Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 01, 2014, 09:27:52 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Christie condemns NRA ad that invoked President's children on: January 17, 2013, 11:30:09 pm
He may have learned from the experience of the Romney candidacy that "pretend to be severely conservative to win the nomination, then pretend to be blandly moderate to win the election" isn't actually such a smart strategy. If winning the nomination means winning over the "severely conservative," then Christie doesn't have a shot. He might as well play this game instead, and see if it gets any traction. If it doesn't, he can just go on being governor of New Jersey.
2  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Could a Hispanic version of Bloc Québécois develop? on: December 22, 2012, 10:33:57 am
Also, if hispanics wanted to be a part of Mexico, why did they move to the US?
I think this is the key point here. A "Hispanic BQ" would be as likely to develop in the US as the real BQ would have been to develop if the Francophone population of Quebec included a small number of original settlers, and a huge number of recent migrants from Haiti and North Africa.
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: South Carolina on: December 17, 2012, 10:21:51 pm
And the trend though slow is clear. If the current national alignment holds long enough, with Blacks having a higher birthrate than native Whites and northern White immigration to the Charleston area, South Carolina will become a swing state eventually.

Charleston county swung and trended against Obama.

Charleston County went from 61.9% White and 34.5% Black in the 2000 Census to 64.2% White and 29.8% Black in the 2010 Census.  The Black population of Charleston County actually went down from 107K to 104K.

True across the state, which went from 30% black to 27% black over the same period. Demographic changes will likely make SC more Republican over time.
4  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Kos: Cuomo is persona non grata in a Democratic primary on: December 05, 2012, 11:43:40 pm
Oh, give me a break. Whatever one or two "moderate" positions Cuomo has taken certainly backfired but the fact that it backfired to this extent is just absurd. The Cuomo's are left wing icons in this country. I'll never be fooled into thinking this guy is actually moderate.
I think this only adds to Cuomo's problems. He's going to have pretty limited crossover appeal to national Republicans, and liberal Democrats already hate him. The two groups don't have to agree on what they don't like about him for this to be a lethal combination.
5  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: 2016 GOP candidates and DADT on: December 05, 2012, 08:09:44 am
Another way of thinking of this:
What percentage of the GOP Iowa caucus electorate in 2016 will support the reinstatement of DADT? I'm guessing it'll still be a fair number, and they're going to want to have a candidate who speaks their language.
I'm guessing that candidate is not named Bush, Rubio or Christie.
6  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Opposing party: Who's nomination do you fear the most? on: December 04, 2012, 06:20:42 pm
In general, I think Jeb Bush is pretty easy to campaign against -- lots of people across the country don't really know who he is, and so the surname is toxic.
But if Hillary Clinton is the nominee, that surname strategy is kind of off the table.
I'd actually kind of dread an entire Clinton-Bush campaign, just on the basis that half the conversation would be about re-litigating every controversy that ever happened between 1988 and 2012. And, really, who wants that?
7  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays on: November 28, 2012, 11:04:53 pm
Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?
Oldies, what were the policies of the Southern Strategy that were meant to appeal to the racially progressive South? Was it opposition to busing? Relenting on implementing Brown v. board of Education?
The answer to both your questions is neither.  It wasn't like white racists suddenly had an about-face on civil rights.  It was meant to convince Southerners who already supported civil rights (many of whom had relocated from more "racially progressive" parts of the country) that Republicans were more in their best interest on those issues than the segregationists in the Democratic Party.  Nixon raised the civil rights enforcement budget by 800%, raised the percentage of desegregated Southern schools from 10% to 70%, and appointed more blacks to his administration than any of his predecessors, including Johnson.  In his first inaugural address, Nixon said the following:

Quote
We have given fredom new reach, and we have begun to make its promise real for black as well as white.

Quote
No man can be fully free while his neighbor is not.  To go forward at all is to go forward together.  This means black and white together, as one nation, not two.  The laws have caught up with our conscience.  What remains is to give life to what is in the law: to ensure at last that as all are born equal in dignity before God, all are born equal in dignity before man.

