All monarchies. Monarchies don't need to be uniform. A Porsche 911 and a Plymouth Reliant are very different in many ways, but they're both still cars.

Some monarchies, the best ones in my unbiased opinion, are democracies too!

Good things about Texas:

Not to rain on the snark parade, but the people. Sure there are some bad apples, but most Texans are fine people - once you get past their delusion Texas is the greatest state in the nation.

I wasn't trying to be snarky at all, but between "delusion" and "Texas", did you mean to insert a comma or a "that"?

---------------------------------------------------------

Aren't Roy Orbison and Janis Joplin from Texas? How did you miss them?

I stopped at 10 because it's a nice round number. No disrespect intended, and I only mentioned Jerry Jeff Walker because "London Homesick Blues" is one of the great songs of all time. Can anyone really dispute that?

Well, the SCOTUS can argued to be an oligarchy. How's that worked out? You like government judicial fiat?

"The NFL also more or less stated the Arizona could forget about getting another Super Bowl if they passed the law."

Well, the NFL just played a Super Bowl earlier this month in a state that they are still battling in court regarding sports betting, and the New Jersey law (though still rendered moot so far by the courts due to a superceding federal law) was passed a couple of years ago.

Well, the NFL just played a Super Bowl earlier this month in a state that they are still battling in court regarding sports betting,

That doesn't have quite the negative publicity that this Arizona bill has.

John McCain, Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich have all come out on the "veto" side of this bill.

Orrin Hatch on Twitter:

It’s sad to know that Pres Obama has taken chained CPI off the table. We need to get serious about entitlement reform

A day earlier:

These Medicare Advantage cuts are misguided, threaten a successful program for seniors, and must be overturned

Sample size fallacy. If Yuniesky Betancourt draws a walk, you wouldn't say the trend is for him to be a more selective hitter. We have a pretty good handle on something like 6000 years of human history; perhaps a couple centuries of that time has been dominated by democracies. You're looking at the present and assuming that the status quo is somehow naturally ordained; it's not. It's more likely to be a historical aberration, a distortion caused by the American Empire. And no empire lasts forever.

Similar GF rant: Sample size fallacy. Sure electric lights are popular now, but we have a good handle on something like 6000 years of history, and only a hundred years or so have been dominated by the electric light. Only an idiot would presume that anything other than flame - preferably open flame - is the correct method of light generation. Electric lights are only popular because of the distortion of the American Empire (duh, where was the lightbulb invented? See!), and once that Empire has passed on people will go back to open flame! I am positive!

Arizona is gunning to become the only state ever to have two Super Bowls yanked. The twice-suspended ghost of Steinbrenner must be smiling today.

Texas' gay marriage ban has been struck down in federal court.

Presumably we'll be seeing fewer horns in Texas.

Similar GF rant: Sample size fallacy. Sure electric lights are popular now, but we have a good handle on something like 6000 years of history, and only a hundred years or so have been dominated by the electric light. Only an idiot would presume that anything other than flame - preferably open flame - is the correct method of light generation. Electric lights are only popular because of the distortion of the American Empire (duh, where was the lightbulb invented? See!), and once that Empire has passed on people will go back to open flame! I am positive!

Popularity isn't relevant to the discussion. Yes, people generally prefer electric lights to open flame. But people usually prefer whatever they have at any given time to what existed before they were born. Roman citizens at the height of the Roman Empire believed that it was obviously, self-evidently, the finest and most superior form of government imagineable. They were rich, powerful, respected throughout the known world... Rome kicked ass! How could anybody think some goofy Greek conceit like democracy could possibly compete with their awesome empire? You're making the same mistake with respect to democracy and the status quo. Life's never been better for BM! You're rich and comfortable and living in a democracy. So OBVIOUSLY democracy rules.

But more to the point, you're just reinforcing my original point. Electric lighting IS a tiny sample size in human history, and only a fool would be convinced that it's ordained as the new standard of human existence. We may have something far more awesome soon (quasi-sentient bioluminescent bacteria?) and people will look back at the primitives who ran high current electricity through wires as benighted savages. Or we may fall into a post-apocalyptic dark age, where it's all candles, all the time. As always, you assume the status quo is both the best of all possible worlds AND it's here to stay forever. Neither are the case.

Presumably we'll be seeing fewer horns in Texas.

It was the state, not Alexis.

Electric lighting IS a tiny sample size in human history, and only a fool would be convinced that it's ordained as the new standard of human existence.

And you have totally missed mine, so I will explain it all in excruciating detail so it is clear to you.

See, the analogy is electric light has mostly replaced open flame, just like democracy has mostly replaced monarchy. Both electric light and democracy are pretty new relative to the whole of human history. But that does not mean - absent your end times ridiculous "But what if" scenario - that they are fads. Everything changes, but we are not going back to open flame as primary lighting for humanity ,and we are not going back to monarchy. Because both open flame and monarchy are inferior, that is why they are going away.

Maybe you think open flame and monarchy and the theory of phlogiston are going to make a huge comeback (and won't Lamarck be thrilled his theories will be coming back also), but no one serious thinks that.

As always, you assume the status quo is both the best of all possible worlds AND it's here to stay forever. Neither are the case.

The current state of the world is the best it has ever been as I have shown before. You can continue to think the world is flat, but your thinking it doesn't make it so. However to suggest that I think anything stays as it is forever shows you really are a bit dim. See I am a progressive. I mention that a whole lot on this thread, because it is foundational for me. I believe in progress, technological and other progress. A fundamental part of my world view revolves around change, and how that change is harnessed for the benefit of humanity. Suggesting otherwise shows you really have a hard time understanding the basic concepts.

Everything changes, but we are not going back to open flame as primary lighting for humanity ,and we are not going back to monarchy. Because both open flame and monarchy are inferior, that is why they are going away.

Because you said so? The Romans at the height of the empire would have thought going back to democracy was laughable because it was demonstrably inferior; if it was so great, how come the Greeks were just a bunch of subjugated punks at that point?

