Cthulu, he would set things right in this county. ;-)

People have thrown around Sanders' name, but once the general public gets to know his actual political stances, he'll scare them as much as Elizabeth Warren does. What I am seeing is Sanders possibly lobbing a kamikaze run to force Hillary leftward during the primary. Let's assume no prior baggage from the email scandal. Well, if she secures the Democratic nomination, the Republican that secures their nomination can take any statements she made both before and after her leftward turn and paint her as a flip-flopper (as happened with Kerry in 2004).

The problem I see with Hillary is she seems to think you can fix a problem with a focus group and by throwing enough money at it. As we saw in 2008, that doesn't work. Also, her problems are piling up, as we see. The smartest thing any Republican presidential hopeful can do now is keep their mouth shut and allow her to self-destruct.

At 3/5/15 11:40 AM, TheMason wrote: The point is Hillary is about as exciting as Mitt Romney was and comes across as stiff and stale (like Al Gore). She's just not that exciting of a candidate. Add to it her stumble out the gate about 'being broke and worrying about making multiple house payments' is not going to resonate with lower class voters of any race/gender/etc.

For now it's too early to judge if Hilary is a boring candidate or not because she has not announced her candidacy. So at this point it's all merely hearsay.

First things first: the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was NOT a Democratic victory. LBJ had to ally himself with the GOP...because the Dems were firmly against it.

SOUTHERN Democrats were against it, the Democrats in general were for it.

Having a Right-leaning SCOTUS strike down part of the VRA actually played into the Democrat's narrative of GOP minority oppression. SO...a Democratically controlled Senate blocked Republican House efforts to expand voting rights.

This is my point, I'm not saying that there aren't any serious problems with the Voting Rights Act or even the Civil Rights Act for that matter, but even touching it that will doom any serious chance at courting the African vote.

Yes and no. There are Latinos who are against immigration because they have waited in line to get their citizenship and see amnesty as 'line-jumping'.

Where Republicans could (and have) softened their stance is to look into agricultural visas that will allow seasonal immigration.

Again this is only one issue they have qualms about, it isn't like Africans where there is a whole list of issues that the African American community disagree's with the GOP about.

1) While undoubtedly were members of the GOP who thought eugenics were real...it was a largely progressive Democratic policy. Woodrow Wilson signed into law a sterilization law, and many of the Southern states (which were not electing Republicans at this time) adopted similar harsh measures against minorities. In fact, Nazi Germany pointed to American eugenics as proof they were on the right track. Support of eugenics however, was more of a progressive movement than strictly D or R...but still considering how many D's were progressive compared to Rs...

All I could find was that 1) there's very little documentation on Wilson's involvement with Eugenics and 2) it's referencing a State Law he passed which would set up a department to sterilize the unwanted people....which was struck down by the New Jersey Supreme Court 2 years later.

The first law by the way was in Indiana, which was clearly not a Democratic state and the movement itself had broad public support across party lines. So no it wasn't a particularly Democratic or Republican ideal.

2) IN NO WAY WAS THE KKK AS MUCH DEMOCRAT AS IT WAS REPUBLICAN. Until the 1960s the KKK was the terrorist wing of the Democratic party in the deep South and ensured that Republicans could not get a foothold...

More like the other way around. There were many Democratic politicians which opposed the KKK upon its rise and paid the price by losing re-election. The KKK coerced local politicians onto their side, they weren't part of the party itself. Now the KKK of the 60's is not the same organization from the 20's, whose rise to prominence (its largest concentration was always in the Midwest, a traditionally Red area, especially Indiana which as the largest in the 20's). After the KKK's decline in the late 20's they were finally ended by their support for the Nazi's. The one in the 60's was formed in response to Civil Rights Protests.

largely because the Republicans were the ones pushing Civil Rights Acts ever since the 1870s. Yes there were a FEW Republican KKK members...but if you look they started out as Democrats and only switched to Republican only out of political expediency (Including D.C. Stephenson the Governor in your example).

D.C. Stephenson was the Grand Dragon of the KKK in Indiana not the actual governor. The Governor was always a Republican and a Klan member.

