Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
September 25, 2016, 03:54:00 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 284
1  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Was the election of 1968 more modern than the election of 1988? on: Today at 02:23:13 pm
If you ignore Wallace and observe only the geographic distribution of the vote for Humphrey, you can see that the map of 1968 is more look alike the 21th century maps than the map of 1988 looks.
Humphrey won the Northeast. He had >60% in Massachusetts and Rhode Island, he won Maine, Connecticut and Pennsylvania. Humphrey's vote in the South, outside Texas and West Virginia, was very scarce.
In 1988, Bush had a national relatively uniform victory. Dukakis and Bush had a tie in the Northeast. Even in his home state, Dukakis did not have a huge margin. Bush won 4 states in New England. Dukakis had good result in many counties in Appalachia. West Virginia was more distant to the national result in 1988 than it was in 1968.

The map of 1968 looks like the maps of the cultural split of the 21th century elections. The map of 1988 still looks like a map of class split.


It was an interesting election. Nixon beat Humphrey in the popular vote by just 0.7% but won 301 electoral votes compared to Humphrey's 191. And despite the close national popular vote margin, not a single state was decided by a margin of less than 1%.

Nixon would likely have won an Obama 08 style victory if George Wallace didn't  run



No.

States George Wallace carried were usually in the column for Democrats back then: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi.

A prevailing Republican didnít get all eleven states of the Old Confederacy to carry above the national margin until George Bush in 1988.

Goldwater got those states and by 68 they had switched to the GOP , Carter was the exception

That's easy to say now (#Textb00k), but the South was viewed as a battleground region from the 1960s until the 2000s; the upper and peripheral Southern states were considered battlegrounds before then.  It's strange how people forget that.

The CRA cut the stranglehold Democrats had on Southern politics, but Republicans still had to win over multiple generations of Southerners to flip the region (and, more importantly, wait for multiple generations to die off).

People overlook the fact that realignments are about cohorts. The number of everyday voters in the South who actually said, after 1964, "I'm not a Democrat anymore. From now on I'm always voting Republican," is very small. But the percentage of first-time voters in 1964 who voted Republican was higher than the percentage in 1960, and it got higher over time. Same story with the gradual decline of Republicans in the Northeast. "Rockefeller Republicans" kept voting Republican, but their children and grandchildren did not.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Priebus plans punishment in 2020/24 for people who didn't endorse Trump on: Today at 01:19:27 am
I would ask the Democrats here just how they would have felt if in 1976 the Democrats nominated a Democrat who, explicitly, refused to endorse George McGovern in 1972.  (Jimmy Carter was, certainly, a guy who tried to stop McGovern and didn't campaign for him, but he DID endorse him to the point of saying he would vote for him.)  Would they have been OK with, say, former Sen. William Spong (D-VA), a moderate who, nonetheless, never even said that he'd vote for McGovern?  Would they have been OK with Gov. Mike O'Callaghan (D-NV) who refused to endorse McGovern? 

There have, over the years, been lots of Democrats who were LOCAL Democrats, but not NATIONAL Democrats.  Most, but not all, were from the South and Border states.  Is it OK for a political party's national chair to reward folks who bolt the ticket?  How does that play with folks who are loyal, despite some distaste for the nominee?

The distaste for Trump from many Republicans is all issue-based.  They are globalist-interventionists, and Trump represents a departure from both, as well as a hostile takeover of the GOP's Presidential nominating apparatus.  It has nothing to do with "temperament", or any of that crap; that's just an excuse, albeit one Trump has sometimes provided.  It's no different than Democrats for Nixon, or those Democrats who wouldn't endorse Mondale. 

And I'll say this:  History has never shown good things happening for party bolters.  Ever.  Show me one bolter who went on to prominence in his own party.  The ones that did almost always had to switch.

McGovern was, on a basic, objective level, qualified to be POTUS.

Trump is objectively not qualified to be POTUS.

There is no equivalency between Trump and any past presidential candidate from either party.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: 2020: Clinton/Kaine vs. Palin/Cruz on: Today at 01:17:12 am
Cruz would never agree to be on a ticket with her.
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Which Bush was dumber? on: Today at 12:52:08 am
Jeb!'s presidential campaign was a prolonged experiment in public humiliation, yes, but it's pretty clear that he didn't want to do it.
5  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Jason Kander: Badass? on: September 24, 2016, 11:27:54 pm
Quote
Just learned Kander is Jewish lol. Along with Greitens in the Gov race, Kander is a military vet. Apparently, Missouri is the place to go to find Jewish War vets who also happen to be attractive.

Kander sounds like a Jewish last name since it almost sounds like 'Cantor'.

That's true. never thought of it that way.

It seems like being Jewish is a major handicap in the political world. Historically, there haven't been very many Jewish senators and governors despite several candidates running for those offices.
Interesting how the Jewish candidates for Governor and Senator, while of different parties, are both the underdogs in their respective races. Also never gave thought to the similarities of the names 'Kander' and 'Cantor' at all.

And that one MO GOP politician committed suicide allegedly because his opponents were starting smear campaigns accusing him of being Jewish.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Ted Cruz to announce who he's voting for, likely Trump on: September 24, 2016, 07:11:07 pm
Really great news!  I commend Cruz for getting over their personal differences.  I probably agree with him much more than I agree with Trump on policy, but Trump's our nominee, and he is so much better than Crooked Hillary.  We need all Republicans to reunite to make sure Hillary Clinton never becomes President of the United States.
"Personal differences"? Dude, seeing someone co-opt your political movement and remold it in their image goes far beyond "personal differences". As much as I hate the Tea Party, I honestly don't think that Cruz meant for it to become so blatantly white supremacist, and seeing Trump push it in this direction has probably, in his mind, relegated it even farther to the fringe than it had been before. This isn't a matter of "personal differences"- this is a matter of Trump taking advantage of all of the work that the Tea Party had done (as deplorable as that work was), and I think that Cruz legitimately hates him for that.
I don't feel sorry for them anymore. Jenny Beth Martin (founder of the original Tea Party group, Tea Party Patriots) also recently endorsed Trump. They might as well be fully on board with the white supremacist crap now. Martin and Cruz (and 95% of the people who were originally on board with the Tea Party when it was created as a group concerned about shrinking the size and scope of government) have totally abandoned their principles. Nobody forced them to do that.

This year has proven that the Tea Party was never about small government. It was always just angry white people who hate people who aren't like them.
7  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: AK: Begich may run as a write-in candidate on: September 23, 2016, 11:14:46 pm
Why can't he try to get rid of Don Young instead? Someone's got to do it eventually (even if it's the Grim Reaper).
8  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Jason Kander: Badass? on: September 23, 2016, 11:08:06 pm
If Kander wins, Missouri will have two very liberal Senators representing them, despite it being a quite conservative state.

Nixon's so conservative that he's lost multiple elections because African Americans would either vote blank ballots or outright vote for the Republican (I think Kit Bond won like 20% of the African American vote against Nixon when they ran against one another).

Did he?  That's incredible.

Bond winning 20%? Yeah. African Americans are pretty elastic in the Mideast(MN, IA, WI, MI, IL, IN, OH, and MO). Kasich something like a third of the African American vote in 2014.

Bond was also a relatively moderate Republican who wouldn't horrify black voters the way typical red state Republicans do these days.
9  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: 15 year olds dude. on: September 22, 2016, 07:49:00 pm
This guy is sick.

Hopefully Huma gets a restraining order and never lets him near their child.
10  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: GOP Rushing to Defend Blunt on: September 22, 2016, 07:47:32 pm
I never understood why Blunt was able to skate through his 2010 primary without any serious opposition. You had establishment Republicans getting primaried left and right (well, mostly right) in other states, and Roy Blunt is basically a generic pork-loving party apparatchik with no charisma or ideology.
11  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Tulsa Police Shooting on: September 21, 2016, 07:48:48 pm
Like most of these, I don't know if he should have been killed, but I know what he could have done to make him alive today....and so do most of you.  Again, not saying he should have been killed just that if he had listened to and done what the cops instructed him to do he would not have been shot.

Disobeying a police officer can be a misdemeanor or a felony, but it cannot be a capital crime where the officer is the judge, jury and executioner.

An officer should be required, before firing their gun at someone, to deduce their life is in immediate danger. If the person they killed turns out not to have had a deadly weapon on their person, the officer should at the very least be charged with manslaughter.
12  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Breaking: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary on: September 20, 2016, 09:07:44 pm
If Trump really is an aberration, why won't McConnell/Ryan/et al unequivocally rebuke him and distance themselves from him? The only thing worse than losing the election would be winning with Trump because then it really will be the Trumpist Party.

Not to get personal but does Paul Ryan really want to have to explain to his children why he supported someone like Donald Trump when they're old enough to ask those kinds of questions?
13  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: DoJ:If Disabled People Can't Use Berkeley's Free Online Courses, No One Can on: September 20, 2016, 07:35:05 pm
It just seems odd that something 'free' would fall under that category, but I'm obviously not a legal expert. It's an odd limitation on a public benefit.

That was my first thought as well.

An art museum that is open to the public free of charge still must have wheelchair ramps.
14  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Breaking: George H.W. Bush to vote for Hillary on: September 20, 2016, 12:22:14 am
Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

I can only speak for myself, but I'd like to see a Kasich-type Republican who isn't as hawkish as the rest of the Republican party nominated in 2020. Even a populist Republican would be great unless they run a "Whites only" campaign.

That candidate wouldn't be my first choice, but I would definitely still back him in the general. (Referring to your first sentence; "populist Republican" refers to a style of rhetoric/campaigning and I judge candidates by ideology and governing/legislative record, so it could be anything from someone fantastic to someone worse than Trump).

Republicans who think that "Trumpism" will just go away after Trump loses and that the Republicans will nominate another Bush-type Republican in 2020 are deluding themselves.

I don't think Trumpism is just going to go away (and definitely not by 2020), but at the same time you've got to recognize that it's a minority of the party (disliked by the majority, incidentally), one that will not find it easy to coalesce around one candidate in the absence of Trump, and one which has a massive demographic problem in that it gets support mostly from older voters in high-mortality areas.

I don't know what is meant by "Bush-type" (I don't think a hawkish FP-oriented candidate, like Lindsey Graham, has much of a chance in the modern Republican Party, but none of the serious prospective 2020 candidates really fits that description; Cotton is the closest but he's clearly intending to compete for Trump-successor), but I think a Trumpist would need even better luck than Trump had in 2016 to win in 2020, and that after that unless they manage to actually elect a President the prospects become very grim.

This would all be true if he loses by 12, but if he loses by 2, as now looks far more likely, this isn't over.  Trump will either anoint someone or run again himself in 2020.  Assuming it's Trump, Cruz and an establishment favorite like Rubio or Ryan, that's a perfect recipe for an even 3 way split of the party and 1924 Democrats style chaos at the 2020 GOP convention.

The gist of my post was that this isn't over even if he does lose by 12, but there are serious structural issues a Trump '20 candidacy, or a different future Trumpist candidate, would have to face.

I don't think the 60% of the party that opposed him in 2016 would magically become more favorable to him after he lost to a Democratic candidate with sub-40% approval ratings. In fact, I don't think his own backers would see him particularly positively after such an event. Even if it's narrower than 2%.

The wing that backed him would still be greater than 1/3 of the party in 2016, and a candidate who could unify them would be a force; but someone who could unify the forces against them (something Rubio came much closer to doing in 2016 than people remember) would crush them everywhere except New England and maybe a few inner Deep South states.

I think the fact that the Republican base (i.e. everyone except the super-wealthy donors and the consulting/journalist class who collectively number in the tens of thousands) is more or less okay with voting for Trump should be concerning.

The "true conservative" Evan McMullin candidacy has proven to be a complete joke, and the Libertarian ticket that consists of two Republican governors is apparently taking more votes away from Clinton than it is from Trump.

A significant portion of the Democrats have reservations about voting for Hillary, as recent polls indicate, but Republicans seem to have no qualms about voting for Trump. (His ceiling is inherently lower but his floor has held up much more strongly than hers.)

Bloggers at National Review and RedState may be saying, "This isn't what the Republican Party is!" but they can't outvote the rank-and-file voters. And if the rank-and-file voters don't decide what their party is, then what is the point?
15  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: NE: Ricketts to be Primariedi 2018? on: September 19, 2016, 12:27:00 am
Despite the State's obvious political leaning, I think that there is an outside chance that the Democrats could compete here provided that they nominate a strong candidate and Ricketts wins the GOP primary.

That would be very interesting if only because a Dem governor of NE would likely mean a court-drawn NE-02 after 2020 and continued EV by CD splitting for the 2020's.

If Nebraska splits its EVs again, I can see the de facto Republican legislature just getting rid of apportionment altogether.
16  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Why is Florida a purple state and not a blue one? on: September 18, 2016, 06:56:40 pm
For a number of reasons I think:

1. Cubans have been a Republican constituency in FL for a long time, and it is only now beginning to change as a new, more Democratic generation of Cubans replaces them

2. Republicans on average have over a 20 point lead among white voters, and while not nearly as large as some other Southern states, it's large enough. Republicans made a +5 point gain among white voters between 2008->2012, and arguably their best showing among whites in a generation or more.

