Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm buried in Fundies here in Jerry Falwell's hometown. Even the well educated are likely to be young-earthers.

I recently talked with a friend who's from the Northwest that's also buried where you are. She's desperately trying to talk her husband into coming out here but it's tough to dig up family roots.

And so begins the re-learning of those who believe there's no difference between the parties -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/soci...e-rules-change

New GOP Congress Fires Shot At Social Security On Day One

With a little-noticed proposal, Republicans took aim at Social Security on the very first day of the 114th Congress.

The incoming GOP majority approved late Tuesday a new rule that experts say could provoke an unprecedented crisis that conservatives could use as leverage in upcoming debates over entitlement reform.

The largely overlooked change puts a new restriction on the routine transfer of tax revenues between the traditional Social Security retirement trust fund and the Social Security disability program. The transfers, known as reallocation, had historically been routine; the liberal Center for Budget and Policy Priorities said Tuesday that they had been made 11 times. The CBPP added that the disability insurance program "isn't broken," but the program has been strained by demographic trends that the reallocations are intended to address.

The House GOP's rule change would still allow for a reallocation from the retirement fund to shore up the disability fund -- but only if an accompanying proposal "improves the overall financial health of the combined Social Security Trust Funds," per the rule, expected to be passed on Tuesday. While that language is vague, experts say it would likely mean any reallocation would have to be balanced by new revenues or benefit cuts.

House Democrats are sounding the alarm. In a memo circulated to their allies Tuesday, Democratic staffers said that that would mean "either new revenues or benefit cuts for current or future beneficiaries." New revenues are highly unlikely to be approved by the deeply tax-averse Republican-led Congress, leaving benefit cuts as the obvious alternative.

The Social Security and Medicare Boards of Trustees estimated last year that the disability insurance program would run short of money to pay all benefits some time in late 2016. Without a new reallocation, disability insurance beneficiaries could face up to 20 percent cuts in their Social Security payments in late 2016 -- a chit that would be of use to Republicans pushing for conservative entitlement reforms.

"The rule change would prohibit a simple reallocation! It will require more significant and complex changes to Social Security," Social Security Works, an advocacy group, said in a statement Tuesday. "In other words, the Republican rule will allow Social Security to be held hostage."

Policy wonks who follow Social Security saw the GOP rule change as a play for leverage.

"Everybody's been talking about entitlement reform. Mr. Boehner and President Obama were pretty close to coming up with some kind of grand bargain, which ultimately fell apart," Tom Hungerford, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute, told TPM. "Maybe this could be used as a hostage to try to get back to something like that."

For their part, congressional Republicans were fairly transparent about their thinking. Rep. Tom Reed (R-NY), who has been outspoken on the disability program, co-sponsored the rule amendment. The disability program has been a favored target for the GOP; members were warning last month that the program could be vulnerable to fraud.

"My intention by doing this is to force us to look for a long term solution for SSDI rather than raiding Social Security to bail out a failing federal program," Reed said in a statement. "Retired taxpayers who have paid into the system for years deserve no less.”

Liberal analysts counter, however, that the retirement fund, which pays out $672.1 billion in benefits per year versus $140.1 billion for the disability fund, is more than healthy enough to allow for a reallocation, as has historically been done. CBPP's Kathy Ruffing wrote that, if a transfer was made before the 2016 deadline, both funds would be solvent until 2033.

The Republican angle in preventing that move then seems obvious.

"By barring the House from approving a 'clean' reallocation in 2016, the rule will strengthen the hand of lawmakers who seek to attach harsh conditions (such as sharp cuts in eligibility or benefit amounts) to such a measure," Ruffing wrote.

Now don't you feel like silly rabbits? Or, do we need another GOP WH in 2016 to take us into an unnecessary war as well?

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

There are really several different scenarios here. [snip]

So we just don't know. I would feel more positive in Hillary would walk away, but a Democrat losing in 2016 is a lot better than a loss in 2020.

We must always remember that the presidential election isn't one national one but 50 statewide elections. There are some states that no Republican can win, and a few others that no Democrat can win, barring a miracle. Those states give the Democrats over 250 electoral votes out the starting gate. If Virginia goes blue, make that 270, which is the magic number, meaning the Democrat has won before a single vote is tallied. Even if Virginia remains in play, the task before a GOP presidential candidate is incredibly unfair.

That's not going to last forever, but it will still be true two years from now, and that's why I say that it will be decided in the Democratic primary.

Originally Posted by playwrite

And so begins the re-learning of those who believe there's no difference between the parties -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/soci...e-rules-change

Now don't you feel like silly rabbits? Or, do we need another GOP WH in 2016 to take us into an unnecessary war as well?

We don't need reminding, but the ones who do seem to need the 2x4 method of reeducation. I wish it was otherwise.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

We must always remember that the presidential election isn't one national one but 50 statewide elections. There are some states that no Republican can win, and a few others that no Democrat can win, barring a miracle. Those states give the Democrats over 250 electoral votes out the starting gate. If Virginia goes blue, make that 270, which is the magic number, meaning the Democrat has won before a single vote is tallied. Even if Virginia remains in play, the task before a GOP presidential candidate is incredibly unfair.

That's not going to last forever, but it will still be true two years from now, and that's why I say that it will be decided in the Democratic primary.

This assumes that the the revulsion index remains low. If it rises, then the GOP gets an edge. Many more Republicans vote every time than Democrats. What brings out the Dem vote is the POTUS race, and running a puke-worthy candidate is a recipe for low turnout. If it's low enough, it overrules the demographics.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This assumes that the the revulsion index remains low. If it rises, then the GOP gets an edge. Many more Republicans vote every time than Democrats. What brings out the Dem vote is the POTUS race, and running a puke-worthy candidate is a recipe for low turnout. If it's low enough, it overrules the demographics.

Theoretically, if the Democrats did that, they could throw the election, but it would take a SERIOUSLY bad candidate and I suggest to you that no such candidate could win the nomination. The problem the GOP faces is that the solidly Democratic states are in many cases large and populous: New York, Illinois, California. Republicans have almost no chance to win any of those states.

We're in the final stages (I hope!) of the American Civil War. Wait -- make that the American Civil Conflict (the term Civil War should be reserved for the years of actual fighting on the battlefield). For the White Southern Culture, mainstream America is the enemy every bit as much as it was in 1861. Things have reached a point where Republican candidates must take stances that lose them any chance to win urbanized, populous states outside the South. That's the only thing that rallies the base, but the base is shrinking; Virginia may have already gone blue -- although that may not be obvious from the corner of the state where you live.

Obama could win a third term if the Constitution permitted it. Hillary Clinton, much though I loathe her, would win easily. Elizabeth Warren, if she won the nomination, would win the election. About the only way the Democrats would lose, until and unless the Republicans become sane once more, is if a completely discredited incumbent were to run for reelection (think LBJ in 1968, so badly tarred that the dirt stuck to his VP). They have no incumbent who is discredited in that way, or who can run.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

This assumes that the the revulsion index remains low. If it rises, then the GOP gets an edge. Many more Republicans vote every time than Democrats. What brings out the Dem vote is the POTUS race, and running a puke-worthy candidate is a recipe for low turnout. If it's low enough, it overrules the demographics.

As the demographics evolve over the next decade, I think one of the first milestones will be the elimination of "revulsion index" as a meaningful edge to the GOP.

Here's the "Blue Wall" that Brian was referring to (this particular version put forth actually by a GOP strategist soon after the mid-terms -

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

The missing story of the 2014 election

Granted, at the level of core party states, there's a couple Blue that have a higher potential to flip in a really bad "revulsion index" year but these are primarily in MidWest and upper NE states (that's why Bubba Clinton is going to be key). However, while less likely (at least in 2016) the eventual flip of Texas and Georgia would be catastrophic for the GOP as a continuing national party. For Texas, it is no longer an issue of demographics, it is an issue of GOTV where the "revulsion index" of Hispanics and Asians in Texas takes it in the other direction.

If everything stays fixed in the core states, the Dems only really need one of the "undecided" states while the Reps would have to carry almost everyone. In fact, they could only afford to loss either CO, IA or WV, but no two combined. CO is becoming larger so perhaps after the 2020 Census, it may fall into a must-win for the GOP; problem for them is CO is also becoming more urban and Hispanic which will just make it more difficult to go GOP.

For 2016, if all core states remain, the key undecided will be Virginia, and look what this GOP strategist had to say about that -

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.

Arguably, Ohio, as an "undecided" could be one of those 'Old White Male rage' states that goes Red, but just as arguably, Florida will eventually go Blue with the demographics - perhaps beating Texas as the state that turns the GOP into a regional power (Deep South and rural Plains).

The real game is about dealing with an increasingly cornered animal that is the GOP. The big item is their changing the electoral college so that we get a run of GOP Presidents elected by minority - and their hope that doesn't spike the "revulsion index" to revolutionary levels. Gerrymandering and voter suppression will continue to be their game, making the post-2020 Census state elections critical. And of course, there will be the Mitch McConnell game of sabotaging the economy with their House majority (maintained by cornered animal tactics) to stymate any Dem Presidency as much as they did Obama's - to remedy that will require Americans to become a lot more observant and a whole less lot stupid - that, unfortunately, means this element of the eventual change may take a while.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Theoretically, if the Democrats did that, they could throw the election, but it would take a SERIOUSLY bad candidate and I suggest to you that no such candidate could win the nomination. The problem the GOP faces is that the solidly Democratic states are in many cases large and populous: New York, Illinois, California. Republicans have almost no chance to win any of those states.

The anti-Hillary wave has already started, but she's still the front runner - nearly ordained for the nomination. I won't vote for here, or a Bush either for that matter. The Millies actually hate her, at least the ones I know. Since they are hard to poll, and tend to avoid primaries, we may all be a bit surprised when it's too late for the Dems to put anyone else into play.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

We're in the final stages (I hope!) of the American Civil War. Wait -- make that the American Civil Conflict (the term Civil War should be reserved for the years of actual fighting on the battlefield). For the White Southern Culture, mainstream America is the enemy every bit as much as it was in 1861. Things have reached a point where Republican candidates must take stances that lose them any chance to win urbanized, populous states outside the South. That's the only thing that rallies the base, but the base is shrinking; Virginia may have already gone blue -- although that may not be obvious from the corner of the state where you live.

I don't think this is true anymore. I think the party faithful are willing to have their candidates say and do anything necessary to win.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush ...

Obama could win a third term if the Constitution permitted it. Hillary Clinton, much though I loathe her, would win easily. Elizabeth Warren, if she won the nomination, would win the election. About the only way the Democrats would lose, until and unless the Republicans become sane once more, is if a completely discredited incumbent were to run for reelection (think LBJ in 1968, so badly tarred that the dirt stuck to his VP). They have no incumbent who is discredited in that way, or who can run.

Here I disagree. Obama is spent and Hillary is dicey (and legitimately so). I really like EW, but she has the same lack of experience problem that Obama had. I would still work and vote for her, hoping for the best, but she could get rolled by her own people.

And a 2016 win for the Dems would mean 3 in a row, which seems to be the upper limit in modern politics. If so, then 2020 would be at risk, and that's the one election that's a must-win.

Speaking of Virginia -

http://www.bluevirginia.us/diary/127...ia-republicans

Is "Kathleen Murphy's victory is a bad omen for Virginia Republicans?"
by: lowkell
Wed Jan 07, 2015 at 12:50:02 PM EST

Fascinating analysis by a self-described "political consultant and web developer for pro-life female candidates and elected officials in DC, Maryland, and Virginia" and "a political independent."


The special election for the 34th District seat in the Virginia House of Delegates was on Tuesday, January 6, 2015. Turnout was anticipated to be and was indeed low. There was also a freak snowstorm.
All this should spell doom for the Democrat Kathleen Murphy against the Republican Craig Parisot in a toss-up district, correct?

Except it didn't. Kathleen Murphy defeated Craig Parisot 51% - 48%. What was even more telling was that Murphy only lost to Parisot by 3 votes in Loudoun County, which was expected to carry the day for Parisot.

Are Democrats poised to make significant gains in Virginia in 2015 after capturing all statewide offices in 2013?...Does that fact that Kathleen Murphy came within 3 votes of capturing Loudoun County with an almost nonexistent Loudoun County Democratic Committee mean that the demographic tidal wave has swept Virginia in such a way as to mitigate the DPVA's ineptitude outside of the big 3 jurisdictions? If low turnout and bad weather hurts Democrats as both parties would agree, does Kathleen Murphy's victory in a toss-up district bode well for Democrats in the 2015 general election where turnout is expected to be higher?

I ran this by a few Dems I respect. Their reaction was cautious, mostly "we'll see," with one adding: "if Republicans take their chances for granted in safe-ish seats, then yeah, this is a harbinger." I'd also note that a few other factors have changed recently: 1) Republicans now control the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, meaning they can no longer even semi-plausibly argue that everything's the Democrats' fault; 2) the economy has really improved, with economic confidence into positive territory (according to Gallup) for the first time since they started tracking this in early 2008; 3) President Obama's approval ratings are up, with Gallup pegging them at 46%-48% as of yesterday; and 4) Republicans now control both chambers of the Virginia General Assembly, which means that Virginians will get to see just how extreme they are.

Anyway, the bottom line is this: Democrats picked up a House of Delegates seat last night, in a "purple" district that had been held by Democrat Margi Vanderhye until the 2009 Deeds-McDonnell disaster led to delegates like her losing (in Vanderhye's case, to right wingnut Barbara Comstock, now hanging out with her fellow right wingnuts in Congress). The fact that Dems were able to do this in a special election in early January, during a snowstorm no less, has got to be encouraging. Or am I missing some reason here why it might not be a "bad omen" for Virginia Republicans after all?

M&L, I would think almost having a Senator Gillespie would of had you take the oath to never sit out ever again.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The anti-Hillary wave has already started, but she's still the front runner - nearly ordained for the nomination. I won't vote for here, or a Bush either for that matter. The Millies actually hate her, at least the ones I know. Since they are hard to poll, and tend to avoid primaries, we may all be a bit surprised when it's too late for the Dems to put anyone else into play.



I don't think this is true anymore. I think the party faithful are willing to have their candidates say and do anything necessary to win.



Here I disagree. Obama is spent and Hillary is dicey (and legitimately so). I really like EW, but she has the same lack of experience problem that Obama had. I would still work and vote for her, hoping for the best, but she could get rolled by her own people.

And a 2016 win for the Dems would mean 3 in a row, which seems to be the upper limit in modern politics. If so, then 2020 would be at risk, and that's the one election that's a must-win.

If Dems could sit back and accept the increasing electoral college advantage ("Blue Wall"), maybe we could take bigger chances and get EW on the ballot rather than HC. Just a thought.

Also, with the GOP being what they have become, any and every Presidential election is a must-win. I would of thought 2000 should have showed us that. If that didn't work, you'd think imagining what McCain would be doing with Putin right now or Romney with a GOP Congress - sit and think about that for a few minutes. Pretty F'in terrifying.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As the demographics evolve over the next decade, I think one of the first milestones will be the elimination of "revulsion index" as a meaningful edge to the GOP.

Here's the "Blue Wall" that Brian was referring to (this particular version put forth actually by a GOP strategist soon after the mid-terms -

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

Granted, at the level of core party states, there's a couple Blue that have a higher potential to flip in a really bad "revulsion index" year but these are primarily in MidWest and upper NE states (that's why Bubba Clinton is going to be key). However, while less likely (at least in 2016) the eventual flip of Texas and Georgia would be catastrophic for the GOP as a continuing national party. For Texas, it is no longer an issue of demographics, it is an issue of GOTV where the "revulsion index" of Hispanics and Asians in Texas takes it in the other direction.

If everything stays fixed in the core states, the Dems only really need one of the "undecided" states while the Reps would have to carry almost everyone. In fact, they could only afford to loss either CO, IA or WV, but no two combined. CO is becoming larger so perhaps after the 2020 Census, it may fall into a must-win for the GOP; problem for them is CO is also becoming more urban and Hispanic which will just make it more difficult to go GOP.

For 2016, if all core states remain, the key undecided will be Virginia, and look what this GOP strategist had to say about that -

Arguably, Ohio, as an "undecided" could be one of those 'Old White Male rage' states that goes Red, but just as arguably, Florida will eventually go Blue with the demographics - perhaps beating Texas as the state that turns the GOP into a regional power (Deep South and rural Plains).

The real game is about dealing with an increasingly cornered animal that is the GOP. The big item is their changing the electoral college so that we get a run of GOP Presidents elected by minority - and their hope that doesn't spike the "revulsion index" to revolutionary levels. Gerrymandering and voter suppression will continue to be their game, making the post-2020 Census state elections critical. And of course, there will be the Mitch McConnell game of sabotaging the economy with their House majority (maintained by cornered animal tactics) to stalemate any Dem Presidency as much as they did Obama's - to remedy that will require Americans to become a lot more observant and a whole less lot stupid - that, unfortunately, means this element of the eventual change may take a while.

Addressing this in full, the tactical issues in 2016 are starting to be more important than the strategic ones.

• Hillary is as divisive a candidate as one can imagine. It's very easy to run a negative play on her that requires more money, effort and time to offset than the play takes to run. Firefighting will be ongoing everywhere, and defense is not where any candidate wants to be. In short, her negatives are very high; her positives are not nearly as good.
• If the GOP runs Jeb Bush, then a lot of the Hispanic advantage disappears. He's married to a Mexican-American woman whose father was a migrant worker. He speaks Spanish, and has attractive, politically savvy children who do as well. He's from Florida and Texas, keeping those states in the GOP fold. As many negatives as a third Bush may bring, I think his negatives are outweighed by positives.
• Citizens United is still the rule, so money flows like water. The biggest buckets are Hillary (D) and Jeb (R). They aren't inevitable, but they are highly likely.

The only viable offset would be a 3rd party. If it's EW or Bernie, Bush wins.

Originally Posted by playwrite

As the demographics evolve over the next decade, I think one of the first milestones will be the elimination of "revulsion index" as a meaningful edge to the GOP.

Here's the "Blue Wall" that Brian was referring to (this particular version put forth actually by a GOP strategist soon after the mid-terms -

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





Granted, at the level of core party states, there's a couple Blue that have a higher potential to flip in a really bad "revulsion index" year but these are primarily in MidWest and upper NE states (that's why Bubba Clinton is going to be key). However, while less likely (at least in 2016) the eventual flip of Texas and Georgia would be catastrophic for the GOP as a continuing national party. For Texas, it is no longer an issue of demographics, it is an issue of GOTV where the "revulsion index" of Hispanics and Asians in Texas takes it in the other direction.

If everything stays fixed in the core states, the Dems only really need one of the "undecided" states while the Reps would have to carry almost everyone. In fact, they could only afford to loss either CO, IA or WV, but no two combined. CO is becoming larger so perhaps after the 2020 Census, it may fall into a must-win for the GOP; problem for them is CO is also becoming more urban and Hispanic which will just make it more difficult to go GOP.

For 2016, if all core states remain, the key undecided will be Virginia, and look what this GOP strategist had to say about that -

Arguably, Ohio, as an "undecided" could be one of those 'Old White Male rage' states that goes Red, but just as arguably, Florida will eventually go Blue with the demographics - perhaps beating Texas as the state that turns the GOP into a regional power (Deep South and rural Plains).

The real game is about dealing with an increasingly cornered animal that is the GOP. The big item is their changing the electoral college so that we get a run of GOP Presidents elected by minority - and their hope that doesn't spike the "revulsion index" to revolutionary levels. Gerrymandering and voter suppression will continue to be their game, making the post-2020 Census state elections critical. And of course, there will be the Mitch McConnell game of sabotaging the economy with their House majority (maintained by cornered animal tactics) to stymate any Dem Presidency as much as they did Obama's - to remedy that will require Americans to become a lot more observant and a whole less lot stupid - that, unfortunately, means this element of the eventual change may take a while.

I suspect the tan states will eventually be solid blue.

Right now, WV, GA and AZ are still strongly red, unless Jeb Bush does not get nominated. I don't think any of the other Republican candidates are up to the task to win. If Christie recovers, it's conceivable he could win the general, but getting nominated is unlikely. And to get nominated he would have to tack strongly to the right, both as a candidate and as president. Remember I predicted many months ago that Bush would be nominated, and he now appears the favorite, and in the race. I continue with that prediction.

NH is not a solid blue state, and neither is Nevada, although they might lean blue. Missouri is likely a red state.

So for the "walls" I count: 247 blue, 191 red-- if my figures are right.

Bush has an advantage in FL, and probably NC, but probably not in any of the other purple swing states. CO, IA, OH, VA, NV and NH are potential Democratic wins, if the millennials vote, and vote Democratic. That's 56, plus 247 = 303 to 235 Democratic, in Bush v. Clinton as likely nominees.

Although young people are less enamored of her than the "hope and change" candidate in 2008, women of all ages will vote for her in droves. Older black voters will stay Democratic in the usual percentage.

Hillary has a moderately acceptable record, from my point of view, and from looking over it from the link Rags gave me, which was much as I thought. Though hawkish on foreign affairs and related human rights questions, she is unlikely to start any wars. It is not the time. She is good on domestic issues, and will speak to the inequality question. She may be perceived as wedded to the corporate world, but this is unclear. She is fairly strong on the environment and energy. So I could vote for her, but probably won't, since I live in a safe blue state and can vote Green.

Bernie Sanders is a potential Green candidate, and would be trouble for the Democratic nominee. But, if said nominee tilts left enough, including in the primaries and convention, perhaps the threat won't be great and Bernie won't run. The Democrats may have to deal with him.

From the cosmic perspective, (and considering my good track record of prediction, and the good statistical results of the methods I use), the Democrats have an advantage both in 2016 AND 2020. They are at a disadvantage in 2024. Much depends on who the candidates are, however. Bush is stronger than Hillary C. So it would likely be a closer race than the Obama elections, and I rate it a toss up if those are the nominees. Look for those swing states to be very close, with OH possibly falling into the Gopper column. Warren and Sanders have better scores as candidates than Hillary C, but their disadvantages counter-act the scores. But if Warren runs, she might have as good a chance as Hillary C to win. Whoever wins in 2016 would have a good shot at re-election in 2020, if (s)he runs.

Christie's horoscope score is no better than Hillary's, so that race would be advantage Dem.

Originally Posted by playwrite

If Dems could sit back and accept the increasing electoral college advantage ("Blue Wall"), maybe we could take bigger chances and get EW on the ballot rather than HC. Just a thought.

Also, with the GOP being what they have become, any and every Presidential election is a must-win. I would of thought 2000 should have showed us that. If that didn't work, you'd think imagining what McCain would be doing with Putin right now or Romney with a GOP Congress - sit and think about that for a few minutes. Pretty F'in terrifying.

I share those thoughts.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

...We're in the final stages (I hope!) of the American Civil War. Wait -- make that the American Civil Conflict (the term Civil War should be reserved for the years of actual fighting on the battlefield). For the White Southern Culture, mainstream America is the enemy every bit as much as it was in 1861. ...

I like your term "American Civil Conflict" and think that the term 'War' should be reserved for actual war. ( I also would prefer to see a distinction between major Wars( eg, WWI , WWII) and the modern so-called wars that are on a different scale).

However, as a white southerner , I do object to the idea that "mainstream America is the enemy". In my view the enemy is Russia or China or ISIL.

There seems to be no room for different opinions or points of view. It is possible , if both sides are willing, to have dialogue without assuming that someone with a different point of view is the enemy.

I agree with the points radind is making, particularly about "the enemy." BTW, I also like the term "American Civil Conflict."

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Addressing this in full, the tactical issues in 2016 are starting to be more important than the strategic ones.

• Hillary is as divisive a candidate as one can imagine. It's very easy to run a negative play on her that requires more money, effort and time to offset than the play takes to run. Firefighting will be ongoing everywhere, and defense is not where any candidate wants to be. In short, her negatives are very high; her positives are not nearly as good.
• If the GOP runs Jeb Bush, then a lot of the Hispanic advantage disappears. He's married to a Mexican-American woman whose father was a migrant worker. He speaks Spanish, and has attractive, politically savvy children who do as well. He's from Florida and Texas, keeping those states in the GOP fold. As many negatives as a third Bush may bring, I think his negatives are outweighed by positives.
• Citizens United is still the rule, so money flows like water. The biggest buckets are Hillary (D) and Jeb (R). They aren't inevitable, but they are highly likely.

The only viable offset would be a 3rd party. If it's EW or Bernie, Bush wins.

You have to look at it state-by-state. Hilary's negatives are about people staying home, not about switching sides. In the Blue Wall, a ton of people can stay home and it will not make a difference. It would make a difference in the undecided states, but she only really needs to pick up one - who is the Governor of Virginia?

Both Sanders and EW are way too smart to attempt a 3rd party. Neither of them are a Ralph Nader egotist; they know more than most what a GOP WH coupled with a GOP Congress would do to the country. They'll both pull HC to the Left; Sanders might stay in the game longer, but he'll back down at some point and endorse her and get most Progressive to jump on the bandwagon - just like he did with Obamacare.

Bush splitting the Hispanic vote isn't going to be enough to break into the Blue Wall; all it can do is delay Dem inroads into the Red zone - like you said TX. Obviously, it can help flip undecided FL to Red but that will be more a Favorite Son element. This is why they will run Bush; it's their only chance in 2016 and it is a one-off from the trend. It will not be enough, however.

Originally Posted by playwrite

You have to look at it state-by-state. Hilary's negatives are about people staying home, not about switching sides. In the Blue Wall, a ton of people can stay home and it will not make a difference. It would make a difference in the undecided states, but she only really needs to pick up one - who is the Governor of Virginia?

Both Sanders and EW are way too smart to attempt a 3rd party. Neither of them are a Ralph Nader egotist; they know more than most what a GOP WH coupled with a GOP Congress would do to the country. They'll both pull HC to the Left; Sanders might stay in the game longer, but he'll back down at some point and endorse her and get most Progressive to jump on the bandwagon - just like he did with Obamacare.

Bush splitting the Hispanic vote isn't going to be enough to break into the Blue Wall; all it can do is delay Dem inroads into the Red zone - like you said TX. Obviously, it can help flip undecided FL to Red but that will be more a Favorite Son element. This is why they will run Bush; it's their only chance in 2016 and it is a one-off from the trend. It will not be enough, however.

Whatever the result in 2016, it must not impact 2020. As someone pointed out just recently, Lyndon Johnson, political arm twister extraordinaire, only had success until the Dems super-majority in the Senate slipped below the point of obstruction, which was higher then (2/3 to end a filibuster). Current House districts will be unchanged in 2020, but will shift by 2022, so that's the next window for real change. Of course, the Senate still has its rules, so a big shift is needed there too.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Whatever the result in 2016, it must not impact 2020. As someone pointed out just recently, Lyndon Johnson, political arm twister extraordinaire, only had success until the Dems super-majority in the Senate slipped below the point of obstruction, which was higher then (2/3 to end a filibuster). Current House districts will be unchanged in 2020, but will shift by 2022, so that's the next window for real change. Of course, the Senate still has its rules, so a big shift is needed there too.

Yes, HC, or even EW, in the WH from '16 to '20 could do something bad enough to have a revulsion index reaction that could get the GOP into the WH in 2020. That's made more likely with an obstructionist GOP House and Senate filibuster likely for the next Dem Pres - basically what Obama has had to deal with. On the other hand, I think HC or EW will give up the olive branch a lot sooner than BO did and get really tough with the a-holes more or less from the get-go.

Overall though, it's a risk. BUT, as we saw with W, the risks of having the GOP anywhere near the WH at any time far far out weights the risk of a DEM WH screw-up. Also the demographics make the electoral college for Dems stronger with each election - it would take an economic meltdown or huge foreign policy fiasco, that can be laid solely on HC or EW, to generate enough on the revulsion index to overcome the Dems advantage in 2020.

Thanks for laying out how the census plays on 2022 rather than 2020; I was wondering about that. That gives us two Pres. elections to have coattails make the needed differences at the state level to have the GOP gerrymandering reversed in time for 2022!

Too bad that Jerry Brown is 76 y/o. He was on Sunday Morning today, and makes a lot of sense.

Originally Posted by TnT

Too bad that Jerry Brown is 76 y/o. He was on Sunday Morning today, and makes a lot of sense.

Well, he's had 12+ years CEO experience of what would be a G-8 nation if it were fully sovereign.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The anti-Hillary wave has already started, but she's still the front runner - nearly ordained for the nomination.

That was also true in 2008. She isn't guaranteed the nomination. Even she probably doesn't think so.

I don't think this is true anymore. I think the party faithful are willing to have their candidates say and do anything necessary to win.

Don't go by someone's wishful-thinking opinion piece, particularly if it happens to agree with your own fearful thinking. I'm quite certain he's wrong.

At some point he'll be right, though. (Either that or the GOP will disintegrate and the Democrats will hive, and it will get truly messy for a while.) How will you tell when he's right? When the Republicans run a candidate who doesn't scare you. When they run a candidate who could conceivably win YOUR vote, or at least make you think about it. See any Republicans in the front ranks that you might conceivably vote for?

Neither do I. And that's how I know he's engaging in wishful thinking.

Here I disagree. Obama is spent and Hillary is dicey (and legitimately so). I really like EW, but she has the same lack of experience problem that Obama had. I would still work and vote for her, hoping for the best, but she could get rolled by her own people.

Dude, sometimes you seriously remind me of Eeyore.

Obama can't run, of course, but if he could and did, he'd win. I agree he's "spent." It wouldn't matter. Hillary Clinton disgusts me. I know exactly what you mean about her. She'd still win. I doubt that Warren will run, and her winning the nomination would be iffy if she did, but if that happened, she'd win the election.

And a 2016 win for the Dems would mean 3 in a row, which seems to be the upper limit in modern politics. If so, then 2020 would be at risk, and that's the one election that's a must-win.

See, here's where I don't think you're up with the times. "Modern politics" is now -- as of right now -- undergoing a sea change, and coming to resemble late 19th and early 20th century politics in terms of party alignment. Then as now, one of the big parties was a regional party that had a very hard time winning national elections. The regions were about the same, too. There were only two differences. One, it was the Democrats who were the regional party and the Republicans dominated the national scene, and two, the Empty Quarter seems to have stuck with the Republicans, making for a bigger red swath on the map, not that that matters much.

During that period, the Republicans:

1. Won four elections 1868-1880, the lost '84, then won '88, then lost '92.
2. Won '96, 1900, 1904, and 1908, then lost 1912 and 1916 (but would have won both except for Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 spoiler run).
3. Won 1920, 1924, and 1928.

The presidency belonged to the Republicans barring something weird happening like in 1912. The reason why it did, was because the Democrats were the party of the South, and the party of the South can't win nationally except with the help of a miracle, or self-destruction by the other party (again as in 1912).

Today, the Republicans are the party of the South, suffering from the same problem. What you're calling "modern politics" is actually the years of transition from the Democrats in that role to the Republicans in that role, which started in 1932:

1. FDR put together a winning coalition, kept the South in the party, but began to move away from positions Southern whites could stand.
2. Truman integrated the armed forces and lost the South to a third party in 1948.
3. LBJ abandoned the South by signing the Civil Rights Act. The South went Republican in 1964 for the first time in like forever.
4. Nixon, although he governed like a typical progressive Republican, began the "Southern strategy."
5. Reagan ran on it and won with it.
6. Since Reagan, the GOP has become more and more committed to it, while the Democrats have become more and more comfortable without the South. The party roles have completely switched.

The only way for the GOP to become nationally competitive again is for them to abandon the Southern white vote (in its classic patterns). I don't see that happening in 2016, although it probably will eventually.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

Well, he's had 12+ years CEO experience of what would be a G-8 nation if it were fully sovereign.

Not only that, but it appears that by doing sensible stuff, he has brought California back from the edge of the abyss, one that was similar in many ways to the U.S. at large ... gridlock, too-low taxes for what the public expects in services, spending on crap that does no good, malignant partisanship, etc.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

... The only way for the GOP to become nationally competitive again is for them to abandon the Southern white vote (in its classic patterns). I don't see that happening in 2016, although it probably will eventually.

Unfortunately, it appears to me that the Democratic party may have abandoned the working class white dude, who lives all over the country. These are the "religious, gun-owning" folks. They are the folks who didn't want to go to college, who prefer working with their hands, who once went to work on railroads, in steel mills, in auto factories, in a time when there was plenty of relatively un-skilled work to do.

Now they've been put out of good-paying work, have been convinced by the Republicans that trade unions are the spawn of Satan, have been convinced by the Republicans that it's the immigrants and folks of color who "get all the breaks". AND, the Democrats have encouraged this sort of thinking with their various causes, including environmental stuff, programs for poverty that appears to be limited to folks of color, etc.

Yeah, sure, these guys now vote against their own interests, because the Republicans sure as hell don't have their backs. But the Democrats now have this image that's been in part created for them, but in part they have shot themselves in their own foot, of elitist, intellectual, anti-military, anti-good-old-USA, hyper-feminist, anti-religion, anti-gun. Mind you, not that any of these things are bad, but where are the initiatives for the good-old-boys? What does a guy do with himself after getting out of high school? Join the military? That's about the only thing left for someone like that.

Originally Posted by TnT

Unfortunately, it appears to me that the Democratic party may have abandoned the working class white dude, who lives all over the country. These are the "religious, gun-owning" folks. They are the folks who didn't want to go to college, who prefer working with their hands, who once went to work on railroads, in steel mills, in auto factories, in a time when there was plenty of relatively un-skilled work to do.

Now they've been put out of good-paying work, have been convinced by the Republicans that trade unions are the spawn of Satan, have been convinced by the Republicans that it's the immigrants and folks of color who "get all the breaks". AND, the Democrats have encouraged this sort of thinking with their various causes, including environmental stuff, programs for poverty that appears to be limited to folks of color, etc.

Yeah, sure, these guys now vote against their own interests, because the Republicans sure as hell don't have their backs. But the Democrats now have this image that's been in part created for them, but in part they have shot themselves in their own foot, of elitist, intellectual, anti-military, anti-good-old-USA, hyper-feminist, anti-religion, anti-gun. Mind you, not that any of these things are bad, but where are the initiatives for the good-old-boys? What does a guy do with himself after getting out of high school? Join the military? That's about the only thing left for someone like that.

Bingo.
And the reason why Walker is gov. in Wisconsin, Snyder in Michigan ect. is because this outlook is not limited to those with a southern accent. And they vote in pres. elections too. All this talk about a blue wall seems to make some not realize that some of the bricks, namely in the Midwest are very soft and mushy. Fly over country indeed.