Source: http://www.britannica.com/presidents/article-9116945

First, does this sound like someone who wanted to pander to white racists?  And second, if the South was shifting toward Republicans because of race, it would seem that it would stop once Nixon began implementing the above civil rights policies, and certainly after racial issues had been taken off the table.  But not only did it not stop, it got stronger.  The South hasn't really been voting solidly Republican since 1972; remember that Carter carried almost the entire South in 1976.  And Nixon's strength in the South in 1972 was largely because McGovern was too liberal for America as a whole, but especially the South, on so many other issues (like Vietnam); after all, Nixon carried everything except Massachusetts and the District of Columbia.  It wasn't until 1980 that the South, at least the Deep South, started to become solidly GOP in presidential elections.  And that's not just me saying that; one of my PoliSci professors said the same thing.  And if you take a look at some of the maps on this site, you'll see that it's true.  Even in the 90s, Bill Clinton was making inroads in the South.  And the shift had started before the 60s, primarily in wealthy suburban areas as a response to the fiscal conservatism of most Republicans. 

Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Mills Godwin was a Virginia segregationist and member of the Byrd Machine who served as a Democratic Governor in the 1960s before switching parties under Nixon and being elected again.  And as for Lott,
Quote
Lott's success as a legislator was already evident in his undergraduate years at Ole Miss. Lott led the effort at the 1962 national convention of the Sigma Nu fraternity to defeat the Civil Rights era amendment proposed by the Stanford and Brown University chapters to end mandatory racial exclusion by the fraternity. Lott's side prevailed 215 to 76, and Stanford's chapter subsequently seceded from the fraternity.
Source: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,399310,00.html
From what I know about Trent Lott and read about Mills Godwin after you posted this, it doesn't seem like either one switched parties because of race, but rather for political expediency.  And considering that Time is one of the most liberal magazines in America, I really can't help but doubt the accuracy of that.
 
"Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend. Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history in the West are bourgeois Westerners, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Easterners look bad. Obviously Democratic Kampuchea had nothing to do with killing people. Did you even read the Pol Pot quote I posted? Or the articles from RevLeft?"
This is the kind of logic that makes you and your party lose any credibility. People who actually know their stuff (as opposed to some random lunatic of the internet) disagree with you? They must be biased lib'rulz!!!!
You guys complained about my sources having a right-wing bias, so why do you now complain when I point out the left-wing bias of public education?  And I am not just some random lunatic on the Internet.  I've researched this stuff, and although I will continue to do so, I don't see how your evidence proves your point in real life.  And of course the consensus can be wrong.  For example, if everyone, even those who "know their stuff" insist that 2+2=7, would you believe it simply because they said so?  Since 2+2=4, the consensus would clearly be wrong here.

Finally, before I finish this post, let me ask you this: what makes you think that Repulicans would go from voting over 80% in favor of civil rights in 1964 to pandering to bigots just four years later?

I don't necessarily want to change your mind (and I know I won't), but I want you to at least consider this.

Well, you might want to consider why the party that was eagerly courting liberal Southern whites was also eagerly courting Strom Thurmond, who switched parties to support Goldwater in 1964, and whom (according to Robert Novak, anyhow) Nixon was so eager to keep onside that he let Thurmond choose his veep for him:
http://patterico.com/2007/08/23/another-novak-anecdote-the-man-who-gave-us-nixon/

Surely if the "Southern Strategy" was about appealing to pro-civil rights Southerners, the first thing they would have done would have been to throw Thurmond under the bus.
8  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays on: November 28, 2012, 05:45:45 pm
Would people please stop misusing the word "revisionist" as if it were a pejorative?  Most of what history as a discipline is is revision of previous work about topics based on new archival research, discoveries, theories, etc.  It's one of my pet peeves, and watching both Republicans and Democrats here fervently denouncing "revisionism" is like nails on a chalkboard in how wrong an understanding of what history as a discipline is.

Sentiments shared absolutely (and absolutely predictably), but if there was ever a battle lost before it started...

