Posted again, since it was the last post on the page.

It's weird that Joek's argument regarding Asians and education is solely based on affirmative action. It's funnier that his argument is just plain ridiculous, considering that there has been little to no discussion of actually making affirmative action programs MORE inclusive of underrepresented minorities at the expense of Whites and Asians. Apparently Joek believes that not making something easier is the same as making it harder. But in the actual world that exists outside of Joek's head, one would think that voting for the party that actually wants to maintain or increase funding for higher education would be, ya know, voting in favor or one's educational interests. In California, for example, what good is a vote for a representative who is against affirmative action if it's also a vote FOR slashing funding of California's system of higher education?

When you're a high earner and you vote for the party that wants to raise your taxes, you're not voting out of self-interest.

I'd also note the simplicity (though it's not surprising coming from Joek) of the argument that voting for someone who may raise my taxes is a vote against my economic interests. If I believe that it's in my interest to have a well educated populace, or functioning infrastructure, how is voting to fund education and infrastructure against my interests? My economic well being is not simply a function of how much money I have in my bank account. I take the train to work every day. My commute costs a little less than $5. Parking in my building costs $30. If I vote for the party that is hostile to funding public transportation, how is that in my economic interest?

I'd also note here that in the last 20 years, enrollment in the University of California system has increased by over 30%. The number of Asian students has increased over that time by 40%. It's weird how that somehow means the Democrats are making it harder for Asians to get in.

Voting out of self-interest or voting selflessly? Because if Asian-Americans, the highest-earning, highest-educated demographic in America, believe they're voting out of self-interest by voting for Democrats who want to (1) raise their taxes, (2) make it harder for Asians to get into the best colleges, and (3) make it harder for Asians to get jobs in both the public and private sectors, then it appears Asian-Americans are doing it wrong.

I'm confident that Asian-Americans stopped voting Republican for the same reasons the SWPL crowd doesn't vote Republican; Status.

The Republican image is too prole. The obsession with religion, the rejection of incredibly uncontroversial science like evolution, the general low-brow redneckism of the southern contingents, the inexplicable success of Larry the Cable Guy; these things scream low class, low status. Those beliefs are associated with poor, ignorant people with bad teeth and crappy jobs, living in trailer parks. Educated people with white collar jobs (or ambitions of having white collar jobs) don't want to be linked to losers like that.

TGF's advice for Republicans if they want to win national elections going forward.

1. Turn down the Jesus stuff. Right now you're at about a 9, we need you around a 4. You can still be the more religious party and succeed, but right now they're overboard on it. Hate evolution in your heart of hearts if you must, but keep it to yourself; you're losing educated urban and suburban voters.

2. STFU about rape. The Reps can still be the anti-abortion party, but they need to make their peace with exceptions for rape, incest, blah blah blah. Consistent intellectual principles are for people arguing on message boards; unyielding opposition to abortion under all circumstances is electoral poison at a national level.

3. STFU about gays. You milked it as long as you could, but it's time to let go. Homophobia is no longer a political asset, and will very soon become a liability, if it isn't already.

4. Ignore the blather about the Latino vote, it's a red herring. You'll NEVER win a majority of that vote, and increasing their numbers is shooting yourself in the foot. Why the hell do you think all the Dems are solemnly stroking their beards and telling you that you simply MUST agree to an amnesty if you want to win more elections? Try not to be such dicks though.

5. Go populist. Lots of people don't like the racial spoils system championed by the Dems, but you're not offering them anything in return. Federal income tax cuts don't mean a thing to a working stiff in the mid-West making $45k/year. #### the very rich, tax their asses. It won't actually solve any problems, but it'll help with elections. Screw the very poor too, they can safely be ignored. Basically, give the middle and working classes whatever they want. Right now you're not offering middle and working class voters anything; there are not enough rich people/Jesus freaks to win you national elections.

6. Punish your enemies. Squeeze the entertainment industry, tax em hard. Take an axe to copyright law. Allow school loans to be discharged via bankruptcy; that would be a death blow to many universities, while making you look like you're sticking up for the little guy.

Please note that I do not necessarily endorse all these policy positions personally; they're just my recommendations as to how the Reps could get back into power.

I always thought the phrase applied to Sam.

I think this is probably funny, Ray, but I'm not sure. Do I need to go by a Kenny Chesney album to make sure?

The Republicans actively harmed the nation's economy in furtherance of their political goals.

To me this is the problem and I don't know what to do about it. Democracy works when there is healthy policy disagreements. I would suggest this means different opinions on what is best for the country. When politicians start to work against what they think is best for the country, then that is poisonous.

Perhaps they were taking a short term pain for long term gain argument (the US is doomed if Obama is allowed to work his will), but four years is just too long a time period to work against the best interests of the US. It seems to me that the root of the problem is not in partisanship, but in treating the other side as an enemy rather than someone who is wrong.

Some folks in the GOP act as if Obama really is a socialist monster bent on destroying the US, even though objectively he clearly isn't. Yes he is in favor of governing strategies nad principles that the GOP disagrees with, but the thought that he is not doing what he thinks is best for the nation (at least as much as any President in the last 50 years) is laughable.

I say this as someone who likes partisanship. I think parties should try to win the political argument. I think elections should have consequences. I am not advocating a mushy bipartisan centrism. But the relentless and poisonous hatred that leaks into how the country is governed is very unhealthy.

And for those scoring at home I am not blaming everything on the GOP. I think they have carried it farther and are more guilty right now, but there are plenty of bad actors on both sides of the aisle. Right now it doesn't feel like either party is really for anything, there does not seem to be an abundence of positive visions of the future from either and it is kind of depressing.

It is nice that right now my side is winning, but honestly I think a healthier environment with constructive compromise and less bile would would preferable to fewer but more pure victories and gridlock.

TGF: 10202 is a very good post. It is thoughtful and interesting. I don't agree with all of it (well I am still thinking about it and suspect there are parts I may not agree with), but so what? It has a whole lot to think about. Thanks!

The Republicans actively harmed the nation's economy in furtherance of their political goals.

It's part of the reality distortion zone the party has cultivated for 30 years. Go back to that Bruce Bartlett link a few pages back and read his "conversion" story. It's basically summed up as "then I started looking at the record and the results, and it turns out, my ideological assumptions were completely wrong and I was shocked to learn that Paul Krugman was actually sane."

The GOP hues to supply side insanity and fears of looming Obama-fueled socialism because *it's too hard for them to consider the possibility that their religious faith in supply side economics might be wrong.* They're religious fundamentalists on all issues, not merely issues of traditional religion.

