Originally Posted by Brian Rush

That last sentence explains it perfectly. The Democrats of their youth weren't running in their old age. The GIs had been (and remained) progressive in terms of the economic and foreign policy issues that dominated their youth in the Crisis, but came down more conservative on the social issues that dominated in the Awakening. They didn't change that much. The prevailing issues did.

Xers may well be sharply conservative in their old age, if they follow the same pattern as the Lost. However, once again, that depends on the prevailing issues changing. Xers tend to be more in favor of gay rights and gay marriage than Boomers or older (but less so than Millennials), so the only way they can be as crusty right-wing as the Lost were is if that's no longer an issue when they get old. On a new set of issues, they may well drag their feet. Again, though, that's not them changing. It's the issues changing.

The GI's were economically tied to the Democrats and their government programs. The GI's weren't tied the Democrats and their new social programs and social policies or foreign policy.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Sorry, old friend, its actually the entire Northeast, Pacific West and the MidWest with the exception of Indiana as Red and Ohio as a swing. If it was just NY and CA, you all might have a chance, but sorry, sunshine, its not.

The 2016 Dem nominee only needs one of either VA, OH, FL, or NC and its over. The 2016 GOP candidate would need ALL of these plus pick up a Blue Wall state that has at least 6 electoral votes - that's not going to happen. This is over before it starts.

The media needs to play up that there's an actual contest but it is going to be eventually seen for what it is - inevitable. The real action will be 24 Senate GOPers trying to keep from being swept out - many of them got in during the 2010 low voter turnout t-bagger mid-term election - in states that went Obama, twice. The post-election analysis is going to be all about can the GOP ever again win a national election and when, not if, will that question start coming up within most states (e.g. VA, OH, FL, NC, TX!). Not if, but when, will the GOP be seen as just a regional/rural power?

From there, it will gradually dawn on folks what this means for the SCOTUS. By the end of a 2-term Dem elected to the WH in 2016, Scalia will be closer to 90 than to 80 and Thomas will be in his mid-70s; those guys ain't no Ruth Ginsburg when it comes to cardiovascular systems.

An Obama/Clinton-dominated court will take big wacks at the GOP re-guard actions - Citizens United, voter suppression, gerrymandering. That latter one will start to put the U.S. House in play.

The real problem for the GOP is long before this comes to its inevitable fruition, the money-folks are going to sniff the blood in the water and the well is going to start drying up pretty quickly for Rightees. The pressure for a split in the Party is going to build as the various fractions start the inevitable desperate finger pointing - my bet it will be Cruz theocons rather than Paul libertarians that split off.

I can hardly wait.

You should take the family to Gettysburg, and see the previous High Water Mark. The interesting debate today is whether this time it was 2000, 2010 or 2014.

I don't have to go to Gettysburg to view a previous high water mark. You should take every hot headed liberal college boy and girl to Gettysburg and force them to view the gruesome pictures and take a hard look at all the graves and inform them that that's what it's going take from them in order for them to radically CHANGE AMERICA during their lifetime. Not going to happen, you need those fools and need them to remain being fools and keep them in the dark as far as real life knowledge as it pertains to violent conflicts. BTW, a portion of the Midwest believes that it relies upon you and votes accordingly. A portion of the Midwest currently makes do without you and largely believes in itself. Another portion is self reliant and has always relied upon itself and has no political interest in you whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep those who believe that rely upon you because they're considered worthless without you. They can have you because you're pretty much worthless without a trust fund. BTW, if the well dries up, which groups are naturally better equipped for survival and dealing with a blood thirsty groups.

Originally Posted by herbal tee

I almost hate to write this because the future of the Supreme Court would then depend totally on 4 heartbeats, including Ruth Bader Ginsberg's frail one, for two years, but the quickest way to get there is to have a GOP victory in 2016 followed by two years of worse than Dubya CF in DC.

I'm starting to see 2016 as the last desperate grasp for total power from the GOP and their money machine. If it's Hillary or the money boys, I'm willing to bet on the money, unless the GOP candidate is someone like Cruz. Whether this leads to your meltdown or not, we may have to live through this.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm starting to see 2016 as the last desperate grasp for total power from the GOP and their money machine. If it's Hillary or the money boys, I'm willing to bet on the money, unless the GOP candidate is someone like Cruz. Whether this leads to your meltdown or not, we may have to live through this.

It's been a long march for the chairman and his red army, but the Forbidden City is surrounded with only the imperial palace in non red hands. I suspect that the grasp may not be desperate for the financial elite as it will be for the social issue driven peasants. After all we have seen in today's Beijing as well as old Peking that big money does well whether the 'reds''' have total power or not.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

I don't have to go to Gettysburg to view a previous high water mark. You should take every hot headed liberal college boy and girl to Gettysburg and force them to view the gruesome pictures and take a hard look at all the graves and inform them that that's what it's going take from them in order for them to radically CHANGE AMERICA during their lifetime.