I think that exclusively negative sense of "revisionist" really comes from Marxism, doesn't it?
9  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays on: November 27, 2012, 10:07:27 pm
The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?

Don't forget Trent Lott and Mills Godwin.
Who's Mills Goodwin?  And I don't think Trent Lott ever supported segregation.  The only evidence for that was his comment at Strom Thurmond's 100th birthday party, and even that was taken out of context.

Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
At first, it was kind of funny watching Republicans try and pretend there's any real connection between their party in 1860 and 2012 with regard to civil rights. Besides, civil rights weren't supported or opposed by a party so much as they were a region — a culture.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?
When was Jesse Helms a Democrat?  He was a Republican for his entire Senate career.  And even if all the people you cited switched to the GOP over civil rights, that still doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of them stayed with the Democratic Party for life.  You guys have given me four who swtiched, I know of at least eleven who didn't switch.
It wasn't until 1980 that the South started voting solidly GOP.  And blacks had been voting Democrat since the 1930s.  The theory that the Southern strategy was about pandering to racists ignores one VERY important detail: George Wallace's candidacy in 1968.  It would have made no sense for the GOP to campaign like that, since the same "conservative (for that time), anti-civil rights white Southern voters" that you talk about were solidly in Wallace's column.  Theodore White, who watched the 1968 campaign play out, even said so in his 1968 edition of The Making of the President.  Didn't you notice anything from the 1968 map on this site?  The Deep South went overwhelmingly for Wallace, and in three of the five Wallace states, Humphrey actually beat Nixon for second.  And in nearly every Southern state that Nixon did carry, Humphrey and Wallace's combined vote beat Nixon handily. Just go to the 1968 page on this site and check out the individual state totals.  The only Southern Nixon state where The combined Humphrey/Wallace vote was even close was Oklahoma, and even then it still beat Nixon's total. 
Quote
At first, it was kind of funny watching Republicans try and pretend there's any real connection between their party in 1860 and 2012 with regard to civil rights. Besides, civil rights weren't supported or opposed by a party so much as they were a region — a culture.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.

Revisionist history is hogwash anyway. If you ever look up anything about the Southern strategy, it had a lot to do with appealing to white southerners upset over desegregation, so it had a lot to do with racism.
Even the consensus can be wrong sometimes, my friend.  Don't forget that the overwhelming majority of people who write and teach history are liberal Democrats, so they will twist the history any way they can to make Republicans look bad.  
Yes, of course, Wallace in 1968. But your theory of the "Southern Strategy" seems to suggest either:
a) all those racist southern whites who'd been voting for racist Democrats for decades, and then for Wallace, suddenly saw the light on civil rights in 1972, and started voting for the party that they saw as the best protector of civil rights for blacks (even though blacks themselves clearly thought otherwise), or
b) the "Southern Strategy," qua appeal to pro-civil rights southern whites, somehow had the strange effect of winning over southern whites who opposed civil rights, too, but utterly failed at winning over southern blacks.
So, which is it?
10  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Looks like PA was the tipping point state on: November 27, 2012, 07:19:09 pm
It's worth noting that in 1996 Clinton got a smaller percentage of the vote in PA than in the country as a whole. There might be a recent R trend, but it's far from being clear.
Trends fluctuate, too. Ohio has trended in opposite directions in every election since 1996. Since by definition half the country has to trend D, and half trend R, at each election, it's tough to sort out which of those trends are meaningful, and which ones aren't.
11  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: WaPo: The GOP is no party for blacks, Latinos, and gays on: November 27, 2012, 04:34:18 pm
Evidence abounds aplenty that the racists have now all joined the GOP Smiley
No, it doesn't.  The only segregationist to join the GOP was Strom Thurmond.  Robert Byrd was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2010.  Fritz Hollings was serving in the Senate as a Democrat as recently as 2004.  John Stennis, George Wallace, Bull Connor, Lester Maddox, Orval Faubus, Sam Ervin, Al Gore Sr., Ross Barnett, Herman Talmadge, and all the rest remained Democrats for life.
Quote
At first, it was kind of funny watching Republicans try and pretend there's any real connection between their party in 1860 and 2012 with regard to civil rights. Besides, civil rights weren't supported or opposed by a party so much as they were a region — a culture.

Please provide evidence that the Republican party has ever supported:

1, slavery.
2, the KKK.

Evidence abounds aplenty for Democrats supporting both of these things. Smiley


Southern whites moved over to the Republican Party, ever read about the Nixon Southern strategy in school? I guess you weren't paying attention.

The Southern Strategy had nothing to do with racism, liebiral.

Read Oldiesfreak's landmark revisionist history posts on the matter if you don't believe me.
You're the ones accepting revisionist history.

The only segregationist to switch parties was Thurmond? How about Jesse Helms?
And do you really, honestly, believe that southern whites kept voting for Thurmond, and began voting for Helms, because they represented a party that had a greater commitment to civil rights? When both men explicitly said that they were becoming Republicans in opposition to Johnson's introduction of civil rights legislation? And that southern blacks suddenly started voting for the Democrats because they perceived the Republicans as having a stronger commitment to civil rights?
Say what you will about what you think the Southern Strategy was all about. But the evidence is clear that after 1968 black voters moved more heavily into the Democratic column, and conservative, anti-civil rights Southern white voters into the Republican column. In which case the Southern strategy was a bust, no?
12  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Could Ron Paul have won? on: November 26, 2012, 06:16:22 pm
Well, there were polls that showed that, against Obama, Paul did the best other than Romney. Plus he could've effectively used the people who were against Obamacare to the advantage after his nomination. But again, I see where all the people who think he would lose CONSIDERABLY would come from.
I think those polls showing Paul doing well against Obama reflected a general level of ignorance about exactly what Paul stood for. Anecdotally, I certainly know of some Ron Paul supporters whose enthusiasm dimmed considerably when they discovered he was pro-life.
And I think his economic policies would have been sufficiently outside the mainstream that a lot of establishment Republicans would have supported him reluctantly, if at all.
13  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2012 U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: How much of the racial voting differences are simply due to age and income? on: November 20, 2012, 09:56:05 am
You have it backwards. The age gap is because of race. Not vice versa.

Partially true although amongst whites 18-29 it was a lot closer than amongst older whites never mind I suspect Romney's huge majority amongst whites 18-29 in the South probably skewed the results somewhat too.  Lets remember in the New England states and Pacific Northwest or even Upper Midwest which are fairly white, Obama did much better amongst younger voters than older ones.  Off course this is not unique to the US.  In Europe, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand, parties on the left tend to do better amongst younger voters than older voters.  In the 2005 British election, the Conservatives came in third at under 20% amongst the under 30 crowd while won the over 50 crowd.  Likewise here in Canada, the NDP (left wing party) won the under 30 vote while the Conservatives got close to 50% amongst the over 65 crowd.  People tend to be more idealistic when young while get pragmatic and also more resistent to change as they get older.  Also the marriage gap may be a reason too since amongst married men vs. married women, there wasn't much difference, whereas amongst unmarried women; Obama did significantly better than unmarried men although he won both and those groups would be highest amongst the young and the old.

But if you flip the question around, black voters over 65 were actually slightly MORE likely to vote for Obama (91-6) than black voters under 30 (93-8). So being old per se doesn't make you more likely to vote Republican. Being old and white does. To some extent, being old and Hispanic does, in that Romney "only" lost Hispanics over 65 by 30 points, where he lost Hispanics under 30 by 50 points, but clearly even if the average Hispanic was as old as the average white person Obama would still have won Hispanics by a huge margin.
14  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Why Republicans Want Mitt Romney To Go Away on: November 19, 2012, 10:37:05 pm
"the 'electability' candidate who fails to get elected"

Kind of sums it all up.
15  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives on: November 19, 2012, 07:51:02 pm
Quote
So the NYT's liberal bent now equates its reliabilty to the Nazi Ministry of Information......

Look below you, kenobi, and I'm sure you'll see a shark you're flying over.

Actual quotation from my textbook on 'assessing historical reliability'.

