The Republicans have been a very well-run organization for most of the last half century. I am not a Republican, but they have generally run like pros. Even when they tacked right, they were savvy about their choices. They seemed to lose control over the party to Tea Party types--despite the funding I do think it was in some ways a spontaneous and certainly uncontrollable movement--in 2010 and then in Congressional negotiations in 2011 and then in a primary season that looked like it was out of some 1968-1972 Democratic nightmare, a self-immolation. I am sure the party guys know all this. Can they make it stick? Can they either whip up enough support to give Boehner a majority of the caucus, or force Cantor to back down or--smarter still--run a coup on Boehner, install Cantor then make him be the deliverer of the bad news to the remaining Tea Party crew? If I had to bet, I would bet yes since an insurgency actually capturing a party is a hugely unlikely event.

On this, I think a lot depends on what an intra-party insurgency is aiming for...

I won't claim that the 2003/2004 Deaniacs had anything approaching the numbers (much less influence) of the TP set, but the Dean phenomenon was driven by three things:

1) Iraq
2) a sense that Democrats had essentially lost their spine to pursue anything besides a GOP lite agenda
3) the DLC/3rd way Dems who then controlled the levers of power/agenda

...in that order.

Obviously, Dean flamed out rather spectacularly in the primary - but plenty of us - the 'netroots', essentially... stuck with it (ironically, at least so far as my Chicago meetup went, an awful lot of us gravitated to a then-unknown state senator who was still running 3rd in the 2004 IL-SEN Dem primary).

Most of us weren't any sort of liberal radicals in any sense - we just saw a foreign policy based on trying not to look weak, some manner of too much accommodation on things like Glass-Steagall and bleeding union support, and a general turning away from the ideas of the New Deal coalition (at least, an over-willingness to consider things like partial SS privatization or consider voucherizing Medicare to some extent).

We weren't full-throated single payer advocates (some were, most weren't) or anything, and in fact - we weren't even classical/strawmanned "tax and spend" liberals, either. Pragmatism was fine, but too many lines in the sand were disappearing far too rapidly.

Again - though - we just had smaller numbers than the TP, and rather than being a mid-term movement, most fell in line with John Kerry.

There was a ton of discussion, post-2004, about what was next... much of the movement coalesced around the idea that the party was simply falling behind from a technical perspective. The GOP had built up a big GOTV advantage and grassroots organization - we wanted to change that. The Democrats had all but written all half the country in favor of the usual triple bank shot of blue states + Ohio or Florida.

We got Howard Dean the DNC chairmanship, built the "50 state strategy", and had a killer 2006 (yes, the Iraq tide had turned, but if it hadn't been for that, there were plenty of places where Dems previously didn't even run candidates).

...and that was enough.

It was more of a nudge back to the left -- not a gallop -- together with replacing a lot of antiquated ideas and machinery concerning how a party wins both elections and the idea war. Orange Satan's "Crashing the Gates" is actually a good compendium.

There wasn't a lot of ideological purity tests - just a general expectation that the party ought to field candidates who believed in more than just a (D) next to their name... didn't mean you couldn't propose changes to Social Security or Medicare, for example, just that a few core ideas were required.

Great narrative, zonk, and if the Republicans can get Ryan/Cantor/McCarthy to deliver that message enough they might change quickly rather than slowly. Ryan has to have a lot of cards right now. He's got the Huey Long dilemma. If a crowd is charging the capitol, does he want to be the guy inside defending the turrets, or the guy outside leading the brigade?

So.... a very interesting development from the conservative media in regards to immigration...

Sean should have taken a few days off after the election to settle down and clear his head. This is the same sort of knee-jerk nonsense that came out of the GOP in November 2008, when Beltway types feared that they'd never be the cool kids at the cocktail parties again.

Sean should have taken a few days off after the election to settle down and clear his head. This is the same sort of knee-jerk nonsense that came out of the GOP in November 2008, when Beltway types feared that they'd never be the cool kids at the cocktail parties again.

Good thing for the Dems that they came to their senses! Thanks for all the fish!

Like I said, the most important thing for Republicans to do in the next six months is completely cave on immigration. Take the hit from the base as far away from the next election as possible, then get it out of the national discussion as soon as possible.

A lot of Hispanics are conservatives in waiting. But the party chases them away.

The list in 6164 is impossible to read without using a Dale Gribble voice. Though Hank would not be too happy with item #6.

Like I said, the most important thing for Republicans to do in the next six months is completely cave on immigration. Take the hit from the base as far away from the next election as possible, then get it out of the national discussion as soon as possible.

A lot of Hispanics are conservatives in waiting. But the party chases them away.

The Republican immigration amnesty in the '80s yielded little or nothing for the GOP with Latinos. Why would caving on a Democrat amnesty help the GOP now?

Your plan leaves the GOP hoping to get 30 percent of 20,000,000 Latino votes instead of getting 20 percent of 10,000,000 Latino votes. The numbers just don't work.

The math aside, the numbers show that Latinos vote based on economic issues and not on immigration. In a June Gallup poll, immigration ranked just fifth out of seven issues. Only the budget deficit, "other," and "no opinion" finished lower.

re 6199. I know Quayle thought it was his turn but there was no way he was getting the nomination. The GOP in 2000 suffered from a weak crop of Republicans in the 90's and one could even argue in the 80's as well. The players from the Nixon era were retiring or getting too long in the tooth while the young guys either shot themselves in the foot (Newt) or just plain marginalized themselves. No real established Republican used the 1988, 1992, or 1996 elections as a way to establish a presidential power base and build name recognition. Instead we had whackos like Forbes, Robertson, and Buchanan being the also rans. So in 2000 we had McCain and please please god somebody besides McCain.

The Republican immigration amnesty in the '80s yielded little or nothing for the GOP with Latinos.

Have you ever read anything on WHY this didn't work? Or are you going to offer your theory from when you were nine?

Doing anything concerning immigration and minorities will mean nothing without sincerity and a lot of hard work and patience. Either that or setup reparations for all minorities. No single stroke is going to work and that is why the GOP largely ignores them. In terms of cost-benefit it is a waste of time. "Cave-in" on immigration and your congressmen lose their midterm primaries to whacko Republicans so they don't even have to worry about a general election but even if they do get to a general election a Dem opponent simply has to say "me too" and caving in on immigration will mean nothing.

Great narrative, zonk, and if the Republicans can get Ryan/Cantor/McCarthy to deliver that message enough they might change quickly rather than slowly. Ryan has to have a lot of cards right now. He's got the Huey Long dilemma. If a crowd is charging the capitol, does he want to be the guy inside defending the turrets, or the guy outside leading the brigade?

Yup -

An awful lot of the old party stalwarts saw the Dean phenomenon and thought "Gee, neat -- and internet ATM!" -- and then proceeded to get disabused of that notion awfully quick... but there was no interest in burning everything down in favor of the shining Democratic city on a hill.

In fact, one of my friends - another Deaniac from back then - were musing over Tammy Duckworth election night...

Back in 2004 - after Dean was finished - there was a nobody named Christine Cegelis who became one of the very first 'netroots' candidates and actually seemed to "get it". In a race on absolutely nobody's radar, she came damn close to knocking off DuPage Republican stalwart Henry Hyde in a year that wasn't very good for Democrats. We were licking our chops over the rematch in 2006 - but then Hyde retired... and Rahm Emmanuel (then DCCC chair) parachuted in Tammy Duckworth in a primary that we felt "we" deserved first crack at with a Cegelis rematch. There was an absolute ton of animosity about that - with the Begala/Rahm/etc wing complaining about Dean's "kids" stumbling around Kansas, picking their noses, and wasting precious resources (as opposed, I suppose, to just clicking 'donate' when told to do so).

...but despite the whole 'crashing the gates' narrative, there was never really any expectation of putting any heads on pikes -- it was just more "your #### ain't working, so it's time you listen to some new blood".

...and in 2012? All's forgiven, of course... Heck, I didn't vote for Rahm for mayor - but he was my second choice and I'd probably would have voted for him if it had gone to run-off since I didn't really expect my choice (Miguel del Valle) to win or place on the first balloting.