However to suggest that I think anything stays as it is forever shows you really are a bit dim. See I am a progressive. I mention that a whole lot on this thread, because it is foundational for me. I believe in progress, technological and other progress. A fundamental part of my world view revolves around change, and how that change is harnessed for the benefit of humanity.

But you believe that society can only progress in ways that you deem appropriate? Sorry, that's just magical thinking. You can't see past your own prejudices towards the present. For somebody who insists they believe in change or progress, you're awfully insistent that democracy is here to stay, even though there's little historical evidence that's the case. Democracy has been around for well over 2000 years, but has been the dominant form of government for a little over 100 of those years. If it was so self-evidently superior, why did it spend so much time losing out to "inferior" systems of government?

Because you said so? The Romans at the height of the empire would have thought going back to democracy was laughable because it was demonstrably inferior; if it was so great, how come the Greeks were just a bunch of subjugated punks at that point?

The Greek cities the Romans subjugated were almost all oligarchies. Democracy had disappeared long before.

If it was so self-evidently superior, why did it spend so much time losing out to "inferior" systems of government?

The steam engine was invented in 200 B.C., it didn't become dominant until the mid 19th century, but is there any question that a steam locomotive is a superior means of transportation than a horse?

Sometimes it takes a very long time to work out the kinks in a new social or material institution, and meanwhile older forms have the advantage of entrenchment in cultural practice.

Life's never been better for BM! You're rich and comfortable and living in a democracy. So OBVIOUSLY democracy rules.

Life has never been better for a majority of humanity. More people than ever before have more money than ever before, life longer, and are healthier. They are more comfortable than ever before. Not coincidentally more people than ever before live in a representative democracy.

Good Face has never lived in a monarchy. As a percentage fewer people than before (ever is a bit too strong) live in a monarchy. The strong trend over the 'tiny' time span of 200+ years is that strong monarchies are replaced by representative democracies.

To the extent I actually live in the form of government I support then yes I am using my experience, however (warning analogy* alert!) just because you think horse and buggy is the best mode of transport evah! (despite never having actually ridden in one) doesn't mean much when the rest of the world (not just me) has shown a strong and consistent preference for that new fangled horseless carriage thing.

* In this analogy the automobile, or horseless carriage, is democracy and monarchy is the horse and buggy you admire from afar.

But you believe that society can only progress in ways that you deem appropriate?

Where on Earth did I suggest that? I did suggest that monarchies are the way of the past and won't be making a comeback anytime soon. And I have historical trends at my back. You have (as you put it) magical thinking that suggest monarchies are cool and that someday, somehow, you might actually get to visit one and if lucky be allowed to live there as they make their way back across the globe, because reasons!

The Greek cities the Romans subjugated were almost all oligarchies. Democracy had disappeared long before.

Right. From the Roman perspective, if democracy was so great, why did it peter out?

The steam engine was invented in 200 B.C., it didn't become dominant until the mid 19th century, but is there any question that a steam locomotive is a superior means of transportation than a horse?

Not comparing apples to apples. The steam engine required significant advances in metallurgy and materials technology before it could be superior to a horse. But democracy isn't a particularly tricky concept that needed thousands of years of refinement. There were no technological obstacles in its way; people just didn't take to it for thousands of years. Probably because it's not self-evidently superior.

Life has never been better for a majority of humanity. More people than ever before have more money than ever before, life longer, and are healthier. They are more comfortable than ever before. Not coincidentally more people than ever before live in a representative democracy.

This is a causation fail. One could say the exact same thing about life at the height of the Roman Empire (other than the living in a democracy bit). You're confusing technological development with a system of government.

I did suggest that monarchies are the way of the past and won't be making a comeback anytime soon.

You did a bit more than "suggest" that. Nice to see you backing down at least.

And I have historical trends at my back.

Trends so short that they're as meaningless as Yuniesky Betancourt working a walk, but hey, if it brings you comfort, go with it.

You have (as you put it) magical thinking that suggest monarchies are cool and that someday, somehow, you might actually get to visit one and if lucky be allowed to live there as they make their way back across the globe, because reasons!

I actually haven't made any claims about what will happen at all. I've merely stated a preference and pointed out that what you apparently see as divinely ordered progress is, in fact, quite possibly a historical hiccup. A blip that may soon remedy itself. Because history.

. . . Nobody cares about this kind of crap . . .

So, without a single one of the "Confidential Advice" documents being released, you're declaring that none of them are of any interest or political significance? Are you willing to make a similar preemptive declaration about all the documents that have yet to be released by the George W. Bush Presidential Library? If not, it would seem that your stance is based entirely on whether you approve of the politician whose papers are at issue.

My initial post was a pretty much neutral lead-in to a Politico article. If you read the article, you should be aware that the Clinton disclosures are overdue and haven't kept up with the pace of the disclosures by the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library. You'd also note that my stance is quite similar to that of 2008 candidate Barack Obama who chided Hilary Clinton about the slow pace of disclosures of her papers in the Clinton Library.

Now I suspect that after all their scandal experience, the Clintons were unlikely to have allowed anything all that damaging to be reduced to writing or into the Library collection, but if there is nothing interesting or significant in these papers, I'm at a loss as to how they came to be classified as Confidential Advice in the first place.

The Jews of antiquity were not well known as either seafarers or navigators. Hell, it took us 40 years just to cross the damn Sinai.

They have all the money though so obviously they just hired somebody to sail the ships for them.

but if there is nothing interesting or significant in these papers, I'm at a loss as to how they came to be classified as Confidential Advice in the first place.

I wouldn't be surprised if Clinton's aides had recomended turning down Marc Rich's pardon application.

I think the more interesting stuff from TYC's POV(if any exists) would be material related to the Braswell pardon.

MLB takes strong stand against SB 1062.

Arizona media reporting Gov. Brewer is making a statement at 5:45 MST.

If you read the article, you should be aware that the Clinton disclosures are overdue and haven't kept up with the pace of the disclosures by the George H. W. Bush Presidential Library.

Which everyone still talks about.


