|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 10 2012 08:00 oneofthem wrote:
political polarization in america is only reflecting social polarization anyway. the insular suburban bubble is capable of far greater political insensitivity, while the urban poor have pretty much always been on the edge of open rebellion for a variety of causes.
so basically, the space for rightward and leftward lurches always exist. the question is just are there strong actual political mobilization organizations around. these things on the right have been very active for the last couple decades, and we are dealing with the consequences.
Well, it is a two-way street. Either you need stong organzations to support you or you have to create room for organizations to grow around your policies. The second point is sometimes overlooked. If you keep referring to the same talking points that organisations have been promoting for years, you either believe you can rally enough support from those beliefs or you are going to loose before you begin. If you are going with new points and can create excitement around it, you will be able to garner so much more support since the counter-arguments still need to gain popular attention. It is just easier to vote for someone standing for something without a strong counter-argument than for someone standing behind a refutable platform. Innovation in politics can be a real strenght! Mobilisation is a weaker argument if people actually wanted to vote for someone as opposed to the lesser of two evils.
|
On December 10 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become. You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly.
You are missing the entire forest.
|
On December 10 2012 08:12 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same. Okay, so let's say I concede your point (I don't). Please cite elements of the Republican platform that appeal to moderates.
less government and balanced budgets.
|
On December 10 2012 08:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same. Okay, so let's say I concede your point (I don't). Please cite elements of the Republican platform that appeal to moderates. less government and balanced budgets.
But they stand for neither? Arguably they stand for less taxes, but that also means a less balanced budget. "But they'll cut things" - oh I'm sure, like what? And unless they specify that, they wont get the vote, and when they do, they wont get the vote either.
Edit: The rethorical package is spot on though. It just doesn't correlate with reality or what they'll actually do.
|
On December 10 2012 08:36 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become. You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly. You are missing the entire forest.
Strong argument  .
But considering that you said pretty much similar stuff in your posts I am quite intrigued with what you disagree.
|
On December 10 2012 08:37 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same. Okay, so let's say I concede your point (I don't). Please cite elements of the Republican platform that appeal to moderates. less government and balanced budgets.
Aka fiscal conservatism. Social issues have and will always be a culture aspect and not an actual governance thing.
|
On December 10 2012 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
can we please not bring up these weird stats that have come out of the election like democrats winning "the popular vote for congress" They didn't even win by as many as the general election which just shows that they happened to win on larger margins on some races. How about how well republicans fared in state elections winning control of states that went for democrats in the national election.
I still have no idea why republicans are stronger in the house then the senate when the senate should favor their control on more states and democrats should control the house with their control on higher population states.
Romney was a shitty candidate none is arguing that point and no one did from the start of the nomination process. Mcain never had a chance coming off of 8 years of bush. I fail to see where republicanism is the reason why they lost the election.
If I'm not mistaken, Republicans have won state legislatures during the census for the past 30 years. Gerrymandering plays a much larger role than actual support it seems.
|
On December 10 2012 08:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
can we please not bring up these weird stats that have come out of the election like democrats winning "the popular vote for congress" They didn't even win by as many as the general election which just shows that they happened to win on larger margins on some races. How about how well republicans fared in state elections winning control of states that went for democrats in the national election.
I still have no idea why republicans are stronger in the house then the senate when the senate should favor their control on more states and democrats should control the house with their control on higher population states.
Romney was a shitty candidate none is arguing that point and no one did from the start of the nomination process. Mcain never had a chance coming off of 8 years of bush. I fail to see where republicanism is the reason why they lost the election. If I'm not mistaken, Republicans have won state legislatures during the census for the past 30 years. Gerrymandering plays a much larger role than actual support it seems.
Like I allured to earlier I would be more sympathetic to a "republicans win because of gerrymandering" if they won the supposed congressional popular vote by anywhere near the amount they won the presidential election by.
|
On December 10 2012 08:46 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:36 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become. You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly. You are missing the entire forest. Strong argument . But considering that you said pretty much similar stuff in your posts I am quite intrigued with what you disagree.
Well, you're argument was a false (although seemingly convincing one) that has been put forth by Democratic spokespeople. The whole "society is moving and republicans aren't reacting" is and incredibly one-sided view and just plain false. Politicians go where they want and strategists have the majority of the populace on strings. The Denmark guy seems to understand it best, read his post on last and this page. No need for me to rewrite it.
|
On December 10 2012 08:46 aksfjh wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
can we please not bring up these weird stats that have come out of the election like democrats winning "the popular vote for congress" They didn't even win by as many as the general election which just shows that they happened to win on larger margins on some races. How about how well republicans fared in state elections winning control of states that went for democrats in the national election.
