Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Wednesday, October 31, 2012

OTP November 2012 - Moneypoll! The Pundits vs. The Election-Data Nerds

Come next Tuesday night, we’ll get a resolution (let’s hope) to a great ongoing battle of 2012: not just the Presidential election between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, but the one between the pundits trying to analyze that race with their guts and a new breed of statistics gurus trying to forecast it with data.

In Election 2012 as seen by the pundits–political journalists on the trail, commentators in cable-news studios–the campaign is a jump ball. There’s a slight lead for Mitt Romney in national polls and slight leads for Barack Obama in swing-state polls, and no good way of predicting next Tuesday’s outcome beyond flipping a coin. ...

Bonus link: Esquire - The Enemies of Nate Silver

Joe Kehoskie Posted: October 31, 2012 at 11:42 PM | 11298 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: mr president, off-topic, politics, sabermetrics, usa

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 56 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >  Last ›
   5501. zonk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:05 PM (#4297533)
Not very, barring a landslide. But it could be defanged, have the mandate killed...


Florida actually had a (non-binding) ballot initiative to repeal the mandate (I think it made it illegal in FL or somesuch) that went down to defeat...

   5502. Gold Star - just Gold Star Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:08 PM (#4297534)
For a good take on what happens next, I highly recommend looking up Jon Chait's recent piece on what happens now. I'm in the middle of ####, otherwise I'd post the link.
   5503. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4297535)
This thread was a lot of fun on election night, but now that it's just descended back into the usual strident-toned nastiness, I'll guess I check back in on the next political thread. With 2 more heads in my ignore list, that is.
   5504. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4297536)
[5500] Looks like she's taken her channel private.

I can't imagine why ...
   5505. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:09 PM (#4297537)
On a per capita basis, welfare dollars in the United States are spent on a roughly 3:2:1 ratio among blacks, Latinos, and whites. In yesterday's presidential election, the Dem candidate secured votes on a roughly 3:2:1 basis among those same demographics. Sure, some people — mostly higher-income whites — voted against their economic interests because of drone strikes or abortion or whatnot, but people generally vote their wallets. The Dems like to expand the welfare state, blacks and Latinos disproportionately benefit from those expansions, and blacks and Latinos disproportionately vote for Dems. It's not that hard to connect the dots.


No, it's not. Conspiratorial thinking and paranoid reasoning is always quite the easy path of dots.
   5506. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:10 PM (#4297538)
Mainly, I was thinking about the third-party aspects of her rant, and how much she sounds like Democrats when they talk about Ralph Nader.

See, it isn't just us. ;-)


1) The YouTube video is longer and better

I dunno man, it loses something without the groovy soundtrack.
   5507. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:17 PM (#4297542)
Statehood requires congressional approval... but this might be an interesting topic to follow in the next year or so.
Agreed. I'd love to see this get fast-tracked. Oh, and politically, ringing this in under a Democratic president can't hurt. The Dems should focus on practical ways of increasing the vote, which, since suppressed votes these days fall under the heading of lean-Dem votes, is also excellent political strategy. Motor-voter, automatic registration at 18, and restoring the vote for non-violent felons (all felons should be able to vote, but I'm being practical here). We're fortunate that the browning of America is likely to keep us from moving rightward, ever rightward.

Puerto Rico would be 29th in population among the states, with 3,706,690 people. I think that means their house delegation would total 5 representatives.

I do think that bringing them in will require some sort of compromise with the Rs. I don't know what it would take, but they'd have to be paid off to allow PR in. DC wouldn't really be much of a stretch as their EVs already count.
If the Dems want to make hay, a simple pro-statehood stance should do it. Point out R intransigence, reap votes, repeat.


That's the GOP's problem - I don't see any obstacles to Democrats picking up further chunks of the white male vote... at least not structurally. I do think there are obstacles for the GOP on the flipside.


New Hampshire goes all in on "the end of men."

Senate: Kelly Ayotte, Jean Shaheen
House: Ann Kuster, Carol Shea-Porter
Gov - Maggie Hassan
Just you wait. Once their cycles line up, fur will fly!

Nobody was saying that Obama stole the election or won via voter fraud or anything.
Trump was, for starters.

Hopefully, two elections in a row where Ohio goes to the Democrats will stop the lefty wingnuts from posting how the Ohio machines were bought/rigged/reprogrammed.
Because vote suppression occurs only when it wins elections? That makes sense.
   5508. cercopithecus aethiops Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:20 PM (#4297543)
...the Rockefellers, a brand of Gooper that just doesn't exist anymore outside of petting zoos and David Brooks' porn folders


Of course they still exist. We call them "Democrats" now.
   5509. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:21 PM (#4297544)
No, it's not. Conspiratorial thinking and paranoid reasoning is always quite the easy path of dots.

When wealthy people vote for tax-cutting Republicans, they're greedy people who vote their wallets. But when poor people vote for welfare-state Democrats, we're supposed to believe they're voting because of selfless political ideology (or something). Funny how that works.

Even funnier, I have no problem with either voting bloc above, as both are acting rationally. All I've done is acknowledge the obvious, and point out that the GOP will continue to lose elections so long as people can go to the ballot box and vote themselves benefits. (De Tocqueville had this figured out 150 years ago, so it's hardly a new or controversial idea.)
   5510. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:22 PM (#4297545)
For a good take on what happens next, I highly recommend looking up Jon Chait's recent piece on what happens now.


Link. It's a really good piece.

-- MWE
   5511. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:30 PM (#4297547)
All I've done is acknowledge the obvious, and point out that the GOP will continue to lose elections so long as people can go to the ballot box and vote themselves benefits.


So would it stand to reason that state which vote reliably Republican receive less benefits per capita than those voting reliably Democratic?
   5512. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:35 PM (#4297548)
If the Dems want to make hay, a simple pro-statehood stance should do it. Point out R intransigence, reap votes, repeat.

That's the GOP's problem - I don't see any obstacles to Democrats picking up further chunks of the white male vote... at least not structurally. I do think there are obstacles for the GOP on the flipside.

Just out of curiosity, what's the plan once the Dems control the government with big majorities? I assume raising taxes on the rich is at the top of the list, but doing so barely puts a dent in the deficit or debt. How does this Dem super-coalition of blacks, Latinos, and a growing number of whites survive the inevitable budget and/or service cutbacks that are coming?
   5513. nick swisher hygiene Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4297549)
5512--Everything the government does for white people is because white people deserve it!
   5514. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:36 PM (#4297550)
But when poor people vote for welfare-state Democrats, we're supposed to believe they're voting because of selfless political ideology (or something).

We are?


How does this Dem coalition of blacks, Latinos, and a growing number of whites survive the inevitable budget and/or service cutbacks that are coming?

I wish I could say "moon colony", but Newt ###### his chance at that one up royally.
   5515. Howie Menckel Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:38 PM (#4297551)

Caught the tail end of an odd Hannity-Bob Woodward interview (talk about being overmatched!)

Hannity had what I call "cougar mouth" when my old female cat does it - mouth tight in a circle, not fangs bared, but menacing (though not at Woodward).

Woodward said that Romney people claimed they "had a guy" who could give him the real lowdown on Benghazi. Woodward said the guy kept not showing up, but when he did, he really just had some "you should talk to this guy" material.

Woodward DOES think there is something rotten in the state of Benghazi, though. He railed against secrecy in government, which he's got 40 years worth of credibility in. He also said that when he works on articles, or books, it takes months or years to clarify.

It's irrelevant to the re-election, of course, unless it fires up the House to seek impeachment. But that's a longterm loser, short of stunning new info.

Also caught Hannity for 5 mins on radio today (I listen so you don't have to!)

Pollster Frank Luntz talking him off the ledge, says he has 20 buzzwords that are the key to reclaiming the country. One was "imagine" (ah, the irony). Also "economic freedom" - didn't stick around long enough to find out if that counts for one or two.



   5516. Random Transaction Generator Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:40 PM (#4297552)
Because vote suppression occurs only when it wins elections? That makes sense.


I was referring to vote rigging/changing, not suppression.
   5517. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:41 PM (#4297554)
All I've done is acknowledge the obvious, and point out that the GOP will continue to lose elections so long as people can go to the ballot box and vote themselves benefits.


Using your logic, why are Republicans ever elected?

The problem isn't with the rich voting. I don't think anyone begrudges the wealthy their vote. It's with money enabling the rich to go beyond that, as in buying votes and buying candidates and buying public servants and officials.

Where the hell have you been Smokin' Joe. It doesn't take that long to scrub--well, never mind. Scratch that.
   5518. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:43 PM (#4297555)
5510:

That does look like a good piece.
   5519. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4297557)
How does this Dem coalition of blacks, Latinos, and a growing number of whites survive the inevitable budget and/or service cutbacks that are coming?


As I said upthread-- you can keep peddling this idea if you want. You can even believe it's the truth. But don't expect to win the votes of the people you're insulting in doing so. And you can insist on claiming you're not being insulting, but you're wrong-- at least, according to the people who feel insulted. That seems to be the thing you don't want to accept.

This isn't OMG YER RACIST. It's that you're using racialized frameworks to interpret peoples' actions for them, and thus denying them the right to speak for themselves-- you're saying "it doesn't matter why you think you voted for Obama-- I'll tell you why-- it's because he gives you and the rest of your kind a bunch of free stuff, and you all don't want your water getting turned off."

   5520. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:44 PM (#4297558)
Woodward DOES think there is something rotten in the state of Benghazi, though.

On a related note, CBS had Obama on video refusing to call Benghazi a terrorist attack in a Sept. 12 interview, but it buried the footage until Sunday. Perfect example of the media being in the bag for Obama.
   5521. SteveF Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:45 PM (#4297559)
Using your logic, why are Republicans ever elected?


Reading through this thread it's apparently because enough people are racist or have only a 6th grade education, and large swaths of democrats are having their votes suppressed by republicans.
   5522. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:49 PM (#4297562)
Perfect example of the media being in the bag for Obama.


Oh, we're back to this brand of nutters. That didn't take long.
   5523. Yeaarrgghhhh Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:52 PM (#4297565)
Bob Woodward is a clown.
   5524. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:53 PM (#4297566)
As I said upthread-- you can keep peddling this idea if you want. You can even believe it's the truth. But don't expect to win the votes of the people you're insulting in doing so. And you can insist on claiming you're not being insulting, but you're wrong-- at least, according to the people who feel insulted. That seems to be the thing you don't want to accept.

If people are "insulted" by an accurate description of a situation, then there's not much one can do. I'll be the first to admit that the GOP has done a lousy job with blacks and Latinos, but this idea that the GOP can win black and/or Latino votes via non-economic pandering is little more than theory.

Reagan signed the biggest immigration amnesty in U.S. history and it accomplished little or nothing in terms of bringing Latinos into the GOP. Both blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly self-identify as religious and anti-gay marriage while the Dem party laughs at religion and champions gay marriage, yet blacks and Latinos remain solidly in the Dem fold. It sounds wonderful to suggest that the GOP simply needs to moderate its tone, but on what non-economic issues can the GOP win black and Latino votes?
   5525. Howie Menckel Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:55 PM (#4297567)

In more relevant news, NJ getting hit with a snowstorm. I'll get about 5 inches here.

just caught the local forecast - partly cloudy Thursday, with a 60 percent chance of raining frogs.

would be funnier if I didn't hit some black ice at around 4:45 pm today (thanks for that "fall back time change" Saturday, you douches!). left me looking down the hill at a heating/air conditioning truck stuck sideways in my way. no way to stop cold, so dinged him at about 3 mph.

no injuries, but enough damage to cost me $500 deductible.

but in NJ, if you have power (I do, barring these high winds focking with me tonight), you can't complain. It's a terrible, terrible mess and we all just have to get smacked and keep going.

#jerseystrong

   5526. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:57 PM (#4297568)
If people are "insulted" by an accurate description of a situation, then there's not much one can do.


You can stop insulting them. That's a start. You can stop claiming that white people understand the reasons for their actions better than they do. There's a long history of European paternalism that your rhetoric conjures, and it's not all that far in the rear-view mirror. That you just don't care to stop conjuring it is telling.
   5527. DJS and the Infinite Sadness Posted: November 07, 2012 at 10:58 PM (#4297569)
I wish I could say "moon colony", but Newt ###### his chance at that one up royally.

Lassus, did you follow Salon's Political Kombat series? They had one of the stages take place at Newt's Moon Base.

The last one was the best.
   5528. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:00 PM (#4297570)
Oh, we're back to this brand of nutters. That didn't take long.

Benghazi has been a story for two months, including the topic of the most heated exchange in the presidential debates. CBS had footage that was dispositive, and yet it sat on the tape for nearly two months, until the Sunday before the election. Withholding that footage was inexplicable journalistically. It's a prime example of media bias.
   5529. The John Wetland Memorial Death (CoB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:01 PM (#4297571)
[5525] Good luck Howie, as an ex-Union County boy myself, my thoughts have been with my old home state a lot this last week or so.
   5530. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4297572)
It's a prime example of media bias.


Whatever. It's impossible to refute a religious belief, so I'm not going to keep trying.
   5531. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:05 PM (#4297573)
Reading through this thread it's apparently because enough people are racist or have only a 6th grade education, and large swaths of democrats are having their votes suppressed by republicans.

Clever, but I don't think it was some kind of dishonest GOTCHA question, but a legitimate one.
   5532. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:06 PM (#4297574)
Republicans tend to do better when the turnout is lower. I think there are two reasons for this, based on nothing more than my impressions from four years of working as an election assistant and judge:

1. The Republicans do a better job of getting their base out to vote consistently than do the Democrats.
2. Democrats are more likely to vote for a good Republican candidate than Republicans are to vote for a good Democratic candidate.

As a side note: I think voter ID laws help the Republicans in the long run not because it's more difficult for the Democratic base to get valid IDs in the first place, but because a good chunk of the Democratic base voters (the younger and lower-income portion) will be less inclined to make sure they actually have a current ID before they try to vote. When I prepare taxes, we require IDs before we issue refund checks, and you'd be surprised how many young and low-income people come in with an expired ID that they haven't bothered to renew.

-- MWE
   5533. Mike Emeigh Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:07 PM (#4297575)
Benghazi has been a story for two months


There are a number of reports floating around that Romney himself didn't want to go after Obama on Benghazi.

-- MWE
   5534. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:08 PM (#4297577)
You can stop insulting them. That's a start. You can stop claiming that white people understand the reasons for their actions better than they do. There's a long history of European paternalism that your rhetoric conjures, and it's not all that far in the rear-view mirror. That you just don't care to stop conjuring it is telling.

Pointing out that both rich people and poor people tend to vote their economic interests isn't "European paternalism." If the GOP could win some black and/or Latino votes from the Dems simply by talking nicer, they would have tried it. That sort of thing is Frank Luntz's reason for existing. The simple fact is, there was nothing that Mitt Romney could have said that would have had a real-world chance of reducing Obama's share of the black vote below 95 percent, and the main source of pandering toward Latinos — immigration — was tried by the GOP in the '80s and failed miserably.

The GOP sees improvement with minorities during strong economic times, because people vote their wallets. And the GOP gets crushed with minorities in bad economic times, because people vote their wallets.
   5535. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:09 PM (#4297578)
See, YC probably didn't catch it moons and moons ago (nor should he have); but as a callback, listening to Joe on Benghazi really makes me appreciate Yankee Clapper.


Lassus, did you follow Salon's Political Kombat series? They had one of the stages take place at Newt's Moon Base.

I'm so behind the internet fiction times it's embarrassing. Thanks for the link.
   5536. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:12 PM (#4297580)
and the main source of pandering toward Latinos — immigration — was tried by the GOP in the '80s and failed miserably.

At least you grasp the definition of the terms you're using. I think.
   5537. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:15 PM (#4297581)
Whatever. It's impossible to refute a religious belief, so I'm not going to keep trying.

So what's your explanation for that video just sitting on the shelf for almost two months? CBS forgot they had it? Nobody from CBS watched the second presidential debate and noticed that Obama claimed something that CBS had proof wasn't true?

***
There are a number of reports floating around that Romney himself didn't want to go after Obama on Benghazi.

I know, but he shouldn't have had to; that was the media's job. Romney likely was hesitant to go after Obama on the issue because the media bashed him every time he did, including Candy Crowley siding with Obama on a claim we now know was false.

As I've said before, I don't believe this is the biggest scandal in D.C. history, but the amount of cover the media provided Obama on this was unreal. CBS makes TMZ look like a paragon of hard-hitting journalism.
   5538. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:16 PM (#4297582)
Initial exchange:

All I've done is acknowledge the obvious, and point out that the GOP will continue to lose elections so long as people can go to the ballot box and vote themselves benefits.

Using your logic, why are Republicans ever elected?


Comments:

Reading through this thread it's apparently because enough people are racist or have only a 6th grade education, and large swaths of democrats are having their votes suppressed by republicans.

Clever, but I don't think it was some kind of dishonest GOTCHA question, but a legitimate one.

Yes, this last is correct. How many poor are there? 47%? How many rich are there? 1%, two, 10? Why are their rich, if the way you say it works is the way it works?
   5539. SteveF Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:20 PM (#4297583)
Yes, this last is correct. How many poor are there?


My comment was a joke/commentary on the relatively low opinion some small subset of the posters have here regarding the motives and capabilities of those who vote republican.

Personally, I think who someone votes for is a pretty complicated question that goes beyond simple economic interest. If people truly voted simply in terms of their economic interest, the US would probably be further to the left than it is now.
   5540. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:22 PM (#4297585)
See, YC probably didn't catch it moons and moons ago (nor should he have); but as a callback, listening to Joe on Benghazi really makes me appreciate Yankee Clapper.

Yes, Lassus, the American people were much better off getting hundreds of hard-hitting reports about Mitt Romney's dog's car trip 20 years ago than a full, balanced report on a terrorist attack that happened ~60 days ago.

It's not like the internet ran out of space. It's inexplicable that CBS withheld that video footage for almost two months.
   5541. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4297586)
Personally, I think who someone votes for is a pretty complicated question that goes beyond simple economic interest. If people truly voted simply in terms of their economic interest, the US would probably be further to the left than it is now.


So do I. But if I had assumed that, I would be going beyond the post I was addressing.

But, anyway, I did take your comment as a joke.
   5542. Jack Carter, calling Beleaguered Castle Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:24 PM (#4297587)
Fascinating implications in the link in 5124:

Six hours later, American Crossroads co-founder and Fox News contributor Karl Rove was on-camera seeming to ignore his boss’s orders. Shortly after 11 p.m., Bret Baier went on-camera to read a script written by Fox’s Washington managing editor Bill Sammon, based on an analysis by the network's decision desk, announcing Ohio for Obama. “That’s the presidency, essentially," Baier said.

Instantly, Fox phones lit up with angry phone calls and e-mails from the Romney campaign, who believed that the call was premature, since tallies in several Republican-leaning Southern counties hadn't been been fully tabulated. "The Romney people were totally screaming that we’re totally wrong," one Fox source said.
The inability to marshal facts, and the idea that facts are only talking points appears infectious. If the Romney campaign's internal polling really did show them winning Ohio in the days leading up to the vote, that portends real trouble for the GOP. It's one thing to bluster and lie and KNOW that you're blustering and lying. But when you simply can't do the math, you're in real trouble in any close election, and real trouble in deciding how to reach voters.

You won't know where to compromise, who to talk to, where to spend your campaign dollars...

Great news for the Dems, obviously. If even Rove, the ultimate insider, can't do the math, it bodes ill for the GOP.

   5543. zonk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:29 PM (#4297589)
Just out of curiosity, what's the plan once the Dems control the government with big majorities? I assume raising taxes on the rich is at the top of the list, but doing so barely puts a dent in the deficit or debt. How does this Dem coalition of blacks, Latinos, and a growing number of whites survive the inevitable budget and/or service cutbacks that are coming?


I suppose first, I would say - I always find it amusing how such tax hikes are always pooh-poohed as a 'barely a dent', while most of the boogeymen that specifically get named when it comes to dealing with the budget and deficit from the supposed deficit hawk side -- eliminating PP funding or PBS or even earmarks in total -- add up to even less than a dent.

Are we at a place where we can count on a GOP house and Senate minority agreeing to increased revenue specifically through some manner of tax hikes - be they rate driven or a combination of targeted tax reform - are now on the table?

Plenty of Democrats are fearful of Obama's seeming willingness to actually put entitlement and tax reform on the table -- I am not among them... but at this point, I'll stick with the doctrinaire New Dealers and Great Society'ers until I know I'm not being boxed into something like a 10 to 1 spending cut to revenue ratio... I'll even toss out a bone and say it doesn't even necessarily need to be 50/50 - but I'm not going to start negotiating from 50/50 either. If it's to be a proper negotiation, then I get to start at 0/100 too, but make it clear that for the right deal with the right specifics - I'm even willing to go somewhere in the neighborhood of 40/60.
   5544. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:32 PM (#4297590)
The inability to marshal facts, and the idea that facts are only talking points appears infectious. If the Romney campaign's internal polling really did show them winning Ohio in the days leading up to the vote, that portends real trouble for the GOP. It's one thing to bluster and lie and KNOW that you're blustering and lying. But when you simply can't do the math, you're in real trouble in any close election, and real trouble in deciding how to reach voters.

...

Great news for the Dems, obviously. If even Rove, the ultimate insider, can't do the math, it bodes ill for the GOP.

This is ridiculous. A one-point swing — ~50,000 votes out of over 5,000,000 votes cast, with another million or two potential voters who stayed home — was all that separated Romney and Obama in Ohio.
   5545. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:35 PM (#4297591)
How did the pundits do compared to the stat nerds? Which were worse?

Jeez, look at those right-wing blowhards, and how far they missed it by.
   5546. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:39 PM (#4297592)
I'll even toss out a bone and say it doesn't even necessarily need to be 50/50 - but I'm not going to start negotiating from 50/50 either. If it's to be a proper negotiation, then I get to start at 0/100 too, but make it clear that for the right deal with the right specifics - I'm even willing to go somewhere in the neighborhood of 40/60.

Any deal that includes more tax hikes than spending cuts will assuredly be a nonstarter, and it also fails basic long-term budget math. It's simply not possible for the U.S. to tax its way out of the deficit, let alone the debt. Aside from plunging the country into recession again, there simply isn't enough income or wealth to tax.
   5547. SteveF Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:40 PM (#4297593)
Are we at a place where we can count on a GOP house and Senate minority agreeing to increased revenue specifically through some manner of tax hikes - be they rate driven or a combination of targeted tax reform - are now on the table?


Likely it's going to depend who the parties think will get pinned with the blame in 18 months if we drive off the fiscal cliff. They'll be the party that blinks.
   5548. Sonic Youk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:41 PM (#4297594)
Personally, I'm not too hung up on the GOP's ideology. The right wing has gotten really right wing, so their party is entitled to represent that.

The problem is their tactics. The Clinton impeachment was a sign that something was very wrong in that party, but the debt ceiling fiasco was the absolute last straw. I am convinced that, aside from policy, they are simply unfit to govern.
   5549. zonk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:43 PM (#4297595)
Any deal that includes more tax hikes than spending cuts will assuredly be a non-starter, and it also fails basic long-term budget math. It's simply not possible for the U.S. to tax its way out of the deficit, let alone the debt. Aside from plunging the country into recession again, there simply isn't enough income or wealth to tax.


I'm not saying it needs to be more spending cuts than tax hikes -- in fact, I'm saying the opposite...

But - if you want to talk specifics, OK --


If the deficit/debt matter, then frankly - DoD, and specifically, procurement within DoD (as opposed to personnel, pay, or benefits) gets a nice big haircut. Defense spending dwarfs everything else - and equals everything else combined - in the discretionary budget. If debt/deficit really isn't just a trojan horse to get to a more ideological opposition to entitlements, then it's all gotta start here.... so I'll throw out the first cut... let's whack, say... 25% from procurement. Boom - there's about 35 billion in annual budget savings.

Now... what 35 billion in revenue increases will be acceptable to Boehner and McConnell... or heck, I'll even start the compromise - gimme 25-30 billion in revenue.
   5550. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:44 PM (#4297596)
Pointing out that both rich people and poor people tend to vote their economic interests isn't "European paternalism." If the GOP could win some black and/or Latino votes from the Dems simply by talking nicer, they would have tried it. That sort of thing is Frank Luntz's reason for existing. The simple fact is, there was nothing that Mitt Romney could have said that would have had a real-world chance of reducing Obama's share of the black vote below 95 percent, and the main source of pandering toward Latinos — immigration — was tried by the GOP in the '80s and failed miserably.


Here's the thing, Joe. 95% of African Americans aren't poor, or on public assistance. 70% of Latinos aren't poor, or on public assistance. Asserting that that's the case is an excellent example of the GOP's inability to even operate in the same mental universe as minorities.


Are we at a place where we can count on a GOP house and Senate minority agreeing to increased revenue specifically through some manner of tax hikes - be they rate driven or a combination of targeted tax reform - are now on the table?


It's already been agreed to. The Bush tax cuts expire on January 1. The GOP can do nothing about that.
   5551. zonk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4297599)

Are we at a place where we can count on a GOP house and Senate minority agreeing to increased revenue specifically through some manner of tax hikes - be they rate driven or a combination of targeted tax reform - are now on the table?



It's already been agreed to. The Bush tax cuts expire on January 1. The GOP can do nothing about that.


Oh sure - I'm assuming we're going to negotiate a sequestration alternative.

   5552. Sonic Youk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4297600)
right, the debt pretty much gets fixed (yes, with tax increases) if Obama does nothing. Chait wrote an amazing piece on that, too. http://nymag.com/news/politics/elections-2012/obama-romney-economic-plans-2012-10/
   5553. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:47 PM (#4297601)

Reagan signed the biggest immigration amnesty in U.S. history and it accomplished little or nothing in terms of bringing Latinos into the GOP. Both blacks and Latinos overwhelmingly self-identify as religious and anti-gay marriage while the Dem party laughs at religion and champions gay marriage, yet blacks and Latinos remain solidly in the Dem fold. It sounds wonderful to suggest that the GOP simply needs to moderate its tone, but on what non-economic issues can the GOP win black and Latino votes?

Sure, Latinos are part of the Dem fold, but that doesn't mean there's nothing that Republicans can do about it. They actually made a lot of progress through 2004, when Bush won 44% of the Latino vote. Since then, McCain won 31% in 2008, and Romney won only ~25% this time around. That is a huge swing. It will be interesting to see what happens in the next election if the Democrats don't have a minority candidate on the ticket or if the Republicans do.
   5554. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:50 PM (#4297602)
But no, Sonic, don't you see? Taxes are from the devil and must be staked in the heart.
   5555. Morty Causa Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:51 PM (#4297603)
Another thing: I don't know if I'd express it like Slate does: the magazine says we've re-elected a Republican president. But why anyone would thing Obama is this wild-eyed out-of-control leftist is beyond me. The rabid rhetoric by tea-partiers and Republicans in general is just bananas.
   5556. Slivers of Maranville descends into chaos (SdeB) Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:51 PM (#4297604)
Too bad that the Hitler-in-the bunker meme is played out, because I'd love to see a version with Karl Rove's ranting about Ohio as the dialogue.
   5557. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:54 PM (#4297605)
A nice lady explains the real reason why Mitt Romney didn't win.
(warning: language and soothing background music)


That's gold, Jerry-----GOLD!!!!

(And yet she spends a fair amount of time cursing and mocking Birthers and other conspiracy theorists, including the idea that Obama's a "Muslim"----actually he's an exponent of "black liberationist theology, which is grounded in Marxism.")
   5558. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:55 PM (#4297606)
Pete Abraham ?@PeteAbe
Let me try this again: Clinton-Bush-Obama are three consecutive two-term presidents for the first time since Jefferson-Madison-Monroe
Expand


History was made!
   5559. zonk Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4297607)
Another thing: I don't know if I'd express it like Slate does: the magazine says we've re-elected a Republican president. But why anyone would thing Obama is this wild-eyed out-of-control leftist is beyond me. The rabid rhetoric by tea-partiers and Republicans in general is just bananas.


Well, I think most of this comes from doctrinaire New Dealers on the left - I sympathize and in many cases, even agree with them on a number of specifics.

I agree on preserving Medicare and Social Security as programs in the form they currently exist, but I'm not at all opposed to changes.

On the Medicare side, I think there's a ton more we can to 'reduce' (even saying that gets one in trouble in certain liberal circles) Medicare to its core mission.

For example, I'll put the 8-9 billion that Medicare pays annually in its near complete subsidization of advanced medical training (residency programs)... that's not to say I don't think government should play a role - even a significant role - in funding things like medical training... I'm just willing to yank it out an entitlement program and put in the discretionary budget where it can be more easily debated.
   5560. Lassus Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:56 PM (#4297608)
It's inexplicable that CBS withheld that video footage for almost two months.

Fine, remind me, as FOX or the WSJ wasn't able to make a story out of it, what did CBS's footage prove?
   5561. formerly dp Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:58 PM (#4297609)
So what's your explanation for that video just sitting on the shelf for almost two months? CBS forgot they had it? Nobody from CBS watched the second presidential debate and noticed that Obama claimed something that CBS had proof wasn't true?

You're letting your religious beliefs guide your interpretation of evidence. Evidence doesn't matter, because it will always be rendered subservient to your faith.
The inability to marshal facts, and the idea that facts are only talking points appears infectious. If the Romney campaign's internal polling really did show them winning Ohio in the days leading up to the vote, that portends real trouble for the GOP. It's one thing to bluster and lie and KNOW that you're blustering and lying. But when you simply can't do the math, you're in real trouble in any close election, and real trouble in deciding how to reach voters.

...
Great news for the Dems, obviously. If even Rove, the ultimate insider, can't do the math, it bodes ill for the GOP.


This is ridiculous. A one-point swing — ~50,000 votes out of over 5,000,000 votes cast, with another million or two potential voters who stayed home — was all that separated Romney and Obama in Ohio.

So November 6, 2012 is the night Fox News became part of the liberal media elite in the tank for Obama? Awesome!
   5562. Tripon Posted: November 07, 2012 at 11:59 PM (#4297610)
LOS ANGELES (AP) — The California man behind an anti-Muslim film that led to violence in many parts of the Middle East was sentenced Wednesday to a year in federal prison for probation violations in an unrelated matter, then issued a provocative statement through his attorney.
The sentence was the result of a plea bargain between lawyers for Mark Bassely Youssef and federal prosecutors. Youssef admitted in open court that he had used several false names in violation of his probation order and obtained a driver's license under a false name. He was on probation for a bank fraud case.
Shortly after Youssef left the courtroom, his lawyer, Steven Seiden, came to the front steps of the courthouse and told reporters his client wanted to send a message.
"The one thing he wanted me to tell all of you is President Obama may have gotten Osama bin Laden, but he didn't kill the ideology," Seiden said.
   5563. Joe Kehoskie Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4297611)
I'm not saying it needs to be more spending cuts than tax hikes -- in fact, I'm saying the opposite...

I know, and that's the problem.

Now... what 35 billion in revenue increases will be acceptable to Boehner and McConnell... or heck, I'll even start the compromise - gimme 25-30 billion in revenue.

You've run into the problem already. If you try to do tax hikes and spending cuts on a 1:1 basis, you run out of tax-hiking ability quite early in the discussion.

Anyway, I'm all for simplifying the tax code, eliminating subsidies and loopholes, etc., etc., and I hope it happens.

***
Here's the thing, Joe. 95% of African Americans aren't poor, or on public assistance. 70% of Latinos aren't poor, or on public assistance. Asserting that that's the case is an excellent example of the GOP's inability to even operate in the same mental universe as minorities.

No, but they're disproportionately poor, they've disproportionately used government services, and, in Latinos' case, they unabashedly want bigger government. A whopping 75 percent of Latinos in the Pew Hispanic poll this summer said they want a bigger government with more services. And, alas, over 75 percent of Latinos voted for Obama yesterday.

***
Sure, Latinos are part of the Dem fold, but that doesn't mean there's nothing that Republicans can do about it. They actually made a lot of progress through 2004, when Bush won 44% of the Latino vote.

That "44 percent" number is disputed, and is thought to be 40 or less. Bush was also helped by being a popular two-term governor of a state with a huge Latino population. As I recall, almost all of Bush's overperformance with Latinos was from Latinos in his home state.
   5564. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:00 AM (#4297612)
So what's your explanation for that video just sitting on the shelf for almost two months? CBS forgot they had it? Nobody from CBS watched the second presidential debate and noticed that Obama claimed something that CBS had proof wasn't true?


Joe, please provide me with a link to the video and, preferably in the same post, what you believe was the big lie that CBS sat on.

This is an honest question Joe.
   5565. Tripon Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:02 AM (#4297613)
Okay, Joe, what would you do?
   5566. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:03 AM (#4297614)
Now... what 35 billion in revenue increases will be acceptable to Boehner and McConnell... or heck, I'll even start the compromise - gimme 25-30 billion in revenue.


You've run into the problem already. If you try to do tax hikes and spending cuts on a 1:1 basis, you run out of tax-hiking ability quite early in the discussion.

Anyway, I'm all for simplifying the tax code, eliminating subsidies and loopholes, etc., etc., and I hope it happens.


The 40/60 was a typo - meant 60/40...

But any way, for 35 billion in spending cuts, what will you offer? Because 3.5 billion ain't nearly enough.

20 billion?

Fine - name me the specific 20 billion in tax code loopholes you'll cut.
   5567. Tripon Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:06 AM (#4297615)
South Park decides to do another election ep.

237 14 "Obama Wins!"[15] Trey Parker Trey Parker November 7, 2012 1614
Eric Cartman is hiding something in his bedroom that could change the entire outcome of the Presidential election. While Americans innocently plan to go to sleep Tuesday night with the election results counted and a winner announced, Cartman has secretly wrestled control of the Presidential election from the voters.
   5568. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:11 AM (#4297616)
The inability to marshal facts, and the idea that facts are only talking points appears infectious.

some highlights:
"We wanted someone who would fight for us. What we got was a weak, moderate candidate, hand-picked by the Beltway elites and country club establishment wing of the Republican Party," Jenny Beth Martin, co-founder of Tea Party Patriots, said in a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington.

"The presidential loss is unequivocally on them," she added.


Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, argued that Romney failed to pass the ideological test, saying he ran as a "Democrat-light" and adjusted his positions to campaign as a moderate during the general election.

"At the end of the day, conservatives were left out in the cold. It should have been a landslide for Romney, had he embraced a truly conservative agenda,"



n social issues, Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of the anti-abortion rights group Susan B. Anthony List, blasted the candidate for not making abortion a central part of the 2012 dialogue.



KBISFB

   5569. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:12 AM (#4297617)

Also, the idea that blacks are monolithically and immutable anti-gay marriage is already being proven false in part because of leadership from Obama on the issue. Perhaps it is a coincidence, but a week after Obama endorsed gay marriage, the NAACP did too, and I've read that the NAACP's support helped influence black pastors in Maryland during this election cycle. I suspect that if the GOP showed leadership on this issue like the Democrats have, they would find it had little effect on their base.
   5570. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:17 AM (#4297619)
No, but they're..., they've..., and, in Latinos' case, they...


They, they, they... You're fond of the sweeping, individual destroying pronouns, huh?
   5571. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:19 AM (#4297620)
one more:
Given this week's results, they said, conservatives will be even more motivated to reform the party. Richard A. Viguerie, chairman of ConservatieHQ.com, ended the press conference with one final prediction.

"Tea partiers will take over the Republican Party within four years," he said


   5572. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:21 AM (#4297621)

That "44 percent" number is disputed, and is thought to be 40 or less. Bush was also helped by being a popular two-term governor of a state with a huge Latino population. As I recall, almost all of Bush's overperformance with Latinos was from Latinos in his home state.

Well, there's something to be said for nominating a candidate you know is popular with a broader demographic. Also, what do you think explains the fact that Obama did better this time around with Latinos despite doing worse overall? (Acknowledging that there's some margin of error in the numbers in both cases).
   5573. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:27 AM (#4297625)
Also, what do you think explains the fact that Obama did better this time around with Latinos despite doing worse overall?


Sheriff Joe. Laws across GOP states targeting Latino populations (under the guise of illegal immigration, but never enforced that way.) A general racial animus against all Hispanic populations from the Tea Party right.

Look, are we all going to pretend that up is down, day is night, and the GOP/TP doesn't trade in thinly veiled racism against Latinos?
   5574. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:31 AM (#4297627)

His what? Sister, maybe? That is, Jerry Brown has no (known) children.


Could've sworn she (then-gf) told me that the girl told her, "Please vote for my dad" while giving her some sort of Brown promotional literature.

Clearly, miscommunication occurred, one way or the other ... possibly even between my memory & my present-day self.
   5575. zonk Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:34 AM (#4297629)
A nice lady explains the real reason why Mitt Romney didn't win.
(warning: language and soothing background music)

That's gold, Jerry-----GOLD!!!!


I don't know if Colbert saw this clip, too -- but he's doing a spot-on impersonation.
   5576. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:39 AM (#4297631)
East Texas is very much like West Louisiana. The twang is even similar, and just as Cajuns invaded southwest Louisiana (the Lake Charles area), that invasion encroaches into southeast Texas, such as Orange, Beaumont, Port Arthur. And in the north part of both states, well, just remember that Joe Bob Briggs was just as at home in the Shreveport-Bossier City movie drive-ins as he was in the Dallas-Fort Worth ones.


Yep. You are speaking of My People, as it happens. Not for nothing is that general area known as the ArkLaTex. I grew up in extreme SW Arkansas, about 40 miles from the Texas state line & 20 from Louisiana, & at least until widespead cable brought the Little Rock stations into people's living rooms, I guess sometime around the mid-'80s (by which time I was elsewhere, blessedly), Shreveport was the capital of the area, terrifyingly enough. (And where will I be headed in a month to see relatives? Shreveport!)
   5577. Gaelan Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:42 AM (#4297632)
The Republicans problem is that they no longer have room for people like David Frum or David Brooks, people who are conservative by any sane definition of the term. The fact of the matter is that the Republican party has forsaken conservatism and there is no reason for a thoughtful conservative to carry their water anymore. They simply are not a conservative party. The sooner conservatives abandon them completely the better.
   5578. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:44 AM (#4297633)
They simply are not a conservative party.


Correct. They're reactionaries, and getting more so every day.
   5579. McCoy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:47 AM (#4297634)
Really weird to hear conservative nuts say that Romney wasn't nutty enough. Romney got all the conservative votes. Something like 95 to 97% of all people that classify themselves as conservative voted for Romney. What he needed and didn't get were moderates so these winguts need to look in the mirror and understand that they can't get all the looney things they want and have to occasionally compromise.
   5580. Never Give an Inge (Dave) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:48 AM (#4297635)

Look, are we all going to pretend that up is down, day is night, and the GOP/TP doesn't trade in thinly veiled racism against Latinos?

I was asking Joe for his opinion.
   5581. McCoy Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:53 AM (#4297636)
but i would like to mention one poster in particular. i want to say that mccoy and his analysis and general observations were refreshingly concise and precise. his posts were particularly effective retorts to some of the sillier pronouncements of some other posters, and helped me in my political discussions with people offsite.

holy christ, I'm tearing up.
   5582. Rickey! trades in sheep and threats Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:57 AM (#4297637)
holy christ, I'm tearing up.


Get a room.
   5583. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:58 AM (#4297638)
What he needed and didn't get were moderates so these winguts need to look in the mirror and understand that they can't get all the looney things they want and have to occasionally compromise.


of all people, Newt agrees:
Alfred Regnery, president of the Paul Revere Project, issued a stark warning for the GOP.

"If Republicans don't start to listen to (what minorities are looking for in a candidate), it's going to be a long time before they can win," he said.

His comments echoed those made my former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, who earlier Wednesday said on CNN that the party now faces a "very serious moment" and argued the GOP should work on becoming more inclusive–a major challenge, he said, for House Republicans.


do people like Bozell (a bigger ####### than his father, which I didn't believe possible) and Vigurie actually BELIEVE what they're saying or feel they have to worship at the altar of conservatism and they are simply repeating the prayers by rote.

The worst thing that could happen for the Dems is that these guys get old and die--they're the most valuable politicians for the democratic party
   5584. Lassus Posted: November 08, 2012 at 12:58 AM (#4297639)
holy christ, I'm tearing up.

It's actually Theo, McCoy.
   5585. Morty Causa Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:00 AM (#4297640)
Yep. You are speaking of My People, as it happens. Not for nothing is that general area known as the ArkLaTex. I grew up in extreme SW Arkansas, about 40 miles from the Texas state line & 20 from Louisiana, & at least until widespead cable brought the Little Rock stations into people's living rooms, I guess sometime around the mid-'80s (by which time I was elsewhere, blessedly), Shreveport was the capital of the area, terrifyingly enough. (And where will I be headed in a month to see relatives? Shreveport!)


You may know, or maybe not, since I'm sure I'm a good bit older than you, but when I was young and growing up in South Louisiana, late at night (meaning after about 10:30pm) the only station you could catch on your car radio was one with a big tower in Little Rock. You wouldn't know it's call letters and numbers?
   5586. You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:02 AM (#4297642)
A whopping 75 percent of Latinos in the Pew Hispanic poll this summer said they want a bigger government with more services. And, alas, over 75 percent of Latinos voted for Obama yesterday.


They want free stuff! Free phones! Free housing! Uh, frijoles!
   5587. Morty Causa Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:03 AM (#4297643)
5581:

I want to second those sentiments. You and a few others at times made that whole thing with Kehoskie and the polls bearable and edifying.
   5588. Pasta-diving Jeter (jmac66) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:04 AM (#4297644)
They want free stuff! Free phones! Free housing! Uh, frijoles!

the GOP should recycle the old Bill Dana routines
   5589. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:05 AM (#4297645)
No, but they're disproportionately poor, they've disproportionately used government services, and, in Latinos' case, they unabashedly want bigger government. A whopping 75 percent of Latinos in the Pew Hispanic poll this summer said they want a bigger government with more services. And, alas, over 75 percent of Latinos voted for Obama yesterday.


I have never seen a more crystal clear example of why Republicans are failing with ethnic minorities. Here's what the GOP should do (because both blacks and Latinos are very conservative socially, and share a lot of "personal responsibility" rhetoric with conservatives): instead of telling minorities that racism is in their pretty little heads and that they'd know better if they just voted with Republicans, they should instead recognize that structural racism is a problem, and then explain how their policies will help solve the problem and give minorities a stronger voice and place in our national dialogue. They could then stop: associating places that have a lot of minorities with "not-real America"; conflating "American" with white (that's a huge one); talking to minorities as if we are too dumb to understand why Republicans are awesome (or suggest that Democrats have mind-control powers and thus we are too weak-willed to resist); talking to ethnic minorities as if we are a big hive mind (or, as every black person knows, like we all know each other); that the only reason we might want federal government involvement is because we are dependent leeches who love that sweet, sweet government money (and not because we have living experience with state and local govt oppression and corruption; whereas the Feds have a much better track record).

Problem solved! Or, you know, you could tell blacks and Latinos that they're idiots and morons, that they are lazy and dependent, that they refuse to take responsibility for themselves and that's why they want an active Federal government, that they do not "look" American and the places they live in aren't really America. And then when they vote against your party in absolutely absurd numbers, wonder what the heck was wrong with them.
   5590. A big pile of nonsense (gef the talking mongoose) Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:15 AM (#4297648)
You may know, or maybe not, since I'm sure I'm a good bit older than you, but when I was young and growing up in South Louisiana, late at night (meaning after about 10:30pm) the only station you could catch on your car radio was one with a big tower in Little Rock. You wouldn't know it's call letters and numbers?


KAAY 1090, quite possibly.

(If you're indeed a good bit older than me & had access to a car radio, I'm impressed. Our '63 Rambler didn't have one. Neither did its successor, a '73 Pinto ... well, there was a radio, but it never, ever produced a sound. Except for about 3 seconds in probably late 1984 or so when I was driving to or from Texarkana. Man, that was weird.)
   5591. PerroX Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:17 AM (#4297650)
I love seeing the GOP buying their own horseshit. Good times.
   5592. PerroX Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:26 AM (#4297652)
I want a bigger government with more services despite being a Southern white boy. Go figure.
   5593. Morty Causa Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:29 AM (#4297653)
KAA 1090, quite possibly.

(If you're indeed a good bit older than me & had access to a car radio, I'm impressed. Our '63 Rambler didn't have one.)


That was it. Thanks. It was to the right of the Beaumont station on the dial, and Beaumont was on the far left while my hometown station and Lafayette's were on the far right, so that would make it about right. Oh, and yeah, our car had an Am radio. And electric blue Fairlane when I was in the eleventh and twelfth grades, probably a '62, and a Rambler when I was a freshman in college. Probably a '64 or '65. The Rambler even had an air-conditioner, I think.
   5594. tshipman Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:35 AM (#4297654)
Just out of curiosity, what's the plan once the Dems control the government with big majorities? I assume raising taxes on the rich is at the top of the list, but doing so barely puts a dent in the deficit or debt. How does this Dem super-coalition of blacks, Latinos, and a growing number of whites survive the inevitable budget and/or service cutbacks that are coming?


Since no one else is really taking this one, here's the 2nd term legislative agenda:

1. Some form of grand bargain which includes revenue increases on the wealthy, paired with cuts to SS in the form of chained CPI and some Medicare cuts, probably mostly relating to Medicare Part B. The eventual goal is a stabilized debt/GDP ratio within 10 years.
2. Some form of immigration reform, including a limited amnesty/path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.
3. Some form of climate change legislation, whether a straight carbon tax or a C&T scheme.
4. Good government (meaning we don't default on debt)
   5595. Dr. Vaux Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:39 AM (#4297656)
explain how their policies will help solve the problem and give minorities a stronger voice and place in our national dialogue.


Well, their policies won't do that. That's where the problem lies.

As for structural racism, its existence is, of course, the reason why non-white people tend to be poorer than white people in the U.S., but I really do think the country has gotten consistently better about it over the past forty years, and that it will inevitably cease to be a factor. Even beyond that, I think it is almost no longer a factor in many areas of endeavor and of the country. But just as important as it is for white people not to generalize about non-white people is for non-whites--the ones who do, that is--to refrain from leaping to the conclusion that racism is the cause of any problems they as individuals might have. I know that most don't do that, but a few do, and when certain types of white people hear them, it perpetuates their racist ideas about "makers and takers" and all that. I was a poor person--homeless, in fact--so I know that it's a matter of circumstance, not necessarily any kind of personal failure. I was also a poor white person, so I know that when poor people are treated badly, it's sometimes because they're poor, not because of their race. Republicans, I can only assume, are mainly people who don't understand the first thing for lack of experience, and rarely have occasion to understand the second thing, because--again for structural reasons--a poor white person is less common than a poor non-white person. What I'm saying is that at least some Republicans hate poor people who are also black or Latino because they're poor, not because they're black or Latino, and that's important for everyone to realize. I'm in favor of redistribution because I think that economic class-ism is in its own way just as bad as racism, for which it's sometimes mistaken. At the same time, I'm the first to argue that Republican distaste for redistribution is at least partly driven by racism. And that that racism, where it appears among the younger generation, born since the civil rights movement, is sometimes driven, perhaps subconsciously, by class-ism. I've heard plenty of seemingly racist comments made about relatively poor individuals that I'm sure wouldn't have been made about wealthier ones, regardless of their race. It's complicated, and that complexity is what makes it so difficult for Republicans to deal with.
   5596. mjs Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:54 AM (#4297666)
Republicans, I can only assume, are mainly people who don't understand the first thing for lack of experience, and rarely have occasion to understand the second thing, because--again for structural reasons--a poor white person is less common than a poor non-white person. What I'm saying is that at least some Republicans hate poor people who are also black or Latino because they're poor, not because they're black or Latino, and that's important for everyone to realize.


I think anytime you have a large group of people, you're going to have "at least some" of that group hate "poor people who are also black or Latino because they're poor, not because they're black or Latino." This is unless of course you view Democrats as some kind of magical group who hate no one because of their status, race, etc.
   5597. mjs Posted: November 08, 2012 at 01:57 AM (#4297667)
Really weird to hear conservative nuts say that Romney wasn't nutty enough. Romney got all the conservative votes. Something like 95 to 97% of all people that classify themselves as conservative voted for Romney. What he needed and didn't get were moderates so these winguts need to look in the mirror and understand that they can't get all the looney things they want and have to occasionally compromise.


As a Republican, concur. Even if the next candidate is refreshingly centrist, he should still grab the "looney" vote by virtue of being a Republican. It's not like they'll vote for the other party and any lost votes should hopefully be offset (or more than offset) by people saying "maybe they're getting their senses back."

Maybe I'm a Republican in name only, but when you get past a lot of the dog whistles and comical "end of the Republican Party !!!111!," there's a lot of sense here.
   5598. The Yankee Clapper Posted: November 08, 2012 at 02:12 AM (#4297669)
. . . But just as important as it is for white people not to generalize about non-white people is for non-whites--the ones who do, that is--to refrain from leaping to the conclusion that racism is the cause of any problems they as individuals might have. . .

There is certainly a lot to be said for avoiding generalizations. However, this thread is filled with generalizations about Republicans, conservatives and even whites, so that might be an area that some people could work on.
   5599. DevilInABlueCap Posted: November 08, 2012 at 02:16 AM (#4297670)
Well, their policies won't do that. That's where the problem lies.


Their policies don't do a lot of things. Doesn't keep them from successfully selling it. What they have to do is admit that it exists first, and make up BS reasons why their policies fix it second.

As for structural racism, I feel like this is one of those things that the white majority really, really, really wants to believe is behind us. And I understand the impulse. We have come so unbelievably far in just forty years that I am overwhelmed sometimes just thinking about it. I know that my life is so much easier, so much better due to the sacrifices of previous generations. But I also live structural racism day in, day out. Some days it's more overt than not. Sometimes I think I'm being sensitive. But it's still there. And it's still doing a lot of work. I've gotten creepy "you're smart for one of those" backhanded compliments. I've also gotten "you're pretty for a black woman" which...::sigh:: When I accomplish anything, my qualifications are immediately questioned (and while AA is a problem for this, it's not as though this hasn't haunted successful black people forever; they assumed that Frederick Douglas was just a white person using a black "surrogate" for the longest time).

In some ways, I wish we hadn't ruined the words "racist" or "racism" to the degree that no one can own up to it. In the end, it just causes people to justify saying horrible things under the guise that if they aren't standing outside someone's house in white robes, burning a cross and holding a noose (all three!), then they aren't being racist. People don't question their assumptions anymore, because they haven't punched a black person today for being black, so they aren't racist. (And, not excepting myself, the assumption that racism first and foremost affects black Americans, which leaves a ton of ethnic minorities even less recognized.) Class assumptions are also deeply troubling, but I think racial assumptions push class ones more than class assumptions pushing racial ones. The two--classism and racism--have been so deeply interwoven for the entirety of American history (southern plantation owners arguing in favor of slavery while concern trolling the abuses of northern industrial culture) that I'm not sure there's a way to cleave the two.
   5600. Howie Menckel Posted: November 08, 2012 at 02:31 AM (#4297672)

Thank you for the nuance, DevilInABlueCap, once again.


Page 56 of 114 pages ‹ First  < 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >  Last ›

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Dingbat_Charlie
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogOTP Politics November 2014: Mets Deny Bias in Ticket Official’s Firing
(4870 - 11:16am, Nov 26)
Last: The Id of SugarBear Blanks

Newsblog2015 Potential Hall of Fame Ballot | Baseball-Reference.com
(2 - 11:14am, Nov 26)
Last: LargeBill

NewsblogStanton Losing About $141 Million of Record Deal to Taxes - Bloomberg
(85 - 11:09am, Nov 26)
Last: JL

NewsblogPrimer Dugout (and link of the day) 11-26-2014
(4 - 11:08am, Nov 26)
Last: Rennie's Tenet

NewsblogYankees won't get into bidding war for Chase Headley: source - NY Daily News
(7 - 11:07am, Nov 26)
Last: You Know Nothing JT Snow (YR)

NewsblogWendy Thurm on Twitter: "What the hell kinda panda is that?"
(8 - 11:05am, Nov 26)
Last: bobm

NewsblogAdam Rubin: My Hall of Fame ballot
(56 - 10:59am, Nov 26)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogFemale Sportswriter Asks: 'Why Are All My Twitter Followers Men?' | ThinkProgress
(164 - 10:58am, Nov 26)
Last: bunyon

NewsblogDarvish cleared to throw « Postcards From Elysian Fields
(1 - 10:56am, Nov 26)
Last: Batman

NewsblogBoston Red Sox prove (once again) that competitive balance in baseball will never exist | cleveland.com
(10 - 10:50am, Nov 26)
Last: Dan Lee is some pumkins

NewsblogBig Unit, Pedro, Smoltz headline Hall of Fame ballot
(84 - 10:37am, Nov 26)
Last: Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip

NewsblogOT: NFL/NHL thread
(8673 - 10:32am, Nov 26)
Last: Win Big Stein's Money

NewsblogRolling Stone: The 15 Worst Owners in Sports
(44 - 10:31am, Nov 26)
Last: TDF, situational idiot

Newsblogred sox - So … is there any money left for pitching? Red Sox roster building reconsidered - WEEI | Alex Speier
(121 - 10:05am, Nov 26)
Last: Darren

NewsblogOz: Mike Trout Q&A: His workouts, goals & what he’s thankful for
(14 - 10:04am, Nov 26)
Last: Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site

Page rendered in 0.9176 seconds
54 querie(s) executed