...but if there is nothing interesting or significant in these papers, I'm at a loss as to how they came to be classified as Confidential Advice in the first place.

Even public figures like to have private lives?


I'm not saying there's going to be nothing notable in the papers, I'm sure some of the stuff will be quite interesting; but I do wonder what your heavy breathing is in anticipation of.

This is a causation fail. One could say the exact same thing about life at the height of the Roman Empire (other than the living in a democracy bit). You're confusing technological development with a system of government.

I did not suggest a specific causation, only correlation. I think rising income and education are correlated with being in a democracy.

Sadly your reading comprehension is poor. For example " what you apparently see as divinely ordered progress is", when I never said anything about inevitable or divine. The only claims I have made, and I am not at all backing away from them, is that monarchy is fading from the world stage, democracy is growing in power on the world stage, and that these trends are over 200 years in the making. In the future democracy could be replaced, but I really doubt it will be a monarchy.
Oh yeah and I made the claim that you have never actually lived in a monarchy.

Can you name the last created monarchy*? Some examples where a representative democracy became a monarchy? I can name a bunch of examples going the other way.

* I think it is likely North Korea, but I suspect you wold rather not claim NK, especially since you (hilariously) think it is a democracy.

So because monarchies are boring ... a quick shout out to #4 state in terms of well being ... Minnesota. Upper Midwest represent!

And now for some polling news ...

To be sure, the new poll finds that opinion of the law is more negative than positive: 47 percent of Americans view the law unfavorably, while 35 percent view it favorably (though opinions have improved a bit since October).

But unfavorable views have not translated into support for the GOP position of repeal; indeed the repeal position may have lost ground since the October rollout problems, while a clear majority favors keeping and improving the law.

...but if there is nothing interesting or significant in these papers, I'm at a loss as to how they came to be classified as Confidential Advice in the first place.

. . . I'm not saying there's going to be nothing notable in the papers, I'm sure some of the stuff will be quite interesting; but I do wonder what your heavy breathing is in anticipation of.

What heavy breathing would that be? Try reading what I wrote.

. . . Nobody cares about this kind of crap . . .

So, without a single one of the "Confidential Advice" documents being released, you're declaring that none of them are of any interest or political significance? Are you willing to make a similar preemptive declaration about all the documents that have yet to be released by the George W. Bush Presidential Library? If not, it would seem that your stance is based entirely on whether you approve of the politician whose papers are at issue.

Interest? Sure, no question.

Front page stories and 10,000,000 Twitter posts? Wouldn't surprise me. But long range political significance? Don't be ridic.

This goes for any Bush revelations just as well as any about Hillary or Bill.

Bush isn't running for office anytime soon. Neither is Bill.

And as for Hillary, be honest with yourself and answer this question: Can you think of a single person you know, or can even conceive of, who would change his or her vote in 2016 from Hillary to any currently possible Republican nominee, basing that switch on revelations about events that took place 20 years ago?

Point of fact: You can't beat somebody with nobody.

in 2008 all those "game changing" videos of Rev. Wright and "revelations" about Obama and Bill Ayers did was to goose up the Obama vote, as many people saw the racial undertones of the smear campaign and wanted to make sure that "people like that" were kept out of the White House.

And if you don't think that plenty of women would take a similar overwrought campaign against Hillary as a personal affront to them, and as a reminder of the mentality of Ken Starr and the rest of his supporting cast, then you haven't learned much from 2008. One of these years the GOP is going to have to try to appeal to a voter base that extends beyond angry white folks, but that doesn't seem to be happening.

Gotta give at least one Republican credit for beginning to emerge out from under the Tea Party spell. Governor Brewer just vetoed that farcical "religious freedom" bill in Arizona. I wonder how this is going to play among the fundies.

Gotta give at least one Republican credit for beginning to emerge out from under the Tea Party spell. Governor Brewer just vetoed that farcical "religious freedom" bill in Arizona. I wonder how this is going to play among the fundies.

she did them a huge favor. this thing was undoubtedly getting overturned in the courts because of its overly broad nature, but depending on the judge who writes the decision, the case could have been used as a nationwide landmark ruling against LGBT related discrimination.

basically there's a strong likelihood that if this case got to the supreme court, it would have served as a backdoor (no pun intended) for ENDA.

interesting

HowardKurtz 8:04pm via Web

O'Reilly will go to White House tomw for My Brother's Keeper initiative with Obama, aimed at deterring collapse of traditional families

..............

I hadn't seen any O'Reilly in a few years, but have caught him here and there of late. He seems to be - evolving. Now, he was never as crazy politically as some thought (though the obnoxiousness is real), but he seems to be tacking a bit more centrist as many Republicans tack further right...

Granted, I didn't see the Super Bowl interview or whatever it was recently.

I hadn't seen any O'Reilly in a few years, but have caught him here and there of late. He seems to be - evolving. Now, he was never as crazy politically as some thought (though the obnoxiousness is real), but he seems to be tacking a bit more centrist as many Republicans tack further right...

I know that a year or two ago he told the Million Moms or whatever they are to shut the hell up about JC Penney associating with Ellen Degeneres

Gotta give at least one Republican credit for beginning to emerge out from under the Tea Party spell. Governor Brewer just vetoed that farcical "religious freedom" bill in Arizona. I wonder how this is going to play among the fundies.

she did them a huge favor.

No doubt about that, but the question is whether they're so blinded by their religious ideology that they won't appreciate the extent to which she's rescued them from themselves.

Gotta give at least one Republican credit for beginning to emerge out from under the Tea Party spell. Governor Brewer just vetoed that farcical "religious freedom" bill in Arizona. I wonder how this is going to play among the fundies.

There was just no way she was going to sign that stupid thing. Even if she was personally inclined to (either her personal beliefs regarding the things outlined in the law or the political ramifications of signing it could affect that) there was far too much vocal opposition, particularly from her own party/traditional Republican supporters.

Edit: I like her press conference jab at the legislature for spending time on this bill instead of on actual important things

Edit: I like her press conference jab at the legislature for spending time on this bill instead of on actual important things

In Brewer's written statement to the Legislature, she blamed Obama for making lawmakers pass these kinds of bills.

