- can turn this into a self-immolation shitstorm

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/...shutdown-golem

The Return of the GOP Shutdown Gollum

After their big election win two weeks ago, GOP leaders in Washington pressed one key point again and again: No shutdowns. Certainly no impeachment. And more generally an end to the government by showdown and crisis which has been their order of the day since coming to power in early 2011. And yet here we are, not two weeks into the new era of unified GOP control on Capitol Hill (albeit in the majority-elect phase) and we're already down to our first shutdown showdown. Indeed, shutdown is emerging as the 'mainstream' response to the President's impending immigration executive order, with impeachment the preferred response of your more forward-leaning GOP electeds and Fox News whips.

The upshot is clear and shouldn't surprise us: government by crisis is built into the DNA of the current GOP. And leaders like Mitch McConnell and John Boehner, despite their efforts since just after the 2010 election, are largely powerless to control or discipline it.

This last point is really important to remember: the purported post-government by confrontation era didn't begin two weeks ago. It supposedly began in 2011 and 2013. Twenty years ago, under Newt Gingrich, Republican majorities had a leader who fully bought into the logic and mentality of confrontation. But that was never the case with Boehner or McConnell either. Indeed, both view Gingrich's chaotic four years of power as a formative cautionary tale. But the truth is that it is almost impossible to wring this out of the party because not only its ideology but its internal dynamics are based on the perception of holding off inevitable threats to American culture its core supporters cherish.

That vision is based on a core pessimism about America's future - or more specifically, an underlying belief that the country is moving away from them and that either heroic action or building structural impediments to change are required courses of action.

Core Democratic partisans endlessly lament that their party can't exercise the kind of fierce party discipline exercised on the other side of the aisle. Why can't Democrats have a constant run of primary challengers which scare party moderates into lockstep support?

Part of the answer is based in the sociology of the two parties. The same attributes that Republicans tout as showing strength and resolve in foreign policy also equates in domestic terms into a more authoritarian, leadership based approach to politics. Another side of this coin is what we generally recognize as a more empirical, less ideological posture among Democratic voters.

In both parties this basic difference is a strength and weakness. The other difference is structural. The composition of the GOP is equally important. The Democrats, as they have been for more than a century and arguably deep into the 19th century, is a coalition party in the way the GOP is simply not. Both are coalitions in some degree of course. In a two party system in a vast country they cannot not be. But the ideological core of the GOP - what we used to call the GOP base and now frequently goes rebranded as the 'Tea Party' - is a much bigger share of the party than anything comparable on the Democratic side.

That, again, is both a strength and a weakness. But on both counts it makes shutdown style politics something that is not going away anytime soon, something the GOP simply can't quit.

There is perhaps no other issue than immigration that confronts the GOP's core fear of a country that is slipping away from them. Like cornered animals, it drives them to ferociousness (e.g., gerrymandering on steroids, voter suppression, Kroch brother level buy-outs) that can be effective - as the 2014 election bears out. BUT, it can cause them to make BIG mistakes as well - afterall, they are a dying breed for a reason.

Posted in the forum on the 2014 midterm election and placed here due to its obvious relevance to 2016:
A sunnier view for Democrats for 2016 based upon 2014 results: the Republicans must cheat to win in 2016.

From the Houston (Texas) Chronicle:

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/...on/#28114101=0

Few things are as dangerous to a long term strategy as a short-term victory. Republicans this week scored the kind of win that sets one up for spectacular, catastrophic failure and no one is talking about it.

What emerges from the numbers is the continuation of a trend that has been in place for almost two decades. Once again, Republicans are disappearing from the competitive landscape at the national level across the most heavily populated sections of the country while intensifying their hold on a declining electoral bloc of aging, white, rural voters. The 2014 election not only continued that doomed pattern, it doubled down on it. As a result, it became apparent from the numbers last week that no Republican candidate has a credible shot at the White House in 2016, and the chance of the GOP holding the Senate for longer than two years is precisely zero.

For Republicans looking for ways that the party can once again take the lead in building a nationally relevant governing agenda, the 2014 election is a prelude to a disaster. Understanding this trend begins with a stark graphic.

Behold the Blue Wall:

The Blue Wall is block of states that no Republican Presidential candidate can realistically hope to win. Tuesday that block finally extended to New Hampshire, meaning that at the outset of any Presidential campaign, a minimally effective Democratic candidate can expect to win 257 electoral votes without even trying. That’s 257 out of the 270 needed to win.

Arguably Virginia now sits behind that wall as well. Democrats won the Senate seat there without campaigning in a year when hardly anyone but Republicans showed up to vote and the GOP enjoyed its largest wave in modern history. Virginia would take that tally to 270. Again, that’s 270 out of 270.

This means that the next Presidential election, and all subsequent ones until a future party realignment, will be decided in the Democratic primary. Only by sweeping all nine of the states that remain in contention AND also flipping one impossibly Democratic state can a Republican candidate win the White House. What are the odds that a Republican candidate capable of passing muster with 2016 GOP primary voters can accomplish that feat? You do the math.

By contrast, Republicans control a far more modest Red Fortress, which currently amounts to 149 electoral votes. What happened to that fortress amid the glory of the 2014 “victory?” It shrunk yet again. Not only are New Hampshire and probably Virginia now off the competitive map, Georgia is now clearly in play at the Federal level. This trend did not start in 2014 and it will not end here. This is a long-term realignment that been in motion for more than a decade and continues to accelerate.

The biggest Republican victory in decades did not move the map. The Republican party’s geographic and demographic isolation from the rest of American actually got worse.

Basically the GOP must cheat to win in 2016. Gloating by Koch fronts, GOP pols, and FoX Propaganda Channel notwithstanding, the Republican position for 2016 could be bleak with a large turnout of voters. Democrats made no gains in the Senate, as they had only one reasonable chance (Georgia). I predict that the GOP will make calls for radical propositions (privatizing Social Security, abolishing minimum wage laws, accelerating the depletion of resources, gutting environmental laws, eviscerating unions, shifting taxes from the rich to the non-rich, and ravaging the environment for quick bucks) that would make America look like the sort of country in which a Marxist insurrection is possible. Republicans won everything that they could possibly win in 2014with a low, right-leaning turnout.

The Republicans are going to need miraculous success just to get people to want a country in which one is born to spectacular indulgence or to hopelessness. That is a very difficult sale.

A few other items of interest from the 2014 election results:

- Republican Senate candidates lost every single race behind the Blue Wall. Every one.

- Behind the Blue Wall there were some new Republican Governors, but their success was very specific and did not translate down the ballot. None of these candidates ran on social issues, Obama, or opposition the ACA. Rauner stands out as a particular bright spot in Illinois, but Democrats in Illinois retained their supermajority in the State Assembly, similar to other northern states, without losing a single seat.

- Republicans in 2014 were the most popular girl at a party no one attended. Voter turnout was awful.

- Democrats have consolidated their power behind the sections of the country that generate the overwhelming bulk of America’s wealth outside the energy industry. That’s only ironic if you buy into far-right propaganda, but it’s interesting none the less.

- Vote suppression is working remarkably well, but that won’t last. Eventually Democrats will help people get the documentation they need to meet the ridiculous and confusing new requirements. The whole “voter integrity” sham may have given Republicans a one or maybe two-election boost in low-turnout races. Meanwhile we kissed off minority votes for the foreseeable future.

- Across the country, every major Democratic ballot initiative was successful, including every minimum wage increase, even in the red states.

- Every personhood amendment failed.

- For only the second time in fifty years Nebraska is sending a Democrat to Congress. Former Republican, Brad Ashford, defeated one of the GOP’s most stubborn climate deniers to take the seat.

- Almost half of the Republican Congressional delegation now comes from the former Confederacy. Total coincidence, just pointing that out.

- In Congress, there are no more white Democrats from the South. The long flight of the Dixiecrats has concluded.

- Democrats in 2014 were up against a particularly tough climate because they had to defend 13 Senate seats in red or purple states. In 2016 Republicans will be defending 24 Senate seats and at least 18 of them are likely to be competitive based on geography and demographics. Democrats will be defending precisely one seat that could possibly be competitive. One.

- And that “Republican wave?” In Congressional elections this year it amounted to a total of 52% of the vote. That’s it.

It is arguable that in an immature democracy, human needs neglected under the previous regime (whether a military junta, a fascistic thug state, or a Commie system) are so obvious that political decisions can be made with 60% or so support. In a mature democracy, most decisions (same-sex marriage is a recent example) are made when support creeps barely above 50% and are done quickly. Vote shares for national leaders reach above 55% when the nominee is freakishly incompetent as a politician (Stevenson twice, Goldwater, McGovern, Carter 1980, Mondale).

(material specific solely to Texas excised)

- For all the talk about economic problems, for the past year the US economy has been running at ’90’s levels. Watch Republicans start touting a booming economy as the result of their 2014 “mandate.”

- McConnell’s conciliatory statements are encouraging, but he’s about to discover that he cannot persuade Republican Senators and Congressmen to cooperate on anything constructive. We’re about to get two years of intense, horrifying stupidity. If you thought Benghazi was a legitimate scandal that reveals Obama’s real plans for America then you’re an idiot, but these next two years will be a (briefly) happy period for you.

This is an age built for Republican solutions. The global economy is undergoing a massive, accelerating transformation that promises massive new wealth and staggering challenges. We need heads-up, intelligent adaptations to capitalize on those challenges. Republicans, with their traditional leadership on commercial issues should be at the leading edge of planning to capitalize on this emerging environment.

What are we getting from Republicans? Climate denial, theocracy, thinly veiled racism, paranoia, and Benghazi hearings. Lots and lots of hearings on Benghazi.

