Politics

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Lol, I really wish we had a similar debate on the dem side. Just to see what people were saying.

The next 14ish months are the worst time to be a thoughtful American. You have to jump in one of two camps or be a stranger in a strange land. I grok the latter.

 

[GoIrish41]

You guys understand in a PRIMARY debate the candidates are going to pander to those that will actually be voting in the primaries - red blooded Republicans. It is not to say you don't have valid points relating to the general election, those points become real when the field is narrowed to a handful (why Huckabee and Cruz won't be getting the nomination but can stay in for quite a while).

She was a petty nit picker and having her anywhere near the event was stupid. She really couldn't differentiate from ANY of the 10 folks on the stage? No, she wanted to engage in partisan hate speech.

Of course we understand that. It is the trap that the Republicans fall into every four years -- recognizable to anyone who is paying attention except the Republicans. Until they change this mindset, the will continue to pummel their own candidates until their former selves are unrecognizable and then send them off to be slaughtered in the general election by the Dems. Calling Hillary names is not scoring them any points. Calling each other names is orders of magnitude worse.

Did you really expect her to come on and identify a candidate who did well in the debate? I agree, having her there was silly, especially on what might end up being Fox News' highest rated broadcast in their history. Was she nit picking? Sure, I guess, but she is the leader of the DNC invited onto Fox News to give analysis of a pretty weak debate. She did what anybody would have expected her to do -- Republicans bad, Democrats good! Either that or she is, as one of the candidates would say, just a stupid, fat pig!

 

[Cackalacky]

My favorite quote:

: "The military is not a social experiment. The purpose of the military is kill people and break things. We have decimated our military."

 

[GoIrish41]

My favorite quote:

How can they get by on a measly $521 billion a year?

 

[Cackalacky]

How can they get by on a measly $521 billion a year?

Our military is incapable of effectively killing people and breaking things at over 900 fully funded bases worldwide. I am pro-life and the military should be used to enforce anti-abortion legislation.






BTW: I edited your post with my quote.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

This advertisement brought to you by Carl Jr's Big Ass All American Deep Fried SuperPAC

 

[NDgradstudent]

Of course we understand that. It is the trap that the Republicans fall into every four years -- recognizable to anyone who is paying attention except the Republicans. Until they change this mindset, the will continue to pummel their own candidates until their former selves are unrecognizable and then send them off to be slaughtered in the general election by the Dems. Calling Hillary names is not scoring them any points. Calling each other names is orders of magnitude worse.

Did you really expect her to come on and identify a candidate who did well in the debate? I agree, having her there was silly, especially on what might end up being Fox News' highest rated broadcast in their history. Was she nit picking? Sure, I guess, but she is the leader of the DNC invited onto Fox News to give analysis of a pretty weak debate. She did what anybody would have expected her to do -- Republicans bad, Democrats good! Either that or she is, as one of the candidates would say, just a stupid, fat pig!

The Republicans are actually having a debate, rather than giving their nomination to the person married an ex-President (and doing so because she is married to that ex-President).

 

[Cackalacky]

Lol, I really wish we had a similar debate on the dem side. Just to see what people were saying.

The next 14ish months are the worst time to be a thoughtful American. You have to jump in one of two camps or be a stranger in a strange land. I grok the latter.

Join with me brother. Its fun in the political no-mans land.

 

[tussin]

Of course we understand that. It is the trap that the Republicans fall into every four years -- recognizable to anyone who is paying attention except the Republicans. Until they change this mindset, the will continue to pummel their own candidates until their former selves are unrecognizable and then send them off to be slaughtered in the general election by the Dems. Calling Hillary names is not scoring them any points. Calling each other names is orders of magnitude worse.

I think you are overestimating the Dems strategy in general elections. Obama won because of his likability and ability to get people to turn out for the election that wouldn't otherwise (i.e. minorities and young voters). Putting his actual successes and failures as POTUS aside, an election candidate with that kind of broad appeal really is transformational for any political party and comes around every generation or so.

That won't be the case for the Dems this time. Hillary can't hold a candle to Barack on the campaign trail. The Dems don't have a foolproof "blueprint to success" in national elections... they got lucky with the right guy at the right time.

 

[GATTACA!]

The Republicans are actually having a debate, rather than giving their nomination to the person married an ex-President (and doing so because she is married to that ex-President).

 

[IrishJayhawk]

The Republicans are actually having a debate, rather than giving their nomination to the person married an ex-President (and doing so because she is married to that ex-President).

You mean a graduate of Yale Law who has served eight years in the Senate and four as Secretary of State?

 

[NDgradstudent]

I think you are overestimating the Dems strategy in general elections. Obama won because of his likability and ability to get people to turn out for the election that wouldn't otherwise (i.e. minorities). Putting his actual successes and failures as POTUS aside, an election candidate with that kind of broad appeal really is transformational for any political party and comes around every generation or so.

That won't be the case for the Dems this time. Hillary can't hold a candle to Barack on the campaign trail. The Dems don't have a foolproof "blueprint to success" in national elections... they got lucky with the right guy at the right time.

Obama won in 2008 because of the demographic transformation of the country (something that National Review pointed out would happen all the way back in 1997). Remember, no Democrat save LBJ has won the white vote since 1948. Their ability to win is predicated upon 'electing a new people,' which is why they fanatically support ignoring our immigration laws, sanctuary cities, amnesty for illegals, etc.

 

[Cackalacky]

 

[GoIrish41]

The Republicans are actually having a debate, rather than giving their nomination to the person married an ex-President (and doing so because she is married to that ex-President).

And if even, as you suggest, the Democrats are just mailing it in, Hillary will still beat any candidate who was on the stage last night or at the early evening kids table debate, pandering to the crazy fringes of their base. But as a consolation, when the history books are written we should should not forget to include the meaningless fact that they had the first debate and a half of the 2016 election. Perhaps when you read said history, it will take some of the sting of defeat away.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Join with me brother. Its fun in the political no-mans land.

I wouldn't call it "fun". Pretty depressing place, actually. But at least there's self-respect and logical consistency here.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This sums it up perfectly

The values of servant leadership — putting others first and leading from the heart — need to emerge from every corner of American life, including the business community.

While Americans have diverse views in what they want from Washington, I reject the notion that our divided and dysfunctional government is merely a reflection of what the political class calls the red-blue divide. Too many of our political leaders are putting party before country, power before principle and cynicism before civility. The common purpose that created this great nation, which has united us in difficult moments, has gone missing.

Our country is in desperate need of servant leaders, of men and women willing to kneel and embrace those who are not like them. Everyone seeking the presidency professes great love for our nation. But I ask myself, how can you be a genuine public servant if you belittle your fellow citizens and freeze out people who hold differing views?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/america-deserves-a-servant-leader.html?_r=0

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

I can't rep Whiskey or Cack again but I'll verbalize it.

 

[ACamp1900]

This sums it up perfectly



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/america-deserves-a-servant-leader.html?_r=0

exactly my issue with so many, from the POTUS on down...

 

[Cackalacky]

Demographics

First, a look at the breakdown of the electorates from 1992 thru 2012:

White
1992 - 87%
1996 - 83%
2000 - 81%
2004 - 77%
2008 - 74%
2012 - 72%

African-American:
1992 - 8%
1996 - 10%
2000 - 10%
2004 - 11%
2008 - 13%
2012 - 13%

Hispanic:
1992 - 2%
1996 - 5%
2000 - 7%
2004 - 8%
2008 - 9%
2012 - 11%

Asian:
1992 - 1%
1996 - 1%
2000 - 2%
2004 - 2%
2008 - 2%
2012 - 3%

Demographics of How Groups Voted in the 1992 Presidential Election [1992 thru 2008 data]
Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com [2012 data]

Now let's analyze the twenty-year trend to project the 2016 electorate.

2016 projection:
White: 70%
African-American: 13%
Hispanic: 13%
Asian: 3%
Other: 1%

Estiamted 2016 turnout: 55.0%
[Turnout projection based on approximate average of 1992-2008 turnout and preliminary 2012 turnout estimates]
United States population in 2016: ~323,000,000
Approximately 74.3% of the United States populace is eligible to vote
Eligible electorate in 2016 will be approximately 240,000,000
55% turnout assumes 132,000,000 voters

2012 votes by race:
White: Romney 59%, Obama 39%
African-American: Obama 93%, Romney 6%
Hispanic: Obama 71%, Romney 27%
Asian: Obama 73%, Romney 26%
Other: Obama 58%, Romney 38%
Presidential Race - 2012 Election Center - Elections & Politics from CNN.com

Now, let's use the trending electoral breakdown to consider some 2016 outcomes.

Scenario #1 -- Demographic Repeat of 2012
White: R 59%, D 39% (R 54.5m, D 36.0m)
African-American: D 93%, R 6% (D 16.0m, R 1.0m)
Hispanic: D 71%, R 27% (12.2m, R 4.6m)
Asian: D 73%, R 26% (D 2.9m, R 1.0m)
Other: D 58%, R 38% (D 0.8m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 67.9 million, Republican nominee 61.6 million

If the various demographic groups vote the same way, the Democratic candidate's margin will increase from President Obama's current 3.7 million vote lead to 6.3 million votes. That is simply if nothing else changes.

But will we likely get such a repeat? No. So let's look at some other possibilities.

Scenario #2 -- All Numbers Strong for the GOP
White: R 60%, D 38% (R 55.4m, D 35.1m)
African-American: D 88%, R 11% (D 15.1m, R 1.9m)
Hispanic: D 62%, R 35% (D 10.6m, R 6.0m)
Asian: D 63%, R 36% (D 2.5m, R 1.4m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Republican nominee 65.2 million, Democratic nominee 64.0 million

In this case, I've assumed that everything will go well for Republicans. I've given them yet another point of the White vote, I've reverted the African-American vote to the Bush/Kerry numbers, I've reverted the Hispanic vote to the Bush/Gore numbers, I've clipped 10% off the Asian numbers and shifted them to the Republicans, and I've even given 3% of the 'Other" category to the GOP (this is a catch-all group that is probably fairly resistant to short-term movement).

This gets the GOP a narrow 1.2 million vote margin, that would have over an 80% change of translating into an Electoral College victory. But in order to get this narrow GOP victory, you have to assume pretty much every demographic trend goes the Republcans' way.

Scenario #3 -- Same as Scenario #2, but 2012 numbers for Whites
White: R 59%, D 39% (R 54.5m, D 36.0m)
African-American: D 88%, R 11% (D 15.1m, R 1.9m)
Hispanic: D 62%, R 35% (D 10.6m, R 6.0m)
Asian: D 63%, R 36% (D 2.5m, R 1.4m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 64.9 million , Republican nominee 64.3 million

This scenario assumes that the GOP has maxed out its share of the White vote. Not a bad assumption; it's hard to see Clinton or Cuomo or O'Malley, or whoever wins the 2016 Democratic nomination, doing any worse among Whites. The rest of the numbers are still very favorable to the GOP.

Still, the GOP loses the popular vote, with probably a 2/3rds chance of also losing the Electoral College.

Scenario #4 -- Same as #2 & #3, but 1% improvement on 2012 for Whites
White: R 58%, D 40% (R 53.6m, D 37.0m)
African-American: D% 88, R 11% (D 15.1m, R 1.9m)
Hispanic: D 62%, R 35% (D 10.6m, R 6.0m)
Asian: D 63%, R 36% (D 2.5m, R 1.4m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 65.9 million, Republican nominee 63.4 million.

These demographic numbers are still pretty good overall for the GOP. It would not be at all surprising to see someone like Clinton improve one percentage point for Democrats among Whites. And if that happens? It's all over, even assuming the GOP still manages to do considerably better with all other demographics. This is what is so important -- even demographic trends that are reasonably GOP-biased translate to a loss in 2016.

Scenario #5 -- Modest GOP gains on minority voting, Bush/Kerry numbers for Whites
White: R 58%, D 41% (R 53.6m, D 37.9m)
Black: D 90%, R 8% (D 15.4m, R 1.4m)
Hispanic: D 66%, R 32% (D 11.3m, R 5.5m)
Asian: D 68%, R 31% (D 2.7m, R 1.2m)
Other: D 55%, R 41% (D 0.7m, R 0.5m)
TOTAL: Democratic nominee 68.0 million, Republican nominee 62.2 million

This final number is what I consider more realistic. For all demographics, I've assumed a reasonable and modest rebound towards 50%. I've given the Bush/Kerry numbers to Whites, and assumed the GOP will peel a few percentages off the other groups. The result? A big Democratic victory.

And if the Democrats can manage to flip more than 1.5% of the White vote, it really becomes apocalyptic for the GOP.

Note that these projections are only for 2016. In 2020, it continues to get progressively worse for Republicans. By then, when the White vote is down to 67% or 68%, with Hispanics up to perhaps 15% and maybe Asians gaining 1%, even the rosiest scenario above for the GOP will result in a clear loss.

This is just some food for thought. I advocate nothing. I am just showing why the Republican Party, in order to win Presidential elections in the future, absolutely must find a way to get non-whites to vote for them in greater numbers. Much greater numbers.


Read more: Demographics and the 2016 Presidential Election (voters, Mexican, thought, Reagan) - Elections - City-Data Forum

I came across this recently. Worth looking at IMO.

 

[NDgradstudent]

And if even, as you suggest, the Democrats are just mailing it in, Hillary will still beat any candidate who was on the stage last night or at the early evening kids table debate, pandering to the crazy fringes of their base. But as a consolation, when the history books are written we should should not forget to include the meaningless fact that they had the first debate and a half of the 2016 election. Perhaps when you read said history, it will take some of the sting of defeat away.

Right, because there is a huge portion of the country that will vote Democratic no matter what, for obvious reasons. This sort of ethnic-based welfare patronage politics often has costs (see Detroit). But it is certainly true that electing a new people has proved a success for the Democrats.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Right, because there is a huge portion of the country that will vote Democratic no matter what, for obvious reasons. This sort of ethnic-based welfare patronage politics often has costs (see Detroit). But it is certainly true that electing a new people has proved a success for the Democrats.

And there's a huge portion of the country that will vote Republican no matter what, for obvious reasons. This sort of corporate-based, supply-side welfare patronage politics and social conservative fear mongering often has costs (see the Great Recession). But it is certainly true that scaring people with gay marriage and "welfare queens" has proved a success for Karl Rove.

 

[pkt77242]

This sums it up perfectly



http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/06/opinion/america-deserves-a-servant-leader.html?_r=0

Very interesting article. I have said a few times on here that one of the biggest issues with our political system is politicians that care more about their political party then the people who elected them. I wish that we could eliminate political parties.

I hate posting from my phone.

 

[ACamp1900]

Very interesting article. I have said a few times on here that one of the biggest issues with our political system is politicians that care more about their political party then the people who elected them. I wish that we could eliminate political parties.

I hate posting from my phone.

Agreed, or do a blind election where the party isn't stated, I'm cynical enough to believe over half the voting base wouldn't even know who they are voting for without the letter next to their names...

I hate random statements in posts.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Very interesting article. I have said a few times on here that one of the biggest issues with our political system is politicians that care more about their political party then the people who elected them. I wish that we could eliminate political parties.

I hate posting from my phone.

I've always thought that having a 4-5 party system would be the best way to do it. Then you could vote for the person you agree with most without having to hold your nose on the policies you don't like as much. As it is, the parties are coalitions that fake having a single platform.

 

[NDgradstudent]

And there's a huge portion of the country that will vote Republican no matter what, for obvious reasons. This sort of corporate-based, supply-side welfare patronage politics and social conservative fear mongering often has costs (see the Great Recession). But it is certainly true that scaring people with gay marriage has proved a success for Karl Rove.

Right, except that this strategy involves convincing Americans to vote for you, rather than importing new people who are more amenable to your policies than Americans.

 

[Grahambo]

Trump 2016

 

[ACamp1900]

Right, except that this strategy involves convincing Americans to vote for you, rather than importing new people who are more amenable to your policies than Americans.

Trump 2016

 

[GoIrish41]

Right, because there is a huge portion of the country that will vote Democratic no matter what, for obvious reasons. This sort of ethnic-based welfare patronage politics often has costs (see Detroit). But it is certainly true that electing a new people has proved a success for the Democrats.

I am going to hate myself for asking, but what are these "obvious reasons" you speak of? Ideology?

 

[tussin]

I am going to hate myself for asking, but what are these "obvious reasons" you speak of? Ideology?

There are one-issue voters in each party. Neither are right.

 

[Grahambo]