There's a theory going around that Brewer was handed SB 1062 because the Legislature wanted to embarrass her as payback for supporting Medicaid expansion. If that's the case, I don't think the lawmakers thought this through.

Obama is at 41% Approve - 51% Disapprove, and the GOP is up 3% in the Generic Congressional Vote, according to the latest CBS/New York Times Poll.

The fundies need to accept that the battle over gay rights is over and they have lost.

That isn't technically true, but their position is like the Confederacy's after Gettysburg and Vicksburg. They can't win, but refuse to surrender out of spite if nothing else.

And as for Hillary, be honest with yourself and answer this question: Can you think of a single person you know, or can even conceive of, who would change his or her vote in 2016 from Hillary to any currently possible Republican nominee

The bad news is, the Rs will very probably be running a clownshow for the third election in a row.
The good news is, maybe this will inspire a real third-party movement.
Nobody's even pretending Clinton would be better than Obama, and nobody's even pretending Obama's been better than "Hey, at least he's not Republican."

Obama is at 41% Approve - 51% Disapprove,

Isn't this an actual improvement?


Nobody's even pretending Clinton would be better than Obama, and nobody's even pretending Obama's been better than "Hey, at least he's not Republican."

Your superlative is slightly misplaced in the latter, and definitely misplaced in the former, I'd say.

Obama is at 41% Approve - 51% Disapprove,

Isn't this an actual improvement?

No. In the January CBS/New York Times Poll Obama was at 46% Approve - 47% Disapprove, so he's gone from -1 to -10 in a month. There have been some polls in which Obama has done even worse, so perhaps that's the cause of your confusion. Maybe I should post polls more often.

Maybe I should post polls more often.

This feels like a threat.

I see #2326 also attempted to report some polling news, but he buried the lede - The Uninsured Have Turned Against ObamaCare. 56% of the uninsured view ObamaCare unfavorably, compared to 22% favorably. That's up from 39% Unfavorable - 36% Favorable in November. When even the supposed beneficiaries of ObamaCare don't support it, it might be time for its proponents to redo their calculation of how the "winners & losers" add up.

56% of the uninsured view ObamaCare unfavorably, compared to 22% favorably. That's up from 39% Unfavorable - 36% Favorable in November.

What makes you think that's a static segment of the population?

Take a large collection of uninsured people, and poll them at a time when few, if any, have signed up on the exchanges or for Medicaid/CHIP. Some of them think this will be a good thing, and some think it will be a bad thing. Now, check back after there's been a substantial opportunity to sign up. The ones who thought it would be a good thing? Guess what - they're the ones that have been signing up. And since they've been signing up, they're not uninsured any more. That leaves behind a population that, because they just know it's a bad thing, haven't been signing up and they're still uninsured.

Nobody's even pretending Clinton would be better than Obama, and nobody's even pretending Obama's been better than "Hey, at least he's not Republican."

I think Obama has on net been a very good president. I would be happy if HRC was as good as he has been (obviously I would prefer better).

So there is at least one person.

I see #2326 also attempted to report some polling news, but he buried the lede

No, I reported polling news and highlighted the politically important part. That - as predicted by me and many others - repeal of ACA is going to become steadily less possible. People favor fixing the law over repeal and the numbers are going in the right direction. After a couple years ACA (the important bits) will be locked in stone, and the GOP will be left to tinker around the edges. See basically every entitlement ever.

That is much more significant (though admittedly not surprising) than what the uninsured think about ACA reform. In addition to what OCF said, for good or ill, they are not a very powerful (politically) group of people. If they were something would have been done for them decades ago.

Where on Earth did I suggest that? I did suggest that monarchies are the way of the past and won't be making a comeback anytime soon. And I have historical trends at my back.

This entire conversation is broken on both sides, because both of you seem to think there's a narrative arc to history. There's not. You're right, in that more people are living better lives than in the history of the species, during an era dominated by democracy. TGF is right in pointing out that there's no necessary causal force at play in that condition, so much as just-so reasoning. Of course, he's also incredibly wrong to ignore that same randomness and pretend that his version of mythologized 'monarchy' is something other than random as well.

So, without a single one of the "Confidential Advice" documents being released, you're declaring that none of them are of any interest or political significance?

Except the one picture of Hillary killing Vince Foster while having sex with a woman, naturally.

Monica Lewinsky has supposedly received some big money for a book deal. Now, who would pay that kind of money (she's already published a book on the cause célèbre ), and why, and what kind of book are they paying for?

So I've spent a fair bit of time digging through the House GOP's tax proposal -- which, despite actually BEING a bill, Boehner says is something for discussion, not something for "voting" -- and while I have some real problems with it... If the GOP is willing to call it a starting point -- there's potential for solution here.

First, I'm not hung up on the marginal rate tables -- it's the effective rates I care about, so I don't have a knee-jerk rejection of the top-line cut to 25%... That number is probably too low - but I'm not tied to a published rate in the current 39% range. I could see something workable - if different income types are treated appropriately and the trimming of deductions works out - in the high 20% range.

Second, I don't see a two-tiered basis rate being the answer -- I think you need at least a 3-tiered basic rate. However, sure -- in 1986 we went from like 15 stairsteps to 7, the world didn't end, and the end result was good based on effective rates for the following tax year.

Third, I've stated many times that the tax code is like hedge trimming -- it's perfectly fine and natural for growth of certain deduction types because the tax code should be used to goose certain national priorities... it's an effective carrot and we shouldn't be afraid of using it that way... but you have to be careful not to prune too severely because you can create significant economic turmoil/domino effects. I haven't dug fully into where they trimmed - but what I've read says that they went too far and actually, weighted the trimming too heavily against folks in the middle, say, 60% of earners.