The Republican image is too prole. The obsession with religion, the rejection of incredibly uncontroversial science like evolution, the general low-brow redneckism of the southern contingents, the inexplicable success of Larry the Cable Guy; these things scream low class, low status.

I won't argue with the rejection of science, but I don't see how the Republican party is somehow considered the "Low Status" party when its base considers 47% of the population to be lazy freeloaders, all of whom they assume vote for Democrats.

I'm more likely to agree with David's point that when you have a large portion of the Asian population who either grew up in country's with far more socialist policies or have family that still live in those countries, and hear one party rail on and on about how Obama is a Socialist, even though his policy proposals look nothing like those of actual socialist countries, it's pretty easy to tell which party is full of ####. When you come from a country with actual socialized medicine, of which you have a positive opinion, and you're told that the ACA is tyranny, it's easy to tell which party is the sane one. It's like trying to tell someone who has smoked pot occasionally for 20 years that they should stop because pot is a hihgly addictive and dangerous drug that can make you go crazy. Probably not an effective strategy.

5. Go populist. Lots of people don't like the racial spoils system championed by the Dems, but you're not offering them anything in return. Federal income tax cuts don't mean a thing to a working stiff in the mid-West making $45k/year. #### the very rich, tax their asses. It won't actually solve any problems, but it'll help with elections. Screw the very poor too, they can safely be ignored. Basically, give the middle and working classes whatever they want. Right now you're not offering middle and working class voters anything; there are not enough rich people/Jesus freaks to win you national elections.

Alone, would probably be enough. If the Republicans actually put the economic interests of people making $40k-$80k first, they could probably keep the Jesus dialed up to eleven and win on those two groups alone. There simply aren't enough people will hundreds of millions of dollars to vote for them. How they get to their from here; I have no idea. Perhaps it can't be done. But it's the big vote segment that's open for courting.

Now I'm curious as to whether or not Asians will vote for Jindal or Haley in a national election to achieve a significant difference. I'd say no.

I won't argue with the rejection of science, but I don't see how the Republican party is somehow considered the "Low Status" party when its base considers 47% of the population to be lazy freeloaders, all of whom they assume vote for Democrats.

Again, Asian-American voters are highly educated, and Republicans play as redneck hicks to them. (Which I say as a redneck hick married to an Asian woman). Among highly educated people, Democrats are clearly the high social status party. This is reverse among low education people.

I'd also note the simplicity (though it's not surprising coming from Joek) of the argument that voting for someone who may raise my taxes is a vote against my economic interests.

If you believe that low taxes = economic growth and that high taxes = stagnation, then unless you are unemployable (for whatever reason) then voting for higher taxes is always voting against your interests.

This is essentially what I was getting at in my earlier 2012 Righties = 1920s-1980s leftists bit.

They have locked themselves into a box

If column A is lower taxes and column B is better mass transit infrastructure, they vote for A
If column A is lower taxes and column B is better roads, bridges and tunnels, they vote for A
If column A is lower taxes and column B is schools with updated computers (for students) and textbooks, they vote for A
If column A is lower taxes and column B is longer open hours at national parks, they vote A
If column A is lower taxes and column B is a stronger military, they vote A AND B AND then borrow more money
If column A is... you get the idea

The belief is that lower taxes = better growth, better growth means that you can have everything in column B eventually by having people voluntarily paying for them- and the people who can't or won't pay? screw them the bunch of moochers...

There was someone a while back who said that roads and bridges were things that absolutely should not be paid for by tax dollars - but by user fees/ tolls etc...

Right now we have a mix- but once upon a time this country tried that- no taxes to build bridges/roads, let private companies do it and then charge for it- turns out that in practice people hated how that was working out even more than they hated taxes- but to the anti-tax true believer that is irrelevant...

Fire Department service- paid for by taxes or user fees? IMHO the user fee system is batshit crazy- and yet its quite common in the more anti-tax parts of the country- the modern GOP tax ideologue falls squarely on the user-fee as opposed to tax side of the ledger.

Ricks noted the disproportionate amount of attention given by FOX to Benghazi, and contrasted it to the total lack of attention to the several hundreds of security contractors who were killed in Iraq.

First, "total lack of attention" is likely a vast overbid. That said, I still don't see what security contractors in Iraq has to do with diplomats in Libya. The issue is not the total number of people that were killed; the issue is what the President did or didn't do and what he should have done or shouldn't have done. And the situations are completely different.

I think this is probably funny, Ray, but I'm not sure. Do I need to go by a Kenny Chesney album to make sure?

Well, going by it probably won't help, but going and buying it surely would.

I won't argue with the rejection of science, but I don't see how the Republican party is somehow considered the "Low Status" party when its base considers 47% of the population to be lazy freeloaders, all of whom they assume vote for Democrats.

I'm discussing how the Republicans are viewed by educated urban and suburban voters, not how Republicans view others, and right now they have a serious image problem among those groups. Homophobia, overt religiousity, rejection of evolution, etc. are considered low class, "prole" behaviors/beliefs by a majority of educated voters.

#10170 One of the more public voices of the stathead community is Christina Kahrl -- a transsexual.

I too like #10202 as thought-provoking, so don't take this criticism as an overall negative assessment, but it does seem to repeat an idea you frequently hear that the Republicans are the party of poor, uneducated people. That's not true. It's true that poorer states tend to vote more Republican, but in every state, the wealthy are more Republican than the poor. Perhaps the Republican party skewing rural is part of the misconception?

Republicans aren't the party of the poor, but they are the party of the uneducated. I don't think #10202 is conflating the two. (Although it's a common enough stereotype).

Try not to be such dicks though.

An important point for both parties if they want to win any elections.

#10202 was a very good read. I'm not sure Republicans CAN do what is suggested (telling righties/conservatives to "STFU about gays" is like telling lefties/liberals "STFU about the environment"), but it does lay out a path that would definitely lead to an interesting election in 8 or 12 years. It might force both parties to actually lay out real economic plans as the final difference maker.

Did anyone else notice that Bush and the feds screwing up Katrina was branded as racism, but then when predominantly white Staten Island and areas of Long Island were screwed over after Sandy, nobody thought to themselves that maybe the problem with Katrina wasn't racism but was simply that governments screw this stuff up?

I too like #10202 as thought-provoking, so don't take this criticism as an overall negative assessment, but it does seem to repeat an idea you frequently hear that the Republicans are the party of poor, uneducated people. That's not true. It's true that poorer states tend to vote more Republican, but in every state, the wealthy are more Republican than the poor. Perhaps the Republican party skewing rural is part of the misconception?

To clarify, I'm discussing the image Republicans present to educated urban/suburban voters, especially in the Northeast/West coast. Many upper middle class folks vote Rep for financial reasons, many middle class folks vote Rep for social reasons (abortion, JESUS, etc.). I'm not trying to suggest that they actually ARE the party of poor, uneducated people, only that they have a real image problem and it's hurting them.

I think a couple of good filibuster options would be

1) A Senator must be public in his filibuster.
2) A Senator may only filibuster 1 vote at a time. If McCain doesn't want Rice to be Secretary of State, fine, but he can't filibsuter something else. A different Senator must do that. No swapping back and forth either.
3) Each filibuster lasts one week (while the Senate is open for business). At that point the filibustering Senator must get 40 votes for it to continue. Make the voting day on a Wednesday, when Senators are in town. They have all day, but they have to get 39 other Senators to show up and vote for it. If they do not get the votes, the filibuster is over.

Did anyone else notice that Bush and the feds screwing up Katrina was branded as racism

From my remote view (Canadian), it was always just "government ###### up badly" more than "government ###### up black people badly".

Just because Kanye West says something, doesn't make it true.

The #### up in NOLA was much worse than what happened with NY state.
The bodies floating in the water and the chaos of the Superdome are worse than "power is out".

referencing back to farming for anyone interested:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/11/27/news/economy/farming/index.html?iid=HP_LN

note the impact of subsidies which are really stupid in any era but particularly now

Republicans aren't the party of the poor, but they are the party of the uneducated. I don't think #10202 is conflating the two. (Although it's a common enough stereotype).

See, I'm still not buying this. Most poor people are also uneducated, and vice versa. Though it's obviously possibly to still earn a decent wage without an education, it's much more difficult. The difference isn't poor vs. uneducated. It still just boils down to urban vs. rural. Poor, uneducated urban dwellers are associated with Democrats. Poor, uneducated rural dwellers are associated with Republicans. But somehow those poor, uneducated rural dwellers became the Republican base, while the Democratic base seems to be union workers, educators, environmentalists, etc., and not necessarily the poor, uneducated urban dwellers.

I'd also argue that many of the Republicans who reject things like evolution and climate change aren't necessarily uneducated.

its base considers 47% of the population to be lazy freeloaders, all of whom they assume vote for Democrats.

Which is funny because a majority of the 47% are seniors, who voted R+16

the private utilities had contractors pour into the northeast from everywhere and folks were still complaining. and it wasn't the government's fault nor the utilities. people had unreasonable expectations.

Thinking about 10202 #5 is worrisome (as a Democrat), because it could really change the election landscape. The others are basically messaging and not a change in strategy. Go Populist and Tax the Rich is a big change in strategy for the GOP though.

Is the GOP likely to do it? I am not sure they are more likely to do that then they are to suddenly become accomodating to minorities (and Women and GLBT). I just don't know if the party will allow it. I don't know if the foot soldiers care, but the money in the GOP does care about itself and if you look at what the GOP does (not says) they have remained extremely true to the wealthy over the years. They throw bones at nativists and culture warriors, but legislative job one is ususally tax breaks which help the wealthy. Still a GOP Huey Long is certainly one way the GOP could go forward.

Did anyone else notice that Bush and the feds screwing up Katrina was branded as racism, but then when predominantly white Staten Island and areas of Long Island were screwed over after Sandy, nobody thought to themselves that maybe the problem with Katrina wasn't racism but was simply that governments screw this stuff up?

Poor Ray. Nobody took his Benghazi-bait, so now this.

Incidentally, there was some discussion a while back about Canadian politics and the topic of municipal corruption was talked about. In the past couple of weeks, the mayors of Montreal and Laval have resigned in the wake of ongoing investigations of corrupt practices in the construction industry.

And yesterday the mayor of Toronto was removed from office (and banned from holding office for 10 years) for voting on a matter that he had financial interest in. And his legal troubles are far from over. He's currently defending a $6 million defamation lawsuit (for comments about corruption made during his run for mayor)

and if the govt was so terrible why does the governor of new jersey have a 72 percent approval rating and better than 50 percent among democrats?

look, i dump on the govt for giving folks in my age bracket silly handouts and farmers silly handouts and the list can be long but i don't see where the govt either state or federal was so horrible at emergency response here.

what, folks were supposed to all be tucked in 2 days after the storm into plush trailers and directv?

give me a break

The issue is not the total number of people that were killed; the issue is what the President did or didn't do and what he should have done or shouldn't have done. And the situations are completely different.

You're missing the point Ricks was trying to make, which is that Fox doesn't care about dead Americans when there's a Republican in the White House. You're free to blame Obama for the four dead diplomats in Libya, but I'm just as free to blame Bush for the thousands of dead Americans in Iraq. Whether the blame is due to failed security, or simply a failed policy, the outcome is the dead Americans. You're also free to make a value judgment that 1 ambassador life is greater than X contractor lives, but I'm not going to get into that debate. But you want to argue tactics, and not policy. If "the issue is what the President did or didn't do", then it is certainly appropriate for Ricks to bring up what Bush did that led to thousands of dead Americans.

But again, his point wasn't necessarily that he thinks one is better or worse than the other. He pointed out Fox's hypocrisy for treating them as if one was worse than the other, likely based solely on the political party of the President.

Agree with others on 10002. Not that similar things haven't been said by others on the right. Any notion that the Republicans are doomed is stupid.

That said, I'm reminded of the Economist's comments about the Conservative party in Britain in the wake of their defeat by Blair. Mixture of disbelief and "we weren't conservative enough". Took several defeats before they gave up on the latter notion. It'll be interesting to see how things play out in the next cycle.

Republicans aren't the party of the poor, but they are the party of the uneducated. I don't think #10202 is conflating the two. (Although it's a common enough stereotype).

But they aren't the party of the uneducated. Vote by education level in 2012:

64 D / 35 R - No high school diploma (3% of the electorate)
51 D / 48 R - High School (21%)
49 D / 48 R - Some college / Assoc. degree (29%)
47 D / 51 R - College Degree (29%)
55 D / 42 R - Post-grad degree (18%)

Education level only predicts vote for the very small percentage of the electorate without a high school degree (they're overwhelmingly Democratic) and for the significant bloc with a post-grad degree. For everyone in between (80% of the electorate), education doesn't really show any effect on voting behavior.