3. The primary driver behind Republican success right now in FL is older white/Cuban voters, and Florida has a lot of them. Right now it is the most elderly state in the country, and that, in combination with migration trends of old people => FL, has help Republicans offset demographic changes and their inevitable political ramifications.

4. African Americans punch below their weight here as FL's permanent felony disenfranchisement policy has led to something like 24% of the adult African Americans being unable to vote. They comprised 13% of the electorate in 2012 despite being 16.7% of the state's population. This is out of whack compared to other states with lax felony disenfranchisement policy, where blacks actually tended to match or exceed their share of the population in terms of voting.


However, there is, in my opinion, every reason to believe that the bottom is going to fall out for Republicans in the coming decade(s):

1. The new(er) generations of voters in FL are heavily diverse and heavily Democratic, and the ones that follow will be just as diverse:



2. Puerto Ricans fleeing the island are speeding up demographic political trends in FL

3. Younger Cubans are not staunch Republicans like their elders, and Cubans in general are shrinking as a size of the state's Hispanic population

4. There is a push to end permanent felony disenfranchisement in the state and may result in a ballot initiative in 2018, of which could substantially help African American voting power here.

5. College+ educated voters in FL are not only growing as a part of the electorate, but Democrats have been performing better and better with them for a while now, and they tend to be more reliable than less educated parts of the population. This is in line with national trends, and may have something to do with the growth of Millennials as a part of the electorate.

Honorable Mention: The fact that the state Democratic Party is a complete and total disaster and has been since Lawton Chiles died.
17  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Obama cripples AIPAC on: September 18, 2016, 06:55:37 pm
the actual violators of human rights

aka countries like Israel.

You want an award for being an intellectually dishonest, Edgelord? Because you won't get one from me.

If you legitimately believe that Israel is more of a human rights problem than Russia, Iran or Saudi Arabia, then you, like many on the left, are hypocrites.

I'm sure, also like many leftists, you naively believe the U.S., U.K. and others are also human rights abusers. Which, again, proves Jeane Kirkpatrick's point, but the main difference is that I somehow doubt any other country gets the same level attention on these supposed "human rights" issues from far-left people like Israel does.



At least you're willing to admit that they are a human rights problem.
18  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Minnesota stabbing attack on: September 18, 2016, 06:51:27 pm
Somalis in Minnesota tend to be quite radical.  Assimilation in Minny - total failure.

It's kind of fitting that Muslims in Minnesota seem to assimilate about as well as Muslims in Scandinavia do.
19  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Gary Johnson "grateful no one was hurt" in bombing attack that injured 30 on: September 18, 2016, 06:48:27 pm
Malice (R) vs. Greed (D) vs. Active Stupidity (L) vs. Passive Stupidity (G)
20  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Is Weld going to drop out to save Hillary? on: September 18, 2016, 06:47:12 pm
Bernstein created the buzz, and Restate delivered the buzz. Never a dull moment! Smiley

Wouldn't Johnson have to drop out instead of Weld? Johnson would just choose another VP

Yes, but it would effectively be taking a hatchet to the Libertarian campaign. Having his running mate drop out would make Johnson look ridiculous, and Weld is the one who has been raising money for them to date, so all of that would stop.
21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: The tie that saved Rome. Do Western nations need a State Religion? on: September 17, 2016, 04:21:13 pm
The insistence on having a state religion is part of the reason Christianity is so irrelevant in Europe these days.
22  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Trump hates health, likes salmonella on: September 16, 2016, 12:12:52 am
Unfortunately this will resonate with his base.  "Stop big business regulations on our food industry! Down with the FDA!"

The sort of food his base eats probably couldn't get much worse even if the FDA were left out of the equation.
23  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Rose Mofford, first woman to serve as Arizona governor, has died on: September 15, 2016, 07:37:11 pm
What's really scary is that if her predecessor, Evan Mecham, had been elected in 2010 or 2014 rather than 1986, his despicable actions in office would most likely not lead to him resigning under threat of impeachment. Instead, he would just be a typical Tea Party Republican.
24  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The country is falling apart on: September 14, 2016, 09:33:53 pm

I blame everything on the Millennials, social media, and the Internet.

Both of these candidates are disliked by Millennials more than they are by anyone else.
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: The country is falling apart on: September 14, 2016, 09:16:36 pm
One of the major party candidates for president released an official statement freaking out over a cartoon frog Internet meme.

And she's the normal/sane one in the race.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 284


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines