Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 21, 2015, 10:48:12 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 551
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Why did Carter do so well in the plains? on: Today at 09:14:07 pm
Huh this is strange, Whats with 20% of democrats voting for ford while carter only got 10% of republicans?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1976#Voter_demographics


Carter should of been the archtype democrat who could bring back the white conservative democrats back to the party. White evangelical southerner who grew up humble and had a folksy peanut farmer image. What explains why there were double of cross-party votes in favor of ford than the reverse?

If carter gained just 10% of democrats that went to ford he would of got a 400+ EV landslide

Everyone and their grandmother were Democrats back then.  Registered Republicans made up only a little over a quarter of the population.  The potential for Democratic crossovers to Ford therefore would naturally be larger than the opposite scenario.  Those stats you are looking at for people who identify as "Democrats", so I imagine that for 1972 the number of Democrats voting for Nixon would be somewhere in the mid thirties if not higher.

Just my five cents.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Cruz: Obama is an "unmitigated socialist" on: Today at 03:34:10 pm
Cue the 'if only' comments from our resident true leftists

If only.
3  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Ike vs. JFK on: Today at 12:40:30 pm
Please name one reason why JFK should be admired more than Eisenhower by Democrats. You realize JFK cut taxes, while Eisenhower had top tax rates above 90%, right?

As for your original observation, let me just leave this here:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VXUJErr_vfo


Social Security can pay for good medical care for elderly

The proposal advanced by you and by Sen. Javits would have cost $600 million -- Gov. Rockefeller rejected it in New York, said he didn't agree with the financing at all, said it ought to be on Social Security. Let's look at bills that Vice President Nixon suggests were too extreme. One is medical care for the aged which is tied to Social Security, which is financed out of Social Security funds. It does not put a deficit on the Treasury.
Source: The First Kennedy-Nixon Presidential Debate , Sep 26, 1960

Versus

Private plans instead of socialization of medicine

I am flatly opposed to the socialization of medicine. The great need for hospital and medical services can best be met by the initiative of private plans. But it is unfortunately a fact that medical costs are rising and already impose severe hardships on many families. The Federal Government can do many helpful things and still carefully avoid the socialization of medicine.
The Federal Government should encourage medical research in its battle with such mortal diseases as cancer and heart ailments, and should continue to help the states in their health and rehabilitation programs.
A limited Government reinsurance service would permit the private and non-profit insurance companies to offer broader protection to more of the many families which want and should have it. On January 18 I shall forward to the Congress a special message presenting this Administration's health program in its detail.
Source: Pres. Eisenhower's 1954 State of the Union message , Jan 7, 1954

Seriously, when you make statements like that why are you so amazed when people join together to point out your deficiency on this matter?  You did not start out by stating "well Ike was more liberal on taxes" you started out by implying there was no real good reason for Democrats to view JFK more positively.  Which given how many issues are out there there are plenty they can choose from and income taxes are not the be all end all of them.

And I'm the one being intolerant of other peoples' opinions?
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Ike vs. JFK on: Today at 12:01:22 pm
On the issue of Ike's party identification, I remember Cathcon quoting a book called The President's Club along the lines of "Truman was good personal friends with Eisenhower and lobbied him to be the Democratic nominee, to which Ike responded, 'But I'm a Republican.'"

I thought this was very interesting, so I started reading the book while in Barnes and Noble the other weekend, and I will vouch for Ike being a lifelong Republican.  One memorable line during the section on when Truman's and Ike's friendship started to fall apart was Eisenhower writing to a friend, "He (Truman) had never even considered the possibility that I didn't share his political view, and let me tell you I didn't; I have been a Republican my whole life."

Well I will be damned!  For some reason I assumed that when he was in the army he was an Independent and that was part of the reason that both sides were recruiting him in addition to his war hero status.  I mean the man always came across as a "dynamic conservative" but I assumed that was more his personality as well as trying to mesh his more moderate views with the conservative Republican Congress.

/Mechalearns
5  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Jack Kemp vs. Hillary on: April 20, 2015, 11:49:02 pm
I think I will go with the Polish technique on this.
6  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Ike vs. JFK on: April 20, 2015, 10:33:27 pm
Obviously I was just kidding about the AP History thing, you had said a similar thing about me and other posters at one point ("crack open a history book").

Also about taxation, I'm pretty sure nearly everyone who has paid income taxes knows the marginal aspect of it.

Ike is, in my opinion, one of the top 10 Presidents overall. If you call him an imperialist, then I can't see how JFK wasn't a bigger one, TBH. Every leader of the United States since at least WW1 has been imperialist in some way.

I'm not talking about you specifically, but I've noticed on this forum a tendency to belittle everyone you don't agree with, as if every human being must believe exactly the same thing about everything.

Also, there was another instance where someone was attacked for claiming that Eisenhower wouldn't be a Republican today, as if said poster was making some extraordinary claim. I'm sure you realize that the tax rates during Eisenhower's time for the very rich WELL OUTSTRIPPED what they are now. And his support for New Deal policies is basically as good as you could expect.

On segregation, I would say there's nothing that I find appalling about the change in the 50s, it's what you would expect, gradual change.

     Maintaining existing progressive policies doesn't make one a progressive, or else the same can be said about every President since FDR. After all, Reagan permitted Social Security to continue existing.

     You would have a point with the tax rates if Eisenhower instituted them. However, as Mechaman argued above, Eisenhower worked to undercut them and reduce the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans. Claiming that he supported confiscatory tax rates does not really agree with the reality of what he did as President. Rather, I daresay that his tax policy was archetypically conservative.

Yes this was largely my point.  Unfortunately I can't say it as simply as you can sometimes.

Shockingly I don't disagree with the notion that Ike might not be a Republican.  Hell, he wasn't one when he was in the army for crying out loud.  I really don't disagree with that notion, especially seeing as how guys like Lincoln Chafee (who imo is not that different ideologically than Ike) are now becoming Democrats largely due to the extremism of the party in general.  I do have bias, but I do recognize that facet.  Arguably, his political independence just a few years before being elected president probably explains how he was so close to Kennedy despite having different party labels.

I never denied Kennedy's imperialism.  As it is, outside the forum I am actually a huge critic of the man.  Hell, even on the forum I've hinted that the Kennedys are not my favorite group of people (far from it actually).  However, my contention is largely with the idea that Ike was less of a hawk than Kennedy.  Really, Kennedy seems to be continuing his foreign policy if anything.

ANd I will try to not belittle people in the future.  I do admit that the "crack open a history book remark" (yes I remember that one) was a bit well rude as hell.  I have a hectic work schedule and not nearly enough time to unwind.  And, well I am kind of a rude ass anyways.  But yeah there ya have it.
7  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Ike vs. JFK on: April 20, 2015, 08:50:51 pm
it's not like Ike didn't do the same things that would anger a left-winger about JFK... inaction on Southern US apartheid, escalated US intervention in Vietnam, backed the Iranian coup...

and, in retrospect, the interstate highway system should not be celebrated.

Yes, the forum revisionism is quite amazing.  Though not surprising.

nb4 90% TAXES. . . oh wait.
GR8 B8 M8.

I'm not going to engage on this.

One thing I'll say though, is that in life you'll find people may... this is going to come as a shock... have different opinions than you. That doesn't mean they're wrong, it just means they're different than you.

You'll understand when you leave AP History.

I was going to let this one slide, but I am a full time Accountant in his late twenties.  I am not some punk high school kid who picked up an AP History book and thought he was the fount of enlightenment.  And when it comes to "tax rates" I actually know something about them that goes beyond mere political rhetoric or hack observations.

Relevant source: http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=665814

They are called "marginal rates" for a reason.  Ike's administration was not taxing "the very rich" anywhere near 90%.  In fact, his administration helped make the tax code on the books a lot more friendlier towards businessmen than the either FDR or Truman's presidencies.  So yeah sure, 91% sounds higher than 90% until you consider that under the 90% taxation there were a lot less items for the rich to itemize or claim as "capital gains".  Here's the thing, Ike's tax plan was largely crafted around trying to get lots of money involved in "investments", pretty much encourage private industry to throw money into the economy (instead of the government largesse of the FDR and Truman presidencies) instead of lose it to taxes.  That would definitely not fall under modern day conservative ideas of taxation, but it certainly didn't fall into the "liberal" camp of the day (which largely advocated for something close to the European welfare states of the time based on a heavy emphasis of class based taxation).

As for Kennedy, I don't think very many people will argue that the infamous tax cut was "liberal" but it certainly is a stretch to think that it was some sort of right wing Reagan cut that some make it out to be.  After a certain point excessive taxation becomes more damage than what it's worth (really to the point you have to practically confiscate it), something Kennedy and many others realized.  And as it is, the Effective Tax Rate during the late sixties (see here: http://www.baldingsworld.com/2012/11/30/the-obsession-with-nominal-tax-rates-or-the-twinkie-romanticism/) was actually relatively around the same amount as it was in the 1950s with supposedly much higher top rates.  I should note though that the Kennedy plan was more pro-consumption and geared towards increasing personal incomes across the board while also encouraging investment spending.  That doesn't necessarily make it more conservative (or more liberal for that matter) than the Ike plan, just a different approach to what was attempted during the 1950s.

I can respect that you like Ike.  He is not my favorite president by a long shot, lol.  I can respect that you have opinions.  However, for a guy who is getting onto me for not realizing that "other people have opinions different than yours" you certainly are no angel yourself.  I have very strong opinions, but on my end the vast majority of them are very well researched.  I apologize for my previous tone, but I don't think that my observations on the flaw in thinking on a number of you isn't without merit.
8  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Ike vs. JFK on: April 20, 2015, 08:00:39 pm
it's not like Ike didn't do the same things that would anger a left-winger about JFK... inaction on Southern US apartheid, escalated US intervention in Vietnam, backed the Iranian coup...

and, in retrospect, the interstate highway system should not be celebrated.

Yes, the forum revisionism is quite amazing.  Though not surprising.

nb4 90% TAXES. . . oh wait.
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Assuming we have the death penalty, which execution method do you prefer? on: April 20, 2015, 06:43:23 pm
Drawn and Quartered.

Go big or go home, you bitches.
10  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Maximum Libertarian Performance on: April 20, 2015, 07:33:35 am
Better than the 1% that Gary Johnson got. Worse than Ross Perot's ~20% (the last independent candidate to participate in televised debates).

Gary Johnson was definitely the best candidate the libertarians have ever fielded in terms of credibility. He had held elected office before (and actually had to do things like sign budgets into law, as opposed to Ron Paul sitting on the back bench serving as a one-man Greek chorus). He wasn't "weird" in the way a lot of third party candidates are (appearance, mannerisms, etc). He actually knew how to campaign and win an election because he'd done it before.

The best bet for third parties is to use the two major parties as their unofficial incubators - find someone who is successful and has views close enough to your platform and do everything you can to poach them.

Ehh, as someone who supported Gary Johnson in 2012 even I think this description of him is far too generous.  While he certainly didn't talk like excited crazed old man Ron Paul he was certainly dead weight in the charisma department.  He seems like the kind of guy who would do really well in converting people via coffee shop chats, but put him in front of a large audience and suddenly he seems awkward.  I wouldn't really say he wasn't "weird" more so that he was allowed to run his own campaign and thus seem a lot more sincere to Libertarian leaning voters who are oft off put by candidates in the past that just touted party line talking points (especially Harry Browne and Bob Barr (the latter's strategy came off as extremely insincere given the obvious facts of his career) come immediately to mind here) as had been the case in the past.

File this under the heading "bad charisma yet good campaigning".
11  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Jeffersonian strength in VT, Jacksonian strength in NH & ME on: April 19, 2015, 04:55:39 pm
When it comes to determining why the Democrats did so well in a few areas of the North one must really keep in mind more issues than slavery.  Especially in regards to a lot of the demographics, especially groups like the Dutch, the Germans, and the Irish all who had cultures that many of the Puritanical Anglo New Englanders found to be profoundly immoral and enabling of vice.  Research the history of the Temperance Movement as well as social conservatism on Wikipedia and be shocked to learn that many of the advocates of such things tended to identify as Whigs when there was not a strong third party alternative like the Anti-Masons or the Know Nothings around.  Hell, you go back to the Alien and Seditions Act and you will find Federalist New Englanders warning of a vicious Fenian tide overflowing the shores of America if the Alien and Seditions Acts were not passed. (yes I know I have made this observation dozens of times, but it is very relevant to the voting patterns in these states)

You also have to keep in mind that places like New York and parts of Connecticut were originally settled by the Dutch, whose influences on the governance of the colony of New York (defense of religious freedom was one of the concessions the conquering British made in that area) ran counter to the supremacist nature of Puritan society.  Namely, strong support for civil liberties such as free speech and freedom of religion.  Arguably, one of the original influences on "social liberalism" in this country at least in regards to defending political rights and expression that would later carry over to even many of the middle-upper class protestants who might have been descendants of Mayflower settlers but be wary of the connection between Church and State.

