freeman3 wrote:George, I'm not sure that would constitute evidence against my point that Republicans are overwhelmingly not close to the political center and the cause of political deadlock. Democrats are 90 percent moderates and thus party positions are pretty close to that. And the 10% of those that are liberal are still voting for the party because the alternative would be worse. So Democrats that are not voting with the Party will tend to be more centrist, but there is not that much of a difference ideologically here. If Democrats were a far left party with a few moderates you would likely see the few moderates voting a lot against the party. Republicans are the ones with the big gap between their few moderates and the rest of their party, so you expect those few to vote against the party more than Democrats.

OK, I get it. Thanks.

geojanes wrote:

freeman3 wrote:George, I'm not sure that would constitute evidence against my point that Republicans are overwhelmingly not close to the political center and the cause of political deadlock. Democrats are 90 percent moderates and thus party positions are pretty close to that. And the 10% of those that are liberal are still voting for the party because the alternative would be worse. So Democrats that are not voting with the Party will tend to be more centrist, but there is not that much of a difference ideologically here. If Democrats were a far left party with a few moderates you would likely see the few moderates voting a lot against the party. Republicans are the ones with the big gap between their few moderates and the rest of their party, so you expect those few to vote against the party more than Democrats.

OK, I get it. Thanks.

I get it too. They chased out the moderate "blue dogs" and the pro-life Democrats. What's left is . . . the far Left.

Do Republican voters get what they vote for?

In the elaborate con that is American electoral politics, the Republican voter has long been the easiest mark in the game, the biggest dope in the room. Everyone inside the Beltway knows this. The Republican voters themselves are the only ones who never saw it.
Elections are about a lot of things, but at the highest level, they're about money. The people who sponsor election campaigns, who pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the candidates' charter jets and TV ads and 25-piece marching bands, those people have concrete needs.
They want tax breaks, federal contracts, regulatory relief, cheap financing, free security for shipping lanes, antitrust waivers and dozens of other things.
They mostly don't care about abortion or gay marriage or school vouchers or any of the social issues the rest of us spend our time arguing about. It's about money for them, and as far as that goes, the CEO class has had a brilliantly winning electoral strategy for a generation.
They donate heavily to both parties, essentially hiring two different sets of politicians to market their needs to the population. The Republicans give them everything that they want, while the Democrats only give them mostly everything.
They get everything from the Republicans because you don't have to make a single concession to a Republican voter.
All you have to do to secure a Republican vote is show lots of pictures of gay people kissing or black kids with their pants pulled down or Mexican babies at an emergency room. Then you push forward some dingbat like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin to reassure everyone that the Republican Party knows who the real Americans are. Call it the "Rove 1-2."
That's literally all it's taken to secure decades of Republican votes, a few patriotic words and a little over-the-pants rubbing. Policywise, a typical Republican voter never even asks a politician to go to second base.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3qRSCAKYL

rickyp wrote:Do Republican voters get what they vote for?

In the elaborate con that is American electoral politics, the Republican voter has long been the easiest mark in the game, the biggest dope in the room. Everyone inside the Beltway knows this. The Republican voters themselves are the only ones who never saw it.
Elections are about a lot of things, but at the highest level, they're about money. The people who sponsor election campaigns, who pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the candidates' charter jets and TV ads and 25-piece marching bands, those people have concrete needs.
They want tax breaks, federal contracts, regulatory relief, cheap financing, free security for shipping lanes, antitrust waivers and dozens of other things.
They mostly don't care about abortion or gay marriage or school vouchers or any of the social issues the rest of us spend our time arguing about. It's about money for them, and as far as that goes, the CEO class has had a brilliantly winning electoral strategy for a generation.
They donate heavily to both parties, essentially hiring two different sets of politicians to market their needs to the population. The Republicans give them everything that they want, while the Democrats only give them mostly everything.
They get everything from the Republicans because you don't have to make a single concession to a Republican voter.
All you have to do to secure a Republican vote is show lots of pictures of gay people kissing or black kids with their pants pulled down or Mexican babies at an emergency room. Then you push forward some dingbat like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin to reassure everyone that the Republican Party knows who the real Americans are. Call it the "Rove 1-2."
That's literally all it's taken to secure decades of Republican votes, a few patriotic words and a little over-the-pants rubbing. Policywise, a typical Republican voter never even asks a politician to go to second base.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3qRSCAKYL

Wow, that's really impressive. Thank you SO much for sharing an insightful article entitled, "The GOP Is Now Officially the Party of Dumb White People."

That is the single most moronic thing you have ever posted. And, that's saying something.

Doctor Fate wrote:

rickyp wrote:Do Republican voters get what they vote for?

In the elaborate con that is American electoral politics, the Republican voter has long been the easiest mark in the game, the biggest dope in the room. Everyone inside the Beltway knows this. The Republican voters themselves are the only ones who never saw it.
Elections are about a lot of things, but at the highest level, they're about money. The people who sponsor election campaigns, who pay the hundreds of millions of dollars to fund the candidates' charter jets and TV ads and 25-piece marching bands, those people have concrete needs.
They want tax breaks, federal contracts, regulatory relief, cheap financing, free security for shipping lanes, antitrust waivers and dozens of other things.
They mostly don't care about abortion or gay marriage or school vouchers or any of the social issues the rest of us spend our time arguing about. It's about money for them, and as far as that goes, the CEO class has had a brilliantly winning electoral strategy for a generation.
They donate heavily to both parties, essentially hiring two different sets of politicians to market their needs to the population. The Republicans give them everything that they want, while the Democrats only give them mostly everything.
They get everything from the Republicans because you don't have to make a single concession to a Republican voter.
All you have to do to secure a Republican vote is show lots of pictures of gay people kissing or black kids with their pants pulled down or Mexican babies at an emergency room. Then you push forward some dingbat like Michele Bachmann or Sarah Palin to reassure everyone that the Republican Party knows who the real Americans are. Call it the "Rove 1-2."
That's literally all it's taken to secure decades of Republican votes, a few patriotic words and a little over-the-pants rubbing. Policywise, a typical Republican voter never even asks a politician to go to second base.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... z3qRSCAKYL

Wow, that's really impressive. Thank you SO much for sharing an insightful article entitled, "The GOP Is Now Officially the Party of Dumb White People."

That is the single most moronic thing you have ever posted. And, that's saying something.

I agree. The literal title of the article is: "The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia"

It was written on Sep 4th when Trump was in ascendancy. Now Carson is in the lead. So, the article got it wrong. But quoting it 2 months later does say something about the quality of the poster.

Ray Jay wrote:[The literal title of the article is: "The Republicans Are Now Officially the Party of White Paranoia"

Right, but the link is as I wrote. The tone is not surprising. The author, Matt Taibbi, is a thoroughbred liberal. From wiki:

Matthew C. "Matt" Taibbi (/taɪˈiːbi/; born March 2, 1970) is an American author and journalist. Taibbi has reported on politics, media, finance, and sports, and has authored several books, including The Divide: American Injustice in the Age of the Wealth Gap (2014), Griftopia: Bubble Machines, Vampire Squids, and the Long Con That Is Breaking America (2010) and The Great Derangement: A Terrifying True Story of War, Politics, and Religion (2009).

Matt Taibbi was born in 1970 to Mike Taibbi, an NBC television reporter, and his wife. He grew up in the Boston, Massachusetts suburbs. He attended Concord Academy in Concord, Massachusetts, and graduated in 1992[1] from Bard College located in Annandale-on-Hudson, New York. He spent a year abroad studying at Saint Petersburg Polytechnical University in Russia. Taibbi is atheist/agnostic.[2]

It's almost like he's objective.

But, it gets worse. He has a proclivity for lacking in class:

The eXile held an annual poll inviting readers to vote on who was the worst English-language journalist in Russia. In 2001, the "winner" was the New York Times chief editor in Moscow. Taibbi gleefully described how he prepared a cream pie made with horse sperm and humiliated the journalist by throwing it at his face and photographing the encounter.[25]

In March 2005, Taibbi's satirical essay, "The 52 Funniest Things About the Upcoming Death of the Pope",[26] published in the New York Press, was denounced by Hillary Clinton, Michael Bloomberg, Matt Drudge, Abe Foxman, and Anthony Weiner. Subsequently, the editor who approved the column was fired.[27] Taibbi defended the piece as "off-the-cuff burlesque of truly tasteless jokes," written to give his readers a break from a long run of his "fulminating political essays." Taibbi also said he was surprised at the vehement reactions to what he wrote "in the waning hours of a Vicodin haze".[28]

Journalist James Verini, while interviewing Taibbi in a Manhattan restaurant for Vanity Fair, said Taibbi cursed and threw a coffee at him, then accosted him as he tried to get away, all in response to Verini's volunteered opinion that Taibbi's book, The Exile: Sex, Drugs, and Libel in the New Russia, was "redundant and discursive".[29] The interview took place in 2010, and Taibbi later described the incident as "an aberration from how I've behaved in the last six or seven years".[30]

After the death of conservative commentator Andrew Breitbart, in March 2012, Taibbi wrote an obituary in Rolling Stone, titled "Andrew Breitbart: Death of a Douche."

Well done, rickyp. You've outdone yourself.

rayjay

It was written on Sep 4th when Trump was in ascendancy. Now Carson is in the lead. So, the article got it wrong

Because Carsons black? Pretty shallow.

White identiy politics is what Sarah Palin was.. whose ignorance about the world, contempt for expertise, and raw appeals to white identity politics presaged Trump’s incendiary campaign.
Trump is Palin reborn and recast and appealing to the same base nature.
Carson leading now does nothing to suggest that there is an appeal beyond the poor white base for a party that plays the idenity card so prominently.

Carson is this campaigns Herman Cain. Incoherent and strange. The kind of person who can make paid speeches for and on behalf of a company, make promotional videos for them and personally endorse the products but still deny a relationship. A man of science who denies the fundamental science biology is based upon. A man who depended upon food stamps and welfare in order to thrive as a child who would end many of those programs... Increased scrutiny will end his campaign the way it ended Cains. Strange doesn't play well.

Whoever the republican candidate ends up being, 95% of Blacks and 90% of Latinos will not support. Not even Rubio, as he's abandoned his early positions on immigration reform.
Women will vote for Hillary in the majority.
Trump and Carson have doomed the party. Identity politics only works so long as you identify with the majority.

And if you think that you aren't part of the old angry white men Fate...reread what you read and think how a person under 40 would feel reading this.
fate

Under Obama, the electorate has turned JFK on his head: "Ask not what you can do for your country, but ask what your country can do for you." There has never been a generation more self-indulgent and less self-aware. We have the "X-Box Generation" of 26 year-olds bitterly clinging to their parents' health insurance and refusing to leave the basement. Getting a job is beneath them. They would rather complain about the injustice of life than work to change their own situation

You don't sound different then most of talk radio ... and who listens to that? Old white and poor...
Optimistic young people don't want to be scolded for their character. When they know that its BS.

I used to think Steve Martin was funny. Now, I just look for the latest post from rickyp.

rickyp wrote:rayjay

It was written on Sep 4th when Trump was in ascendancy. Now Carson is in the lead. So, the article got it wrong

Because Carsons black? Pretty shallow.

I'll give that 3 yuks.

You've got some nerve to call ANYTHING or ANYONE shallow after posting that ridiculous article in the first place. It was a poorly-written op-ed. It was one man's opinion with little basis in reality. If I posted a Michael Savage article about "liberalism being a mental disorder," I would have stooped to your level.

White identiy politics is what Sarah Palin was.. whose ignorance about the world, contempt for expertise, and raw appeals to white identity politics presaged Trump’s incendiary campaign.
Trump is Palin reborn and recast and appealing to the same base nature.
Carson leading now does nothing to suggest that there is an appeal beyond the poor white base for a party that plays the idenity card so prominently.

Four yuks.

The Democratic Party cannot survive without "identity politics." It's what they do. That's why poor old Marty O'Malley can't even say "all lives matter" without having to apologize. It's why Democrats are the party of "free stuff." It's why Democrats are the party of "abortion is never wrong." It's why Democrats are the open-border party. If they can't hold the votes of women and racial minorities, they can't win, so virtually everything they do is calculated to appeal to a minority group.

Carson is this campaigns Herman Cain. Incoherent and strange. The kind of person who can make paid speeches for and on behalf of a company, make promotional videos for them and personally endorse the products but still deny a relationship. A man of science who denies the fundamental science biology is based upon. A man who depended upon food stamps and welfare in order to thrive as a child who would end many of those programs... Increased scrutiny will end his campaign the way it ended Cains. Strange doesn't play well.

Uh-huh. Is this how you analyzed Obama? That one's not too funny. In fact, if you were a Republican writing about a Black Democrat, you'd be called a "racist" or worse.

Democrats attack every single minority or female who does not conform to what the Democrats think that person should think and say. They are not genuinely Black, Hispanic, or female.

Whoever the republican candidate ends up being, 95% of Blacks and 90% of Latinos will not support.

Now, THAT'S better! I'll give you two yuks for it.

In 2012, Obama won 93 percent of African-Americans and 71 percent of Hispanics. If you think Hillary is going to do better than that, I'll give you 10:1 odds and you can name the amount.

Not even Rubio, as he's abandoned his early positions on immigration reform.
Women will vote for Hillary in the majority.

Rubio will get 40% or more of the Hispanic vote, if he's nominated. Hillary will get 100% of the "I don't know anything" vote.

Trump and Carson have doomed the party. Identity politics only works so long as you identify with the majority.

3 yuks.

Neither one will be the nominee. Your party (yes, it is your party) is nominating a socialist who would be indicted if Obama was not President.

Again, identity politics--the bread and butter of the Democratic Party. Apparently, you have never watched a DNC convention.

And if you think that you aren't part of the old angry white men Fate...reread what you read and think how a person under 40 would feel reading this.

Actually, any of them who are trying to make anything of themselves and who understand what the growing Debt means for their future would fully agree with me.

You don't sound different then most of talk radio ... and who listens to that? Old white and poor...
Optimistic young people don't want to be scolded for their character. When they know that its BS.

You know who you sound like? Karl Marx after a case of beer.

You're a riot, but you probably should stay away from the keyboard until you sober up.

Identity politics only works so long as you identify with the majority.

Without wanting to get drawn in to this tedious debate, I should point out that identity politics has nothing whatsoever to do with the majority. The whole point of it is to encourage minorities to self-identify according to their specific minority characteristics. Appealing to the majority is just regular politics.

The election is over anyway. Bush and Rubio are the only Republicans who could beat Hillary. Bush has looked terrible--no charisma, no energy, looks like he doesn't want it that badly--and Rubio has a no exceptions abortion position for the life of the mother, rape or incest. The women's vote would allow Hillary to beat him. None of the others are serious contenders. It's over. And no DF I don't want to bet you on it.

I would say Kasich but since I kind of like him (well for a Republican)there is no way he'll get the nomination

freeman3 wrote:The election is over anyway. Bush and Rubio are the only Republicans who could beat Hillary. Bush has looked terrible--no charisma, no energy, looks like he doesn't want it that badly--and Rubio has a no exceptions abortion position for the life of the mother, rape or incest. The women's vote would allow Hillary to beat him. None of the others are serious contenders. It's over. And no DF I don't want to bet you on it.

I would say Kasich but since I kind of like him (well for a Republican)there is no way he'll get the nomination

You're right . . . about Kasich.

But, really, a woman approaching 70, whom well more than half of America describes instantly as a "liar," she is unbeatable by Hispanic males in their 40's? Maybe you guys don't understand identity politics after all.

Furthermore, her record is an embarrassment, she should be indicted, and her personal story is riddled with issues (like ducking fire at foreign airports).

Oh.

Maybe you do understand identity politics. If she wasn't a woman, she would have zero chance. In fact, she'd be a laughingstock. She'd be Lincoln Chafee with a marginally better personality.

You're right about...Lincoln Chaffee. He's a bit bizarre.
Rubio's no exceptions for abortion will not play in Peoria. A hawk and extremist on abortion goes against a female candidate--he'll be lucky to lose the female vote by only 20 percentage points.

sass

Without wanting to get drawn in to this tedious debate, I should point out that identity politics has nothing whatsoever to do with the majority. The whole point of it is to encourage minorities to self-identify according to their specific minority characteristics. Appealing to the majority is just regular politics

There is no longer a "majority" to identify with...
Cobbling together the various identifiable minority groups to create a majority is what works.
One can accuse Hillary of pandering to the various minorities or you can admit she is appealing to their needs and wishes with her policies. (I think that's what happens in a democracy)

Unfortunately for Rubio he needs to first get the nomination and in doing so he'll take positions that will taint him with the various minority groups to the extent he'd need 80% of white men, and more than 50% of white women. And he can't get that.

And Fate?

If you think Hillary is going to do better than that,

Here's what you probably haven't considered. From a Univision Poll . (And her numbers can only improve since then ...considering she's past the Benghazi nonsense)

Marco Rubio was the only Republican candidate tested who had a higher positive than negative favorability among Latino voters, with 35% having a favorable opinion on him and 34% having unfavorable. Bush came in at 36/45, Cruz at 26/36, Paul at 22/32, Walker at 15/23, and Trump at 17/71.

Meanwhile, Clinton had a 68% favorable rate, with just 26% unfavorable. That’s better than respondents’ perception of Obama, who got 64% favorable and 31% unfavorable

http://fusion.net/story/167578/univisio ... ers-trump/

freeman3 wrote:You're right about...Lincoln Chaffee. He's a bit bizarre.
Rubio's no exceptions for abortion will not play in Peoria. A hawk and extremist on abortion goes against a female candidate--he'll be lucky to lose the female vote by only 20 percentage points.

It does look like it will be Clinton vs. Rubio ... this is really for Dr. Fate, Ricky, and Freeman ... there's no way to know what will happen 1 year ahead of time ... there will be VP picks, and debates, and each of them will have to defend themselves against various odd things they've done and said ... it will depend on where the economy is, and it will depend on where the world is, especially as it relates to the Middle East, but also Chinese and Russian aggression ... will there be serious terrorist activity directly impacting the US or its allies? ... will Syria and Iraq and Yemen continue to implode? ... it's going to be a long year, especially if each side keeps saying how their side will win.

From RickyP:
One can accuse Hillary of pandering to the various minorities or you can admit she is appealing to their needs and wishes with her policies. (I think that's what happens in a democracy)

Let's re-write this...

One can admit Hillary is pandering to the various minorities or you can accuse her of appealing to their needs and wishes with her policies. (I think that's what happens in a democracy).

Quite interesting way your thoughts are constructed. Anyone who disagrees with your way of thought is being accusatory, and anyone who agrees must admit that your thoughts are truth. Interesting...

Do you realize how conceited you sound?

Can you admit Mrs. Clinton is pandering to the various minorities?
Pander: to act as a pander; especially : to provide gratification for others' desires
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pander

Mrs Clinton is trying to provide gratification to the various minorities, no?