Comments on FiveThirtyEight: Politics Done Right: Should Democrats Beware Republicans Bearing Gifts?...

酒店經紀人, 菲梵酒店經紀, 酒店經紀, 禮服酒店上班, 酒店小姐兼職, 便服酒店經紀, ...

2009-10-09T08:59:30.673-04:00

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,

情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,...

2009-02-08T03:23:00.000-05:00

@kylopod: I think your final scenario is the most ...

2009-01-31T20:16:00.000-05:00

@kylopod: I think your final scenario is the most likely; the Republicans stay out of power for a generation, then discover a different ideology with a different agenda and get back into power.

That will take a very long time, because about 60% of existing elected Republicans will have to literally die before a new generation will get the power to control the agenda.

Nate, I've been heading to this site ever since mi...

2009-01-31T19:42:00.000-05:00

Nate, I've been heading to this site ever since mid last year but man, You have no idea how helpful calm, statistical analysis is on my absolutely insane mind.

Thanks man.

I take interest in this discussion about whether t...

2009-01-31T19:23:00.000-05:00

I take interest in this discussion about whether the Republican Party could disappear.

The Democratic Party is almost as old as the Republic itself, but the opposition party has changed twice, first from Federalists to Whigs, then Whigs to Republicans.

Still, the Whig-Republican transition happened long ago, and I think our system has tightened too much since then to make it likely that any third party will gain a foothold ever again. The Republicans and Democrats can change (and they have done so, very drastically, since their births), but as institutions, they are likely to survive and remain the dominant parties.

Ross Perot's Reform Party addressed the need for a fiscally conservative but secular party, and while its failure partly reflected Perot's weaknesses as a candidate and activist, it also reflected the inherent barriers in our system that prevent any third party from ever succeeding.

Remember, in 1992 Perot received 19% of the popular vote but not a single electoral vote. Earlier that year, he had actually been leading in the polls, and his decline was precipitated by his temporarily dropping out of the race, and his unstable behavior. What if he had been a more competent candidate and had managed to win the popular vote on Election Day? My guess is that he would have won just enough electoral votes to cause the race to be thrown into Congress, who would then almost certainly have chosen one of the major-party candidates.

That very situation might actually occur in the future, and if it does, it might lead the public to reevaluate how our system works. On the other hand, it might lead to a situation like in 1912, where the Republicans get split right down the middle but still manage to survive, albeit with a different ideology than before.

A more interesting possibility is that the Republican Party will simply be out of power for a long time, as the Democrats were for almost the entirety of the period between 1860 and 1912.

@Tony C.A classic post.

2009-01-31T18:44:00.000-05:00

@Tony C.

A classic post.

@lojasmo: I used to consider myself a libertarian,...

2009-01-31T15:03:00.000-05:00

@lojasmo: I used to consider myself a libertarian, but I was cured by empiricism.

Free market forces are largely mythical. The invisible hand of Adam Smith doesn't work, actually, because rationality is only about half of what goes into most people's decisions. They irrationally trust others, ignore science, and tolerate rip offs. They are irrationally lazy, taking the easy way out even when their life savings are on the line: Just ask Bernie Madoff.

Besides that, we have constructed an economic system in which short term self interest is the only one to worry about for many people. CEO's pay themselves tens of millions of dollars a year. It is not in anybody's best interest except their own, but even one year of such lavish compensation and they are set for life.

In the current economic crisis, we may have a multi-trillion dollar bailout of banks and companies. That is multi-trillion dollars legally stolen by executives and others that will walk away scot free, because in our current system, they did nothing illegal.

The fact that millions of stock market investors do not demand sensible salaries for executives ($250K or $500K a year) is proof positive that Adam Smith's "self-interest" corrective device is a failure. It simply does not work, because the same thing has been going on for nearly a century.

The idea that free markets and deregulation will work if you just wait a few lifetimes is kind of a non-starter, at least for me, because I only get this one.

I wouldn't mind living through a recession or two, I have already. But a lifelong depression seems like a steep price to pay over some principle that won't prove itself until long after I am dead.

Even Adam Smith warned vehemently against monopolies; he would be astonished we would allow a behemoth like Microsoft to exist.

Markets work when companies are forced to compete on price, quality, service and exclusivity. It fails when they can compete by frivolous lawsuit or in the halls of government with lobbyists, by pressuring customers (like Microsoft did) or by driving competitors out of business by selling at a loss, or by lying, or false advertising, or by making unsafe products or promises they can't keep (like phony insurance policies).

Stopping those underhanded tactics means regulating the companies, and that means free markets don't work. Adam Smith, like almost every economist since him, based his work on a false assumption; that people act rationally in the marketplace.

This assumption has been proven wrong in thousands upon thousands of empirical psychological studies of actual consumers and how they make their decisions. It is an oversimplification that invalidates every single one of his conclusions and those of every economist that uses it.

That is why I am a liberal, not a libertarian.

@ Rachel QHow did the Paulites know how to organiz...

2009-01-31T13:31:00.000-05:00

@ Rachel Q

How did the Paulites know how to organize? What primary did Paul win? None. Not Texas, Nothing.

As a libertarian myself (strongly supported Obama) I take offense at your assertion that libertarians are low hanging fruit for republicans. It is asinine.

@Michael: Cugel made much of my argument before I ...

2009-01-31T11:30:00.000-05:00

@Michael: Cugel made much of my argument before I got to read your reply.

In my view, the "Republican" label may survive, but they will in fact be a different party. Others undoubtedly know the history better than I, but IMO within my lifetime the Republican party of old did die with the help of Ralph Reed during the Clinton years. That whole Pat Robertson, Christian Coalition converted the Republican party into a religious party instead of a fiscal conservative party.

Bush won by Rove pitching to an evangelical base, with the aid of a corrupt Supreme Court decision and voter fraud and suppression. Al Gore's famous inability to appear authentic on stage didn't help either.

Everyone says the Republican party is now a regional party, but it is not: It is a religious party, and religion happens to be stronger in rural areas than in cities, because rural areas are less populated and exposed to a much narrower palette of cultural beliefs than are city dwellers.

However, the Internet and cable and satellite TV increasingly expose everybody to a broad cultural palette, and this is especially true among those expert in navigating the sea of information. Those are the people that grow up with it.

Although the Internet started much earlier, it was just in the late 90's that it reached significant penetration among the young. The high-schoolers of the 90's are the young voters of today. The communications revolution is turning all Americans into city dwellers, and within two generations of 2000, we will have a majority of voters not just raised with access to all this information, but children of parents raised with access to all this information.

That is an important point because parents teach children. The first generation must stumble around and teach themselves, the second generation is even more expert because Mom and Dad can help.

Obama is the beginning of the end for Ralph Reed Republicanism. I agree the label may survive, but even that will die if they don't make a drastic change in policy; and such a change would be a whole new party that does not count on the religious right or social conservatives as its base, because their brand of social conservatism (racist, homophobic, misogynistic) is failing more every year as 17 year old minors become 18 year old voters, and join the Democratic party 70/30.

The danger for Republicans is that an alternative party already exist in embryonic form; the Blue Dog Democrats. They promote fiscal restraint and accountability in government; exactly the agenda of pre-Kennedy Republicanism (as I understand it at least). More than 10% of the House is Blue Dog Democrats.

The Republican party can die and be replaced by the Blue Dog Democrats; they could secede from the Democratic party and form their own party: Fiscally responsible, accountable and transparent government, with a belief in social responsibility, progressive taxation, regulation of markets, and a right-sized government that does not pander to the religious right.

I have voted for the Democrat in every election since 1976, but I would switch to a Blue Dog party.

I think the Republican party is already dead. Their policies of tax cuts and smaller government and free markets have proven disastrous; Reaganomics failed. The strategy of courting the religious right to put them over the top has left them with nothing but the religious right as their "base", but that is the 1/4 of people that think Bush did a great job.

If they are going to survive under the Republican label they must throw the religious right overboard; let them vote as they may, and return to Blue Dog principles. And that would be a completely re-invented Republican party. This one is dead.

Shouldn't it be "young'n"? I was under the impress...

2009-01-31T02:40:00.000-05:00

Shouldn't it be "young'n"? I was under the impression that an apostrophe substitutes for omitted letter(s).

@ Oliver If the dems get to 60, does Lieberman ju...

2009-01-30T23:39:00.000-05:00

@ Oliver

If the dems get to 60, does Lieberman jump from the caucus?

No way.He's hanging on to his committee chairmanship for dear life.If he doesn't

Mike, the simple solution for DC is to admit it as...

2009-01-30T21:49:00.000-05:00

Mike, the simple solution for DC is to admit it as the 51st state ("Columbia"), except for a small area (Smithsonian Mall, the Capitol, the White House, and some other Federal buildings) that would remain under the direct control of the Federal government. 2 senators, however many representatives they are entitled to by population. Absolutely no constitutional amendment would be needed, though the Maryland legislature might have to pass a resolution of consent. I strongly favor statehood for DC under such terms. Now, whether that is currently acceptable politically is another question, but people who care about the principle of "no taxation without representation" should support and continue to push for it.

Someone tell me why a guy who thinks the current e...

2009-01-30T19:26:00.000-05:00

Someone tell me why a guy who thinks the current economic situation is all about the housing market is a good choice for Commerce Secretary?

Of course, such a person is also not someone we want voting on the stimulus package... there are enough uninformed ideologues in Congress already.

So, I don't really see a win either way.

"Michael said... Tony C., what do you suppose y...

2009-01-30T19:19:00.000-05:00

"Michael said...

Tony C., what do you suppose you would have said about the Republicans' prospects in 1964? They had just lost a presidential election in a huge landslide and the Democrats had control of both Houses of Congress. Did the party die? And in the long run, did Goldwaterism, or something like it, run the country? Premature is putting it mildly. This is a down period for the Republicans, but only a fool would count them out in the long run."

The Republican party cannot "disappear." They have strong support in the rural South, the Great Plains states and the northern Rockies. That won't change.

But, you have to analyze WHY Republicans became the dominant party starting in 1968 and ask WHY they are not now.

The strength of the New Deal coalition was always the "solid South" (take a look at the election map for Truman's victory in 1948 - it was southern based).

When Johnson signed the voting rights act in 1965, he said "there goes the solid South for a generation." Well, it's been almost TWO generations and they are now solidly Republican due to racist backlash against equal rights, and conservative cultural backlash against the anti-war movement and the counter-culture.

Republicans won 7 out of the next 10 Presidential elections since 1968.

What's changed?

1. Rise of younger more liberal voters. These voters aren't suddenly going to change their views and become Republicans. By the time you hit 30, you are pretty much either a conservative, a moderate, a liberal, a Democrat or a Republican or Independent. People are unlikely to change much thereafter.

2. The non-white vote went from around 10% in 1972 to 27% now. And minorities vote Democratic by around 70%-30%.

And minorities as a percentage of the total vote are increasing at the rate of around almost 1% per year towards a minority-majority around 2040.

Republicans cannot change this unless and until they change their POLICIES!

Social conservatism and fiscal restraint may appeal to rural voters, but NOT largely urban minorities and liberals.

Thus, as these segments of the voting population increase, Republicans are doomed to become an increasingly smaller minority party largely limited to the South and Great Plains as time passes.

Douglas said...I've been operating under the assum...

2009-01-30T17:48:00.000-05:00

Douglas said...
I've been operating under the assumption that one very tangible, significant aspect of the Democrats getting to the magic number 60 in the Senate is that it provides hope that it can finally provide the representation in Congress, in the form of a House seat and perhaps even a pair of Senators, that the District of Columbia so desperately needs and deserves.

It's almost a certainty that the House could add a Representative for DC, especially if they add a Representative to Utah - Orrin Hatch has already agreed to such an arrangement. The DC Representative wouldn't even have to be called a Representative, just a 'voting delegate' to get around any argument about what the Constitution says in Article 1, Section 2, about a Members of the House being representative of a state.

As to the Senate - as soon as a law is passed to add Senators from DC, it will be taken to court, and I suspect the law would be overturned. The first words of Article 1, Section 3 are "The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State". DC is not a state, and that will be the sticking point.

The only method I see for DC residents to have both a voting Representative AND two Senators is for a Constitutional Amendment to create a state for DC, or to retrocede the District to Maryland.

The Constitutional Amendment route is blocked by RepubliCANTs, as it takes a 2/3 vote in EACH chamber for it to pass Congress, and I suspect that at least 13 states would not ratify such an Amendment even if it passed Congress. If less than 38 states ratify a proposed Amendment, it does not go into effect.

As to retroceding, it does nothing about gaining Senators for the Democratic party, as Maryland already has two Senators, and both are Democrats. The only thing retroceding would do is make it even more difficult for the Republicans to [re]gain one or both of those seats. In addition, Maryland would have to agree to a retrocession, and right now the political climate in Maryland would be an overwhelming "NO" to retrocession, both from elected officials and the state's population.

The only major gain would be another House member for the state.

The foremost drawback to the state would be a lot more expense to the state, and the state is already facing a major long-term structural deficit that a retrocession of the District would almost certainly exacerbate. Since the District now receives major funding each year from the Federal Government in lieu of paying taxes, water bills, extra police, fire and emergency expenses, etc., as a result of the major presence of the Federal Government in the District, but such funding being less likely, or in like amount, if the District were retroceded, Maryland would be very unlikely to take on the added expenses such retrocession would entail.

You might ask why a federal payment to Maryland is unlikely?

The Federal Government has a major presence in Northern Virginia (probably on the order of 1/2 - 2/3 of it's presence in Washington), yet Virginia does not get a direct payment such as the District does. It is almost certain that Maryland would be treated equally with Virginia (i.e., no federal payment) if a retrocession were to occur.

Er. that is move proof of my argument than yours. ...

2009-01-30T17:38:00.000-05:00

Er. that is move proof of my argument than yours. Right up to the point McCain picked Palin he was doing rather well. In a democrat year he was steadily eroding Obama's leed.

That is wrong, Obama had a lead from July all the way to the Palin announcement, and the weeks before it, Obama was extending his lead. McCain was not doing well at all. I religiously checked 538 and electoral-vote.com and both showed Obama's lead widening in the weeks before the convention.

The fact is that McCain never had a chance.

The announcement shocked everyone, and people mindlessly clinged on to her because she was new.

Then they got to know her...

Only the fundie nutbags stood by her by election day.

She briefly helped in the polls and then slowly dragged McCain down. His insane statements about the sound economy didn't help.

Palin is the cause of McCain's brief flirtation with the lead in the polls, and was a drag on the ticket overall, but helped secure states that were looking like they might flip to Obama.

No one else McCain could have chosen would have got the republican base out like Caribou Barbie did, but at the same time, she frightened the moderates away.

Tony C., what do you suppose you would have said a...

2009-01-30T17:20:00.000-05:00

Tony C., what do you suppose you would have said about the Republicans' prospects in 1964? They had just lost a presidential election in a huge landslide and the Democrats had control of both Houses of Congress. Did the party die? And in the long run, did Goldwaterism, or something like it, run the country? Premature is putting it mildly. This is a down period for the Republicans, but only a fool would count them out in the long run.

Izanagi said...Carter barely beat Ford in 1976, ha...

2009-01-30T16:31:00.000-05:00

Izanagi said...
Carter barely beat Ford in 1976, had the election been held 2 wks later, Ford would have been reelected.

Wrong and wrong.

1. The election was held when it was held, and although it appeared that Ford was gaining, there is ABSOLUTELY no way to predict what would have happened if the election had been held two weeks later. Conventional wisdom says that Ford MIGHT have won, or COULD have won, but since the election was NOT held two weeks later, it is impossible to say "Ford would" have won.

2. Ford never won election to the Presidency - he first was appointed as Vice-President when Spiro Agnew resigned the office, then ascended to the Presidency when Nixon resigned. Therefore, Ford, if he had won in 1980, would have been ELECTED President, not reelected.

@Michael: Well, premature perhaps, but certainly i...

2009-01-30T16:24:00.000-05:00

@Michael: Well, premature perhaps, but certainly in its current incarnation the R's are on the ropes, and everything they do is the opposite of what will work.

To succeed the R's have to throw the religious right overboard. Those people will either stop voting, or split between R's and D's. With the current generation of college students (and I know them very well) the intolerance of the right will not fly, period. If they don't throw the religious right overboard, they will stay a 40% party a few generations and eventually die. Parties do die!

The problem facing them now is so many have been elected based on social conservatism, and may actually believe their own rhetoric, that they refuse to acknowledge this basic political fact.

In their district or state, they can get elected on social conservatism. But what works locally will fail nationally, and that is where they are stuck. I believe the cultural changes in the 18-24 year old vote are permanent, or at least persistent for the next 30 years or so. I can't say I know for sure what kills a party, but 30 years without a president or even a congressional majority seems like a plausible cause.

No one else has mentioned this, so I will. If the ...

2009-01-30T15:55:00.000-05:00

No one else has mentioned this, so I will. If the dems get to 60, does Lieberman jump from the caucus?

What if McCain hadn't chosen Palin?These kinds of ...

2009-01-30T15:52:00.000-05:00

What if McCain hadn't chosen Palin?

These kinds of speculation always assume nothing else would have changed, that Obama wouldn't change his tactics, or VP choice, or policy statements, or whatever. Politics is a dynamic game, every move gets a counter-move.

This kind of speculation, without at least a plausible sketch of what the opposition would do in response, is ridiculous. This is a chess game, Obama's position is a calculated response to McCain's positions, constantly updated. You can always plot a successful course if you assume the other campaign will do exactly the same thing independently of any action you take, but the other campaign isn't a deaf dumb and blind robot. Obama out-played McCain and got an electoral landslide, no matter what McCain did that was probably going to be the outcome.

I have no idea whether the position has in fact be...

2009-01-30T15:34:00.000-05:00

I have no idea whether the position has in fact been offered to Gregg, or whether he'd take it. But I want to comment on some other stuff.

Those of you who think the Republican Party will literally die off soon are very unlikely to see your prophecies fulfilled. If the Republican Party survived 3+ terms of FDR and then Truman's presidency to come back under Eisenhower, it will survive this. Furthermore, lots of things can change unpredictably in politics, and there's no telling whether Obama really will remain popular and win another term - I mean, sheesh, he's been in office for only a couple of weeks so far!

As for finding Cabinet positions for Olympia Snowe, it seems to me that, even if she'd accept such a position, Obama shouldn't offer. She helps him most by remaining in the Senate, where she will vote for a lot of the legislation he wants to sign.

wv: talit. I feel like I'm in the synagogue. :-)

I've been operating under the assumption that one ...

2009-01-30T15:11:00.000-05:00

I've been operating under the assumption that one very tangible, significant aspect of the Democrats getting to the magic number 60 in the Senate is that it provides hope that it can finally provide the representation in Congress, in the form of a House seat and perhaps even a pair of Senators, that the District of Columbia so desperately needs and deserves.

Is this not the case? And if so, does this not alter the calculus at least somewhat (in that any seats that are added would be reliably democratic ones for the foreseeable future)?

Kylopod… I stand corrected. My mistake.OK folks,...

2009-01-30T15:08:00.000-05:00

Kylopod… I stand corrected. My mistake.

OK folks, I took a little time out to learn a few things about the Senate rules, and I have published on Daily Kos a diary regarding a way to get rid of the filibuster. Is it a good idea? A bad idea? An idea whose time has come?? Any and all comments welcome…

David"Don't forget, it took an insane fundamentali...

2009-01-30T14:54:00.000-05:00

David

"
Don't forget, it took an insane fundamentalist to pull McCain close to Obama, and even that only lasted a week or two. The only reason the election was not a total landslide was because Palin excited the racist and christian supremest nut jobs and came out to vote for her."

Er. that is move proof of my argument than yours. Right up to the point McCain picked Palin he was doing rather well. In a democrat year he was steadily eroding Obama's leed.

He had himself as the experienced ceterist, and Obama as the extream left wing, totaly inexperienced, celibrity with dodgy friends.

Palin looked good for for that "week or two" because that is how long it took for the voters to realise that she WAS a fundamentalist. At that point all the moderate conservatives vanished. The fact that Palin was also a total blithering idiot was just icing on the cake.

Had mcCain chosen an experienced, inteligent, centerist, female running mate things might have been a lot more exciting. Snowe, as example, might now be VP.