Careful: You're poking big holes in the Asians-vote-for-Dems-because-of-GOP-racism theory that's so popular among lefties right now.

No I covered that one in my first paragraph. One can be both racist and anti-intellectual. In fact, those things often go hand-in-hand.

So the Dems' additional gains in the House in 2008 were totally unrelated to the 2008 presidential campaign and the general political mood of the nation that year? (And the "exhaustively demonstrated," "zero evidence" thing remains false.

For every winning Presidential candidate who may have "brought along" House candidates, there are two winning candidates who incontrovertably didn't. You want to selectively contextualize and nullify the data, until you're left with the 2 or 3 results of the last dozen that match your theory. That's fine for you and your 2012 morale; it's also stubborn crapola.

Despite the "war on women" being a major Dem theme this year, I didn't see anyone attacking Paul Ryan for attempting to ban birth control"

Really? I don't know WTF you'd care, as you'd just say if it was a story it was a story only because of the liberal media, but it was an actual story - let me do that for you.

As far as everything else, I see you didn't actually bother with the facts I laid out regarding the bills, the personhood movement, and those who supported them in and out of government.

Careful: You're poking big holes in the Asians-vote-for-Dems-because-of-GOP-racism theory that's so popular among lefties right now.

You are totally proving Good Face's theory, which may have been better than I gave it credit for.

@9994: Steve, I'm not saying that that's what I'd recommend if I were (perish the thought) in Reince Priebus's $1400 tassled loafers, but rather that even if they do next to nothing, it's hardly a stretch for the GOP to win in 2016. Talk of permanent minority status on the national level is way, way overblown.

With the weakest candidate in a generation the Republicans almost won in 2000 and 2004, and for a party that had just presided over the destruction of the world economy, ran a candidate who was both awful at the thing he was strongest at, and picked a joke for Veep, should have lost 60-40 in 2008. They didn't, and in 2010 they won a ton of seats. Never overestimate an electorate that gave you Richard Nixon.

what exactly has the GOP done to be seen as anti-Asian

Plus, Asians are really smart, so why are they falling for Obama's propaganda?

Outside of the South Romney lost 55-45.

Sure, but it's not 2032. With no changes at all the Republican party can still take the next couple of Presidencies. If unemployment was around 9%, do you think Obama would still be President?

Here's the take of noted liberal Richard Posner on why Democrats are grabbing a growing share of the Asian-American vote.

I'm not usually in agreement with Jack the Bodiless, but that seems about right, IMO.

Is it high-fiving if I'm close to agreeing with Joe by agreeing with Jack? I have a very hard time keeping things straight.

if i have one 2-gallon bucket and one 5-gallon bucket, how many buckets do i have?

No I covered that one in my first paragraph. One can be both racist and anti-intellectual. In fact, those things often go hand-in-hand.

Yes, but just because you listed it first doesn't make it your best argument. The voting pattern among Asians is much more likely to be explained by the second and third items on your list. Otherwise, it's kind of dubious to argue that non-religious, highly educated Asians vote for Dems because of racism while non-religious, highly educated whites vote for Dems because they're non-religious and highly educated.

***

For every winning Presidential candidate that may have "brought along" House candidates, there are two winning candidates who incontrovertably didn't. You want to selectively contextualize and nullify the data, until you're left with the 2 or 3 results of the last dozen that match your theory. That's fine for you and your 2012 morale; it's also stubborn crapola.

The entire argument was that when a winning presidential candidate's party went into Election Day as the *minority* party in the House, that party tends to make major gains. You're the one who kept coming back with inapt counterexamples like Jimmy Carter, whose party already held 291 House seats on Election Day 1976 (compared to 190 for Obama's Dems in 2012).

Obviously, we're talking about a very small sample size here. The point is simply that if the GOP was as deeply and hopelessly unpopular as a lot of liberals here (and elsewhere online) seem to believe, then gerrymandering and the incumbency advantage wouldn't have been enough to protect the GOP's 2-year majority. The average voter in a freshman Republican's House district probably couldn't even name his or her congressman, and this is even more true in a redistricting year.

The voting pattern among Asians is much more likely to be explained by the second and third items on your list, just like the non-religious, highly educated whites who tend to vote for Dems in large numbers.

Well then why do these voters (Asian and educated whites) support Democrats?

I don't get to BTF much anymore, so I just discovered this thread. No I have not read all of it. But I did read the 1st 3 pages, which were generally pretty nuanced and pretty interesting, and then the final page, which lacked in both, sounding rather like the 2 sides shouting at each other.

I'm from Minnesota where the Repubs won both houses of the legislature in 2010 and the Dems won them both back in 2012. A Repub legislator, formerly the majority whip and formerly my state rep, who won re-election btw but in a newly redrawn district in which I no longer live, wrote an article in the local paper saying that the Dems had won because of negative and divisive but politically successful advertising paid for by out-of-state money. And that the Dems remain totally out of touch with average Minnesotans.

There was no mention of the negative and divisive and politically unsuccessful ads paid for by out-of-state money on his side (which out-spent the Dems by a margin of about 1.25-1) nor did he mention that his side is also totally out of touch with average Minnesotans. By whom I mean the many who turned out to vote down 2 constitutional amendments--one banning gay marriage and another required a government-issued ID as a condition for voting--both of which were placed on the ballot by the former Republican majority without a single Democratic vote. The Repubs of course intended that these negative and divisive amendments would turn out their base. Instead it turned out the other guys. Forget the merits of the 2 questions, who does this bit of electoral strategy suggest is out of touch?

But anyway, my larger point is that the idea that the GOP is dead is over-stated. I am not a card-carrying member by any means. But anyone who thinks the Dems cannot possibly lose the Minnesota house again in 2014 is not paying attention. Its a race to the middle (thank goodness). Right now the Repubs are losing that race, but that is in no way a guarantee that it will always (or even immediately) continue to be so.

Still, the idea that the Repubs nationally do not need to appeal to Hispanics and women and other non-white-male voters is also silly. And if I am right (it's a race to the middle) more brinksmanship is not going to play very well. Even George Will said that immigration reform may be the reef on which the Republicans wreck themselves. No wonder they have already introduced a watered-down version, before the somnambulent Obama administration got around to introducing a more ambitious version that Repubs would vote against.

So while the Morris and Rasmussen and Fox News people turned out to have their bias showing more so than others in the punditry this time, there is again no assurance that the Dems will not over-reach and/or fail to capitalize on their opportunity. It has happened before.

Is it high-fiving if I'm close to agreeing with Joe by agreeing with Jack? I have a very hard time keeping things straight.

Hmm. Are you by any chance that noted liberal-conservative that caused so much fuss in these parts?

As for the War on Women, if Joe thinks it had no effect on the female vote, and if he doesn't think Dems weren't running ads featuring same (or using it as a regular talking point in free media), well, he's just being Joe.

@10011: I noticed the same before I started posting in this thread, and found the most fascinating stretches were when people weren't responding to Joe's trolling. No other poster's appearances corresponded anywhere near as closely to the drop off in real content.

Otherwise, it's kind of dubious to argue that non-religious, highly educated Asians vote for Dems because of racism

I'm Asian, and grew up in a GOP family — my parents and ever single one of my aunts and uncles who could vote voted Republican. Over the past decade, there was a huge shift, to the point where the only person who voted for Romney this year was my brother (who, as I've noted before, voted based on defense spending). All of my family's elders are culturally conservative and economically well-off (not 1% material, but top 10%, a few in the top 5%). I can speak for pretty much everyone in my family when I tell you that when the GOP busts out their "real Americans" rhetoric, I know they're not talking about me and my kin. But you're right that it's not mainly race, but it's not a non-factor, either.

Here's the take of noted liberal Richard Posner on why Democrats are grabbing a growing share of the Asian-American vote.

And, being well educated as a group, Asian Americans may be disturbed by the hostility to science, particularly evolutionary biology, which Republican supporters and politicians have exhibited of late.

I can confirm this with my family. Half my family is deeply Christian, but not a single one finds the conservative adherence to creationism as anything other than a rejection of science and rational thought. Again, I'm only speaking to my blood relations.

Plus, Asians are really smart, so why are they falling for Obama's propaganda?

Well, they ARE inscrutable, you know.

P.S. A list of U.S. policies that aren't working. If SSI and Medicare are failures, how about;

1. Policing the world since 1945. And here we are, 67 years later, and if we only spent an extra $2 trillion, why, then, surely the world would become a much safer place! Please.

2. War on drugs. More people incarcerated than any other country on earth. One of these days people are going to start questioning "Land of the free." And just as many people doing drugs as ever.

3. Tax cuts, including tax cuts for job creators, to stimulate the economy. If this worked, we would have jobs coming out of our ears.

Just 3 highlights.

The point is simply that if the GOP was as deeply and hopelessly unpopular as a lot of liberals here (and elsewhere online) seem to believe, then gerrymandering and the incumbency advantage wouldn't have been enough to protect the GOP's 2-year majority.

On the other hand, if the GOP was as correct and Obama as hopelessly incompetent as you seem to believe, the Democrats wouldn't have been able to rip the Senate (and a few House seats to boot) from the GOP after just two years.

But anyway, my larger point is that the idea that the GOP is dead is over-stated. I am not a card-carrying member by any means. But anyone who thinks the Dems cannot possibly lose the Minnesota house again in 2014 is not paying attention. Its a race to the middle (thank goodness). Right now the Repubs are losing that race, but that is in no way a guarantee that it will always (or even immediately) continue to be so.

Still, the idea that the Repubs nationally do not need to appeal to Hispanics and women and other non-white-male voters is also silly. And if I am right (it's a race to the middle) more brinksmanship is not going to play very well. Even George Will said that immigration reform may be the reef on which the Republicans wreck themselves. No wonder they have already introduced a watered-down version, before the somnambulent Obama administration got around to introducing a more ambitious version that Repubs would vote against.

Pretty much this. The inmates may have a bit too much control of the asylum, but the bigwigs in the Republican party are still very smart and hate losing. And they're now 2-4 over the last six elections, with their only popular vote win being the smallest margin of victory since 1988. They'll retool, even if they have to play stoic for the base. I'm too young to remember the Democratic reaction to Bush I's win in '88, but have to imagine it was something similar.

As far as everything else, I see you didn't actually bother with the facts I laid out regarding the bills, the personhood movement, and those who supported them in and out of government.

This is more of that goalpost-shifting of which the lefties here often complain. The discussion was whether there were truly large numbers of Republicans, especially Republican officeholders, who want to outlaw contraception (and, if so, if you could list any of them for us).

You are totally proving Good Face's theory, which may have been better than I gave it credit for.

Which theory? I always enjoy The Good Face's comments, but maybe I missed one.

The inmates may have a bit too much control of the asylum, but the bigwigs in the Republican party are still very smart and hate losing. And they're now 2-4 over the last six elections, with their only popular vote win being the smallest margin of victory since 1988.

I would have voted for Romney circa 2005 over Obama circa 2012 (and 2008, for that matter). The idea that the GOP is dead is ridiculous. Their big problem is getting someone like Romney 2005 through the primaries. If they can manage that, not only can I can easily see them winning the White House again, I can imagine voting for them again.

Or to put it another way, the easiest way to demonstrate that you are out of touch is to intimate that this or that segment of the electorate doesn't know it's own best interests.

"Why do they fall for ___'s propaganda?" They don't. There are always other and better reasons.

I agree with you that the "GOP is dead" talk is overblown wishful thinking from the left. It's not as if one needs to be a historian to see this, either. The GOP supposedly kicked off their "permanent Republican majority" before allegedly being reduced to a "regional Southern party": two equally unstoppable seismic shifts that each occurred in the last 10 years.

I think it's perhaps more helpful to separate parties from ideology -- the GOP isn't doomed, but I think the current ideological flavor of it is...

Ever since the nation became largely settled - we simply don't have any more free land to give away(/take from the current inhabitants)... since the gilded age, the left has pushed the boundaries, the right has snapped back -- but never all the way back.

It would be an interesting alternate history if McKinley never gets shot and Teddy Roosevelt ends up relegated to the forgotten dustbin that the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts had hoped to place him as Vice-President... but I really do suspect that economically, the drift 'leftward' is unstoppable.

Let's set aside social/cultural issues - anti-immigration is nothing new; only the specifically affected ethnicity that makes up the general target of the disdain... It was the Irish 170 years ago, the Chinese 150 years ago, the Eastern Europeans 130 years ago, the Italians 100 years, the Latinos today. As far as the social issues go - they tend to ping pong... William Jennings Bryan scared the bejeesus enough out of the gilded age titans that they bought themselves a McKinley - but it ought to be remembered that WJB is remembered for more than just 4 losses and the cross of gold; he's also got Darwin and Scopes on his ledger.

The turn of the century hotbutton was organized labor and the concentration of power and wealth... the 'market' didn't solve it, public opinion, elections (and an assassin's bullet), and policy gave legitimacy to organized labor. After Wilson, we snapped back a bit as the first progressive era ended - yielding Harding/Coolidge and Hoover. "Too much government" was their mantra, too -- but they never really succeeded (or even tried, by and large) to overturn some of the populist economic gains of the previous generation. Trusts were slow to reform and union organizing was a fact of life - the Pinkertons weren't coming back...

In effect, the Coolidge era was an ideological descendent of McKinley - but it certainly wasn't McKinley.

The depression yields us FDR, the New Deal, and the birth of entitlements... and the people liked it - and even the GOP starts nominating what are in effect "FDR lite" candidates.... Landon, Wilkie, and Dewey were all decided to the left of Coolidge, never mind McKinley. More fun with alternate history -- if Ike had decided he was a Democrat rather than Republican, does the Democratic party run Dennis Kucinich against Republican Barack Obama in 2008 ;-)?

Expansion of the regulatory state, entitlements, and the safety net certainly slows, but it doesn't end... giving us JFK, LBJ, and the Great Society. Even Nixon was more or less forced into creating the EPA, and an attempted deal-making on public health care/insurance....

Reagan certainly arrested - even stalled to a dead stop - left-leaning economic policy; but even he dared not follow through with his Goldwater era rhetoric about the evils of entitlements - Reagan "saved" Social Security, not ended it. In the grand picture - all he really managed to do economically was slash taxes.... and even then, he had to give back a big chunk of what he got in 1981 by the time his Presidency was up. Medicare was as big as ever, Social Security was not only still around in largely the same form it had been in, but was now financially solvent for a couple more generations.... Sure, sure - he nibbled at some federal education funding here, broke the air traffic controllers union there - but nothing really lasting (other than deficits).

Basically, what Reagan accomplished was a generational stall in the march left... Reagan wrought "third way" Clinton; Clinton wrought 'compassionate conservatism' Bush II, and here we are today.

We've still got Medicare. We've still got Social Security. We just got a (from a lefty perspective) 'weak' national health care... We just reelected a Democratic President who campaigned on raising taxes, while also trumpeting in key battlegrounds a government bailout of an entire industry that still has some of the last vestiges of old school, brick-and-mortar union strength.

The GOP isn't finished -- but the idea that it can survive in its current form is...

Again - setting aside social/cultural issues - the core of the modern GOP/right economically is basically that Reagan couldn't/wasn't allowed to go far enough... That's just laughably ignorant to economically-tinged political history of modern America. Some eras gallop, some walk leisurely, some may even appear to stand still -- but the GOP tends to come back into vogue when it stops trying to return to yesterday's GOP and just accepts that the best it can do is "this far and no further" (or maybe a little bit further, but slower).

Coolidge knew he couldn't be McKinley, Ike knew he couldn't be Coolidge, even Reagan knew he couldn't be Ike (much less Goldwater)...

Well then why do these voters (Asian and educated whites) support Democrats?

You said it yourself: Because they're non-religious and highly educated, which tend to go hand in hand these days.

***

On the other hand, if the GOP was as correct and Obama as hopelessly incompetent as you seem to believe, the Democrats wouldn't have been able to rip the Senate (and a few House seats to boot) from the GOP after just two years.

The Dems have held the Senate since Jan. 2007.

You said it yourself: Because they're non-religious and highly educated, which tend to go hand in hand these days.

But why do the non-religious and highly educated vote so strongly for Democrats, in your opinion?

As for the War on Women, if Joe thinks it had no effect on the female vote, and if he doesn't think Dems weren't running ads featuring same (or using it as a regular talking point in free media), well, he's just being Joe.

Comical. When I specifically said, right after the election, that Romney might have won but for Sandy and/or the "war on women," I was bashed for days. But now, apparently, it's the conventional wisdom. Amazing.

@10011: I noticed the same before I started posting in this thread, and found the most fascinating stretches were when people weren't responding to Joe's trolling. No other poster's appearances corresponded anywhere near as closely to the drop off in real content.

Yes, yes, it's so much more peaceful and "fascinating" here when it's 100 percent liberals talking among themselves, or when it's 98 percent liberals attacking "the RayBot" without him returning fire.

In his next BBTF iteration, "Jack Carter" should try being "Something Other" than a clown.

The GOP is wedded to a dysfunctional economic philosophy in away that is weirdly similar (though opposed) to the way Commies were wedded to dysfunctional ideas- The Soviets absolutely HAD to break up and privatize the collectivized farms- forget what outsiders said, every generation their own people looked at the situation and said they had to do it- and they never did, the idea was raised very generation and was DOA every generation- collective ownership of the means of production- the land itself was an idea that could not ever be "compromised" or questioned, it could never be considered.

The GOP's essential answer to EVERY economic problem/situation is the same, always, every time, every state, every industry, every situation- oh the Dems tend to recycle through the same themes, but mostly they're muddlers... The GOP is seemingly a bunch who have access to divine revealed knowledge, and accordingly their can be no compromise- "this is the Policy, there can be no deviations"

I'm not sure whether the GOP's current similarity to the leftist Purity Duels of the 30's and the 60's is more amusing or frightening, but it's there for anyone to see. Every time someone like Bartlett tries to talk some sense to them, he gets hounded into submission with the anti-"RINO" version of Political Correctness. Christ, if that whole 2012 primary season didn't make that clear, I'm not sure what it would take to convince anyone. That process took a centrist Republican governor who provided a state model for health care reform and made him jump through so many hoops that at the end he was scarcely distinguishable from crackpots like Santorum or Gingrich, in spite of their stylistic differences. The Romney who governed Massachusetts from the center might well have been able to win in a year of 8% unemployment, but the Obama Derangement Syndrome Party of 2012 would never have nominated such a candidate, and isn't likely to do so the next time around.

The Republican dilemma remains: They need their loony base to win, but their loony base lives in a world of fundamentalism and racial resentment that scares off more and more people every year.

But yes, Jack's right. The Democrats can't get overconfident, because what seems certain one year can turn on a dime the next time around. OTOH when your party's best (and pretty much only) hope for success in 2016 is continued economic stagnation, I'm not sure that's the best position to be in.

But why do the non-religious and highly educated vote so strongly for Democrats, in your opinion?

For the past 30 or so years, the religious and the non-religious have been split into two political camps, with the former generally voting GOP and the latter generally voting for Dems. If you're a non-religious person who favors abortion rights, like most non-religious people do, you're going to find more of a home among Dems.

I would have voted for Romney circa 2005 over Obama circa 2012 (and 2008, for that matter). The idea that the GOP is dead is ridiculous. Their big problem is getting someone like Romney 2005 through the primaries.

Couldn't agree more. But with the coalition of religious and economic fundamentalists who make up the Republican base, with a large element of Angry White Men thrown in, just exactly how is that likely to happen?

Are we still doing the whole poor republican thing? Can't we talk about video games or WWII or something else? How about food? Love Eastern Market. Spent the last 3 days cooking food I bought at Eastern Market and still have 6 half-smokes to go.


Any good books on Montgomery? I went looking for books about 6 months ago at the book stores but I couldn't find anything dedicated to him and his story. I figured by this point the narrative on him would have changed about 5 times since WWII and we'd finally get a more clearer picture of the man and his generalship but I haven't found anything on him yet that is current.

No, the GOP isn't dead. It will reorganize and survive.

But, the argument that "all the GOP needs to do is get a moderate through the primaries" is itself self defeating.

The GOP is in existential crisis.

It will also do absolutely fine in the 2014 midterms, for the same reasons the Dems have a structural advantage in quadrennial general elections; demographics, demographics and demographics. And gerrymandering. Districts favor a GOP House. Midterm demographics always skew old and white.

Couldn't agree more. But with the coalition of religious and economic fundamentalists who make up the Republican base, with a large element of Angry White Men thrown in, just exactly how is that likely to happen?

I would have voted for 2000 McCain over Bush, Gore, Kerry, and Obama but alas he died a quick death. After that I debacle I don't think there is a single Republican out there I would trust not to act like an extreme righty nutjob.

I gave up on the GOP in 1996, more or less. But I'm from the deep south, so I may have seen this one coming earlier than some of you.

Contrary to the Daily Kos talking points, no one on the right wants to ban contraceptives. The contraceptive debate is entirely with regards to Obamacare forcing Person A to buy contraceptives for Person B.

This is more of that goalpost-shifting of which the lefties here often complain. The discussion was whether there were truly large numbers of Republicans, especially Republican officeholders, who want to outlaw contraception (and, if so, if you could list any of them for us).

Who's goal post shifting? We have gone from "no one on the right" to "truly large numbers of Republicans".

Well Done.

The Republican dilemma remains: They need their loony base to win, but their loony base lives in a world of fundamentalism and racial resentment that scares off more and more people every year.

"Racial resentment"? Compared to 10 years ago, the average net worth among whites is up roughly 100 percent compared to that of blacks and Latinos. The "racism" angle is silly enough; "racial resentment" is comical.

***

Who's goal post shifting? We have gone from "no one on the right" to "truly large numbers of Republicans".

Well Done.

I assume this is some sort of joke, because there's no "gotcha" or goalpost-shifting in there. The first quote was my position; the second quote was in reference to other people's position.

I assume this is some sort of joke, because there's no "gotcha" or goalpost-shifting in there. The first quote was my position; the second quote was in reference to other people's position.

You said no one. Several of us pointed out many on the right in fact wanted to ban contraception. Then you switched to demanding we find "truly large numbers of Republicans". You shifted the goal posts. Your position that no one wanted it is and was wrong.

This is more of that goalpost-shifting of which the lefties here often complain. The discussion was whether there were truly large numbers of Republicans, especially Republican officeholders, who want to outlaw contraception (and, if so, if you could list any of them for us).

To quote: Nonsense.

You started this by saying that no one on the right supported banning birth control. No one. I dissented.

You made up things in your head about the numbers I implied. This is what I said:

Except for the ones who've been elected, you mean?

Well, if Santorum somehow doesn't count as an elected official who ran for president with more than a modicum of support, I'm reasonably sure when I'm not at work I could find others. There has been plenty of support for measures and bills that put IUDs into definite question.

These two phrases, to you, meant

Also, still waiting for that long list of Republicans who want to ban contraceptives.

A person who read your comments on the last couple pages would believe that there were large numbers of Republicans agitating to ban birth control.

The discussion was whether there were truly large numbers of Republicans, especially Republican officeholders, who want to outlaw contraception (and, if so, if you could list any of them for us).

Read that last one. "The discussion was whether there were truly large number of Republicans, especially elected Republicans, who want to outlaw contraception." Large numbers, Joe, was YOUR discussion, in YOUR head. It was something YOU made up that was going on.

You wanted a list - which I provided - to know who supported banning contraception, what kind, and how, and I provided. They had all been elected. You ignored it.

You ignore the fact that even a bill that doesn't make it out of committee has multiple supporters.


Good Face's argument was that someone in their own fugue state of belief has no idea what they are doing. He uses the argument against liberals (say, me) and in a number of cases, he's correct. I think the number is smaller than he does, by far. I could be wrong, but I would gather upon seeing you operate he would agree that you exist in any population of these people identified, large or small.

Who said the GOP was dead? Anyone on this thread? I know I have said (and continue to believe) that the GOP is having the demographic ground shift out from under it. When trying to elect national candidates the GOP has an uphill battle as long as things stay on their current course.

Simply put, minorities vote more for Democratic candidates and are an ever increasing share of the electorate. The vote share of minorities increases by a few percent every election. Either the GOP needs to halt the increase in the minority share (or reverse it), or they need to find a way to increase their share of the minority vote.

Can they still win plenty of non national elections? Obviously yes. In fact they are favored to hold the house until 2016. They will also continue to win governorships and many senate seats. But Presidential elections will be challenging unless something changes.

Does that mean they can't win the Presidency? No, of course they can, but it will be an uphill battle the next election or two.

You said no one. Several of us pointed out many on the right in fact wanted to ban contraception.

You did? Could you provide the names of these people?

Then you switched to demanding we find "truly large numbers of Republicans". You shifted the goal posts. Your position that no one wanted it is and was wrong.

To quote: Nonsense.

You started this by saying that no one on the right supported banning birth control. No one. I dissented.

You made up things in your head about the numbers I implied. This is what I said:

...

This whole thing is really sad. Has the pedanticism here really reached such levels that we must qualify every comment or risk this type of silliness? When I said "no one on the right wants to ban contraception," I thought it was abundantly clear that I meant no one on the right who's even remotely in a position of power. But here you guys are, trying to score a lame "gotcha" rather than admit your claims were false. (Hundreds of comments later, we're still waiting for the name of a single Republican officeholder who is advocating for the banning of contraceptives.)

Read that last one. "The discussion was whether there were large number of Republicans, especially elected Republicans, who want to outlaw contraception." Large numbers, Joe, was YOUR discussion, in YOUR head. It was something YOU made up that was going on.

Well, the implication on the prior pages was that contraceptives were at risk of being pulled from the shelves. Unless you're predicting that some random evangelical from Alabama is going to rise to power as a dictator, how else would such laws come to pass without large numbers of Republicans supporting them?

And just as many people doing drugs as ever.

I believe most categories of drug use have been in general decline since the 1960s. Part of this is due to an aging population, but not all.

It is kind of amazing that Joe drives so much of the discussion here.

When I said "no one on the right wants to ban contraception," I thought it was abundantly clear that I meant no one on the right who's even remotely in a position of power.

And it was shown that that position is completely incorrect.

Joe. Go read post

9992. Lassus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4310113)

EDIT: Plus Rick Santorum.

I'm too young to remember the Democratic reaction to Bush I's win in '88, but have to imagine it was something similar.

The reaction was "Dukakis? What were we thinking?" You can lambaste McCain or Romney's campaigns all you want, but Dukakis looking like a schmuck riding around in a tank, and freezing like a deer in the headlights after the "What would you do if Kitty was raped?" question, was more than enough to convince most voters that this guy simply did not have what it took to be president.

It is kind of amazing that Joe drives so much of the discussion here.

There's always one or two semi-rational guys who are in the mood to try to talk sense into him at any given time. It sort of rotates. Like being the guy that has to change grampas shitty underpants.

Simply put, minorities vote more for Democratic candidates and are an ever increasing share of the electorate.

Fear not, Jeb Bush's oldest son is Latino! And running for state office in Texas.

Their big problem is getting someone like Romney 2005 through the primaries. If they can manage that, not only can I can easily see them winning the White House again, I can imagine voting for them again.

If they manage that, then they're not the same Republican party we have been talking about.

With Clinton and Obama, the Democrats have shown that they can find their way to the middle with candidates. I eagerly await evidence that the Republicans can do the same.

Who said the GOP was dead? Anyone on this thread?

Of course not. That's your classic strawman.

When trying to elect national candidates the GOP has an uphill battle as long as things stay on their current course.

Yes, and it's only going to get steeper as things stay on their current course. That's entirely the issue. Therefore, unless they want to encounter ever-steeper disadvantages, the GOP must choose to change the course. Not just tweak it for optics, but truly change it. The interesting questions become how, and to what?

There's always one or two semi-rational guys who are in the mood to try to talk sense into him at any given time.

I often enjoy it, because much like arguing with Ray it help drives clarity in my own thoughts and positions. At first. Then I get stuck in the moment.

It would be an interesting alternate history if McKinley never gets shot and Teddy Roosevelt ends up relegated to the forgotten dustbin that the Rockefellers and Vanderbilts had hoped to place him as Vice-President

If that is what they thought, they had seriously underestimated Teddy.

Srul's 10042 gave me a good chuckle, in the supportive way. What a mess. That was my first election, and I did confidently vote for Frank Zappa.

Not just tweak it for optics, but truly change it. The interesting questions become how, and to what?

The current trial balloon seems to be "try being nice to Latinos a little, and #### Grover Norquist." Which might actually work well enough to pry things back from 51/48 to 49/49 for a cycle or two.

In 1988 I voted (illegally, with my mom's vote - I was 16) for Bush I. Because, seriously. Dude. Dukakis was friggin' terrible.

In 1988 I voted (illegally, with my mom's vote - I was 16)

VOTER FRAUD!!!

I often enjoy it, because much like arguing with Ray it help drives clarity in my own thoughts and positions. At first. Then I get stuck in the moment.

Understood. I'm no stranger to getting to the point where you just keep arguing with the wall because the wall is just that completely friggin' wrong.

And it was shown that that position is completely incorrect.

It was? By whom? Lassus named two people who haven't held office in years, and then tried to make some connection to Paul Ryan that not even Dems got any traction trying to make.

Joe. Go read post

9992. Lassus Posted: November 26, 2012 at 09:06 PM (#4310113)

EDIT: Plus Rick Santorum.

Santorum hasn't held office in years. Neither has Haley Barbour.

the GOP tends to come back into vogue when it stops trying to return to yesterday's GOP and just accepts that the best it can do is "this far and no further" (or maybe a little bit further, but slower).

Sort of reminds me of Buckley's manifesto, to stand athwart history, yelling "Stop"

In 1988 I voted (illegally, with my mom's vote - I was 16) for Bush I. Because, seriously. Dude. Dukakis was friggin' terrible.

You couldn't at least go for Gibby Haynes?

The Republican dilemma remains: They need their loony base to win, but their loony base lives in a world of fundamentalism and racial resentment that scares off more and more people every year.

"Racial resentment"? Compared to 10 years ago, the average net worth among whites is up roughly 100 percent compared to that of blacks and Latinos. The "racism" angle is silly enough; "racial resentment" is comical.

Jesus, Joe, stop trying to spin everything and wake up and smell the coffee. You've got a sizable percentage of white Republicans who still don't believe that Obama is even an American, let alone a "real American"---and as if that sad phrase itself isn't loaded with racial implications.. You've got whites in large numbers campaigning to restrict not just illegal immigration from Mexico, but legal immigration. You can pretend that there's nothing racial in this, but you're convincing only yourself and your fellow deniers. The spontaneous laughter at Romney's crack about never having anyone "need to ask" him about his birth certificate was scarcely indicative of any appreciation for subtle, non-racial humor. That was a dog whistle that hardly took a dog to hear.

And the fact that whites' average net worth dwarfs that of blacks and Latino may certainly show the stupidity of their racial resentment, but it just as certainly doesn't negate its existence. Stupid whites have been complaining about "special privileges" for minorities since the days of slavery, but all that demonstrates is how stupid they are.

The voting pattern among Asians is much more likely to be explained by the second and third items on your list, just like the non-religious, highly educated whites who tend to vote for Dems in large numbers.

In 1992, 55% of Asian-Americans voted for George H.W. Bush compared to 31% for Bill Clinton. In 1988 they went Republican 55-44%. Why has that changed? Have they gotten less religious or more educated?

You couldn't at least go for Gibby Haynes?

Unlike Szymborski, you've clearly embraced your inner dirty ####### hippie.

There's always one or two semi-rational guys who are in the mood to try to talk sense into him at any given time. It sort of rotates. Like being the guy that has to change grampas shitty underpants.

Or the people who would take it upon themselves to debate RossCW, and then give up when they realized it was a wnolly futile effort.

Just put him on ignore, and get on with the conversation. Frankly, at this point, I think he is a form of Turing test.

Are we still doing the whole poor republican thing? Can't we talk about video games or WWII or something else? How about food? Love Eastern Market. Spent the last 3 days cooking food I bought at Eastern Market and still have 6 half-smokes to go.

OK, how about this? I'm making a list of annoyances that, though trivial, should be rectified and would benefit everybody with no discernible downside. Here's 2.

1) How many times has this happened to you? Your driving on a major highway or thoroughfare and about a half mile ahead, at an intersection with a minor road, there is a traffic light currently green. There are no cars on either side waiting at their red. Then a car pulls up, stops momentarily before turning right. A few seconds later, your light turns yellow then red, and you have to stop and wait, for no one. Why can't city planners and traffic engineers design lights with a simple logic circuit that will wait to change the light and check 20, 30 seconds later to see if a car is still there? If so, change the light. If not, reset. Seems a no-brainer to me.

2) Drop down menus with autofill responses for online forms and such. The kind where you type in the first letter and the choices are shown. 95% or more of those display the first choice alphabetically beginning with the selected letter at the bottom of the displayed list, not the top. Thus, most of the time you have to scroll down to find your choice. If you are filling out an address and you are sending it to Montana, you need to select N in order to get Montana to display. Why? If I select "M", I don't need to see a list starting with Florida and ending with Maine. I need to see a list starting with Maine and ending with Nebraska.

Santorum hasn't held office in years. Neither has Haley Barbour.

Haley Reeves Barbour (born October 22, 1947) is an American Republican politician who served as the 62nd Governor of Mississippi, from 2004 to 2012.

So sad.

The reaction was "Dukakis? What were we thinking?" You can lambaste McCain or Romney's campaigns all you want, but Dukakis looking like a schmuck riding around in a tank, and freezing like a deer in the headlights after the "What would you do if Kitty was raped?" question, was more than enough to convince most voters that this guy simply did not have what it took to be president.

As many golden moments as the Republicans have given the Democrats in the course of the past 80 years, it'd be hard to recollect an instant that matched Dukakis's reaction to Bernard Shaw's question.

I've often wondered what might have happened if Dukakis had replied, "I'd shoot that motherfucker right in the nuts, then in the stomach, and let him lie there on the ground, slowly bleeding to death and wondering where he'd taken a wrong turn." It might not have changed the total vote percentages, but it sure as hell might have changed that vote's composition.

Jesus, Joe, stop trying to spin everything and wake up and smell the coffee. You've got a sizable percentage of white Republicans who still don't believe that Obama is even an American, let alone a "real American"---and as if that sad phrase itself isn't loaded with racial implications.. You've got whites in large numbers campaigning to restrict not just illegal immigration from Mexico, but legal immigration. You can pretend that there's nothing racial in this, but you're convincing only yourself and your fellow deniers. The spontaneous laughter at Romney's crack about never having anyone "need to ask" him about his birth certificate was scarcely indicative of any appreciation for subtle, non-racial humor. That was a dog whistle that hardly took a dog to hear.

And the fact that whites' average net worth dwarfs that of blacks and Latino may certainly show the stupidity of their racial resentment, but it just as certainly doesn't negate its existence. Stupid whites have been complaining about "special privileges" for minorities since the days of slavery, but all that demonstrates is how stupid they are.

So Joe Biden says of Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," and Biden not only gets a free pass, he gets to become vice president. But Romney cracks one birth certificate joke, and that causes 98 percent of blacks, 75 percent of Asians, and 70 percent of Latinos to vote for Dems? Give me a break.

***

Haley Reeves Barbour (born October 22, 1947) is an American Republican politician who served as the 62nd Governor of Mississippi, from 2004 to 2012.

So sad.

I thought Barbour left office in Jan. 2011. Oh, well. Still waiting for you to name a single current GOP officeholder who is trying to ban contraceptives.

The current trial balloon seems to be "try being nice to Latinos a little, and #### Grover Norquist." Which might actually work well enough to pry things back from 51/48 to 49/49 for a cycle or two.

It's a start. That much should be acknowledged.

I'd say they also need to forget all about gay marriage, just leave that issue all alone. Perhaps then they'd be starting to get somewhere.

Can't we talk about video games or WWII or something else? How about food?

I could use a good Indian joint within driving distance of Princeton.

The question was, if Kitty was raped and murdered, would you favor the death penalty for the killer.

The correct answer is, as Jolly notes, "No, I'd prefer to kill him, myself.'

Here is the Dukakis response

As many golden moments as the Republicans have given the Democrats in the course of the past 80 years, it'd be hard to recollect an instant that matched Dukakis's reaction to Bernard Shaw's question.

I've often wondered what might have happened if Dukakis had replied, "I'd shoot that ############ right in the nuts, then in the stomach, and let him lie there on the ground, slowly bleeding to death and wondering where he'd taken a wrong turn." It might not have changed the total vote percentages, but it sure as hell might have changed that vote's composition.

I can still vividly remember my reaction, watching it live. I was like, are you kidding me, this is a softball, and you whiffed on it like THAT?!?

He obviously should have said, not with your vulgarity, but something to the effect of, "I would be raving furious, and ready to commit vigilante justice." And then seguing to, "That's exactly why the law enforcement/court system we have was devised, to remove vigilante justice, and all its self-defeating reality, from the dynamic, and put our faith in the public legal process. Blah blah blah."

What a complete idiot he was.

What a complete idiot he was.

Having seen Dukakis, Kerry and Romney run for president, I think the take away is that Massachusetts's #### doesn't work in the playoffs.

#10,008:
There was no "selective contextualization" at all. The entire argument was that when a winning presidential candidate's party went into Election Day as the *minority* party in the House, that party tends to make major gains.

Your entire argument is wrong.

Obviously, we're talking about a very small sample size here.

Gee... y’think?

1968: +5 House gains for minority GOP
1972: +12 for minority GOP
1976: does not qualify by your criteria
1980: +34 for minority GOP
1984: +16 for minority GOP
1988: -2 for minority GOP
1992: does not qualify by your criteria
1996: --- [EDIT: +2 for minority Dems]
2000: does not qualify
2004: does not qualify
2008: does not qualify
2012: +8 for minority Dems

Already you’ve knocked out nearly half of the elections in the primary era. Of the remaining seven, Reagan 1980 unambiguously fits your criteria of “major gains.” Nixon 1968, Bush 1988 and [EDIT] Clinton 1996 just as obviously do not.

You’ve repeatedly insisted that Obama’s 2012 coattails were a disappointment, so that knocks out both 2012 and 1972, since the proportional House gains are identical for Nixon and Obama in those cycles (12 of 75, 8 of 49). If Obama goes, Nixon goes too... but if you keep Obama, your entire premise is dead in its crib. So bye-bye, Nixon.

And once Nixon’s +12 is eliminated, maybe you’ll be good enough to explain how Reagan’s +16, in a year where he won 49 states and had an additional 30 Democratic seats to aim for that Nixon ‘72 did not, makes the move from a weak Obama-sized disappointment to a major gain.

But okay, whatever, let’s decide 1984 was major, too. That gets you up to 2 matching results out of 7, which itself is a cherrypicked subset of the 12 races. (Not that those deleted five results would help you, either.) And the 2 matches feature the same winning candidate.

Some might think that 6 out of the last 7 Presidential races delivering small, single-digit shifts in the House would be a better example of a trend. But numbers are such liars.

So please, Joe, explain more about these electoral "tendencies" that only you can see. Do these tendencies come to you at night? Do they tell you to burn things?

[Edited because I'd missed 1996.]

And then, there was this commercial, with the wonderful visual which Dukakis gave them

So Joe Biden says of Obama, "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," and he gets to become vice president. But a bunch of anonymous right-wingers make some birth certificate jokes, and that causes 98 percent of blacks, 75 percent of Asians, and 70 percent of Latinos to vote for Dems? Give me a break.

Yeah! Why can't the minority communities in this country judge the lifetime NCAA member entirely by a gaffe he made 4 years ago? Why can't they vote for the guy who makes winking jokes about the President's birthplace and employs a top surrogate who claims the President doesn't understand America and is "lazy and disengaged"?

Why can't those minorities vote for the party that openly celebrated unapologetic segregationist Senators into the 21st century and whose Southern affiliates are constantly trying to get their racist, traitor Confederate heroes onto landmarks, license plates, and universities?

1968: +5 House gains for minority GOP
1972: +12 for minority GOP
1976: does not qualify by your criteria
1980: +34 for minority GOP
1984: +16 for minority GOP
1988: -2 for minority GOP
1992: does not qualify by your criteria
1996: does not qualify
2000: does not qualify
2004: does not qualify
2008: does not qualify
2012: +8 for minority Dems

1996 qualifies as well. Minority Democrats gained just two seats even with Clinton landsliding to victory. Though this has been explained away as America loving Newt Gingrich or something like that.

What a complete idiot he was.

He was not an idiot. He was cold and bloodless. And it showed.

Now, riding around in the tank with the helmet on -- that was idiotic.

A buddy of mine back in the day told me stories about working as a volunteer on the Dukakis campaign (for Governor, well before the 1988 Presidential campaign). Among the things my buddy would do, would be to drive to Dukakis' house and pick him up and drive him to local appearances. He said that Dukakis would come downstairs in his boxers, holding up two suits on hangers, asking, which one do you think? And it's like, we have to leave, NOW.

Dukakis was a genuine piece of work.

Re: #10,073--
Thanks, Tilden Katz, good catch on my mistake.

Yeah! Why can't the minority communities in this country judge the lifetime NCAA member entirely by a gaffe he made 4 years ago? Why can't they vote for the guy who makes winking jokes about the President's birthplace and employs a top surrogate who claims the President doesn't understand America and is "lazy and disengaged"?

Why can't those minorities vote for the party that openly celebrated unapologetic segregationist Senators into the 21st century and whose Southern affiliates are constantly trying to get their racist, traitor Confederate heroes onto landmarks, license plates, and universities?

So you're saying the Negroes need to get off the librul plantation and follow that underground railroad to good conservative American prosperity? That sounds like the sort of message that would resonate with colored folk, I wonder why conservatives don't make it.

Your entire argument is wrong.

Did you actually spend 2 hours on this reply? I edited part of the comment to which you replied within a couple minutes of posting it.

You’ve repeatedly insisted that Obama’s 2012 coattails were a disappointment, so that knocks out both 2012 and 1972, since the proportional House gains are identical for Nixon and Obama in those cycles (12 of 75, 8 of 49). If Obama goes, Nixon goes too... but if you keep Obama, your entire premise is dead in its crib. So bye-bye, Nixon.

You think the GOP's 12-seat gain in Year 18 of the Dem's eventual 40-year House majority is analogous to the Dems' 8-seat gain in 2012, when the GOP had held the House for just 2 years?

And once Nixon’s +12 is eliminated, maybe you’ll be good enough to explain how Reagan’s +16, in a year where he won 49 states and had an additional 30 Democratic seats to aim for that Nixon ‘72 did not, makes the move from a weak Obama-sized disappointment to a major gain.

You think the GOP's 16-seat gain in Year 30 of the Dems' eventual 40-year House majority was a disappointment? Just last week, you and others here were lecturing me on how incumbency is incredibly powerful.

***

Yeah! Why can't the minority communities in this country judge the lifetime NCAA member entirely by a gaffe he made 4 years ago? Why can't they vote for the guy who makes winking jokes about the President's birthplace and employs a top surrogate who claims the President doesn't understand America and is "lazy and disengaged"?

Were there allegations of racism against Romney that rivaled Biden's infamous quotes about Obama and Indians? No?

The current trial balloon seems to be "try being nice to Latinos a little, and #### Grover Norquist." Which might actually work well enough to pry things back from 51/48 to 49/49 for a cycle or two.

It's a start. That much should be acknowledged.

I am not sure that this is a fait accompli as both are strongly opposed by the tea party element of the base.

Former Florida GOP leaders say voter suppression was reason they pushed new election law

Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.

Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.

“The Republican Party, the strategists, the consultants, they firmly believe that early voting is bad for Republican Party candidates,” Greer told The Post. “It’s done for one reason and one reason only. … ‘We’ve got to cut down on early voting because early voting is not good for us,’ ” Greer said he was told by those staffers and consultants.

Were there allegations of racism against Romney that rivaled Biden's infamous quotes about Obama and Indians? No?

Surrounding oneself with the likes of John Sununu and Donald Trump and Haley Barbour is far more damning then a couple of gaffes. Again, Joe Biden is a lifetime member of the NCAA and was judged by the entirety of his career, not just a two ill-timed remarks. This may surprise you, but minority voters are able to think critically.

And thus why I say liberals lack principles; whim carries the day.

Logically consistent whim-- or as you call them, principles-- are still whims.

Former Republican Party of Florida Chairman Jim Greer says he attended various meetings, beginning in 2009, at which party staffers and consultants pushed for reductions in early voting days and hours.

Reducing early voting is not, by any definition, "voter suppression."

Republican leaders said in proposing the law that it was meant to save money and fight voter fraud. But a former GOP chairman and former Gov. Charlie Crist, both of whom have been ousted from the party, now say that fraud concerns were advanced only as subterfuge for the law’s main purpose: GOP victory.

Gosh. No one ever suspected any such thing.

Reducing early voting is not, by any definition, "voter suppression."

No harm no foul. Okay then.

Surrounding oneself with the likes of John Sununu and Donald Trump and Haley Barbour is far more damning then a couple of gaffes.

Or more currently, the guy who wanted Sarah Palin as vice president calling Susan Rice incompetent (although recent events are making him eat those words bit by bit)

I'm too young to remember the Democratic reaction to Bush I's win in '88, but have to imagine it was something similar.

It was essentially "Waaaaa, we'll never win another election again!!!" And then, Clinton. So.. there's... that?

Reducing early voting is not, by any definition, "voter suppression."

OK. But by the same logic, allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire is not a tax increase.

He said that Dukakis would come downstairs in his boxers, holding up two suits on hangers, asking, which one do you think? And it's like, we have to leave, NOW.

If I knew nothing else about the candidates in an election, I would say that this guy would probably make the better President.

Surrounding oneself with the likes of John Sununu and Donald Trump and Haley Barbour is far more damning then a couple of gaffes.

But it's OK to hang out with domestic terrorists and preachers who scream "GOD DAMN AMERICA!"

I guess it's easy for Dems to win when their side gets to make up the rules.

Again, Joe Biden is a lifetime member of the NCAA and was judged by the entirety of his career, not just a two ill-timed remarks.

I think NAACP is the acronym you're looking for.

If I knew nothing else about the candidates in an election, I would say that this guy would probably make the better President.

Of Stupidland, you bet.

But a bunch of anonymous right-wingers make some birth certificate jokes, and that causes 98 percent of blacks, 75 percent of Asians, and 70 percent of Latinos to vote for Dems? Give me a break.

Joe's clearly saying that I and over three-quarters of America's ethnic minorities voted for Obama because we're stupid.

Can we just concede that Joe Biden is an idiot?

Joe's clearly saying that I and over three-quarters of America's ethnic minorities voted for Obama because we're stupid.

If that's what you think I'm clearly saying, then you're clearly not very good at reading.

I believe it's perfectly rational for the vast majority of minorities to vote for Dems right now. I just believe they do so for pocketbook reasons and not because of GOP racism, as claimed by self-righteous liberals who like to pretend they're winning votes because of the intrinsic goodness and superiority of the Dem party rather than because the Dem party buys votes with taxpayer money.

Joe's clearly saying that I and over three-quarters of America's ethnic minorities voted for Obama because we're stupid.

Well, you are. Aren't you?

But it's OK to hang out with domestic terrorists and preachers who scream "GOD DAMN AMERICA!"

Obama made a universally-praised speech when the Wright SHTF. Romney never addressed the bitherism (Trump), racism (Sununu), or slavery apologia (Barbour) put out by his buddies.

Nothing more ironic than seeing Eddie Izzard *at The ####### Secret Policeman's Ball* saying 'vote for Obama'.

Well...I guess giving Obama the Nobel Peace Prize would be more ironic.

Speaking of which, have you guys kicked around "all troops will be out by 2014...except for the 10,000 staying behind" yet?

preachers who scream "GOD DAMN AMERICA!"

Muslins don't generally do the bidding of Christian preachers.

Surrounding oneself with the likes of John Sununu and Donald Trump and Haley Barbour is far more damning then a couple of gaffes.

But it's OK to hang out with domestic terrorists and preachers who scream "GOD DAMN AMERICA!"

As Charlie Comiskey would have said, that's the whelp of a beaten cur. Even poor Romney never played that pathetic hand.

It always comes back to this, doesn't it? I'm half surprised that you're not accusing Obama of being on a mysterious "fifth plane" on 9/11 that masterminded the other four and then ditched it back to Kenya.

It always comes back to this, doesn't it? I'm half surprised that you're not accusing Obama of being on a mysterious "fifth plane" on 9/11 that masterminded the other four and then ditched it back to Kenya.

So Romney is guilty by association but not Obama?