[lbo-talk] family member on strike? you lose food stamps....

[Wojtek S]

[WS:] Good question.  My conjecture is risk aversion.  If they do as
little as possible and coast along, they can serve their terms, an
maybe another term, and then perhaps land on cushy sinecures in law
firms or the academia.  If they go ballistic and lose, not only their
chances of re-election but also landing cushy sinecures will be
dramatically reduced.  So it is pretty much a choice between taking a
personal risk for the hope that it may benefit the party (and its
constituents) or playing it safe and putting the party at risk in some
future time.

I think that for some reasons Dems tend to be the party apparatchik
types - concerned more about their sinecures and aversive to sticking
their heads out.  Repugs tend to play more risky games, trusting their
gut political instincts than polls and consultants, and do not mind
rocking the boat.  Or perhaps they are not risking that much after
all, knowing that their business cronies will reward them even if they
do not get elected.

Wojtek

On Thu, Mar 24, 2011 at 5:03 PM, Michael Smith <mjs at smithbowen.net> wrote:
> On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 14:02:49 -0400
> Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>  Dems [...] try to cut deals and compromise,
>> and never fail to snatch a defeat from the jaws of victory.  I mean,
>> they should have flooded the floor with anti-repug legislative
>> proposals
>
> Hmmm. Wonder why they didn't think of that?
>
>
> --
> --
>
> Michael J. Smith
> mjs at smithbowen.net
>
> http://stopmebeforeivoteagain.org
> http://www.cars-suck.org
> http://fakesprogress.blogspot.com
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>