Originally Posted by Brian Rush

No, here you're misunderstanding what happened last year and it's quite important. First of all Obama doesn't have any "left policies" to speak of and that's exactly the problem. Secondly, it's totally clear from the exit polling from 2010 that very few people changed their minds. What happened was the inverse of 2008. Instead of Republican voters being disillusioned, Democratic voters were. Instead of Democrats being fired up and going to the polls, Republicans were -- but for negative rather than positive reasons. That is, while Democratic voters in 2008 voted more for Obama than against McCain, Republican voters in 2010 were voting against Obama (by proxy) more than for the Republican candidates.

What I think is happening here is that you are describing your own mindset and experience in last year's election. Obama did perhaps push for more reform than you wanted or than you expected him to be willing and able to do. This made you (and a lot of other Republican voters) determined to go to the polls. Because that's true of you and of other conservatives, you believe it was true of the nation. It was not, though. From a liberal perspective, President Obama does not look like a progressive. Candidate Obama did, but unfortunately President Obama does not. He was widely perceived last year as having let us down. There was open talk in the left-wing blogosphere about sending a message to the Democrats by not voting for them and letting them lose the election. The combination of those two factors -- fired-up outrage on the right and a sense of betrayal on the left -- combined to produce the outcome. The narrative that the voters took a shocked look at how liberal the Democrats were in power and turned against them has no basis in fact. Very, very few voters voted for Obama in 2008 and also voted for a Republican candidate in 2010, and that would have to not be true in order for the turn-against-liberalism narrative to have any basis.

In fact, if the Democrats had won last year instead of losing, that would argue against what I'm saying. Why? Because it would show that the American people, far from being polarized, are happy with a middle course -- because, contrary to what you seem to feel, a middle, moderate course is exactly what the Democrats steered in 2009-10. But because we are polarized, the compromise, corporate-friendly legislation they passed made nobody happy. It was too much reform for those on the right (ANY reform would have been), but not nearly enough (and more importantly, not the right kind) for those on the left. Unhappy right-wing voters voted, while unhappy left-wing voters didn't, and that's the full and complete explanation for 2010.

Remember that the Republicans majority in the House was elected by just over 20% of the electorate. That's not going to be enough to win in 2012.

I have to add in agreement that the Republicans were disillusioned in 2008 (and possibly 2006), then were fired up by 2010 while the Democrats were now disillusioned with Obama.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Here's another consideration

Both of your methods are flawed. In the first case, a Republican who has not been nominated, had a convention, and run a campaign is not going to have high numbers. The undecideds are far too numerous, and there has been no attempt to sway some who might be swayed away from Obama. When you have a multitude of potential candidates and of most of those candidates have not even declared mush less mounted a campaign, head to head matchup polls with the sitting president are meaningless.

In the second case, it is extremely common to have a popular governor of one party in a state that has no chance of voting for that party nationally. It happens all the time. A conservative Democrat in a Republican state, or a liberal Republican in a Democrat state, can have a lot of success running on a platform that's very different from their party's national platform.

Originally Posted by millennialX

I have to add in agreement that the Republicans were disillusioned in 2008 (and possibly 2006), then were fired up by 2010 while the Democrats were now disillusioned with Obama.

It is true, obviously, that turnout was a factor in 2008 and 2010. But what he's saying is that it was the only factor, that there was not a 15 point swing among independents, and the only reason the Democrats lost so badly in 2010 is because they weren't left wing enough.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It is true, obviously, that turnout was a factor in 2008 and 2010. But what he's saying is that it was the only factor, that there was not a 15 point swing among independents, and the only reason the Democrats lost so badly in 2010 is because they weren't left wing enough.

Oh..I see. No, definitely not the only factor.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Here's another consideration: how Governors fare. State governors are often the politicians with the second-highest exposure to political attention in any state, the President alone getting more attention. It seems evident that a highly-popular Governor can help any politician of the same Party, but an unpopular Governor is to be avoided by other politicians of his own Party or to be exploited by politicians of the other Party. So if the Democratic Governor is seen as incompetent, corrupt, dictatorial, or otherwise troublesome, then any Democrat has a harder task (Beverly Perdue is trouble in North Carolina) in winning a statewide election. The Republican Governor of Virginia seems to be holding his own, and he would be of help to any Republican nominee for President who seeks and gets his help. But contrast Scott Walker in Wisconsin, who is now just slightly more popular than a timber rattler in Wisconsin. If Scott Walker were President of Wisconsin, then he would be in danger of a military coup.

OK, so here we go with the latest treatment of statewide polls of Governors. Rhode Island is an independent, so the 4 electoral votes of Rhode Island don't fit the model. DC has no Governor, so no governor can have an effect on any district-wide race. Ties would have zero effect in my model, but I see none yet.

I am using a gap to decide how popular a Governor is, and I include only data beginning in February for new Governors and December for re-elected or otherwise continuing Governors. Basically people who re-elected Rick Perry in Texas or Jan Brewer in Arizona acted as if they knew what they were doing. Intensity matters greatly. Intensity of the gap means more than a raw approval rating. A governor with a split of 37-31 in approval and disapproval isn't especially well-known but is doing OK. One whose split is 37-35 isn't especially good, but it is the right direction. 37-40? Somewhat troubled. 37-49? Big trouble!



So here's how I see them:

Democrat, popularity gap -10% or more 15 Republican, popularity gap -10% or more 93

Democrat, popularity gap -5% to -9% 0 Republican, popularity gap -5% to -9% 14


Democrat, popularity gap -1% to -4% 0 Republican, popularity gap -1% to -4% 6

Democrat, popularity gap 0% (tie) 0 Republican, popularity gap 0% (tie) 0


Democrat, popularity gap +1% to +4% 0 Republican, popularity gap +1% to +4% 41

Democrat, popularity gap +5% to +9% 0 Republican, popularity gap +5% to +9% 14


Democrat, popularity gap +10% or more 112 Republican, popularity gap +10% or more 88

Independent Governor, Governorship vacant, or no Governor 7

....Now for the kicker. Add the approvals of Democrats and opposite directions for Republicans. Such suggests the advantage; having a highly-popular Governor of one's own party has the presumed effect of having a highly-unpopular Governor of the other party.

What do we then see?

Democratic advantage, 10%+ 205

Democratic advantage, 5%- 9% 4

Democratic advantage under 5% 6

No advantage 7

Republican advantage under 5% 41

Republican advantage 5% -10% 14


Republican advantage 10% + 103


This is as of 5/1/2011, before the President announced the demise of Osama bin Laden. Some strange results are possible; for example, the Democratic President and a Republican governor could get credit for dealing with a natural disaster very competently. But all in all, the unpopularity of Republican governors in a swath from Wisconsin to Pennsylvania bodes ill for any Republican nominee for President.

Just as 18 months is a long time for Obama to right his ship the same can be said for the Governors you cite....not only that but the last poll I saw from Pennsylvania showed Obama with a very low approval and re-elect numbers so the current so called unpopularity of the Penn. Gov isnt translating to Obama's re-election....

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

It is true, obviously, that turnout was a factor in 2008 and 2010. But what he's saying is that it was the only factor, that there was not a 15 point swing among independents, and the only reason the Democrats lost so badly in 2010 is because they weren't left wing enough.

FWIW, I find it very hard to back the Democrats, since they find it hard to back any of us. At least the GOPpers are serving their masters of choice. The Dems are just playing to stay in the game. That's not much reason to back them ... even though the GOP is rapidly approaching ideological extremes not seen since the Gilded Age. I'm amazed to no end that conservatives can't see or won't admit how far the center has moved to the right, when someone can declare BHO a socialist.

Is there no benchmark to use anymore? Are we just making it up on the fly?

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Bottom line...arguing with you about whether or not the sky is blue is not interesting.

Bullshit. That's just an excuse, because you don't have a good counter-argument.

I gave my opinion, and the reasons for it. It can't be proven, it's a prediction.

We're not talking about predictions now. We're talking about the past. There, I have presented evidence. You have presented nothing. I've linked the research showing that "independent" voters are for the most part not swing voters. Here's another bit for you. The same exit poll that divided voters up by party affiliation also divided them by self-labeled ideology -- liberal, moderate, conservative. If "independent" voters were swing voters, then they would also be "moderate" voters. That's the only way they could swing back and forth between voting for Republicans and for Democrats. It would therefore be impossible for the Democrats to win the "moderate" vote and lose the "independent" vote in the same election.

But in 2010, they did. Decisively, in both cases. THEREFORE the independent voters were NOT swing voters. Q.E.D.

The only way that someone got categorized as an "independent" in those exit polls is if they answered that way to the question "do you call yourself a Democrat, a Republican, or an independent?" On that basis alone, without presenting any evidence whatsoever, you have assumed that an independent voter is also a swing voter. All the evidence available is that you are wrong. That evidence has been presented. You have ignored it.

"Sky is blue" my ass. You're just being a typical closed-minded religious fanatic hidebound by dogma and totally unwilling to look at anything that might challenge your precious beliefs and maybe even make you (gasp!) THINK. Contemptible.

What can be proven is how wrong you were about the 2010 elections

And that's another excuse. "He was wrong once, so he's going to be wrong about everything."

This isn't about me as an authority. It's about the evidence, and your unwillingness to use your friggin' brain. But in fact, I always knew there was a possibility that the Democratic voters would stay home, giving the Republicans a majority, and said so. What I refused to do was to concede that this was inevitable. So -- you're wrong. My predictions didn't fail, because I didn't make any, except in the form of "maybe." And you can feel free to look that up.

Obama has the office and the ability to manipulate events and the news cycle to his advantage. While there is probably not another bin Laden out there to give him a dramatic bump, there are other things he can do. The bin Laden bump shows that the Independent voters can be captured again by Obama and that is bad news for Republicans.

I think a great deal of this comes down to the Republican nominee and right now I see nobody who can beat Obama except for Romney if he runs a good campaign. But I agree with those here who say the far right will NOT let him be nominated. Christie is a joke who might even die during a campaign from his own morbid obesity and poor physical shape. Daniels is a "who is he?" candidate. If Palin goes full all out, she could get the nomination but then it would be 64 and Goldwater all over again for the GOP. Paul is a non-factor. Right now I would say the GOP is a mess going into the primary year of 2012.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

Both of your methods are flawed. In the first case, a Republican who has not been nominated, had a convention, and run a campaign is not going to have high numbers. The undecideds are far too numerous, and there has been no attempt to sway some who might be swayed away from Obama. When you have a multitude of potential candidates and of most of those candidates have not even declared mush less mounted a campaign, head to head matchup polls with the sitting president are meaningless.

I'm not going to pretend that polls of approval ratings of the President at this stage can give a precise picture of the next election. Events will happen from now until next November, but they can just as easily hurt Republicans as Democrats. If you check my posts in the election forum, you might eventually see how I predict the Presidential election of 2012 would look with various levels of popular vote from about a 55-45 Obama loss to a 55-45 Obama win. Such are the mechanics of an election, and they aren't that controversial. Nobody disagrees with me when I say that President Obama won't win Arizona without winning both Colorado and Nevada, Indiana without also winning Ohio, North Carolina without also winning Virginia, or Georgia without winning both Florida and North Carolina. Nobody argues with me when I say that he can't win without both Iowa and Pennsylvania. Demographics are reality. Time is also a reality, and the Republicans have so far thrown a kitchen sink full of irrelevant and ineffective arguments against him. All potential Republican candidates for President are running out of time in which to develop a coherent argument for voting in a challenger. "He's black!" was a so obvious a failure in 2008 that it won;t be offered.

If the head-to-head matchups were more consistently unflattering to President Obama, then I would give the edge to the Republicans. But if I am to say that what now appears to be so is that at the best for the Republican, Romney would lose like Gore or Kerry, Huckabee would lose like McCain, and Gingrich would lose like Goldwater, and Palin would lose like Landon, McGovern or Mondale... it is still possible for any of them to win, but such would require circumstances that I cannot now predict. Obviously, all bets are off if the President should have a fatal heart attack that nobody sees coming; I have no model for that. He would probably lose (and probably should lose!) if he were exposed having an affair with a pretty white woman... but I would not predict that -- or if he had a scandal involving personal enrichment at the expense of the Treasury or through the extraction of bribes. My model cannot show that -- until such a scandal happens.

You state that those who have yet to run a campaign to completion haven't fully shown their potential. You are right. But there will also be the negative campaigning.

This model is far from perfect,

This is all before May 1, 2011.

In the second case, it is extremely common to have a popular governor of one party in a state that has no chance of voting for that party nationally. It happens all the time. A conservative Democrat in a Republican state, or a liberal Republican in a Democrat state, can have a lot of success running on a platform that's very different from their party's national platform.

Undeniable. But you name any liberal Republican governors. Chaffee is an Independent.

If you saw the map in my link, you would notice that the popular Governor of West Virginia is a Democrat, much in contrast to Republican governors in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maine. I remain satisfied that Barack Obama, who is not a populist like Humphrey, Carter, or Clinton, is the wrong sort of Democratic nominee to win West Virginia. On the other side, you will notice that I have the new Republican governor of New Mexico doing fine so far as Governor, probably because she hasn't fallen for the snares that many new Republican governors have fallen for. That said, I question whether the Governor of West Virginia can ensure that President Obama can win his state or that the Governor of New Mexico can ensure a victory for any Republican nominee.

I have established rules that should the Governorship go vacant, then any advantage vanishes in the model until I see something new.

My predictive models have rigid rules lest they turn to mush. But all in all if you are a Republican nominee for President and you get a chance to appear on the podium in October 2011 with Scott Walker, you might have good cause to decline the offer. But a chance to appear in Virginia with Bob McDonnell, who so far maintains some popularity? It might be extremely valuable. On the other side, it can also show the futility of wasted efforts. I think that we can pretty well see that campaigning in California (except on behalf of House candidates) will be overkill for a Democrat and a waste of effort for a Republican.

Sure I am a partisan hack, but I can sanitize any mathematical model. Statistics and probability have no partisan bias.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Obama has the office and the ability to manipulate events and the news cycle to his advantage. While there is probably not another bin Laden out there to give him a dramatic bump, there are other things he can do. The bin Laden bump shows that the Independent voters can be captured again by Obama and that is bad news for Republicans.

I think a great deal of this comes down to the Republican nominee and right now I see nobody who can beat Obama except for Romney if he runs a good campaign. But I agree with those here who say the far right will NOT let him be nominated. Christie is a joke who might even die during a campaign from his own morbid obesity and poor physical shape. Daniels is a "who is he?" candidate. If Palin goes full all out, she could get the nomination but then it would be 64 and Goldwater all over again for the GOP. Paul is a non-factor. Right now I would say the GOP is a mess going into the primary year of 2012.

I believe Obama is clearly in over his head as far as spending, the deficit and the economy are concerned. The ruthless side of me says, the Republicans should toss this election to seal the Democrats long term fate. But, the sensible of me says, if they were to do that, we might not come out of this crisis as one nation.

I'm going to say, considering the candidates I've seen so far, it may not matter who gets elected unless it's a dangerous nutcase.

Anyone for former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson? I dearly love *his* proposal to cut government expenses and bring in new tax revenue.

End Prohibition. And please don't ask what he's been smoking,either.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'm going to say, considering the candidates I've seen so far, it may not matter who gets elected unless it's a dangerous nutcase.

Anyone for former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson? I dearly love *his* proposal to cut government expenses and bring in new tax revenue.

End Prohibition. And please don't ask what he's been smoking,either.

I listened to him at the Republican debate last night. He's an interesting candidate and a likable individual.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I believe Obama is clearly in over his head as far as spending, the deficit and the economy are concerned. The ruthless side of me says, the Republicans should toss this election to seal the Democrats long term fate. But, the sensible of me says, if they were to do that, we might not come out of this crisis as one nation.

We get a peace dividend from the demise of Osama Bin Laden. Americans gain more personal confidence, and maybe the economy improves and people know it. Deficits shrink.

Much of the deficit results from the Dubya-era bubble in real estate going very bad very fast.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

We get a peace dividend from the demise of Osama Bin Laden. Americans gain more personal confidence, and maybe the economy improves and people know it. Deficits shrink.

Much of the deficit results from the Dubya-era bubble in real estate going very bad very fast.

Obama deserves a bump for the demise of Bin Laden. But, I don't believe there will be any peace dividends coming our way anytime soon.

Originally Posted by Exile 67'

I listened to him at the Republican debate last night. He's an interesting candidate and a likable individual.

Yes, he is, and I found him and interesting and likeable governor who walks his talk.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I'm going to say, considering the candidates I've seen so far, it may not matter who gets elected unless it's a dangerous nutcase.

Anyone for former New Mexico governor Gary Johnson? I dearly love *his* proposal to cut government expenses and bring in new tax revenue.

End Prohibition. And please don't ask what he's been smoking,either.

Johnson's "every decision ought to be made based on a cost analysis" approach plays well with fiscal conservatives, but he's closer to being a (small L) libertarian than he is to being a conservative overall - particularly when he makes comments like the one you mention. Republicans tend to appreciate libertarians. It's a viewpoint that's not diametrically opposed to their own. But, the tendency of libertarians to be socially liberal makes one of them obtaining the Republican nomination sort of a long shot. An extremely personally compelling individual who seemed truly presidential might be able to pull it off, particularly at a time like this when the economy is so important, but both the libertarians on the stage last night (Johnson and Paul) come off as slightly odd individuals.

The straw poll after that debate indicates that the three more traditional conservatives, Herman Cain (hard right), Rick Santorum (hard right) and Tim Pawlenty (Romney-like moderate) did much better among Republicans.

Originally Posted by Weave

Just as 18 months is a long time for Obama to right his ship the same can be said for the Governors you cite....not only that but the last poll I saw from Pennsylvania showed Obama with a very low approval and re-elect numbers so the current so called unpopularity of the Penn. Gov isnt translating to Obama's re-election....

Republican governors who have the luxury of a Republican state legislature have decided to use it as a once in a lifetime opportunity to repeal much of the 20th century progressive reforms. They are willing to take the hit for this. They have plenty of friends in corporate America who will amply reward them after one term. With time, as a broader section of the public begins to understand what they did in states like Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey and others, they will only become more unpopular with even lower numbers. Republican True Believers in those states have made a decision and the 2012 Presidential race never entered into it.

Originally Posted by haymarket martyr

Republican governors who have the luxury of a Republican state legislature have decided to use it as a once in a lifetime opportunity to repeal much of the 20th century progressive reforms.

Reforms that the same Republican party put into place a hundred years ago under Teddy. My how the times have changed...

~Chas'88

NY26 is about as Red as you can get. It was re-district decades ago to be that way and Repugs have held it every since JACK KEMP took it in 1970! Kerry, Hilary, and Obama got trashed here even when they each took the Empire State big time.

There's a special election on May 24 as a result of the resignation of incumbent Repug Chris Lee, the Congressman who posted photos of himself shirtless to attract some honeys.

Republican Jane Corwin, a current member of the New York State Assembly, will compete against Democrat Kathleen Hochul, the current clerk of Erie County; Green Party candidate Ian Murphy, editor of the Buffalo Beast; and fourth-time candidate Jack Davis, running on the Tea Party line.

The Repugs have that problem again of a t-bagger taking some of the Repug vote, but polls show he's not much a factor. Theres a much BIGGER problem for them. And that BIGGER problem is why House Speaker Boehner just made a special trip up to this po-dunk district to personally campaign for Corwin. And today, Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand went out to the 26th to campaign for Hochul.

This is shaping up to be something like Scott Brown's special election win in Mass. - seen as a national referendum. This time its not about the Dems though.

Here's the clue. The Repugs engineered the district to get 30,000 more registered Republicans on the roles. How do you do that? Simple, old White people retired out to the Exurbs and the sticks - about as Red as you can get. But what do old people care most about?

Take a look at this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPa8teSoLwg

Look at the most recent polling since this ad came out -

http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2011/5/5/NY-26/31/78eWn

The Dem has taken the lead, 35-31, for the first time in this race; FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 40 YEARS! This is F-in amazing even if she goes on to lose. No wonder Boehner went out there to try to turn this around!

Look at the underlying numbers. A dead head of 32% each for the over 65. AND, the Dem has the advantage of 40-30 for those between 45-65. She's got the Indies 37-20.

Only 2 weeks to go before this election. She pulls this off, say bye-bye to any Ryan plan and likely any cohesion among the House Repugs - the ones that are slightly less crazy than your average t-bagger who came to DC last November are going to be plenty pissed at their leadership for making them vote on the Ryan plan.... and plenty scared.

Man, the spoof site for Corwin is really funny.

Unfortunately, it also is pretty accurate in capturing the unspoken Repug mindset and policies.

http://www.janecorwin.org/

This election could be an oddity with the 'independent' tea-bagger grabbing votes from the 'official' Republican. That said, this could be a harbinger of 2012. The GOP has gotten to the point in which it guts old-age economic security for a bunch of rapacious whipper-snappers infamous for doing no good for anyone other than themselves.

GOP pols have gone too far in efforts to dismantle what many consider the necessities of a benevolent state. For what? The economic jungle?

Originally Posted by playwrite

NY26 is about as Red as you can get. It was re-district decades ago to be that way and Repugs have held it every since JACK KEMP took it in 1970! Kerry, Hilary, and Obama got trashed here even when they each took the Empire State big time.

There's a special election on May 24 as a result of the resignation of incumbent Repug Chris Lee, the Congressman who posted photos of himself shirtless to attract some honeys.

Republican Jane Corwin, a current member of the New York State Assembly, will compete against Democrat Kathleen Hochul, the current clerk of Erie County; Green Party candidate Ian Murphy, editor of the Buffalo Beast; and fourth-time candidate Jack Davis, running on the Tea Party line.

The Repugs have that problem again of a t-bagger taking some of the Repug vote, but polls show he's not much a factor. Theres a much BIGGER problem for them. And that BIGGER problem is why House Speaker Boehner just made a special trip up to this po-dunk district to personally campaign for Corwin. And today, Senator Kirsten E. Gillibrand went out to the 26th to campaign for Hochul.

This is shaping up to be something like Scott Brown's special election win in Mass. - seen as a national referendum. This time its not about the Dems though.

Here's the clue. The Repugs engineered the district to get 30,000 more registered Republicans on the roles. How do you do that? Simple, old White people retired out to the Exurbs and the sticks - about as Red as you can get. But what do old people care most about?

Take a look at this -

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPa8teSoLwg

Look at the most recent polling since this ad came out -

http://www.dailykos.com/polling/2011/5/5/NY-26/31/78eWn

The Dem has taken the lead, 35-31, for the first time in this race; FOR THE FIRST TIME IN 40 YEARS! This is F-in amazing even if she goes on to lose. No wonder Boehner went out there to try to turn this around!

Look at the underlying numbers. A dead head of 32% each for the over 65. AND, the Dem has the advantage of 40-30 for those between 45-65. She's got the Indies 37-20.

Only 2 weeks to go before this election. She pulls this off, say bye-bye to any Ryan plan and likely any cohesion among the House Repugs - the ones that are slightly less crazy than your average t-bagger who came to DC last November are going to be plenty pissed at their leadership for making them vote on the Ryan plan.... and plenty scared.

While I share your desire for the Democrats taking back the house in 2012, I find your tone as offensive as Weave's posts where he expresses glee at the thought of a double-dip recession taking down Obama.

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

While I share your desire for the Democrats taking back the house in 2012, I find your tone as offensive as Weave's posts where he expresses glee at the thought of a double-dip recession taking down Obama.

I agree and wonder how anyone could believe that insults are the way to persuade.

James50

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

While I share your desire for the Democrats taking back the house in 2012, I find your tone as offensive as Weave's posts where he expresses glee at the thought of a double-dip recession taking down Obama.

Good point. The health of our political system going through this 4T may well depend upon a relaxation of the polarized politics that have made American politics today look much like those of Spain in the early 1930s -- no political center, but both sides demonizing each other and using such political power as they get to gut the ability of the Other Side to respond except in elections.

I may be a liberal and have some bias, but so far the Republicans are going further into the realm of extremism. When political life in deliberative bodies becomes a metaphor for a class struggle, then the system with such pathological politics becomes vulnerable to some Man on a White Horse (like Francisco Franco).

Maybe liberals have become less arrogant after some political defeats in 2010; one now rarely sees liberals write or hear them say "Reality has a liberal bias" any more.

Originally Posted by James50

I agree and wonder how anyone could believe that insults are the way to persuade.

James50

I'm not trying to persuade anyone. I'm expressing shear glee of the potential to win a fight.

Can anyone point to a 4T in history resolved by tea toddlers holding their pinkies in the air and being oh so concerned about the lack of politeness?

With millions unemployed, millions more on food stamps, millions of elderly facing the possibility of losing medical care, the greatest income disparity since the 1920s, two wars going on (one based on lies), etc. etc., I just can’t fathom, nor want to waste my time doing so, people who get offended over some slang.

What I will do is be polite and not say _ _ _ _ - _ _ _!


___________________________________

that would be "love you" of course.