Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

... The percentage of people in the general population (not just voters) calling themselves conservatives spiked up dramatically starting in 2009, from the mid-30s to the low 40s, primarily as a result of the health care bill.

Thrown away when the Republicans

(1) offered a privatization of Medicare that would cost the elderly dearly so that profiteers could wax fat, basically giving away a well-run government program to private industry, and

(2) put tax cuts for the super-rich above any other budgetary reform.

Just look at what American voters now think of the GOP majority in Congress.

It's really not complicated. Obama campaigned as a moderate, and has governed as a leftist. And his record has been a catastrophic failure. He lost left leaning moderates (whose most likely response was to stay home), and drove right leaning moderates screaming into the arms of the GOP.

Short-term trends on one bill mean nothing. Opposition to the Affordable Health Care Act has been eroding.

"Right-leaning moderates" usually vote Republican anyway, and vote for a "left-leaning moderate" like Barack Obama only when the Republicans nominate an extremist, crook, or bumbler. As an analogue, "left-leaning moderates" vote for a Republican nominee when the Democrats nominate an extremist, crook, or bumbler. The political base is always reliable, and it often shows almost freakish admiration for someone who 'pulls no punches' -- like Goldwater in 1964 or McGovern in 1972. But that enthusiasm doesn't translate into votes.

That is the reality of what happened in 2010. I realize that certain posters here have no interest in reality, but the truth is out there to be found if you have any interest in it. I suggest starting with Gallup.

The pattern of Presidential approval for President Obama is very similar to that of both Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. I can hardly imagine better company as a precedent in a time of political polarization as severe as we now have. Just check Gallup for comparisons.

Jimmy Carter, the President that many would like to compare President Obama, does far worse. But note well the big difference between Jimmy Carter and Presidents Reagan, Clinton, and Obama. Jimmy Carter was ideologically identical to Bill Clinton -- but had very few legislative achievements.

The generational cycle suggests that Obama is more like FDR: someone on the cusp between an Idealist and a Reactive generation who came to office in the wake of GOP ineptitude, took over during bad economic times... I will put my prediction on the Presidential election of 2012: decisive re-election with lesser interstate polarization, results somewhat similar to 2008 against Romney (53% of popular vote) but more like Eisenhower 1956 to Reagan 1984 (58% of the popular vote) against a weak or extreme nominee.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The generational cycle suggests that Obama is more like FDR: someone on the cusp between an Idealist and a Reactive generation who came to office in the wake of GOP ineptitude, took over during bad economic times... I will put my prediction on the Presidential election of 2012: decisive re-election with lesser interstate polarization, results somewhat similar to 2008 against Romney (53% of popular vote) but more like Eisenhower 1956 to Reagan 1984 (58% of the popular vote) against a weak or extreme nominee.

On the one hand, I agree with the predictions about the 2012 election if the economy gets a little better. If it doesn't, I'm not sure. On the other hand, the one thing Barack Obama has proven beyond any doubt is that he has no interest whatsoever in being FDR. He wants to be Ike.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To JPT:

Thanks for the compliment.

Elitist snobbery is not the reason you are on my ignore list. Anyone who endlessly repeats right-wing propaganda goes there sooner or later.

There's also the fact that he's a liar. Half the time he doesn't even believe what he's saying.

There is no doubt that the bulk of the political energy out there right now is on your side of the fence

It's easy to draw that conclusion if you depend on the mainstream media for your news. They lie, too.

Despite JPT's lie, Obama in no way, shape or form campaigned as a "moderate" in 2008. He promised to redistribute wealth, promote green energy, end the war in Iraq, end the Bush-era abuses of federal police powers, re-regulate Wall Street, and give us universal health care. He has kept very few of these promises. To suggest that he has moved to the left compared to his campaign and that that is why the Republicans won last year's election is, of course, another lie.

Barack Obama has proven beyond any doubt is that he has no interest whatsoever in being FDR. He wants to be Ike.

He's in no position to be either one of them. He might manage to be FDR in his second term. Right now, he's Lincoln.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

"Right-leaning moderates" usually vote Republican anyway, and vote for a "left-leaning moderate" like Barack Obama only when the Republicans nominate an extremist, crook, or bumbler.

Even so, that doesn't describe what happened in 2008. What happened in 2008 was that the Democrats ran a candidate on an openly progressive platform for the first time in decades, while the Republicans ran a self-styled maverick who had little appeal to the right-wing base after eight years of a president who also had only marginal base appeal and during an economic catastrophe. Just like 2010, the result in 2008 can be attributed mostly to patterns of voter turnout. The left came out and voted, the right stayed home. Sure, Obama probably won the "centrist" vote, and that didn't hurt, but it didn't help him much, either. Swing voters barely even exist.

Here's an interesting take on an Obama/Bachmann match-up, which is looking more and more likely (and if that isn't an indictment of GOP craziness I don't know what would be). Grain of salt, it's from DKos, but the poll data are sound.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/0...ide&via=blog_1

Interesting tidbit: "But what hasn't changed is as important as what has. The economic situation (particularly the jobs news) has been mediocre-to-bad for quite some time, and particularly bad of late. Yet in spite of this, the president's numbers have barely budged." What this suggests to me is that we are now firmly in a 4T voting pattern. In the 3T, when all was happy dust and instant gratification, how the economy was doing was a perfect indicator of whether a president would be reelected or not. The voters simply reacted with satisfaction or anger, directly and unthinkingly. Now, there's a lowered baseline; we expect things to go on sucking for a while and so don't blame the president for the fact that they do (even though, IMO, he deserves some of the blame -- although not as much of it as the Republicans and the conserva-Dems).

The trend for Bachmann in the poll is upward, but that's to be expected at this stage. As the article points out, "When PPP first asked about Bachmann, she was seen by many as a joke who wouldn't run. Now she's a serious force in the GOP field, and her stock (and poll numbers) are on the rise."

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The trend for Bachmann in the poll is upward, but that's to be expected at this stage. As the article points out, "When PPP first asked about Bachmann, she was seen by many as a joke who wouldn't run. Now she's a serious force in the GOP field, and her stock (and poll numbers) are on the rise."

This to me suggests that many people really don't "know" Bachmann yet. I seem to recall Christine O'Donnell and Sharron Angle surging in the polls for a while, too. But by election day, enough people learned enough about them that they crashed and burned, even against vulnerable Democratic opponents who probably would have lost to a relatively sane Republican (which are currently an endangered species, at least on the national political scene).

I think the same may be true of Bachmann. Still, best not to underestimate her.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

To JPT:

Thanks for the compliment.

Elitist snobbery is not the reason you are on my ignore list. Anyone who endlessly repeats right-wing propaganda goes there sooner or later.

I feel a touch guilty because if I did read your posts I might be able to pick something sensible out too.

There is no doubt that the bulk of the political energy out there right now is on your side of the fence.

If I put everyone here who endlessly spouts left-wing propaganda on ignore, I'd pretty much have to ignore the whole forum. Although to be honest, that's pretty much what I've been doing lately.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Even so, that doesn't describe what happened in 2008. What happened in 2008 was that the Democrats ran a candidate on an openly progressive platform for the first time in decades, while the Republicans ran a self-styled maverick who had little appeal to the right-wing base after eight years of a president who also had only marginal base appeal and during an economic catastrophe. Just like 2010, the result in 2008 can be attributed mostly to patterns of voter turnout. The left came out and voted, the right stayed home. Sure, Obama probably won the "centrist" vote, and that didn't hurt, but it didn't help him much, either. Swing voters barely even exist.

True, basically. But such is as I have seen of Congressional and Senate races, too. I may have oversimplified in one respect: that some States have a habit of alternating governors after two terms (Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Virginia are prime examples). Crooks are rare, but in the excellent opportunity for Democrats who kept their noses clean in 2008, William "Cold Cash" Jefferson (the Representative of LA-01 caught with the proceeds of bribery in a refrigerator) was defeated by a Republican who in turn was defeated in 2010, a disastrous year for Democrats. And, yes, there are bad years for one Party or another. I am going to figure that many Democrats decidedly to the Left of their districts elected in 2006 and 2008 went down to defeat in 2010... but that there will be a counter-punch in 2012 when many Republican Representatives decidedly to the right of their districts go down, too.

Unfortunately I can't easily make a chart here, but let's suppose that you have voters on a scale of partisan tendency from 1 to


1. Extreme Right (except for the KKK and Nazis) -- like John Birch Society members. 1%
2. Republican interest groups 2%
3. Other partisan Republicans 34%
4. Republican-leaning independent voters 13%
5. Democratic-leaning independent voters 13%
6. Partisan Democrats not members of Democratic interest groups 34%
7. Democratic interest groups 2%
8. Ultra-liberals (but not Commies) 1%

Symmetry is obvious for this model and relevant to years of experience.

Contrary to a common myth I find few strict independent voters. Ticket-splitters, the ones who might vote heavily D or R in most major races but split tickers on such things as judicial races, are in categories 4 and 5. Extremists are rare, and they tend to get ignored because they are usually more trouble than they are worth. They often vote for third parties. A party that successfully appeals to them usually loses too many moderates. Categories 2 and 7 may be numerically small, but they provide the money behind an election. Both Parties will get their votes. Groups 3 and 4 are reliable voters. Groups 4 and 5 decide elections.

To be sure, there might be districts in which groups 3 or 6 dominate the electorate, which explains someone so left-leaning as Charlie Rangell (South Bronx, NY-16) or why the farm-and-ranch country of NE-03 (central and western Nebraska, where the largest liberal-voting blocs are teachers, rail workers, and small minority populations) could in an extreme scenario be one of the few electoral votes for the Republican nominee. (No, I do not predict that disaster for any possible Republican nominee -- an electoral vote divide of 537-1!) But in general we have some symmetry on a national scale.

In the electoral blowouts of 1936, 1964, 1972, and 1984 for the Presidency, the losing nominee still got roughly 40% of the popular vote. That is why I drew the lines where I did. 80% of the vote in any Presidential election is likely decided ten years or earlier before. It's the other 20% that matters. Those voters are in groups 4 and 5. President Obama got 60% of the vote that counted -- the voters in categories 4 and 5. Sure, he missed some in Category 5, perhaps because many voters still had misgivings about him based on his origin and a whispering campaign about his religion. But enough voters that the Republicans used to rely upon -- suburban voters whom the GOP used to win over with promises of tax cuts for their bosses and for shareholders, a lax regulatory climate, and support for 'conventional lifestyles -- went for him.

Originally Posted by JustPassingThrough

If I put everyone here who endlessly spouts left-wing propaganda on ignore, I'd pretty much have to ignore the whole forum. Although to be honest, that's pretty much what I've been doing lately.

The thing about right-wing propaganda is that it actually is propaganda, factually inaccurate statements (i.e., lies), demonstrably so. Thus it is claimed that Obama campaigned as a moderate when it's obvious he didn't, and that he moved left in office when it's obvious he moved right. What's more, there are people -- and I rather strongly suspect you of being one of them -- who spout right-wing propaganda on the Internet endlessly because they are paid to do so.

Reality has a liberal bias. To counter this, the right resorts to lies.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

The thing about right-wing propaganda is that it actually is propaganda, factually inaccurate statements (i.e., lies), demonstrably so. Thus it is claimed that Obama campaigned as a moderate when it's obvious he didn't, and that he moved left in office when it's obvious he moved right. What's more, there are people -- and I rather strongly suspect you of being one of them -- who spout right-wing propaganda on the Internet endlessly because they are paid to do so.

Reality has a liberal bias. To counter this, the right resorts to lies.

And when you call them out on their lies they start using PoMo gobbly-gok to weasel their way out.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Unfortunately I can't easily make a chart here, but let's suppose that you have voters on a scale of partisan tendency from 1 to


1. Extreme Right (except for the KKK and Nazis) -- like John Birch Society members. 1%
2. Republican interest groups 2%
3. Other partisan Republicans 34%
4. Republican-leaning independent voters 13%
5. Democratic-leaning independent voters 13%
6. Partisan Democrats not members of Democratic interest groups 34%
7. Democratic interest groups 2%
8. Ultra-liberals (but not Commies) 1%

The problem here is that you are drawing a distinction between Republican-leaning independents and partisan Republicans, and then the same distinction among Democrats, that doesn't exist. There is no distinction that can be drawn in terms of ideology or voting patterns between leaning independents and labeled Republicans or Democrats. The only distinction is whether a person calls himself by a party label. Those that don't, are "independents."

This is part of the myth of the independent voter. One finds polls with responses divided among Democrats, Republicans, and Independents that makes the last out to look like a separate category, but this is an illusion, as illustrated below.

Say in a population of 1000 voters you have:

200 labeled partisan Democrats
250 Democratic-leaning independents
100 genuine swing voters
250 Republican-leaning independents
200 labeled partisan Republicans

(Yes, this is artificial and arbitrary. All I'm doing is illustrating an illusion. Note how it works, and don't assume I'm saying anything about how the numbers actually line up.)

A poll asks a question about, say, raising taxes on the rich. For sake of illustration, assume that all partisan and leaning Democrats approve, while all partisan and leaning Republicans disapprove (I know it's not that clear-cut in reality, but bear with me; again, I'm only illustrating how an illusion works). The 100 true swing voters are split 50-50.

The poll finds:

100% of Democrats approve
100% of Republicans disapprove
50% of Independents approve, and constitute 60% of the electorate!

This makes it look like indies are a separate, huge category, but in reality the group that is split down the middle constitutes only 10% of the electorate.

Politicians need to shoot for the group that consists of their partisans and the leaning indies, and blow off the indies leaning the other way. The hell with them; you're not getting their votes anyway. That means they need to shoot for a position that is in the middle, not of the whole country, but of their own constituents. So for Obama, for instance, a "moderate" position goes midway between Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, NOT midway between Bernie Sanders and Michelle Bachmann. This is something that neither party seems to have fully figured out. Obama triangulated too far to the right. The Republicans in Congress now are also triangulating too far to the right, since they need to find a midpoint between Bachmann and Lieberman themselves, and they aren't doing that.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

On the one hand, I agree with the predictions about the 2012 election if the economy gets a little better. If it doesn't, I'm not sure. On the other hand, the one thing Barack Obama has proven beyond any doubt is that he has no interest whatsoever in being FDR. He wants to be Ike.

Both FDR and Obama are on the Idealist-Reactive cusp. But if FDR is predominantly Idealist (spurning the Missionary crazes for eugenics and Prohibition for pragmatic reasons), Obama is more Reactive than Idealist. He doesn't show any affinities for high culture (if he attends symphony concerts or art museums he does so on the sly for now), but he doesn't seem particularly greedy or materialistic. He is just too cautious with his rhetoric to be a pure Idealist. I think that he would prefer to be one of the best peacetime Presidents in American history, which would put him with Jefferson, TR, and Eisenhower. (I consider Truman a wartime President because of the Korean Conflict). Getting America out of wars in Afghanistan and Iraq would be an Eisenhower-style achievement. I look at his activity on the debt ceiling... and giving the Other Side an offer that it can't accept but can't reject without catastrophic consequences for itself.

I remember Karl Rove, when asked what he can most favorably say about President Obama, replied, "He's cautious". Such is the character of a 60-year-old Reactive even if President Obama is just short of his 50th birthday. Nobody in his right mind wants to face quite the travails that Lincoln or FDR experienced... but that might be what President Obama gets. Nobody thinks himself ready for that -- and I question whether Lincoln, FDR, or Churchill thought himself well-prepared for the extreme danger that he faced. Significantly he follows a President who has done or enabled some of the greatest economic, diplomatic, budgetary, and military damage possible in America. In contrast to Dubya, Herbert Hoover was a man of unqualified integrity -- and very much a man of peace. FDR didn't inherit a budget full of debt from a glory-seeker's war.

Reactive figures can lead a country through a Crisis successfully (Elizabeth I of England, maybe Catherine the Great of Russia)... if they are smart, and if they defer to the least troublesome of Idealist virtues. Brinksmanship can work. The gangland hit (such is the technique, and that is extremely Reactive in style) on Osama bin Laden may have been done after much deliberation to avoid bad consequences, but it worked. The Reactive failures are those who either get overwhelmed by forces beyond their ability to understand (Bruning of Germany, Schuschnigg of Austria, Daladier of France), or those callous and cynical Reactive figures that do great evil in the arrogant belief that they can get away with it (you know who).

I believe that this Crisis era is far from complete, and that it will fully encompass the Obama Administration whether two full terms or only one. The best that he can do is probably to institute some major reforms that undo much of the damage that happened in the 3T and perhaps some of the 2T. But that is what FDR did in his first two terms!

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Reactive figures can lead a country through a Crisis successfully (Elizabeth I of England, maybe Catherine the Great of Russia).

Could an Xer become the first woman to be elected President of the United States?

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Could an Xer become the first woman to be elected President of the United States?

I'll go out on a limb and guess that our first woman president will be an Xer military veteran and will be elected in 2028

Originally Posted by Odin

I'll go out on a limb and guess that our first woman president will be an Xer military veteran and will be elected in 2028

She might turn out to more a Truman (scrapper) sort than an Ike figure.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

Could an Xer become the first woman to be elected President of the United States?

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is now my best bet to be the first female President of the United States (which shows what I think of the chances for Sarah Pay-Me and Michelle Bonkers)... but having been born in 1960 she just barely misses being X.

Gabrielle Giffords seemed on the fast track, but that could be over.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) is now my best bet to be the first female President of the United States (which shows what I think of the chances for Sarah Pay-Me and Michelle Bonkers)... but having been born in 1960 she just barely misses being X.

Gabrielle Giffords seemed on the fast track, but that could be over.

Mrs. Crazy Bonkers is a Boomer.

Originally Posted by Odin

Mrs. Crazy Bonkers is a Boomer.

I know. The least objectionable characteristic about her is that she is a Boomer.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

I remember Karl Rove, when asked what he can most favorably say about President Obama, replied, "He's cautious". Such is the character of a 60-year-old Reactive even if President Obama is just short of his 50th birthday. Nobody in his right mind wants to face quite the travails that Lincoln or FDR experienced... but that might be what President Obama gets. Nobody thinks himself ready for that -- and I question whether Lincoln, FDR, or Churchill thought himself well-prepared for the extreme danger that he faced. Significantly he follows a President who has done or enabled some of the greatest economic, diplomatic, budgetary, and military damage possible in America. In contrast to Dubya, Herbert Hoover was a man of unqualified integrity -- and very much a man of peace. FDR didn't inherit a budget full of debt from a glory-seeker's war.


I believe that this Crisis era is far from complete, and that it will fully encompass the Obama Administration whether two full terms or only one. The best that he can do is probably to institute some major reforms that undo much of the damage that happened in the 3T and perhaps some of the 2T. But that is what FDR did in his first two terms!

I have points of disagreement here. Lincoln was ambivalent about the role history thrust him into, although his Lyceum speech, delivered when he was about 30--I've posted it several times--suggests that he had imagined it long before. FDR and Churchill loved being Crisis leaders. FDR loved coping with problems and incarnating the nation's hopes. Churchill loved the idea that he alone could save Britain and his whole life had been preparation to do so. Obama actually said something like this late in the campaign--that it was great to come in during a crisis when you could really accomplish something. But he hasn't proven to be that kind of guy.

Nor can I agree about FDR's first term, which was filled with bold experiments that had mixed results. (There was nothing wrong with the AAA, though--it did exactly what it was supposed to do, raised farm prices substantially.) Above all, FDR substantially reduced unemployment in his first term. There is a good chance unemployment is going to be higher in November 2012 than it was in January 2009.

At this point the election seems to me to turn on one question: will Obama's huge disadvantage stemming from the economy be overcome by the Republicans' determination to act like complete idiots? I think Mitt Romney would be well advised to call for a deficit deal right now. He would become the favorite Republican of every pundit.

Nate Silver,, by the way, has a comment in his last post suggesting that he regards a Bachmann victory in 2012 as a serious possibility. I hope he elaborates on this later. When he talks, we had better listen.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

... Nate Silver, by the way, has a comment in his last post suggesting that he regards a Bachmann victory in 2012 as a serious possibility. I hope he elaborates on this later. When he talks, we had better listen.

I think the greater question is, if she wins will she be able to govern? She's just the kind of firebrand that generates enormous passion on both sides. The only way that she'll be able to pull it off is for either a GOP sweep or an even more compliant Democratic Party than the Rug Party we have now. Sadly, either of those is also possible. The GOP has been a lock-step party for a long time, and the Dems have lost what little focus they've had to internal bickering and a futile spirit of compromise.

I'm honestly concerned that we might trigger a collapse that will not be redeemable. We seem to have squandered our time on the stage. By the same token, a serious shock like that may be a wake-up call. It could go either way.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Lincoln was ambivalent about the role history thrust him into, although his Lyceum speech, delivered when he was about 30--I've posted it several times--suggests that he had imagined it long before. FDR and Churchill loved being Crisis leaders.

Quite true, and it shows that they were both dilettantes who didn't take the task seriously enough.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The gangland hit (such is the technique, and that is extremely Reactive in style) on Osama bin Laden may have been done after much deliberation to avoid bad consequences, but it worked.

As I recall, Soviet diplomats were targeted in Beirut by the locals. This ended when the Soviet KGB assassinated the families of the perpetrators. This seems to be one way to deal with fanatics who aren't afraid of dying in an attack on the infidels.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

As I recall, Soviet diplomats were targeted in Beirut by the locals. This ended when the Soviet KGB assassinated the families of the perpetrators. This seems to be one way to deal with fanatics who aren't afraid of dying in an attack on the infidels.

Indeed. Murdering children can be a very effective way to motivate parents.

On the other hand. um (I can't believe this even needs saying)... murdering children

Originally Posted by Odin

I'll go out on a limb and guess that our first woman president will be an Xer military veteran and will be elected in 2028

-Ugh. I hope not.

Originally Posted by TimWalker

As I recall, Soviet diplomats were targeted in Beirut by the locals. This ended when the Soviet KGB assassinated the families of the perpetrators. This seems to be one way to deal with fanatics who aren't afraid of dying in an attack on the infidels.

...to which Justin replied:

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Indeed. Murdering children can be a very effective way to motivate parents.

On the other hand. um (I can't believe this even needs saying)... murdering children

...I thought I remembered something about the incident Tim mentioned. I think he garbled it a little:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n24993269/

After clandestine negotiations failed to secure the men's release, Soviet agents grabbed half a dozen fundamentalists in West Beirut and reportedly sliced off a few of their fingers, sending the severed digits to the fundamentalist leadership with the message: "Release our people or you'll get your people back piece by piece."

...FWIW, though, I've never seen the story confirmed.

Originally Posted by Odin

I'll go out on a limb and guess that our first woman president will be an Xer military veteran and will be elected in 2028

-Unlikely. That would be about time for the Washington/Grant/Ike analog (who someone once called "The Honor General"). Anyone who's going to be a 4 or 5-star general (or admiral) in 2028 would already be an officer, and probably a field grade officer (i.e., a major or lieutenant commander). Since only about 20% of officers are female, the odds are against it, just going off the raw odds. If you consider that such an individual would probably come from combat arms, it sinks to below 5%.