and observers placated than the other way around. Republicans for the most part couldn't care less about giving Democrats a nipple to suck on, and largely tunes out their complaints.

JM130ELM wrote:There's no question that an elected Democratic has to more go out of his way to keep Republican house/senate members and observers placated than the other way around. Republicans for the most part couldn't care less about giving Democrats a nipple to suck on, and largely tunes out their complaints.

. Democrats have no fucking cajones. It pisses me off.

Democrats have to play much nicer than Republicans do on average.

CatEyes10736 wrote:Democrats have to play much nicer than Republicans do on average.

Pretty much. There was always some acrimony between the political parties but I think it’s gotten much worse since the Republican party has been co-opted to such a large degree by neo-conservatives.

CatEyes10736 wrote:Democrats have to play much nicer than Republicans do on average.

ITA. A republican can be as harsh as he wants to be about how he's gonna do things and can basically tell his naysayers to F-off, but for the most part republicans just ignore their naysayers and only focus on their supporters. A democrat has to try and be nice to republicans.

Chris wrote:It's been said that a Republican president/politician has more more leeway to exact his and his party's ideals/platform issues without worrying about affronting the Democrat demographic, because few expect a Republican politician to go out of their way to appease Democrats, or care what they think. It's also been said, however, that the opposite is true on the flip-side; that a Democratic president/politician often has to play nice with Republicans (or at least more frequently than the other side does) and try to walk a tightrope to keep both parties pacified.

Do you agree or disagree?

The are more republicans and conservatives in the country than there are democrats and liberals, however democrats occupy areas with larger populations and therefore have more electoral votes. Democrats have to worry more about appeasing moderates and independent voters than Republicans do and because of that they are typically a little more willing to "compromise". If they didn't they wouldn't get enough votes to be elected (or re-elected). Also democrats re more wiling to vote for a moderate liberal than conservatives are willing to vote for a moderate republican. Moderate republicans struggle in the primaries more than moderate democrats. George HW Bush was the last republican president sort of started leaning liberal towards the end of his first term but he was not re-elected! George W Bush remained a stern conservative throughout his 8 years in office.

I also think that democratic presidents tend to become more moderate the longer they stay in office. Obama is the classic example! He started off preaching very "liberal" values and making very liberal promises, but ultimately became a very compromising President out of necessity and failed on many of his liberal promises. A lot of liberals view him as not a true democrat anymore (particularly those in congress). Obama has made SOME changes from the Bush administration, but not nearly as much or as fast as Candidate Obama had suggested. Think about it, how much different is the world now than when Bush was President? Gay marriage is still not recognized federally, Guantanamo Bay detention camps are still open and in use, we are still at war in Afghanistan and the top 2 percent of Americans still get Bush era tax cuts. Other than pulling out of Iraq, what has Obama really done DIFFERENT than Bush?

captainbryce wrote:

Chris wrote:It's been said that a Republican president/politician has more more leeway to exact his and his party's ideals/platform issues without worrying about affronting the Democrat demographic, because few expect a Republican politician to go out of their way to appease Democrats, or care what they think. It's also been said, however, that the opposite is true on the flip-side; that a Democratic president/politician often has to play nice with Republicans (or at least more frequently than the other side does) and try to walk a tightrope to keep both parties pacified.

Do you agree or disagree?

The are more republicans and conservatives in the country than there are democrats and liberals, however democrats occupy areas with larger populations and therefore have more electoral votes. Democrats have to worry more about appeasing moderates and independent voters than Republicans do and because of that they are typically a little more willing to "compromise". If they didn't they wouldn't get enough votes to be elected (or re-elected). Also democrats re more wiling to vote for a moderate liberal than conservatives are willing to vote for a moderate republican. Moderate republicans struggle in the primaries more than moderate democrats. George HW Bush was the last republican president sort of started leaning liberal towards the end of his first term but he was not re-elected! George W Bush remained a stern conservative throughout his 8 years in office.

I also think that democratic presidents tend to become more moderate the longer they stay in office. Obama is the classic example! He started off preaching very "liberal" values and making very liberal promises, but ultimately became a very compromising President out of necessity and failed on many of his liberal promises. A lot of liberals view him as not a true democrat anymore (particularly those in congress). Obama has made SOME changes from the Bush administration, but not nearly as much or as fast as Candidate Obama had suggested. Think about it, how much different is the world now than when Bush was President? Gay marriage is still not recognized federally, Guantanamo Bay detention camps are still open and in use, we are still at war in Afghanistan and the top 2 percent of Americans still get Bush era tax cuts. Other than pulling out of Iraq, what has Obama really done DIFFERENT than Bush?

Ya know, I had a problem with Obama running for office in the first place. To me, he just wasn't a politician. I was all ready for Hilary to become president because she is a politician. She's knows how to finagle if it meant getting what's right done for the people. But now, I'm starting to think that perhaps he is. Or at least he's learning. Extending those Bush tax cuts will always be a huge RED mark on Obama's record, but maybe it's a pre-cursor to something better. Maybe he has something up his sleeve. I fail to see it, but I *hope* he does.

Obama should have made Hillary his running mate after she lost the primary. The reaction to the two of them in office would have been gold....

Marc wrote:Obama should have made Hillary his running mate after she lost the primary. The reaction to the two of them in office would have been gold....

Maybe he knew better than to put Hillary one heartbeat away from the presidency.

Democrats are always so worried about keeping all sides appeased and the more they try, the more they make mistakes and people complain. For the first 2 yrs. of the Obama admin., he was too nervous about how things would be reacted to by his naysayers and wound up fueling their vitriol with his ball fumbling. After he started caring less and started making his own hard decisions (something Republicans are much quicker to do), his admin. drastically improved. A year ago I worried about his reelection, now I feel safe in calling it.

Economist Magazine just examined this topic, their explanation is interesting !

They examined how the electorate & personality type drive the reasons that Democrats need to be more pragmatic to win elections.

The short answer is that the electorate leans largely conservative so the Dems need to reach out to conservative moderates to reach %50 while the Republicans can play more to their base.

Personality types play into this as well since openeness "the same trait that makes people liberal makes them less likely to become partisans".


Link : http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/04/shutdown&fsrc=nwl