[Lobowolf]

Winstonm, on Oct 2 2009, 08:35 PM, said:

It is interesting how differently we remember things. For example you say:

Quote

Also causing the war's unpopularity was how long it lasted and how many American lives have been lost. It wasn't the quick and easy win people expected/hoped for.

My remembrance is that Donald Rumsfeld (via "intelligence" from Chalabi) sold the idea of a quick and easy war, a war that would pay for itself, and a war where we would be embraced as a liberating force.

I don't think I said anything in contradiction of that. But even if the war hadn't been "sold" at all, or even if there were no doubt that there were WMD, or that the war was directly tied into 9-11, the duration and the mounting death toll still would have made it unpopular, and less popular than in the early days. Misrepresentations are certainly a sufficient condition for the war's unpopularity, but they weren't a necessary condition.

[matmat]

MattieShoe, on Oct 2 2009, 09:25 PM, said:

A bit of a tangent, but is anybody else tired of the republican/democrat dichotomy thing? I'm fiscally conservative (what republicans claim to be anyway...) but socially permissive (what democrats claim to be anyway...)

Now I suppose the closest label for that would be libertarian, but because all reasonably moderate voters are subsumed by democrat/republican, those identifying themselves as libertarian are generally much more extreme than me.

So what do you call somebody like me, fairly moderate with sizable objections to both parties?

I like to call it "sane", but I'm sure some would disagree

donkophant.

[hrothgar]

Personally, I think that identify politics are the most persuasive explanation for what we're seeing in the US right now.

I certainly agree that the politics in the US are cyclical. Individual parties ebb and flow. However, the recent collapse of the Republican party has been a focused one. If you look at the Republican Party today, it is (essentially) limited to three identify characteristics:

One is geographic region: The Old South and Appalachia
One is religion: Evangelical Christians
The last is the rural / urban divide.

In many ways, this all feels like an extension of Nixon's Southern Strategy. Johnson's decision to push forward with Civil Right's legislation created an extremely powerful political realignment in this country. When Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, he famously told an aide "We've Lost the South for a generation". Nixon's Southern Strategy quickly proved him correct.

Unfortunately for the GOP, Republican strategists clearly over reached. They've invested so much time and energy courting the South, that they've alienated most of the rest of the country. Moreover, they've been courting the South with a messaging strategy that appeals wonderfully to large elements of the Republican base that doesn't resonate at all outside of it.

At the most basic level, if your entire strategy is designed to attract idiots, you're going to have a real hard time attracting anyone with more than half a brain...

[kenberg]

hrothgar, on Oct 3 2009, 06:46 AM, said:

At the most basic level, if your entire strategy is designed to attract idiots, you're going to have a real hard time attracting anyone with more than half a brain...

This sums it up pretty well.


There are some other simple explanations that I think have some merit. No doubt Bill Clinton had a weakness for bimbos, but actually the coutry fared pretty well during the Clinton years and not so well during the Bush years. I imagine the collapse of the Soviet Union made it a lot easier for Clinton to look good but he didn't screw it up. Bush cannot be blamed, although some try, for the catastrophe of 9-11 but you do not have to be an ideological extremist to conclude that he badly misjudged the consequences of invading Iran.

I grew up in a neighborhood that is pretty representative of a large section of the country. My father went through Ellis Island when he was ten, finished grade school and went to work. Folks like this are by no means ignorant but they don't read the Wall Street Journal or the New York Times and they take a practical approach. If things are not going so well, maybe the other guys can do better. They understand that crime has to be dealt with, there is a reason we have a military, and things we get have to be paid for. For example, my mother had the mid-western populist distrust of politicians and their wars, but she explained to me when I was thirteen or so that I should join the Navy rather than the Army because you don't hear much about ships going down and anyway you get better food. A political party ignores this practical orientation at its peril.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on Oct 2 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 2 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Quote

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

I agree.

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

And to you is that image basically a racist one that cares only for the rich and powerful?

I don't think of the Republican image as being racist. The Republican Party strikes me as dishonest, never allowing facts to interfere with the story they repeat over and over and over.

[jdonn]

Lobowolf, on Oct 2 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

With respect to Josh's point about the sine wave and the decline, I think that the sine wave is so much bigger than any gradual demographic shift that it swamps it in significance, and will for a long, long time.

Can anyone find data on the short and medium term demographic trends in the US? I don't believe it's nearly as gradual as you seem to believe, but who knows maybe I will be proven wrong. My impression is exactly the opposite of yours, that the demographics in this country are shifting at a very rapid rate.

[y66]

MattieShoe, on Oct 2 2009, 09:25 PM, said:

A bit of a tangent, but is anybody else tired of the republican/democrat dichotomy thing?  I'm fiscally conservative (what republicans claim to be anyway...) but socially permissive (what democrats claim to be anyway...)