The mayors of Montreal and Laval appear to have been mobbed up and were presumably raking it in; one can see how that might go down. The mayor of Toronto used his position to coerce people into donating a couple thousand bucks (total) to his kid's football team (despite being warned repeated and publicly about what he was doing). He's just dumber than a sack of hair.

Poor Ray. Nobody took his Benghazi-bait, so now this.

Equating Katrina to Sandy is silly. One was a major disaster which was handled really badly and had plenty of stories that could easily be spun as racism (note I am not evaluating them as true or not, just easy to spin them that way). Sandy was much less significant, handled much better, and had no racism hooks.

I wonder why they were handled by the MSM differently? As Harvey says looking at the officials popularity post event is a clue.

Of course the real core of his post is "governments screw this stuff up". This is an axiom of his, that Governments fail. I think governments sometimes succeed and sometimes fail (like pretty much everything else, including markets, individuals and the private sector), so we tend to end up in different places in arguments.

Equating Katrina to Sandy is silly. One was a major disaster which was handled really badly and had plenty of stories that could easily be spun as racism (note I am not evaluating them as true or not, just easy to spin them that way). Sandy was much less significant, handled much better, and had no racism hooks.

And that was my point. That just because race is present does not mean racism is. Oddly, liberals have a tough time comprehending this.

Republicans aren't the party of the poor, but they are the party of the uneducated. I don't think #10202 is conflating the two. (Although it's a common enough stereotype).

Others have touched on it, but I think the summary is:

The GOP, like all parties is a coalition. The current coalition is 1) the super-wealthy Wall Street types + 2) old white people + 3) rural white people (who are often poor and religious)

The Dem coalition is 1) everyone else.

The GOP's demographics problem is that 2) is dying out and 3) is migrating leftward on social issues, and thus leaving the party as well. The *coalition* is in danger, because of demographics. This is fundamentally the "Tea Party" vs "GOP Insiders" split. GOP insiders are from the DC/Wall Street corridor. Tea Partiers are the old/rural white people.

But they aren't the party of the uneducated. Vote by education level in 2012:

Very interesting. I would love to see a regression analysis (I could do it, but I am pretty lazy) with race, income, gender and education all included (I think those would be the biggies - maybe religion should be included) to tease out what the "Identity" factors seem to be. For example how much of the no high school diploma crowd is coincident with minority status (I am honestly not sure) and what impact that has.

Several of the factors corelate and that always makes it difficult. Still very interesting.

Education level only predicts vote for the very small percentage of the electorate without a high school degree (they're overwhelmingly Democratic) and for the significant bloc with a post-grad degree. For everyone in between (80% of the electorate), education doesn't really show any effect on voting behavior.

It becomes more predictive if you control for race. White college grads are more likely to vote Dem than white non-college grads.

In constant dollars, Katrina did about $130B in damage, and a worst-case projection for Sandy's costs is about $50B. When you consider that Sandy hit a far wealthier and far more populated area, the two really aren't comparable in their impacts.

And that was my point. That just because race is present does not mean racism is. Oddly, liberals have a tough time comprehending this.

And you totally missed my point. I was speaking about the MSM presentation and explicitly not about actual racism in how the disasters played out. Katrina had many great "racism story" hooks. Sandy did not. Katrina was handled poorly. Sandy by and large was not.

It is not a mystery why one had "rascism leads to poor handling of disaster" stories while the other didn't. The stories lead to "people noticing".

I have made no claims as to racism or a lack thereof in either disaster. Oddly you seem to be unable to comprehend that.

And yesterday the mayor of Toronto was removed from office (and banned from holding office for 10 years) for voting on a matter that he had financial interest in. And his legal troubles are far from over. He's currently defending a $6 million defamation lawsuit (for comments about corruption made during his run for mayor)

And the mayor of London Ontario (population 375,000) has been arrested and charged by the RCMP for "breach of public trust" and "fraud" for misusing public funds to pay for his son's wedding.

Now I'm curious as to whether or not Asians will vote for Jindal or Haley in a national election to achieve a significant difference. I'd say no.

I would be interested in this event. My WAG is that 1) you'd see a major increase in interest among South Asians, though obviously there's going to be divisions there, too and 2) this would have little impact on East Asians or other Asians. I am aware of South Asians friends who follow the rise of South Asian politicians very closely and participate in national fundraising for local candidates far from here and--to a lesser degree--of this phenomenon among East Asian friends. I am not aware of crossover interest. I don't think East Asians have been active in any significant numbers in these fundraising campaigns for South Asian candidates across the country. I could be wrong.

On the one hand, this is just the Latino issue--a designation used here has differential (and at times minimal) meaning for the people it is applied to. Why should Pakistani-Americans and Chinese-Americans feel alike?

It is unlike the Latino issue in that this presumed diversity doesn't seem to be leading to differential political outcomes; they all seem to be voting Democratic in like numbers (though if I'm wrong about this and there is a big ethnic split, I'd be interested.)

In the big picture, I don't see though that this matters much electorally. Latinos are concentrated in regions where the Republicans need to win--the Southwest, the Mountain West, and pockets of the New South. Flipping 2% of the vote there is a BFD. But Asians seem concentrated in safe Dem states, so making inroads there wouldn't shift much, would it?

I will say I am surprised that there are not more visible Chinese-American politicians, and since the Republicans have done well targeting individuals (not bases) in other ethnic groups, I'm especially surprised there isn't a Chinese-American or Korean-American who is a public face of the party.

Joe: Are you capable of admitting you're wrong? In even the smallest capacity?

Are you referring to the weird exchange with Harveys? If so, you might want to re-read it.

No, I'm referring to virtually everything you write.

God, this whole “white guys make up reasons why minorities vote the way they do, based on stereotypes” game has to stop. Seriously. How did you vote? Assuming you’re a person, that’s probably the general process that people go through when they vote. Jesus Christ.

TGF: 10202 is a very good post. It is thoughtful and interesting. I don't agree with all of it (well I am still thinking about it and suspect there are parts I may not agree with), but so what? It has a whole lot to think about. Thanks!

Seconded -- in particular --

6. Punish your enemies. Squeeze the entertainment industry, tax em hard. Take an axe to copyright law. Allow school loans to be discharged via bankruptcy; that would be a death blow to many universities, while making you look like you're sticking up for the little guy.

This is something that would get plenty of progressive support... in fact, in the area of both discharging educational loans via bankruptcy and copyright reform, you'll already find plenty of progressive grassroots/netroots advocacy. It's not like these strange pairings haven't been effective before -- recall that both bases on the left and right came together to rally against SOPA/PIPA legislation, effectively killing it.

In fact - the Republican Study Committee (essentially, the conservative caucus in congress that regularly writes what becomes proposed legislation) released a proposal on copyright/IP law changes about a couple weeks ago.

It was hailed as a marked step forward by liberal commenters -- I recall even Dailykos had a front-page post hailing it as a good idea (sure, there was plenty of back-handed complimenting -- but the fact is, it was a proposal that the leftist of the lefties supported loudly). However - just a few days later, the RSC pulled the proposal and claimed that it hadn't been properly 'vetted' (read: some big donors are unhappy) before release.

Agreed with Gotham. I'm black and this is all very amusing to me but I can see how it might irk others.

6. Punish your enemies. Squeeze the entertainment industry, tax em hard.

Well that's a non-starter. Rush Limbaugh is just an entertainer after all, no way the Republicans condone soaking their bulbous king.

Let's try it this way: if incumbency has NOT been increasing over time, then what explains the fact that a greater percentage of incumbents win re-election (1982 to 2010) than did before (1964 to 1980)? And how does that explanation negate the simple fact that more incumbents won?

I actually gotta go with Joe on this one. I'm not saying he's 100% correct, but his theory has merit and deserves exploration. IF in the past, incumbents with marginal re-election outlook were more likely to run rather than retire, and IF the opposite is true today, that could explain the higher numbers today AND a weaker incumbency. Take it to the extreme. Suppose every congressman with a less than a 30 point lead in the polls chose to retire rather than take a small risk of losing. Would you then look at the 100% success of the remaining incumbents as proof of anything?

The interesting part is why are more incumbents choosing to retire rather than risk losing (if this is indeed happening)? Are there fewer/less lucrative jobs in media and consulting and lobbying for incumbents who lost their final election?

In constant dollars, Katrina did about $130B in damage, and a worst-case projection for Sandy's costs is about $50B. When you consider that Sandy hit a far wealthier and far more populated area, the two really aren't comparable in their impacts.

It's a bit crass to look for signs of positive change in the wake of major disasters but let it not be said that the rugged individualism of our betters has waned in the face of tragedy. I mean, for the most part.

The mayor of Toronto used his position to coerce people into donating a couple thousand bucks (total) to his kid's football team (despite being warned repeated and publicly about what he was doing). He's just dumber than a sack of hair.

The lead-up to the Toronto mayoral election that put Ford in office was fun to follow from abroad. My facebook feed (usually a wide spectrum of political belief) was unanimous in its disbelief that this guy was even a legitimate candidate, nevermind in line to win. Needless to say yesterday was a facebook feed full of joy.

EDIT: For people who actually live in Toronto. What the hell happened? Who actually voted for Ford?

Why should Pakistani-Americans and Chinese-Americans feel alike?

It would be terrible if I made a joke about squinty eyes, right?

It would be terrible if I made a joke about squinty eyes, right?

Not if it's a really good joke.

God, this whole “white guys make up reasons why minorities vote the way they do, based on stereotypes” game has to stop. Seriously. How did you vote?

I voted for the whitest guy in the room; Barry Obama.

Not if it's a really good joke.

You've seen my jokes. They're rarely "really good."

Go ahead, give it a shot. Just keep the flapping dickie handy in case it bombs.

You've seen my jokes. They're rarely "really good."

Yeah I don't have a lot of faith in you.

6. Punish your enemies. Squeeze the entertainment industry, tax em hard.

No way uncle Rupert lets that happen.

Add a new face to the family values Mount Rushmore.

In the picture Tilden Katz links to in 10259, it looks like the "family values" Republican nominee is twisting his wife's arm behind her back to get her to smile. One reads these things into pictures knowing the context, but it's all fairly icky.

Hate evolution in your heart of hearts if you must, but keep it to yourself; you're losing educated urban and suburban voters.

It's a bit late to put that particular genie back in the bottle.

Although it's not impossible - this Congressman is apparently a believer in evolution now

I've sometimes wondered why a conservative candidate can't say: "Look, there's faith and there's science. As a person of faith, my religion teaches me that the world is [2,500 years old or whatever], and I believe my religion devoutly. But for scientists working on scientific problems, the world is however old scientific understanding makes it out to be, and I think we should teach the best science while students are in science classes, so that we don't fall behind [list of socialist nations that hate us] in the race to produce research and create jobs."

I reckon the average Tea Partier either falls asleep or starts to cover their ears and say "YAH YAH CANT HEAR YOU" as soon as s/he hears the word "but" … as somebody (YR?) said upthread, "nuance" is a French word :)

God, this whole “white guys make up reasons why minorities vote the way they do, based on stereotypes” game has to stop. Seriously. How did you vote? Assuming you’re a person, that’s probably the general process that people go through when they vote. Jesus Christ.

Well to a certain extent any generalization about any group of people is more than a little silly. However identity politics is a real thing. Who you are, what your life experience is matters in how you vote. There are broad characterizations based around race and voting patterns that can be made by pretty much anyone. I agree that 'why' is much more omnifarious than 'what', but if you limit us to each discussing what we truly know this thread will grind to a crashing halt (it is up to the reader to assess the value in this happening).

I think most (hopefully all) of the discussion is in the political context - what it all means in governing and winning elections and not what does this say about the various people we are talking about.

From the link in 10261:

He now looks back with regret, he says, on the sexual relationships he had with two patients, three co-workers and a drug company representative while he was chief of staff at Grandview Medical Center in Jasper.

Brilliant.

I've sometimes wondered why a conservative candidate can't say: "Look, there's faith and there's science. As a person of faith, my religion teaches me that the world is [2,500 years old or whatever], and I believe my religion devoutly. But for scientists working on scientific problems, the world is however old scientific understanding makes it out to be, and I think we should teach the best science while students are in science classes, so that we don't fall behind [list of socialist nations that hate us] in the race to produce research and create jobs."

I reckon the average Tea Partier either falls asleep or starts to cover their ears and say "YAH YAH CANT HEAR YOU" as soon as s/he hears the word "but" … as somebody (YR?) said upthread, "nuance" is a French word :)

Well, to be fair --

I think plenty of them do say this/say things in precisely this way. However, the 'liberal media' doesn't usually let them get away with it... though, that cuts both ways - the issue set is different, but the same thing happens with plenty of Democrats on say... 2nd amendment issues, where they likewise try to have it both ways.

I think plenty of them do say this/say things in precisely this way. However, the 'liberal media' doesn't usually let them get away with it... though, that cuts both ways - the issue set is different, but the same thing happens with plenty of Democrats on say... 2nd amendment issues, where they likewise try to have it both ways.

I think it is more a base/purity issue than a media issue. Democrats (as you said) have it both ways on gun control and especially Abortion Rights issues all the time. The last few years the GOP has been more rigid about enforcing orthodoxy that the Dems. Just look at the recent Presidential primaries and Senate primaries.

To a certain extent it is a trade off, do you want a larger more fractious party or a smaller more unified party? For the House and Senate I think a case could be made that there is real value in enforcing party orthodoxy even at the cost of some seats. It makes governing harder perhaps, but from an ideological standpoint it might make sense.

I guess you're right, zonk. Mitt Romney actually seems to hold a position much like my hypothetical, if anything even more nuanced (from the NYT 11 May 2007: '“I believe that God designed the universe and created the universe,” Mr. Romney said in an interview this week. “And I believe evolution is most likely the process he used to create the human body.”') And Newt Gingrich is positively well-informed on the topic: "Evolution certainly seems to express the closest understanding we can now have. But it's changing too. The current tree of life is not anything like a 19th-century Darwinian tree. We're learning a lot about how systems evolve and don't evolve. Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving. I believe evolution should be taught as science, and intelligent design should be taught as philosophy."

But more common is the view taken by our Governor, Rick Perry, who holds (with George W Bush IIRC) that evolution is just a theory and that creationism should be taught alongside it so that students can make up their own minds. Which is kind of like saying that the germ theory of disease is after all, just a theory, and should be taught alongside possession by evil spirits in medical school.

EDIT: Well, I should say that the idea that "cockroaches stopped evolving" is nonsense. But Newt wouldn't be Newt without a wacky take on something :)

Which is kind of like saying that the germ theory of disease is after all, just a theory, and should be taught alongside possession by evil spirits in medical school.

I actually prefer the competing theories of gravity and Intelligent Falling.

Cockroaches became successful several hundred million years ago and just stopped evolving.

That is one hell of a straight line, coming from Newt anyway.

I think someone posted it a few days/pages back, but folks might recall that the founder of Tea Party Nation was pushing this idea about states refusing to participate in the electoral college, thus denying a quorum, and kicking the election to the House of Representatives (it's a misreading of the 12th amendment - the 'quorum' applies to the rare House of Representatives as electors, not the EC) --

Well, now an Idaho state senator has picked up the thread (apparently, missing the note at the top of the column which essentially says "Ooops, I was wrong").

Suppose every congressman with a less than a 30 point lead in the polls chose to retire rather than take a small risk of losing. Would you then look at the 100% success of the remaining incumbents as proof of anything?

That figure would still mean exactly what it means -- that every single incumbent who chose to stand for re-election was, in fact, re-elected. Maybe we're talking past each other on what "incumbency" means. I take it to mean "if an incumbent stands for re-election, how likely is s/he to win?" The most pertinent figure in that analysis, for me, is not "how often has Congress flipped parties?" or "how many incumbents choose not to run?" but rather "how many incumbents win re-election when they run?"

The interesting part is why are more incumbents choosing to retire rather than risk losing (if this is indeed happening)? Are there fewer/less lucrative jobs in media and consulting and lobbying for incumbents who lost their final election?

It is an interesting thought experiment, but it isn't happening. Since at least 1940, the percentage of incumbent Representatives who have run for re-election has been constant in the high-80s/low 90s; it hasn't changed at all. You can look at the figures here http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-361_19950308.pdf, if you like.

So, the "choose not to run again" explanation doesn't really square with the facts.

It is an interesting thought experiment, but it isn't happening. Since at least 1940, the percentage of incumbent Representatives who have run for re-election has been constant in the high-80s/low 90s; it hasn't changed at all. You can look at the figures here http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/95-361_19950308.pdf, if you like.

So, the "choose not to run again" explanation doesn't really square with the facts.

Thanks. I didn't think it did, but I was open to the possibility. As kooky as some JoeK theories can be, this one seemed plausible.

I won't argue with the rejection of science, but I don't see how the Republican party is somehow considered the "Low Status" party when its base considers 47% of the population to be lazy freeloaders, all of whom they assume vote for Democrats.

I'm sure the base thinks the other side is a bunch of lazy bastards but that doesn't make them the elites. It is more like To Kill a Mockingbird in nature than elites acting elite. Though of course the GOP has elites.

Since at least 1940, the percentage of incumbent Representatives who have run for re-election has been constant in the high-80s/low 90s; it hasn't changed at all.

I admit this surprises me. I would have guessed part (though not all) of the increased incumbancy advantage was due to intelligent retirements. I suppose it still could be if safe incumbants now tend to stay longer while endangered ones leave (keeping the rate the same, but also resulting in higher incumbency rates), but I can't think of a reason (maybe longer life spans?) that safe incumbents would stay longer now than before.

Possible reason for greater incumbency rates: Various campaign finance laws favoring incumbents, polarization of the electorate or gerrymandering resulting in more polarized districts, smarter/high learning curve for campaigns (newbies are penalized), lower quality of challenger (being a Rep is less appealing), voters less interested/less informed and just voting for the person they know, the power of the office allows them to curry more favor with their constituents, and I am sure many more.

Not sure which might be right though.

I think someone posted it a few days/pages back, but folks might recall that the founder of Tea Party Nation was pushing this idea about states refusing to participate in the electoral college, thus denying a quorum, and kicking the election to the House of Representatives (it's a misreading of the 12th amendment - the 'quorum' applies to the rare House of Representatives as electors, not the EC) --

Jeeze. The Republicans really need to ditch the Tpers, or they're not going to win any more elections. I can understand the frustration, but at this point Obama won everything. He won the EC by a large margin. He won the popular vote by a large margin. He won the majority of states. His margin in the EC was so great that you could give Romney every state that Obama won by fewer than 4 points and he still loses. There is no, absolutely no basis to believe this election was stolen or Obama's win is anything less than 100% legit. This isn't 2000, or 2004, or even 1992. It's somewhere between 1976 and 1988.

