The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent
vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums
here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules
document is now in effect.
This Primary race is too Democratic
Posts
My Backloggery
pleasepaypreacher.net
The Democrats had a civil war as they transitioned from the libertarian party to the liberal party.
The former is my preferred strategy. But in the event it can't be done, then I do think the average voter who would hold something like this against Obama is simple-minded enough to be appeased by a 50-50 split. Any agreement is going to be championed by both camps as a fair and just compromise; doesn't matter what it is. That'll be enough for most people.
Oh right, thanks.
If the idea is quietly bundled in with "your $25 gets Clinton the hell out and keeps her working for us" I'd pony up. And it has the added bonus of meaning she's politically dead in the future. She'll never win a national race outside of New York again with that hanging over her. All in all I can live with the situation.
Sure, there are 110 House Republicans in districts that are less conservative than the one Childers just claimed.
But really, how many of them contain enough black people that huge black turnout will carry a Democrat to victory?
I'd say there are some seats in the Deep South that should be worried - but even those will probably revert to Republicans in the 2010 mid-terms.
Depends how long the Republicans keep trying to tie the races to the national Democrats, aka Obama. As long as they keep doing that, and if they're then tying the race to President Obama? Black turnout probably stays pretty high. And the Mountain West is already trending Democrat anyway, so I'm not sure where things are safe for Republicans. Heavily Cuban areas in Florida?
And politeness towards well-behaved negroes.
Man some of us are pawning our bikes and xboxes in order to pay Mark Penn's salary.
It's going to be glorious.
pleasepaypreacher.net
It's also worth remembering that Childers is almost certain to be the kind of "Democrat" who drags his feet on supporting Democratic initiatives and threatens to caucus with the GOP unless the party hands out earmarks to his district. He'll probably make us rip our hair out.
That said, he'll caucus Dem and that's a pretty important vote.
As far as the "realignment" thing goes, I agree that it doesn't mean a great deal. Mississippi isn't on the edge of realignment (unlike, say, some Western or Mid-Atlantic states). We just managed to pick up a high-profile interim election in a red district. Still, it's a hopeful sign, and, generally speaking, there's a big advantage to incumbancy.
I think we are in a similar period.
I don't expect this talk of "realignment" to last much longer than the talk of a "permanent republican majority".
"Yellow Dogs" are voters/ politicians who support the Democrats in all cases, as in "I'd rather vote for a Yellow Dog than a Republican".
Also, what the hell is with this article on Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/14/does-obama-even-need-the_n_101671.html
I definitely think that there's a realignment going on. I don't really think it's a "permanent Democratic majority" or anything, but I definitely think that the parties are reassessing their focuses, strengths, demographic appeal and geography. I really do think that the Dems are making inroads in previously disengaged demographics (young people) and previously inaccessible demographics (people like Jeff, though I don't know what demo he really typifies). This, along with whatever outreach that different wings of the party are trying to make with, say, Western constituencies, Latinos, the joe lunchpails, and whatnot. We'll see some element of ideological shift in the party as whatever coalitional strategy they decide upon coalesces.
I think it's currently the Dem's opportunity to forge a winning coalition. The GOP is kind of forced into a reactive role in which they have to forge a coalition out of whatever they can hold onto, whatever is left over, and whatever presents itself as targets of opportunity. I'm sure they'll do fine eventually, but it will probably require an ideological shift of some form from them as well.
The problem with the permanent Republican majority was that Rove was kind of right in the sense that the way things were set up it was very very hard for a Democrat to get elected. The previous two generations (Boomers and Gen Xers) had been voting predominantly Republican and then he got a galvanizing event in 9/11 that could have solidified things if the response wasn't handled well. Unfortunately for him, the old people are dying and the President he created and the rest of them have fucked up so bad that the largest generation in American History identifies with the Democrats almost 60-40. While also moving the Gen Xers away from their initial Republican leanings at least for now.
That's the reason for the realignment belief along with theories of party identification. Because generally speaking once you vote for a party three times consecutively, you're with that party for life. An Obama nominataion and win would solidify the "millenials" or "Gen Y" or whatever the fuck they're calling us now seeing as how we voted for Kerry by a large margin and obviously we're big Obama fans and would vote for his re-election in 2012 if he doesn't fuck things up badly.
If the trend in youth turnout continues as it has been, you get maybe 55% or a little higher of 80 million people (by the time they're all voting age) and then 60% of that group is voting Democratic, that's a significant number of votes you start out ahead. 26 million to 18 million or so. Obviously rough math that you can't really rely on because outside events could influence things, but that's my reasoning for saying this could definitely be a realignment election.
Gen Y going through college just as the Democrats, via the DLC on economic matters and Rove's alienating evangelical strategy, become palatable to upper income voters.
That trend plus, you know, Republican wankery.
I enjoy how the media just makes shit up and runs with it and then ignores when facts don't support their conclusions.
Sure that's why they're trending Democratic, but voting patterns established in your 20s usually hold.
Yeah, and Senators don't get elected to the Presidency and no democrat can win the Presidency without Minnesota/West Virgina etc.
Conventional Wisdom.
I'm still pissed he has to careful step-around the Jew Vote and fudge his stance on negotiating with anyone to appease those fuckers.
No they don't.
Until you stop leeching from the system and instead start paying into it, then the concept of taxing everyone into oblivion and spending it on government sponsored trips to costa rica for 20 year old brats sounds less appealing.
To be fair Republicans want to send said 20 year old brats to Iraq instead so I don't necessarily blame them for voting democrat these days.
In this case backed up by a lot of research in political science.
Political "Science"
It's not necessarily going to be another 40 year run, but shifting the Congress to the Dem's with a charismatic Democratic President is going to enable some great things in the first 100 days/2 years. 2010 midterms may well have the expected blowback of a landslide election that should be coming to the House this year or just more random volatility, but by then we should be starting to have less horrible governance. Even if it just enables some of the more progressive ideas of Obama's administration and then we settle into a bare Republican majority in the House ala 90's lite would be a step up from now.
I know it was the juxtaposition of subsidized Costa Rican jaunts and being cannon fodder for the Imperial cause that pushed me into the Democratic fold.
Hey, I've been paying into the system for five years now, and as much as I'd bitch about a rise in my taxes, I'd still be in favor of the rise if it meant universal healthcare, reducing homelessness, and increasing opportunities for lower class people. Hell, I'd welcome anything that gets us closer to European style social services. The quality of life for everyone in places like the Netherlands is outstanding.
I'm not all that reliable a demographic, though, assuming I'm part of one. While I genuinely like Obama as a person and as a candidate in this particular situation, I'm not going to throw down with Dems in general. Look at the reasons I support Obama:
- He supports unifying people and an end to vicious partisanship.
- He opposes a war that's clearly fucked now, though we disagree on whether or not it was a good idea in principle at the outset.
- He supports government transparency and an end to naked power grabs.
- I agree with his plan for a more socialized health care plan, but on completely difference ideological grounds, and mostly because my preferred policy is politically impossible, regardless of whether it's functionally impossible.
Nothing there really screams "lifelong Dem". My support is largely premised on either apartisan issues (transparency, unification) and the other major party being made of lose. The ostensible Republican platform is still closer to my views than the Democratic platform, it's just that the ostensible Republican platform has nothing to do with the actual Republican platform.
The Democratic party could fundamentally realign itself along my views - socially, I'm right there - but I'd wager that as Dems make more gains, they're going to swing more liberal/progressive/whatever you want to call it. And at that point, it'll lose me.
Right, just because there would be a realignment doesn't mean there'd be any permanent Democratic majority or some bullshit like that. It'd just mean that the Democrats would be the ones with the default electoral map favoring them much like the Republicans have had since LBJ lost/Nixon won the South in 1968 and they'd win something like 7 of the next 10 Presidential elections, in this case probably on the power of the Southwest with Latino voters and the Mountain West based on general Republican incompetence.
A few other factors are the uptick in Hispanic demographics, the "New Urbanism" growth of cities, the disintegration of unions, and the general movement over the past few decades of the working class towards the Republicans.
But, really, we're in basic agreement. Gen Y is a large demographic, and they associate themselves strongly with Democrats - moreso than we've seen in decades, even from youth demographics. They also appear to be more politically involved than the late boomers and Gen X. Making inroads in mid-income "fiscally conservative" white professionals is a huge deal.
I mean, any one of these factors would have been "big news" in previous cycles, and we've seen much more specific shifts effect significant historical realignment (including Roosevelt's consolidation of urban votes and Civil Rights' eventual alienation of southern whites).
I'm not even certain I get this.
So "government sponsored trips to costa rica" means the Army I guess. But I thought the idea is that spending on defense was the only allowable spending?
Don't even bother. If Libertarian ideas actually made sense, they wouldn't be so thoroughly mocked.
Yeah I was grappling for a term to refer to your demographic, which I think could be mildly put as "moderate fiscal conservatives". In spite of rhetoric to the contrary, recent history has put the Dems squarely in the sphere of "fiscal responsiblity" and the GOP in the sphere of "fiscal mismanagement". It's really up to the party at this point which direction they'll head in - remember that the influence of the Boomerish "old guard" is starting to wane somewhat, and with their decline, you'll probably see less dogmatic adherence to the Big Government ethic of yesterday. Hopefully we'll see more pragmatism than special-interest logrolling as well, but I guess we'll see.