Originally Posted by Tone70

I knew you'd have this one as soon as I read the question. James is throwing Chas ringers .☺

Dig this version! It' got flavor and with less scratchy.

It's got pizazz!

Side note - Was Carol Channing was scary - or is that just me?

When I first saw the film @ age 4 or so, she was "crazy" looking... later I came to sort of accept it as her letting herself go & have fun (as Muzzy).

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

That is a pretty amazing piece. As you know, I have a healthy respect for Rush myself--that is, for his influence. But I'm not quite sure how much of all that to believe. I think Rush and Hannity have managed to intimidate anyone from mounting a large-scale, reasonable campaign for the Republican nomination. I don't think either one of them is ruling out Mitt yet, though.

There's a scary piece about Mormonism in today's New York Times by Harold Bloom, of all people, by the way. Worth reading. . .I did not know that Mormonism bars non-believers from its religious services.

You can go to their churches (I went to an Easter service--that was a culture shock), but you may not enter their temples. There's a difference. You have to work your way up in terms of religious enlightenment to do specific activities in the Temple. My ex-girlfriend could baptize dead souls into the Mormon faith for example, which is what your average Mormon can do at the Temple. Those who've devoted themselves to religious study can do more in the temple and have access to more information in it.

It's no different from Opus Dei or other "higher" sects within other religions.

~Chas'88

Thanks for the correction.

Originally Posted by Tone70

I knew you'd have this one as soon as I read the question. James is throwing Chas ringers .☺

Dig this version! It' got flavor and with less scratchy.

Side note - Was Carol Channing was scary - or is that just me?

For a long time I thought that she was a white woman born about 1920 and acting like a naughty Jazz-age black woman who got away with it because she was white... only to find that she wasn't 'acting' black. The Lost generation style was acting, of course. Lena Horne, a contemporary of Carol Channing, would never have been so cast; she was just too civilized and lacked the range.

Really this sub-thread about 1920s style needs to be taken elsewhere. It can stand very much on its own and is a distraction from the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Tone70

I knew you'd have this one as soon as I read the question. James is throwing Chas ringers .☺

Dig this version! It' got flavor and with less scratchy.

Side note - Was Carol Channing was scary - or is that just me?

Very scary! Films would cut to her doing an awkward motion or expression at weird moments.

And then there was Phyllis Diller (I'm not sure why she had to guest star as an animated character on Scooby Doo).

Originally Posted by millennialX

Very scary! Films would cut to her doing an awkward motion or expression at weird moments.

And then there was Phyllis Diller (I'm not sure why she had to guest star as an animated character on Scooby Doo).

And people say that GIs were stodgy, boring, and unexciting.

And I'll be starting that 1920s nostalgia thread right about now.

~Chas'88

Boomlet for Gingrich, now (link is to a .pdf file).

Gingrich?

If he were to be nominated he would be a failure -- maybe not quite in the league of Landon, McGovern, or Mondale. He would be somewhere between Goldwater and Stevenson.

He has never run for any statewide office, and if anyone should have been able to win a Governorship or a Senate seat from Georgia, then it would have been he. One needs the practice in statewide elections to run credibly unless one has been a Hero General (which he never has been). He has never been VP, which is good at most for a one-term President. Having been Speaker of the House long ago isn't going to count for much, as Speakers of the House generally don't become President.

I see him bumbling his way through a Presidential campaign in the general election. I can see him wasting resources in California out of vanity while neglecting Ohio. I look at a Gingrich campaign for President much like that of Gerald Ford in 1976 except against an incumbent President far slicker than he. He will win the "Obama is terrible" vote, just like Mondale won the "Reagan is terrible" vote in 1984. That will be far from enough, as the 1984 election demonstrated. If he follows the GOP script, he will try to force the campaign down to talking points that the likes of Norquist and Rove offer. Vain as he is he will make the same mistake that Sarah Palin did and try to explain them and embellish them... and show them empty. President Obama will know due to his legal training that he can force the other side to explain the substance of the "talking points" and effectively show their emptiness.

Then there is the personal life... four marriages and some nasty divorces, and some huge credit balances at some luxury retailers.

Gingrich is much that is wrong with the Boom Generation. That will be his problem in running against an incumbent who is about everything right with Generation X.

Cain talking to the editorial board of the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WW_nDFKAmCo&sns=em


Disturbing.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

Gingrich?

If he were to be nominated he would be a failure -- maybe not quite in the league of Landon, McGovern, or Mondale. He would be somewhere between Goldwater and Stevenson.

He has never run for any statewide office, and if anyone should have been able to win a Governorship or a Senate seat from Georgia, then it would have been he. One needs the practice in statewide elections to run credibly unless one has been a Hero General (which he never has been). He has never been VP, which is good at most for a one-term President. Having been Speaker of the House long ago isn't going to count for much, as Speakers of the House generally don't become President.

I see him bumbling his way through a Presidential campaign in the general election. I can see him wasting resources in California out of vanity while neglecting Ohio. I look at a Gingrich campaign for President much like that of Gerald Ford in 1976 except against an incumbent President far slicker than he. He will win the "Obama is terrible" vote, just like Mondale won the "Reagan is terrible" vote in 1984. That will be far from enough, as the 1984 election demonstrated. If he follows the GOP script, he will try to force the campaign down to talking points that the likes of Norquist and Rove offer. Vain as he is he will make the same mistake that Sarah Palin did and try to explain them and embellish them... and show them empty. President Obama will know due to his legal training that he can force the other side to explain the substance of the "talking points" and effectively show their emptiness.

Then there is the personal life... four marriages and some nasty divorces, and some huge credit balances at some luxury retailers.

Gingrich is much that is wrong with the Boom Generation. That will be his problem in running against an incumbent who is about everything right with Generation X.

Actually it's only three marriages. Gingrich would do a lot better than Mondale or Goldwater or Dukakis. He would start with most of the south and maybe all of it. But he does have an enormous amount of baggage, he is a stereotypical uberboomer, and I don't think Obama should be too afraid of him. I am not going to breathe easily, however, until the election is over and Obama has won. If he does.

I saw a TV clip tonight of Herman Cain spacing out when asked a simple question. Not just that it slipped his mind - he couldn't even bluff or cover for it or make the usual statements people make when they space on something. No - total blank foggy confusion. And it struck me - how old is Cain and is it possible he's starting to lose it? Because what I saw went way beyond the usual sniping "Aw, gee, he's so stupid he doesn't even know what department he wants to abolish." No - this was not stupidity. This was something else.

They did point out he was running on short sleep. Something like 4 hours. I've done that and it's nothing I'd recommend to anyone past the grad student age. Even so --

No. i think there's something wrong here.

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I saw a TV clip tonight of Herman Cain spacing out when asked a simple question. Not just that it slipped his mind - he couldn't even bluff or cover for it or make the usual statements people make when they space on something. No - total blank foggy confusion. And it struck me - how old is Cain and is it possible he's starting to lose it? Because what I saw went way beyond the usual sniping "Aw, gee, he's so stupid he doesn't even know what department he wants to abolish." No - this was not stupidity. This was something else.

They did point out he was running on short sleep. Something like 4 hours. I've done that and it's nothing I'd recommend to anyone past the grad student age. Even so --

No. i think there's something wrong here.

I saw it too. It makes Perry look like he has a photographic memory.

I think he was trying to think of a way to get around agreeing with Obama and couldn't come up with a way to do it. Remember according to Cain (and several other of the candidates) Obama has not done one thing right. But instead of coming off as the anti Obama, Cain just came off looking like an idiot. Which is basically par for the course with him anyway.

Here is my post again on the candidates from Oct.23. Notice how I ranked Gingrich and Cain.

Here is a closer look at the presidential candidates, using my revised statistical system based on my extensive research concerning which presidents and losing candidates had which planetary aspects in their charts, and other factors. I have summarized this in my score, indicating positive advantages vs. detrimental liabilities. I have listed them in overall order of presidential fitness and fortune this year.

Barack Obama 8-2. He has a few good aspects, indicating endurance, energy, perspective, personal ease, adaptability and rhetorical skill, and few liabilities except occasional unpopularity. His low positive score shows that his skills have their limits.

Mitt Romney 11-5. His skills include personal ease and optimism that pleases the public (a strong Moon-Jupiter conjunction is always a good indication), as well as perserverance and adaptive perspective. He has some flair with words, but he has a tendency to be wavering and nervous at times. His tendency to make drastic changes is well-known.

Ron Paul 12-5. He has aspects that indicate good strategic skill, focused energy and rhetorical flair. His chart is typical of missionary types with cult followings and radical or dogmatic attitudes. He has the same Mars-Uranus opposition that was so much trouble for Howard Dean. He is 76 years old too.

Newt Gingrich 11-5. Like Perry (below) his strength is mainly in his conservative, perservering Saturn aspects, plus his aggressive Mars in Aries. His flair for ideas shows up in his Mercury-Uranus conjunction in Gemini. He has weak adaptability, and his personal ease and confidence is not great (weak Jupiter). His overall strong score, the same as Romney's, is already keeping him in the race longer than was expected. He may be his next challenger. He is now 68 years old, which is getting up there.

Gary Johnson 18-4. He has a lot of skills, especially in his adaptability and steadiness, and few liabilities as a politician. Popular with conservatives for his tax and budget policies as NM governor, which were very effective, he could be a powerful dark horse candidate, except for one thing: he is going through his Saturn return now. A current Saturn return, or one upcoming in the next 3 years, is usually the kiss of death, unless a president has one during an election; even then it's a bad indication for his term. Johnson's Saturn Return will last several more months, and by then the primaries may well be over. It seems to be successfully keeping him out of the limelight. Perhaps if he got better known, he might be more successful in 2016. The Saturn return is one reason I predicted Howard Dean would lose in 2004. His weak Moon leaves him with less ability to connect with popular feelings than some other candidates.

Rick Perry 9-5. He has some aspects that make him a popular hero with a rhetorical flair, but they are not powerful, so he can't count on these too much. Conservative Saturn is very powerful in his chart, which makes him liked by conservatives and capable of a Spartan-like endurance, but hard to elect nationally, and this Saturn emphasis may also indicate his sluggish, unadaptable and rigid personal approach that shows up in debates.

Jon Huntsman, 9-6. He has some Jupiter aspects that make him likeable and positive, which is good for American politicians. He has some minor liabilities including a weak Mars-Uranus opposition that could make for unsteady behavior. He has a good reliable character, but since his Uranus is weak he is not very charismatic as a leader.

Herman Cain 6-6. Inspirational, adaptable, but unsteady. He does not have a lot of aspects seen in presidential charts.

Rick Santorum 7-7. He has good planning skills and perspective, and is a smart communicator, but has little else going for him. He may even be subject to spells of strange behavior.

Buddy Roemer, 10-13. Charismatic with powerful leadership skills and energy, he has already shown the tendency indicated in his chart to make himself unpopular and fail to get things accomplished.

Michelle Bachman, 14-13. She has a lot going on in her chart; a lot of skills, and a lot of liabilities-- including the reckless, firebrand Mars-Uranus opposition. The clincher is the fact that her Saturn Return is due in 2015, which indicates she would not be elected this time out.

Another factor sometimes considered is close connections to the USA chart. George W. Bush's Sun exactly aligned with the US Sun helped keep him in favor. Barack Obama has the USA Moon degree as his rising sign. His Venus is close to the USA Venus. These give him a good popular connection. Herman Cain has Saturn over the US Mercury (his financial ideas have appeal for their conservatism), and Ron Paul has his Venus conjunct the USA Neptune (which is related to his appealing desire for peace).

I have looked at some indications before the election too. These are not always completely reliable, but in general they indicate that this time the incumbent will win. Another factor is where Saturn is currently in the candidates' charts. These indications, plus the scores and interpretations above and the Saturn return cycles mentioned, forecast that Barack Obama will defeat Mitt Romney in November.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Actually it's only three marriages. Gingrich would do a lot better than Mondale or Goldwater or Dukakis. He would start with most of the south and maybe all of it. But he does have an enormous amount of baggage, he is a stereotypical uberboomer, and I don't think Obama should be too afraid of him. I am not going to breathe easily, however, until the election is over and Obama has won. If he does.

It is important to recognize that

(1) an incumbent President of a Reactive generation who has none of the usual vices of a Reactive generation (Barack Obama seems to have a moral compass, is not driven largely by the prospect of pecuniary gain, and doesn't show a lust for revenge for hurt feelings) has an advantage over a challenger from an Idealist generation but who shows most of the vices of an Idealist generation (Newt Gingrich is ruthless, arrogant, and selfish). Irrespective of age, ethnicity, religion, region, class, and education, we Americans are tiring of vices heavily associated with Boomers. The virtues? Fine. It's worth noting that Occupy Wall Street is heavily a Millennial opposition to Boomers who exploit others yet pretend to be the benefactors of those whose lives they either ruin or fill with fear. I say this as one Boomer to another, and I doubt that we can disagree on this.

I do not expect Newt Gingrich, should he be the nominee, to do well among Boomers outside the states that have gone firmly Republican in the last three Presidential elections.

(2) The recent 3T has polarized voting patterns between the states. Twelve states haven't given an electoral vote to any Democratic nominee since at least 1976, and Nebraska managed to split its electoral votes in 2008, giving one (from the district best described as "Greater Omaha") to President Obama. All thirteen states went to John McCain by 9% or more. The electoral votes best described as sure things for this reason alone sum to 101. Except for one of the districts in Nebraska (redistricting will reshape the state politically), it's hard to see how any one of the states will go for President Obama in 2012. Add to those 38 electoral votes from five states that Bill Clinton won twice but President Obama lost by at least 10% (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia), and even if the President wins 57% of the popular vote (which is about what Eisenhower did in 1956) the Republican nominee can reasonably expect 139 electoral votes as a floor with the President having a chance at at most 399 electoral votes.

On the other side, no Democrat has lost any of eighteen states or the District of Columbia since 1988. Those states and DC account for 242 electoral votes in 2012, and they all went for President Obama by at least 10%. Those states have shown their ability to vote for moderate-to-liberal Southerners (Clinton, Gore) and d@mnyankee liberals (Kerry, Obama). They will not vote for a southern Reactionary even if that reactionary has simply forgotten his Northern origin. If the pattern from 1992-2008 holds, then essentially 36 states and 381 electoral votes are all but decided now based on the recent pattern of electoral history. Sure, that's only two sorts of Presidential elections -- two close Republican wins and three Democratic wins by about 200 electoral votes.

That then leaves fourteen states and one congressional district that have voted for nominees of both Parties between 1992 and 2008 that aren't off limits to the President in 2012 -- Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia, and one of the Congressional districts of Nebraska. The 2012 Presidential election boils to a decision of 157 electoral votes.

(3) Sure, you say -- but you don't trust Rick Scott or Scott Walker with the integrity of the vote in their states? I concur. The 2012 election will have to be decided outside of Wisconsin and Florida in the event of electoral fraud. There will be honest votes from Florida and Wisconsin should such states as Ohio and Virginia go for the President.

(4) There is no question that the elected President is the real leader of the Democratic Party now, and that he will remain so if re-elected. For now I wonder whether the real head of the Republican Party is Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, or Dick Armey through the secretive but powerful front groups that set the GOP agenda, and I question whether those people or their front groups (Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works) will be more powerful than an elected Republican President. The control that those front groups have over elected Governors, Representatives, and State Governors is typical of a Communist Party. We elect our officials to vote and govern with discretion on an issue-by-issue basis and not as directed by those who vote with their contributions and then tell their stooges to ignore the public.

I no longer consider the Republican Party a democratic party, and I am convinced that America will be some sort of dictatorship if the Republican party should gain control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. It will be a novel form of dictatorship, one in which the formal Executive has little power. If you are a liberal in America and you want to be where liberals have some political influence, then you will need to emigrate. Our Constitution well protects us from a despotic executive, so we won't have an Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet as President. We will more likely have someone resembling a Mikhail Kalinin as President with real power in the hands of some Party Boss or the leadership of one or more front groups. I just can't imagine any of the current GOP candidates except perhaps Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul saying no to Karl Rove or Grover Norquist.

(5) The resolution of the current 4T will have one obvious sign: that political results get more homogeneous across regional lines. We will no longer see ten or so states going 10% or so away from the national average and considering those 'almost competitive' as we did in 2008.

(6) Should Newt Gingrich be elected President, then he would be the first President to have never have been an elected Governor or Senator, a Cabinet secretary, Vice-President, or high-ranking military officer since Benjamin Harrison (he was a Senator, but when the Senator was selected by the state legislatures). We have never elected a big-city mayor, congressman, a zillionaire with a big ego, a screen actor, a union official, or a corporate executive President with no experience as a Governor or Senator. Such people just don't know how to play the game, and it shows.

Yes, an election is easy to model as a game. Let's just hope that if it has poker as an analogy that the players do not have spare cards up their sleeves.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

It is important to recognize that

(1) an incumbent President of a Reactive generation who has none of the usual vices of a Reactive generation (Barack Obama seems to have a moral compass, is not driven largely by the prospect of pecuniary gain, and doesn't show a lust for revenge for hurt feelings) has an advantage over a challenger from an Idealist generation but who shows most of the vices of an Idealist generation (Newt Gingrich is ruthless, arrogant, and selfish). Irrespective of age, ethnicity, religion, region, class, and education, we Americans are tiring of vices heavily associated with Boomers. The virtues? Fine. It's worth noting that Occupy Wall Street is heavily a Millennial opposition to Boomers who exploit others yet pretend to be the benefactors of those whose lives they either ruin or fill with fear. I say this as one Boomer to another, and I doubt that we can disagree on this.

I do not expect Newt Gingrich, should he be the nominee, to do well among Boomers outside the states that have gone firmly Republican in the last three Presidential elections.

(2) The recent 3T has polarized voting patterns between the states. Twelve states haven't given an electoral vote to any Democratic nominee since at least 1976, and Nebraska managed to split its electoral votes in 2008, giving one (from the district best described as "Greater Omaha") to President Obama. All thirteen states went to John McCain by 9% or more. The electoral votes best described as sure things for this reason alone sum to 101. Except for one of the districts in Nebraska (redistricting will reshape the state politically), it's hard to see how any one of the states will go for President Obama in 2012. Add to those 38 electoral votes from five states that Bill Clinton won twice but President Obama lost by at least 10% (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Tennessee, and West Virginia), and even if the President wins 57% of the popular vote (which is about what Eisenhower did in 1956) the Republican nominee can reasonably expect 139 electoral votes as a floor with the President having a chance at at most 399 electoral votes.

On the other side, no Democrat has lost any of eighteen states or the District of Columbia since 1988. Those states and DC account for 242 electoral votes in 2012, and they all went for President Obama by at least 10%. Those states have shown their ability to vote for moderate-to-liberal Southerners (Clinton, Gore) and d@mnyankee liberals (Kerry, Obama). They will not vote for a southern Reactionary even if that reactionary has simply forgotten his Northern origin. If the pattern from 1992-2008 holds, then essentially 36 states and 381 electoral votes are all but decided now based on the recent pattern of electoral history. Sure, that's only two sorts of Presidential elections -- two close Republican wins and three Democratic wins by about 200 electoral votes.

That then leaves fourteen states and one congressional district that have voted for nominees of both Parties between 1992 and 2008 that aren't off limits to the President in 2012 -- Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Iowa, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Mexico, Ohio, and Virginia, and one of the Congressional districts of Nebraska. The 2012 Presidential election boils to a decision of 157 electoral votes.

(3) Sure, you say -- but you don't trust Rick Scott or Scott Walker with the integrity of the vote in their states? I concur. The 2012 election will have to be decided outside of Wisconsin and Florida in the event of electoral fraud. There will be honest votes from Florida and Wisconsin should such states as Ohio and Virginia go for the President.

(4) There is no question that the elected President is the real leader of the Democratic Party now, and that he will remain so if re-elected. For now I wonder whether the real head of the Republican Party is Karl Rove, Grover Norquist, or Dick Armey through the secretive but powerful front groups that set the GOP agenda, and I question whether those people or their front groups (Crossroads GPS, Americans for Prosperity, Freedom Works) will be more powerful than an elected Republican President. The control that those front groups have over elected Governors, Representatives, and State Governors is typical of a Communist Party. We elect our officials to vote and govern with discretion on an issue-by-issue basis and not as directed by those who vote with their contributions and then tell their stooges to ignore the public.

I no longer consider the Republican Party a democratic party, and I am convinced that America will be some sort of dictatorship if the Republican party should gain control of the Presidency and both Houses of Congress. It will be a novel form of dictatorship, one in which the formal Executive has little power. If you are a liberal in America and you want to be where liberals have some political influence, then you will need to emigrate. Our Constitution well protects us from a despotic executive, so we won't have an Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, or Augusto Pinochet as President. We will more likely have someone resembling a Mikhail Kalinin as President with real power in the hands of some Party Boss or the leadership of one or more front groups. I just can't imagine any of the current GOP candidates except perhaps Jon Huntsman or Ron Paul saying no to Karl Rove or Grover Norquist.

(5) The resolution of the current 4T will have one obvious sign: that political results get more homogeneous across regional lines. We will no longer see ten or so states going 10% or so away from the national average and considering those 'almost competitive' as we did in 2008.

(6) Should Newt Gingrich be elected President, then he would be the first President to have never have been an elected Governor or Senator, a Cabinet secretary, Vice-President, or high-ranking military officer since Benjamin Harrison (he was a Senator, but when the Senator was selected by the state legislatures). We have never elected a big-city mayor, congressman, a zillionaire with a big ego, a screen actor, a union official, or a corporate executive President with no experience as a Governor or Senator. Such people just don't know how to play the game, and it shows.

Yes, an election is easy to model as a game. Let's just hope that if it has poker as an analogy that the players do not have spare cards up their sleeves.

There is nothing wrong with your basic math. I also think generational affinity could help Obama with Gen X which must be the largest single bloc of voters by now. However, I refer you back to Nate Silver's model. Absent a major economic upturn, he concluded, a relatively mainstream Republican would beat Obama, based on the third variable, Obama's low approval ratings right now. So that leaves us with the question, is Newt a relatively mainstream Republican? And I think that's a very tricky question. Yes, his personal life is not an asset, although Republicans actually are remarkably forgiving about that sort of thing among their own. (McCain's divorce was just as nasty as what has been alleged, and now denied, about Newt.) But Newt has been a national figure for 20 years, he is pretty smooth on stage, and he can come across as reasonable. Based on Silver's analysis I don't think there's any way Obama is going to win by a landslide. I don't think those 240 votes are solid because I believe they include Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, none of which I regard as a lock this time.

Nothing I can say will change your views on Fascism/dictatorship, but I repeat: those are things of the past. The Republicans won't need to lock us all up. They'd rather have us out in the open to blame everything on.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I saw it too. It makes Perry look like he has a photographic memory.

I think he was trying to think of a way to get around agreeing with Obama and couldn't come up with a way to do it. Remember according to Cain (and several other of the candidates) Obama has not done one thing right. But instead of coming off as the anti Obama, Cain just came off looking like an idiot. Which is basically par for the course with him anyway.

The link is here. It's worth a look. I think Amy is right. He knew saying, "President Obama handled it well," was not an option. He could not, however, point to anything that Obama had done wrong, so he claimed that we had not sufficiently assessed the opposition to Qadaffi and had acted in haste. Or that we might have. (By the way, Obama has problems, but acting in haste isn't one of them.) But what really struck me was how he hit his stride, halfway through the answer, when he managed to shift to his favorite subject, Herman Cain. He is evidently under considerable strain, not surprisingly. However, those of us in the reality-based community have to keep in mind that we don't vote in Republican primaries.

Originally Posted by ASB65

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

I saw a TV clip tonight of Herman Cain spacing out when asked a simple question. Not just that it slipped his mind - he couldn't even bluff or cover for it or make the usual statements people make when they space on something. No - total blank foggy confusion. And it struck me - how old is Cain and is it possible he's starting to lose it? Because what I saw went way beyond the usual sniping "Aw, gee, he's so stupid he doesn't even know what department he wants to abolish." No - this was not stupidity. This was something else.

They did point out he was running on short sleep. Something like 4 hours. I've done that and it's nothing I'd recommend to anyone past the grad student age. Even so --

No. i think there's something wrong here.

I saw it too. It makes Perry look like he has a photographic memory.

I think he was trying to think of a way to get around agreeing with Obama and couldn't come up with a way to do it. Remember according to Cain (and several other of the candidates) Obama has not done one thing right. But instead of coming off as the anti Obama, Cain just came off looking like an idiot. Which is basically par for the course with him anyway.

It's the red tie. Cheers.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

The link is here. It's worth a look. I think Amy is right. He knew saying, "President Obama handled it well," was not an option. He could not, however, point to anything that Obama had done wrong, so he claimed that we had not sufficiently assessed the opposition to Qadaffi and had acted in haste. Or that we might have. (By the way, Obama has problems, but acting in haste isn't one of them.) But what really struck me was how he hit his stride, halfway through the answer, when he managed to shift to his favorite subject, Herman Cain. He is evidently under considerable strain, not surprisingly. However, those of us in the reality-based community have to keep in mind that we don't vote in Republican primaries.

I can. In Texas you are allowed to vote in primary regardless of how you are registered. The republicans played in the Democratic primary during the last election because by the time we got to vote down here McCain was already the declared the nominee. The Republicans voted for Clinton. They didn't want their nominee to have to run against Obama. I don't even remember why now, but I do remember several Republicans saying they were going to vote for Hilary to sway the election in this state. Obama won anyway, though.

And I do plan on voting in Republican primary down here, even though I have no intention of voting for them in the general election. I can play their game too.

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

There is nothing wrong with your basic math. I also think generational affinity could help Obama with Gen X which must be the largest single bloc of voters by now. However, I refer you back to Nate Silver's model. Absent a major economic upturn, he concluded, a relatively mainstream Republican would beat Obama, based on the third variable, Obama's low approval ratings right now. So that leaves us with the question, is Newt a relatively mainstream Republican? And I think that's a very tricky question. Yes, his personal life is not an asset, although Republicans actually are remarkably forgiving about that sort of thing among their own. (McCain's divorce was just as nasty as what has been alleged, and now denied, about Newt.) But Newt has been a national figure for 20 years, he is pretty smooth on stage, and he can come across as reasonable. Based on Silver's analysis I don't think there's any way Obama is going to win by a landslide. I don't think those 240 votes are solid because I believe they include Michigan and Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, none of which I regard as a lock this time.

Nothing I can say will change your views on Fascism/dictatorship, but I repeat: those are things of the past. The Republicans won't need to lock us all up. They'd rather have us out in the open to blame everything on.

More significant is that the Boom generation, or at least its first wave, is now undeniably old -- up to 68 years old. Death rates rise rapidly as people go through their sixties, and the Boomers will continually become a shrinking share of the electorate. The mass support for largely-Boom causes will shrink, and so will the power of Boom constituencies to force the politicians to heed their concerns. Prime example: the Religious Right is on the fade, and the pressure to support the anti-rational aspects of Boomer culture will subside. But the Grim Reaper is slower to cull elites whence come the senior leaders than it is to cull the masses. But there's another side: the Millennial Generation is still entering the workforce and the electorate. It is much more rational than Boomers, and it is far more concerned about its economic role (it does not wish to be consigned en masse to the working poor as our economic elites wish) than about making its cultural presence known then was the case with Boomers of like age (it has yet to find a collective voice in culture, much like the GIs of like age in the early 'Thirties).

Millennials, should they get the chance, will not lead America through this 4T. Their role in political life will be to choose what sort of leaders we get, much as was so with the GIs of like age eighty years ago. They have yet to make headway into the top leadership in the sense of being Representatives, Senators, and Governors, let alone President. So far I think that President Obama has a better idea of what the Millennial Generation wants than do any of the leading GOP candidates for President. That may be the difference between a second term for President Obama and having him as a one-term failure. In 2004, Dubya, another stereotypical 'uberboomer' could win by playing to the right wing of the Silent, Boom, and X generations as the GIs were fading out and few of the Millennial Generation (people then born after 1986 could not vote). In 2008, Barack Obama, more ambiguous about whether he was a Boomer or X, won because the Millennial share of the electorate (voters then born as late as 1990) was much larger even as the GI generation receded from the electorate. In 2012 the youngest voters will have been born in 1994.

The question may not be what is what is mainstream politics but instead whether the GOP has abandoned the mainstream. It's hard to believe that most people want to live in fear and poverty -- but such is what the now GOP offers (with rabid nationalism, machismo, religious fundamentalism and mass low culture on the side). The GOP no longer has any use for the likes of Lincoln Chaffee, Charlie Crist, John Warner, and George Voinovich... and probably Jon Huntsman. It could purge out Bob Bennett in favor of Mike Lee. The Republican Party is undeniably going toward the fringe and is abandoning the mainstream. Americans seemed to be following it in 2010.

Almost all politicians are power-hungry, and I am not going to pretend that President Obama is any less power-hungry than Newt Gingrich. In a democracy power comes with service to the electorate. In a non-democracy power comes from something else -- at worst, the willingness to mow down peaceful protesters. I don't accuse the GOP of going that far, but I look at its economic agenda and its attention to the idea of culling the electorate of 'undesirables' and I see the prospect of an oligarchic order that will surely bring out the not-so benign 'angels' of our national character. With the Silent passing from the scene, just put together the fanatical moralizing of the worst Boomers, the cynicism and greed of the worst of Generation X, and the willingness of the Millennial generation to follow any orders so long as they are promised enough, America might not run quite as amok as the main Axis power of the last Crisis. It would be nasty.

I am satisfied that President Obama would lose to a Republican moderate. But that's like saying that the Houston Astros would be a contending team next year if only they had several better ballplayers than they now have. It won't matter whether President Obama wins 272 or 532 electoral votes. Keeping the Senate and winning back the House for Democrats will matter far more than any electoral votes beyond the 270th.

An old post by Mustang indicated that the Authoritarian Right is running the show by the end of the Unraveling. The present Republican party illustrates this. I suspect that this party will craft the Millenials into a strongly collectivist generation.

Originally Posted by pbrower2a

The question may not be what is what is mainstream politics but instead whether the GOP has abandoned the mainstream. It's hard to believe that most people want to live in fear and poverty -- but such is what the now GOP offers (with rabid nationalism, machismo, religious fundamentalism and mass low culture on the side). The GOP no longer has any use for the likes of Lincoln Chaffee, Charlie Crist, John Warner, and George Voinovich... and probably Jon Huntsman. It could purge out Bob Bennett in favor of Mike Lee. The Republican Party is undeniably going toward the fringe and is abandoning the mainstream. Americans seemed to be following it in 2010.


I am satisfied that President Obama would lose to a Republican moderate. But that's like saying that the Houston Astros would be a contending team next year if only they had several better ballplayers than they now have. It won't matter whether President Obama wins 272 or 532 electoral votes. Keeping the Senate and winning back the House for Democrats will matter far more than any electoral votes beyond the 270th.

Basically I agree with this--it's Silver's analysis. But we are already committed to huge federal budget cuts that will make the economy worse. The chances of an across-the-board Democratic victory comparable to 2008 are just about nil, in my opinion. The re-election of Obama, especially against Gingrich or Cain, will simply be the endorsement of things as they are. The election of Romney whom you obviously agree is a threat, would move them rightward.

Originally Posted by ASB65

I can. In Texas you are allowed to vote in primary regardless of how you are registered. The republicans played in the Democratic primary during the last election because by the time we got to vote down here McCain was already the declared the nominee. The Republicans voted for Clinton. They didn't want their nominee to have to run against Obama. I don't even remember why now, but I do remember several Republicans saying they were going to vote for Hilary to sway the election in this state. Obama won anyway, though.

And I do plan on voting in Republican primary down here, even though I have no intention of voting for them in the general election. I can play their game too.

Who do you plan to vote for? The least objectionable candidate, or the most objectionable?

Originally Posted by KaiserD2

Who do you plan to vote for? The least objectionable candidate, or the most objectionable?

I don't know yet. I guess we will have to see what's happening next spring and which candidates are in the running with Romney. I will be voting for the person who Obama has the best chance of beating.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Huh.
When did you rejoin the "elections make a difference" club?

Might as well cover all your bases. Just in case.

The next election may feature two evils, but it will make a HUGE difference all the same.