 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Kepler
|
 |
Lovely Oregon
Jul 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Drake Tungsten
True. But who's the liberal equivalent of Reagan? Martin Sheen? |
Sheen's smarter (irony of that statement fully accepted). I think the right comparison for brainpower is Alec Baldwin.
There is nobody stoking the fires from below and getting the Dems to answer the real questions: Why is the middle class shrinking? Why are the impoverished growing? Why has everyone in the country except the top 5% been standing still, even though the innovation, education, and work has been provided by the middle class? After 40 years of progress why is race becoming such a horrible issue again? How does colonizing the world with our overbearing corporate interests make this a safer or more stable place for typical Americans? How does mobilizing a police state apparatus protect our freedom? ow does gutting SEC guidance keep the white collar crooks in line? How does becoming even more dependant on fossile fuel get us out of our energy wedgie?
These are questions the right could be asking as well, but their job is to get fatter and not ask who gets hurt. It's the raison d'etre of the LEFT to hold government accountable, and nobody on the left has the desire or capacity to do so.
Last edited by Kepler on 17-12-2002 at 10:12
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kepler
|
 |
Lovely Oregon
Jul 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Shi Huangdi
"It seems everyone seems to believe that non-voters are really just secret holders of their ideology. |
Well, naturally -- that way we can claim the silent majority!
But seriously, demographics correlate very well with voting patterns, and the demographics of non-voting is:
RACE: higher proportion of minority than white.
GENDER: virtually even.
INCOME: directly related: the poorer, the less likely to vote.
AGE: directly related: the younger, the less likely to vote.
There are some interactive effects as well -- for example, while students are young and poor and don't tend to vote, students who come from money DO vote and vcote conservatively. Hence, your conservative students are already being counted -- if student participation spiked, the liberals would win big.
This is also the case across the board. Blacks tend not to vote because of the interraction between black and lower income. However, higher income blacks do vote and tend to be slightly more conservative (say, 80-20 liberal), while the blacks who are lower income don't vote and are virtually 100% liberal (check out DC's results sometime).
BAM: If every eligible voter voted in this country, the House would barely change at all in the first cycle (since the districts are gerrymandered for incumbents), and then gradually move more Dem in futurecycles (as they picked up more Governorships and began to control gerrymandering), the Senate would shift Dem only where there are Republican senators in non-southern states with large cities), and the Presidency would go Dem by about 67-33 every time.
The only reason our political center has moved right is that either intentionally or unintentionally our systems has disenfranchised the entire left half of the electorate, so the fight is for a balance point between centrists and right wing wackos.
Last edited by Kepler on 17-12-2002 at 10:29
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
Kerry will look strong and Gephardt and Lieberman and Daschel will seem formidible going in. But the latter three are all fighting for the same vote and Kerry gets the "we want a fresh face" vote because he is perceived as less Beltway.
But then the voters will get a couple of looks at him and say, oh no, not that guy.
The breakout threat is Edwards who can make a race in the south. None of the other Dems can do that. No way is a Northern or MidWestern Dem getting elected.
If Edwards isn't ready for prime time then the only game in town is Hilliary.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Imran Siddiqui

|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970 time: 00:24
|
|
quote: A midwestern Dem could get elected. Carrying the rust belt, the northeast, california, and the pnw is a win, baby.
A northeasterner will NEVER win again. You've NY and NJ that everybody hates, and then a buncha small states that aren't worth spit.
A rugged, western style liberal like Kitzhauer (former OR gov) could win, but only if he came from CA.
The next Democratic governor of either Texas or Florida has an automatic shot.
A Republican Black wins if he has anything to offer.
A Democratic Evangelical wins if he has anything to offer.
Hispanics, Jews, and Women are still dead in the water. |
I agree (mostly).
Also a Southern Dem or Repub Governor who wins reelection has an automatic chance.
I don't agree with the northeasterner will never win again. Guiliani would win EASY. And Pataki would have a decent shot as well.
The next Republican governor of California has a BIG shot.
Hispanics, Jews, and Women can still make a run at Veep. After Bush, look at the next Republican VP candidate to be either Hispanic or a Woman.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000 time: 07:24
|
|
Why on earth are we talking about people's ideological positions? Has Bush's GOP coronation in 2000 taught us nothing? In US politics, it doesn't matter what your politics are, or how charismatic you are, or even how bright you are. It matters how much money you can put together, especially early on.
The early money is already following Kerry and Edwards, but more is going to Kerry. Hollywood money, not yet heard from, will go to Kerry as the more liberal of the two. On top of that, Kerry is married to multi-millionare Ketchup-and-Baked-Beans heiress Theresa Heinz.
Kerry, absolutely.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Rufus T. Firefly
|
 |
is one way of saying it, though I prefer "mensch"
Sep 2000 time: 07:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Obviously ideology and charisma matters, or else Steve Forbes would have won the Presidency in 1996. The reason the money lined up behind Bush was because the party backed him early. Saw him as the most charasmatic guy who'd be willing to run who would back their ideology. |
But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election).
The Forbes point is a good one; money matters, but people don't like the perception that someone (Forbes, Perot) is trying to buy the presidency (even though that's what happens regardless). I'd bet that if he runs, Kerry will agree to federal spending limits in exchang for public funds, just to avoid the perception that he's using his wife's fortune to buy the office.
As for Bush, the party backing and money backing was a bit of a dialectic; the money followed the party support, but the party support also followed the money (Bush had money, especially oil money, lined up before he had clear party support). This is the likliest Kerry dynamic.
I also think Kerry will benefit from the 2002 election backlash -- that is, from the feeling of the party faithful (i.e., primary voters) that the party has failed in its bid to be a kinder, gentler GOP and needs to get back to basics.
But I think you can bet on the veep being a Southerner and/or a conservative; probably Edwards, but possibly Evan Bayh. I'd love to see Mary Landrieu in the veep slot, but that'd be an all-Catholic ticket, which is probably still a no-no, alas.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kepler
|
 |
Lovely Oregon
Jul 2002 time: 21:24
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Rufus T. Firefly
But if ideology and charisma mattered more than money, Jesse Jackson would have been the nominee in '88; he was both mor charismatic than Dukakis and more ideologically in tune with the average Dem primary voter (who tends to be way to the left of the average Dem voter in a general election). |
Those are all reasons that Jackson would have won if ideology and charisma were ALL that mattered. Jackson might well have been the choice if he were white, but that just wasn't going down with the voters then.
The Dems' best possible choice is if Powell ever gets tired of being the Bushie's lawn jockey and abandons the Dark Side. Since he's evidently decided on an even tougher (and more honorable) mission: trying to wrest control of the party back from the chickenhawks and weasels now in power, that leaves the Dems to grow their own, in the Clinton sense. Er, not in THAT Clinton sense... Best nominee I've seen so far is probably Edwards, though I'm not that excited by him.
This is all assuming the Naderites have finally put down their dope and learned by now that, hey man, gee whiz, Bush actually IS a worse president than Gore would have been -- imagine that. The Closeted One would get far less this time around but still maybe enough to screw the Dems' pooch out of another election. OTOH, if Bushy doesn't hammer throuigh at least one insane christian demand, he might get a right wing defector, and even if he does he might get McCain bouncing off the walls again. I thionk the internal gestapo of the GOP can take care of any insurgency without it even surfacing, but it still doesn't help the money teat to have party challengers as an incumbent prez.
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:24. Apolyton Time is 00:24. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|