Now I suppose the closest label for that would be libertarian, but because all reasonably moderate voters are subsumed by democrat/republican, those identifying themselves as libertarian are generally much more extreme than me. 

So what do you call somebody like me, fairly moderate with sizable objections to both parties?

I like to call it "sane", but I'm sure some would disagree 

At www.politicalcompass.org they might call you something like (0 +/- 1, -3 +/- 1). See this thread for an entertaining forum discussion of this topic.

[hrothgar]

jdonn, on Oct 3 2009, 06:19 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Oct 2 2009, 07:23 PM, said:

With respect to Josh's point about the sine wave and the decline, I think that the sine wave is so much bigger than any gradual demographic shift that it swamps it in significance, and will for a long, long time.

Can anyone find data on the short and medium term demographic trends in the US? I don't believe it's nearly as gradual as you seem to believe, but who knows maybe I will be proven wrong. My impression is exactly the opposite of yours, that the demographics in this country are shifting at a very rapid rate.

Obviously, one can quibble regarding what constitutes gradual, however, this sounds much more in line with Josh's claims about rapid changes than Lobowolf's about a sinusoidal relationship.

For what its worth, my own belief falls between the two extremes. I think that the US is experiencing extremely rapid demographic change. What we're experiencing now probably ranks right up there with previous large scale waves of immigration.

However, as rapid as those changes are, I don't think that they are speedy enough to explain the collapse of the Republican party since 2004. I think that is (essentially) attributable to the (obvious) failures of the Bush administration: Iraq, the economy, Katrina, etc...

Here's the elephant that is dancing beneath the rug...

I think that Republicans and Conservatism has been fading since the days of Reagan. The Bush years were a complete fluke... Bush should have never won in 2000. (Some would argue that he didn't win in 2000 - be that as it may) Gore ran a piss poor campaign and Bush snuck into office because Nader split the vote in Florida.

Bush benefited enormously from 9/11. The attacks on the US created a completely artificial "rally around the flag" effect. Bush spent the next seven years burning down all this political capital with one screw up after another.

Personally, I think that the Republicans long term electoral prospects have been following a slow, steady decline that is a reasonable approximation to the demographic realignment that Josh identified. The long term trend is definitely punctuated by fluke events (Clinton lied about a blow job in the oval office, the World Trade Center gets destroyed, the US invades Iraq). However, I'd argue that these types of events are - essentially - serendipity. They aren't evidence of any long term sinusoidal trend...

As a practical example: I suspect that the Democrats will (soon) start taking back major political offices in Texas. I think that this will have a lot more to do with demographic issues than any kind of "natural" pattern.......

Oh well: Here's the census report

http://www.census.gov/Press-Release/www/re...ion/012496.html

Quote

An Older and More Diverse Nation by Midcentury

     The nation will be more racially and ethnically diverse, as well as much older, by midcentury, according to projections released today by the U.S. Census Bureau.

     Minorities, now roughly one-third of the U.S. population, are expected to become the majority in 2042, with the nation projected to be 54 percent minority in 2050. By 2023, minorities will comprise more than half of all children.

     In 2030, when all of the baby boomers will be 65 and older, nearly one in five U.S. residents is expected to be 65 and older. This age group is projected to increase to 88.5 million in 2050, more than doubling the number in 2008 (38.7 million).

     Similarly, the 85 and older population is expected to more than triple, from 5.4 million to 19 million between 2008 and 2050.

     By 2050, the minority population — everyone except for non-Hispanic, single-race whites — is projected to be 235.7 million out of a total U.S. population of 439 million. The nation is projected to reach the 400 million population milestone in 2039.

     The non-Hispanic, single-race white population is projected to be only slightly larger in 2050 (203.3 million) than in 2008 (199.8 million). In fact, this group is projected to lose population in the 2030s and 2040s and comprise 46 percent of the total population in 2050, down from 66 percent in 2008.

     Meanwhile, the Hispanic population is projected to nearly triple, from 46.7 million to 132.8 million during the 2008-2050 period. Its share of the nation’s total population is projected to double, from 15 percent to 30 percent. Thus, nearly one in three U.S. residents would be Hispanic.

     The black population is projected to increase from 41.1 million, or 14 percent of the population in 2008, to 65.7 million, or 15 percent in 2050.

     The Asian population is projected to climb from 15.5 million to 40.6 million. Its share of the nation’s population is expected to rise from 5.1 percent to 9.2 percent.

     Among the remaining race groups, American Indians and Alaska Natives are projected to rise from 4.9 million to 8.6 million (or from 1.6 to 2 percent of the total population). The Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander population is expected to more than double, from 1.1 million to 2.6 million. The number of people who identify themselves as being of two or more races is projected to more than triple, from 5.2 million to 16.2 million.

     Other highlights:

    * In 2050, the nation’s population of children is expected to be 62 percent minority, up from 44 percent today. Thirty-nine percent are projected to be Hispanic (up from 22 percent in 2008), and 38 percent are projected to be single-race, non-Hispanic white (down from 56 percent in 2008).
    * The percentage of the population in the “working ages” of 18 to 64 is projected to decline from 63 percent in 2008 to 57 percent in 2050.
    * The working-age population is projected to become more than 50 percent minority in 2039 and be 55 percent minority in 2050 (up from 34 percent in 2008). Also in 2050, it is projected to be more than 30 percent Hispanic (up from 15 percent in 2008), 15 percent black (up from 13 percent in 2008) and 9.6 percent Asian (up from 5.3 percent in 2008).

-X-

Unless otherwise specified, the data refer to the population who reported a race alone or in combination with one or more races. The detailed tables show data for both this group and those who reported a single race only. Censuses and surveys permit respondents to select more than one race; consequently, people may be one race or a combination of races. Hispanics may be of any race.

The federal government treats Hispanic origin and race as separate and distinct concepts. In surveys and censuses, separate questions are asked on Hispanic origin and race. The question on Hispanic origin asks respondents if they are Spanish, Hispanic or Latino. Starting with Census 2000, the question on race asked respondents to report the race or races they consider themselves to be. Thus, Hispanics may be of any race. (See U.S. Census Bureau Guidance on the Presentation and Comparison of Race and Hispanic Origin Data.)

The original race data from Census 2000 are modified to eliminate the “some other race” category. This modification is used for all Census Bureau projections products and is explained in the document titled “Modified Race Data Summary File Technical Documentation and ASCII Layout” that can be found on the Census Bureau Web site at <http://www.census.gov/popest/archives/files/MRSF-01-US1.html>

The projections for the resident population of the United States are available by single year of age, sex, race and Hispanic origin. They are based on Census 2000 results and assumptions about future childbearing, mortality and net international migration.

[Winstonm]

Quote

A growing percentage of the population is minority (mostly due to hispanic influx), and a growing percentage of the population is urban. Those are groups that tend to lean strongly democratic.

National election results would indicate a rapid shift, and I don't believe demographics explains the speed of change - 2000 and 2004 both witnessed Republicans in the White House and in control of Congress, but only two years later - 2006 - Democrats took control of Congress and only 4 years later - 2008 - did Democrats take the White House.

Demographics would explain long-term trends but not the large short-term swings away from the trend.

[mike777]

Winstonm, on Oct 3 2009, 08:53 AM, said:

mike777, on Oct 2 2009, 08:34 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 2 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Quote

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

I agree.

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

And to you is that image basically a racist one that cares only for the rich and powerful?

I don't think of the Republican image as being racist. The Republican Party strikes me as dishonest, never allowing facts to interfere with the story they repeat over and over and over.

ok but this seems nuts..how in the world should a dishonest party expect to win.....do they think voters are stupid?

Why would a major party expect to control the usa on the basis of ...we lie..we lie alot.....

[jdonn]

Winstonm, on Oct 3 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

Quote

A growing percentage of the population is minority (mostly due to hispanic influx), and a growing percentage of the population is urban. Those are groups that tend to lean strongly democratic.

National election results would indicate a rapid shift, and I don't believe demographics explains the speed of change - 2000 and 2004 both witnessed Republicans in the White House and in control of Congress, but only two years later - 2006 - Democrats took control of Congress and only 4 years later - 2008 - did Democrats take the White House.

Demographics would explain long-term trends but not the large short-term swings away from the trend.

I don't think anyone has made the claim you are disputing. It's like the declining sine wave example I tried from earlier in the thread, I don't believe anyone feels the downward slope, whether slight or not, has anything to do with the repeating oscillations.

[luke warm]

Winstonm, on Oct 2 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Quote

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

I agree.

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

if that continues, do you expect the reps to not win control of either house, or of the presidency, again?

[Winstonm]

jdonn, on Oct 5 2009, 01:10 AM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 3 2009, 11:07 PM, said:

Quote

A growing percentage of the population is minority (mostly due to hispanic influx), and a growing percentage of the population is urban. Those are groups that tend to lean strongly democratic.

National election results would indicate a rapid shift, and I don't believe demographics explains the speed of change - 2000 and 2004 both witnessed Republicans in the White House and in control of Congress, but only two years later - 2006 - Democrats took control of Congress and only 4 years later - 2008 - did Democrats take the White House.

Demographics would explain long-term trends but not the large short-term swings away from the trend.

I don't think anyone has made the claim you are disputing. It's like the declining sine wave example I tried from earlier in the thread, I don't believe anyone feels the downward slope, whether slight or not, has anything to do with the repeating oscillations.

We appear to be trying to explain different phenomenon. I agree with your assessment about the trend but I am trying to understand the causes of the short term oscillations.

[Winstonm]

luke warm, on Oct 5 2009, 04:57 PM, said:

Winstonm, on Oct 2 2009, 08:31 PM, said:

Quote

Extrapolating that entire philosophies have been embraced or rejected is painting with too broad a brush.

I agree.

But from what I have seen from those Republicans elected to Congress and from the statements of Republican Party leadership, that party has been marginalized by allowing their most extreme elements to control the image of the party as a whole.

if that continues, do you expect the reps to not win control of either house, or of the presidency, again?

Presidency - perhaps. Congress? Not until the image is changed or the demographics of the country change.

[luke warm]

so if they do win one or both houses (w/out any noticiable changes in rhetoric or agenda), does that mean they are no longer marginalized? or would it mean they never were?

[kenberg]

As many have observed, it is a lot easier to explain what happened in the past than to accurately predict what will happen in the future. Landslide Lyndon indeed had his landslide in 64, he gave up on even trying for the nomination in 68. There are some unpredictables. The (Republican) governor of Louisiana wrote a piece the other day, not a very good one, but he made the observation that only in Washington do people not know that the debate over health reform is over. The Dems lost. We have now a debate of sorts going on over Afghanistan. Obama is on record as saying that the outcome there is critical. This may well be so, but it is not clear to me that people trust his judgment in how to proceed.

Demographics may prove less powerful than believed. In the fifties there were lots of Dems where I grew up. Most of them voted for Nixon in 68. More recently I understand that there was a substantial shift in the Hispanic vote in favor of the Dems. That can shift back.

I would say that right now the country lacks strong leadership. This provides an opportunity and I have no idea how it will play out. Obama need to say less and accomplish more, and it had better be pdq.

[jdonn]

One thing I find strange is how the general criticism has shifted so quickly from "he is doing too much" to "he is talking too much and not doing enough". I mean people can't have it both ways. With Bush many didn't like that he rushed to judgment on important issues. With Obama many don't like that he takes forever to act on important issues due to considering them so carefuly. I think the only lesson here is you can never win.

[hrothgar]

kenberg, on Oct 6 2009, 09:04 PM, said:

The (Republican) governor of Louisiana wrote a piece the other day, not a very good one, but he made the observation that only in Washington do people not know that the debate over health reform is over. The Dems lost.

Actually, I'd say that the American people lost.

Poll after poll shows that 70% of the population is in favor of the private option.

Even so, the Finance Committee decided to strip this out of their version of the bill. Personally, I'm hoping that the public option will make its way back to the forefront once they start trying to reconcile all the competing bills. Personally, I think that the Baucus plan amounts to an enormous unfunded madate and could very well be political suicide for the Democratic Party.

Personally, I think that Rockefeller made the most prescient comment when he (roughly) said

"We can pass the public option today. If not, we'll all be back in five years debating single payer"

[kenberg]

jdonn, on Oct 6 2009, 01:09 PM, said:

One thing I find strange is how the general criticism has shifted so quickly from "he is doing too much" to "he is talking too much and not doing enough". I mean people can't have it both ways. With Bush many didn't like that he rushed to judgment on important issues. With Obama many don't like that he takes forever to act on important issues due to considering them so carefuly. I think the only lesson here is you can never win.

There is of course some truth to what you say. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. As Mr. Bush said back in one of the 2004 debates, it's hard, it's really hard. He was, I think, talking about his job.

But here is a problem for how Mr. Obama is now seen: Do you believe that Mr. Obama believes that the outcome in Afghanistan is of sufficient importance that we need to see it through regardless of the cost in money and lives? I am not asking if you believe that it is of such importance but whether you believe that he believes that it is. At one time, he talked as if he thought that way. Now it is less clear. It's one thing to ponder the proper approach, it is another thing to be thinking about the value of the undertaking. Health care reform is history, whatever happens in Iraq will happen, and Afghanistan? We'll get back to you on that.

As a no doubt cynical and simplistic view, it seems to me that going to Afghanistan for a while, then to Iraq for a while, then back to Afghanistan for a while, and then maybe doing something to Iran for a while, really is not a good approach. Perhaps the war folks could pick one country to invade (Granada perhaps) and stay there until the damn mission really is accomplished.

Yes I know that it is more complicated than that. But.

[luke warm]

kenberg, on Oct 6 2009, 02:48 PM, said:

Yes I know that it is more complicated than that. But.

it probably is, but i don't know why it should be... before any such action is undertaken, lay out the goals and then do whatever is necessary to achieve them, else admit failure and come home