Have you ever read anything on WHY this didn't work? Or are you going to offer your theory from when you were nine?

I was 13, funny man. (Oh, to be back in the '80s again ...)

The immigration amnesty didn't work then for the same reason it won't work now: The people covered by the amnesty are overwhelmingly low-education, low-skill, low-income people — i.e., the types of people for whom big government is the most attractive. The idea that low-income Latinos will vote for the GOP out of loyalty rather than for big-government Dems who promise the bigger and bigger government Latinos want is pure political wishcasting.

What impact do you think calling a Latina Supreme Court justice a "racist" had? Or, for that matter, attacking the non-white President from day one as being illegitimate and a product of affirmative action?

The immigration amnesty didn't work then for the same reason it won't work now: The people covered by the amnesty are overwhelmingly low-education, low-skill, low-income people — i.e., the types of people for whom big government is the most attractive. The idea that low-income Latinos will vote for the GOP out of loyalty rather than for big-government Dems who promise [url=http://www.nmtelegram.com/2012/04/05/poll-of-hispanics-shows-gop-challenges-go-beyond-immigration/the bigger and bigger government Latinos want[/url] is pure political wishcasting.

I love it...

It's like listening a Whig from the 1840s and 1850s complaining about those damn, drunken Irish!

One can only wonder if there's a Lincoln in the modern GOP to save the day...

The idea that low-income Latinos will vote for the GOP out of loyalty

The idea is that they will vote for them because of decent policy - which they don't have now. Loyalty is nothing in politics, please. I know Bill Reilly loves you, but your parties' ideas aren't working, and they haven't been working. What was that about the definition of insanity?

Latino Decisions released a poll they took of Latinos throughout the country and in states that heavily populated by Latinos.

Overall 53% of Latino respondents said the economy was the most important issue. 35% said immigration which was good for second most important issue. In Arizona and in North Carolina immigration was the most important issue for Latinos.

74% of Latinos nationally felt that Romney either didn't care about them much or was hostile to them. Meanwhile 66% thought Obama truly cared about them while only 3% thought he was hostile to them.

57% said Romney's statements about "self-deportation" made them less enthusiastic about him. 60% of the respondents said they have a family member who is an undocumented immigrant.

31% of Latinos said they would be more likely to vote Republican if the GOP took a leadership role in supporting comprehensive immigration reform, with an eventual pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants, and Republicans worked to ensure it would pass. While 48% said it would have no effect and 11% said it would make them less likely to vote Republican.

The sample was 5,600 Latinos.

What was that about the definition of insanity?

I dunno, did it have something to do with arguing with JoeK???

The idea is that they will vote for them because of decent policy - which they don't have now. Loyalty is nothing in politics, please. I know Bill Reilly loves you, but your parties' ideas aren't working, and they haven't been working. What was that about the definition of insanity?

What "decent policy"? Latinos want bigger government and Dems have been coming through with it. They're not going to switch because the GOP caved on Obama's immigration amnesty.

Have you unskewed that poll?

What was that about the definition of insanity?

I believed it said something about repeatedly arguing with Joe.

Andy, you've lost this one. Listen to Sugar Bear and <gulp> Sam.

I'll let you, Sugar, and Big Gulp stage your little menage a trois, but I'll rely on DP and DIABD for my outside opinions. You can keep concern trolling to your heart's content.

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

The math aside, the numbers show that Latinos vote based on economic issues and not on immigration. In a June Gallup poll, immigration ranked just fifth out of seven issues. Only the budget deficit, "other," and "no opinion" finished lower.

That poll you quoted included non-Hispanics. When Hispanic voters alone were asked, immigration came in third among registered voters, and tied for first among all Hispanics. Or to quote the article:

PRINCETON, NJ -- U.S. Hispanics prioritize immigration, healthcare, and unemployment to equal degrees, according to a new USA Today/Gallup poll asking about the importance of six national policy issues. Twenty percent of Hispanics each mention one of the top three issues as mattering most to them, while 17% name economic growth, 11% name the gap between the rich and poor, and 7% name the federal budget deficit. Hispanic registered voters, however, put healthcare and all economic issues before immigration, which 12% name as their most important issue.

That poll you quoted included non-Hispanics. When Hispanic voters alone were asked, immigration came in third among registered voters, and tied for first among all Hispanics. Or to quote the article:

Andy, you're having a bad day in the "gotcha" game. The "U.S. Hispanics" category presumably includes non-voting legal and illegal immigrants (i.e., non-citizens). In the "Hispanic voters" category, immigration placed just fifth out of seven issues. It's right there in the chart I linked.

So according to the poll Latinos thought the economy was the most important issue yet the vast majority of them felt that Romney didn't care about or he was hostile to them while also saying that Romney's stance on immigration made them less enthusiastic about him. In a way it sounds like if Romney had simply not tacked right in the primary and had shown some respect and given some attention to Latinos he would have done much better than get only 25% of their vote. Afterall virtually all other demographics felt that Romney was the better guy in terms of economics.

What "decent policy"?

Exactly. You have none. I'm glad we could have this talk.

I love it...

It's like listening a Whig from the 1840s and 1850s complaining about those damn, drunken Irish!

Or like the nativists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries kvetching about the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese.

Or like the nativists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries kvetching about the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese.

Andy, I've lived and/or worked in Latin America for the past 15 years, and I've lived in Mexico for the past five. The "brown people" and I get along famously, and I feel no "nativist" animus toward them. I've simply seen firsthand what wins Latino votes, and it isn't rosy talk or a little help with a green card.

Latinos love big government, they'll happily tell you (and pollsters) they love big government, and they vote for candidates who promise big government. It's as simple as that, whether it's the U.S. or Mexico or the Dominican Republic or Brazil or Venezuela or Ecuador or Argentina. Unfortunately for the GOP, Latinos don't turn into small-government conservatives as soon as they cross into the United States. The GOP's problem with Latinos is one of basic political philosophy, not racism or nativism.

Andy, you're having a bad day in the "gotcha" game. The "U.S. Hispanics" category presumably includes non-voting legal and illegal immigrants (i.e., non-citizens). In the "Hispanic voters" category, immigration placed just fifth out of seven issues. It's right there in the chart I linked.

Yeah, immigration was listed third in the voters column but fifth in the numbers, which didn't come in the same order. My bad, though of course the Latino Decisions poll that McCoy cited contradicted the Gallup poll, and ranked immigration second nationwide, and first in Arizona and North Carolina. Not to mention all the other answers they gave concerning their opinions on Romney and Obama, all of which McCoy also cited.

Latinos love big government, they'll happily tell you (and pollsters) they love big government, and they vote for candidates who promise big government. It's as simple as that, whether it's the U.S. or Mexico or the Dominican Republic or Brazil or Venezuela or Ecuador or Argentina. Latinos don't turn into small-government conservatives as soon as they cross into the United States. The GOP's problem with Latinos is one of basic political philosophy, not racism or nativism.

One of these days you Republicans will get your stories straight. First Latinos are hard working cultural and family-oriented conservatives who should be natural Republicans, and then they're a bunch of freeloading mooches who'd presumably just siesta until manana, just like those lazy swimover bums who risk life and limb in transit for the privilege of picking fruit and vegetables all day in the Summer sun, or those shuffling amigos who do yard work from dawn to dusk without any sort of government benefits. If you worked a tenth as hard as they do, you'd have at least half a dozen future HoFers under contract by now.

One of these days you Republicans will get your stories straight. First Latinos are hard working cultural and family-oriented conservatives who should be natural Republicans, and then they're a bunch of freeloading mooches who'd presumably just siesta until manana, just like those lazy swimover bums who risk life and limb in transit for the privilege of picking fruit and vegetables all day in the Summer sun, or those shuffling amigos who do yard work from dawn to dusk without any sort of government benefits.

You never caught me peddling that nonsense. That was part of the GOP's pandering phase, which worked about as well as expected — i.e., not at all.

LAS VEGAS (CBS Las Vegas) — A Las Vegas business owner with 114 employees fired 22 workers today, apparently as a direct result of President Obama’s re-election.

“David” (he asked to remain anonymous for obvious reasons) told Host Kevin Wall on 100.5 KXNT that “elections have consequences” and that “at the end of the day, I need to survive.”

Here’s an excerpt from the interview. Click the audio tab below to hear even more from this compelling conversation:

“I’ve done my share of educating my employees. I never tell them which way to vote. I believe in the free system we have, I believe in the right to choose who they want to be president, but I did explain as a business owner that I have always put my employees first. I always made sure that when I went without a paycheck that I made sure they were paid. And I explained that I always put them first and unfortunately I’m at a point where I’m being forced to have to worry about me and my family now and a business that I built from just me to 114 employees.

“I explained to them a month ago that if Obama gets in office that the regulations for Obamacare are gonna hurt our business, and I’m gonna have to make provisions to make sure I have enough money to cover the payroll taxes, the additional health care I’m gonna have to do, and I explained that to them and I said you do what you feel like in your heart you need to do, but I’m just letting you know as a warning this is things I have to think of as a business owner.

“Well unfortunately, and most of my employees are Hispanic — I’m not gonna go into what kind of company I have, but I have mostly Hispanic employees — well unfortunately we know what happened and I can’t wait around anymore, I have to be proactive. I had to lay off 22 people today to make sure that my business is gonna thrive and I’m gonna be around for years to come. I have to build up that nest egg now for the taxes and regulations that are coming my way. Elections do have consequences, but so do choices. A choice you make every day has consequences and you know what, I’ve always put my employees first, but unfortunately today I have to put me and my family first, and you watch what’s gonna happen. I’m just one guy with 114 employees — well was 114 employees — watch what happens in the next six months. The Dow alone lost 314 points today. There’s a tsunami coming and if you didn’t think this election had consequences, just wait.”

Link

if the CBS story about Romney's people unskewing the polls and deciding to go to Pennsylvania because they were so far ahead in Ohio is true, then someone should excommunicate the whole lot from the party. Like Josh Marshall, I can't believe it is literally true though.

The arrogance of insiders. It still amazes me that people on the outside who don't have any skin in the game can understand what is happening while the so called "experts" can be so blind and wrong to reality. The Romney camp botched the skew and didn't really understand that the independents breaking for them weren't really independents like they were modeling them. The Romney camp was expecting a D+3 skew not a D+6 to 8 skew and in reality they probably got that. But the problem is that they altered the polls to a D+3 skew while ignoring that all those Independents breaking for them were Republicans in disguise. So leaving the poll alone would have got them their D+3 skew and by messing with the poll they were turning a D+3 poll into a D-neutral poll or even into a R+1 or more poll. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Re 6230

I call BS on the part of the caller. He's either a liar, lying about why he had to fire them, or is a terrible businessman thus calls into question how he can have a business with 114 employees.

Latinos like big government? That's what we're going with? Everybody likes big government including people who vote Republican. The problem is perspective. The majority of people who vote Republican want social security and medicare which by the way requires "big government". They also want large militaries and farm subsidies. Saying Latinos like big government is an empty and meaningless statement. What Latinos want, what everybody wants is a government/party that works for them.

Latinos like big government? That's what we're going with? Everybody likes big government including people who vote Republican. The problem is perspective. The majority of people who vote Republican want social security and medicare which by the way requires "big government". They also want large militaries and farm subsidies. Saying Latinos like big government is an empty and meaningless statement.

Since you're the resident poll expert now, have a look and give us your wisdom.

Or like the nativists in the late 19th and early 20th centuries kvetching about the Italians, the Jews, and the Chinese.

Andy, I've lived and/or worked in Latin America for the past 15 years, and I've lived in Mexico for the past five. The "brown people" and I get along famously, and I feel no "nativist" animus toward them. I've simply seen firsthand what wins Latino votes, and it isn't rosy talk or a little help with a green card.

Latinos love big government, they'll happily tell you (and pollsters) they love big government, and they vote for candidates who promise big government. It's as simple as that, whether it's the U.S. or Mexico or the Dominican Republic or Brazil or Venezuela or Ecuador or Argentina. Latinos don't turn into small-government conservatives as soon as they cross into the United States. The GOP's problem with Latinos is one of basic political philosophy, not racism or nativism.

But so did the Germans, the Irish, the Jews, and the Italians!

They just didn't like the fact that it was generally "big government" in the sense that if #### got really ###### up, the local Duke, King, Earl, or Sheriff still ate - but you didn't! They didn't like the lack of mobility. They just didn't like the fact that no matter how hard they worked, they were never going to own the land they worked - or almost certainly, any other land for that matter. They didn't like the fact that though they could be conscripted at will, they really had not much say in whether war was to be waged or not...

They were used to "big government"...

You really should read Mike Royko's Boss some time - and not just for the delicious take down of J Daley and the 'machine'.

There's a wonderful passage where Mike describes how the ward bosses and machines worked. They were used to paying tribute to the local boss/sheriff/whatever, but here - they actually got more in return. You stayed loyal to the local ward boss, your kid got a job. If you owned a tavern, you greased the wheels, the election night rally was your place with a tab the campaign would cover. The 'big government' actually seemed to be coming into a bit of balance.

Since you're the resident poll expert now, have a look and see for yourself.

So Hispanics are more honest than the general population.

One of these days you Republicans will get your stories straight. First Latinos are hard working cultural and family-oriented conservatives who should be natural Republicans, and then they're a bunch of freeloading mooches who'd presumably just siesta until manana, just like those lazy swimover bums who risk life and limb in transit for the privilege of picking fruit and vegetables all day in the Summer sun, or those shuffling amigos who do yard work from dawn to dusk without any sort of government benefits.

You never caught me peddling that nonsense. That was part of the GOP's pandering phase, which worked about as well as expected — i.e., not at all.

Sorry, I guess you're only buying the second part. I can only hope for your sake that the Mormons and the Christian Crazies are tripling down on producing offspring.

So Hispanics are more honest than the general population.

No, Joe is just being a troll. A stupid troll but a troll none the less. I think it is pretty clear who in this discussion has shown an inability to understand polls nor be capable of putting together a competent and coherent position.

Sorry, I guess you're only buying the second part. I can only hope for your sake that the Mormons and the Christian Crazies are tripling down on producing offspring.

Andy, I know how hard a lot of Latinos work, particularly Latino illegal immigrants who do backbreaking work for very low pay. I just don't buy into this idea that Latinos have an inherently superior work ethic, to the point that illegal immigrants who currently toil in the fields for low pay will continue to do so if they're amnestied and become eligible for welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc., etc. Frankly, such a claim is ludicrous on its face. Illegal immigrants do tough jobs for low pay because their choice is to do those jobs or to starve, so the rational choice is to work. If they have better options, they'll avail themselves of them, just like anyone else. It's as simple as that.

Boehner: Obamacare "law of the land" now:

http://nbcpolitics.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/11/08/15029606-boehner-obamacare-is-the-law-of-the-land#.UJyAh8hVMz8.twitter

on top of immigration reform promises, all they need now is a huge wooden horse on wheels...

on top of immigration reform promises, all they need now is a huge wooden horse on wheels...

or a badger.

The hatred of big government has reached a level in the United States that threatens the country's very existence. Americans everywhere may vow allegiance to the nation and its proud Stars and Stripes, but when it comes time to pay the bills and distribute costs, and when solidarity is needed, all sense of community evaporates.

Latinos love big government, they'll happily tell you (and pollsters) they love big government, and they vote for candidates who promise big government.

So, they're exactly like white people and Republicans? Or did we miss that bit about keeping government's hands off of our Medicare?

There's a wonderful Mike Royko column from the 90s eulogizing Dan Rostenkowski's career when Rosty got busted with his hand in the Congressional Post Office cookie jar - Royko was no friend or favorite of the machine, but it's a perfect exposition of how each successive wave of immigrants viewed "big government"...

HER name was Mary, and she was middle-aged, worked as a domestic, had little money and no medical plan, and was in need of some serious and expensive life-saving surgery.

But she had lived in her Northwest Side Chicago neighborhood for most of her life. And she knew somebody who knew somebody who knew a politician of considerable importance.

Some calls were made, the most important coming from the office of the politician.

The result was that Mary went to a good hospital, was treated by skilled physicians, was cured and went home with a bill of $0.00.

How the politician arranged this, I don't know. I assume that the hospital and the doctors owed him favors. That's the way things have always worked in Chicago, which can be good or bad. In this case, it was good.

And it wasn't the only time the politician did something like that. Using his political muscle to help people out was part of his trade. That's the good side of what used to be called machine politics.

I like to think of the late alderman Vito Marzullo, who usually placed one or two young lawyers in city or county patronage jobs. And one night every week, the lawyers came to Vito's ward office and handled legal chores for low-income people from the neighborhood. Free, of course.

Directions to the disaffected for leaving the country and going to Canada

No, Joe is just being a troll. A stupid troll but a troll none the less. I think it is pretty clear who in this discussion has shown an inability to understand polls nor be capable of putting together a competent and coherent position. — McCoy

This is probably the 100th, 101st, and 102nd times you've called me a troll in the past two weeks. I ignored the first 99, but, since you claim to have me on "ignore," what gives?

Hannity has evolved. A true hopeful monster. You Republican faithful are about to be sold out.

They have to start prepping the base/testing the waters on this stuff. I have a feeling the GOP is going to stiffen up as the weeks/months go. Right now I think a lot of individuals are just throwing up trial balloons and seeing what stays afloat.

Latinos love big government, they'll happily tell you (and pollsters) they love big government, and they vote for candidates who promise big government.

Except when the economy is good, when they vote with the GOP. Oh, wait, that was a different page, so it was OK to use a different argument.

The top 3 issues among registered Hispanic voters in that poll were health care, unemployment, and economic growth, covering 57% of respondents. Among all registered voters, those 3 issues covered 56% of respondents. Throw in "the gap between rich and poor" - 4th among Hispanic registered voters - and it's 73% of Hispanic voters vs. 71% of all voters.

So when you say "Latinos" in the quoted excerpt, you really should say "everyone". Unless, of course, you wanted to single out Latinos, in which case you can feel free to ignore the data points from your cited poll that don't make your case.

The big discrepancies in that poll come in assessing immigration (12% Hispanic, 5% all) and the deficit (11% Hispanic, 21% all). That an ethnic minority often targeted for deportation is more focused on immigration than the general population should be no surprise. (That they are less focused on it with each successive generation, when they are less likely to be deported, is also not a surprise.)

The Republican immigration amnesty in the '80s yielded little or nothing for the GOP with Latinos. Why would caving on a Democrat amnesty help the GOP now?

(a) The Latino vote is a much greater proportion of the population than it was in the 1980s. (b) The GOP has an image problem among minorities that (IMO) is stronger now than it was back then.

Starting with Reagan, the GOP emphasized a core platform around self-determination. The notion therein was that the superior should not have to share the fruits of their success with the inferior. In terms of self-determinism that's a fine policy. However, the notion of a protected superior class is also a big welcome mat for bigots - who feel they are superior, yet sense societal pressure to deny those feelings - and the GOP hasn't done enough to keep them out. In the ensuing decades, bigots have become more comfortable in the GOP; they're still (IMO) a very small fraction, but they've become louder.

I don't know how many "macaca" / "shut the whole thing down" / "secret Muslim" comments have to come from within the GOP, and then be encouraged, defended, or just plain tolerated, to reinforce the notion that the GOP just isn't that into you if you're not a white male. But it doesn't take much. Even if the GOP is generally welcoming to minorities, IMO they have an image problem among minorities, because their philosophical core (by, I believe, an accident of design, not an intentional design*) happens to appeal to the enemies of minorities.

I agree with those saying that the GOP needs to take the lead on immigration reform, in a way that doesn't just say "kick 'em all out". But I also agree with you that that's not going to be enough. They need to stomp out bigotry at every turn, be proactive so they don't have to be reactive. They need to show that although the GOP can be a big tent, there's no place in it for bigotry. I think they're at the point where they have far more to gain than they have to lose by doing so. Kinder, gentler immigration reform is one step in the right direction, but it's meaningless without also kicking out the bigots.

* Search in old threads for Andy's "states' rights" dog-whistle accusations regarding Reagan; I'd rather not rehash it here, but IIRC he'd suggest it was intentional design. I don't think the core philosophy was intended that way, even though one could say Reagan intentionally appealed to bigoted voters. I'm stipulating it here simply to note this territory has been covered in prior threads, so we don't have to turn this into another he-meant-it, no-he-didn't debate to nowheresville on the same subject.

Andy, I know how hard a lot of Latinos work, particularly Latino illegal immigrants who do backbreaking work for very low pay. I just don't buy into this idea that Latinos have an inherently superior work ethic, to the point that illegal immigrants who currently toil in the fields for low pay will continue to do so if they're amnestied and become eligible for welfare, food stamps, housing subsidies, etc., etc. Frankly, such a claim is ludicrous on its face. Illegal immigrants do tough jobs for low pay because their choice is to do those jobs or to starve, so the rational choice is to work. If they have better options, they'll avail themselves of them, just like anyone else. It's as simple as that.

"Just like anyone else". So I guess we're all doomed. If only I'd been lucky enough to have been born about 100 years earlier and missed all this Big Government ####.

I really can't get too mad about what you're saying, because you obviously have sincerity and you don't seem like a temperamental misanthrope. But it sounds as if you actually think that life was better back in whatever Golden Age you'd liked to have lived in, and I guess I've just been around long enough to know what utter BS that POV is.

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

* Search in old threads for Andy's "states' rights" dog-whistle accusations regarding Reagan; I'd rather not rehash it here, but IIRC he'd suggest it was intentional design. I don't think the core philosophy was intended that way, even though one could say Reagan intentionally appealed to bigoted voters.

I never said or thought that Reagan was personally bigoted, only clueless (or more politely, of a different generation) when it came to the racial issues of his time. I do think that "states' rights", as used by the Dixiecrats in the 50's and 60's and by the Southern Strategists after that, has never been anything more than a transparent defense of the Old Regime, cosmetically modified only as much as absolutely necessary. No party with a serious dislike of bigotry would ever welcome Dixiecrat retreads like Thurmond and Helms into their ranks and treat them as principled converts. And no one with the slightest sense of history would ever make excuses for the party that did.

Neshoba County Fair! Where is DMN? Discuss!

Except when the economy is good, when they vote with the GOP. Oh, wait, that was a different page, so it was OK to use a different argument.

I never said Latinos vote with the GOP; I said the GOP does a little better with Latinos when the economy is strong.

That said, the strongest source of Latino support for the GOP has traditionally been from Cuban-Americans, but the younger generation of Cuban-Americans prefers big government, too. From what I've seen, Romney only won Cuban-Americans 60-40, which is nothing like a decade or two ago.

The top 3 issues among registered Hispanic voters in that poll were health care, unemployment, and economic growth, covering 57% of respondents. Among all registered voters, those 3 issues covered 56% of respondents. Throw in "the gap between rich and poor" - 4th among Hispanic registered voters - and it's 73% of Hispanic voters vs. 71% of all voters.

So when you say "Latinos" in the quoted excerpt, you really should say "everyone". Unless, of course, you wanted to single out Latinos, in which case you can feel free to ignore the data points from your cited poll that don't make your case.

It appears you've missed a link in this discussion. Here's the poll that shows Latinos overwhelmingly want bigger government.

(a) The Latino vote is a much greater proportion of the population than it was in the 1980s. (b) The GOP has an image problem among minorities that (IMO) is stronger now than it was back then.

Neither of these answer the question that was asked.

I don't know how many "macaca" / "shut the whole thing down" / "secret Muslim" comments have to come from within the GOP, and then be encouraged, defended, or just plain tolerated, to reinforce the notion that the GOP just isn't that into you if you're not a white male. But it doesn't take much. Even if the GOP is generally welcoming to minorities, IMO they have an image problem among minorities, because their philosophical core (by, I believe, an accident of design, not an intentional design*) happens to appeal to the enemies of minorities.

I know this is a fun talking point for lefties, but it's detached from reality. David Dewhurst is about as Establishment White Guy as a person can get, and yet the allegedly racist Tea Party worked tirelessly to elect Ted Cruz in the GOP primary, then to elect Ted Cruz in the primary run-off that the Tea Party almost single-handedly forced, and then to elect Ted Cruz in Tuesday's election. And not only is Ted Cruz a Latino, but he was born in Canada!

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again: The GOP's problem with Latinos is one of political philosophy, not racism or nativism.

I really can't get too mad about what you're saying, because you obviously have sincerity and you don't seem like a temperamental misanthrope. But it sounds as if you actually think that life was better back in whatever Golden Age you'd liked to have lived in, and I guess I've just been around long enough to know what utter BS that POV is.

I've never said things were better in the good old days, although that's definitely true with music (1980s) and some other things.

As for this political issue, I believe it's ridiculous that illegal immigrants are somehow viewed as an aggrieved party. I also believe it's ridiculous for people to claim that the GOP will make major gains with Latinos if only the GOP acquiesces on Obama's amnesty proposal, despite the lessons learned from Reagan's amnesty in 1986. That's it. There's no "good old days" argument, no anti-brown people argument, none of that.

Here's the poll that shows Latinos overwhelmingly want bigger government.

Hey, look who believes in polls all of a sudden!



...okay, that was mean. But it was also very funny. So I'm only a little sorry.

Hey, look who believes in polls all of a sudden!

In my mind, I unskewed it to 78 percent.

Jokes aside, your comment actually works both ways. I took a lot of flak for believing the polls were over-counting Dems by ~2 percent. But now we have polls showing 75 percent of Latinos saying they want bigger government, and people here don't seem to believe it. They'd rather stick with the immigration and racism angles, despite poll numbers that refute them.

despite the lessons learned from Reagan's amnesty in 1986

The idea that events/reactions/lessons of over 25 years ago are somehow set in immutable stone and unchanged to this day is the sort of thinking that has allowed us to win the last two elections. So keep it up with your fetishizing of the 80s, we'll be glad to take the next two as well.

I've never said things were better in the good old days, although that's definitely true with music (1980s) and some other things.

Better now than four years ago, but nothing can touch the summer of 1987

The idea that events/reactions/lessons of over 25 years ago are somehow set in immutable stone and unchanged to this day is the sort of thinking that has allowed us to win the last two elections. So keep it up with your fetishizing of the 80s, we'll be glad to take the next two as well.

Lassus, do you work on missing the point or does it just come naturally?

I'll try again: The lessons you think you (plural, GOP) learned in 1986 are not applicable now. Your premise of these "lessons" as immutable - something you've now repeated so many times that if it isn't your point you're doing a crappy job with whatever it actually is - is simply wrong.

I'll try again: The lessons you think you learned in 1986 are not applicable now. Your premise of these "lessons" as immutable - something you've now repeated so many times that if it isn't your point you're doing a crappy job with whatever it actually is - is simply wrong.

Why are they not applicable now? Do you believe poor Latinos in 2012 are for limited government while poor Latinos in the 1980s and '90s were for bigger government? Are you a "poll truther" who doesn't believe the polls I've posted that show an overwhelming majority of Latinos want an even bigger government than the one the U.S. has now*?

(* Which, incidentally, is already $16,000,000,000,000 in the red and running trillion-dollar deficits.)

One can only wonder if there's a Lincoln in the modern GOP to save the day...

Lincoln? The GOP would never accept somebody who supports the theater.

if the CBS story about Romney's people unskewing the polls and deciding to go to Pennsylvania because they were so far ahead in Ohio is true, then someone should excommunicate the whole lot from the party...

...The Romney camp botched the skew and didn't really understand that the independents breaking for them weren't really independents like they were modeling them. The Romney camp was expecting a D+3 skew not a D+6 to 8 skew and in reality they probably got that. But the problem is that they altered the polls to a D+3 skew while ignoring that all those Independents breaking for them were Republicans in disguise. So leaving the poll alone would have got them their D+3 skew and by messing with the poll they were turning a D+3 poll into a D-neutral poll or even into a R+1 or more poll. Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Such a shame. If only the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan campaign had had someone on staff who was celebrated for being a clear-eyed, problem-solving data wonk. You know, a numbers guy.

That said, the strongest source of Latino support for the GOP has traditionally been from Cuban-Americans, but the younger generation of Cuban-Americans prefers big government, too. From what I've seen, Romney only won Cuban-Americans 60-40, which is nothing like a decade or two ago.

Romney actually lost the Cuban vote 49-47.

Apparently according to Joe, everyone who didn't vote GOP prefers big government. I'm assuming that includes people like Ray and David.

But it sounds as if you actually think that life was better back in whatever Golden Age you'd liked to have lived in,

New York in the 1920s. The Babe, nightlife, the apex of boxing culture.

I don't know how many "macaca" / "shut the whole thing down" / "secret Muslim" comments have to come from within the GOP, and then be encouraged, defended, or just plain tolerated, to reinforce the notion that the GOP just isn't that into you if you're not a white male. But it doesn't take much. Even if the GOP is generally welcoming to minorities, IMO they have an image problem among minorities, because their philosophical core (by, I believe, an accident of design, not an intentional design*) happens to appeal to the enemies of minorities.

While this is a sage observation in an excellent post, it's simpler to say that in any reasonable world the GOP would be a fringe party, getting the support of a negligible percentage of the electorate. It's the party that randomly invaded a country and caused the death of hundreds of thousands of human beings for no sane reason whatever, and its supporters by an large still can't identify Iraq on a map and still believes Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11.

The party wholeheartedly and without visible regret sponsored economic policies that nearly destroyed the world economy. A paltry four years later and they want to do it again. Their candidate promises trillion dollar defense budgets and simply refuses to consider ways to pay for it. Even Romney doesn't believe in the Laffer Curve.

Seventeen of twenty-four of his campaign's foreign policy circle are Bush II retreads. John Bolton was a plausible Romney nominee for Secretary of State. Romney wants to repeal even the pathetically inadequate financial regulations put in place since 2008 and once again turn the wolves lose. His policies promised, without exaggeration, war and depression, and he nonetheless garnered 48% of the popular vote. It took eight years of economic growth under Clinton to dig the economy partway out of the hole created by Reagan and Bush I. That cushion and more disappeared under Bush II, which promised to look relatively benign when compared with a Romney Presidency, especially now that the margin for error has largely disappeared.

After all virtually all other demographics felt that Romney was the better guy in terms of economics.

This is farce. The ability to make huge amounts of money in a very narrow slice of the economy without any reference to the authentic value created has very little to do with successfully overseeing the world's largest economy.

In the movie, Network, Howard Beale's "mad as hell" speech gets most of the applause, but the negotiation of distribution fees for The Mao Zedong hour is hilarious, Holden's conversation with his wife as he leaves her is brilliant, and Ned Beatty's speech to Beale is magnificent.

From Morty's link in 6242:

In the case of Sandy, the weather forecasts were relatively reliable three or four days prior to its arrival, so that the time could have been used to at least make improvised preparations, which did not happen. The only effective walls of sandbags that were built in the city on a larger scale did not appear around power plants, hospitals or tunnel entrances, but around the skyscraper of the prescient investment bank Goldman Sachs.

This isn't news. The shabbiness of the country isn't news. Anyone who's roamed the country at all has seen the huge number of trailer parks, the shabby houses, the busted roads, the crumbling shopping malls with camel-backed parking lots.

It appears you've missed a link in this discussion.

Sorry, I was looking at one link while responding to the claim based on the other. I apologize for the confusion.

I never said Latinos vote with the GOP; I said the GOP does a little better with Latinos when the economy is strong.

You said "well", not "a little better". I'll take "a little better" as a clarification rather than moving goalposts, and drop it.

Neither of these answer the question that was asked.

They do. My expectation that you wouldn't get it is why I elaborated further.

I know this is a fun talking point for lefties, but it's detached from reality. David Dewhurst is about as Establishment White Guy as a person can get, and yet the allegedly racist Tea Party worked tirelessly to elect Ted Cruz in the GOP primary, then to elect Ted Cruz in the primary run-off that the Tea Party almost single-handedly forced, and then to elect Ted Cruz in Tuesday's election. And not only is Ted Cruz a Latino, but he was born in Canada!

That doesn't respond to what I posted. I suggested that a small but increasingly vocal part of the GOP is a set of bigots attracted by a political philosophy that wasn't intended to appeal to them, and that that small set of folks are creating an image problem the party isn't doing enough to refute. Your response is that a minority got elected with Tea Party support. That's a nice anecdote but a non-substantive response.

I've said it a hundred times and I'll say it again: The GOP's problem with Latinos is one of political philosophy, not racism or nativism.

...a political philosophy that - given the proportional increase in second- and third-generation Hispanic Americans in that time, and the propensity to move toward that philosophy with each generation - should be growing in appeal among Latino voters since the roughly 40% Reagan got, yet is closer to half that for the GOP now. If they're big government fanatics over everything else, then Reagan doesn't get 40%. (e.g. Reagan got around 25% of Democrats.) If each generation is less enamored with big government, then that percentage should be trending upward, not downward.

I'm not doubting the poll; I'm doubting a conclusion that depends on the poll snapshot representing a static philosophy. If it's not static, then it's negotiable. If it's negotiable, the case can be made. The GOP is not only not making the case; they're turning them off from that case at every opportunity. Self-immolation is an effective political maneuver, but not for the one who's on fire.

It's as simple as that, whether it's the U.S. or Mexico or the Dominican Republic or Brazil or Venezuela or Ecuador or Argentina.

Comparatively speaking isn't pretty much everyone outside of America a fan of big government?

* Search in old threads for Andy's "states' rights" dog-whistle accusations regarding Reagan; I'd rather not rehash it here, but IIRC he'd suggest it was intentional design. I don't think the core philosophy was intended that way, even though one could say Reagan intentionally appealed to bigoted voters. I'm stipulating it here simply to note this territory has been covered in prior threads, so we don't have to turn this into another he-meant-it, no-he-didn't debate to nowheresville on the same subject.

It's surely a settled issue, except in the fevered imaginations of those who look at Clarence Thomas and think, "Race problem solved!", or that the Tea Party supported Ted Cruz, but tokenism doesn't exist. The idea that Reagan didn't approve a continuation of Nixon's southern strategy is absurd. He was perfectly happy to exploit racial divisions and racial animosity for political gain. Philadelphia, Mississippi, anyone?

He was President. He was as powerful and influential a leader as the Republican Party has ever had. If he 'didn't know', it was on the order of, 'will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?'

I remember well the vicious paranoia of the Nixon administration. The enemies list. The relentless demonization of the opposition. The dog whistles and wholesale subversion of the Constitution. The belief that ones most paranoid fantasies are obvious fact.

To those demonizing Obama, go back to your Commander in Chief from 1969 to 1974. That's what real subversion of the Constitution looks like. You're imagining Obama is Nixon, the spiritual godfather of today's Republican Party. That's what a party looks like, that has no intention of paying its bills, that cheered two wars then stuck its grandkids with the tab for those wars, that whispers 'lazy ######s' when your back is turned.

Today's Republican Party is Nixon's poisonous legacy. As bad as Obama is on many things, and as much as I wish he was as President anywhere near as remarkable as he is as a campaign organizer, he can't come close to the likes of Romney, Rove, Boehner, Cantor, Gingrich, Santorum, Limbaugh et al.

A sobering article in Der Spiegel notes,

So far, both sides have shown little willingness to compromise. The Democrats insist on tax increases for the rich, which the Republicans reject, arguing that the budget should be consolidated through spending cuts alone. President Obama, who will remain in office until at least Jan. 20, 2013, regardless of the election outcome, has announced that he will veto any proposal that doesn't include higher taxes for the rich.

The automatic emergency savings package would reduce the budget deficit by $607 billion. This would translate into cuts for doctors and hospitals, schools and day care, theaters and museums, train stations, airports and universities. Purchasing power would be reduced and investments would not be made, all because, in today's America, political compromises and the reasonable balancing of interests no longer seem possible.

An austerity program of this magnitude would cost the economy about 5.1 percent of the gross domestic product. Not even the crisis-ridden countries of the euro zone have instituted such drastic austerity programs.

According to official government sources, the country could face a "significant recession" unless it finds a solution to its budget problem. The economy, which is predicted to grow by at least 2.5 percent next year, could shrink instead, leading to an unemployment rate of more than 9 percent. It's a nightmare scenario that even the International Monetary Fund, normally a proponent of drastic austerity programs, warns against. Behind the fiscal cliff is a gaping abyss into which all hopes for America's future could disappear.

Does anyone doubt that GOP leadership, if it can pin the blame on Obama, will drive the country into another recession in order to retake the Presidency? It almost worked last time. They'll be happy to try again, if they can.

Comparatively speaking isn't pretty much everyone outside of America a fan of big government?

Burma doesn't appear to be Government expenditure against GDP - Wikipedia

He was President. He was as powerful and influential a leader as the Republican Party has ever had.

Reagan wasn't really that popular among the Republicans. That is revisionist history of how popular he was among Republicans. It actually took him 3 tries to actually get the nomination.

Lincoln? The GOP would never accept somebody who supports the theater.

I hear he's moved toward the party on that issue.

Are we now pretending that the GOP doesn't represent big government? When compared to Obama, maybe not, but that's damning with faint praise.

As I said earlier everyone wants big government. It's just trolling to act like Latinos are unique in this regard.

edit: nevermind

Please convince your party to keep pushing anti-latino sentiment and legislation, Joe. I want to see what happens when a party dies.

McCoy, I don't want "big government" and I'm not a hardcore Libertarian. I think Government should organize and provide national defense, health care, manage the currency (i.e. no private cartel like the Federal Reserve or Bank of Canada as it is in its current state), manage international trade policy, provide fair courts, and provide a standardized transportation infrastructure. Maybe that is someone's definition of big government.

I don't think gov't should have much of a role in education, certainly not at the Federal level.

The gov't should stay out of all social affairs.

I think organized lobbying should be illegal.

I personally believe that all governments naturally tend towards corruption. History has never proved anything but, so the smaller you can keep them, the more you can limit corruption.

And what do you want at the state level? School loans? Mortgages? Tax-breaks? FDA? . . .

Health care is a huge expense for the nation and the individual. To be for Federal health care is to be for "big government". The largest and most powerful military in the world is part of "big government".

"Big government" isn't just about welfare and food stamps though Republicans like to paint that picture.

Reagan wasn't really that popular among the Republicans. That is revisionist history of how popular he was among Republicans. It actually took him 3 tries to actually get the nomination.

As Ronnie might have said, "weeeeell..." Reagan was in the 1968 race in the same way that Bill Bradley or Rick Santorum were: a distance runner who had no chance at any point because he was running against the party apparatus.

His shot in 1976 was very real -- Reagan was the 1(a) choice. It's the last Presidential nomination that wasn't mathematically solidified before the convention, and only the strength of Ford's incumbency kept Reagan from the pick, and very likely the Presidency. That run can be compared to Hillary Clinton, who would have easily won the national election in 2008 if she hadn't lost the play-in round.

There was never any point in his political career that Reagan wasn't popular. All you have to do is compare Reagan to a similarly ambitious contemporary like Nelson Rockefeller, let alone stalwarts like John Connally, Jim Rhodes or Howard Baker, and the level of Reagan's following within the GOP becomes apparent.

As I said earlier everyone wants big government. It's just trolling to act like Latinos are unique in this regard.

The government cut whitey a $1 trillion dollar bailout check in late 2008 and it took the government about five days to do it.

I'll let you, Sugar, and Big Gulp stage your little menage a trois, but I'll rely on DP and DIABD for my outside opinions. You can keep concern trolling to your heart's content.

We white folk are a varied lot. We have different dreams and different ambitions. Some like metal, some like jazz, some like hip hop. Some talk faster, some run faster, some jump higher, some hit better in the clutch, and some of us are more comfortable around black people. Falling short in any of these areas shouldn’t be interpreted as a character flaw.

As I said earlier everyone wants big government. It's just trolling to act like Latinos are unique in this regard.

David Brooks was a strong Romney supporter right to the end**, and he uses that Pew Research Center study to place the phony issue of "work values" vs "big government" into some much needed perspective.

The Party of Work

....The Pew Research Center does excellent research on Asian-American and Hispanic values. Two findings jump out. First, people in these groups have an awesome commitment to work. By most measures, members of these groups value industriousness more than whites.

Second, they are also tremendously appreciative of government. In survey after survey, they embrace the idea that some government programs can incite hard work, not undermine it; enhance opportunity, not crush it.

Moreover, when they look at the things that undermine the work ethic and threaten their chances to succeed, it’s often not government. It’s a modern economy in which you can work more productively, but your wages still don’t rise. It’s a bloated financial sector that just sent the world into turmoil. It’s a university system that is indispensable but unaffordable. It’s chaotic neighborhoods that can’t be cured by withdrawing government programs.

For these people, the Republican equation is irrelevant. When they hear Romney talk abstractly about Big Government vs. Small Government, they think: He doesn’t get me or people like me.

Let’s just look at one segment, Asian-Americans. Many of these people are leading the lives Republicans celebrate. They are, disproportionately, entrepreneurial, industrious and family-oriented. Yet, on Tuesday, Asian-Americans rejected the Republican Party by 3 to 1. They don’t relate to the Republican equation that more government = less work.

Over all, Republicans have lost the popular vote in five out of the six post-cold-war elections because large parts of the country have moved on. The basic Republican framing no longer resonates.

Some Republicans argue that they can win over these rising groups with a better immigration policy. That’s necessary but insufficient. The real problem is economic values.

If I were given a few minutes with the Republican billionaires, I’d say: spend less money on marketing and more on product development. Spend less on “super PACs” and more on research. Find people who can shift the debate away from the abstract frameworks — like Big Government vs. Small Government. Find people who can go out with notebooks and study specific, grounded everyday problems: what exactly does it take these days to rise? What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?

Don’t get hung up on whether the federal government is 20 percent or 22 percent of G.D.P. Let Democrats be the party of security, defending the 20th-century welfare state. Be the party that celebrates work and inflames enterprise. Use any tool, public or private, to help people transform their lives.

Of course the irony here is that the sort of balanced approach to government that Brooks recommends is far more likely to be adopted by the Democrats than by the current version of the Republicans, and no amount of "Obama=socialist" rhetoric can negate this.

**Cue the usual "RINO" slams, but Brooks has been a far more consistent supporter of Republican candidates than his right wing critics here, many of whom either support fringe candidates or don't bother to vote at all.

Burma doesn't appear to be Government expenditure against GDP - Wikipedia

That chart is interesting--almost all of Latin America is listed below the US in Government spending as a proportion of GDP. I'm a little skeptical since the US has unusual amounts of government spending that aren't federal spending, so in lots of these charts the US looks one way on federal comparison, another on broader comparisons.

But it also illustrates the role that defense plays. By ignoring defense spending, it's easy to think other countries are big government since they have X or Y, we don't have. But in fact our defense spending is so massive that we do have a fairly big government; instead of services, lots of it goes to weapons procurement. I have respect for budget hawks who say significant defense cuts are part of the equation. People who say they prioritize cutting the budget but don't want to touch defense are lying, either to me or to themselves, and should be ignored.

What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?

Even this is the wrong question, because ambition meshed with talent is amply rewarded in most cases. The far more pressing question is "What exactly happens in this new economy to the kid in Akron who just wants to work, make a decent living, enjoy his friends and family and his weekends, raise his children as good citizens, and participate in his community? The kid who doesn't want to spend his life moving around from place to place, away from his friends, family, and community.

That's the life path that's been disappearing from the American scene, to our extreme detriment.

Even this is the wrong question, because ambition meshed with talent is amply rewarded in most cases. The far more pressing question is "What exactly happens in this new economy to the kid in Akron who just wants to work, make a decent living, enjoy his friends and family and his weekends, raise his children as good citizens, and participate in his community? The kid who doesn't want to spend his life moving around from place to place, away from his friends, family, and community.

I don't always agree with SBB, but I think he nails this one.

Joe's theory seems to be: Hispanics like big government and either don't mind the rhetoric on the right and immigration bits or at most it is a side show before the larger economic concerns.

Other theory (not sure who to assign it to): Hispanics do care about the rhetoric and immigration bits.
--

Even if the Hispanic tendency is pro-government there is a certain percentage that should align with the GOP but are not (based on historic numbers). Even if you believe going with the Dream act will increase Dem numbers more than GOP (even as it helps GOP percentages) with Hispanics, surely there must be something the GOP can do to appeal to Hispanics? Or is it a lost cause?

I suspect that the GOP will adapt, will do something, and over the years will do fine (The US is not going to turn into a one party state). I am not sure what they will do or how long it will take. In the short term no matter what they will be fine (at least in the house which is pretty important).

Of course if things break wrong they could be in deep trouble regarding the presidency in the medium term. But that begins in 2016.

This isn't news. The shabbiness of the country isn't news. Anyone who's roamed the country at all has seen the huge number of trailer parks, the shabby houses, the busted roads, the crumbling shopping malls with camel-backed parking lots.

It isn't new maybe, but the point of the article is that before in our history you (and the outside world) had the sense it wasn't going to be a permanent state of affairs. We were going to get after it. Now, there's an entire contingent who is satisfied with letting the country go to hell as long as they can feel morally righteous about it. There's no sense any more that the American can work--or should work.

This began with Reagan (whom I like and admire in some ways, highly qualified ways). Infrastructure was deteriorating then, and it was obvious at the state level H.W. Bush. Under Clinton things started to look better, then the chimp in the Roy Rogers cowboy outfit took over, had a psychic meltdown, and what looked like was going to be a general resurgence quickly reverted.

And our friends and allies notice it, too.

Comparatively speaking isn't pretty much everyone outside of America a fan of big government?

Being a fan of big government is part and parcel of having a sense of country. We are really only patriotic when it comes to foreign wars, and it shows in the lack of institutional cohesion.

I don't always agree with SBB, but I think he nails this one.

Is that SBB? I have seen posts by both "SugarBear Blanks" and "The Id of SugarBear Blanks", so I assumed the latter was a spoof.

[6289], heh, didn't notice that. But I find SBB an inconsistent poster** compared to many of the idealogues on here, so I wasn't totally surprised that I agreed with him. :)

** Not that there is anything wrong with that. Hobgoblin, consistency and all that.

Even this is the wrong question, because ambition meshed with talent is amply rewarded in most cases. The far more pressing question is "What exactly happens in this new economy to the kid in Akron who just wants to work, make a decent living, enjoy his friends and family and his weekends, raise his children as good citizens, and participate in his community? The kid who doesn't want to spend his life moving around from place to place, away from his friends, family, and community.

My answer is two fold. First change is hard and if you focus on the costs and not the benefits it looks even harder still. Second extrapolating a trend into future destiny is very dangerous business.

Of course my saying that flies in the face of my earlier talk of demographic destiny, but I think there is at least some difference between demographic trends and other predictions of the future, but my mind is open to be told I am so very wrong on that.

What exactly happens to the ambitious kid in Akron at each stage of life in this new economy? What are the best ways to rouse ambition and open fields of opportunity?

Even this is the wrong question, because ambition meshed with talent is amply rewarded in most cases. The far more pressing question is "What exactly happens in this new economy to the kid in Akron who just wants to work, make a decent living, enjoy his friends and family and his weekends, raise his children as good citizens, and participate in his community? The kid who doesn't want to spend his life moving around from place to place, away from his friends, family, and community.

That's the life path that's been disappearing from the American scene, to our extreme detriment.

I completely agree with your last sentiment, even if it often can slide into an simplistic nostalgia for a time that's come and gone. But that still doesn't negate the first question. And I'd think that anyone who sees Big Government as an overriding problem might well consider that in today's economy, the "bad" version of Big Government (welfare checks; unemployment checks; food stamps; etc.) is going to be more and more of a factor if more and more kids (and displaced adults, for that matter) can't figure out (sometimes with the help of "good" Big Government) how to maximize their talent in the real world economy. The Asian Americans and Hispanics cited by Brooks (and by Pew) seem to have figured that out.

IOW both Brooks's question and your question are important, and we can't afford to dismiss either of them. And in any case, the more money that gets shifted from Super-PAC slush funds to trying to answer both of these questions, the better.

I actually agree with Joe re: Latin America.

Most latinos do really genuinely prefer larger government (Cubans are the exception that proves the rule). Moderating on immigration is not going to result in Cubans going for Republicans. The same is true of Asian Americans (again, with the exception of Vietnamese). This isn't about "wanting stuff" as those preferences remain across income levels.

I think that the Republicans' current policy positions are untenable. They cannot continue to win presidential elections unless they moderate their policies. Republicans should start being for "Smarter" government, not smaller government. Substantive critiques rather than appeals to concepts like "freedom" etc.

The bottom line is that 72% of the electorate in 2012 was white, and in 2016, that number will be 70% or below. R's have to change on more than immigration if they want to win the presidency. I am pretty confident they will. Republicans like winning elections.

Even this is the wrong question, because ambition meshed with talent is amply rewarded in most cases. The far more pressing question is "What exactly happens in this new economy to the kid in Akron who just wants to work, make a decent living, enjoy his friends and family and his weekends, raise his children as good citizens, and participate in his community? The kid who doesn't want to spend his life moving around from place to place, away from his friends, family, and community.

That's the life path that's been disappearing from the American scene, to our extreme detriment.

I completely agree with your last sentiment, even if it often can slide into an simplistic nostalgia for a time that's come and gone. But that still doesn't negate the first question. And I'd think that anyone who sees Big Government as an overriding problem might well consider that in today's economy, the "bad" version of Big Government (welfare checks; unemployment checks; food stamps; etc.) is going to be more and more of a factor if more and more kids (and displaced adults, for that matter) can't figure out (sometimes with the help of "good" Big Government) how to maximize their talent in the real world economy. The Asian Americans and Hispanics cited by Brooks (and by Pew) seem to have figured that out.

Thirded.

As I was trying to say with the Royko callbacks to the old-style machines -

Those immigrant waves largely concentrated in various cities and neighborhoods. Those neighborhoods developed machines that were in turn, slightly more benign and slightly more beneficial than the old world neighborhood don or sheriff... but the 'state' provided something of a corrupt/under-the-table safety net. Sure, sure -- some of those immigrants struck out, into the wilderness or west or whatever -- but most stayed in the neighborhoods with their families and fellow expats...

The kid in Akron has no illusions about being some billionaire or perhaps even starting a business -- but he's willing to put in his 40 hours, maybe even more, to get ahead. It ought to be enough.

We've changed those old systems - largely for the better, to be sure... they were haphazard and of course, there were no shortage of charlatans who took more than they gave.

I'm not bemoaning the death of the old machines; it's good that they're gone.

I'm just saying that as our country has 'settled' from coast to coast, as the digital world has made the nation into a larger series of interconnected neighborhoods, and as we've evolved to the point that we don't like those old party bosses and ward captains anymore -- something new has arisen.

In effect, I think monied interests -- who yes, DO provide the preponderance of jobs -- have become our new precinct captains... It's awful expensive to run for federal office. Both parties - Democrat & Republican - can't win without them... but in generations past, those precinct captains were also expected to deliver for constituents...

If wages and security won't be provided by the new free market ward bosses, people will go over their heads directly to our federal alderman to provide it.

There was a certain symbiosis to the old machine system -- we've gotten rid of that old system, but we've also failed to replicate that symbiosis in the new one...

We get things like PPACA because the 'Mary' from above can't go to the friend of a friend who knows the boss with the favors anymore - we call that corruption... but Mary still needs that operation, Mary either doesn't have an employer that provides insurance, or, doesn't make enough to afford it on her own...

Most latinos do really genuinely prefer larger government

Not to be argumentative (because I agree with much of what you said), but even if they prefer larger government are you sure that those that immigrate are the same as the whole population? There could be self selection going either way which would make drawing a conclusion on the whole irrelevant when looking at the groups that immigrate.

I have no idea, but I am a bit leery of assuming the two groups are the same regarding belief in government.

And what do you want at the state level? School loans? Mortgages? Tax-breaks? FDA? . . .

I don't think the gov't should be involved with school loans, its one of the main reasons why tuition has skyrocketed and education has been devalued. I doubt this was ever the case for Ivy league schools, but 20+ years ago, most kids could put themselves through school working summer jobs and part time through the year. You can't do that anymore.

Mortgage should be regulated, but I don't believe in the concept of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae or the CMHC (quasi-equivalent in Canada).

FDA does far more harm than good, same goes for USDA.

The tax code could be a million times simpler, literally.

Again, if lobbying was outlawed most of these things would take care of themselves.

I actually agree with Joe re: Latin America.

Most latinos do really genuinely prefer larger government (Cubans are the exception that proves the rule). Moderating on immigration is not going to result in Cubans going for Republicans. The same is true of Asian Americans (again, with the exception of Vietnamese). This isn't about "wanting stuff" as those preferences remain across income levels.

I think that the Republicans' current policy positions are untenable. They cannot continue to win presidential elections unless they moderate their policies. Republicans should start being for "Smarter" government, not smaller government. Substantive critiques rather than appeals to concepts like "freedom" etc.

The bottom line is that 72% of the electorate in 2012 was white, and in 2016, that number will be 70% or below. R's have to change on more than immigration if they want to win the presidency. I am pretty confident they will. Republicans like winning elections.

I'm telling you, though -- it's not unique...

If you had polled those old waves of immigrants - the Irish, the Italians, the Polish, etc -- I bet you'd have found the same... they weren't fleeing "big government" -- they were fleeing too corrupt and didn't work for them "big government". We romanticize the ones from those waves that became tycoons and innovators, but for every one of those luminaries, there were 99 who were satisfied to live in a place with more opportunity and a bit less skim from the leaders. Expecting a bit of 'protection' and 'help' on occasion isn't being dependent on "big government", it's just accepting that sometimes you get sick, sometimes the tenement burns down, sometimes things go wrong -- and there's no more new worlds to go and start fresh.

My Tea Party, Glenn Beck loving parents are here for the weekend,

My mother, for all her considerable problems, was at least a yellow dog Democrat, even to the point of voting for McGovern in '72, I'm pretty sure; that couldn't have been true of a lot of Democrats in backwoods Arkansas. If she had been a frothing right-winger, which I gather my dad was (he died right before I turned 8 & was barely ever around before that), I'm not sure how that would've gone ...

Well, strike that. I know very well how it would've gone. I've already advocated killing one's famiy members as an approach to life.

I don't think the gov't should be involved with school loans, its one of the main reasons why tuition has skyrocketed and education has been devalued. I doubt this was ever the case for Ivy league schools, but 20+ years ago, most kids could put themselves through school working summer jobs and part time through the year. You can't do that anymore.

Mortgage should be regulated, but I don't believe in the concept of Freddie Mac/Fannie Mae or the CMHC (quasi-equivalent in Canada).

FDA does far more harm than good, same goes for USDA.

The tax code could be a million times simpler, literally.

Again, if lobbying was outlawed most of these things would take care of themselves.

People want a ward boss they can complain to, not a theory that doesn't have ears...

but 20+ years ago, most kids could put themselves through school working summer jobs and part time through the year. You can't do that anymore.

40 years ago, my tuition, room, board and books at Penn State cost me about 1000 hours of labor at minimum wage.

Now it's probably 3000 hours of minimum wage.