Does that same textbook advocate reading only sources that are from twenty years prior to the events in question, then arbitrarily multiplying their numbers by ten?
You do realize that your methodology here is:
1. Make a claim about the present.
2. Find an article from the New York Times from twenty years ago that does not support your claim, even if that claim were being made about twenty years ago.
3. Say that the New York Times has a liberal bias, so that their refutation of your claim actually constitutes support for your claim.

Using this methodology, it's child's play to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. After all, there are tons of articles from the New York Times in 1994 which don't say that the moon is made of green cheese, and everybody knows that the liberal media is in bed with junk liberal science. So clearly, it follows that the moon is made of green cheese.
16  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives on: November 19, 2012, 11:44:12 am
Quote
They also said (in 1994, the year of that article) that Bill Clinton was President. Given that we know that Barack Obama is in fact President now, do you believe the NYT to have been lying in 1994?

The NYT is generally in opposition to welfare reform. If it is so bad as to deserve mention in the Times, then it must be absolutely terrible. Generally when a source is biased the other way, you can expect that source to be reliable on this issue.
Go back and read your article. It says that in 1991 federal administrative costs for Medicaid, food stamps and AFDC combined were $4.9 billion, while total federal expenditures on these three programs were $79 billion. That adds up to administrative costs of about 6.2%.
Maybe you misplaced a decimal point during your time travel?

17  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Please explain the 1st debate "bounce" to me on: November 18, 2012, 10:50:36 pm
Was it really a bounce? Or just two pollsters who were proven to be extremely wrong in the cycle - Rasmussen and Gallup - having some extreme volatility in their tracking polls?

If there was a bounce, what explains those voters going from Romney to Obama at the end? Or was the "bounce" just the case of some soft independents (read: Republicans) supporting Romney after previous declaring themselves undecided?

I am wondering if this 1st debate "bounce" was just a media narrative to make this a horse race. Convince me otherwise.

Actually, I think Rasmussen was one of the pollsters who didn't see much of a first-debate bounce. I seem to recall an article by Scott Rasmussen on their website to that effect at the time. And given that his polls are weighted by party ID, it's not surprising that a debate "bounce" of greater enthusiasm among Republicans didn't show up in his numbers.
OTOH, Pew showed an enormous debate bounce...
18  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives on: November 16, 2012, 07:06:45 pm
Quote
So you'd rather cite a newspaper article from two decades ago than the actual statistics on administrative costs for a major government welfare program (TANF) that I've provided above?

Given that the NYT is a hostile witness, yes. Or are you calling the Times a liar?
They also said (in 1994, the year of that article) that Bill Clinton was President. Given that we know that Barack Obama is in fact President now, do you believe the NYT to have been lying in 1994?
19  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives on: November 16, 2012, 04:06:21 pm
Quote
One 1994 NYT article written before the aggressive government efficiency measures implimented by the Clinton Administration, and your increasingly outlandish soundinng claim of welfare programs having a 2/3 overhead rate remains wholly unsubstantiated.

One, it's the NYT.

Two, if you believe that the administration suddenly stopped being 'bloated' after the age of Clinton, I have a bridge to sell you.

So you'd rather cite a newspaper article from two decades ago than the actual statistics on administrative costs for a major government welfare program (TANF) that I've provided above?
20  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives on: November 16, 2012, 12:57:02 am
Quote
Link? That sure would be an incredible stat considering the overhead figures for soc sec and medicare (which, in fact, is social welfare by most reasonable definitions).

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.

You're basing your argument on an article from almost NINETEEN YEARS AGO?!

Google is your friend here. For example, administrative costs equal about 6.3% of the money spent on TANF:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2011_tanf_data_with_states.pdf

And, for comparison, the American Cancer Society spends about 9% on administration, and another 11% on fundraising:

http://www.bbb.org/charity-reviews/national/cancer/american-cancer-society-in-atlanta-ga-186/financial
21  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Smart, Rich Conservatives versus Poor, Dumb Conservatives on: November 16, 2012, 12:54:06 am
Quote
Link? That sure would be an incredible stat considering the overhead figures for soc sec and medicare (which, in fact, is social welfare by most reasonable definitions).