As for Civil Rights Legislation, the GOP never really pushed anything after Reconstruction. It wasn't until the 1950's that it became a real issue again (in the sense that it had serious public momentum to deal with it) that they would actually do something about it.

3) Planned Parenthood was founded by eugenicist and racist Margaret Sanger as an attempt to get rid of undesirable populations (poor, morons, other ethnicities). Republicans want to stop federal funding of the organization...Democrats want to keep funding it.

Yes that is what Planned Parenthood is doing right now! ...... Except it's not it's actually just teaching people about you know family planning. Not just abortion, but spreading contraceptives, educating people on how to build a family, providing counseling etc.

At 3/6/15 09:35 AM, TheMason wrote: A few things:
1) In the 1960s you started having the rise of a black middle-class in the inner cities. Streets were safe and clean...but then white people moved in. Specifically, college drop-out counter-culturalists because housing was still cheaper in black areas and they got street cred. They also brought drugs and crime into the community. This was one of several things that started a decline into urban blight.

Hmmmm that could be a way for the GOP to get black votes, blame the plight of black people on whites!

I don't think Counter culturalists were the issue, the issue was that cities were industrializing. Wealthy white people were moving from the Inner City to suburbs at the edge crippling the funding these cities got from taxes. This left the cities with fewer and fewer resources (Detroit is the best example) and led to them going into decline. Drugs were just something else.

2) I do not think that the lot of blacks has declined, I agree with you that things have gotten better. However, for many of the most at-risk among the black community things have gotten worse. The housing projects that you mentioned have done nothing but concentrated poverty, and part of poverty is not just local economic factors but is a pattern of behavior as well. When you concentrate poverty you are positively reinforcing a culture of poverty as the way things are while taking away hope and examples of other modalities of living. Efforts to address this issue by providing subsidies to move out of the inner cities to the suburbs has been met with two things: resistance through the system (ie: repealing the laws) and white flight. Oh while there's no doubt white Republicans oppose low income families (of any race) moving in next door and lowering property values...they are joined by their wealthy liberal neighbors.

Um actually these programs have been supported by Liberals. New subsidized housing in Chicago came when the old projects were demolished and new houses which are built near the financial sector so as to attract more middle class people, are populated by the displaced people who live side by side with middle class Americans so they get a more balanced upbringing. That has happened recently here in the Bay Area in California where I live, and the only person I've heard who hated it was Indian...... Which again makes me go back to my point. Courting the Black vote is nearly impossible for the GOP, courting the Asian and Latino vote, the two fastest growing demographics however is much easier and logical.

3) As you mentioned forced busing has been a huge failure as well. It has destroyed black communities. Schools are a pillar of the community. They serve as a community center and source of pride. Adult education happens at schools after hours. The community comes together to cheer their children in various activities. Busing destroys that. Schools crumble. Now activities celebrate communities to which parents do not belong and may feel uncomfortable being at. Communities loose cohesion and pride because now they are no longer capable of educated their children. Points 2 & 3 are massive hits to as vulnerable a population as inner-city minorities.

I don't see how busing destroyed any community. All it did was force kids to go to schools their parents didn't want them to go to.

4) Chicago, LA, St Louis, Detroit...all very Left-leaning, Democratic strongholds and all with highly segregated communities along race and income levels. Where are the Libertarian and Republican controlled cities with near these levels of racial tension and animus?

They're left leaning Democratic strongholds BECAUSE of the African American community, not despite of it. I also don't see what specific policies the GOP was bringing forward to foster integration.

5) This is interesting: "...to say that the policies of Democrats have been making things worse for minorities is to imply that people don't know the impact these policies have had." First of all, do you think I'm making a conspiracy theory here? Second of all, I guess I am implying that they did not know the impact. I like to assume the best in people, so I do not believe that Democratic urban policy since the 1960s has been a deliberate plot to generate loyal followers who have nowhere else to turn ideologically. (Although I think that has occurred and benefited the Democrats and the Left.) I think they implemented those policies out of ignorance of the consequences and best intentions...and if they had a crystal ball to see the effects they would not have pursued those policies despite their political gain.