Pretty cynical for someone who never served himself. Just saying.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er ...

Not going to happen, you need those fools and need them to remain being fools and keep them in the dark as far as real life knowledge as it pertains to violent conflicts. BTW, a portion of the Midwest believes that it relies upon you and votes accordingly. A portion of the Midwest currently makes do without you and largely believes in itself. Another portion is self reliant and has always relied upon itself and has no political interest in you whatsoever. As far as I'm concerned, you can keep those who believe that rely upon you because they're considered worthless without you. They can have you because you're pretty much worthless without a trust fund. BTW, if the well dries up, which groups are naturally better equipped for survival and dealing with a blood thirsty groups.

No part of the Midwest is self-supporting. Every state relies heavily on crop supports and other farm programs, to say noting of all the military bases and other Federal facilities that dot the place all out of proportion to the population if not the land area. If we go to the Mountain West, then it gets even more pronounced, with extraction fees kept super-cheap to encourage extraction industries. In fact, the coasts are the subsidizers for the rest, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

Pretty cynical for someone who never served himself. Just saying.

Not cynical enough, from those who apparently have, IMO.
(and FWIW, David. I'm not 'just saying'.)


Prince

PS: And, 'the world wonders' ...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Some time ago here, I investigated the perennial question of whether or not generations become more conservative (or Republican) as they age, or whether generations have a political identity that is formed early and remains fixed. .

Here's a paper about this very topic.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

No part of the Midwest is self-supporting. Every state relies heavily on crop supports and other farm programs, to say noting of all the military bases and other Federal facilities that dot the place all out of proportion to the population if not the land area. If we go to the Mountain West, then it gets even more pronounced, with extraction fees kept super-cheap to encourage extraction industries. In fact, the coasts are the subsidizers for the rest, not the other way around.

We all know that the red states get more from the government than they contribute to it, not the blue states. But Republican "self-reliance" ideology (voodoo economics) prevents their supporters from seeing this fact, because the fact refutes their ideology. And their ideology is sacred to them.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm starting to see 2016 as the last desperate grasp for total power from the GOP and their money machine. If it's Hillary or the money boys, I'm willing to bet on the money, unless the GOP candidate is someone like Cruz. Whether this leads to your meltdown or not, we may have to live through this.

First, Cruz is absolutely the most likely candidate running to win the GOP nomination.

Second, that's not how money in politics works. It doesn't determine the winner of the election. It exercises veto power over who can run. Hillary Clinton has already passed muster with the plutocrats, and she's likely to be a heavy recipient of corporate money. Regardless of who gets more spent on the campaign from all sources, if she's nominated, she'll win the election.

So would Elizabeth Warren, but nominating her in the first place could be tricky. Still, the fact that Cruz is likely to win the GOP nomination when he is by no means the favorite of the corporate elite shows that it can be done.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

... You should take every hot headed liberal college boy and girl to Gettysburg and force them to view the gruesome pictures and take a hard look at all the graves ...

This would have been a great idea for "W" and Dick and company before they made Iran the pre-eminent nation in the mideast. That's what ideology instead of pragmatism gets us.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

... Another portion is self reliant and has always relied upon itself and has no political interest in you whatsoever. ...

This whole "self-reliant" mythology always takes me back to John Donne's poem "For Whom the Bell Tolls." The few partly self-reliant folks are those who embrace subsistence farming, and even then, they have to have certain things in order to function, things that they simply can't get or make for themselves. It's all a matter of degree.

I am fascinated by a story that came out a few years ago about a family in Siberia who ran away from WW-II, into the mountains, and truly did "live off the land." Their story was very tragic, and very sad, how desperate much of their lives were. Finally they died out except, if memory serves, for one of the daughters who was so weird that she went back out into the wilderness and was never heard from again.

No, I'm afraid that we are all stuck with one another. If we can't figure that out and learn something from it, then the end of our species will no doubt be filled with pain and needless suffering. Self-sufficiency, actually its illusion, is not a character asset, except in moderate doses.

Originally Posted by Mikebert

Here's a paper about this very topic.

Good paper, which agrees with other charts posted here before.

Generational voting patterns are shaped during the ages of 14-24 by popular presidencies, and at least in the most-recent case, an unpopular one (Bush II).

Core baby boomers (centered on 1952 cohort) are more Democratic, Reagan/Bush I conservatives (Jones, most Xers) and Eisenhower Republicans (late Silent, early Boomer) more Republican, and X-Y cusp/Millennials and New Dealers more Democratic.

What the study points out to me, is the tendency, perhaps a part of our social DNA shaped over millennia, to give the entire responsibility to our "elected" king. For example, the behavior of congress during the Obama term, the congress that the youth themselves elected by not voting in 2010 and 2014, has no effect on their opinion of the president's performance. In all the periods, it is the president's alleged "performance" during the age of political socialization that shapes subsequent voting patterns.

The tides of support shift according to the overall popularity of the parties, but the relationship of the generations to each other remains fairly constant.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, Cruz is absolutely the most likely candidate running to win the GOP nomination.

The success of my horoscope evaluation method, if you take that into consideration, rules Cruz out definitively. Personally and character wise, he is just not qualified, and some say he is running against prevalent current tides of opinion and concern even in the GOP. Jeb Bush has by far the best chart, although his brother's record and his more-moderate (relatively speaking) positions could hurt his chances for the nomination anyway. Cruz will do no better than Santorum or Gingrich did against Romney, the more-moderate candidate (relatively-speaking). Most likely, Hillary is going to have her hands full to defeat Bush, even if (as between Obama and Romney, whom Obama concentrated on defeating to the detriment of his congress) she is likely to succeed--- given the analysis you gave above, which I agree with.

Remember that I predicted all the twists and turns of the entire 2012 campaign, and the exact final electoral vote count-- unlike any other pundit, anywhere. So, like it or not, my predictions might have some value

Originally Posted by TnT

This whole "self-reliant" mythology always takes me back to John Donne's poem "For Whom the Bell Tolls." The few partly self-reliant folks are those who embrace subsistence farming, and even then, they have to have certain things in order to function, things that they simply can't get or make for themselves. It's all a matter of degree.

Hello, Tim. Please pardon the interruption.

I believe For Whom The Bell Tolls is a novel by Ernest Hemingway whose title is based
on a line from John Donne's Devotions on Emergent Occassions: Meditation XVII.

So, Tim. Have you ever considered that this supposed '"self-reliant" mythology'
is merely a 'figment of your imagination'? If so, how do you know it's not? !


Prince

PS: Well, so much for the Transcendentalists being a Prophet-gen!

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Why don't the people just get rid of gerrymandering, which is what they should have been doing these last 4 years????

The almighty Koch syndicate designed the current right-wing ascendancy, and nobody crosses the Corleone -- excuse me, Koch family and its political fronts -- without facing consequences.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, Cruz is absolutely the most likely candidate running to win the GOP nomination.

That is a bold and startling statement. Care to elaborate?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

That is a bold and startling statement. Care to elaborate?

Sure. It comes down to the fact that the plutocracy has lost control over the GOP, and Ted Cruz is the darling of the Tea Party that now controls the nominating process.

Actually, GOPLifer expresses it better than I can:

http://goplifer.com/2015/03/24/when-...home-to-roost/

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

Good paper, which agrees with other charts posted here before.

Generational voting patterns are shaped during the ages of 14-24 by popular presidencies, and at least in the most-recent case, an unpopular one (Bush II).

Core baby boomers (centered on 1952 cohort) are more Democratic, Reagan/Bush I conservatives (Jones, most Xers) and Eisenhower Republicans (late Silent, early Boomer) more Republican, and X-Y cusp/Millennials and New Dealers more Democratic.

What the study points out to me, is the tendency, perhaps a part of our social DNA shaped over millennia, to give the entire responsibility to our "elected" king. For example, the behavior of congress during the Obama term, the congress that the youth themselves elected by not voting in 2010 and 2014, has no effect on their opinion of the president's performance. In all the periods, it is the president's alleged "performance" during the age of political socialization that shapes subsequent voting patterns.

The tides of support shift according to the overall popularity of the parties, but the relationship of the generations to each other remains fairly constant.

What I found interesting in the paper was the idea of "imprinting" of political behavior on a collection of contiguous birth cohorts. This strikes me as similar to "history creates generations". I had done some work with this sort of this concept in modeling the saeculum.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, Cruz is absolutely the most likely candidate running to win the GOP nomination.

I see no reason to pick anyone as the likely GOP nominee. The Republican race for the Presidency looks much like the Democratic race for the nomination for President in 1988 in which the weaknesses of the candidates are exposed early except for the nominee who was more successful in concealing his faults early -- with the Republicans exposing them at the critical time. Somebody will win, but the winner will be the one with the least bad baggage shown during the primary campaign.

Second, that's not how money in politics works. It doesn't determine the winner of the election. It exercises veto power over who can run. Hillary Clinton has already passed muster with the plutocrats, and she's likely to be a heavy recipient of corporate money. Regardless of who gets more spent on the campaign from all sources, if she's nominated, she'll win the election.

With this I concur. The only questions that I have about Hillary Clinton being elected are actuarial. The Democrats have a solid coalition that no reasonably-strong candidate can lose. The Republicans will need a midterm-style electorate to win the Presidency (unless the Democrats nominate someone not so hot -- again, look at the only qualification I have on Hillary Clinton winning: her health)... which they are unlikely to get, or a politician who can cut into marginal constituencies of the Democratic Party.

The Republicans need a 'new Ronald Reagan'. All that they have so far is either people with marginal qualifications by historical standards or who will be more effective at offending and uniting the Democratic base.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

I believe For Whom The Bell Tolls is a novel by Ernest Hemingway whose title is based
on a line from John Donne's Devotions on Emergent Occassions: Meditation XVII.

It does appear that you are correct. I was misled by an anthology that I have which has the piece listed as "a poem." "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee," etc., etc.

I tend to be a free-range dilettante and enthusiast. I'm great at starting things. Fine detail is not my most iridescent talent.

Originally Posted by princeofcats67

... So, Tim. Have you ever considered that this supposed '"self-reliant" mythology'
is merely a 'figment of your imagination'? If so, how do you know it's not? !

But of course! But I think we have established that I, and therefore my figments, are simply figments of Eric's imagination. Hence, at last, you have to blame Eric for any of my deficiencies!

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

First, Cruz is absolutely the most likely candidate running to win the GOP nomination.

Second, that's not how money in politics works. It doesn't determine the winner of the election. It exercises veto power over who can run. Hillary Clinton has already passed muster with the plutocrats, and she's likely to be a heavy recipient of corporate money. Regardless of who gets more spent on the campaign from all sources, if she's nominated, she'll win the election.

So would Elizabeth Warren, but nominating her in the first place could be tricky. Still, the fact that Cruz is likely to win the GOP nomination when he is by no means the favorite of the corporate elite shows that it can be done.

The question needing an answer: is wacknuttery still viable? I don't think that's resolved at this point, but my gut says no. I can say the same about the boring main stream. That leaves us shy of Cruz, Paul and Bush, but not Walker. He's forged a different image. Whether its seen as viable is another question entirely. If it is, then my money is on him. If he doesn't vaporize in the first week or two, he has a real shot.

Last time they picked the guy next in line. I doubt they will this time. Expect a mild surprise.

M&L, I didn't say Cruz could win the election, only the GOP nomination. He can't win the election, but really no Republican candidate can, who can be nominated. This election is going to be decided in the Democratic primaries.

When I say "no Republican candidate," I include Walker. It's all in the electoral math. The states that no Republican can win total at least 254 electoral votes, maybe a full 270 if they include Virginia, and they might. Even if they don't, Virginia is definitely in play, and so are Ohio, Florida, and North Carolina, and the Democratic candidate only has to win one of them.

Walker wouldn't even win his home state in the presidential race. Wisconsin will go for the Democrat.

Originally Posted by TnT

It does appear that you are correct. I was misled by an anthology that I have which has the piece listed as "a poem." "Ask not for whom the bell tolls, it tolls for thee," etc., etc.

Not a problem.

Originally Posted by Tim

I tend to be a free-range dilettante and enthusiast. I'm great at starting things. Fine detail is not my most iridescent talent.

Really? I believe you've stated that you currently are involved with work as an EMT(or something),
and if I recall correctly, you've stated that your background involved engineering. Is that correct?

If so, I would think both of those areas would require quite a bit of 'attention to detail'.
(FWIW Tim, this isn't any sort of indictment against you; I was just wondering.)

So, do you have any thoughts on what Donne was thinking when he wrote Meditation XVII?
(beyond the "No man is an island, ..."-thingy).


Prince

PS:

Originally Posted by TnT

But of course! But I think we have established that I, and therefore my figments, are simply figments of Eric's imagination. Hence, at last, you have to blame Eric for any of my deficiencies!

We??? What, do you have a mouse in your pocket, or something?
Oh wait. I think I get it. You and Eric established that on your own.
(And by that I mean: Eric established that, and the rest of us are just
along for the ride. How gracious of him! Very communitarian! )

Originally Posted by TnT

But of course! But I think we have established that I, and therefore my figments, are simply figments of Eric's imagination. Hence, at last, you have to blame Eric for any of my deficiencies!

We by no means established that! You did state that, however. An incorrect reading of my statements, nevertheless.

So, I establish that you are responsible for your own figments. I trust they are tasty. I like figments myself.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

The question needing an answer: is wacknuttery still viable? I don't think that's resolved at this point, but my gut says no. I can say the same about the boring main stream. That leaves us shy of Cruz, Paul and Bush, but not Walker. He's forged a different image. Whether its seen as viable is another question entirely. If it is, then my money is on him. If he doesn't vaporize in the first week or two, he has a real shot.

Last time they picked the guy next in line. I doubt they will this time. Expect a mild surprise.

I also give Walker no chance for the nomination.