I still have no idea why republicans are stronger in the house then the senate when the senate should favor their control on more states and democrats should control the house with their control on higher population states.
Romney was a shitty candidate none is arguing that point and no one did from the start of the nomination process. Mcain never had a chance coming off of 8 years of bush. I fail to see where republicanism is the reason why they lost the election. If I'm not mistaken, Republicans have won state legislatures during the census for the past 30 years. Gerrymandering plays a much larger role than actual support it seems.
How would that work? If Republicans aren't already in power pre-gerrymandering how would they benefit from gerrymandering?
|
On December 10 2012 08:48 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:46 aksfjh wrote:On December 10 2012 08:26 Sermokala wrote:
can we please not bring up these weird stats that have come out of the election like democrats winning "the popular vote for congress" They didn't even win by as many as the general election which just shows that they happened to win on larger margins on some races. How about how well republicans fared in state elections winning control of states that went for democrats in the national election.
I still have no idea why republicans are stronger in the house then the senate when the senate should favor their control on more states and democrats should control the house with their control on higher population states.
Romney was a shitty candidate none is arguing that point and no one did from the start of the nomination process. Mcain never had a chance coming off of 8 years of bush. I fail to see where republicanism is the reason why they lost the election. If I'm not mistaken, Republicans have won state legislatures during the census for the past 30 years. Gerrymandering plays a much larger role than actual support it seems. Like I allured to earlier I would be more sympathetic to a "republicans win because of gerrymandering" if they won the supposed congressional popular vote by anywhere near the amount they won the presidential election by.
You also have to realize that state parties are different. A Wisconsin Republican such as myself is going to be very different than a Texas Republican. While on the overall they have some similarities, a state party can drift one way or the other. For example, our Democratic party is extremely progressive, while our Republican Party is viewed as more moderate. In Texas the Republicans tend to be nutjobs and the Democrats are the moderates.
|
On December 10 2012 06:21 farvacola wrote:
My point is that speaking unequivocally on the identity and constituency of the Republican Party is not very sensible, for the reasons you've outlined above, Rassy, and the results of the past election are further evidence that exactly what constitutes a "Republican" is up for debate. Furthermore, the fact that Democrats have a better track record amongst those of "moderate" designation does not really affect the possibility that the conservative base is shrinking away from political salience, meaning there stands a good chance that Republicans must change their ideological base if they hope to remain cohesive and relevant. For example, many of the Republicans who have mentioned passing tax increases on the top bracket have done so under the pretense that such actions are motivated by an acknowledgement of their constituents desire to at least nod at bipartisanship. My point in the end is that "no to taxes" might not be the end all cornerstone of contemporary conservatism, and if it indeed is, that might end up being the very thing that kills the party that caters to conservatives.
I would find it hilarious if the Republicans eventually shifted toward some sort of populism while holding on to the social conservative base, leaving us with a populist party that catered to white people and a moderate pro-business party that was more inclusive, giving us a total inversion of the past. We'll have to see if the economic-social conservative alliance will be threatened enough by moderate rich people leaving the GOP for this to happen in the future, but the Democrats have already made huge gains in courting the rich with their triangulation strategy starting under Bill Clinton. The Big Tent is still a large basis of Democratic support, but labor itself has been largely ignored.
|
On December 10 2012 08:45 HellRoxYa wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:37 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 08:12 ticklishmusic wrote:On December 10 2012 07:13 DeepElemBlues wrote:*cough*
I'd like to point out the Democrats got more votes in House races nationally than Republicans.
Don't blame a shitty GOTV for the Republicans losing. Blame a shitty platform. I'd like to point out that Democrats were talking about re-taking the House all summer and it didn't happen. So you can blame what lines up with your personal preferences more and I'll do the same. Okay, so let's say I concede your point (I don't). Please cite elements of the Republican platform that appeal to moderates. less government and balanced budgets. But they stand for neither? Arguably they stand for less taxes, but that also means a less balanced budget. "But they'll cut things" - oh I'm sure, like what? And unless they specify that, they wont get the vote, and when they do, they wont get the vote either. Edit: The rethorical package is spot on though. It just doesn't correlate with reality or what they'll actually do.