Fourth, ironically enough -- if I wanted to be TOTALLY selfish -- I actually ought to be rallying in the street for this change... Re-working my own just completed taxes, I'm actually RIGHT in the sweet spot and I'd see a pretty massive tax cut out of this... We're legitimately talking about 6-7 points and several thousand dollars - just so happens that I have virtually no deductions, no depedents, no mortgage, etc. However, at a policy level -- I don't think that I'm necessarily where tax relief needs to fall.

The single biggest problem as I see it that the GOP proposal actually cuts the effective tax rate -- overall -- to an even lower level than it is currently.... and we're already plumbing post-WWII lows on that score. The hard-stop is holding serve, as I see it.... Obviously, I'd prefer to see a point or two growth - especially if people actually DO care about the deficit rather than just using it as a cudgel.... But I'd be willing to go in a reform bill that guarantees the current results come out in the wash. The House proposal doesn't -- but it's close enough that if we really met in the middle, I could see possibilities.

Monica Lewinsky has supposedly received some big money for a book deal. Now, who would pay that kind of money (she's already published a book on the cause célèbre ), and why, and what kind of book are they paying for?

So, 50/50 it's a Regency publication?

The good news is, maybe this will inspire a real third-party movement.

Yeah, right. Have you seen the third parties in circulation? I've spent some time with Libertarians and Greens--both parties are bad jokes, both populated by people who are more interested in complaining about sheeple and acting smugly superior than in actually accomplishing anything. I support third parties in their quest for fair ballot access; the Republicrats' self-protective ballot access laws are shameful. But even if they got full ballot access tomorrow they'd go nowhere, because the members of both those parties don't really want to go anywhere.

The Republican Party is a good way down the long road to extinction. If they actually approach the end of that road then some third party that doesn't yet exist will gain prominence and eventually absorb enough of the Republican rank-and-file to replace it. That's at least 10-15 years off yet, though.

I attended a little informal event hosted by the guy who will run for governor on the Libertarian ticket. He's a pretty sharp guy and I like him personally, but not sharp enough to understand that opening your stump speech with "if elected I will abolish income tax" is a perfect plan if your goal is to get everyone listening to immediately dismiss you as a loony.

Former Montana Governor Brian Schweitzer has joined MSNBC. I can't imagine that's a good move if he was going to potray himself as a centrist alternative to Hillary.

Also looks like Congressman Cory Gardner, an establishment Republican candidate, will run for CO Senate and Ken Buck (Tea Partier who lost to Michael Bennet in 2010) will bow out. Incumbant Mo Udall had a slim lead over Buck in the polls, this probably makes CO a very competitive Senate race.

Ah, Rich Lowry, still fighting the idiotic fight.

The bad news is, the Rs will very probably be running a clownshow for the third election in a row.
The good news is, maybe this will inspire a real third-party movement.
Nobody's even pretending Clinton would be better than Obama, and nobody's even pretending Obama's been better than "Hey, at least he's not Republican."

Where's this third party going to run from? Is it going to be Rand Paul as a Libertarian with name recognition? Is it going to be Bloomberg running as the "Make David Brooks masturbate every day" candidate? Is Bernie Sanders going to mount a 3rd party insurgency from Clinton's left?

If you get a scenario where you get two of those three things happening at the same time; Wackadoodle Du Jour for the GOP, Hillary for the Dems, Paul for the Libs and Sanders siphoning off votes from Hillary's left, you might get something where Paul could get close. More likely you'd get a 92 result where the Dem wins, but with a plurality rather than a majority.

I think Obama has on net been a very good president.

Where do you get your crack? Seriously. I can totally understand how someone could have been swept off their feet by the initial campaign, and I could even forgive a person of marginal intelligence for still believing that he's a good guy, just handcuffed by an uncooperative Congress, given the perpetual fawning media. But how in God's name a guy with your obvious literacy skills could think that this useless, divisive, lying, vindictive, race-baiting, elitist sack of #### has been a good president is all I need to know about how your once-great country has been brought to its knees. Jesus Christ.

Rand Paul, like his father, is plenty smart enough to know better than to touch the Libertarian party with a 40-foot pole.

Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate that a large portion of her own party isn't very comfortable with, but the Republicans are such a mess and so sorely lacking for someone, anyone, charismatic that they're not going to be able to take advantage of it. From where we're sitting now it looks very much like if Hillary Clinton is alive in January 2017 she'll be president.

Where do you get your crack? Seriously. I can totally understand how someone could have been swept off their feet by the initial campaign, and I could even forgive a person of marginal intelligence for still believing that he's a good guy, just handcuffed by an uncooperative Congress, given the perpetual fawning media. But how in God's name a guy with your obvious literacy skills could think that this useless, divisive, lying, vindictive, race-baiting, elitist sack of #### has been a good president is all I need to know about how your once-great country has been brought to its knees. Jesus Christ.

LOL

Ah, Rich Lowry, still fighting the idiotic fight.

I have come to the conclusion National Review serves an important purpose, as it is consistently a source of wrong opinions.

But how in God's name a guy with your obvious literacy skills could think that this useless, divisive, lying, vindictive, race-baiting, elitist sack of #### has been a good president is all I need to know about how your once-great country has been brought to its knees. Jesus Christ.

Go cavort with a moose and work off some of that energy, man.

Where do you get your crack? Seriously. I can totally understand how someone could have been swept off their feet by the initial campaign, and I could even forgive a person of marginal intelligence for still believing that he's a good guy, just handcuffed by an uncooperative Congress, given the perpetual fawning media. But how in God's name a guy with your obvious literacy skills could think that this useless, divisive, lying, vindictive, race-baiting, elitist sack of #### has been a good president is all I need to know about how your once-great country has been brought to its knees. Jesus Christ.



LOL

LOLX2

A moose would do less damage to the US and its international reputation than Obama has.

Hillary is a deeply flawed candidate that a large portion of her own party isn't very comfortable with

Who, among the Dems, isn't comfortable with Hillary Clinton? I mean, I get that there's a small slice of Bernie Sanders-esque left that isn't happy with the idea of another DLC Dem. And I get that a portion of the pliable "centrist independent" men who voted for Obama might peel off from Hillary. But I don't see a large block of actual Democrats who aren't going to vote for Hillary.

Is Rant's rant an example of Poe's Law, or is he serious?

Who, among the Dems, isn't comfortable with Hillary Clinton? I mean, I get that there's a small slice of Bernie Sanders-esque left that isn't happy with the idea of another DLC Dem. And I get that a portion of the pliable "centrist independent" men who voted for Obama might peel off from Hillary. But I don't see a large block of actual Democrats who aren't going to vote for Hillary.

This.

Hillary doesn't thrill me, but she'll get my vote.

I'll probably support any Hillary challenger in the primaries, but come November, I'll be pulling the lever for Hillary.

You do have to worry about those left-leaning men who would stay home under Hillary. Obama beat Mitt in 2012 in large part due to turning people out. If Hillary doesn't produce those kind of turnout numbers, it could be close.

Of course, she will likely do a better job than Obama at turning out the women's vote, but will the youth vote be there again?

Of course, she will likely do a better job than Obama at turning out the women's vote, but will the youth vote be there again?

But we also have to account for Obama "underperforming" among certain segments of the voters, simply due to his skin color. (PDF)

Of course, she will likely do a better job than Obama at turning out the women's vote, but will the youth vote be there again?

The Dems have turned out women, kids and minorities (sometimes all in the same person!) for two generals in a row. I could see an argument that 2008 was a flukish "people want to be part of history" year, but 2012 maintained that same turnout, which suggests that the Dems are now pretty solidly in the lead for GOTV and registration. I don't see the youth vote crashing if HRC runs in 2016. They will support the first woman presidential candidate, and they will vote against the reactionary old men in the GOP. Until the GOP fixes that problem, youth turnout will favor the Dems.

You do have to worry about those left-leaning men who would stay home under Hillary. she will likely do a better job than Obama at turning out the women's vote.

The gender split among voters is very small. There was a ?Nate Silver? piece where he showed that the higher % of men in a district, the more likely the district was to elect a woman (and this is almost certainly because the way you get more men into a district is to make the population younger). Clinton vs. Obama shifts a bit who's motivated to vote, but who and how shan't be much different.

I'm serious - extreme views for extreme times. Of course that doesn't mean I am Republican in any way shape or form.

A moose would do less damage to the US and its international reputation than Obama has.

How precisely has Obama moose-###### the US's international reputation?

The NDAA alone would have been enough.

This entire conversation is broken on both sides, because both of you seem to think there's a narrative arc to history.

You're misreading me then. BM is pretty clearly a believer in Whig History, but I most certainly am not, nor do I believe history has any sort of narrative arc.

I'm merely pointing out that throughout human history monarchy has been the dominant form of government, even thousands of years after the invention and debut of democracy, and consequently, BM's Whig History narrative about the inevitable and ongoing triumph of democracy is based on little but wishful thinking and status quo bias.

Of course, he's also incredibly wrong to ignore that same randomness and pretend that his version of mythologized 'monarchy' is something other than random as well.

You'll have to be more specific, because I don't know what "incredibly wrong" claims you're accusing me of making here. I DO believe that the modern democracies that make up what we generally refer to as "Western Civilization" are unsustainable and ailing. They've lost their ability to win wars, they're facing demographic decline, if not collapse in some places, and their treasuries are often in parlous condition. I'm NOT saying that they will inevitably be replaced with good old trusty monarchies.

This entire conversation is broken on both sides, because both of you seem to think there's a narrative arc to history. There's not.

I guess it depends on what you mean by narrative arc. Empirically since the invention of the representative democracy it has spread throughout the world in increasing numbers of nations and people. Empirically since roughly the same time Monarchies* have decreased in relative scope and influence, in some part converting from Monarchy into Democracy. Obviously there has also been other governmental forms that have come into being in the same time frame to varying degrees of success, and it becomes more complex to include them. However, the basic facts around democracy and monarchy are fairly simple.

That is not a narrative arc, that is just a fact. A trend of the last 200+ years. I have opinions as to why this has all happened and could spin a narrative if you want, and we can discuss the pros and cons (and alternative narratives). But at its base those are the facts I am depending on.

Note: By monarchy I am referring to the strong monarchy without a representational democratic system underneath it with the real power. I would consider various nations under the current Queen of England to be democracies and not monarchies, despite the presence of a monarch. Similarly nations are considered democracies if they actually are such, North korea and other democratic shams are not considered as such, no matter what words they have in their formal nation's name.

The Dems have turned out women, kids and minorities (sometimes all in the same person!) for two generals in a row. I could see an argument that 2008 was a flukish "people want to be part of history" year, but 2012 maintained that same turnout, which suggests that the Dems are now pretty solidly in the lead for GOTV and registration. I don't see the youth vote crashing if HRC runs in 2016. They will support the first woman presidential candidate, and they will vote against the reactionary old men in the GOP. Until the GOP fixes that problem, youth turnout will favor the Dems.

Active Democrats outnumber active Republicans at least 3-to-2 now and the gap is widening. The Republican Party is too fractured to mount a serious challenge to any Democratic presidential nominee.

At this point I won't be shocked if the Republicans nominate Romney again. In fact if Romney runs I think it's fairly likely he will be nominated. Romney was born for the role of The Man Behind the Curtain at the RNC, and was the nominee by default in 2012 for lack of any serious candidates--his top challenger was Rick Santorum for heaven's sake--and nothing has really changed.

The Republicans should collectively have wits enough to realize that renominating Romney would be a disaster, but I don't think they do--and more to the point, their three factions can't agree on anything right now, and the faction Romney leads is still the largest (or at least has the most money/influence).

I'm serious - extreme views for extreme times. Of course that doesn't mean I am Republican in any way shape or form.

History is replete with Very Serious People that insist we are in Extreme Times and in need of Extreme Views.

Find me any period in history where an active participant in that period wouldn't have the same case to make.

The NDAA alone would have been enough.

Don't get too detailed there, buddy. We'd hate for you to lose us in the weeds.

Regarding HRC, what she loses in black minority vote (which I suspect won't be much) and people unwilling to vote for a woman for president (which will be some), she more than gains with women, hispanics (who preferred HRC in the primaries if I recall correctly) and of course those who flat don't want to vote for a black man.

There might be some drop in youth enthusiasm, but remember there is also the demographic shift where the 2008 young voters are not really young any more and many of the very old 2008 voters are gone now. Take a wild guess as to the relative voting preferences (and demographic mix) of voters leaving the rolls (due to death) versus voters now on the rolls (aging into it).

I guess I don't know how to respond to smart people who insist everything is A-OK when it clearly is not. I just hadn't heard the "Obama is great" line for quite awhile, so I thought that finally maybe people were starting to wake up, but I guess not. As you were.

All monarchies. Monarchies don't need to be uniform. A Porsche 911 and a Plymouth Reliant are very different in many ways, but they're both still cars.

Then your terms are so overly broad as to be meaningless. At this point, you can reasonably define the current US as a "monarchy" because we only get to vote for A or B from the approved ruling caste of DC insiders.

But how in God's name a guy with your obvious literacy skills could think that this useless, divisive, lying, vindictive, race-baiting, elitist sack of ####

I think Obama has been pretty meh

but he has not been:

divisive or
lying or
vindictive or
race-baiting or
elitist

your belief that he is any of those things shows what an unthinking rightwing POS you are

Where do you get your crack? Seriously. I can totally understand how someone could have been swept off their feet by the initial campaign, and I could even forgive a person of marginal intelligence for still believing that he's a good guy, just handcuffed by an uncooperative Congress, given the perpetual fawning media. But how in God's name a guy with your obvious literacy skills could think that this useless, divisive, lying, vindictive, race-baiting, elitist sack of #### has been a good president is all I need to know about how your once-great country has been brought to its knees. Jesus Christ.

Hmmm. I never claimed good guy or whatever, just that he was a pretty good president.

I don't think he is useless. Given his circumstances I think he has done a fairly good job. Not ideal by any means, but he has governed as a center left pragmatic technocrat (which is what he campaigned as). I would rather more left wing populism, a better record on civil rights and less imperial presidency (but I have felt that way about every president of my lifetime). His desire for bargains and triangulation is (to me) his most annoying trait, but a reasonably politically useful one despite the harm it has caused.

I really don't think he has been divisive or especially a liar. Vindictive, race-baiting and elitist also really don't fit him. He is somewhat cold, professorial, aloof and a bit arrogant, but so what I am judging based on policy and accomplishments relative to what I think he perhaps could have done.

More to the point what presidents have done well in the last 30 years in your opinion? Are they all crap (thus maybe your expectations are out of whack) or is he an outlier (which means our metrics are very different, which is fine)?

I don't think history is teleological, and I guess it depends on how one defines 'narrative arc', but I think history shows that cultural and technological advances, once adopted, tend to spread. Once agriculture was invented, it spread everywhere there was arable land. Ceramic technology, metalworking, writing, gunpowder, all quickly became universal. Sure, there are localized collapses, such as Mycenaean civilization, and small groups that might shift back to hunting (the Inuit, possibly)but those are limited in scope. The same goes for institutions: courts, law codes, state and temple bureaucracies, etc.

They've lost their ability to win wars,

Who are the great war-winning non-democracies? China? It's lost every war it's been in since the rise of Communism. Russia? Iraq? Name one great war-winning non-democracy. You probably have to go back to Prussia to find one.

I guess I don't know how to respond to smart people who insist everything is A-OK when it clearly is not. I just hadn't heard the "Obama is great" line for quite awhile, so I thought that finally maybe people were starting to wake up, but I guess not. As you were.

Well again I most certainly don't think that everything is great. There are very real problems in the world. But I try to have reasonable expectations for what a president can and cannot do, and judge on those expectations. Maybe my bar is too low, but even low as it is not many recent presidents has made it over the bar.

I don't know how to respond to smart people who insist everything is A-OK when it clearly is not.

I don't know how to respond to smart people who insist everything is terrible when it clearly is not.

China? It's lost every war it's been in since the rise of Communism.

How quickly they forget.

After the Dalai Lama government fled to Dharamsala, India, during the 1959 Tibetan Rebellion, it established a rival government-in-exile. Afterwards, the Central People's Government in Beijing renounced the agreement and began implementation of the halted social and political reforms.[55] During the Great Leap Forward between 200,000 and 1,000,000 Tibetans died,[56][not in citation given] and approximately 6,000 monasteries were destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.[57] In 1962 China and India fought a brief war over the disputed South Tibet and Aksai Chin regions. Although China won the war, Chinese troops withdrew north of the McMahon Line, effectively ceding South Tibet to India.[51]

Seriously though you are basically correct. Though of course it is difficult to find many wars of conquest that have been successful since 1900. Since democracies tend not to start wars of conquest (other kinds of wars certainly, including for cultural and political hegemony, but generally not conquest) they have not racked up as many failures as non-democracies.

In other words I don't think democracies are any better at winning wars than non-democracies, I think they just tend to pick better wars. Not always though, see Iraq, Afghanistan and Vietnam for examples of bad ideas for wars that were lost by a somewhat powerful democracy.

people unwilling to vote for a woman for president

People unwilling to vote a woman for president who voted for Obama? I'm sure Clinton won't miss either of their votes when the counting time comes. Clinton as the candidate upshifts the motivation to vote among middle aged people (especially women) a bit, and downshifts it among young people and black people a bit. She may be able to peel some some middle aged white people who live in the suburbs types.

Similarly, motivation might go down, but I suspect you can count the number of Hispanic people who said "Clinton ain't gonna be the Democrat? Guess I'll vote Republican then." on one hand, even if you're a punch-press operator with a severe drinking problem.

The transfer of people from one ledger to the other will be minimal (although almost entirely in Clinton's favor). The motivation will shift more (but I think also works in her favor).

I guess I don't know how to respond to smart people who insist everything is A-OK when it clearly is not.

A perfectly reasonable and logical response would be to point out a period in time when everything WAS A-OK and why you think that period -- a decade, a generation, whatever -- actually WAS A-OK.

People unwilling to vote a woman for president who voted for Obama? I'm sure Clinton won't miss either of their votes when the counting time comes.

Hey I was just being thorough, I am sure there are some, but fewer than those who won't vote for a black man. I thought I made it clear the math worked in her favor on that one, but if not then yeah I think we agree on that.

your belief that he is any of those things shows what an unthinking rightwing POS you are

Rants is not a right wing POS. He is a crazy MoFo. There's a huge difference. Rants believes in things like the intrinsic value of gold, and that the Fed/Treasury/some form of government is in a conspiratorial cabal against the public.

He's not unthinking. His problem is that he lacks a good bullshit detector. That was as kind as I could say it.

***

Re: Hillary and turnout:
Obama suffered historic lows among the white vote for a Democrat and historic highs among the black vote--most notably in the south. There was probably a pretty decent reason for that. I imagine some white voters will come home for the Ds, but the question that is more interesting to me is the gender gap. Rs have been winning male voters for some time now. I wonder if we see the same pattern with male voters and Hillary that we saw with white voters in the South and Obama.

Who are the great war-winning non-democracies? China? It's lost every war it's been in since the rise of Communism. Russia? Iraq? Name one great war-winning non-democracy. You probably have to go back to Prussia to find one.

That wasn't the claim, was it? When judging decline, it's only reasonable to look at the civilization(s) in question and examine their performance. And the performance of USG in winning wars has been pretty shoddy over the past 40 years or so. Vietnam was a humiliating defeat. USG made a pig's breakfast of Iraq and turned it into an Iranian buffer state. USG is currently in the process of retreating in disgust from Afghanistan after more than a decade of futile and pointless faffing around. None of those episodes are what success looks like.

I wonder if we see the same pattern with male voters and Hillary that we saw with white voters in the South and Obama.

We shall see (I hope). I think it somewhat depends on who she is running against.

And the performance of USG in winning wars has been pretty shoddy over the past 40 years or so

Says the guy who claims 200+ years is too small a sample size. And of course no one has had a much better record over the last 40 years. War is hard and failure is common.

The man/woman splits are way, way, way, way smaller than the black/white splits. There'll be a few people who'll not vote Democrat because Clinton is a woman (although most of those people are going to be women - because women are older than men). For the most part, if you won't vote for a woman, you're already voting Republican, so it's of little concern to the overall numbers.

While I do think Bitter Mouses' assessment of monarchy v. democracy is a bit Whiggish, it's not entirely clear to me that
A) liberal democracy is teetering on the brink
or
B) you can turn back the clock on political institutions

Liberal democracy could very well be replaced as the dominant form of government in the future, though I don't see any reason to think it will be immediate future. I'm not really sure what would replace it, except that I'm fairly confident it won't be a return to ancient Rome, 17th century France, or 19th century England.

Part of what is making "monarchy" look so ubiquitous in history is the broad definition of the term, as Sam points out. If we're lumping ancient Egypt, 3rd century Rome, the Merovingian Franks, the Holy Roman Empire, the constitutional monarchy in Britain after 1688, and Nicholas II's Russia among countless others all into one basket and calling it "monarchy", then yeah it looks like monarchy has existed a-ok for centuries. But it ignores how political institutions were in a constant state of flux, negotiated and contingent based on historical and geographic circumstance, adapting to face problems the old institutions couldn't solve. Liberal democracy, like any other development in government, came to prominence the same way. If all you're saying is this isn't the end of history, and new developments in political institutions lie ahead, I couldn't agree more.

But you seem to going beyond that point, to argue for a return to past political institutions. I'd argue that's not really possible, beyond a very limited level (perhaps you could put a "king" atop the American political world, but I'm not sure it would operate like any other monarchy in history). It seems like you're familiar with the failings of flaws of democracy in practice, but less willing to afford monarchy the same respect. If you want to argue for the political institutions of the past I think you have to account for how they actually worked, rather than theoretical constructs. You can argue that in theory monarchies can better deal with bureaucratic bloat, but in our actual experience of centuries of history the expansion of the bureaucracy and the monarch's inability to control it is part of the story of almost every kingdom. I guess I'm just a bit unclear what you're arguing beyond "liberal democracy is not the end of history", which, as stated I agree with.

When judging decline, it's only reasonable to look at the civilization(s) in question and examine their performance.

So, basically, the most ascendant state of the past 40 years would be the People's Republic of Vietnam.

There might be some drop in youth enthusiasm, but remember there is also the demographic shift where the 2008 young voters are not really young any more and many of the very old 2008 voters are gone now. Take a wild guess as to the relative voting preferences (and demographic mix) of voters leaving the rolls (due to death) versus voters now on the rolls (aging into it).

And this is a good time to remind everyone there is a strong consensus among political scientists that a person's political beliefs are set during their first election(s). So, all the right-wingers leaning on the old saw that today's liberal youth are tomorrow's conservative elders... not happening.

While I'm absolutely not calling TGF a fascist, it bears noting that his argument against the "weakness" of liberal democracy was precisely the favored argument of fascist (and communists) against constitutional republicanism between WWI and WWII.

IN other news, Crimea/Ukraine is apparently burning again, and I honestly have no ####### clue as to who might be the good guys or the bad guys in that three way ###########.

Will the world get another Charge of the Light Brigade out of this?

Will the world get another Charge of the Light Brigade out of this?

The poem or the actual fiasco of a charge? How about something more prosaic like the balaclava or the cardigan sweater?

Regarding HRC, what she loses in black minority vote (which I suspect won't be much) and people unwilling to vote for a woman for president (which will be some), she more than gains with women, hispanics (who preferred HRC in the primaries if I recall correctly) and of course those who flat don't want to vote for a black man.

I'm sure a few people around here will faint if Hillary puts Kentucky and West Virginia in the Dems column for the first time in the 21st century, but it's not beyond the realm of possibility.