Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

This is why Walker is kind of unique. His last two elections, the recall and re-election, were basically national campaigns. The Democratic Party and its activists threw everything they possibly could at him. He certainly has to step up and raise his game to compete on the national level. But he has shown evidence that he's capable of it. What's more, the national media is a ripe target to use as a foil, if done smartly. That's what Ronald Reagan did.

Scott Walker would be the smart choice.

That gives me great comfort because in the amygdalae-dominated GOP, smart choices are not an option. Even if nominated the Party's choice to pull him so far to the Right to win the primaries will make him unelectable with women, majority minorities and youth in the Blue Wall and easy pickins in just ONE of the other states.

Try to keep a hamper on that hope, the last time your bubble got burst had us all concerned about you.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Libertarian belief is mainstream American which makes views of gays as people, acknowledgement of their rights as individuals and the passing of gay marriage possible. The rest of the beliefs are mainstream liberal or Democrat. Honestly, I think Democrats are ignorant people who don't understand how liberal policies and expansions of their traditional programs are going to screw them in the long term.

I'm sure you believe this, but your version of how things should be hasn't had resonance since the mid-70s. In case you missed it, the economy has been slack for nearly 5 decades. Few of us have been in the workforce under boom times, and, if implemented, conservative policies will guarantee they never return.

The economy is a circle. If you tighten it up on one level, it slows down everywhere. That's where we are now, and your party wants to tighten further. Keep going, and you strangle the entire enterprise. And yes, programs help, but no, they have been contracted not expanded ... and rather drastically so.

It may not play on talk radio, but it's still true.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

Have you ever done business in the Twin Cities? Have you seen a popular Christmas program be removed from a public school by a liberal administration?

Oh, the War on Christmas, of course. Sorry, but the courts have ruled that government can't sponsor religious events. This has nothing to do with elected officials of either party. You can disagree, but would you be OK with a Satanic event sponsored at your local high school? If you allow one, you have to allow the other too.

Originally Posted by Classic-X'er

The Republicans will vote for change. It's just not the change that you're looking for and are willing or able to accept.

That plays both ways. Get a majority and vote for something. Assuming it isn't forbidden by constitutional limits, you can pass anything you have the clout to pass.

Originally Posted by playwrite

Just have mom wait until it becomes clear what amygdala-dominated brain is running against her in the general. It's not a popularity gauge; it's a choice.

And if that doesn't work, try imagining "The Ginsberg" being replaced by a Scalia clone.

My mother and I do understand. Note that I stated that both of us would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat over Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Bush, Walker, etc... We'd even support her campaign. We just won't be thrilled about doing it...

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The question is not whether people are involved in community. The question is whether that community is a collectivist, totalitarian government, or whether it follows the traditional American model where associations are bottom-up. The first and foremost being the family, the second the church group, then various private civic organizations and charities, followed last by local government, state government and the federal government in that order.

False dichotomy. The valid distinction is between a thug society and a civil society. All workable governments have some level of collectivization. Of course the family matters greatly due to the subtle but critical lessons that a child learns even before he can walk -- like whether humanity is generally trustworthy or whether it sees him as a disposable object, the difference between Martin Luther King and Charles Manson. The future Great Man (arguably the greatest American whose image has yet to appear on American coin or currency) was well protected and encouraged to think; the future mastermind of the Tate-Labianca murders was treated with less devotion than the typical rag doll. If it takes some government intervention to ensure that children are much less likely to become equivalents of Charles Manson, then so be it.

As a rule the model for the advanced industrial states is increasingly Germany, with its social market economy instead of the United States as it takes a potential journey into the realm of a plutocratic oligarchy in which elite profit becomes the arbiter of the acceptable and the unacceptable. It is telling that soon after the overthrow of Commie rule, countries from Poland to Bulgaria adopted the German model of the social market instead of the free-wheeling capitalism that Reagan and George H W Bush propounded. To achieve the social welfare state those countries sold off collectivized industries. After all, there are two major models of socialism -- social democracy that leaves plenty of room for business operating with an eye to profit and on the other side the failed model of Marxism-Leninism in which the government owns and operates the industry in the supposed name of the working class but in practice gives the real power to bureaucratic elites responsible in practice to none but themselves so long as they kiss up to the Commie rulers.

Free-wheeling capitalism means extreme booms and busts (as before 1940 or beginning with the dot.com boom) that bring out the shysters. Give the plutocrats extreme power and they will drive wages to the barest levels of sustenance and begin wars for profit (sale of armaments and ammunition, and control of the natural resources and helpless people of conquered countries).

I don't want our society organized around religious bodies -- do you? That's how Iran works. Just imagine the conflicts possible between Catholics and Southern Baptists in Louisiana. It could be very hot -- and I am not referring to either summer temperatures, the temperature-humidity index, or the spiciest Cajun cuisine. Some of the most civilized societies have very low rates of religious participation. I wouldn't feel as safe carrying the proceeds of my recently-cashed paycheck in Houston as in Hiroshima -- would you?

Charities are useful for limited purposes -- medical research, disaster relief, minority rights, education, child protection, animal welfare, some children's hospitals, environmental protection... and of course political advocacy. Unions can be the best agencies of worker empowerment against corporate bureaucracies that operate as callously as does a Soviet-style nomenklatura.

I'll say this -- I don't want the government or a 'leading party' organizing politicized youth groups or militias. That's how Commies and Fascists do things. Let's have Scouting, 4H, Boys' and Girls' Clubs, the Y, and religiously-affiliated youth clubs instead of Soviet-style Young Pioneers.

The Constitution was written for the specific purpose of making the federal government the last resort, not the first. The left today holds the completely opposite view, and wants to nationalize and collectivize every aspect of life, and give the federal government as much money and power as possible. Unfortunately, many Republicans who claim otherwise are very much on board with that mentality, disagreeing only about the form of federal dominance, and not really wanting to reverse it.

Paradoxically this is much what I fear from Movement Conservatism, except that the Right wants to ensure that the government simply ruins everything that the Hard Right dislikes so that a few people can grab everything. We on what you consider the Left believe in limited government when the government starts repressing us or becomes an accomplice in our impoverishment.

I have little problem with the government building a new and better road to supplant a Blood Alley. I have a big problem with the government outlawing unions, starting a propaganda apparatus, empowering monopolies or cartels, or fostering politicized youth movements -- let alone torture, concentration or labor camps, or censorship. So long as people get their money's worth out of government expenditures they have little cause for complaint about the scale of government. When government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness then the level of government expenditure upon such vile deeds necessary for such is the least of our problems.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm sure you believe this, but your version of how things should be hasn't had resonance since the mid-70s. In case you missed it, the economy has been slack for nearly 5 decades. Few of us have been in the workforce under boom times, and, if implemented, conservative policies will guarantee they never return.

The economy is a circle. If you tighten it up on one level, it slows down everywhere. That's where we are now, and your party wants to tighten further. Keep going, and you strangle the entire enterprise. And yes, programs help, but no, they have been contracted not expanded ... and rather drastically so.

It may not play on talk radio, but it's still true.

One of the great mysterious of the world - why can't some folks grasp that no one can have income unless someone is spending?

The mystery has been solved - it's their enlarged right side amygdalas dominating their cerebral lobes - facts and logic are just minor inconveniences.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My mother and I do understand. Note that I stated that both of us would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat over Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Bush, Walker, etc... We'd even support her campaign. We just won't be thrilled about doing it...

Two thumbs up!

The "thrill" will come later. Except for about 20% of the population just too far gone, nearly everyone felt the electricity at Obama's inauguration as the first Black President.

It will be the same for the first woman President. We are about the last Western society to do this.

I realize the argument that the President has to be more than just a gender issue, but from a macro-electoral point-of-view, an election forecaster would be an idiot or highly paid to ignore it.

Good thing its only one adult in the voting booth at a time, otherwise there would be a lot of GOP married couples in a lot of discord the day after this election. Yes, men might just go the other way but the GOP already has the older White male dinosaur vote; I don't think younger or non-White male voters are inclined to vote their gender at any macro level.

I've seen internal polling numbers showing a 15-20% crossover of GOP women - that's the smell of a electoral landslide.

I just hope it translate to a coattails big Senate win as well - 2/3 of the Senate seats up are GOP with many of them the 2010 low-turnout, mid-term, t-baggers fad election freshmen. They're going down.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

My mother and I do understand. Note that I stated that both of us would vote for Clinton in a heartbeat over Ryan, Rubio, Cruz, Christie, Bush, Walker, etc... We'd even support her campaign. We just won't be thrilled about doing it...

That's the issue I think. Here we have The Inevitable Candidate, and support is lukewarm at best. Why is she inevitable, and, more to the point, why have no serious opponents come forward? I think it's great that Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb are in it. Neither has the money to run for long. If she falters, that may change quickly, but fading is worse. It take s a long time to fade.

This could devolve to a contest between a qualified candidate no one wants and a whacknut no one trusts.

This chart has caused a dust up in blogger land (528 v. Vox) over who might be stealing what (my take is 528 needs to get over it in today's blogger world).



Putting aside the blogger dustup, Sam Wang does a little analysis of the graph -

http://election.princeton.edu/2015/0...th-that-chart/

- reporting the obvious of Clinton's Presidential name-recognition and favorability rating, but also that Jeb Bush is clearly starting off as "damaged goods" - he's got high name recognition but low favorability. Wang points out that he would need has basically need to win over the current non-opinion people at a ratio of nearly 2 to 1! Ain't gonna happen.

Wang also notes the GOP hope that as Rubio, Walker (probable not Cruz or R. Paul) names become more recognized that they will also climb the favorability ladder.

More subtle is Wang noting that Jeb has had no major scandal or policy position explaining the low favorability. I believe it's really about the Bush name, but what Wang raises is - does Bush=GOP and what the means? Is it Bush tainting the GOP brand or is the brand so toxic that it paints the Bush name, or that there really is no difference between the two?

Treating the Dems data points as different than the GOP and drawing two lines rather than one gives you this Rightee heartstopper -



- under this model, the eventual GOP nominee can only hope to get where Jeb is today, and any hiccup could push him down to where Christie is today - that suggests an electoral landslide.

It also suggests that its either Rubio or Walker that's got a chance in hell to change this dynamic (note Cruz greater recognition has de-accelerated his favorability).

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

That's the issue I think. Here we have The Inevitable Candidate, and support is lukewarm at best. Why is she inevitable, and, more to the point, why have no serious opponents come forward? I think it's great that Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Webb are in it. Neither has the money to run for long. If she falters, that may change quickly, but fading is worse. It take s a long time to fade.

This could devolve to a contest between a qualified candidate no one wants and a whacknut no one trusts.

I don't think Clinton is the candidate that no one wants - that's what Chuck Todd has called the Acela Line crowd over-thinking this, along with the Occupy Wall Street folks (where are those guys???).

You go out and talk with deep Blue Party folks and you can already feel the excitement. The first woman presidential candidate is not going up against the possibility of the first Black president. The vast majority of the Party wants THAT progressive feeling again! Its going to become a deafining shout by the time of the convention and the naysayers looking for perfect Progressivism are more and more going to look like navel gazers off in a corner somewhere.

Get onboard and mark out time for canvassing and GOTV - it's Virginia that could very well be the commonwealth that makes Presidential history happen (again) - early election night. Virginia is where I plan to be spending my time in Oct/Nov '16.

These ladies aren't going to be wringing their hands on election night wondering if Hillary is progressive enough -



- particularly when what's at stake is The Ginsburg being morphed into a Scalia clone that's quickly followed up with the forced enslavement of women to JPT's viewpoints.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

Just curious -- do you see Reagan as a carpetbagger? My understanding is that Obama had lived all of his working life in the Chicago area before he ran for Senator and then President.

Reagan was a bit of a carpetbagger although he did take a couple decades to become a politician after moving West.

Here's some good polling analysis that takes a huge whack at the notion that Rubio has much to offer the GOP in bringing more Hispanics into their fold -

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/cafe/ma...gop-is-the-pig

Marco Rubio Is The Lipstick, The GOP Is The Pig

Essentially, his ethnicity is not going change the view (or actually, the reality) that GOP policy are very hostile.

Others think it will be his initial stance on immigration that's going to do him in - in the GOP primaries with the base.

I think the bigger problem for him, including as the VP on the ticket, will be that he folded like a cheap suit when the t-baggers started pushing on his immigration stance. If he makes it to the general, he will more and more be seen as nothing but a spokesman beholden to the baggers - currently one of the most despised groups in politics.

That leaves Walker. I'm amazed that I agee with JPT that Walker is the best GOP shot. Where we disagree is that I don't believe Walker has a snowball's chance in hell of getting to the nomination - that's not amygdala thinkin!

The purpose of this thread was to look at the generational divide illustrated by the chart in the first post. The Republican candidates are largely Xers, and the Democrats are generally very old Boomers.

What I had actually forgotten to some degree was how badly this forum has devolved over time into a run-of-the-mill, left wing ideologue political forum, with little or no interest in the subjects raised by S&H. There are a few obsessive Boomers of the most dogmatic, partisan-blinder variety who drive every thread into this territory. In other words, nothing has changed. And it makes this forum not worth paying much attention to, because this kind of stuff exists everywhere on the internet where politics is discussed. The generational subject is what should be unique here, but there is little attention paid to it, except as a secondary rationale for left wing dogma. Oh well.

So as a means of a sort of final response before I'm overcome by boredom here once again, a lot of the posts by the usual suspects above display a kind of megalomaniacal, quasi-religious belief that is common among the most hardcore Democrats and leftists, that the US is destined for one-party rule, with the Republicans being run out of existence and the Democrats maintaining absolute control, forever. That's at the core of the belief system that expresses itself in the increasingly totalitarian, collectivist ideology of the left.

Nate Silver, who had been worshiped by the left in recent times, just posted an article (referenced above) that has earned him a hailstorm of repudiation by these True Believers:

Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s A Toss-up

It's a pretty run-of-the-mill, cautious early assessment that puts Hillary Clinton's odds of winning at 50-50. He also includes plenty of left-leaning bias against Republicans. But he did something that strikes at the heart of the left wingnut belief system, and has been met with a large blowback of denial. He rejected both the "Blue Wall" and "demographic inevitability" articles of faith.

John Judis, who co-wrote the book "The Emerging Democratic Majority" in the early 2000s, has also recently stated that the concept, which originated with that book, has become exaggerated and over-interpreted by Democrats compared to the original intent.

Without going into all the details, the summary of what Judis has noted and Silver has repeated is that the big electoral advancement predicted for Democrats is not some open-ended, permanent majority (the same thing was predicted for Republicans as recently as 2004). Rather, that trend for Democrats already happened, and peaked in 2008 (the same year, don't forget, that Boomer representation in political office peaked). Since then, the pendulum has swung back sharply in the other direction. Republicans now hold their largest majorities in Congress since before the Great Depression. They also hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures, and in many states they control both. All of that has happened in the last 6 years.

The response of Democrats has been to double down with even greater intensity and single-minded focus on "identity politics". They are taking the horse Obama rode in on, and riding it into the ground along with his approval ratings. Obamacare is and has been extremely unpopular since before it was passed, and their foreign policy and economic policy have been complete failures. So all they have left is to try even harder to divide people by race, sex and so forth, and they think they can do it all one more time with Hillary, whose only qualification is that she's female. That's where we now stand. The Democrats are on the downswing of a pendulum we've seen many times in politics, where one side gets the wind at its back, racks up some victories, then goes too far and suffers a backlash. It's impossible to know yet for a fact who will win in 2016, but the larger trends are clear, and the historical odds are not in Hillary's favor. Ronald Reagan had approval ratings in the 60s and a booming economy that led to George Bush being elected in 1988. That is the only time either party has won three terms since the passage of the 22nd Amendment. Obama's approval ratings and the economy are not good. And yet some people (including posts here) actually believe Hillary is an absolute lock in 2016 who cannot lose. It is arguably an expression of legitimate mental illness.

Which brings me back to generations, and the chart in the first post. "Nomads" (who are archetypically a conservative/Republican-leaning generation) moving towards leadership, meaning society is heading towards the 1T. When you look at both S&H and reality, this conclusion is pretty clear. And there are plenty of precedents in the last 4T. Republicans made a comeback, and among other things passed the 22nd Amendment, making sure there would never be another 4 term president, with the slide towards dictatorship that began to threaten.

The issues this time around are completely different from the last 4T, but should not be a surprise given the nature of the "Prophet" generation. When you look back at the 60s and 70s, the things the left has done are not surprising at all. It makes for a very weird 4T compared to what S&H predicted, but it's pretty obvious when you balance their theories with a look at what is actually happening in reality. If they were right, we are headed for an Xer leadership that puts a halt to the far left and restores peace and prosperity to a society on the verge of collapse. If something else happens, they were either wrong, or we're in their worst-case scenario where the society collapses and disintegrates.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The purpose of this thread was to look at the generational divide illustrated by the chart in the first post. The Republican candidates are largely Xers, and the Democrats are generally very old Boomers.

What I had actually forgotten to some degree was how badly this forum has devolved over time into a run-of-the-mill, left wing ideologue political forum, with little or no interest in the subjects raised by S&H. There are a few obsessive Boomers of the most dogmatic, partisan-blinder variety who drive every thread into this territory. In other words, nothing has changed. And it makes this forum not worth paying much attention to, because this kind of stuff exists everywhere on the internet where politics is discussed. The generational subject is what should be unique here, but there is little attention paid to it, except as a secondary rationale for left wing dogma. Oh well.

So as a means of a sort of final response before I'm overcome by boredom here once again, a lot of the posts by the usual suspects above display a kind of megalomaniacal, quasi-religious belief that is common among the most hardcore Democrats and leftists, that the US is destined for one-party rule, with the Republicans being run out of existence and the Democrats maintaining absolute control, forever. That's at the core of the belief system that expresses itself in the increasingly totalitarian, collectivist ideology of the left.

Nate Silver, who had been worshiped by the left in recent times, just posted an article (referenced above) that has earned him a hailstorm of repudiation by these True Believers:

Clinton Begins The 2016 Campaign, And It’s A Toss-up

It's a pretty run-of-the-mill, cautious early assessment that puts Hillary Clinton's odds of winning at 50-50. He also includes plenty of left-leaning bias against Republicans. But he did something that strikes at the heart of the left wingnut belief system, and has been met with a large blowback of denial. He rejected both the "Blue Wall" and "demographic inevitability" articles of faith.

John Judis, who co-wrote the book "The Emerging Democratic Majority" in the early 2000s, has also recently stated that the concept, which originated with that book, has become exaggerated and over-interpreted by Democrats compared to the original intent.

Without going into all the details, the summary of what Judis has noted and Silver has repeated is that the big electoral advancement predicted for Democrats is not some open-ended, permanent majority (the same thing was predicted for Republicans as recently as 2004). Rather, that trend for Democrats already happened, and peaked in 2008 (the same year, don't forget, that Boomer representation in political office peaked). Since then, the pendulum has swung back sharply in the other direction. Republicans now hold their largest majorities in Congress since before the Great Depression. They also hold the majority of governorships and state legislatures, and in many states they control both. All of that has happened in the last 6 years.

The response of Democrats has been to double down with even greater intensity and single-minded focus on "identity politics". They are taking the horse Obama rode in on, and riding it into the ground along with his approval ratings. Obamacare is and has been extremely unpopular since before it was passed, and their foreign policy and economic policy have been complete failures. So all they have left is to try even harder to divide people by race, sex and so forth, and they think they can do it all one more time with Hillary, whose only qualification is that she's female. That's where we now stand. The Democrats are on the downswing of a pendulum we've seen many times in politics, where one side gets the wind at its back, racks up some victories, then goes too far and suffers a backlash. It's impossible to know yet for a fact who will win in 2016, but the larger trends are clear, and the historical odds are not in Hillary's favor. Ronald Reagan had approval ratings in the 60s and a booming economy that led to George Bush being elected in 1988. That is the only time either party has won three terms since the passage of the 22nd Amendment. Obama's approval ratings and the economy are not good. And yet some people (including posts here) actually believe Hillary is an absolute lock in 2016 who cannot lose. It is arguably an expression of legitimate mental illness.

Which brings me back to generations, and the chart in the first post. "Nomads" (who are archetypically a conservative/Republican-leaning generation) moving towards leadership, meaning society is heading towards the 1T. When you look at both S&H and reality, this conclusion is pretty clear. And there are plenty of precedents in the last 4T. Republicans made a comeback, and among other things passed the 22nd Amendment, making sure there would never be another 4 term president, with the slide towards dictatorship that began to threaten.

The issues this time around are completely different from the last 4T, but should not be a surprise given the nature of the "Prophet" generation. When you look back at the 60s and 70s, the things the left has done are not surprising at all. It makes for a very weird 4T compared to what S&H predicted, but it's pretty obvious when you balance their theories with a look at what is actually happening in reality. If they were right, we are headed for an Xer leadership that puts a halt to the far left and restores peace and prosperity to a society on the verge of collapse. If something else happens, they were either wrong, or we're in their worst-case scenario where the society collapses and disintegrates.

I think for the Left who get worked up here, it is the hope that 4T = Re-vo-loooo-shun (or a CW-II where the "Yankee" US beats the hell out of "Confederate" Eldorado) that animates things. So there is actually an aspect of S&H. Personally I think the notion that this 4T will lead to either scenario is wishful thinking by the Revolutionaries. I am banking on a typical existential threat, namely a garden variety Crisis (Total) War. Well, maybe not garden variety in an age of super weapons. In any case, I agree it would be good if people could set the politickin' aside and look at the generational aspect of this election.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

We don't agree on much, but we do on this ... at least most of it. I think the light bulb will come on in the Donkey party too, and the 'inevitable' Bush v Clinton melee will be considered quaint by this time next year. The Dems have a shorter list of possible choices, but one will emerge once Hillary shows weakness. After all, Bill wasn't supposed to run in '92 and Obama had no chance in '08. The Dems are more comfortable with black horse candidates. For the GOP, this may be their first try in a long time. But upstart BHO beat their war hero and followed-up by beating the credentialed rich guy. This time, the wiser heads may have learned that next is not the right option. I think the money is already moving in that direction.

The only problem with that, is that ultimately the better candidates do better (meaning, those who are best at being presidential candidates; not necessarily governing). So, whether people here are disenchanted with Bush v Clinton II or not, if they are good candidates, they will be nominated. Indications are that they will do fine. So, they will be nominated.

Warren would be better, but odds are she won't change her mind and run. Sanders is a real long shot, since he's a socialist. No other Dem lurks on the horizon who could win and also be better than Hillary. And no other Republican is good enough to beat the Bush, although maybe Rubio and Christie have an outside chance. If you really want to stretch it, then maybe Rand Paul. But the likes of Walker and Cruz will implode; bet on it. Christie looks to possibly have some good fortune for a while in 2016, but in the long run he is not viable.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I hope you aren't serous. The GOP is the buttoned-down party, with the Dems sort of flailing around. This has been true for a long enough time that is was the basis of a joke in the 1930s. The only thing that may be changing now is a schism in the GOP that splits the TP-Fundie coalition away from the pro-business core of the party. So far, the Band-Aids are holding, and the two groups are still friends ... sorta. If they start working at cross-purposes, then I'll agree with you.

The GOP is a party of principle that's united/bonded by common principles. The Democrat party is a party of various ideals that is bonded/influenced/controlled by government funding. The GOP is now becoming the party of buckle down, stick with it, stick to your guns who are in it for the long fight. The GOP of old used to just smile, grumble and go along for the sake of themselves and the Republican party. Dude, the bulk of the kids and grandchildren of the old Democrats are now Republican voters.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The purpose of this thread was to look at the generational divide illustrated by the chart in the first post. The Republican candidates are largely Xers, and the Democrats are generally very old Boomers.

What I had actually forgotten to some degree was how badly this forum has devolved over time into a run-of-the-mill, left wing ideologue political forum, with little or no interest in the subjects raised by S&H. There are a few obsessive Boomers of the most dogmatic, partisan-blinder variety who drive every thread into this territory. In other words, nothing has changed. And it makes this forum not worth paying much attention to, because this kind of stuff exists everywhere on the internet where politics is discussed. The generational subject is what should be unique here, but there is little attention paid to it, except as a secondary rationale for left wing dogma. Oh well.

It seems like you are making a political point: younger is better and up to date; old is old hat.

I do often drive things in a political (left) direction, though that is not my main purpose here, and I have other interests. I am primarily a prophet, literally. But the political aspect is inescapable, if generational theory is to have any point to it. Because the point is, what will the direction of the country be, given the generational line-up? If it is just that there will be change and crisis in a 4T, and calm stability in a 1T, that begs the question: what kind of change, from what to what? It doesn't mean much just to say that a 4T generational line-up will bring change and crisis.

I don't know too many times where your own desire to drive things to the right is not evident in your posts. And you are singularly dogmatic, and oblivious to the points people make in dialogue with you, despite that fact that you make some good observations from time to time.

So as a means of a sort of final response before I'm overcome by boredom here once again, a lot of the posts by the usual suspects above display a kind of megalomaniacal, quasi-religious belief that is common among the most hardcore Democrats and leftists, that the US is destined for one-party rule, with the Republicans being run out of existence and the Democrats maintaining absolute control, forever. That's at the core of the belief system that expresses itself in the increasingly totalitarian, collectivist ideology of the left.

Your statements like this are almost always inaccurate and exaggerated, so you should expect to be corrected. Liberals here do not expect one party rule, though I and others might predict the Republicans' demise-- but to likely be replaced by another dual or multiple party lineup.

You should also notice that while some of my fellow liberals say Clinton will win in a landslide, and others say she may not even be nominated, I generally agree with Silver (and you?) that it will be a tight race, and I'm not even sure that Clinton will win.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think for the Left who get worked up here, it is the hope that 4T = Re-vo-loooo-shun (or a CW-II where the "Yankee" US beats the hell out of "Confederate" Eldorado) that animates things. So there is actually an aspect of S&H. Personally I think the notion that this 4T will lead to either scenario is wishful thinking by the Revolutionaries. I am banking on a typical existential threat, namely a garden variety Crisis (Total) War. Well, maybe not garden variety in an age of super weapons. In any case, I agree it would be good if people could set the politickin' aside and look at the generational aspect of this election.

I would rather that non-violence prevail under both scenarios (revoloooshun/CWII or total war). But it's true that the track record for 4Ts is not great in that regard.

Originally Posted by nihilist moron

What, individual action? Oh noes, we can't have that.

No, of course not. Those actions are based on an individual decision-making process.
Could you imagine the mayhem if individual decision-making is allowed to occur?
No, 'we need'^TM mandates to ensure that everybody does things the 'right' way for
the 'common good'.

Originally Posted by NM

I'm not sure I understand that passage at all. The whole God thing throws me off.

Yeah, I can empathize with that. Definitions and meanings of words can be pretty problematic, IME.

Originally Posted by NM

I can relate more to the Buddhist stuff. All living beings, etc etc.

Yeah. Me too, but ... Eh? Whatever.


Prince

PS:

Joe Manchin = 69 in 2016.

Say it is so, Joe!

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

The purpose of this thread was to look at the generational divide illustrated by the chart in the first post. The Republican candidates are largely Xers, and the Democrats are generally very old Boomers.

What I had actually forgotten to some degree was how badly this forum has devolved over time into a run-of-the-mill, left wing ideologue political forum, with little or no interest in the subjects raised by S&H. There are a few obsessive Boomers of the most dogmatic, partisan-blinder variety who drive every thread into this territory. In other words, nothing has changed. And it makes this forum not worth paying much attention to, because this kind of stuff exists everywhere on the internet where politics is discussed. The generational subject is what should be unique here, but there is little attention paid to it, except as a secondary rationale for left wing dogma. Oh well.

You're mistaking a reaction to your once-again injecting "magic pony thinking" (TM pending) as left wing ideology. It's not new, it's basically expected by those dominated by their right amygdala's. Regardless of topic or your disire to keep a topic sharply focus, if you are going to introduce magic pony thinking, it will get a reaction. In this case, there is the added concern that the last time you got caught up in big election magic pony thinking (followed by the inevitable bubble bursting), you went into a pretty major funk - as I have noted a couple times, you need to be careful about that - I'm concerned.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

So as a means of a sort of final response before I'm overcome by boredom here once again, a lot of the posts by the usual suspects above display a kind of megalomaniacal, quasi-religious belief that is common among the most hardcore Democrats and leftists, that the US is destined for one-party rule, with the Republicans being run out of existence and the Democrats maintaining absolute control, forever. That's at the core of the belief system that expresses itself in the increasingly totalitarian, collectivist ideology of the left.

Now if that isn't a fine example of fight-or-flight amygdala response, I don't know what would be. Right up there with others' zombie apocalypse desires.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Nate Silver, who had been worshiped by the left in recent times, just posted an article (referenced above) that has earned him a hailstorm of repudiation by these True Believers:

Starting with the 2008 election, Nate Silver carved-out the by-the-numbers non-pundit space, but that space is now, in 2015, pretty crowded (and increasingly competitive and testy). He's now got to go against the grain sometimes to get attention, and like ALL media, the Presidential elections are their Christmas holiday sales - they've all got to make this as interesting a race as possible, if they want to be millionaires. You haven't figured that out yet? Oh Sunshine, do you still believe multi-millionaire Rush Limbaugh believes half of what he screeches out to his true believers?

Let's actually look at what Nate said about the EC Blue Wall -

The Electoral College And The “Emerging Democratic Majority.” What about that “blue wall” — the supposed advantage that Democrats hold in the Electoral College?

Mostly, the “blue wall” was the effect of Obama’s success in 2008 and 2012, not the cause of it. If the economy had collapsed in the summer of 2012, Obama would probably have lost the election, and most of those blue states would have turned red.

It’s true that in both elections, the “tipping-point state” (in both years it was Colorado) was slightly more Democratic than the country as a whole. That implies Obama would have won if the popular vote had been very close. But it would have had to be very close indeed — within a percentage point or two.

That advantage is small enough that it might have been the result of circumstances peculiar to Obama and his campaign. If Clinton has an ever-so-slightly different coalition — say more working-class whites vote for her but fewer African-Americans — this small advantage could evaporate or reverse itself. (The Electoral College favored Republicans as recently as 2000, after all.) The same might be true if she isn’t as effective as Obama at mobilizing voters in swing states.

His analysis is if the economy collapses, the incumbent would lose. Wow, now there's some insight?

Now I believe we are in a business downturn that will be exaggerated by the GOP austerity maneuvering, but a collapse??? Yea, right.

Worse, he talks Blue Wall and then brings up Colorado??? pssss, Colorado is not a Blue Wall state - it's a swing state that now tilts slightly Blue on a continuing trend driven by urbanization and young/Hispanic/female population growth - but it is NOT yet in the Blue Wall.

Do you really believe an analysis of CO says anything about CA, NY? How about IL, OR, WA? DC???

Now if he had said something about Blue Wall states like MI or WI, then that might be worth paying attention to. But how do those possibilities stack up against swing states like VA, NC, FL or OH - any ONE of which would make Hillary the next President but where the GOP has to sweep them all?

That's the point of the Blue Wall (first brought up by the t-baggers over at AEI) - not inevitability but a pretty hard starting point for the GOP.

What you're relying on is the notion of a third term in the hands of same party and the current snapshot of Congressional majorities.

I think there might be some emotional (amygdala-thinking) concern there for the third-term element, but how does that stack up to the concern, on both sides, for what this election will mean for the SCOTUS - once that becomes both cognitively/emotionally fully grasped across the political spectrum, it will turn your third term hope into background noise.

And what you leave out is the current snapshot (soon to be reversed) of the Congressional majorities that result from a combination of gerrymandering, more Senate Dems up that GOP (the exact opposite of 2016), and two historically low voter turnout midterm elections, one of which (2010) was in the middle of the t-bagger fad - today, one of the most despised political groups in the country by a vast majority of voters.

It's okay for you to ride around on your magical ponies. It was actually pretty entertaining the last go around (I'm looking forward to your unskewering of polls - that was almost as much fun as Bush's Brain on election night - "Ohio??! That just can't be!!").

Just expect a little pushback when it gets a little too much out-of-hand - its for your own good.

Originally Posted by XYMOX_4AD_84

I think for the Left who get worked up here, it is the hope that 4T = Re-vo-loooo-shun (or a CW-II where the "Yankee" US beats the hell out of "Confederate" Eldorado) that animates things. So there is actually an aspect of S&H. Personally I think the notion that this 4T will lead to either scenario is wishful thinking by the Revolutionaries. I am banking on a typical existential threat, namely a garden variety Crisis (Total) War. Well, maybe not garden variety in an age of super weapons. In any case, I agree it would be good if people could set the politickin' aside and look at the generational aspect of this election.

At the moment, I don't think there is a generational aspect to the coming election. One may develop. There's plenty of time. More to the point is the fear factor, with the have-more-than-the-have-nots moving to the right to protect their meager lot from the pillaging they've been lead to believe will occur under any activist government. I don't' see that as being generational.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

At the moment, I don't think there is a generational aspect to the coming election. One may develop. There's plenty of time. More to the point is the fear factor, with the have-more-than-the-have-nots moving to the right to protect their meager lot from the pillaging they've been lead to believe will occur under any activist government. I don't' see that as being generational.

On the other hand, the GOP's worse nightmare may be coming to fruition -

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/w...fc1nwc.twitter

WATCH: Terrified ‘Tea Party Patriot’ realizes he could lose Obamacare if GOP wins in 2016

Conservative video blogger with over a million views on YouTube said this week that he would likely vote for Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton because he was terrified that a Republican president would take away his affordable health insurance.

James Webb, a 51-year-old YouTube celebrity who devotes his “Hot Lead” channel to topics like his love of guns and ranting about gay men kissing on The Walking Dead, may have shocked his viewers on Monday when he revealed that he was torn over which party to vote for in the 2016 election.

“And I’m serious because I asked myself, ‘Which party has helped me out the most in the last, I don’t know, 15 years, 20?’ And it was the Democrat [SIC] Party,” Webb lamented. “If it wasn’t for Obama and that Obamacare, I would still be working.”

“With Obamacare, I got to retire at age 50 because if it wasn’t for Obamacare, I would have had to work until I was 65 and get on Medicare because health insurance is expensive when you’ve got medical problems,” he continued.

Webb said that he hoped to lose some weight and get in shape by taking advantage of a gym membership that was covered by his health insurance.

“But you know, the Republican Party, they haven’t done nothing for me, man. Nothing,” he remarked. “So, I’m leaning toward voting for Hillary unless something major comes up. I don’t trust the Republicans anymore because they’re wanting to repeal the Obamacare. And I don’t want them to do that, man, because then I’ll have to go to work again. My life’s already planned out.”

“Just a tough decision,” Webb sighed. “I voted for Republicans for 32 years, I’m a charter member of my Tea Party Patriots chapter. I’m also a veteran of the U.S. Army under Reagan, when Reagan was in. That was great when Reagan was in there.”

“Things have changed. So unless the Republicans change with it, I’m probably going to have to swing my vote over toward Hillary.”

Watch the video below from the Hot Lead YouTube channel.

At some point, maybe the consequences of being amygdala-lead sheeple just becomes too much and the cerebral cortex can rise above... and well, actual thinking starts. Didn't happened to poor Southern Whites in 1860, but maybe this time....

This would be the end of the GOP as a national party.

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I'm sure you believe this, but your version of how things should be hasn't had resonance since the mid-70s. In case you missed it, the economy has been slack for nearly 5 decades. Few of us have been in the workforce under boom times, and, if implemented, conservative policies will guarantee they never return.

The economy is a circle. If you tighten it up on one level, it slows down everywhere. That's where we are now, and your party wants to tighten further. Keep going, and you strangle the entire enterprise. And yes, programs help, but no, they have been contracted not expanded ... and rather drastically so.

It may not play on talk radio, but it's still true.

It's hard to picture a circle with levels and hard to understand how tightening up one level of the circle will slow down the entire circle. It easy to picture a train with wheels and accept that tightening one wheel will slow down the train.