I admit this surprises me. I would have guessed part (though not all) of the increased incumbancy advantage was due to intelligent retirements. I suppose it still could be if safe incumbants now tend to stay longer while endangered ones leave (keeping the rate the same, but also resulting in higher incumbency rates), but I can't think of a reason (maybe longer life spans?) that safe incumbents would stay longer now than before.

Possible reason for greater incumbency rates: Various campaign finance laws favoring incumbents, polarization of the electorate or gerrymandering resulting in more polarized districts, smarter/high learning curve for campaigns (newbies are penalized), lower quality of challenger (being a Rep is less appealing), voters less interested/less informed and just voting for the person they know, the power of the office allows them to curry more favor with their constituents, and I am sure many more.

Not sure which might be right though.

Surprises me, too --

Though, maybe it's a tradeoff of items that has actually kept the number relatively constant -- for all the reasons for greater incumbency rates, there are also good reasons for leaving... namely, punching your ticket to ride the lobbyist gravy train.

Maybe it just works out such that the pros and cons of incumbency have balanced to keep the rates more or less the same.

Possible reason for greater incumbency rates: Various campaign finance laws favoring incumbents, polerization of the electorate or gerrymandering resulting in more polarized districts, smarter/high learning curve for campaigns (newbies are penalized), lower quality of challenger (being a Rep is less appealing), voters less interested/less informed and just voting for the person they know, the power of the office allows them to curry more favor with their constituents, and I am sure many more.

The Columbia University article that I linked previously concludes that the two primary factors are (1) increased polarization of individual House districts; and (2) inability of challengers to compete financially with entrenched incumbents. Their findings indicate that gerrymandering can be impactful in specific places, but that it is of limited import in explaining the overall trend towards a bigger incumbency advantage.

I think their reasoning is sound. In other places, we have seen an increase in "self-sorting." The red states are, by and large, redder than they were before. The same goes for the blue states. There has been an ideological homogenization on a geographic level: people want to live near others who think like them. The media fuels this phenomenon with the "red state/blue state" narrative they push.

The financial aspect just makes common sense. If I'm in office, I can use my power and influence to leverage fundraising opportunities. If I'm not in office, I can't. Plus, there is a self-fulfilling feedback loop: the more unlikely donors view ousting an incumbent, the less they will contribute to a challenger's bid for a seat. The less they contribute, the more unlikely it becomes to get an ouster. And so on.

10245. Gotham Dave Posted: November 27, 2012 at 01:01 PM (#4310612)
God, this whole “white guys make up reasons why minorities vote the way they do, based on stereotypes” game has to stop. Seriously. How did you vote? Assuming you’re a person, that’s probably the general process that people go through when they vote. Jesus Christ.

Thanks for this.

I wanted to note that I'm thrilled that the Asian-American vote is being discussed. We've been a politically irrelevant vote for pretty much my entire life. Even though the numbers are still small, the fact that we matter even a little bit is very exciting to me. And if I had the chance, I'd vote for Jindal. Even if I don't agree with most of his politics, it's important to me that a face that looks like his becomes normal in American politics.

I wanted to note that I'm thrilled that the Asian-American vote is being discussed. We've been a politically irrelevant vote for pretty much my entire life. Even though the numbers are still small, the fact that we matter even a little bit is very exciting to me. And if I had the chance, I'd vote for Jindal. Even if I don't agree with most of his politics, it's important to me that a face that looks like his becomes normal in American politics.

Can you get me some noodles?

And if I had the chance, I'd vote for Jindal. Even if I don't agree with most of his politics, it's important to me that a face that looks like his becomes normal in American politics.

That is a very thought provoking POV, in that I am curious how many folks would make that trade.

Jeeze. The Republicans really need to ditch the Tpers, or they're not going to win any more elections. I can understand the frustration, but at this point Obama won everything. He won the EC by a large margin. He won the popular vote by a large margin. He won the majority of states. His margin in the EC was so great that you could give Romney every state that Obama won by fewer than 4 points and he still loses. There is no, absolutely no basis to believe this election was stolen or Obama's win is anything less than 100% legit. This isn't 2000, or 2004, or even 1992. It's somewhere between 1976 and 1988.

Actually, I just find it amusing (turns out I posted the original WND column) that people who just looovvveeee to hurl around the world "CONSTITUTION!" as some sort of magic talisman against everything they dislike are so completely incapable of actually reading and understanding the constitution.

The whole gambit was based on cursory reading of the 12th amendment, which reads in total:

The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate.

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

and it wasn't the government's fault nor the utilities.

ahem

LIPA (Long Island Power Authority) had fallen YEARS behind in tree trimming before Irene in 2011, that lead to mass power failures
LIPA then formulated a plan to get tree trimming back on track... and then of course didn't actually do the tree trimming, and then came Sandy...

and then a couple days after Irene, LIPA ran out of Polls

ever been to Long Island, none (almost literally none) of the power lines are underground, they are above ground, usually on wooden polls erected in the 50s or earlier- many of which needed to be replaced BEFORE Irene and Sandy

you see power lines running THROUGH tree branches all over the Island, basically what you had here was years (decades) of maintenance malfeasance coming home to roost.

plus they knew after Irene that their dispatch system could not handle a certain number of maintenance calls- and did NOTHING

and let's get to Andrew Cuomo- even before Sandy hit he began threatening LIPA (a public authority) saying that basically they'd better do better than with Irene,,, the ineffectual threats continued throughout the fiasco... of course half of LIPA's board has been MIA the whole time- because there aren't any- Cuomo hasn't bothered to appoint replacements for people who've left since he was elected.

one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves;

What does this mean? That the Pres and VP cannot come from the same state?

Has FOX News cutting off a speaking-truth-to-power Tom Ricks yet been discussed here?

Because, FOX, awesome job of making sure no one heard what Ricks had to say or acting like his opinion was dead-on.

I think their reasoning is sound. In other places, we have seen an increase in "self-sorting." The red states are, by and large, redder than they were before. The same goes for the blue states. There has been an ideological homogenization on a geographic level: people want to live near others who think like them. The media fuels this phenomenon with the "red state/blue state" narrative they push.

You really think so?

I suppose there's probably some of that -- the militia types seem to have spent about 20 years flocking to Idaho -- but I wonder if it's less "be near people who think like me" than it is "being near stuff that people like me enjoy"... To wit -- 'liberal elites' would tend to prefer things like theater, boutiques, and all sorts of sundry entertainment and experiences that are most often to be found in urbanized blue states... Hence, we move to/near LA, Chicago, New York, Boston, etc.

The red staters, OTOH, might prefer to be near things like areas to hunt or fish and rather than pricey boutiques, one-stop big box stores where they can do a month's shopping for all manner of things rather than 'wasting' time visiting a bunch of smaller stores.

Not saying I'm right -

I'm just thinking of my own arguments with father... Next to politics (and whether the Yankees are evil incarnate or not, I guess), our relative denizen circumstances are the next biggest point of contention. I'm not kidding about that - we've had some real heated and loud arguments: He'll suggest I should move our of my dangerous urban hellhole, I'll fire back that I've had my fill of desolate rural wastelands... He'll say that when the inevitable breakdown of society occurs due to over-reliance on strained government - the city will turn into Lord of the Flies savagery; I'll counter that unlike him - I've lived in both types of environs and fail to see the difference in proportions of jerkwads... etc.

This same paradigm seems to exist with liberals and conservatives I know - "living near people who think like me" has never really come up... it's generally more that the rural (or suburban) conservatives I know tend to like things that are more easily found/done in rural areas, while the more urban liberals tend to prefer the sorts of things one finds in downtown wherever.

That is a very thought provoking POV, in that I am curious how many folks would make that trade.

I suspect that many folks whose children have faces that look something like Bobby Jindal's face - even vaguely like - would have a dog in that fight. There's an entire generation of young black boys growing up with no reason whatsoever to think "man, someone like me could never be President." To quote Joe Biden's Comaro, that's pretty big ####### deal.

Has FOX News cutting off a speaking-truth-to-power Tom Ricks yet been discussed here?

Because, FOX, awesome job of making sure no one heard what Ricks had to say or acting like his opinion was dead-on.

Yes - though, I'm not sure if anyone's posted the latest... a Fox VP is claiming that Ricks apologized in private after the segment; Ricks responded essentially "the hell I did"; Fox VP is 'surprised' that Ricks is being so dishonest.

You the old saying about "don't pick a fight with an opponent who buys ink by the pallet"? The internet has really destroyed that, hasn't it?

What does this mean? That the Pres and VP cannot come from the same state?

Not quite. It means that if they're both from the same state, that state can't vote in the Electoral College.

This came up in 2000 with Bush and Cheney, both of whom lived in Texas. Cheney changed his legal residency to his Wyoming vacation ranch so that Texas would be allowed to vote in the EC.

Some data points on incumbency over the years:

Forty years ago in 1972, 56 House incumbents either retired, or tried and failed to get renominated. In 1982, 50 incumbents retired or failed to be renominated. In 1992, 63 incumbents retired or failed to be renominated.

In 2010 it was 41, and this cycle it was 45. (This isn't counting redistricting contractions where two incumbents are forced to run against each other for the remaining seat, guaranteeing that one will lose.)

Even in 1994 and 2010, the two largest GOP wave years that Joe wants to emphasize, first 19 and then 22 Republicans retired or failed to be renominated.

For reasons discussed in some of the above posts, most vacated House seats are reclaimed by the same party.

And if I had the chance, I'd vote for Jindal. Even if I don't agree with most of his politics, it's important to me that a face that looks like his becomes normal in American politics.

That is a very thought provoking POV, in that I am curious how many folks would make that trade.

I find it disturbing. I read it essentially as an admission of "I will vote for a man whose actual positions and policies are potentially deleterious to the nation at large because we share some genetic and cultural commonalities." As an American I would hope you would vote for the candidate whose policies provided the clearest benefit to the nation and its citizenry, rather than defer to petty tribalism.

a Fox VP is claiming that Ricks apologized in private after the segment

I like how the follow-up story about the "apology" was broken by The Hollywood Reporter.

And dig the first comment.

As an American I would hope you would vote for the candidate whose policies provided the clearest benefit to the nation and its citizenry, rather than defer to petty tribalism.

Sure, that's pretty much my position as well - but El Hombre's is informed by a set of circumstances I haven't experienced, so I am loath to judge. I do find it surprising, and am genuinely curious as to how many similarly situated folks share it.

I have nothing to contribute to the conversation.

So I'll just say Tom Ricks looks a bit like Orson Welles in that photo.

I'm not sure why Fox News wants this fight. Its never good when the people reporting the story becomes the story.

I'm not sure why Fox News wants this fight.

Not their call - that went out live and got picked up and rebroadcast by the world within minutes. They had to say something about it.

I find it disturbing. I read it essentially as an admission of "I will vote for a man whose actual positions and policies are potentially deleterious to the nation at large because we share some genetic and cultural commonalities." As an American I would hope you would vote for the candidate whose policies provided the clearest benefit to the nation and its citizenry, rather than defer to petty tribalism.

His hypothetical behavior is perfectly consistent with evolutionary biology. Even the behaviors we think of as "altruism" and "concern for others" were selected for to promote one's own genetic heritage. There is no escape from tribalism.

@10285:

I think we're in agreement. I used "people who think like me" as shorthand for all the factors you identify specifically. I agree that virtually no one explicitly thinks "I'm a liberal. I want to live near other liberals. Where do the liberals live?" Rather, the self-sorting occurs on the basis of liberals flocking -- very writ large here -- to things liberals -- again, speaking very, very writ large here -- tend to enjoy/want to be around. Same with conservatives.

I find it disturbing. I read it essentially as an admission of "I will vote for a man whose actual positions and policies are potentially deleterious to the nation at large because we share some genetic and cultural commonalities." As an American I would hope you would vote for the candidate whose policies provided the clearest benefit to the nation and its citizenry, rather than defer to petty tribalism.

Try being the tribe nobody cares about for a while. And for the record, I've done this already. I voted for Matt Fong when he ran against Barbara Boxer for California's senate seat. It was easy because Fong wasn't exactly an extremist and I'm not a particular fan of Boxer.

I don't think Bobby Jindal's some crazy extremist. I don't know overly much about him, but he doesn't strike me as a Gingrich or a Bachmann or a Santorum, and I don't think having him in high office would necessarily be deleterious to the nation at large. I DO think that it takes a while for the voting population at large to get used to the idea of Asians in high office without questioning their loyalty or background. In the long run, getting more Asian-Americans in office is a better deal both for Asian-Americans and for the country as a whole than one or two elections in the here and now.

Try being the tribe nobody cares about for a while.

Oh I wouldn't know, I'm Jewish. I'll vote for anyone who says nice things about Israel because I have a very simplistic view of the world.

Oh I wouldn't know, I'm Jewish.

I laughed.