Some of the policies were successes, some were not. The issue I have is when people say ALL of the policies were complete failures and treat every single issue as a failure in the modern day.

At 3/6/15 09:56 PM, Warforger wrote: I don't think Counter culturalists were the issue, the issue was that cities were industrializing. ...

Here, re-read the last sentence of my paragraph:

This was one of several things that started a decline into urban blight.

I'm not a Sith...I don't deal in absolutes. When it comes to social issues there is rarely a single cause that counts for more than 18-20% of a phenomenon. In fact, it is easier to proof something is not a cause or related than it is to find something that is the single motivating factor.

The counter-culture of the 1960s and college-drop-out white kids contributed in many cities...and brought drugs into middle-class black neighborhoods. But this was not the only cause.

Um actually these programs have been supported by Liberals. New subsidized housing in Chicago came when the old projects were demolished and new houses which are built near the financial sector so as to attract more middle class people, are populated by the displaced people who live side by side with middle class Americans so they get a more balanced upbringing. ...

One of my Airmen (and he is in no way a Libertarian or Conservative) is in grad school in St Louis and he's studying this very issue at the moment. In Illinois and in particular Chicago, it has become a highly segregated city along class and race lines. Those housing subsidies have dried up as has the support by Chicago's limo lib class.

I don't see how busing destroyed any community. All it did was force kids to go to schools their parents didn't want them to go to.

Again, re-read my post it's plainly stated for you (I even edited out the transition/opening/closing sentences to make it more clear):

3) ... It has destroyed black communities. Schools are a pillar of the community. They serve as a community center and source of pride. Adult education happens at schools after hours. The community comes together to cheer their children in various activities. Busing destroys that. Schools crumble. Now activities celebrate communities to which parents do not belong and may feel uncomfortable being at. Communities loose cohesion and pride because now they are no longer capable of educated their children. ...

When families and couples looking to start families are buying homes, rarely do they tell the realtor: "Find us a community either without schools, or the shitiest district you can find."

Schools have a big impact on:
* Property value (so if you have no school district or a bad one...your home's value takes a hit...meaning the wealth you can pass on to your kids takes a hit).
* Revenue stream through property taxes for the city and county.
* Revenue stream through sales taxes because crappy roads, sewers, and fire/police departments are not a draw for businesses.
* When you have a weak revenue stream you have to turn to alternative means of revenue generation such as traffic tickets and other judicial fines.

Now, all of these are impacted by the others so like I said in the beginning nothing is a single, main cause of social woe. BUT you do have significant contributors/variables...and good schools are one of them. Busing caused many community schools to close meaning communities who are especially sensitive to the negative impacts of exogenous shocks are impacted greatly.

4) Chicago, LA, St Louis, Detroit...all very Left-leaning, Democratic strongholds and all with highly segregated communities along race and income levels. Where are the Libertarian and Republican controlled cities with near these levels of racial tension and animus?

They're left leaning Democratic strongholds BECAUSE of the African American community, not despite of it. I also don't see what specific policies the GOP was bringing forward to foster integration.

Ummm...this is irrelevant and does not answer my challenge. It does not demonstrate a failure on the part of Libertarian or Republican policies. Nor do you offer proof that Democratic policies in places like Detroit have been successful. Or Chicago or Boston with their increasing concentrations of poverty and racial segregation.

Your attempt to burn a strawman: fail.

Some of the policies were successes, some were not. The issue I have is when people say ALL of the policies were complete failures and treat every single issue as a failure in the modern day.

Another strawman. I'm not saying all policies are failures. The VRA for example is an example of success! That SCOTUS said Congress needs to update the law because it reflected 1975 reality and not 2015 reality is proof that some laws have worked to the point that as written they are no longer applicable!

It's kind of awkward for the Democratic Party to be relying on fringe candidates like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to be a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton if she decides to run. I think the bigger question would be who would be the Democratic choice if Hillary decides not to run? Granted, it's way too early to make any serious predictions, and I'm sure more will throw their hat in the ring between now and next year, but when you have a self-described "socialist" as a possible contender for the Democratic nomination, that's a problem.

Knowing the Democrats though, I'm sure that they will spin him as a progressive politician who will carry on what Obama started or something around those lines.

At 3/6/15 09:46 PM, Warforger wrote:

it's too early to judge if Hilary is a boring candidate or not because she has not announced her candidacy. So at this point it's all merely hearsay.

So what you're trying to sell me is the notion that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a political unknown? That we have nothing to go on to decide if she is an exciting candidate or not? That the following does not matter:
* We've seen on the campaign trail for her husband (a former POTUS himself) in 1992 and 1996.
* We've seen her run for Senator twice (2000 and 2006) in a very safe Democratic state. Oh and she had to relocate there because it was the most favorable venue for over Arkansas (a no brainer) and her hometown and state: Chicago, Illinois (which is a Democratic stronghold).
* We saw her run for president in 2008 and get beat by a rookie Senator who had never been on the National circuit (and failed his first bid for a federal office). Even with the might of the powerful Clinton political apparatus behind her.
* And she served as SECSTATE for what, 5 or 6 years?

Dude...sorry but I've gotta be a little crude here: cut the bullshit.

First things first: the civil rights legislation of the 1960s was NOT a Democratic victory. LBJ had to ally himself with the GOP...because the Dems were firmly against it.

SOUTHERN Democrats were against it, the Democrats in general were for it.

Umm...Dude...in terms of presidential elections it was not until the 1960s that Democratic presidents really started winning office without carrying the South without the aid of crisis or self-destructive Republicans. 1912: TR torpedoed Taft by splitting the Republican by running on a third party ticket and FDR only won landslides because of the Great Depression & WWII.

Up until the 1960s the core of Democratic power came from the South. In Congress Southern states were reliably Democratic until the 1994 election when they realized that no one was going to support their racist bullshit and the Democratic party had moved to far Left to represent their non-bullshit ideological positions.

This is my point, I'm not saying that there aren't any serious problems with the Voting Rights Act or even the Civil Rights Act for that matter, but even touching it that will doom any serious chance at courting the African vote.

Again this comes down to messaging...which the Democrats are good at. Even if they have to lie, they will tug at emotion rather than offer facts.

The Republicans need to go on the offensive and push that in the evil Deep Red South black voting numbers are higher than in the good Super Blue Northern and West Coast liberal strongholds. That applying the law not based on geography and history but on current numbers will increase black rights and suffrage would be a boon. But alas I do not control the Republican's message machine.

Again this is only one issue they have qualms about, it isn't like Africans where there is a whole list of issues that the African American community disagree's with the GOP about.

I really don't think there are all that many issues that the GOP goes against the interests of the black community.

All I could find was that 1) there's very little documentation on Wilson's involvement with Eugenics and 2) it's referencing a State Law he passed which would set up a department to sterilize the unwanted people....which was struck down by the New Jersey Supreme Court 2 years later.

Eugenics was very popular in academia at this time and there was a widely held consensus on it. Now what was Wilson before becoming Governor and then President? Oh yeah! He was a president of a University...Princeton I believe and he was one of the early (to my embarrassment) political scientists. Now what region did he come from...the North? No...I don't think so...California or Washington? No...oh wait! He was as Southerner and screened that civil rights classic of the silent film era Birth of a Nation in the White House. And he re-segregated the military.

The first law by the way was in Indiana, which was clearly not a Democratic state and the movement itself had broad public support across party lines. So no it wasn't a particularly Democratic or Republican ideal.

It was pretty widespread...and it was less a D or R thing (which I believe I mentioned) and more of a progressive ideal. Which makes it historical ironic that the first black president falls under the progressive banner!

More like the other way around.

Straight-up the KKK originated in the South to block Republican reforms following the Civil War. They served to weaken the Republican power base following Reconstruction and at this time they are considered to be the terrorist wing of the Democratic party. Sorry, hate to harsh your buzz.

Since that time, there have been several incarnations of the Klan. And yes the Klan did make some in-roads into the Republican part. However, this was the result of how progressivism and populism exist above and between the Republican & Democratic split. While remaining popular with Southern Democrats regardless of flavor of Democrat...they were able to convince some Republicans to go along with the Klan as a way of staying relevant in the parts of the Midwest that had stronger Southern identities than Northern/abolitionist identities.

But the Klan has never enjoyed close to even a plurality of support within the Republican party.

As for Civil Rights Legislation, the GOP never really pushed anything after Reconstruction. It wasn't until the 1950's that it became a real issue again (in the sense that it had serious public momentum to deal with it) that they would actually do something about it.

Harding did in the 1920s and even pushed for the first national anti-lynching legislation and would've done more had he not died less than two years in office. He appointed people of different races to federal positions as well as different faiths. He went after the Klan (to the point they tried to spread the rumor he was a member to discredit him).

And did you know that Obama is NOT the first minority to serve as the President or VP? That goes to Herbert Hoover's VP...a Native American.

At 3/6/15 11:12 PM, orangebomb wrote: It's kind of awkward for the Democratic Party to be relying on fringe candidates like Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren to be a potential challenger to Hillary Clinton if she decides to run. I think the bigger question would be who would be the Democratic choice if Hillary decides not to run?

If the 2016 Democratic primary was a HRC coronation it would be the first time something like this has happened in a long time. Challenges usually come from the party in power's base when there is no incumbent running (Biden would be a pseudo-incumbent a la Bush the Elder and AlGore).

What's funny is no one is talking about how Biden hasn't declared his intentions yet.

But if they can't find anyone else I hope we can draft Leslie Knope.

Vote 3rd party or don't vote at all. the 2 major parties are kike kontrolled anyways. The last time we had an excellent president was JFK, and you all know what happened to him.

Bill clinton was the last passable president, and as much a scammer as al gore is (with his carbon credit scamming company) he would've done a great job, which is why he wasn't allowed to win.

A lot of you remember the 2000 presidential election, hm?

At 3/7/15 02:01 AM, MrApophis wrote: Vote 3rd party or don't vote at all. the 2 major parties are kike kontrolled anyways. The last time we had an excellent president was JFK, and you all know what happened to him.

JFK was an average President. He did ONE good thing.

You also sell much of what Nixon and LBJ did very short. I'd posit that 1964 was one of the best Presidential years EVER.

It's been awhile since the last election and I vaguely remember the candidates. Ron Paul sounds good, but I heard he was against gay rights, but then again Jesse Ventura might run, but he supports 911 conspiracy theories, which I guess isn't as bad, but definitely not someone I'd vote for.

At 3/7/15 10:39 AM, Ericho wrote: It's been awhile since the last election and I vaguely remember the candidates. Ron Paul sounds good, but I heard he was against gay rights, but then again Jesse Ventura might run, but he supports 911 conspiracy theories, which I guess isn't as bad, but definitely not someone I'd vote for.

Neither of those two are anything close to Democrat.

Why do you guys keep saying the Democrats have a good messaging machine? This is laughably untrue. The 2014 midterm elections wasn't that long ago.

At 3/7/15 09:35 PM, Korriken wrote: I said propaganda machine. It's leaps and bounds better than the Republican propaganda machine. It's far more nuanced.

I'll give you nuanced, but better? HAH! You don't have 20% of the population believing Obama is a Muslim because of the Democratic propoganda machine. I would be surprised if the Democrat propoganda machine could convince 10% of the population of much anything, let alone something that is patently false.

the 2014 midterm elections was struck by the the 6 year itch. Since 1817, ONE president has managed to avoid losing seats to their opponents, and that would be Bill Clinton.

Not to mention, the very nature of who was up and who was not leaned heavily toward the Republicans anyway. Add to that the extremely low turnout and you had a perfect recipe for a GOP landslide.

The playout of the 2016 senatorial set of elections looks to play heavily in the Democrats favor. Add to that the massive bump in turn out for the Presidential elections, the Democrats look to gain back a good number of seats.

At 3/7/15 09:35 PM, Korriken wrote: I said propaganda machine. It's leaps and bounds better than the Republican propaganda machine. It's far more nuanced.

This is so not true that I honestly don't even know what to say in response other than "this isn't true."

the 2014 midterm elections was struck by the the 6 year itch. Since 1817, ONE president has managed to avoid losing seats to their opponents, and that would be Bill Clinton.

Nobody can say "despite the Democrats' messaging and voter outreach, they still suffered heavy casualties in Congress." The reason why it was so bad is because of a multitude of things, some of which you touched upon, but also in conjunction with the fact that the Democrats were absolutely trumped by the GOP's messaging operations.

It's something so painfully obvious I'm baffled that you would be giving them credit for something they have been miserably failing to do for a very long time. It's like what I said before: Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts:

"As for the 2014 elections, Lakoff said that Democrats must appeal to voters’ values, morality and desire for freedom. According to Lakoff, in the 2010 mid-term elections, Republicans — especially via their Tea Party astroturf creation — successfully made this appeal to conservative voters by saying, untruthfully, that the Affordable Care Act would be a “government takeover of healthcare” and thus an attack on their freedom. Lakoff said that the Obama administration did a poor job of communicating the benefits of the ACA, which led to losses in the 2010 elections that Democrats cannot afford to repeat this year. In the upcoming elections, Lakoff said that progressives should urge that access to the voting booth, such as early voting and weekend and late voting hours, is a form of freedom that should not be taken away by lawmakers."

I mean god damn, the Democratic strategy was just fucking awful in 2014. Everyone knew they were going to lose seats but the margin went way deeper than anticipated, so much so that it'll be extremely difficult to retake the Senate in 2016. The margin of majority in both chambers would be much, much different if the Democrats didn't just frankly suck at strategy.

At 3/7/15 10:51 PM, Feoric wrote: I mean god damn, the Democratic strategy was just fucking awful in 2014. Everyone knew they were going to lose seats but the margin went way deeper than anticipated, so much so that it'll be extremely difficult to retake the Senate in 2016. The margin of majority in both chambers would be much, much different if the Democrats didn't just frankly suck at strategy.

A major problem we have is that we are constantly on the defensive, never the offensive. Granted, it's harder when your party is the incumbent, but the GOP blasts Democrats as unpatriotic, weak on defense, irresponsible spenders, and morally bankrupt. And instead of pointing out how the Republicans are actually these things, we just say, "well, we're not."

It's the equivalent of two kids yelling "Am not!", "Are too!" As long as Democrats only argue "am not!" we will never win any votes, we will just lose votes more slowly.

At 3/7/15 11:07 AM, Camarohusky wrote: Neither of those two are anything close to Democrat.

Oh, well I guess I was thinking more about anyone running.

Feoric, Camaro, Korriken, & Ranger,

Both parties have tremendously effective message machines, if they didn't then we would have either a one-party system or one (or both) would have been replaced by now. Now when you compare the two and try to determine which one is better you have to look at more than just the last election...or any single election for that matter. You have to look at trends. Furthermore, just because one side has a better message machine* does NOT guarantee election success. Other factors such as the make-up of the electorate, time in power, job performance, and exogenous shocks all play a role in electoral success and could easily overshadow the cog which is the party's message machine.

A hypothetical to illustrate:
2008: You have President John Forbes Kerry and the Democrats go into the election with all the tech/social-media savvy of the Obama '08 campaign. The McCain campaign on the other hand is going around with the same campaign tactics of the past with tweaks learned from their embarrassment in Bush's thumpin' loss of 2004. Then the finance sector collapses in September (the collapse was structural, the result of D & R policies that JFK2 would've probably continued). Kerry's message is the same one that appeals to the Democrat's low-information voters (be calm...the Republicans have LIVs too!) that helps them with turn-out and they are superior and dominant in social-media. But then Kerry looses because of the exogenous shock of the failing economy.

2006 is a real example. No matter how good of a message the GOP could put out, it could not overcome the combined weight of a sinking presidential job approval and the 6 year itch common to all presidents. Had the GOP been on the forefront of messaging then...they would have only made the loss in Congress just a little less embarrassing.

Now to settle the question at hand:
It is a common, and I believe correct, view that the Democrats have a better message machine than Republicans...for winning presidential elections. It appeals to the youth voter and marginalized communities. It also appeals to a more creative, artistic class. What all this means is that Democrats tend to be on the forefront of technology in elections. Obama '08 was an incredibly technologically revolutionary in terms of a political campaign. He was even exploring advertising in video games! By contrast, McCain doesn't use the internet much because of war injuries that limit the mobility of his arms.

On the other hand, the GOP's message appeals to older, more settled voters. This is where the GOP has an advantage in mid-terms. The LIVs that Democrats appeal to are unreliable and only show-up at the polls for 'big' elections (ie: presidential). These are not the people who vote in local elections...or even midterms. For the GOP this blunts the need to be technologically revolutionary since older folks tend to rely on the latest and greatest app-distraction/flavor of the month.

What does this mean for 2016?

The technological gap is closing. In politics wide gaps in messaging capabilities such as in the 2008 and 2012 presidential elections tend to be short-lived because the other side adapts and overcomes. So I think the GOP message will be more finely tuned and not lag the Democrats as much.

Also, Feoric brought up the trope about 'Democrats using facts'. Hate to break it to you, but neither side uses facts to support their argument. There may be a patina of truth behind things but politicians tend to cherry pick facts in order to compel support for policy or win elections. This is something that the Democrats going into 2016 will have a problem with. Their message has been corrupted with radicalism (and yes...as Camaro pointed out the GOP has its problems here too). And this has been damaging not only to them but the causes they support since they only message the extremes of little understood phenomenon.

In terms of climate change, income inequality, and sexual assault the Democrats and Left have been pushing 'facts' that tend to the more extreme side of estimated occurrence. Take income inequality. In 2012 Obama touted the fact that women make about $0.70 for ever $1 a man makes and runs with the assumption that this means there is rampant gender discrimination in employer pay policy. What he ignored was that this is a descriptive statistic that lacks nuance and analysis. This stat is comparing women and men's salaries in total. However, once you look at comparisons within career fields and control for experience the 'pay gap' shrinks to women earning about $0.97 to every $1 a man earns. A difference of 3 cents is statistically meaningless and explained by statistical variance. Now does gender discrimination exist? Yes. Do rapes occur? Yes. Is man having an effect on the environment? Yes. But when you let your lunatics run the asylum you will become ignored when either the doomsday doesn't happen and/or people realize what you're selling is not reflected in their lives.

So I think 2016 is going to be a bad year for the Democratic message machine...despite its quality.

*Stand by your guns on this point, Korriken rather than try to re-name it a 'propaganda machine'. By using 'propaganda' you are using an emotionally loaded term that in itself is seen as either an attack and/or proof of your radicalism. Thereby it is easier to marginalize you and/or your viewpoint.

At 3/7/15 10:51 PM, Feoric wrote: It's something so painfully obvious I'm baffled that you would be giving them credit for something they have been miserably failing to do for a very long time. It's like what I said before: Democrats need to stop believing that you can convince somebody to vote blue by endlessly citing facts:

Not really a good source to use because of its bias. And there is a good illustration of my point about political use of 'facts' in messaging:

"Democrats often have better, more popular ideas (such as universal gun background checks) and should be doing much better with American voters."

In bringing up universal gun background checks, he only cherry picks his facts and polls. Yes following Newtown there was polling that revealed a consensus that every time someone buys a gun they should have a background check. This was meant to close the so-called 'gun show loophole'. But what roughly half of that 97% did not understand is the complex issue of individuals selling their guns. So when the Manchin-Toomey bill came up it had several problems with overreach.

How so?

I would consider myself one of the 97% who agrees with background checks for every gun sale...but with qualifiers:
* Transfers between family members.
* Transfers between close friends and acquaintances.

Now what is reasonable to me is having computers where background checks can be completed when I go to a gun show to sell a gun to someone other than one of the vendors with a FFL.

But Manchin-Toomey did not deal with the issue in a way that was reasonable and practical for those of us who do buy, sell, and trade guns. To us the bill was built around ignorance...not sound policy. Thus when it failed, only about 45% of Americans were upset while slightly more (46-48%) were relieved.

Also, while there is some astroturf in the Tea Party...it has been more of a grassroots effort than partisan effort. Just like OWS. That Lakoff uses such terminology is a tell of his own bias...ironic coming from a cognitive scientist...

At 3/8/15 06:38 PM, Korriken wrote:
I don't recall ever calling it a message machine, but fair enough either way.

