I'm not a conservative, but I am a member of the Republican Party to vote in the primaries. The Republican Party isn't as unified as I think some Democrats believe. My experience with Republicans in 2007 and 2008 was a very mixed bag. Some people thought the war on terror was definitely the most important thing bar none. Some people thought we needed to bring Jesus into politics (a big Glenn Beck thing.) Some were supremely anti-immigration. Some were just fiscal conservatives that were worried about the GAO reports and the cost of the wars. There was some overlap for a few, but generally it seemed to break down into one more than the other.
I just think that each single issue group tends to set the Republican policy if the other ones acquiesce. The problem is that the small government people are generally the odd man out, as the military, immigration, and social conservative issues all require a lot more government interference.
Man, that's another thing: it's high time that we fought back hard against this whole "government is the problem" bullshit. We shouldn't be apologetic about wanting a large, functional government that does shit for its citizens.
We also need to keep pointing out that unless we want to cut the military or Social Security/Medicare, no amount of slicing and dicing on other programs is going to balance the budget without us raising taxes.
Well yeah, but it's a little hard to do that when idiots on the other side are demonizing government as terrible and dysfunctional while simultaneously doing their utmost to defund it and hamstring it so it will be dysfunctional.
I reviewed the page that lists the top campaign donors from 1989 to 2004, measured in US dollars. The donors on the list are first ranked according to the amount of donations. Next, each donor is given a designation that shows a breakdown of how the money was distributed. If the split is no greater than 59% to one party or the other, that donor is designated as being "on the fence." If the split is greater than 59%, but less than 69%, that donor is designated as "leaning" Democrat or Republican. If the split is greater than 90%, that donor is designated as "solidly" Democrat or Republican.
Of the top 50 companies and organizations in the list, 21 show at least "leaning" to the Democrats (at least 60% of overall political contributions). There are 15 of the top 50 who show no decisive leaning - shown as being "on the fence." That leaves only 14 of the top 50 "leaning" Republican.
Of the 21 that tilt to the Democrats, 15 are "solidly" Democrat( at least 90% of the overall contributions). Of the 14 donors that tilt Republican, none of the 14 reach beyond the 90% distribution rate.
Now, I can guess what you're thinking. You are probably thinking that many of those 14 donors reside in the top 10. That is what I thought, too. I was shocked to discover that of those 14 donors, none are in the top 10!
Of the top 10 donors on the list, 8 "lean" to the Democrats, with 6 of the 8 designated as "solidly" Democrat.
If true, the rest of the quoted blog is interesting as well.
Edit: This chart may be better. Can't check on my iPad though. Too late to turn on computer.
I don't know where you were during 2000-2008 but spending increased and the government grew and it was more dysfunctional than ever.
Because the people in charge thought government couldn't work. That's a self fulfilling prophecy.
When you charge mining executives with enforcing regulations on mining companies...
That's certainly a failing, but that's low on the totem pole compared to some of their other mistakes that seemed more based around just shitty policy. The wars, no child left behind, and a lot of the homeland security additions weren't done poorly because there was an idea that government can't work. They were just shitty ideas.
I reviewed the page that lists the top campaign donors from 1989 to 2004, measured in US dollars. The donors on the list are first ranked according to the amount of donations. Next, each donor is given a designation that shows a breakdown of how the money was distributed. If the split is no greater than 59% to one party or the other, that donor is designated as being "on the fence." If the split is greater than 59%, but less than 69%, that donor is designated as "leaning" Democrat or Republican. If the split is greater than 90%, that donor is designated as "solidly" Democrat or Republican.
Of the top 50 companies and organizations in the list, 21 show at least "leaning" to the Democrats (at least 60% of overall political contributions). There are 15 of the top 50 who show no decisive leaning - shown as being "on the fence." That leaves only 14 of the top 50 "leaning" Republican.
Of the 21 that tilt to the Democrats, 15 are "solidly" Democrat( at least 90% of the overall contributions). Of the 14 donors that tilt Republican, none of the 14 reach beyond the 90% distribution rate.
Now, I can guess what you're thinking. You are probably thinking that many of those 14 donors reside in the top 10. That is what I thought, too. I was shocked to discover that of those 14 donors, none are in the top 10!
Of the top 10 donors on the list, 8 "lean" to the Democrats, with 6 of the 8 designated as "solidly" Democrat.
If true, the rest of the quoted blog is interesting as well.
Edit: This chart may be better. Can't check on my iPad though. Too late to turn on computer.
First, the guy doesn't provide a citation for where he's getting his numbers. Which makes it suspect immediately. In fact, there isn't a single linked citation in the piece, which is either lazy or intentionally misleading. Let's be nice and assume he's just being lazy. His stated (but not linked) source, The Sunshine Foundation seems legit, but we're not given any link to the numbers themselves instead we're simply subjected to his interpretation of them.
Second and more substantively, we have no idea what sort of "donation" he's talking about. Without a direct link we don't know if he's talking about total campaign spending or if there's a specific subsection that he's focusing on. This lack of transparency makes everything he's saying extremely sketchy. Specifically, the nature of the numbers makes me believe that he's talking about direct to candidate donations, which are actually the most limited in scope and therefore the least likely to be made by those who actually have tons to throw around. The real money goes into PACs (the ads you'll see as "Friends of Candidate X" or such), which have effectively unlimited individual or corporate contribution potential.
Combine all this with the fact that there's no mention of the Chamber of Commerce which should be heading his list if any sort of realistic metrics were being used, and this is looking like less of an informative article and more of a strictly partisan hitjob.
Citizens United let loose the floodgates, hence the obscene amount of money from corporate interests going against Democrats. Oh, and Wall Street and healthcare interests are aligned against us too.
I was originally going to say that 2 out of 3 were probably Koch brothers, but they have their own thing going on with the Tea Party groups. My secondary guess is going to be, at least one of the two Waltons, Alwaleed Bin Talal Alsaud, and Erik Prince.
Though I would find it strange if she did know but didnt say.
Personally, I've always wondered how people let the Republicans get away with shouting "Big gubbamint bad!" when they're out of power only to let them enact horribly draconian measures while increasing the size of said 'big gubbamint' when they get in.
Personally, I've always wondered how people let the Republicans get away with shouting "Big gubbamint bad!" when they're out of power only to let them enact horribly draconian measures while increasing the size of said 'big gubbamint' when they get in.
Because, as Atwater explained, government only became the problem when it started helping the less fortunate.
Yeah, the GOP has so suddenly found small government religion lately thanks to angry teabaggers primarying them from the hard right. I'll be interested to see how quickly the GOP will abandon their concerns.
I was checking polls yesterday when I came across this graph. IMO it explains beautifully why the GOP have such an easy time keeping their base united while the dem struggle so much.
It's been shown in many a poll that many (most?) independents who identify as 'conservative' generally favor liberal policies, especially if those policies are detailed without actually referring to them by name.
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
I think there's some mischaracterization going on here in the name of cheerleading.
Republicans have always been "big gubmint" in the context of defense spending, and (more recently) in extending protections to faith-based enterprises.
Repeatedly pointing out to them the expansions Bush enacted isn't going to do much good, because those kinds of expansion will never matter. National defense will almost always take precedence to fiscal responsibility with conservatives.
You show me a Republican bloc that has championed budget reduction by way of reducing military and security spending and I'll show you a bloc with fewer supporters and leverage than the Log Cabin gang.
All spending isn't equal, and all government expansion isn't equal, so pretending it is in order to win a broad political argument is both pointless and petty. It's like chastising a fireman for grilling a steak outdoors.
"All you do is talk about how dangerous fire is to the kids at school, and here you are playing with fire! Tsk tsk . . . ."
Well, except Bush's largest expansion of government was Medicare Part D. Which of course now makes him "not a conservative" among the morons on the right.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, except Bush's largest expansion of government was Medicare Part D. Which of course now makes him "not a conservative" among the morons on the right.
Except with the largest voting bloc - old White people.
Well, except Bush's largest expansion of government was Medicare Part D. Which of course now makes him "not a conservative" among the morons on the right.
Except with the largest voting bloc - old White people.
So, no, not really.
Old white people think Medicare is a private institution.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
Well, except Bush's largest expansion of government was Medicare Part D. Which of course now makes him "not a conservative" among the morons on the right.
Except with the largest voting bloc - old White people.
So, no, not really.
Old white people think Medicare is a private institution.
Old white people have the distinct honor of being both America's most reliable voters and the voters most ignorant of the actual contests and issues on the ballot.
They can't be ignored, sadly.
Atomika on
0
Options
BarcardiAll the WizardsUnder A Rock: AfganistanRegistered Userregular
edited September 2010
Has any Democrat gone on the fear path and just campaigned on republicans wanting people to "die quickly" rather than have healthcare? Mentioned that republicans want to revert to sending troops to war without flack jackets, handing cash to insurance companies that then cash in on troop death, etc etc? They need soundbites on TV that are shocking and damning to republicans, not to whine about the narrative. Go back to what gets you on TV. At this point and looking at the tea party, make some shit up if they have to.
Dems need to abandon the whole Atticus Finch understated do-goodery and go on the offense. They need to channel Clinton not just get him on the networks to do their talking for them. Someone stated in another thread that the real Dem problem is that they are all in politics for their career, rather than willing to burn for one bright term, and thus are unwilling to do anything drastic. I tend to agree with that.
If we want more ass kicking Dems, we've got to get them elected. We get them elected by identifying them early and having them get involved locally. Moreover, we need boots on the ground to push back against this narrative of a right trending nation. We need more Dem strategists and message creators who didn't mature during the Clinton years. We need more that are willing to do what's necessary to put us over the top, including taking pages from our opponents' playbook. We need more agitation from the left, especially in swing states. We need a platform that people can not only like or care for, but get angry about not being fulfilled. We need to copy the Obama 08 fundraising model and get it to work all year, every year.
We need a new fucking DNC chairman ASAP. We need to scare the shit out of our current Dem elected officials with primary challenges and constantly holding their feet to the fire. We need more Dems like Grayson and Weiner and less like Lieberman and Lincoln. We need Dems who will loudly, often, and without hesitation call the other side for lying. We need to stop being so goddamned polite with the news media when they act like stenographers and carry the GOPs water. We need to stop acting like telling the truth is all that we have to do to win the war. We need to stop letting the right dictate the narrative. We need to constantly force the GOP to choose between protecting their wealthy masters or their constituency.
We need to stop trying to be GOP lite. We need to stop kicking our base just to make the center happy. We need to stop being afraid to be Democrats. We need to stop telling Americans that we're the best party for them and start fucking SHOWING IT.
I've got more shit to say, but you get the gist. I've been thinking hard about this lately, and I've realized that shit ain't getting better with me just posting on the internet. I know there are other like minded people like me locally. If there's enough of us saying the same thing to our local and state Democratic representatives, they'll have to listen. It's past time that we made them answer for constantly kicking us and then smugly saying "Who else are you gonna vote for?". Maybe they need a bit more time in the wilderness to figure things out.
Basically, the Dems need a person- a moment- like this:
I was checking polls yesterday when I came across this graph. IMO it explains beautifully why the GOP have such an easy time keeping their base united while the dem struggle so much.
Well yeah, this is about strategy for the Democratic party, not the "independent" voters.
Also, it should be noted that Alan Grayson is about the most strident Democrat in Congress, represents a swing district, and enjoys a pretty good lead over his GOP opponent. People may not always agree with him, but they know where he stands and that he's not some mealy-mouthed politician that's afraid to confront his opponent or be forthright. The Republicans have been gunning for him all year and they're going to fail, despite this being a year that ought to kick someone like Grayson out of office. Other Dems need to watch and learn from him.
You've got two parties that basically take turns promoting the interests of the same people (the ultra rich & influential) in this country.
That's all.
EDIT: To wit, you're going to see the small stuff get passed, while the actual meat gets killed in committee or with any of the arcane rules and regulations Congress has going on so that the leaders of either party can get together and blame the other side for "obstructionism" when they both colluded on it together.
America's corporate "must make gains this quarter!" mentality has bled over to the politcal side of things as well. No one seems to remember Summer 2008 in DC or Wall Street, when it really looked like the shit was going to hit the fan well and good and our economy was going to crumple like a paper cup.
Slowly but surely, we're heading back to that moment. Its just that there was someone to put on the brakes on the economic front and international front instead of watching the country meltdown while it went into a war with Iran due to the people at the helm being total fuckups all around.
Grayson's got swagger. And he's going to survive the midterm from hell.
This is not a coincidence.
Haha, no, no he's not. Not to pull the "I work in politics" card but, I see a lot more polls than most people. And he's good and fucked.
Well, it's a good thing you have this secret data that no one but you are privy to. Clearly we must defer to you rather than reputable places like 538.
I'd really love to see Rasmussen poll that race, though.
Posts
I just think that each single issue group tends to set the Republican policy if the other ones acquiesce. The problem is that the small government people are generally the odd man out, as the military, immigration, and social conservative issues all require a lot more government interference.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
We also need to keep pointing out that unless we want to cut the military or Social Security/Medicare, no amount of slicing and dicing on other programs is going to balance the budget without us raising taxes.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Because the people in charge thought government couldn't work. That's a self fulfilling prophecy.
When you charge mining executives with enforcing regulations on mining companies...
The easy to find blogs on that issue seem to say that democrats get more union money, big corp money. While republicans get more individual donations.
I'm not saying the easy to google blogs are right, I'm just asking.
One easy to google blog, with a snippet:http://www.helium.com/items/186311-the-politics-big-money-comparing-democratic-republican-candidates-campaign?page=3
If true, the rest of the quoted blog is interesting as well.
Edit: This chart may be better. Can't check on my iPad though. Too late to turn on computer.
That's certainly a failing, but that's low on the totem pole compared to some of their other mistakes that seemed more based around just shitty policy. The wars, no child left behind, and a lot of the homeland security additions weren't done poorly because there was an idea that government can't work. They were just shitty ideas.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Second and more substantively, we have no idea what sort of "donation" he's talking about. Without a direct link we don't know if he's talking about total campaign spending or if there's a specific subsection that he's focusing on. This lack of transparency makes everything he's saying extremely sketchy. Specifically, the nature of the numbers makes me believe that he's talking about direct to candidate donations, which are actually the most limited in scope and therefore the least likely to be made by those who actually have tons to throw around. The real money goes into PACs (the ads you'll see as "Friends of Candidate X" or such), which have effectively unlimited individual or corporate contribution potential.
Combine all this with the fact that there's no mention of the Chamber of Commerce which should be heading his list if any sort of realistic metrics were being used, and this is looking like less of an informative article and more of a strictly partisan hitjob.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
SteamID: devCharles
twitter: https://twitter.com/charlesewise
Though I would find it strange if she did know but didnt say.
Because, as Atwater explained, government only became the problem when it started helping the less fortunate.
It's been shown in many a poll that many (most?) independents who identify as 'conservative' generally favor liberal policies, especially if those policies are detailed without actually referring to them by name.
Republicans have always been "big gubmint" in the context of defense spending, and (more recently) in extending protections to faith-based enterprises.
Repeatedly pointing out to them the expansions Bush enacted isn't going to do much good, because those kinds of expansion will never matter. National defense will almost always take precedence to fiscal responsibility with conservatives.
You show me a Republican bloc that has championed budget reduction by way of reducing military and security spending and I'll show you a bloc with fewer supporters and leverage than the Log Cabin gang.
All spending isn't equal, and all government expansion isn't equal, so pretending it is in order to win a broad political argument is both pointless and petty. It's like chastising a fireman for grilling a steak outdoors.
"All you do is talk about how dangerous fire is to the kids at school, and here you are playing with fire! Tsk tsk . . . ."
Except with the largest voting bloc - old White people.
So, no, not really.
Old white people think Medicare is a private institution.
Old white people have the distinct honor of being both America's most reliable voters and the voters most ignorant of the actual contests and issues on the ballot.
They can't be ignored, sadly.
Dems need to abandon the whole Atticus Finch understated do-goodery and go on the offense. They need to channel Clinton not just get him on the networks to do their talking for them. Someone stated in another thread that the real Dem problem is that they are all in politics for their career, rather than willing to burn for one bright term, and thus are unwilling to do anything drastic. I tend to agree with that.
tldr: fight fire with fire
Basically, the Dems need a person- a moment- like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-AXTx4PcKI
This guy?
Why? His record seems pretty clean...
Edit: Oh, lordy, "Covenant Marriage"! Taliban it is then...
Hey, it's a VOLUNTARY option...
for now.
Someone with views like that has a serious chance of winning? o_O
Also, it should be noted that Alan Grayson is about the most strident Democrat in Congress, represents a swing district, and enjoys a pretty good lead over his GOP opponent. People may not always agree with him, but they know where he stands and that he's not some mealy-mouthed politician that's afraid to confront his opponent or be forthright. The Republicans have been gunning for him all year and they're going to fail, despite this being a year that ought to kick someone like Grayson out of office. Other Dems need to watch and learn from him.
This is not a coincidence.
They tried to bury us. They didn't know that we were seeds. 2018 Midterms. Get your shit together.
That's all.
EDIT: To wit, you're going to see the small stuff get passed, while the actual meat gets killed in committee or with any of the arcane rules and regulations Congress has going on so that the leaders of either party can get together and blame the other side for "obstructionism" when they both colluded on it together.
America's corporate "must make gains this quarter!" mentality has bled over to the politcal side of things as well. No one seems to remember Summer 2008 in DC or Wall Street, when it really looked like the shit was going to hit the fan well and good and our economy was going to crumple like a paper cup.
Slowly but surely, we're heading back to that moment. Its just that there was someone to put on the brakes on the economic front and international front instead of watching the country meltdown while it went into a war with Iran due to the people at the helm being total fuckups all around.
Haha, no, no he's not. Not to pull the "I work in politics" card but, I see a lot more polls than most people. And he's good and fucked.
538 has Grayson at roughly 50/50.
Well, it's a good thing you have this secret data that no one but you are privy to. Clearly we must defer to you rather than reputable places like 538.
I'd really love to see Rasmussen poll that race, though.