The programs are all very different from each other, conflating them muddies the waters.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/03/us/growth-in-welfare-cost-outpaces-number-on-rolls.html

The primary cause, they say, is a complex and bloated bureaucracy.

You're basing your argument on an article from almost NINETEEN YEARS AGO?!

Google is your friend here. For example, administrative costs equal about 6.3% of the money spent on TANF:

http://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/ofa/2011_tanf_data_with_states.pdf
22  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Mitt Romney is a sore loser, still a firm believer in his 47% comments on: November 14, 2012, 11:48:01 pm
What gifts exactly?

Read what he says.

Young people get to stay on health-care until 26 years old. Hispanics get comprehensive immigration reform, aka amnesty. College women get free birth-control. Both Blacks and Hispanics are attracted to Obama-Care because it brings them closer to free health-care.

I have no problem with what Romney says. In fact, I agree with him. Many will criticize Romney to sound politically correct, but he tells the truth here.

Young people under 26 are allowed to stay on the policy their parents PAY for. If anything, it's a gift to the insurance companies.

College women get birth control as part of a poilcy they pay for directly or absorbed by tuition. It's not medicaid.

Your examples are regulating policies being paid for privately (including employer). They're not free.
Also, you know, aren't these basically pretty similar to the "gifts" Romney gave to the good black, Hispanic and young citizens of Massachusetts whilst he was governor there?
Even after defeat, Romney is still running against himself.
23  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Republican Reformation - The Minority-Majority Approaches on: November 14, 2012, 01:22:02 pm
I find this code word business to be politicly correct nonesense, but people for some reason beleive that and perception becomes reality.

You may find it to be "nonsense", but people who can speak with credibility on racial issues (especially non-whites) certainly don't.

The problem with that is simple, it is presumptuous of peoples motives in an insulting fashion. When you start shutting down legimate debate because you wrongly misindentify their motives, you are silencing people in the political process.

The reality is that there's no such thing as neutral, impartial language in which ideas can be conveyed transparently and received by all audiences in the same way. Especially not in political discourse. So it's always a question of who you're appealing to. Republicans have chosen to use language that appeals to some kinds of voters more than to others. Democrats have done the same. If Republicans want to win over groups that they've had trouble with, they might need to re-frame their ideas for those groups.

Nothing strange about that. The only thing that would be strange would be if Republicans were so attached to the language in which their ideas are framed, that they'd rather re-litigate the question of whether or not that language is racist/sexist/whatever than adapt the language in order to win elections.
24  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Liberal vs Conservative Media Bubbles on: November 12, 2012, 05:52:40 pm
In fairness, we were all more delusional about 2004, I think. I certainly was, and I'm sure lots of Dems on here were, too. Sam Wang told me that the undecideds would break for Kerry, and so I treated polls that showed Bush ahead 48-46 as good news for Kerry.
I'd say I learned a couple of lessons that year, though:
1) the candidate who's leading in all the polls is almost certainly going to be the candidate who will win, and
2) the passion and enthusiasm of my side is only half the story; the passion and enthusiasm of the other side counts for a lot, too, and I need to look for objective evidence on that front, rather than assuming that "they" couldn't possibly still support "that guy."
25  Election Archive / 2012 Elections / Re: Romney 2012: The Last Great White Campaign on: November 12, 2012, 10:42:20 am
Quote
Why don't they vote Republican? It's because they are nativists! The modern day Know-nothing party!

Cruz says hello.

Did Cruz actually win a majority of Hispanics?

According to Latino Decisions, Obama won TX Hispanics 70-29; Sadler (I admit I had to look him up) won TX Hispanics in the Senate race 65-35.

That sounds like a reasonable estimate of the kind of boost the Republicans can expect to get from a candidate who is Latino, but holds views strongly opposed to those of most Latinos.


http://www.latinodecisions.com/files/3313/5241/7896/TX.2012.pdf
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 35


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines