Originally Posted by TnT

I've begun to wonder ... GWB seemed to me to be an ordinary dumb shit of a guy, in over his head, while the government in fact was being run by others. I don't think this is an original thought.

Given Obama's performance so far, perhaps he too is a cardboard cut-out, just one who can speak and read, and actually earned his good grades in school.

Maybe not. Maybe he tried to push too far and to fast in attempting to undo the rot that one associates with the Reagan-GWB era. He has no choice except to back down in 2011 with the reactionaries in the House of Representatives and hope that he is in a better position in 2013 to bring about the change that he couldn't get this time. His wisest course may be to let them make fools of themselves and implode. But that said we may be in for a cycle of Reform and Reaction with Reaction ultimately prevailing over Reform but ultimately imposing institutional decay.

George W. Bush is quite possibly the worst President that America has had so far, someone who stands for people trying to get as much out of America and its people as quickly as possible before they must flee. I look at some of the executive compensation and I see the sorts of pay that could feather a nest in the South of France in the event of the worst. I can imagine asset-holders selling off their assets for such liquid assets (gold?) as remain only to leave those bargain-hunters with much to defend and no means of defense. Those who buy in as things ultimately collapse will be the ones lined up against the wall in the Revolution.

Our political system worked as long as it did because not because the Constitution had no faults but instead because our political leadership wisely chose to avoid seeking out those faults. Karl Rove, among others, has found the seams in our system and has chosen to exploit them for his purposes (the drug known as power, a drug as addictive to some as is heroin) on behalf of people who find him useful for their economic and hierarchical purposes. I look at the legislative activity of the 111th Congress and the partial (and extended) recovery, and those suggest that Barack Obama is an above-average President. But if the likes of Karl Rove can win in 2012 with Orwellian propaganda of the sort that the GOP used in the 2010 election, then democracy is dead in America and we have little more than a vile empire -- what Arnold Toynbee called the Universal State that crushes all individuality and innovation while denying all possibility of change other than rot. Elections will then be as much a sham as those held in the old Soviet Union, and "free enterprise" will have degenerated into a right of elites to crack the whip on people forced to the brink of starvation.

Perhaps Sarah could ascend the throne and nothing much would change, if the presidency has turned into a ceremonial position.

If you thought Dubya was bad, Sarah Palin would make Dubya look like Harry Truman next to Dubya. Now that is bad -- Harry Truman was one of the near-greats as President. (Obama would then seem like Abraham Lincoln or FDR by contrast to Palin). I look at her actions as Governor -- like letting her husband, an oil-company employee, sit in on official business of the State of Alaska involving oil. I wouldn't have such a problem if her husband were a rancher -- but conflicts of interest are to be avoided in official actions. I look at the troubled lives of her kids, and if she can't instill the virtue of chastity or at the least "safe sex" in her teenage daughters, then can she convince others to do things against their immediate interests? She is as venal as any politician; she has a nice family estate in Alaska. To be sure, land is cheap in Alaska -- but construction isn't. Even more telling, Dubya was the butt of numerous, often nasty jokes, about his foibles. But at that he did not lash out at people like Jay Leno and David Letterman as Sarah Palin seems likely to do.

Like Dubya, she would be a front for economic interests that grab what they can while they can. But if you thought that Dubya could mangle the language, wait till you hear Sarah Palin. She speaks without regard for the consequences.

Julius Caesar was the populist. In fact, he is the archetype of the populist dictator. Octavian was much less of a populist had had far more support from Elites who preferred him to Antony.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Although the Republicans will have a terrible time selecting a candidate, I think the possibility that they can win is very real.

Going back to the original post that started this thread ... Sure, maybe Sarah is just too, too eccentric, selfish, addle-brained, tongue-twisty, etc. to actually make it through a primary AND a convention AND an election.

But ... who the hell is available to the Repub's? And I'm still bothered by the increasing number of Come-From-Nowhere-Never-Heard-OF-Them-Before "politicians" that suddenly have gazillions of dollars to spend campaigning.

Under ordinary circumstances, back in the day, you might begin to see a Pawlenty, or a Gingrich, or a Romney ... someone that can string together a coherent sentence and has at least a semblance of a political doctrine that they can articulate ... and they might get more and more publicity as time goes on, and then the money might start to flow in their direction, etc.

But lately, WHAM! A huge pile of money lands on some minor celebrity like a cowturd on a mouse. And SHAZZAM! They are lionized by the msm as a legitimate candidate for one of our highest offices.

I really don't like the feel of it. It makes me think of my experience riding rafts in white water ... one can know all sorts of things about hydrology, about the physics of fluid flow, about boats, paddles, oars, about the psychology of folks involved in such activities ... but when you are in the water, transitioning through the most dangerous drop, you feel the awesome power of the water and realize that you can do everything right and still you are at its mercy ... and "it" will simply do what it does; it doesn't know mercy.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_census2010_count

Republican leaning states will gain house seats after the census.

Originally Posted by pizal81

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_census2010_count

Republican leaning states will gain house seats after the census.

After hearing this report, I was wondering what this really means. I mean, people still vote the way that they will vote regardless of what state they move to, right? This might create a situation in where a normally red state like NC, turns blue like it did in 2008.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Republican leaning states will gain house seats after the census.

But on the flip side, if this means people are moving from "blue" states to "red" states, assuming the people moving are a representative cross section of ideology it would also mean the red states are becoming more purple. I don't think a Democrat suddenly votes Republican because they move to warmer Southern climates.

Thanks Wonkette for being a wonk and finding the 13 keys:

The Keys are statements that favor the re election of the incumbent party. When five or fewer statements are false, the incumbent party wins. When six or more are false, the challenging party wins.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Key...he_White_House
1.Party Mandate: After the midterm elections, the incumbent party holds more seats in the U.S. House of Representatives than after the previous midterm elections.
2.Contest: There is no serious contest for the incumbent party nomination.
3.Incumbency: The incumbent party candidate is the sitting president.
4.Third party: There is no significant third party or independent campaign.
5.Short term economy: The economy is not in recession during the election campaign.
6.Long term economy: Real per capita economic growth during the term equals or exceeds mean growth during the previous two terms.
7.Policy change: The incumbent administration effects major changes in national policy.
8.Social unrest: There is no sustained social unrest during the term.
9.Scandal: The incumbent administration is untainted by major scandal.
10.Foreign/military failure: The incumbent administration suffers no major failure in foreign or military affairs.
11.Foreign/military success: The incumbent administration achieves a major success in foreign or military affairs.
12.Incumbent charisma: The incumbent party candidate is charismatic or a national hero.
13.Challenger charisma: The challenging party candidate is not charismatic or a national hero.

So far Obama has already lost key 1. He probably won't face party opposition #2. He might not face a 3rd party challenge #4; I'd say unlikely right now. The jury is out on #5 and 6. He has already arguably accomplished #7 (more doubtful if health care reform is ruled unconstitutional). #8 is uncertain, but #9 is unlikely. The jury is out on #10 and 11. He has #12 and probably #13 going for him.
If he loses 5,6,8,10 and 11, he loses. If he wins even one of those, he likely wins.

Yeah, it's just data. I'm sure most people who move to a red state don't just become republican right away. It is possible their children could be effected though. It may or may not mean anything.
Does anyone know if there have been more births in red states than in blue states. That could be a factor.

Originally Posted by pizal81

Yeah, it's just data. I'm sure most people who move to a red state don't just become republican right away. It is possible their children could be effected though. It may or may not mean anything.
Does anyone know if there have been more births in red states than in blue states. That could be a factor.

I think you do bring up a good point about children. What is the birthrate these days?

Originally Posted by millennialX

I think you do bring up a good point about children. What is the birthrate these days?

I typed in "Do red states have higher birth rates?" in on google and what popped up was red states have high "teen" birth rates. Maybe that's why they are gaining population? If red states are rural and people in rural areas get married younger and would be fertile longer. I have a ton of HS and college friends who have 2 or 3 kids already.

Originally Posted by pizal81

I typed in "Do red states have higher birth rates?" in on google and what popped up was red states have high "teen" birth rates. Maybe that's why they are gaining population? If red states are rural and people in rural areas get married younger and would be fertile longer. I have a ton of HS and college friends who have 2 or 3 kids already.

Heck, my sophomore year in college, during break, I was on winter break and went to the barber. A classmte of mine from HS was also getting a hair cut and spent most of the time bragging about his one year old son--buttons bursting. I'm sure he's had another one by now.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by pizal81

I typed in "Do red states have higher birth rates?" in on google and what popped up was red states have high "teen" birth rates. Maybe that's why they are gaining population? If red states are rural and people in rural areas get married younger and would be fertile longer. I have a ton of HS and college friends who have 2 or 3 kids already.

Alright, its sad how I'm asking all of these questions when my own family is an example of the migration from Philly to NC. Lets just say that my boomer parents where Democrats up there, voting for Clinton twice and then began voting republican soon after moving down south. Mostly social issues, as they got older and not regional peer pressure. I'm not sure where my 16 year old sister stands. Doesn't seem like she cares about voting yet.

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0763849.html

I just skimmed this. The data is from 2008. The midwest and Western states are about average while the low end seems to be New England and some northern states. The highest of all the states was Utah. I wonder why????

No one should assume that 4 more seats in Texas means 4 more Republicans. If the growth is all in Hispanic populations, some of the new seats will of necessity be predominately Hispanic and likely Democrat. Ditto for other places.

James50

Originally Posted by James50

No one should assume that 4 more seats in Texas means 4 more Republicans. If the growth is all in Hispanic populations, some of the new seats will of necessity be predominately Hispanic and likely Democrat. Ditto for other places.

James50

That all depends upon how the districts will be drawn. I expect the Republicans to so align districts that Republicans can safely win most of them, new or old, in any election for the next ten years that isn't a Democratic blowout.

Most of the growth will be in urban areas which by Texas standards are rather liberal (Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso. Lower Rio Grande Valley. Besides, "new" districts and "old" districts have the same pull.

As they often do 538.com has a good analysis on what will likely happen in the redistricting process. Note that they actually posted this before the official numbers came out so I will add a few notes where there was the most uncertainty before the official numbers come out.

*Texas did gain four seats which likely means that there will be two new Republican seats one each in the exurbs of Houston and Dallas. There will likely be a new majority hispanic seat starting in the "Tejas" region of of south Texas streching into the center of the state that will likely be packed with as many Democrats as possible. Then having done this the legislature will likely try to carve out another GOP leaning district from the fourth seat.

*Arizona gained one seat and given the demographics of the state it will likely favor the Republicans.

*Ohio will lose two seats and the GOP led state government is almost certain to make Dennis Kucinich’s district one of the ones that goes away.

The map, with changes looks like this:



One final note. If you'd like to have an idea of what the 2002-12 Congressional districts would have looked like if they were based purely on population ranging rather than on gerrymandering, this is really neat.

Originally Posted by wtrg8

There are some rational Conservatives out there.

uh, where; pray tell????

Originally Posted by James50

No one should assume that 4 more seats in Texas means 4 more Republicans. If the growth is all in Hispanic populations, some of the new seats will of necessity be predominately Hispanic and likely Democrat. Ditto for other places.

James50

That is possible, but no legislature has been more ruthless in its gerrymandering than the Republican-dominated Texas one. In any case, the Republicans will get those four additional electoral votes.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That is possible, but no legislature has been more ruthless in its gerrymandering than the Republican-dominated Texas one.

I think CA districts were just as gerrymandered. Of course, a new initiative in CA will turn redistricting over to a citizen's panel for this time.

James50

It seems to me once again quite possible that Obama will be re-elected even though he does pretty badly on Wonkette's list. It is possible that quite a few Senate Republicans, at least, having saved the tax cuts (their bottom line priority), are willing to help him emerge as a thoroughly co-opted bipartisan leader. A great deal of the drama in this coming year will be the battle between the House and Senate. If in fact Obama is still drawing praise as a bipartisan leader in 2012, I can imagine some Republican leaders thinking, "Let Palin have it and lose and we'll get back in this time." And the evidence appears to be mounting that she would surely lose.

None of this alters my view: we will continue living in George W. Bush's America for a long time. Foreign policy is at a complete dead end. The Israelis, today's New York Times reports, are building more and more remote settlements than ever now. There will be no peace. The government is after Julius Assange.

Oh, that reminds me. . a propos of nothing--recently I watched a brilliant documentary on Netflix streaming, The Most Dangerous Man in America, about Silent Daniel Ellsberg. It really did a great job of showing how the Awakening transformed a very establishment Silent. (It also had some fascinating and harrowing details about Ellsberg's early life.) There was something wrong with the stream--it kept stopping, and I would have to rewind and fastforward to try to find the right spot, which had never happened before--but it's a great film. Excerpts from the Nixon tapes will be quite an ear-opener to younger viewers.

Originally Posted by James50

I think CA districts were just as gerrymandered. Of course, a new initiative in CA will turn redistricting over to a citizen's panel for this time.

James50

Texas in 2003, I think it was, did the redistricting after the 2000 census over again because the Republicans had just retaken the legislature. That was when the Democrats tried to prevent it being done by fleeing to Oklahoma en masse, but finally had to cave. Nothing like that had every happened before.

James, there really is no comparison--none--between the ruthlessness of today's rightists and leftists. My side plays Marquis of Queensbury, the Republicans play anything goes.

Originally Posted by pizal81

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_census2010_count

Republican leaning states will gain house seats after the census.

Yeah! Washington gets a seat! Washington gets a seat! I hope they split the 8th district but they might give it to Spokane.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Texas in 2003, I think it was, did the redistricting after the 2000 census over again because the Republicans had just retaken the legislature. That was when the Democrats tried to prevent it being done by fleeing to Oklahoma en masse, but finally had to cave. Nothing like that had every happened before.

James, there really is no comparison--none--between the ruthlessness of today's rightists and leftists. My side plays Marquis of Queensbury, the Republicans play anything goes.

Another ridiculous post by the "esteemed" professor. Did the Democrat party follow the rules when they stole the Washington state Gov. race in 2004? Or the Minnesota senate race in 2008? Is using union goons to intimidate people following the rules, or protecting the New Black Panthers from prosecution?

Do they really allow you to teach young people....good lord.

Originally Posted by Weave

Another ridiculous post by the "esteemed" professor. Did the Democrat party follow the rules when they stole the Washington state Gov. race in 2004? Or the Minnesota senate race in 2008? Is using union goons to intimidate people following the rules, or protecting the New Black Panthers from prosecution?

Do they really allow you to teach young people....good lord.

That's absurd... Gregoire didn't steal the 2004 Gubernatorial election here any more than Bush stole the Presidency in 2000. Both were extremely close elections, close enough to be within the margin of error for tallying votes... and they ultimately had to fall one way or the other. So Bush and Gregoire won... Gore and Rossi lost. Those are the breaks.

And WTF do the so-called "New Black Panthers" have to do with either of the above???

In my opinion Bush did steal the 2000 election, because of the purge of the Florida registration rolls that eliminated significant numbers of voters on the grounds that people with similar names had felony convictions in other states. And the count that was made by news organizations afterwards showed that Gore actually got more votes anyway, by an accurate count. Gore, however, had not asked for the statewide recount that would have given him the election--a huge mistake.

I will always wonder whether Gore would have responded to 9/11 with a massive and successful push for clean energy. We'll never know.