You just lie and say you can cut taxes and revenues will increase, paying for the tax cut,
ie: http://www.forbes.com/sites/mikepatton/2012/10/15/do-tax-cuts-increase-government-revenue/
Rep Pres. Candidate Jon McCain saying the same thing: http://www.factcheck.org/taxes/supply-side_spin.html
Another example posted earlier in the thread. :
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/12/06/why-america-is-going-to-miss-the-bush-tax-cuts/
|
On December 10 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:46 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 08:36 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become. You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly. You are missing the entire forest. Strong argument . But considering that you said pretty much similar stuff in your posts I am quite intrigued with what you disagree. Well, you're argument was a false (although seemingly convincing one) that has been put forth by Democratic spokespeople. The whole "society is moving and republicans aren't reacting" is and incredibly one-sided view and just plain false. Politicians go where they want and strategists have the majority of the populace on strings. The Denmark guy seems to understand it best, read his post on last and this page. No need for me to rewrite it.
Note that I actually said something completely different. I said that Republicans moved while populace did not, due to specific circumstances. In your post you say that younger republicans are much more pragmatic and are willing to consider some exceptions to the hard-line. That is exactly what I said.
Note that I also think populace is moving in opposite direction than Republican party, but mostly on social issues. And again younger republicans are not really that social conservatives, so again party WILL move towards the more moderate position just by younger people coming into power.
I am also not saying that population is driving politics completely. Of course there is a lot of manipulation going on. But it has its limits.
|
On December 10 2012 09:07 mcc wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 08:46 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 08:36 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become. You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly. You are missing the entire forest. Strong argument . But considering that you said pretty much similar stuff in your posts I am quite intrigued with what you disagree. Well, you're argument was a false (although seemingly convincing one) that has been put forth by Democratic spokespeople. The whole "society is moving and republicans aren't reacting" is and incredibly one-sided view and just plain false. Politicians go where they want and strategists have the majority of the populace on strings. The Denmark guy seems to understand it best, read his post on last and this page. No need for me to rewrite it. Note that I actually said something completely different. I said that Republicans moved while populace did not, due to specific circumstances. In your post you say that younger republicans are much more pragmatic and are willing to consider some exceptions to the hard-line. That is exactly what I said. Note that I also think populace is moving in opposite direction than Republican party, but mostly on social issues. And again younger republicans are not really that social conservatives, so again party WILL move towards the more moderate position just by younger people coming into power. I am also not saying that population is driving politics completely. Of course there is a lot of manipulation going on. But it has its limits.
The bold is what I read into your statement, and what I completely disagree with because of what I italicized. The Republican Party will shadow the populace (and vice versa). These shifts are pretty new. Remember that in 2010, this platform scored a huge win, and is only now getting unpopular (can't say I'm shocked). This idea that the GOP won't shift is false. They will, and they were already making initial chess moves back on election night. Many people had wanted to shift, but they were going to hold off to see if they could score one more election victory.
|
On December 10 2012 09:39 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 09:07 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 08:51 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 08:46 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 08:36 BluePanther wrote:On December 10 2012 07:19 mcc wrote:On December 10 2012 06:54 DeepElemBlues wrote:
Is it 2008? I feel like I've read all this before.
Come back when the GOP doesn't control a historically high number of state governments and the Democrats win elections based on something other than a bad GOP turnout organization. Barack Obama got millions of fewer votes than he did in 2008 and Mitt Romney got more than John McCain, this liberal triumphalism has been done before and proved to be just masturbation.
It's getting pretty boring that a party wins one election and suddenly it'll be in power for a generation and the losing party must totally change itself or be relegated to the dustbin of history.
Republicans win in 2004, suddenly Karl Rove is talking about a generation of Republicans never losing, the Democratic Party is a regional party (coastal states and the progressive Midwest) that can't win national elections. (Remember how "social issues" were the "number one" issue in exit polls and those voters broke big for Bush?)
Democrats win in 2006 and 2008 and now the Democratic Party will rule for 40 years, the Republican Party is a regional party of the South that can't win national elections.
Republicans win in 2010 and now the Democratic Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with big government to win national elections.
Democrats win in 2012 and now the Republican Party is horribly out of touch with the American people and must lose its love affair with small government and social conservatism or it won't win again.
It's all the same bullshit. It comes down to the candidate's competency at organizing and reaching the American people with his or her message, and money for advertising and organizing electoral machinery to get out the vote. This hysteria about one party, almost overnight, becoming anathema just because they lost one election is a sign of how immature our political culture has become. You are missing trees for the forest. If the parties stayed in similar positions on the scale your analysis would be quite reasonable. But Republicans are moving to the right while society does not. That makes your analysis rather too simplistic. But Republicans are not that stupid and there is a need for second party in democracy so they WILL reform one way or another and will not disappear. In two-party setups either parties move their point of contention so that they have roughly 50% of society covered or they enter some period of being irrelevant. Some distortions in voter turnout made it possible (and necessary) for Republicans to move to the right even though that meant moving away from that equilibrium point. Now they will have to move to that equilibrium or hope that economy crashes rather badly. You are missing the entire forest. Strong argument . But considering that you said pretty much similar stuff in your posts I am quite intrigued with what you disagree. Well, you're argument was a false (although seemingly convincing one) that has been put forth by Democratic spokespeople. The whole "society is moving and republicans aren't reacting" is and incredibly one-sided view and just plain false. Politicians go where they want and strategists have the majority of the populace on strings. The Denmark guy seems to understand it best, read his post on last and this page. No need for me to rewrite it. Note that I actually said something completely different. I said that Republicans moved while populace did not, due to specific circumstances. In your post you say that younger republicans are much more pragmatic and are willing to consider some exceptions to the hard-line. That is exactly what I said. Note that I also think populace is moving in opposite direction than Republican party, but mostly on social issues. And again younger republicans are not really that social conservatives, so again party WILL move towards the more moderate position just by younger people coming into power. I am also not saying that population is driving politics completely. Of course there is a lot of manipulation going on. But it has its limits. The bold is what I read into your statement, and what I completely disagree with because of what I italicized. The Republican Party will shadow the populace (and vice versa). These shifts are pretty new. Remember that in 2010, this platform scored a huge win, and is only now getting unpopular (can't say I'm shocked). This idea that the GOP won't shift is false. They will, and they were already making initial chess moves back on election night. Many people had wanted to shift, but they were going to hold off to see if they could score one more election victory.
Ok, I see the possible issue. Your issue is that I said "moving", whereas you mean that this move stopped already and Republicans are moving already to more moderate position. In that case I am not necessarily disagreeing. My point was that they will have to move to more moderate position. If they are already doing that, then I consider it as my assertion being correct. The vice versa is just short time manipulation. Population does not shadow political parties so easily in the long term. Some artificial narrative can skew the actual state (which is what Republicans are pretty adept at pulling off), but in the end the social manipulation has to auto-correct no matter what.
As for 2010, the win there was not because of social position of Republicans, more because of bad economy, which is what always happens in all countries in times of bad economy even if the ruling party does reasonable job. And Obama was not really stellar.
|
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany
|
On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany
I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer?
I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice.
|
On December 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer? I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice.
Lawyers are specialists in law, not governance. One could just as well argue that economists and philosophers have more of a place in representing the nation's interests and making decisions on our behalf. You might scoff at philosophy, because it deals in abstracts, whereas lawyers study in verifiable absolutes. But governance is often about making decisions that have no clear guidance, or sometimes ignoring the guidance of past decisions for a better, newer path. Lawyers are taught to be completely beholden to past decisions.
While I respect the work that goes into earning a law degree, this isn't a prestigious group. Some of them are idiots and criminals. My city of Chicago is full of them. There is nothing so morally or intellectually prestigious about a law degree that suggests people who have them should hold anymore responsibility over other people's lives than someone with a degree in any other field. I also love that you find every opportunity possible to tell people you're a lawyer.
"Lawyers on a whole..."
"...the finer points of government systems and practice."
This was a lawyer's grammar after editing himself, while simultaneously pleading for his profession's intellectual superiority as reason to rule over others. I rest my case. I wonder if language arts graduates wouldn't make excellent lawyers. Just like lawyers, they primarily deal with precision in language. Government needs more art school grads.
But overall, I actually think we have too much emphasis on credentials altogether. Management skills and integrity - traits I think make for good leadership - aren't properly taught in a classroom, but at home.
|
On December 10 2012 10:08 BluePanther wrote:Show nested quote +On December 10 2012 09:59 crazyweasel wrote:
What US needs is more state FOR the people(spending, social programs, nationalizing banks and huge transnationals to let more space for smaller enterprises and individual entrepreneurship) and more PEOPLE within the parliament, not lawyers and corps.
here's a few example of countries that do have 'more' state and they have great results : danemark,sweden,iceland,germany I'm not a person because I'm a lawyer? I'm sorry, but lawyers are basically specialists in government. The only other academic credential even closely relevant to being a politician is MPP. But in reality, lawyers have much more practice at representing interests that aren't their own. While it's healthy to have people other than lawyers in the government, I don't think a reduction of lawyers is a smart idea. Lawyers on a whole are much smarter than the average person, and much more educated about the finer points of government systems and practice.
Need more people who are trained to come up with solutions to problems. Need less people who are trained specifically to win arguments and never acknowledge that the other side is right.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