Were I a Republican I would stop talking about Benghazi. Barack Obama greased the skids to Hell for Qaddafi, something that any Republican would have been delighted about had the President had the surname "Reagan" or "Bush". Qaddafi left no civil society behind, and the overthrow of tyrants like Saddam and Qaddafi or even the weakening of a tyrant like Assad creates a vacuum that extremists can exploit. The theocracy that the GOP supports is incompatible with the largest Christian denomination in the US -- the Roman Catholic Church.

It is almost too late for Republicans to participate in shaping the next wave of our economic and political transformation. The opportunities we inherited coming out of the Reagan Era are blinking out of existence one by one while we chase so-called “issues” so stupid, so blindingly disconnected from our emerging needs that our grandchildren will look back on our performance in much the same way that we see the failures of the generation that fought desegregation.

Something, some force, some gathering of sane, rational, authentically concerned human beings generally at peace with reality must emerge in the next four to six years from the right, or our opportunity will be lost for a long generation. Needless to say, Greg Abbott and Jodi Ernst are not that force.

Although Joni Ernst is an ill omen. Iowa has never been a hotbed of statewide, right-wing extremism.

“Winning” this election did not help that force emerge. This was a dark week for Republicans, and for everyone who wants to see America remain the world’s most vibrant, most powerful nation.

We shall see. The Koch fronts want a plutocratic oligarchy, and they will do every possible dirty trick to win in 2016 as they did in 2014.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Posted in the forum on the 2014 midterm election and placed here due to its obvious relevance to 2016:
A sunnier view for Democrats for 2016 based upon 2014 results: the Republicans must cheat to win in 2016.

From the Houston (Texas) Chronicle:

http://blog.chron.com/goplifer/2014/...on/#28114101=0







Basically the GOP must cheat to win in 2016. Gloating by Koch fronts, GOP pols, and FoX Propaganda Channel notwithstanding, the Republican position for 2016 could be bleak with a large turnout of voters. Democrats made no gains in the Senate, as they had only one reasonable chance (Georgia). I predict that the GOP will make calls for radical propositions (privatizing Social Security, abolishing minimum wage laws, accelerating the depletion of resources, gutting environmental laws, eviscerating unions, shifting taxes from the rich to the non-rich, and ravaging the environment for quick bucks) that would make America look like the sort of country in which a Marxist insurrection is possible. Republicans won everything that they could possibly win in 2014with a low, right-leaning turnout.

The Republicans are going to need miraculous success just to get people to want a country in which one is born to spectacular indulgence or to hopelessness. That is a very difficult sale.



It is arguable that in an immature democracy, human needs neglected under the previous regime (whether a military junta, a fascistic thug state, or a Commie system) are so obvious that political decisions can be made with 60% or so support. In a mature democracy, most decisions (same-sex marriage is a recent example) are made when support creeps barely above 50% and are done quickly. Vote shares for national leaders reach above 55% when the nominee is freakishly incompetent as a politician (Stevenson twice, Goldwater, McGovern, Carter 1980, Mondale).



Were I a Republican I would stop talking about Benghazi. Barack Obama greased the skids to Hell for Qaddafi, something that any Republican would have been delighted about had the President had the surname "Reagan" or "Bush". Qaddafi left no civil society behind, and the overthrow of tyrants like Saddam and Qaddafi or even the weakening of a tyrant like Assad creates a vacuum that extremists can exploit. The theocracy that the GOP supports is incompatible with the largest Christian denomination in the US -- the Roman Catholic Church.



Although Joni Ernst is an ill omen. Iowa has never been a hotbed of statewide, right-wing extremism.



We shall see. The Koch fronts want a plutocratic oligarchy, and they will do every possible dirty trick to win in 2016 as they did in 2014.

Awesome analysis and insights there, pbrower! Very heartening.

However, I read some other analysis that as the 2%-less-White-male-over-65-per-cycle demographic begins to really bite, it could have some MidWest "undecided states" go reactionary ("cornered animal") Red (OH, IA) and likely has already flipped others (NC, WV, MO); it could also make vulnerable a few states behind the Blue Wall (WI, MI, PA, ME). This is really the rationale that the Clinton folks are using - that she could appeal to the White vote in those states unlike Obama did or possible Warren - I think the former is true; the latter, very debatable. This, however, is what is going to make the 2016 election at least interesting.

On the other hand, by the 2020 election, its' all over for the GOP at the WH and Senate levels. The House will be the issue with much dependent on who holds the governors' mansions and the state legislatures going into the 2020 Census. But with the GOP seen more and more as a regional/rural monolithic, aging political force, folks within the Party, other than the 25% extremists, are likely going to lose interest.

The reason, of course, is the demographics and the GOP not being able to stop themselves from alienating the Hispanic, Asian and other immigrant groups, women and youth. If they sufficiently piss-off the Hispanic vote by shutting the govt down over Obama's executive order so that they turn out in a 2016 wave, the consequential flipping to Blue of FL, TX, and AZ, possible NC and GA, will make any of those Red flips (mostly in the MidWest) become just footnoted countertrends.

This is so critical that I would not be surprised to see the Krotch bros leading a massive effort with the rest of the GOP billionaires to really press hard with propaganda aimed at the Hispanic, youth and women voters starting pretty early. Stay tuned!

Originally Posted by playwrite

Awesome analysis and insights there, pbrower! Very heartening.

However, I read some other analysis that as the 2%-less-White-male-over-65-per-cycle demographic begins to really bite, it could have some MidWest "undecided states" go reactionary ("cornered animal") Red (OH, IA) and likely has already flipped others (NC, WV, MO); it could also make vulnerable a few states behind the Blue Wall (WI, MI, PA, ME). This is really the rationale that the Clinton folks are using - that she could appeal to the White vote in those states unlike Obama did or possible Warren - I think the former is true; the latter, very debatable. This, however, is what is going to make the 2016 election at least interesting.

As their popularity shrinks, off-center organizations become increasingly extreme. The rhetoric becomes shriller. Contempt for democratic norms increases as does willingness to suggest violence. If there is no money behind such causes, the movement (think of the White Citizens' Councils in the segregated South) dies off. If the cause has money and organization behind it -- then watch out.

On the other hand, by the 2020 election, its' all over for the GOP at the WH and Senate levels. The House will be the issue with much dependent on who holds the governors' mansions and the state legislatures going into the 2020 Census. But with the GOP seen more and more as a regional/rural monolithic, aging political force, folks within the Party, other than the 25% extremists, are likely going to lose interest.

That assumes that the GOP does not get a stranglehold on the political process in 2016 after which it can arrange things so that Democrats have no chance to contest GOP power after rules are changed to the detriment of Democrats. Democrats must win the Senate in 2016 to ever have a chance to govern.

The reason, of course, is the demographics and the GOP not being able to stop themselves from alienating the Hispanic, Asian and other immigrant groups, women and youth. If they sufficiently piss-off the Hispanic vote by shutting the govt down over Obama's executive order so that they turn out in a 2016 wave, the consequential flipping to Blue of FL, TX, and AZ, possible NC and GA, will make any of those Red flips (mostly in the MidWest) become just footnoted countertrends.

The Obama administration has been deporting mostly people who have been in the US a short time. But just imagine how 'American' an illegal alien aged 16 can be if his parents brought him over when he was three. Educated in American schools and proficient in English -- and very likely to marry an American citizen. The Obama administration does not want to break up families to the point that a US citizen must 'return' to a country that he has never even been in.

This is so critical that I would not be surprised to see the (Koch) bros leading a massive effort with the rest of the GOP billionaires to really press hard with propaganda aimed at the Hispanic, youth and women voters starting pretty early. Stay tuned!

The Right has lost the Hispanic and Asian vote with its anti-intellectualism. The Right believes in a permanent and expanded underclass that is shut off from formal education beyond elementary school so that it can work cheaply in fields and sweatshops; it also wants the middle class ruined or utterly dependent. It loses women if it insists upon professional women in government jobs losing their government jobs. The Right has little to offer any rationalists who more trust science than ideologically-charged propaganda.

Sure, we would have a Second Bill of Rights after the GOP gets Constitutional margins for political change -- but one that practically frees Big Business from all legal constraints, having to deal with unions, or tolerating political dissent. Maybe America would get the equivalent of Article 6 of the old Soviet Constitution (enshrining one Party as the 'leading force in political life') and Article 58 of the Soviet penal code that basically makes almost everyone at the least a suspected criminal suitable for surveillance.

Youth? Who wants to be cheap labor in an economy that celebrates those who own the wealth and humiliates those who do the work?

I expect right-wing Republicans to show their brand of anti-human ideology starting in early January -- and what many will show will be ugly.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

...The Right has lost the Hispanic and Asian vote with its anti-intellectualism. The Right believes in a permanent and expanded underclass that is shut off from formal education beyond elementary school so that it can work cheaply in fields and sweatshops; it also wants the middle class ruined or utterly dependent. It loses women if it insists upon professional women in government jobs losing their government jobs. The Right has little to offer any rationalists who more trust science than ideologically-charged propaganda.

Sure, we would have a Second Bill of Rights after the GOP gets Constitutional margins for political change -- but one that practically frees Big Business from all legal constraints, having to deal with unions, or tolerating political dissent. Maybe America would get the equivalent of Article 6 of the old Soviet Constitution (enshrining one Party as the 'leading force in political life') and Article 58 of the Soviet penal code that basically makes almost everyone at the least a suspected criminal suitable for surveillance.

Youth? Who wants to be cheap labor in an economy that celebrates those who own the wealth and humiliates those who do the work?

I expect right-wing Republicans to show their brand of anti-human ideology starting in early January -- and what many will show will be ugly.

I don't know anyone who wants a world like the one you claim "the Right" wants. I do know many conservatives- the majority(not all) of the people that I actually know are conservatives. My sense is that you take a small minority of " the Right" and then use this minority to represent " the Right". Of course, a few conservatives do the equivalent-from the opposite point of view.
Although I am concerned about the wealthy( super-rich) in terms of power, my concern is not based on party affiliation.
In any case, I am convinced that things are not near so dire as you continue to claim.

Unless the Republican party changes soon, they will not continue as a competitive major party.
It appears that Clinton is the most likely candidate for the Democrat party, but so far there is no clear leader as Republican challenger. ( That is why Romney is being considered for another run).

The electorate is fed up with politicians in general and it is not clear what the mood will be in 2016. By 2020, the current Republican party will be obsolete.

Radind,

You should be forewarned that paranoid rants about the impending takeover of Republican fascism, liberally laced with clumsy references to the World Wars, are pretty much all he writes about. As I recall, he once blamed the right wing and consumerist culture for his inability to get married or move out of his hometown. By all means continue to engage with him, just don't expect anything other than vaguely topical rants concerning the above mentioned topics.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Radind,

You should be forewarned that paranoid rants about the impending takeover of Republican fascism, liberally laced with clumsy references to the World Wars, are pretty much all he writes about. As I recall, he once blamed the right wing and consumerist culture for his inability to get married or move out of his hometown. By all means continue to engage with him, just don't expect anything other than vaguely topical rants concerning the above mentioned topics.

Considering the part of your anatomy that you pulled that from... pick it up, deposit it in the toilet, and flush it. It would be unconscionable for you to stick someone else with that responsibility.

The President did something humane and wise tonight. He may have done nothing to rescue the political process to his advantage over the remaining two years and change in his Presidency -- but he may have given the Democrats much hope for 2016.

In a far-reaching move that could help shape his legacy, President Barack Obama announced a series of executive actions on Thursday evening to shield some five million undocumented immigrants from the threat of deportation and let them temporarily work in the country.

He will expand an existing program to avoid targeting certain young people, and create a new program to relieve undocumented parents of Americans of deportation fears, senior administration officials told reporters in the White House ahead of the prime-time announcement.

"That's the real amnesty – leaving this broken system the way it is. Mass amnesty would be unfair. Mass deportation would be both impossible and contrary to our character," Obama said. "What I’m describing is accountability – a commonsense, middle ground approach: If you meet the criteria, you can come out of the shadows and get right with the law. If you’re a criminal, you'll be deported. If you plan to enter the U.S. illegally, your chances of getting caught and sent back just went up."

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/obam...ampaign=buffer

Those voters who have any connection to someone who receive the benefits of President Obama's executive order have every incentive to vote for a President who promises to continue the policy, let alone establish a pathway to citizenship. Tough luck, Republicans.

The politics of Obama's move are explosive and could reshape 2016 presidential race. The reactions stand to sharpen the contrast between Democrats and Republicans, which is particularly salient among Hispanics, who broadly support immigration relief. Pledging to overturn Obama's actions could become a litmus test in the GOP primary, if Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) and other opponents demand as much. That could make life miserable for the eventual Republican nominee in the general election, where Hispanic voters, who helped give Obama two terms in office, are likely to again play an important role. Meanwhile, in a sign that Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton may be on board, her husband and former President Bill Clinton said Wednesday that Obama is on "pretty firm legal footing" to act unilaterally on immigration. House and Senate Democratic leaders have likewise vowed to strongly support the president's actions. One politically perilous scenario for Obama, however, is if congressional Democrats start defecting and elevate the pressure on the White House to reconsider.

Dirty trick? No. Reagan and the elder Bush did much the same for Cubans and Southeast Asians whom Republicans expected to be reliable Republican voters for a very long time.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Considering the part of your anatomy that you pulled that from... pick it up, deposit it in the toilet, and flush it. It would be unconscionable for you to stick someone else with that responsibility.

Cute. Now, I'm sure you don't appreciate it being pointed out, but which part of my previous comment are you actually disputing?

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Radind,

You should be forewarned that paranoid rants about the impending takeover of Republican fascism, liberally laced with clumsy references to the World Wars, are pretty much all he writes about. As I recall, he once blamed the right wing and consumerist culture for his inability to get married or move out of his hometown. By all means continue to engage with him, just don't expect anything other than vaguely topical rants concerning the above mentioned topics.

Typically, PMs are used for comments like these. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Typically, PMs are used for comments like these. Just saying.

I know it's probably futile, but I continue to harbor hope that one day he's going to wake up, look around, and say, "By God! There are no bars at all! It's all been in my head this whole time!" and go do something to make his life better rather than continue to clog the interwebs with paranoid escapist fantasies.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't know anyone who wants a world like the one you claim "the Right" wants. I do know many conservatives- the majority(not all) of the people that I actually know are conservatives. My sense is that you take a small minority of " the Right" and then use this minority to represent " the Right". Of course, a few conservatives do the equivalent-from the opposite point of view.
Although I am concerned about the wealthy( super-rich) in terms of power, my concern is not based on party affiliation. ..

On the other hand, just two Turning cycles ago, we had a civil war in which poor southern Whites, against their own economic self-interest, went to slaughter based on a notion maintaining the "Southern Way" propagated by the plantation elites. Today's rhetoric and 'thinking' of those in the 99% wanting to conserve the status quo (e.g., no health care coverage programs, no immigrant amnesty, no stimulus, no change in marriage, no relief for students, no jobs programs, no unemployment or food assistance, no minimum wage, no bank/consumer reforms, no change in energy policies), much of which works against their own economic self-interest, based on the notion of maintaining "freedom fries," propagated by the Krotch bros and many of the 1%, tells you that they are linked philosophically, if not genetically, to their 'ancestors' and just as likely perhaps to do the unthinkable.... again.

i.e, I wouldn't get too comfortable with the notion that there's just a small minority of nutcases.

Eh, while true (ish) as far as it goes, my fears for the climax of the crisis have much more to do with leading Presidential candidate Hillary getting Robert Kagan's endorsement. I don't think we're done with the Neocons and their wars just yet. At this point in the last crisis, Roosevelt had just wound down the Banana Wars with the Good Neighbor policy, and we were still some years out from Roosevelt running for his third term on a keeping the US out of war platform.

Speaking of the 2016 elections, what do those who identify with the Dems think of the Webb and (potentially) Dean candidacies? I suspect they're running for cabinet positions more than anything else, but the debate leading up to it should be interesting, if nothing else.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Speaking of the 2016 elections, what do those who identify with the Dems think of the Webb and (potentially) Dean candidacies? I suspect they're running for cabinet positions more than anything else, but the debate leading up to it should be interesting, if nothing else.

Not to mention Vermont Independent Senator Sanders mulling over a run...

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Cute. Now, I'm sure you don't appreciate it being pointed out, but which part of my previous comment are you actually disputing?

The pointless discussion of my personal life. Many people are stranded in places that fit them badly. Give me some credit for some selfless loyalty. Does a mother with a bad back, blindness, dementia, and Parkinsonism sound like a focus of an enjoyable life?

She slept a lot, so I concede that while I was keeping watch over her for a couple of hours at a time and practically stranded with no ability to get away (two adults, one car, and the one car -- I could never get away for more than one hour; if there were a second car I might be tempted to do something that required time and distance) just in last year's dreary winter I was finally able to read The Brothers Karamazov through to completion. What did you expect me to do -- watch washday weepers, reality TV, stupid game shows, and confrontational talk shows?

OK, I am a pessimist when it comes to powerful people whose lives are pure vice and who can buy the political system. What hope can one get when rich and powerful people seek to cut wages, abolish welfare, exempt themselves from taxation, eviscerate unions, push pseudoscience, and transform a politically-charged study (economics) into a paean to inequality?

The Koch Brothers are abusing us Americans badly.

Originally Posted by playwrite

On the other hand, just two Turning cycles ago, we had a civil war in which poor southern Whites, against their own economic self-interest, went to slaughter based on a notion maintaining the "Southern Way" propagated by the plantation elites. Today's rhetoric and 'thinking' of those in the 99% wanting to conserve the status quo (e.g., no health care coverage programs, no immigrant amnesty, no stimulus, no change in marriage, no relief for students, no jobs programs, no unemployment or food assistance, no minimum wage, no bank/consumer reforms, no change in energy policies), much of which works against their own economic self-interest, based on the notion of maintaining "freedom fries," propagated by the Krotch bros and many of the 1%, tells you that they are linked philosophically, if not genetically, to their 'ancestors' and just as likely perhaps to do the unthinkable.... again.

i.e, I wouldn't get too comfortable with the notion that there's just a small minority of nutcases.

A comment in the NY Times included a quote by a guy at a Town Hall meeting, where he said, "My father has a pension. My brother has a pension. I don't have one, and I'm pissed. If I can't one, they shouldn't have one either!" This, about his father and brother.

Envy and fear are powerful motivators ... or demotivators.

Originally Posted by JordanGoodspeed

Speaking of the 2016 elections, what do those who identify with the Dems think of the Webb and (potentially) Dean candidacies? I suspect they're running for cabinet positions more than anything else, but the debate leading up to it should be interesting, if nothing else.

I met Webb once. He's not on my ideological wavelength, but he's honest and gutsy. I'll take that over the wimps any day. Dean I'll take with open arms.

Webb has a good score. He's a long shot though.

I'm wondering if the non-Republicans will ever have the real option of splitting up or sitting it out. The Republicans are very monolithic now. A split among them is unlikely and probably temporary. That means they will prevail unless the opposition unites and participates. Democrats will probably have to vote for Hillary in 2016, or settle for disaster. That is the likely choice for 2016, and future choices are not likely to be better.

Only if the Republican Party suffers a total defeat from which it cannot recover, sometime in the years 2020-2028, will third parties or protest votes become an option for many Democrats, and despite what some people here think, most concerned and aware people will realize that they need to vote Democratic, whoever the candidate is.

In conformity with the title of this thread, that is the "awful" choice.

I say that as a Green who has not voted Democratic for president since 1992, and may have the luxury of not doing so again because I live in CA. But these are new times. We are in a Crisis, and the name of that crisis is The Republican Party.

Most voters will probably have to settle for the lesser of two evils for quite a while, and vote against the evil of two lessers. That's just the nature of the American electorate. The map of vast middle America is awash in red. That means the land is flooded in ignorance. In such a land, utopian or idealistic hopes for an ideal candidate are bound to be disappointed. The people would not support such a candidate.

Originally Posted by radind

I don't know anyone who wants a world like the one you claim "the Right" wants. I do know many conservatives- the majority(not all) of the people that I actually know are conservatives. My sense is that you take a small minority of " the Right" and then use this minority to represent " the Right". Of course, a few conservatives do the equivalent-from the opposite point of view.
Although I am concerned about the wealthy( super-rich) in terms of power, my concern is not based on party affiliation.
In any case, I am convinced that things are not near so dire as you continue to claim.

Unless the Republican party changes soon, they will not continue as a competitive major party.
It appears that Clinton is the most likely candidate for the Democrat party, but so far there is no clear leader as Republican challenger. ( That is why Romney is being considered for another run).

The electorate is fed up with politicians in general and it is not clear what the mood will be in 2016. By 2020, the current Republican party will be obsolete.

Yes, it already is obsolete; long since obsolete. I understand about the conservatives that you say you know. But WE know the politicians whom they vote for, such as Sen. Sessions and Sen. Shelby, or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. THEY support policies that perpetuate the power of the super-rich. THEY support "the status quo (e.g., no health care coverage programs, no immigrant amnesty, no stimulus, no change in marriage, no relief for students, no jobs programs, no unemployment or food assistance, no minimum wage, no bank/consumer reforms, no change in energy policies)" (quoting playwrite). Your friends vote for them. Almost all voters in Alabama vote along racial lines too; that is a fact. I see no signs at all that voters in Alabama will change the politicians and party whom they vote for.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

quote by a guy at a Town Hall meeting, where he said, "My father has a pension. My brother has a pension. I don't have one, and I'm pissed. If I can't one, they shouldn't have one either!" This, about his father and brother.
.

It does make you wonder why quality employers with career track opportunities didn't knock down dad's door to hire prince charming. Attitude maybe?

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

The Republicans are very monolithic now.

Surely you jest.

Both major parties have all sorts of factions and micro factions.

In truth, our republic is itching for additional credible parties however the system makes it tough to pull it off. The alternative is to supplant one or both parties with new ones. In any case, it is not a stable condition and destined to crumble. Both sides of the aisle will be turned upside down.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, it already is obsolete; long since obsolete. I understand about the conservatives that you say you know. But WE know the politicians whom they vote for, such as Sen. Sessions and Sen. Shelby, or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. THEY support policies that perpetuate the power of the super-rich. THEY support "the status quo (e.g., no health care coverage programs, no immigrant amnesty, no stimulus, no change in marriage, no relief for students, no jobs programs, no unemployment or food assistance, no minimum wage, no bank/consumer reforms, no change in energy policies)" (quoting playwrite). Your friends vote for them. Almost all voters in Alabama vote along racial lines too; that is a fact. I see no signs at all that voters in Alabama will change the politicians and party whom they vote for.

Southern whites will turn against the Republican Party when they recognize themselves as oppressed -- not by people who fail to share their culture but instead by people who underpay them and keep the public services inadequate. Bad schools oppress poor Southern whites.

Republicans have the 'plain folks' appeal down pat. There's nothing plain, though, about people who live like sultans.

So many of us d@mnyankee liberals love the exotic and archaic. Here's a simple fact: Bach cannot oppress anyone. Hokusai cannot oppress anyone. Goethe cannot oppress anyone. The Koch brothers can -- and they do it often and severely.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Yes, it already is obsolete; long since obsolete. I understand about the conservatives that you say you know. But WE know the politicians whom they vote for, such as Sen. Sessions and Sen. Shelby, or Mitt Romney or Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. THEY support policies that perpetuate the power of the super-rich. THEY support "the status quo (e.g., no health care coverage programs, no immigrant amnesty, no stimulus, no change in marriage, no relief for students, no jobs programs, no unemployment or food assistance, no minimum wage, no bank/consumer reforms, no change in energy policies)" (quoting playwrite). Your friends vote for them. .

It is clear that we will continue to disagree on a number of issues. At this point, anything I could say would just be repetitious.
Moreover, I am currently dealing with a family medical crisis that will continue , but hopefully improve over time. In addition, I am expecting some family for Thanksgiving next week , and more family during the Christmas holidays.
Therefore, I will be less active for a few months and plan to engage more next year.
This will also allow us to see what happens with the new Congress is in place.

[QUOTEAlmost all voters in Alabama vote along racial lines too; that is a fact. I see no signs at all that voters in Alabama will change the politicians and party whom they vote for.[/QUOTE]

It might be worthwhile to explore the meaning and implications of ‘racial lines’. -Facts and data are good, but sometimes the interpretation of data is also critical.

This ‘fact’ holds in some ways both in Alabama and in the country at large. The African-American vote tends to be around 90% for the Democrats in both cases.
The White vote has been about 70 % for Republicans in Alabama , and I think around 55%( I gave up trying to find this info) in the US.


For most of my life, Alabama has essentially been a one-party state. When I was young, the election was the Democrat primary. The general election was a formality with token GOP opposition. (The notable exception is the one mentioned in a prior post) where the voters ‘revolted’ and elected a Republican governor when the Democrats were dominant. ) Now the election is primarily the Republican primary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_...lections,_2014
Alabama -United States Senate election in Alabama, 2014
Three-term incumbent Republican Jeff Sessions had been re-elected with 63% of the vote in 2008. Sessions sought re-election. No Democrat filed to run against him, and the election was uncontested.

Just stating ‘facts’ does not necessarily lead to dialog and any hope of making progress. The following is an interesting thought.

http://www.fairvote.org/research-and...-and-setbacks/
…”The first step in eliminating the racial bias embedded in elections is to begin to elect more people of color at all levels of government in order for people to rethink their notions of ethnicity and its impact on leadership. There are systemic changes we can make to the election process that may impact how many people of color are elected. One of those changes is switching to a ranked-choice voting system in multi-winner districts in which voters rank candidates by preference and like-minded voters win representation in proportion to their share of the vote. In the current winner-take-all system in the U.S., 50.1% of the population can control 100% of seats, many times leaving candidates that are part of a minority out of the running. In areas where neighborhoods are racially polarized, it allows white populations to be overrepresented because they vote more often than minority groups.”…

Other ‘facts’ and thoughts.

http://www.ibtimes.com/election-2016...l-race-1719138
…”presidential races draw a different electorate. In 2012, 72 percent of voters were white -- a drop of three percentage points from the midterms two years earlier -- while 13 percent were African-American and 10 percent were Latino.
Latino voters skew very differently in statewide and district races as opposed to presidential contests, when they trend far more Democratic. Latinos gave House Democratic candidates 60 percent of the vote in 2010 and 63 percent in 2014, far less than their support for Democrats in presidential campaigns — 70 percent in 2008 and 68 percent in 2012.”…



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_a...tionism.3.html
…”According to a massive survey on the “generation gap” by the Pew Research Center, voters who turned 18 when Franklin Roosevelt was president were 8 points more Democratic than the average voter in 1994, 1996, and 1998; 11 points more Democratic in 2000; 3 points more Democratic in 2002; and 14 points more Democratic in 2004. By contrast, the next oldest cohort of voters—those who “came of age” during the Truman and Eisenhower administrations—were substantially more Republican in most years.”…
…”Whether it’s through institutional change—a national voting holiday, for instance—or something else, we have to change the dynamics of American politics. Otherwise, we can look forward to a future of dysfunction where our government will fail to do the most basic tasks. And while we can muddle through for a little while, it’s not a condition we can survive for a generation.”…

Originally Posted by radind

It is clear that we will continue to disagree on a number of issues. At this point, anything I could say would just be repetitious.
Moreover, I am currently dealing with a family medical crisis that will continue , but hopefully improve over time. In addition, I am expecting some family for Thanksgiving next week , and more family during the Christmas holidays.
Therefore, I will be less active for a few months and plan to engage more next year.
This will also allow us to see what happens with the new Congress is in place.

Best wishes and happy holidays to you.

I am sure we'll see Republican obstruction. But will they do anything at all? Other than things that should NOT be done (TPP, Keystone XL)? We'll see.

Almost all voters in Alabama vote along racial lines too; that is a fact. I see no signs at all that voters in Alabama will change the politicians and party whom they vote for.

It might be worthwhile to explore the meaning and implications of ‘racial lines’. -Facts and data are good, but sometimes the interpretation of data is also critical.

This ‘fact’ holds in some ways both in Alabama and in the country at large. The African-American vote tends to be around 90% for the Democrats in both cases. The White vote has been about 70 % for Republicans in Alabama , and I think around 55%( I gave up trying to find this info) in the US.

The last data I saw was that whites in Alabama vote about 85% Republican in presidential elections and blacks vote about 90% Democratic. The proportions may be different in local elections. Proportions of the black vote that's Democratic are similar elsewhere, but not the proportions of the white vote. Mississippi white voters vote Republican about 90%; elsewhere in the South it's about 70-80%; in the nation as a whole it's about 60% (probably less in the northeast and coastal west). In AL and MS and some other southern states, the white vote decides which party rules, and it's a monolithic vote.

Just stating ‘facts’ does not necessarily lead to dialog and any hope of making progress. The following is an interesting thought.

Good idea. As a Green I am a long-time supporter of ranked-choice voting. Some cities in the SF Bay Area have it now; notably Oakland.

Other ‘facts’ and thoughts.

I linked that Slate article before. What's driving this seems to be the unwillingess of younger voters and diverse voters to vote in midterm elections. They don't seem to understand how important those elections are. Perhaps we can say that "civics" education has declined, for a variety of reasons.