;;;
What's your choices ???
Don Johnson ....or Jon Dohnson .

Real difficult choices there guys !

At 3/9/15 09:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Don Johnson ....or Jon Dohnson .

Futurama did it better: Jack Johnson or John Jackson.

I'm voting for Bernie Sanders if he runs (Democrat or Independent, I don't care), but not for Hillary.

If Sanders ends up not being in the election, I'll probably vote Green (in my defense, I live in Indiana, so it's not like Hillary was gonna win here anyway).

At 3/10/15 11:47 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So, Hillary's party seems to be throwing her under the bus with this newest new scandal. Hear that? It's the sound of the Liz Warren campaign revving it's engines.

Along with her political viewpoints, she has even less experience than Obama did. I think people are tired of neophytes.

At 3/9/15 10:12 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 3/9/15 09:19 AM, morefngdbs wrote: Don Johnson ....or Jon Dohnson .

Futurama did it better: Jack Johnson or John Jackson.

No matter what you call it
For example ...heads or tails, its 2 sides to the same damn coin.
The sooner people wake up to that , the closer they will be to realizing , it doesn't matter who you pick the Big Money ownes it .& its all just a farce . As the easiest way to keep the majority in line...give them the false impression they can actually make some kind of nonviolent difference. Only by bringing down the system & taking out the 'Money at the top can real change be realized .... & then the whole damn thing will slowly repeat itself until we are right back to where we started .

At 3/10/15 09:43 PM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: I think you may mean less real world experience. Because I think there is nobody alive with more inside the beltway experience than the former first lady Hillary Clinton. Granted, political skill doesn't translate to skills in other areas of life.

Yeah, I'd rather have someone with real world experience in running some sort of political office. Mayor, governor, senator, whatever. "Community organizer" is really just one step up from "rabble rouser."

At 3/10/15 09:41 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Along with her political viewpoints, she has even less experience than Obama did.

I hope you're referring to Warren, because Clinton was a Senator for nearly 3 times as long as Obama and was the most involved First Lady second only to Eleanor Roosevelt. She's a lot of things, but inexperienced isn't one of them.

At 3/12/15 10:46 AM, Korriken wrote: I think she meant Obama.

Then Rydia used the wrong pronoun by referring to him as "she."

Hope Graham wasn't serious about ever becoming president because that zeppelin just went up in flames and crashed into a dynamite factory.

Don't assume everyone that runs for president is doing it for themselves. Graham is a good example of this -- the reason why he's running is that both he and John McCain hate Rand Paul's isolationist foreign policy platform, and they don't want it to go unchallenged. McCain will be endorsing Graham for 2016 solely for his extremely hawkish foreign policy platform. Basically the entire point of Graham's bid is so that there's someone on stage who can interrupt and shout "BOMB EVERYONE!!!!!!"

edit: it's worth mentioning that it was McCain who pressured him into running. Graham is his proxy.

At 3/12/15 02:20 AM, Feoric wrote: I hope you're referring to Warren, because Clinton was a Senator for nearly 3 times as long as Obama and was the most involved First Lady second only to Eleanor Roosevelt. She's a lot of things, but inexperienced isn't one of them.

I was referring to Warren, not Clinton.

Interesting article in the New York Times today. One quote in particular stands out:

“There is no one else — she’s the whole plan,” said Sarah Kovner, a leading Democratic donor and fund-raiser in New York. “She is by far the most experienced and qualified person we could possibly nominate. Not even on the horizon but on the far horizon.”

Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. The Republicans don't have any clear favorites or front-runners now, but at least they have a bench.

At 3/12/15 08:46 PM, RydiaLockheart wrote: Talk about putting all your eggs in one basket. The Republicans don't have any clear favorites or front-runners now, but at least they have a bench.

To be fair the Dems do a bench, it's just that we pretty much know who the frontrunner is and we're more or less assuming that she'll secure her party's nomination. We'd be hearing a lot more about people such as Mark Warner, Brian Schweitzer, Jim Webb, Kirsten Gillibrand etc if Hillary wasn't running. The Democrats have a lot less of a vacuum to fill.