Not to mention, you also had some latent anti-French racism still around from the time of Jefferson.  I would suspect that many Franco-Americans, particularly those from Canada, would resent the treatment they would get from the nationalistic Feds who used the ghost of an invasion by Frenchmen to justify their antagonistic agenda.  Vermont has always had a significant French/French Canadian population, so this would not surprise me if that was a factor during the time of Jefferson.  Not to mention, New Hampshire and Maine also had large numbers of "Scots-Irish" that settled in those areas to work on the mills and such.  Vermont had very few of "Irish" settle there post Democratic-Republican era.  Up to about the late 1830s very few people differentiated between the largely dissenter protestant "Scots-Irish" and the overwhelmingly Catholic "Irish".  It would only be when the latter increased greatly in number and became pariahs that people started differentiating the two, particularly many of the Scots-Irish who wanted to avoid the discrimination that came from being regular "Irish".  But before that though they generally shared both the same ethnicity and were generally hostile to the "native" Anglo-Protestants for obvious reasons.

You also got to keep in mind that Lower New England had some very strict voting restriction laws for the time:



These taxpaying and property holding qualifications disqualified a very large number of people from voting.  Given the economic nature of these restrictions, it is very obvious as to who they disadvantaged.

TO the surprise of many people, even I won't use that aspect to blanketly label the Whig Party as "anti-immigrant", especially given that some members (like a young Abraham Lincoln) actually condemned nativism when they saw how morally inconsistent it was with being supportive of abolitionism (though I should note again that many abolitionists were anti-immigrant, especially against the Irish, precisely because of their strict moral views).  Really, I would go more along the lines of Shua's point that generally the Whigs fell more on the old school economic nationalist wing of the spectrum that happened to share an interest in defeating the "slave power" with many of the abolitionist of the North.

But in regards to the observation about Democratic performances in the North: influenced largely by reactions to the moralistic governance of Yankee conservatism with a heavy helping of immigration patterns.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1940: Garner vs. Willkie on: April 19, 2015, 03:58:59 pm
This would have been close.  Both candidates are promising to reform the New Deal while keeping popular programs like Social Security.  A Southern Democrat/Irish Catholic helps the Republicans in much of the North. WI and MN are narrowly retained by Garner thanks to his less interventionist foreign policy. Norman Thomas has a decent third party showing.



Garner/Farley        49.5%   284
Willkie/McNary      48.9%    247
Thomas/Kreuger     1.1%

How the shell does Farley being Irish Catholic damage the party in the North?  Have you forgotten that much of the support the New Deal got was from urban Irish Catholic bosses who capitalized on support for the New Deal to build up the future Democratic bases in those states (contrary to popular myth, by the 1930s FDR was not anti-machine, especially in regard to Chicago)?  If anything Farley helps the Democrats maintain many of their new voters from the 1930s due to his reputation as one of the masterminds of the Coalition.

He wasn't exactly in sympatico with Garner.
13  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: April 2015 At-large Senate Election on: April 19, 2015, 08:23:55 am
Cris
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Past Election What-ifs (US) / Re: 1940: Garner vs. Willkie on: April 18, 2015, 08:22:43 am
No idea. Ideological crossover on both sides looks easy, and Willkie is a political noob. My guess is the Dems can win by demonizing the Pubs on economic issues among jittery Northerners. Willkie had no idea what he was doing and had hardly any professionals on his team. So I'd say a Garner victory, but a Pub House since LBJ won't be at the DCCC in this scenario.

Yeah, this pretty much.

Garner being the nominee is not going to end the New Deal coalition over night.  If anything I imagine the Democratic strategists, even many of the liberal ones, will simply pull out the Me-Too! Card on Willkie and imply that while Garner might be "conservative" he is still not a Republican.

\peoplewerehacks
15  Forum Community / Off-topic Board / Re: Opinion of cheerleaders on: April 18, 2015, 07:38:09 am
Did stereotypical bitchy hot girl cheerleaders ever really exist? I went to an all-boys high school so I wouldn't know but whenever I saw cheerleaders at athletic events many of them were not even that attractive and I also remember a few girls who I knew and later found out were cheerleaders but never would've guessed beforehand.

So, is the stereotypical cheerleader a myth, a thing of the past, or just something I missed out on?

Yeah I would file this one under "your mileage may vary."
16  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Voting Booth / Re: Southern Voting Booth - April 2015 Governor Election on: April 17, 2015, 07:41:19 am
None of the Above.
17  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: South Gubernatorial Debate Commentary Thread. on: April 17, 2015, 07:38:45 am
I must say this election has really convinced me not to vote for any of you.  I mean usually I don't vote anyway, but I never thought I'd see the day when the candidates themselves make the strongest arguments why this is in reality a zero sum game.

In short, fuck you I'm out!
18  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: New Register Thread on: April 16, 2015, 08:54:59 pm
Mechaman
Transcendental Democrats
Florida
19  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: South Gubernatorial Debate Commentary Thread. on: April 16, 2015, 08:32:25 pm
Griff,

yes there is a nefarious registration war going on in the South.  Yes the People are using strategic registration to disadvantage other parties.  And yes, this has been going on for years and years and years by practically everyone and their grandmother and everyone who every was is and or was be are hypocrites for pointing it out while being hes and bees for it just a few months ago when X was running in Y region against S opponent.

You aren't really breaking new ground here, despite what your flowy prose and your Alex Jones paranoia might think you are.

Signed,

Someone who no longer gives a shit and seriously go fuck yourself South for these dirty low down tricks.  Seriously, go suck a monkey's caca and shove it up your arses.
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Why Hillary is inevitable in the primary (Effortpost inside) on: April 16, 2015, 03:15:01 pm
At least on my end the problem was never that Clinton could win but merely that she is a horrible person who should never ever get close to the Oval Office ever again.  I believe that is what a lot of us "anti-Hillary hacks" believe.

So yes, good job IceSpear.  You successfully rebutted "myths" that very few of us have actually made.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New scandal alert: Clinton didn't tip at Chipotle! on: April 16, 2015, 11:17:27 am
No, if they aren't bringing me food to my table, refilling my drink, etc, I'm not tipping.

Yes.  Tip jars beg the question "Why is it my responsibility to make sure YOUR WORKERS make enough money?"

Anti-tip advocates (see the beginning of Resorvoir Dogs) generally follow that line of logic even at sit down restaurants where the law allows said businesses to pay their employees less than minimum wage.  Now sure, I do tip very well at these places (I am even nice enough to leave more than a few coins in the tip jars on occasion), but it says a lot about our society that customers are expected to provide the bulwark of an employees living rather than the person who should have the moral obligation to do so: The Employer.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: New scandal alert: Clinton didn't tip at Chipotle! on: April 16, 2015, 08:20:58 am
You have to tip at Chipotle?

Kind of reminds me of when someone at Sonic flipped a sh*t on me for not leaving a tip.  I mean really?  I mean I support a Guaranteed Wage and higher minimum wages and all, but not tipping at a fast food place is not exactly the crime of the century.

This is a non-story.

Now if she did not leave a tip at an Applebees and then flipped out at the waitstaff for something the cook screwed up, then yeah maybe it would be something getting upset over.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Describe a Lincoln 1860, McClellan 1864 Voter on: April 15, 2015, 01:09:26 pm
A Northern Democrat (most were anti-slavery, let us remember ... it's the Buchanans who get remembered, though) who wasn't convinced Douglas was "pro-Union" enough but also just ... well, wasn't a Republican.  He came back to the fold in 1864.

I am not sure I would say "most" here.  A lot of the Copperhead sympathy was largely among people who found the notion of waging a war with the goal of black equality ridiculous in the extreme (remember, this is the 19th century).  Regardless if that www as Lincoln's real intent that is one of the big reasons a lot of people voted Democratic at the time.  It might be accurate to say that a lot of them were somewhat sympathetic to anti-slavery ideas, but thought that forcing the end of slavery through warfare was ludicrous.

And then of course you have to consider the large number of lower class immigrants who feared job competition with free blacks, though given the nativism of many who ended up joining the GOP I doubt very many of them would be sympathetic to Lincoln (though the man himself condemned the Know Nothings at the height of their influence).
24  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If Hillary Clinton ran against the previous poster, who would you vote for? on: April 15, 2015, 12:45:53 am
Snowguy obviously.  Unless Clinton offers me a basket of Popeye's chicken, in which case I would agree to support Hillary but when no one is looking I would vote for Snowguy.

So I guess Snowguy either way?
25  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: If Hillary Clinton loses the Democratic primary... on: April 14, 2015, 02:31:08 pm
IceSpear=confirmed balls.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 551


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines