Democrats Are the Silent Majority—For Now

Obama promised the most explicitly left-wing agenda in presidential history and he won easily.

Don't get too depressed, Republicans; the national decline will be divvied up justly. After all, in a liberal nation, there is no higher calling than fairness.

And a liberal nation it is. The electorate is complicated, and factors of culture and geography can dictate party identification more than any specific policy. And yes, the Republicans rolled out some ghastly candidates. But that shouldn't fool anyone; there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view government's role in society, and the GOP is losing the argument.

There was no theoretical hope peddling this time around. There was a record. And Barack Obama also promised the most explicitly left-wing agenda in presidential history—more government, more taxes, more dependency, more bailouts, more regulations—and he won easily. He promised universal health care, more crony "investments" in proven economic losers, more interference in markets—yet he cruised.

Conservatives may be shocked by statist slogans such as the Democratic National Convention's "government's the only thing that we all belong to," and they may be scandalized when they hear a candidate say "you didn't build that," but their neighbors ... well, not so much. When you can't beat a candidate who—judging him on his own terms—owns both a brutal economic record on jobs (this is the first time since FDR that a president has won re-election with an unemployment rate this high) and the feeblest economic recovery in the nation's history, it's time to rethink what you're doing.

No doubt, the battle for the future of the Republican Party will set the same exhausted factions against each other—moderate vs. conservative. It's the wrong fight. Moderate Mitt lost. Severely conservative Mitt lost. Candidates from both GOP camps lost all over the map, as well. In American politics, one can't be more reasonable than Scott Brown or more of an ideologue than Elizabeth Warren, yet look how that turned out. John Kerry lost his bid pretending to be a moderate, and Obama won by embracing the progressive left of his party. After the GOP 2010 midterm victory, the president didn't moderate; he doubled down.

I'd like to see Republicans change their tone and stands on a number of issues, but across-the-board moderating for its own sake is a soulless exercise and a losing proposition. Washington insiders might be astounded, but there are still people in this country who believe in things. But there are an array of issues and an array of solutions and an array of ways to approach them. They want to convince, not surrender.

Optics, rhetoric and perception matter. If Republicans have any hope of persuading independents, they'll need charismatic people, people who look and sound like a modern America and not a boardroom of Brahmin, because real-world competency is no match for fresh packaging and a good slogan. Welcome to democracy.

The fight starts in Congress. You've no doubt heard that the House is crammed with hard-core right-wingers, folks who have the temerity to represent constituents and take conservative positions. Well, this is also the most left-wing Senate in history. Warren, Sherrod Brown, Ben Cardin, et al. vote with socialist Bernie Sanders because—despite a gag order on the pundit class—by European standards, that's exactly what they are.

Whether Republicans mean what they say or not, there will be a distinct debate over the direction of the nation. Right now, left-wing economic populism is the political center. Republicans have a lot of the wrong people in a lot of the right places to change that. If that stands, they've lost for good.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • John||

    If that stands, they've lost for good.

    If it stands, we have all lost for good. Do you think Libertarians don't lose under left wing populism David? We are headed for becoming Argentina with a better military.

  • RightNut||

    Why would you think a third-world America would have a better military than Argentina?

  • John||

    Tradition and inertia.

  • $park¥||

    And he should have mentioned Libertarians because he was writing an article about Republicans?

  • Killazontherun||

    It's the free shit, stupid.

  • John Thacker||

    And yet, the exit polls actually showed a shift towards the small government beliefs.

  • WTF||

    But since they voted just the opposite, do they really believe what they told the pollsters?

  • John Thacker||

    Not entirely clear that they voted the opposite. Can you say for sure that Romney would be smaller government, or made the case for it?

  • sarcasmic||

    But Romney was going to take away Social Security and Medicare!

    That's what the liberals said!

  • Another David||

    Romney said Obama was going to take away Social Security and Medicare. Of course stupid won, there was nothing else on the menu.

  • The Hammer||

    Well, there was, but he got about 1%. Over which Tulpa is endlessly crowing, for some reason.

  • BMFPitt||

    I wish the version of Romney that existed in Democrat talking points was actually running.

    Maybe there was a firmware update for that.

  • Gray Ghost||

    John, people are for smaller government for themselves. Not for anyone else. Big government is just fine for these people, if it keeps scary blacks (stop n frisk)/sex offenders/corporate polluters/turban-wearing bomb throwers away from them.

    Nobody ever thinks that the sharp end of the Executive Branch will ever be used on them. Until it happens, and then it's too late.

  • sarcasmic||

    People want smaller government as long as it doesn't mean they lose their job or their handout.

    Everyone wants to cut government.

    Just not that part. Or that part. Nope, can't cut that. Sorry, but that part is sacred. That too. Can't cut that.

    Dammit! We need less government!

  • T||

    This right here. Everybody wants smaller, less expensive government in the abstract. But get down to the program cutting, and the complaints arise. Concentrated benefits, diffuse costs. That 20 million dollar program means the world to some benficiary of it, and costs virtually nothing on a national scale. Several trillion dollars later, here we are.

  • Rich||

    Yep. One of my ongoing sources of, um, lulz is to ask people to name just *one* federal program they would eliminate. Most can't do it.

  • sarcasmic||

    I think many on the right agree that the Department of Education should go. Then I remember who passed NCLB.

  • mr simple||

    Rick Perry can name 2/3.

    Wait, is this joke still topical? You guys remember that, right?

  • The Hammer||

    We remember EVERYTHING.

  • $park¥||

    About as topical as rash cream.

  • ||

    U proud of that?

  • ||

    One of my ongoing sources of, um, lulz is to ask people to name just *one* federal program they would eliminate.

    Any spending not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution.

    OK, cut all of it, because I'm an anarchist. But the above would be a great first step.

  • John Thacker||

    Yes, and Romney, for instance, was even harder line than Obama on not wanting to cut military spending-- though Obama also said he was against cutting it.

  • Dweebston||

    I'm not so worried about the narrow end as I am the broad end of the executive branch. The stiletto thrusts are not nearly as unnerving as their hammer-swings.

  • WTF||

    Can you say for sure that Romney would be smaller government, or made the case for it?

    True, Romney did not make a case for it. On the other hand, Obama proved over the past 4 years that he is for a great expansion of the government. So how could someone who claims to believe in smaller government vote for four more years of Obama's record?

  • Another David||

    Because the other guy was an actual human being, not a sign with "Not Obama" written on it?

  • Proprietist||

    I was convinced Romney would have been BIGGER government overall, with his proposed, vague entitlement reforms falling flat and his expected increases in foreign policy spending canceling out any domestic cuts he may may. All it takes is jumping in the cockpit with Israel for us to be in a full-fledged war with Iran, a huge waste of money and lives.

  • John||

    But that is going to happen anyway. Understand, Israel is going to attack Iran and Iran is going to retaliate against US bases. That is almost a given. Just a matter of time.

  • ||

    That is almost a given.

    You seem certain about a lot of things that ain't so, John.

  • ||

    Yeah I'm not positive that Iran will retaliate against US targets in that case. I think they'll try to be very careful not to draw us in if possible.

    I don't think any of us on here who were talking about Obama's certain defeat a couple of weeks ago are in a position to be making these predictions right now.

  • Another David||

    Take your self-reflection elsewhere. This is the Internet.

  • Sudden||

    If there is one potentially interesting consequence to the Obama re-election, it's less about what America does now than it is about what Israel does now.

    It is conceivable that Netanyahu will be a bit more discerning over whether or not he chooses to bomb Iranian nuclear installations in light of Obama being POTUS instead of Romney. While Obama was actually more forceful in claiming he'd stand with Israel in the third debate, I'm sure Bibi is fairly skeptical of that and considers it rightfully to be pandering to Jewish grandmothers in South Florida.

    Take my observation for what it is and ascribe your own preferences as to whether you consider that a net benefit or a net drawback.

  • ||

    If Israel attacks Iran, why exactly would Iran attack our bases? To ensure their defeat as quickly as possible?

    That is Republican lunacy John.

  • $park¥||

    Republican lunacy John

    No need to be redundant.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Perhaps the thought is that Israel can't attack Iran without U.S. connivance or tacit permission? Which is probably the truth, unless Israel uses sub-launched cruise missiles or IRBMs. They aren't flying into Iran without going over several countries, all of whom we're watching with AWACS.

    Hitting all of Iran's nuclear production sites would be a challenge for the U.S. (Admittedly, not a terribly great one.) The IAF is a good deal smaller, and several deep strikes within Iran would really tax their tanker capability.

    Not to mention that thumping an active nuclear reactor with high explosives is going to leave one hell of a mess, a mess that has every chance of contaminating several of Iran's neighbors across the Gulf. Which is probably why the Israelis aren't going to hit it. They might go after the purification sites, but if the reactor still exists, the Iranians can draw Pu off of it.

  • Sudden||

    If Israel attacks Iran, why exactly would Iran attack our bases? To ensure their defeat as quickly as possible?

    It's not entirely inconceivable. Considering both Obama and Romney stated emphatically that the U.S. would stand by Israel in the event of a conflict between them and Iran, the Iranians (assuming they take this claim as credible) could seek to retaliate first against American installations in the region first as these would be more threatening in military might and ability to quickly mobilize than Israel.

    Doubleplus benefit if they attack American installations in Saudi Arabia, they might get support of the Sunni Islamists since OBL's primary impetus for fatwa against the West was related to the presence of infidel military on the holy peninsula (Al-Jazeera translates to the Peninsula).

  • ||

    Saying we will "stand by" Israel doesn't necessarily mean active military involvement.

    As long as the US isn't actively dropping bombs on Iran, there is still a good probability that Iran continues to exist as a sovereign nation. If we start bombing them, it will not.

    They know full well they cannot possibly launch a credible attack on US assets in the region and doing so will absolutely ensure our direct involvement and thereby their demise.

    That's how deterrence works.

  • Sudden||

    Saying we will "stand by" Israel doesn't necessarily mean active military involvement.

    While I concur, the Iranians might not see the nuance in such a statement. Perception shapes outcomes. If Iran were to perceive (regardless of the correctness of that perception) that we would actively engage on behalf of Israel following an Iranian retaliatory strike at Israel, then they'd be prudent to first attack whichever base they felt was the most threatening to them.

    It's a sort of fog of war coupled with a WWI-esque befuddling array of alliances.

  • John||

    The Iranians will attack us for the reasons that Sudden gives and because national pride will demand it.

  • ||

    The Iranians will attack us for the reasons that Sudden gives and because national pride will demand it.

    Knowing they will cease to exist as a nation?

    More Republican war mongering bullshit.

  • John||

    Knowing they will cease to exist as a nation?

    Why would they cease to exist as a nation? I didn't say they were going to nuke us. And the Mullahs don't care about the nation. They care about staying in power. And their choices may be, attack the US and take their chances or lose power.

  • ||

    My point EXACTLY. They will NOT stay in power if they attack us. And I'm not talking about nukes either. They strike us and we will take down the entire country, Ahmadinejad and the Mullahs. It is therefor, not in their interests to do so.

  • wareagle||

    That's how deterrence works.

    that's how deterrence works against countries that are relatively sane, do not have a romanticized view of death, and are just as or near as capable as their adversary. None of the above applies to Iran. So?

    A simple declaration this president won't make, and Romney like wouldn't either: if someone uses a nuclear first strike against a US interest, ally, or citizen, that nation will cease being a functioning entity within 24 hours.

    From a Romney, that might be believable. From Obama, it is laughable.

  • Sudden||

    that's how deterrence works against countries that are relatively sane, do not have a romanticized view of death, and are just as or near as capable as their adversary. None of the above applies to Iran.

    I don't have such a view of Iran. Their hold on power is tenuous at best right now and the younger generation is itching for some moderation. Ultimately, any regime in power tends to act in ways that will preserve and entrench its power. Starting an unprovoked and full-fledged war against the dominant military power on the planet, fresh off toppling 3 govt in the region over the last decade, might not be in their interest. Moreover, while Iran is anything but a pluralistic democracy, it is also not run by a single despot of limited sanity the way an Iraq or North Korea were/are. There is a council of mullahs from which all power emanates and they'd likely think rationally in terms of actions that won't threaten their own hold on power.

    That said, the point remains that if Israel attacks their nuclear installations, and they credibly believe the U.S. will become militarily involved upon a retaliatory strike against Israel, then they would be best advised to attack U.S. military personnel in the region first as they would be the more forward operating and militarily powerful between U.S. and Israel.

  • ||

    I don't buy the case of Iran being an irrational actor. All species, at their core, value their survival. Granted there is a portion of their population that thinks as you say, but it's a tiny, tiny minority. (And more than likely, they say they want to die for Allah, but actually do not.) I'd be surprised if Ahmadinejad is even actually religious. He uses it to stay in power.

  • ||

    That was for wareagle.

  • Sudden||

    Figured as much. You and I appear on the same page overall.

  • Sam Grove||

    I think we can feel assured that the old men running Iran are not interested in dying. That's how they got old in the first place. Dying in war is for the young, even in Islam.

  • Redmanfms||

    "That's how deterrence works."

    You assume that the parties controlling Iran are rational.

    Need I point to Obama's economic beliefs/policies to illustrate the folly of assuming people (even those "in charge") are rational actors?

  • Bedonkedonk||

    "If Israel attacks Iran, why exactly would Iran attack our bases? To ensure their defeat as quickly as possible?"

    If Germany launches a war on the virtually the whole of Europe, why exactly would Germsny attack Russia? To ensure their defeat as quickly as possible?

    Sometimes people don't see things with the same "clarity" that others feel certain of. Especially with regards to regimes and their war planning.

  • Bedonkedonk||

    PS - Always proofread.

  • grrizzly||

    They voted for Obama who was clearly against the idea of small government. Anyway you look at it Obama favored a bigger government than Romney, in rhetoric and in actions. People have chosen Obama.

  • ||

    "Not entirely clear that they voted the opposite. Can you say for sure that Romney would be smaller government, or made the case for it?"

    Either way, they voted for the opposite. The depressing thing wasn't who won, but that the results were exactly the same as they always are. Despite all the talk about being tired of the status quo, and wanting to "throw the bums out," we still just got the same red state- blue state rah rah as we always get. Nothing changes. Appeals to reason are hopeless now, and the only way out is system collapse.

  • ||

    And yet, the exit polls actually showed a shift towards the small government beliefs.

    Exit polls -- stated preference.

    Vote results -- revealed preference.

  • ||

    Or...

    I'm for smaller government that gives me moar free shit.

  • Ace Sullivan||

    people say all kinds of Bullshite.

  • sarcasmic||

    “Everyone wants to live at the expense of the state. They forget that the state lives at the expense of everyone.”
    ― Frédéric Bastiat

  • John C. Randolph||

    Severely conservative Mitt lost.

    Who's that?

    Surely you can't be referring to Willard Romney, the guy behind Romneycare?

    -jcr

  • sarcasmic||

    He used those words to describe himself during one of the primary debates.

    I think they refer to the guy who would have, in his first day in office, eliminated taxes for the rich, outlawed abortion, and taken away all social safety nets.

    At least that's what liberals feel. (I say "feel" because I would never give a liberal credit for thinking)

  • John C. Randolph||

    He used those words to describe himself

    In a related story, a ham sandwich described itself as a kosher meal.

    -jcr

  • sarcasmic||

    Here it is.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DI8PlTtM7DU

    And yes, I understand what you mean.

  • Tim||

    I say sit back and wait for the colossal fuck-ups and failures that Obama is sure to unleash in a second term.

  • amelia||

    Do we have a choice?

  • Tim||

    Might as well enjoy it.

  • Rich||

    But is it *legitimate* enjoyment?

  • Dave H||

    It's "enjoyment" enjoyment.

  • Pro Libertate||

    Again, it's a tiny difference between an Obama win and a Romney win. Aside from not running Romney again, what does the GOP need to do? I know I'd like them to do things differently, but the Democrats will hand them everything on a platter, most likely, without that.

    There's no mandate, no real shift in the American political position, no nothing. These things have far less meaning than ascribed to them. Otherwise, 2010 couldn't have happened.

    Heard the same shit in reverse when Bush won in 2004--equally dumb.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Yep

    Obama won against a shit candidate, (remember a certain neo-con here who said no way in hell would he ever vote for romney?) by aroun 2% of the vote.

    And everyone's acting like its a fooking realingment election ala 1932.

  • Robert||

    Why not run Romney again? He nearly tied Obama.

    Actually, though, it had nothing to do with who the GOP nominated or how s/he campaigned. 2012 was all about Obama, win or lose. 2016 will be entirely different.

  • John C. Randolph||

    I see a silver lining here for the Republican party which is that since Willard strong-armed the delegates and turned the RNC into a Supreme Soviet, and then went on to LOSE with a million less votes than even the sacrificial candidate, John McCain had managed to muster, Willards influence in the party and particularly with the grass roots will pretty much evaporate by the end of the week.

    Everything Willard did to centralize power and deny any role for the delegates beyond rubber-stamping what the Country Club wanted to do will be rolled back at the next national convention, and anyone trying it again in the foreseeable future will likely get shouted down with "are you trying to pull a Romney here?"

    The upshot of all of this is that the party will have a good chance to nominate someone who's actually worth supporting. Right now, I'd be happy to back Justin Amash or Thomas Massie.

    -jcr

  • John||

    We are better off watching four more years of the Obama tragic comedy and getting someone actually decent in 2016 who also controls the Congress than having four years of Romney cutting grand bargains with Harry Reid. I know it sucks to see the dumb bastard win.

  • sarcasmic||

    What makes you think we'll get someone decent in 2016?

    They'll probably run with the fat bastard from New Jersey, and lose to Hillary.

  • WTF||

    Nah, I think Christie wrecked his chances with the national party by sucking up to Obama after Sandy. Alot of republicans seem to think that somehow helped Obama in the election.

  • sarcasmic||

    Memories are short and four years is a long time.

  • John||

    No they aren't. Christie is also terrible on guns and a lot of other things. His star was falling well before he pulled that stunt. And the response to Sandy has been worse than the response to Katrina. People of New Jersey are pissed off as hell. His career is over. He will lose his re-election bid in 2014.

  • John Thacker||

    His re-election bid is 2013, isn't it? Virginia and NJ vote in odd years.

  • KDN||

    People of New Jersey are pissed off as hell. His career is over. He will lose his re-election bid in 2014.

    To the extent that people are pissed, their rage is focused almost entirely on JCP&L (and rightly so, they're terrible). I think you're way off base on this one, Christie's been widely praised by the low-info voters I know because he DOES SOMETHING.

    The government's response has been adequate in the vast majority of the state, and in the places where it wasn't nobody was going to vote for Christie, anyway.

  • ziggy||

    him or that neocon rubio

  • John||

    Christie couldn't get elected dog catcher after that stunt he pulled with OBama. His political career is over. He will lose his reelection bid in 2014 as pissed off Republicans abandon him and the Dems run someone besides a wall street crook against him. He literally doesn't have a friend in the world right now. The Dems hate his guts for taking on the unions.

    I am not sure who they will run. I suspect Hilary is going to be ruined over Bengazi. Look for it to be Andrew Cuomo in 2016.

  • ||

    I beg to differ. We're talking about NJ here, where a conservative Republican is practically a communist.

    Christie has now an iron grip on the Governorship.

  • John||

    After he fucked up the response to Sandy so badly? Things are turning into road warrior up there. It has been a disgrace. And even if he wins in NJ somehow, every other Republican in America hates his guts.

  • Killazontherun||

    He just destroyed his chance of making buck on the speaking circuit. If thy don't allow you to go in with a knife, pipe or club, there is not reason for the rank and file of the GOP to attend.

  • ||

    I don't see how he fucked it up. It's a real shit show. What should he have done differently?

  • John||

    They won't let non union utility crews in. There is virtually no police protection in the blacked out areas, mass looting. People are barricaded in their homes at night in fear of looters. FEMA packed up and left because of the incoming snow storm. It is a complete shit show.

  • WTF||

    FEMA packed up and left because of the incoming snow storm.

    And you have no idea how much that pissed off people around here.

  • Killazontherun||

    They won't let non union utility crews in.

    I'd like to see how that effected charitable giving especially coming from the South and South West. When you shit on people's good intentions, they tend to have better things to do with their time than to waste it on you.

  • mr simple||

    Is it that bad now? I admit I haven't seen any news recently, but the original reports were all glowing about how well the government was handling things. I guess the press had to push that story to hamper Mitt "End FEMA" Romney and help Obama.

  • John||

    The media is ignoring it because it would embarrass dear leader.

  • WTF||

    Things are slowly getting better, but everything is mostly still horrible. Still huge numbers of people with no power, no heat, evacuated from their homes, roads blocked, wires and poles down, fuel shortages, etc. etc. Obama showed up to do a one-day sightseeing tour, bugged out to continue campaigning while bringing no benefit to the area, and Christie fucking praised him as though he actually did something.

  • sarcasmic||

    I wonder if Bloomburg might make a run.

  • John||

    I think Sandy and the marathon really hurt him badly.

  • sarcasmic||

    Memories are short.

  • Ted S.||

    True, but he and Christie are both up for re-election next year.

  • Robert||

    No, Bloomberg's ineligible after using up the 3rd term of the 3-term limit he got after the recently voter-enacted 2-term limit was extended by the same gov't officials it was to affect.

  • hotsy totsy||

    I betcha they run Michelle Obama. It'd be like the Kirshners in Argentina.

    Obama won mostly on charisma. There was a youtube video here on reason where they interviewed Obama voters and gave them Obama's positions, except really they were Romney's. "Mitt Romney wants to put in place a national health care plan where everyone is required to have health insurance, and if they don't they have to pay a $2000 fine. Are you in favor of that?" "No, that would be unconstitutional!" "HELL no!" etc. All of them thought it was a terrible idea.

    So yeah, Michelle Obama. Only way to maintain the saintly savior aura

  • BigT||

    They'll probably run with the fat bastard from New Jersey, and lose to Hillary in the Democratic primary.

  • robc||

    I would vote for McConnell* in 2014 if I thought it would mean the GOP insiders would support Rand Paul in 2016 for Prez.

    *no I wont

  • The Hammer||

    What does the turtle have to do with Rand running in '16?

  • robc||

    McConnell is a theoretical power broker who is very much a party insider type republican. Im assuming that Rand playing nice with McConnell is for a reason.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    Yeah, the Republican party leadership is going to draw the conclusion that they should be more libertarian. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

  • ||

    "Everything Willard did to centralize power and deny any role for the delegates beyond rubber-stamping what the Country Club wanted to do will be rolled back at the next national convention, and anyone trying it again in the foreseeable future will likely get shouted down with 'are you trying to pull a Romney here?'"

    Except this has been the case with every Republican candidate since after Ronald Reagan and nothing has changed. I don't have any optimism for a Justin Amash in the future. You saw what those people did to Ron Paul.

  • tagtann||

    Sounds like a plan to me dude.
    www.privacy-on.tk

  • ||

    At least most of my 'hood is sane -- they didn't like either of the assholes.

    Many of my friends, however, are irritating me with a cascade of pro-Obama bullshit. I'm thinking about moving to the Alaskan wilderness and secluding myself in a cabin somewhere.

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    I have contemplated something like that for some years.

  • Killazontherun||

    Obama is not popular here in North Carolina. The unemployment rate has consistently been at least a percentage point above the national average. Republicans just swept the local elections. 2010 didn't stop here like elsewhere. We have the biggest buyers remorse you can imagine.

  • ||

    I don't need to imagine it. I'm in NC. And it hurts like a motherfucker that my neighbors voted as they did.

  • ||

    Obama is not popular here in North Carolina.

    He got 48.4% of the vote in NC. Romney got 50.6%. About half those who bother to show up at polls disagree with you.

  • Killazontherun||

    I left out the qualifying phrase that was intended to prevent your counterpoint, popular here in the 'burbs of North Carolina. My mistake, but I truly intended to plug that in there.

  • ||

    Perhaps you need to be even more specific yet: "in the burbs near where I, K-run, live", since this election map shows Obama winning and assortment of counties, from densely populated to mid-sized (and thus presumably suburban) to rural:

    http://www.politico.com/2012-e.....nt/2012/NC

  • John Thacker||

    NC has a lot of small towns, actually, so a lot of the mid-sized counties are more small town than suburban. Some are bedroom communities, though.

    The story in NC isn't the pitiful swing towards Romney and against Obama compared to 2008. It's the huge swing in favor of McCrory for governor compared to 2008. He ran 11 or 12 points ahead of Romney.

  • John Thacker||

    Err, margin was 11 to 12 points higher. He ran about half that higher, naturally.

  • Killazontherun||

    You see that contingent blue area east of Raleigh? That's pig farm country. Not really very 'burbish.

  • ||

    So which county do you live in?

    Holy crap, y'all have some gerrymandered districts in NC. What did they do in NC-12, plot out every black household along a bunch of roads then connect them with the bare minimum of white households needed to make it a contiguous district?

  • robc||

    What did they do in NC-12, plot out every black household along a bunch of roads then connect them with the bare minimum of white households needed to make it a contiguous district?

    Yes.

  • John Thacker||

    Holy crap, y'all have some gerrymandered districts in NC. What did they do in NC-12, plot out every black household along a bunch of roads then connect them with the bare minimum of white households needed to make it a contiguous district?

    Why yes. It actually was even worse back in 1992, it actually had every black household from Charlotte to Raleigh across the whole middle of the state, and was no wider than one lane of I-95 in places. Supreme Court threw it out.

    NC had really, really pro-Dem gerrymandered districts until after 2010. In 2010 GOP took 58% of the congressional vote, had a 6-7 disadvantage in districts. Then with a new General Assembly majority, GOP finally got revenge for years of gerrymanders, took a few seats this time.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'm impressed you figured that one out on the first try. That is to the t what happened.

    I live in Guilford. 'Burb heavy counties tend to be to the north of Greensboro-Highpoint-Winston and Charlotte, south of Raleigh in the more dense portions.

  • John Thacker||

    And you see that part near the South Carolina border in the middle? Counties like Scotland County? That's small towns, not very 'burbish either. They're part of the most racist, segregationist, most traditionally Democratic since the Civil War parts of NC. The parts most like SC.

    In fact, the New York Times had a map of all the places where Obama did better in 2012 than 2008. It was mostly Deep South, all in places that matched the most loyal Solid South racist counties, like the ones that voted Al Smith over Hoover. The non Appalachian counties. Perhaps it was a Mormon thing, perhaps just hating a rich Yankee Republican.

  • Killazontherun||

    Exactly right. It's hard to get in the heads of the Tony's that the Democratic party in this area kept to the racist rural legacy long after LBJ, and as the states became more urban and suburban, and affluent the electorate became more Republican, but its true.

  • John Thacker||

    The NC swing with Obama was not that big.

    Now McCrory, he had a swing in NC compared to 2008. Easily outran Romney, mostly because he did much better with Hispanics (+15, 46%), Blacks (+9, 13%), and Other races (+8, 51%) than Romney did, not because of whites (+2, 70%). Probably nothing to be done about blacks going against Obama, but the other two area big deal.

  • Briggie||

    It seems Virginia does not feel the same way unfortunately.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Last night I had dinner with some friends and, though it's known that I'm off the reservation politically, they were crowing and making little jokes about repubs.

    I thought to join in and said "I was sort of looking forward to the Romney Rape camps."

    Liberals just don't get a good rape joke - even when it's derived from their hysterical political rhetoric.

  • ||

    Did they report you to the Obama administration for moral cleansing?

  • mr simple||

    Good progressives are not allowed to laugh at jokes that come at their party's expense. I know some that won't even laugh at a good Biden joke. Even when I make a joke at republican or libertarian expense, like something being built by slave orphan labor and then all non-owners being fired to maximize profits, they eye me suspiciously like they're not sure if I'm sneaking in a joke at the dems expense. They have no sense of humor.

  • Loki||

    Even when I make a joke at republican or libertarian expense, like something being built by slave orphan labor and then all non-owners being fired to maximize profits, they eye me suspiciously like they're not sure if I'm sneaking in a joke at the dems expense.

    I think it's more likely they eye you suspiciously because they actually believe that libertarians would utilize slave orphan labor and would fire all non-owners to maximize profits. IOW, they're trying to figure out if you're just joking or if you really are as EVUL as they've convinced themselves all non-progressives are.

  • ||

    My brother, who used to be a libertarian before it occurred to him that as a firefighter employed by government, it behooved him to vote Team Blue Unions, was really silent about my remark about (something random) being an oxymoron, then noted that his vote for Biden was for someone missing the "oxy" part.

  • R C Dean||

    Basically, I think he's right that the relentless propagandizing for the Total State has worked, and this is a country that no longer envisions its government as one of limited scope.

    People may still mouth the words, but stated preference is cheap. Revealed preference is relentlessly Total State, with the only argument over which wing of TEAM BE RULED gets to stuff the pockets of its followers this round.

    The Repubs are talking about rearranging the deck chairs on the SS Total State so they get a better view next time. They have not been, and barring a massive top-to-bottom change in personnel and philosophy, will not be, a party of small government.

  • sarcasmic||

    the relentless propagandizing for the Total State has worked

    Yup. Government is the way, the truth, and the light. It is everything.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Tutto nello Stato, niente al di fuori dello Stato, nulla contro lo Stato.

  • ziggy||

    Mitt had big government agenda as well, he was a moderate so to make conservatives believe he really is conservative he became intensely against abortion and against gay marriage.

    The dumb GOP needs to figure out that they have the religious right vote either way, so they can stop making gay marriage and abortion central to their platform.

    THEY HAVE TO SHOW A CLEAR DISTINCTION ON THE ROLE OF GOVERNMENT IN OUR LIVES (in all aspects). Off course they probably wont do that...

  • The Derider||

    Good luck keeping the evangelical vote if the Republican party drops its abortion stance.

    Democrats will be all "Jesus loved poor people", and then the Democrats really will have a permanent majority.

  • John||

    But the Dems will not allow someone who is not pro abortion at all times paid by the government to even speak in the party let alone join.

    And all of the Jesus loves poor people types are already Democrats. Most of the remaining mainline Protestants are radically liberal along with their churches. And of course black people tend to be religious and are uniformly Democrat despite their socially conservative views.

  • ||

    The GOP will keep the SoCon vote for the same reason the Dems will keep the black vote: they have no where else to go.

  • Doctor Whom||

    They can stay home. Voter turnout matters.

  • ziggy||

    They won stay home. The democrats are actively hostile towards christians, and they are a group that regularly votes. I don't think voter turn out is a problem.

    Besides the choice is a republican who is pro gay rights or a christian hating democrat who is pro gay rights, easy choice for them...

  • John Thacker||

    They did stay home, this election. Though Romney's losses against Catholics hurt more.

  • Zeb||

    "The democrats are actively hostile towards christians"

    Not true. As John correctly notes above, nearly all of the mainline protestant churches, and most of their members, are pretty liberal/progressive. Trust me, I know a lot of these people.

  • sarcasmic||

    And all of the Jesus loves poor people types are already Democrats.

    Too bad they don't understand that Jesus wanted people to help the poor out of kindness, not under government duress.

  • John||

    Yes. If Jesus wanted the government to help poor people via coercion, he would have been a Roman.

  • ||

    I have a very gwate fwend in Wome named Biggus Dickus.

  • ||

    But the Romans built teh roadz!

  • sarcasmic||

    Collectivists feel that when they coerce someone into doing something that they themselves would do voluntarily, that the coerced person is now acting voluntarily.

    Thus coerced action is actually voluntary.

    That's why they get so confused when someone tries to draw a distinction between entitlements and charity. In their mind they are one and the same.

  • John||

    It is the nature of evil sarcasmic. People always do evil with the best intentions. In fact, the better and more noble their intentions, the worse evil they are likely to perpetrate. If your goals are noble enough, any means is justified.

  • ||

    C.S. Lewis has the quote on that:

    "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."

  • sarcasmic||

    And evil will always win, because evil is willing to do things and go places that good will not.

  • ||

    Evil will always win, because good is dumb.

  • ||

    It's "triumph", you moron. You've probably only seen that movie three times, you dilettante.

  • sarcasmic||

    I've never been able to watch that movie all the way through. If I want to make my mind numb and stupid I'll smoke a joint and knock back a few shots.

  • John||

    When I was in Nuremburg one time I went over and saw the ruins of where they had the rallies. God that is a creepy place to this day.

  • The Hammer||

    What movie?

  • John||

    Triumph of the Will. It is Leni Riefenstahl's propaganda film about the Nuremberg rallies.

  • ||

    John seems to have mistaken what we're talking about here, which was Spaceballs.

  • ||

    I was talking about Nazis, you idiot.

  • John||

    Yes I was. My mistake.

  • NoVAHockey||

    the appropriate line from spaceballs in this situation is "i'm surrounded by assholes."

  • ||

    I thought evil will always triumph because good is dumb.

    But yeah, it's kimd of hard to argue with coercive evil that is disguised as good. Just look at Prop 35 in California. Who the hell is going to vote against an anti-sex trafficking amendment? Of course it involves a major expansion in police power and further abuse of the sex offender registry system, but no one is willing to argue that point.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I don't really agree. As far as I can tell, whether they themselves would do it voluntarily or not is beside the point. It's simply the act of coercing the other person to do "the right thing" that they view as moral or noble.

  • BigT||

    “Do not blame Caesar, blame the people of Rome who have so enthusiastically acclaimed and adored him and rejoiced in their loss of freedom and danced in his path and gave him triumphal processions. Blame the people who hail him when he speaks in the Forum of the ‘new, wonderful, good society’ which shall now be Rome’s" ~Marcus Tullius

  • ||

    If Jesus wanted the government to help poor people via coercion, he would have been a Roman.

    Hard to say whether Jesus, reincarnated to the present day, would be only for individuals voluntarily helping the poor, rather than the state doing it -- I doubt a Jewish peasant living under Roman occupation would have even considered the possibility of the Jews getting handouts from Rome, much less getting to vote on the matter of who governed them and where their taxes went.

    That being said, there aren't any words attributed to Jesus in the Bible that explicitly say that government should redistribute wealth to the poor. He only talked about private charity.

  • John||

    Jesus was not a political figure. If he had wanted to use the government for his ends, he would have gone into politics.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    He also thought the world was about to end like, pretty soon, so there's not much point setting up a whole state apparatus to do this stuff.

  • Zeb||

    Not to mention that the Jesus we know anything about is a fictional character from a book.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Jesus must have had a limited imagination, for the son of God.

  • Blueman||

    "If Jesus wanted the government to help poor people via coercion, he would have been a Roman."

    This.

  • John Thacker||

    Too bad that Romney didn't even bother making the case that the free market prosperity combined with private charity was better for the poor than government spending, instead making stupid 47% comments.

  • The Derider||

    There are more than a few anti-abortion democrats.

    http://dailycaller.com/2012/08.....vilifying/

    Because the democratic party is more concerned with winning via compromise than ideological purity.

  • ||

    Shut the fuck up you pathetic midget. Go jerk off somewhere else.

  • The Hammer||

    He's right. The democratic party is more concerned with winning via any means necessary than with anything else.

  • The Derider||

    I would note that all those "anti-abortion" democrats do support exceptions in the case of rape, and for the health of the mother.

    If they didn't, they probably couldn't win primaries.

  • ||

    We already know you're an unprincipled scumfuck, joe. You don't have to drive it home so hard.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Anti abortion democrats? From the article it looked like those Democrats voted against the bill because it specified forcible rape, and to them, that MIGHT have excluded statutory rape. None of them was against abortion on general principles, and indeed, wanted to expand it.

  • ||

    Hey look, it's joe the little pussy midget fuck! Hey joe! You drunk yet?

  • ant1sthenes||

    Part of the GOP's problem has been keeping it's disparate factions (theo-cons, neo-cons, paleo-cons, conservatarians, etc.) happy, not to mention the external independents they have to appeal to in the general election. If the evangelicals join the Democratic coalition, that might be the straw that breaks the donkey's back.

    Besides, government helping poor people appeals to middle and upper class evangelicals like the government running the USPS appeals to Fed Ex.

  • ziggy||

    Don't drop it, but say it's a matter for the courts to decide.

    Besides they will stay, democrats are actively hostile to any anti-gay marriage christian...

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    This election was not about free stuff or freedom. It was about competing brands -- Romney ran an image-based campaign centered around his personal competence, not on issues or ideology. Live by image-based politics, die by image based politics -- the fact is, the Cool Black Guy successfully tarred Romney as an out of touch, weird millionaire who couldn't be trusted with the country. This image was rebuffed for a time by Romney's first debate performance, but confirmed by the latter two debates.

    The Democratic party is a brand for fashionable people to attach themselves to. For the GOP to make gains in the future, they'll either have to run successfully on issues in a way that is politically viable, or present an appealing aesthetic and competing brand of their own.

  • John||

    The Democratic party is a brand for fashionable people to attach themselves to. For the GOP to make gains in the future, they'll either have to run successfully on issues in a way that is politically viable, or present an appealing aesthetic and competing brand of their own.

    THIS times about a hundred. The people I know who voted for Obama don't even know what he believes or stands for. It is just a fashion decision, a way of showing they are not the other.

  • R C Dean||

    The people I know who voted for Obama don't even know what he believes or stands for. It is just a fashion decision, a way of showing they are not the other.

    Bingo. As has been shown over and over, if you ask people about positions and policies, they tend to reject the Dem platform.

    But then they go out and vote Dem. Its branding, image, tribalistic solidarity, groupthink.

    In a word, politics.

  • Rich||

    In a word, sickening.

    Screw the photo ID; require a better-than-chance knowledge of the issues and candidates.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    Issues? I'd be happier with a test of basic arithmetic.

  • Zeb||

    Arithmetic is racist.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Right nicole. "If we could just take that 2 billion spent of the campaign, plus Romney's millions, plus the salaries of all the senators and congressmen, we could make a real dent in the national debt". Democrat arithmetic.

  • radar||

    In a few words, they're shallow fucking dipshits.

  • hotsy totsy||

    IT, John, and RC. Exactly on target.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Or they "know" and are wrong.

  • Butler T. Reynolds||

    True. The GOP can start by ditching the thumpers. They don't image well.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    They don't have to ditch a single voter.

    Did the Democrats ditch socialists, race-baiters, etc during their successful efforts to rebrand themselves after the Cold War? Not really; they just managed their interest groups better and let them fade into the background of politics. The social conservatives are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate, and can in large part be co-opted into a broader limited government coalition. A somewhat more secular image would be helpful, but it is good for Republicans to be seen as an ecumenically pro-religion party. It would be relatively easy to paint Democrats as being *anti* religion, and one can still move towards a more secular image without hostility to faith.

  • ||

    The problem with that is that the so-cons are still a major part of the primary voting process. Just look at the freak show that was the GOP primary.

    Other than Ron Paul, all of the candidates had to attend those stupid faith and values forums and kiss the asses of evangelicals and Baptists to get support in the south.

    A secular small-government candidate may win in a general election when the so-cons fall into line around the party stndard-bearer, but that candidate will have a hard time escaping the primary if challenged by a Santorum.

  • ||

    I dunno. It would be interesting to see a candidate make a purely secular pitch for the GOP nomination. I bet they could do well in plenty of other states beside the deep south.

  • John Thacker||

    It would be interesting to see a candidate make a purely secular pitch for the GOP nomination.

    You mean Jon Huntsman? I guess it was interesting.

    Of course, he also went out of his way to insult all the other interest groups part of the GOP coalition as well, even while having conservative positions.

    Turns out that tribal politics are important.

  • ||

    Yes, I was also thinking of Gary Johnson. It would have been a lot more interesting if the treatment they received in the media had been reversed.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Rand Paul seems to do pretty well with social conservatives, and I would say that he is sufficiently secular.

    There is a difference between being a jerk like Santorum, and having religious beliefs but being able to do your job without making an explicitly religious appeal. As the social conservatives become a smaller force in the party, they will be able to be won over by an appeal to competence and limited government in the areas they care about. A good first step for the GOP would be to make secular arguments for abortion their go-to arguments when arguing a pro-life position.

  • John Thacker||

    There is a difference between being a jerk like Santorum, and having religious beliefs but being able to do your job without making an explicitly religious appeal.

    Just like there's a difference between being secular, and being a jerk about it like Huntsman.

  • robc||

    Just look at the freak show that was the GOP primary.

    You mean the one the Mormon one?

    Or in SC, where two catholics and a mormon beat the baptist?

  • Bill Dalasio||

    I'm not so sure about this. A lot of the times I've talked to social conservatives, they do seem to realize (probably more then those on the left) that they probably shouldn't try to legislate their views. They see their views as under fire more than needing support. A pro-freedom candidate can probably draw them into a coalition if he could make the case to them that the absence of subsidy for bad behavior would favor a fairly conservative social order. And that's hardly a wild position. Sure, you get imbeciles like Santorum. But, I don't think a Santorum can build much of a coalition outside the hard-line social conservatives. The only reason he got any traction this time around was that he was the last guy who wasn't Romney in the primaries.

  • KMA Too||

    ^Bingo!^ In spite of yourselves, the lot of H&R comments helped convince me that I didn't need to get my personal views legislated, especially if freedom is what I claim it is.

    If more individual So-Cons were greeted with this kind of recognition from libertarians, they would probably become libertarians, too. Most of you have plenty of smart answers to questions about issues that So-Cons are initially against. If you utilized them as such (you know, invite them to ask questions instead of ball-busting), plenty would listen.

    But this is H&R, I know. Just sayin'.

  • ||

    ^This too.

  • BigT||

    The social conservatives are shrinking as a percentage of the electorate, and can in large part be co-opted into a broader limited government coalition.

    This is the TEA party. Started as Taxed Enough Already, but taken over by the so-cons because they are very active, very involved. Without their active involvement the Republicans have no ground game. This may have hurt Romney's ability to turn out 3 million that voted for McKain. The so-cons/Evangelicals just 'weren't that into him.'

  • Killazontherun||

    Without the promises of free shit, who wins? it's the free shit.

  • Killazontherun||

    I'll say, you have a point in the ephemeral motivation that occurs in the dynamics of a campaign, but without a solid foundation based on free shit, the party gets nowhere.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Free shit gets about 30% of the country, but the suburban morons who voted for Obama don't care about or expect free stuff. They just want to feel good about themselves.

    If the GOP or someone else could craft an emotional or aesthetic appeal, those voters would leave the Democrats.

  • Killazontherun||

    I think we have a similar theme, 'if you look for deep philosophical motivation as to why the democrats won and the republicans lost, you are not going to find it because that would be giving the voters more credit than is deserved of them.

    The always mush headed Leonard Pitts had a typical form him righteous and banality soaked column this morning with the headline,'the people rejected the politics of the pitchfork.'

    I'd like to know, whose weapon is a pitchfork? Is the weapon that of the elites? No. So what are you saying, Lenny? The people disarmed themselves and went back to kneel and bend at the trough?

  • J_L_B||

    The always mush headed Leonard Pitts had a typical form him righteous and banality soaked column this morning with the headline,'the people rejected the politics of the pitchfork.'

    I'm sure that somehow he brought the issue of race into it; his compensation MUST depend on the quantity of racial references in his column.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "Free shit gets about 30% of the country, but the suburban morons who voted for Obama don't care about or expect free stuff. They just want to feel good about themselves."

    Which is just another variation on free shit. They want to be charitable with someone else's money.

  • Loki||

    Alt-Text: "...and hear the lamentations of their women"

  • Pound. Head. On. Desk.||

    Wrong! Loki! What is best in life?

  • db||

    Exactly what I was thinking.

  • ||

    Does anyone else get the feeling that Bush is going to be known as the last GOP President in US history?

  • John||

    nah. If Obama had won in a landslide maybe. But he didn't. The Democrats are going to continue to fuck up and make things worse. And at some point that does get you kicked out of office. Even the Tories came back from Blair. Even the French turned on the socialists. Unless Obama declares himself President for life, the Dems will lose.

  • sarcasmic||

    The Democrats are going to continue to fuck up and make things worse. And at some point that does get you kicked out of office.

    Unless whoever runs on their ticket in 2016 can convince people that the reason we're still in a recession (yes I believe that in four more years we'll still be in this recession. heck, if there isn't a serious repeal of regulations *haaa ha ha ha* it's probably permanent) because the government just hasn't done enough, they'll get elected.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I think more latinos/blacks will become eligible to vote in the next four years.

    And the republicans will still be complaining about some gay dudes getting married in san francisco and life starts in the penus and how the world is 10years old and Nixon is the muslim mother of obama.

  • John||

    And the deteriorating economic condition will cause fewer of those to actually come and vote. Also the continued theft and general corruption of the now Chicago Dem party will start to wear.

    I don't know Alice. Maybe you hold the racist view that blacks and latins love corruption and economic ineptitude. Maybe the do. But I doubt it. And the electorate is still majority white. Obama only won by a percentage point. Suburban moms deciding they can't take the lights going out and paying $8 a gallon for gas flips the entire election.

    Politics aside, if one party feels it is unaccountable at the ballot box, it will by human nature become epically corrupt and ineffective. The Dems are already 3/4 of the way there. In four years they will be all the way there. If they can continue winning, then the US is just Venezuela at that point.

  • Alien Invader||

    Yeah John, I agree. Except, the Republicans won't have gotten their shit together by the time their next wave arrives.

    So, this.

    the US is just Venezuela at that point.

  • Blueman||

    Yeah, I don't think Latinos and Blacks are into tyranny. Problem is, the GOP did not offer an alternative to the Democrats.

  • John||

    And long term, Hispanics and Blacks are not going to stay in the same party. Their economic interests are too opposed. There is too much racism between the two groups. One or the other is going to leave the Democratic Party and become a swing vote or watch the other completely walk over it.

  • T o n y||

    Jesus Christ John. Most people in this country aren't nearly as obsessed with race as you.

  • John||

    But some are. They are called Democrats.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    You live in OK. There's, what, 5 black people living there? How would you know what motivates minorities to go out and vote?

    Tony, every single member of my extended family voted for BO, primarily out of a fear that Jim Crow would be brought back and because of BO's race. Race isn't the sole motivation for blacks and hispanics, but it's a large part of the equation.

  • John Thacker||

    There's, what, 5 black people living there?

    There's more than that, with all those ex-Cherokee slaves that got thrown out of the tribe so that they couldn't share in teh lootz.

    Also a ton of American Indians in OK.

  • The Derider||

    Yes, black people still associate the republican party with the Southern strategy.

    Al Gore got 95% of the black vote in 2000. Obama just got 93% of the black vote.

    Clearly black people voted for Obama because he's black.

  • ||

    joe, can you get on the toilet without a footstool? Seriously, I'm curious.

  • ||

    Al Gore got 90% according to this:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41.....elections/

  • KPres||

    1. The black population isn't growing particularly fast.

    2. The hispanic vote won't matter that much in presidential elections, since hispanics are mostly migrating to states that are so solidly blue or red. Hispanics aren't going to make Texas or Arizona blue, and California and New Mexico are already irretrievably blue. Florida is certainly up for grabs, but the elderly are now reliably red, and the fast growth in that demographic there will counteract the growth in blue hispanics.

  • Gray Ghost||

    Hispanics aren't going to make Texas or Arizona blue

    Au contraire. Though why I should give a shit about anything Eva Longoria has to say, is a mystery. Nevertheless, depending on the degree of Hispanic immigration (as opposed to just coming here to work), and the degree that those Hispanics vote Dem, I don't think it's that far-fetched to see Texas starting to swing Dem in the next 5-10 years.

  • The Derider||

    If dems make Texas competitive, republicans are screwed.

    I think Texan republicans understand the importance of the Latino vote. At least bush and perry did, and they just got Ted Cruz elected.

  • ||

    Hey, fuckface! You drunk yet?

  • Loki||

    Also a lot of the "hispanics" in Florida are Cubans who have actually lived under full blown communism. Anything that even remotely resembles communism will turn them off. They tend to vote Republican as a result.

  • Killazontherun||

    I don't think you can rely on the traditional dynamic to play out anymore. It might still be there, but my gut tells me that among young white college aged voters that the Republican brand is the equivalent of that of K-mart. They are not going to shop there no matter what deal they can get. They are less prone to change there brand patterns like previous generations would when growing up because that is not something they are doing either.

  • sarcasmic||

    Look at all these cool people who are Democrats. If I support the Democrats maybe they'll think I'm cool too. I already watch the Daily Show, and that means I'm smart. Because I heard somewhere that smart people watch the Daily Show. Dad lets me drive slow on the driveway every Saturday.

  • John||

    I am an excellent drive. They really are generation retard. At some point living in their parents basements watching their inheritance and future go away might get old.

  • sarcasmic||

    They really are generation retard.

    Doesn't every generation say that about the next?

    Your saying that just means you're old.

  • John||

    No. Some generations are worse than others. The generation that gave us prohibition was a lot worse than the one before it that built the modern economy. Sorry but things do sometimes get worse. And most people under 30 are sincerely stupid compared to those people who came before them.

  • sarcasmic||

    Yep. You're old.

  • ||

    Plato was complaining about how the kids around him didn't respect their elders the way they did when he was young, dagnabbit!

    It's a complaint as old as civilization itself, which means it's empty bullshit.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's a complaint as old as civilization itself, which means it's empty bullshit.

    It's like when the classic rock station plays stuff you listened to in high school. It's a sign that you're old.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    What if you listened to the classic rock station in high school?

  • sarcasmic||

    What if you listened to the classic rock station in high school?

    Then you're unimaginative and boring.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Hmmm, how about when the classic rock station plays stuff your KIDS listened to in high school?

  • BigT||

    It's a complaint as old as civilization itself, which means it's empty bullshit absolutely true.

  • $park¥||

    It's a complaint as old as civilization itself, which means it's absolutely true.

    Every generation is dumber than the one that came before, which is what explains the net increase in intelligence.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    No, I gotta go with John on this one. We're seeing the maturation of all the kids who played Little League where no one kept score and had classes where everyone got a participation ribbon. They're the baby boomers' kids. And they're all the asshole you'd expect them to be.

  • sarcasmic||

    There is a cure for youthful naivete. It's called life.

    Sure most people under 30 are dumbshits. Who wasn't a dumbshit in the 20s? I sure was.

    Eventually people in their 20s become people in their 30s, and then they become people in their 40s, and by then they look at people in their 20s and marvel at how stupid they are.

    I think we'd be better off if the voting age was changed to, I dunno, 33 sounds good.

  • sarcasmic||

    *their

  • Zeb||

    The baby boomers' kids are in their 30s and 40s now. You must be old too.

  • Killazontherun||

    I was embarrassed to still be finishing up college at 23 because some classes did not make the transfer cut. I think it was a typical reaction for someone of my generation. Sandra Fluke's generation however, I don't think most of them would give a second thought to still be cruising in college at thirty.

  • sarcasmic||

    I was embarrassed to still be finishing up college at 23

    I was closer to 33.

    Takes a while when you start in your mid 20s and go part time while you work two jobs.

  • Killazontherun||

    Adult education is understood to be a different path, going into the work force for years before deciding to go to college, then the standard sixteen year course.

    I too paid my way through working during college but had a strong desire to keep up with my contemporaries as a class conscious matter.

    The Fluke norm is different from both these situations. It's the free floating life of a privileged adult.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    She's a 31yo college student.

  • nicole just can't even!||

    She is a law student, not an undergrad, but as far as I'm concerned it sort of makes it worse. Way too many people go to undergrad, and way too many go on to graduate programs. I graduated high school in 2001 and the people of this generation just float from school to school forever, never working.

  • KPres||

    "They are less prone to change there brand patterns like previous generations would when growing up because that is not something they are doing either."

    You can test that now. Many of the 18-25 in 2008 are now 25-35. Is that age group more Democrat than before as you would expect with a new influx? I doubt it.

    It's not about maturity, it's about taxes. When you're 21 and make $8/hour, you don't care about taxes because you don't pay any. When you get your first real job and see a nice chunk of that going to the state, it changes the way you look at things.

  • Loki||

    Many All of the 18-25 in 2008 are now 25-35 22-29.

    FTFY.

  • ||

    Actually, heller, it wouldn't be too bad if the Republican party really did implode. It would NOT usher in some kind of permanent one-party Democratic state. (They wish). Because of the way the political system works, you're always going to have two poles.
    It would be an opportunity for a third party to step in and create another pole.

    Even if (and I doubt this will happen), some socialist party like the Green Party steps in to the left of the Democrats, that would ultimately result in the Democrats moving right.

    What's more likely to happen is that the "right" coaleses around something else. A different party than the Republicans, maybe a more racially diverse one, with a different mix of core issues. The Democratic party would then shift to be in polar opposite alignment with it. (Because they could pick up the votes of the pieces the new coalition leaves out).

    I don't necessarily think it has to be a libertarian coalition, but it would be an opportunity for libertarians to step in and attempt to form the base of a new moderate right party that is "fiscally conservative and socially liberal".

  • CE||

    No. 12 years ago everyone was writing about how the Democrats were doomed and ready to fade into obscurity. Then W turned everyone off from Republican rule.

  • ||

    If the Ds ever did fade into obscurity another left-wing party would rapidly emerge to replace them. Our whole electoral college system works to push people into two opposing camps.

  • Alice Bowie||

    " there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view government's role in society, and the GOP is losing the argument"

    Yea !!!

  • Alice Bowie||

    I believe that the economy will get better.

    And, Obama will be credited for it.

    However, once the economy gets better, that is, people have jobs and more security, they will vote republican.

    Don't u get it guys, being Libertarian/Republican/Conservative is a luxury. If you are fucked, out of work, your business is drying up, have a sick kid, like to wear your pants a little tighter, you are going to vote for the liberals. You are not going to vote for the guy that will take away safety nets in the hopes that in the long run things will be better.

    So, if the economy gets better, Republicans WIN.
    If the economy gets worst, Republicans LOSE.

    So, a message for those "JOB CREATORS"...what do u wanna do ?

  • sarcasmic||

    No one is taking away any safety nets. Cutting the rate of growth means there is still growth. Growth means bigger. Bigger is not taking away.

    Liberalism can turn otherwise smart people into blithering idiots.

  • tarran||

    Well, Alice, if you are right about how people vote, then what will happen is the United States will economically implode.

    And nobody will get any benefits.

    It won't be the job creators' fault. It will be the fault of politicians and the voters who listen to them.

  • ||

    Herpa herpa derpa herp.

    Herpa derp.

    UNTS UNTS UNTS UNTS UNTS

  • John||

    No Alice. A big government is a luxury. They don't have them in places that are really poor. And what are you going to do when the economy doesn't get better? Every liberal seems to believe that today. What if you are wrong? I know you are going to blame Bush, but fewer and fewer people are going to believe you. In 2014 when thing are as bad or worse than they were in 08, what are you going to say? More importantly, what are you going to tell yourself?

    What are you going to say when we have inflation, stagnant or negative growth, double digit unemployed and general misery? And all of it happening with Obama as President? At some point you going to maybe think that perhaps liberals might be wrong about the economy? Or are you just going to double down on stupid and blame whatever bogeyman is floating around?

  • sarcasmic||

    Government hasn't done enough!

    The rich aren't paying their fair share!

    Corporations!

    More control! More taxes! More regulation! More handouts! More, more more!

  • Killazontherun||

    She is going to do what they did in the Soviet Union, the five year plan was sabotaged by obstructionist dissidents.

  • John||

    Yup. The people have failed their government. These people are barking mad. They are not even human beings anymore.

  • sarcasmic||

    It's only a matter of time before individualism is declared to be a dangerous mental illness.

  • tarran||

    Yup. The people have failed their government.

    What's really unnerving is the way I can see various talking points/sound bites being tested by the progressive movement's elites. I have a bunch of face-book friends from the ultra-wealthy prep-school I attended in Cambridge.

    Every now and then a wave of posts will come up with some common phrase - of example, the Robin Hood Tax (which was what the Occupy movement's astro-turfing masters were hoping to get enacted).

    The latest thing that was tested for about 12 hours and vanished was that now that Barack Obama was elected, it was time for the country to become purple (what you get when you mix red and blue). Then abruptly they stopped, and nobody has used that phrase since yesterday mid-morning. I guess it didn't play well in Peoria or something.

    These progressives love to engage in love-fests where they congratulate themselves on how intelligent/skeptical/self-actualized they are, yet they are - politically speaking - utterly mindless puppets.

  • tarran||

    Oh, and to get to John's statement, when Romney was surging, the theme that the red-staters were unworthy of their government and were saboteurs did come out for a few hours.

    I found that very disturbing - since I had flashbacks to passages in Albert Speer's Inside the Third Reich as to how Hitler and his inner circle reacted to their dreams turning to ash.

  • Bardas Phocas||

    Death to the Kulaks.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I suspect, John, that the more people are out of work, or working three part-time jobs, or don't feel confident that they will get another job if they lose the current job, these people will DOUBLE-DOWN (as you say) on whoever is offering the SAFETY NETS.

  • sarcasmic||

    That which the government gives must first be taken away.

    Taken away from today's taxpayers in the form of taxes, taken away from future taxpayers in the form of debt, or taken away from everyone by printing money out of nothing and devaluing the currency.

    At some point there will be nothing left for government to take, and thus nothing left for it to give.

    Then what?

  • Alice Bowie||

    All the old-timers tell me about how the subway use to cost a nickle. They made $3/day and paid $8 in Rent.

    In fiat currency, u just keep printing more evidently.

  • sarcasmic||

    Printing money is theft.

    If you have ten dollars in your pocket, and the government goes and prints a bunch of money and hands it to people, now that ten dollars is worth less than when you put it into your pocket. The difference, that which was given away, was stolen from you.

  • Alice Bowie||

    Printing money is theft to the person saving and not to the person living hand-to-mouth.

    Printing money creates the loans that creates the jobs.

    What is going WRONG today is that the jobs are elsewhere.

  • ||

    Print 100 trillion dollars and make every person in America a millionaire. If your logic is sound, that would actually work.

  • JeremyR||

    Except, when you print money, the increase of wages doesn't keep pace with the increase inflation.

    Fiat money screws over the working classes the most.

  • The Derider||

    If you have ten dollars in your pocket, and the government goes crazy and people lose confidence in it, now that ten dollars is worth less than when you put it into your pocket.

    Was the difference stolen from you?

  • ||

    Hey joe, you going to answer Warty's question, pussy?

  • robc||

    And who is responsible for that?

    Maybe the key is to vote out the proponents of fiat currency.

  • ||

    Fuck you, Alice.

  • KMA Too||

    Is she THE Alice I've read about around here?


    .....rhymes with "clucking bell".

  • ant1sthenes||

    The economy isn't going to get better unless the fiscal/economic right gains more power, which seems unlikely barring a military coup.

    Granted, there are probably Constitutional lines the president could cross that would result in that happening.

  • Doctor Whom||

    Go away, trolltard.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    "I believe that the economy will get better.
    And, Obama will be credited for it."

    I suppose you also believe in angels and unicorns too, Alice.

    I explained to you yesterday, we're on the upside of the business cycle with all of 2% growth. The next inflection point isn't up. It's down. Welcome to the "New Normal", not having a job and living in your parents basement until you're 40 is what you can expect. But, at least the government will give you free birth control, an Obamaphone and a delay on that graduate degree you got in gender studies. Just don't thing too long or too hard about the connection between the two situations.

  • Rasilio||

    Uh bullshit.

    People rarely vote for the guy who will help them most where they are today, they vote for where they expect to be tomorrow.

  • ||

    OT: Per the Newsfeed, Mississippi's going ahead and complying with ObamaCare. How the fuck did "the most conservative state" sink so low?

  • ||

    I wish one of the poorest, most backwards states wouldn't brag about being conservative.

  • Jesus H. Christ||

    The cult of Obama played a big part. People LOVE the guy. I don't know why, but they do. I find it unseemly, degrading even, to adore a politician, any politician, the way many swoon over Barry. So the GOP picks a guy with very little outward personality, and very little outward passion, and runs him against the sitting prez who is slobbered on by millions. What could go wrong?

    Did Willard ever appear passionate about anything? I can't think of one thing.

    We also can't forget the major media, who, other than fox, was in the can for Obummer from the git go. And I don't just mean the news outlets, I'm talking about the entertainment industry as well. Colbert, Jon Stewart, Katy Perry, all the other shitheads were almost exclusively pro bummer.

    I'm not sure there's been a major shift in the electorate, I think the cult worship has a great deal to do with it. If a less "charismatic" president with the same horrendous record had run for a second term, it may have gone very differently.

  • John||

    When you think about how much help the media and the mass culture gave him, it is amazing he didn't win by more. And a lot of white people still get a great feeling for supporting a black man. White guilt will never end.

  • T o n y||

    The Republican reckoning was inevitable. I'm not so sure it's here yet, though to my great pleasure everyone's talking about it. They've got a demographic apocalypse on their hands, and that goes hand-in-hand with their increased radicalization. As much as they dress it up in euphemisms, their essential platform is, to use an oxymoron, radically conservative: the promotion of a racial, gender, and class hegemony that they started losing in the 60s and never got over. To be able to get a majority coalition they'll have to drop their anti-immigrant positions, their embarrassingly patronizing and old-fashioned attitudes toward women and blacks, and the Jesus crap. As much as I'd like to, I can't at this moment say their economic bullshit has to change too--they've been pretty successful at selling it, and their relative honesty with respect to what they want to do to the social safety net didn't seem to harm them as much as Nancy Pelosi hoped (though they kept the House mostly through gerrymandering).

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Name one aspect of conservative politics that is more "radical" than the Contract With America.

  • Paul.||

    I'm not sure what you're getting at. The "Contract" with America was a very staid, calm and rational approach to creating a bullet-pointed plan for limiting the size and scope of government, and attempted to create a more open and transparent government. No wonder liberals lost their fucking minds over things like:

    1.require all laws that apply to the rest of the country also apply to Congress;

    2.select a major, independent auditing firm to conduct a comprehensive audit of Congress for waste, fraud or abuse;

    3.cut the number of House committees, and cut committee staff by one-third;

    4.limit the terms of all committee chairs;

    5.ban the casting of proxy votes in committee;

    6.require committee meetings to be open to the public;

    7.require a three-fifths majority vote to pass a tax increase;

    8.guarantee an honest accounting of the Federal Budget by implementing zero base-line budgeting.

    My wonderfully liberal (at the time) wife was convinced that it was full of anti-abortion rhetoric with a plan to make America a theocracy.

  • T o n y||

    Half of that is pious grandstanding, the other half radical nonsense that would hobble the government.

  • ||

    radical nonsense that would hobble the government.

    I like the sounds of that. Sign me up!

  • ||

    *sound... derp

  • ||

    Yeah, do you honestly want to go back to the bad old days of 1995? When the children that weren't in sex slavery or on the factory floor were starving in the streets without food or health care, wondering where their next abortion and their next Yaz prescription were coming from? DO YOU?! DO YOU?! Do you really want a government that anemic and hobbled?

  • John||

    http://reason.com/archives/201.....w#comments

    Here you go. Everyone here should read this. Seven million fewer white people voted in 12 than 2008. That is not a demographic shift. Seven million white people did not die or move overseas. If they had showed up and voted in the same percentages as the rest of the white electorate, Romney wins easily.

    So so much for the "Demographics make it impossible for the Republicans to win" theory. So who are these people? My guess is that they are libertarian leaning folks who are totally fed up with politics and refuse to participate.

    It may actually be Episiarch's world. God help all of our souls.

  • Paul.||

    You presume, John, that those Seven Million Good Clean White Folks would have broken almost exclusively for Romney.

    It's very likely that those seven million would have voted for Free Stuff.

  • John||

    I am assuming that they would have broken in the same percentages the people who voted actually did. And if they wanted free shit, they would have turned out for Obama. Everyone who wanted free shit did that. People like to show up and vote for free shit.

  • Paul.||

    I disagree. Those 7 million white voters may have very well (sorry, I haven't looked at your link) may have been the slightly disaffected Obama voters that "just weren't feeling it" this time around. I could very easily imagine a scenario where their vote was going to be for Obama or nothing at all.

    Tulpa took issue with an article I was posting before the election, showing a likely victory for Obama based on early voter demographics. Tulpa (in a saner universe- he'd be correct) said that the article couldn't be correct because it presumed that Democrats were going to break exclusively for Obama.

    I argued they would. It looks like they did.

  • The Immaculate Trouser||

    Those 7 million white voters may have very well (sorry, I haven't looked at your link) may have been the slightly disaffected Obama voters that "just weren't feeling it" this time around.

    Doubtful. Obama lost ~5 million of his 2008 voters; do you think that somehow that number *increased* to 7 million? I doubt it.

    I don't know that John's right in his assumptions, but it makes more sense than the notion that Obama's support radically increased by 2 million since 2008... but that it was also too disillusioned to show up and vote.

  • Paul.||

    Hard to say, but had Obama lost, I'd bet that we'd have been treated to 24x7 coverage about the scandal of post-sandy voters being unable to cast their precious votes because of the disruptions to the polls. We were beginning to hear rumblings on it on election night- like they were warming up for the possibility of an Obama loss, and all of those North Eastern, blue state voters being shut out of our vibrant western democracy.

    It's possible those additional ~2 million voters were Sandy Team Blue refugees who never made it to the polls.

  • John||

    That and evangelicals who wouldn't vote for the Mormon.

  • robc||

    Obama lost 2.7M votes in the state of California alone.

    Romney lost 1.4M from McCain's total, so that is about 4M less votes in California.

  • robc||

    My guess is that they are libertarian leaning folks who are totally fed up with politics and refuse to participate.

    That is part of it. However, these are people who voted last time around, so not that much of it.

    There are moderatish people who voted for Obama last time, were disenchanted by him, and didnt like Romney, so didnt vote.

    Of the 7 million, I would bet 5 million fit that pattern.

  • John||

    And some evangelicals who really do hate Mormons. But those people can be reached. They are at least smart enough to know Obama sucks. They are at least not Tony.

  • sarcasmic||

    My guess is that they are libertarian leaning folks who are totally fed up with politics and refuse to participate.

    After this last election went the complete inverse of my ballot, with no exceptions, I don't think I'll bother to vote again.

    Epi's right. There's no point.

  • ||

    So when things don't go your way, you just quit? I'm not sure how surrendering is supposed to advance your cause. Political nihilism won't do anything but allow people you disagree with to overrun you and dictate your life. Yeah, being vastly outnumbered is shitty and seeing your vote outweighed by the benighted masses is sobering, but those should be motivators, things that drive you to get out your message and fight economic ignorance. Giving up is giving in.

  • robc||

    You know its entirely possible to live a life without once thinking about politics.

    Its easier, of course, under a libertarian regime, but its possible under others too.

  • ||

    Of course I know that, but remaining willfully ignorant of and impotent against things you do know that you do not agree with is, in my opinion, a failing. If you claim to have a political stance and refuse to act on it, you're not "not thinking about politics"; you're choosing not to act out against things you claim to stand against. Looking at it as though it's not your problem is ludicrous when it both affects you and can be affected by you. I'm not saying you have to vote or campaign or donate to someone who you think "can win", but by refusing to stand by your principles you are showing yourself to prefer the advancement of your opponents' agendas to your own if it requires you to put forth any effort or sacrifice anything.

  • sarcasmic||

    Giving in implies that there is a chance of winning. But that chance does not exist. So voting is futile.

  • ||

    There's always a chance of winning. It's hard, and it takes time, and it's a gradual, miniscule shift; you might not even see victory in your lifetime. But that doesn't mean it's unattainable, and it doesn't mean that you should quit.

    Glimpsing the Abyss is not the end. The end is when you find your way despite everything and refuse to give in.

  • sarcasmic||

    There's also the principle of it all.

    Choosing between a Republican and a Democrat is like having two armed robbers in my house and being given a choice as to which one will be in charge when they take my stuff and violate my family.

    Even if I don't choose, they're going to do it anyway.

    It makes no difference.

  • ||

    I didn't say "vote Republican to win!", I said "don't give in". You can vote for anyone. You can campaign for anyone. You can campaign against voting, or against the status quo. You can give seminars, and distribute pamphlets, and donate to causes, and even just be successful and hope people emulate you. There's a million things you can do.

    It's not a question of voting to change how things are. It's a question of whether you recognize something as morally or ethically right and refuse to act on it.

  • sarcasmic||

    You can vote for anyone.

    I can vote for someone other than the two robbers, and they're still going to take my stuff and violate my family.

    It doesn't change a thing.

    You can campaign for anyone. You can campaign against voting, or against the status quo. You can give seminars, and distribute pamphlets, and donate to causes, and even just be successful and hope people emulate you. There's a million things you can do.

    Now you're moving the goalposts. All I said was don't think I'll vote again.

    It's a question of whether you recognize something as morally or ethically right and refuse to act on it.

    If acting is not going to change anything, then there is no point other than personal satisfaction. Since I get no satisfaction from the election results consistently being near to or exactly the inverse my ballot, and such a vote changes nothing, I see it as futile and pointless.

  • Paul.||

    I for one look forward to rioting in the streets when Canada bails us out on condition of a strict austerity package.

  • db||

    Sweet. My secret stash of loonies and twonies is going to help me weather the storm.

  • db||

    I don't know about you folks, but I'm going to enjoy watching Obama's approval rating plummet in the coming months. It rose quite a bit since the summer, most likely because people were comparing him with Romney rather than judging him when asked about their approval of his Presidency. That will not last. It will be lile Bush's second term, except maybe worse--there aren't too many more milestones in the war on terror to create spikes of approval.

  • Paul.||

    I don't know about you folks, but I'm going to enjoy watching Obama's approval rating plummet in the coming months.

    What, watching it plummet before the 2012 election wasn't good enough?

    It rose quite a bit since the summer, most likely because people were comparing him with Romney rather than judging him when asked about their approval of his Presidency.

    *ding*

    [Cardboard cutout] couldn't beat Obama.

    there aren't too many more milestones in the war on terror to create spikes of approval.

    Sure, Obama could exact Drone Revenge on the Rioters Libyan Embassy security staff which helped plan and coordinate the attack.

  • radar||

    "their embarrassingly patronizing and old-fashioned attitudes toward women "

    baahahahahahaha....because you know what's totally not patronizing? Reducing women to walking, talking, voting vaginas.

  • Paul.||

  • ||

    ...What the fuck?

  • The Derider||

    You know what's really patronizing? Pontificating about what women should think instead of looking at the evidence of what they do think.

  • ||

    It's beyond hilarious that a Napoleon Complex woman hater like yourself would say this. You really are the stupidest person to ever post on H&R. Well, "person" might be generous. Partisan scumbag fuck is more appropriate.

  • radar||

    I'm going to hate myself for trollfeeding when I hit submit, but what the hell, there's a point to be made here - hey, that's fine - if lefty chicks want themselves to be viewed as all vag, all the time, I'm perfectly happy ro oblige. But you don't get to have it both ways - if you want to be taken seriously as a thinking human, you can indulge in this "I AM GASH, HEAR ME ROAR" horseshit. If you want to elevate the power of the snatch above the possibility of getting a fucking job, being able to pay your bills and avoiding complete fiscal collapse, then you've revealed yourself as a completely unserious person who deserves nothing but scorn and contempt.

  • The Derider||

    If you think that attitude will help get women to agree with you, go for it.

    I'm not too worried about democrats losing the women's vote any time soon.

  • ||

    You also shouldn't be too worried about women going out with you either, Napoleon.

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  • Killazontherun||

    He has a red head in a convertible. His mom lets him drive her around on occasion.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    If you think that attitude will help get women to agree with you, go for it.

    Why would it? Most women have been conditioned by now to think they can have it both ways. Whether the reality matches up to that is an entirely different question.

    When the bureaucratic infrastructure begins breaking down, then they really will have nowhere to go. Sure, you'll have the rare Ackshun GRRRRL type who can keep up in a world where physical strength and industrial skills have a higher social value than desk jobs, but there's a reason Katniss Everdeen is a figment of a liberal woman's imagination, because in real life those types of women are relatively rare, even in this Brave New World of MUH VAGINUH. But most of them will end up looking towards men to protect them.

  • The Derider||

    Good luck with this attitude. I'm sure the women will come flocking in once they realize they need big, strong men to protect them.

  • ||

    Well, you would know, joe, because you are the definition of woman repellent. How's that make you feel?

  • Redmanfms||

    "Good luck with this attitude. I'm sure the women will come flocking in once they realize they need big, strong men to protect them."

    It seems to work fucking gangbusters for the Dems.

  • Alice Bowie||

    All the republicans need to do is get a BLACK Republican that doesn't sell Chicket on 9-9-9 and lies better about being more moderate.

  • The Derider||

    Cain was the best black guy the republicans had.

    Getting 7% of the black vote makes recruiting good black candidates pretty hard.

  • ||

    You're the stupidest poster ever, joe. Does that make you proud?

  • The Derider||

    Your constant presence is a comfort in my times of sorrow.

  • ||

    Thanks, short stuff. Your constant scumbaggery is a pleasant reminder of how detestable partisan scum like you are. Didn't have a call for work today, I guess?

  • ||

    Hey, joe, so can I get an answer from you about how you were stupid enough to have never heard of the "Lie back and think of England" quote? Let alone that you were stupid enough to think it was referring to rape. I'm really confused about how you got to be so stupid, so can you help me out and let me know?

  • ||

    joe, I know you have zero credibility anyway, but how about you answer Warty's question? Even a total moron like you should have known the source. Come on, you can probably manage a half-hearted goalpost move on this. Give it a shot!

  • ||

    Don't scare him away, you dick. I've almost convinced him to stop being a complete pussy long enough to give me an answer.

  • ||

    You're deluding yourself if you think anything could make joe less of a pussy. He'll never answer your question; he's too much of a lying, mendacious shitheel to do that.

  • ||

    Dammit, you scared him off. I'll have to ask him again next time he pops up. One of these days, he'll be drunk enough to give me an answer.

  • The Derider||

    http://www.phrases.org.uk/mean.....gland.html

    Meaning

    A reference to unwanted sexual intercourse - specifically advice to an unwilling wife when sexually approached by her husband.

    PWND?

  • ||

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    You stupid fuck you said it was rape. Well, I'll give you credit, you were true to form and mendaciously moved the goalposts. Unfortunately for you, you're so fucking stupid you thought it was something other than insanely moronic.

    Holy fuck you're stupid. It amazed me sometimes.

  • SugarFree||

    Guys, this isn't funny anymore. joe is so pathetic that I think you should just feel sorry for him. He's short, semi-employed and divorced. Trolling is all he has, just leave him to it.

  • ||

    Fuck, SugarFree, that was harsh. I think you went too far there. It's not cool to talk about how his wife left him and how the only work he can find is as a substitute teacher. That's not cool at all.

  • SugarFree||

    Of course, if joe wants to argue that a resigned wife going with marital sex just to shut up her husband is rape, joe is probably guilty of a few hundred rapes, right? "joe, the wife rapist" is a great handle.

    This is assuming he even had sex with his wife that often. I imagine that someone so short and angry that they have to troll numerous internet boards would have a profound problem maintaining an erection long enough to have successful intercourse.

  • The Derider||

    You think there's a difference between unwanted sexual intercourse and rape?

    HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA

    Husbands used to have the right to rape their wives, you dumb fuck.

  • ||

    You're so dumb it's kind of frightening, joe. Please keep showing us that. Dig that hole, joe. Dig it!

  • JW||

    You think there's a difference between unwanted sexual intercourse and rape?

    Firstly, it was, or later dramas have portrayed that it was, advice given by a mother to her daughter on her wedding night. Sex education wasn't all that it might have been in the early 20th century. The other context is of advice given by a woman friend to a loveless wife. Marriage was a route to economic security for women in Edwardian England and many must have seen the granting of sexual favours as an unwelcome price to pay for it.

    Oh yeah, that's SO rapey.

  • ||

    "Unwanted sex isn't rape; unavoidable sex is." -- Kate Fillion in "Lip Service"

  • ||

    Holy shit, joe! Congratulations. You stood up for yourself. It was a magnificently stupid attempt, but still. Good for you, little guy.

  • ||

    Epi, did you notice how joe ignored the meat of his link?

    'Lie back and think of England', or as it is more often expressed these days 'close your eyes and think of England', was used in two contexts. Firstly, it was, or later dramas have portrayed that it was, advice given by a mother to her daughter on her wedding night. Sex education wasn't all that it might have been in the early 20th century. The other context is of advice given by a woman friend to a loveless wife. Marriage was a route to economic security for women in Edwardian England and many must have seen the granting of sexual favours as an unwelcome price to pay for it.

    The expression is sometimes attributed to Queen Victoria.
  • ||

    The phrase certainly has the moral tone of many Victorian maxims that emphasised effort and forbearance, for example, 'Play up, play-up and play the game', 'If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds' worth of distance run... you'll be a man, my son', etc. There's no evidence that Queen Victoria ever uttered the phrase and circumstantial evidence points entirely the other way as she loved her husband deeply, was an enthusiastic sexual partner and the couple had nine children.

    Who would have expected joe to ignore nuance and twist words in the interest of scoring meaningless points? I mean, that's totally not something a tiny partisan pussy would do.

  • ||

    Like I said, just let him dig his own hole. He needs no assistance from us to look like the biggest woman-hating Napoleon complex scumbag since Neil LaBute.

  • The Derider||

    To iterate:

    Husbands used to have the right to rape their wives, you dumb fuck.

  • ||

    KEEP DIGGING. I FUCKING LOVE IT.

  • JW||

    Husbands used to have the right to rape their wives, you dumb fuck.

    Which has nothing to do with what you posted, shitbag. Nor what anyone else did, for that matter.

    Isn't this the part where you declare that you won the thread?

  • SugarFree||

    Isn't this the part where you declare that you won the thread?

    He was on his HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE TEAM, damn you!

  • SugarFree||

    Which has nothing to do with the origin or the the common usage of the quote, you dumb fuck.

  • ||

    SugarFree, if someone had talked to me on my high school debate team like you do, I'd have punched them in the face.

  • SugarFree||

    How dare you, Warty! I'll take a page from joe's book and come back here and insult you in a few hours when no one is left to read it. That's how you win the internet, you cretin!

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Getting 7% of the black vote makes recruiting good black candidates pretty hard

    Maybe they should start offering them more GIBMEDATS.

  • The Derider||

    Maybe they should stop labeling 93% of black people as parasites.

  • ||

    Hey joe, are you dumber than a rock? Serious question.

  • db||

    Every black person I know is a strong contributor to society. I don't know a leech among them. Their monolithic vote for someone of their own race has to be considered a bit strange though.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Most Black folks I know are strong contributors to society. But EVERY SINGLE ONE? No. Not every single white person either.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    But that shouldn't fool anyone; there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view government's role in society, and the GOP is losing the argument.

    Bullshit.

    The republican ran crappy candidates that lost close elections.

    That's all that happened.

  • Alice Bowie||

    agreed.

    However, if the majority of the people are dependents, republicans don't have a chance.

  • ||

    Well no, that's not actually true, as shown by all the talk about the "47%" quote. The truth is that voting decisions DON'T fall across that line.

    By the way, I'm wondering how you guys keep your rhetoric straight. Are the majority of Republicans plutocrats or dirt-poor? You can't have it both ways.

  • Alice Bowie||

    I think the republicans should consider Condoleezza Rice.

    Can't lose with that one...Unless white men refuse to vote for her, that is.

  • radar||

    HAH! Neocon white men would be the only people voting for Condi. Her record is a bit, um, uneven, wouldn't you say?

  • Alice Bowie||

    Look, if Obama can get 71% of latino votes after deporting a record number latinos...why ny Condi?

    And, if the democrats do some stupid shit like run Joe Biden for President, she's a shoe-in.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    But that shouldn't fool anyone; there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view government's role in society

    "Give me free stuff and make somebody else pay for it!"

  • JW||

    when does the silent part kick in? I could really stand the majority having a good, steaming cup of shut the fuck up.

  • Alice Bowie||

    We are OUT, LOUD, and PROUD...we will NOT SHUT THE FUCK UP !!!

  • ||

    Good luck keeping voters with the strategy of "good and obnoxious".

  • pmarrone5488@gmail.com||

    This is the most two-dimensional, amateurish excuse for a column I have ever seen. He gets his facts wrong, and doesn't seem to understand that the Democrats are a broad-based Party comprised of liberals, conservatives, neoliberals and not just a "liberal" party, which is just the uneducated populist way of understanding political dynamics. Remind me to never read anything this trailer trash writes ever again.

  • db||

    Hahahahahahaha. Why don't you tell your broad-based contingent of facebook friends about it? I'm sure they'll all agree.

  • ||

    I see you are from Massachusetts, not too far from Lowell. Have you seen any short, stupid, angry guys around lately?

  • JW||

    Remind me to never read anything this trailer trash writes ever again.

    Door. Ass. Don't let it hit.

  • whig4life||

    This is the most two-dimensional, amateurish excuse for a column I have ever seen. He gets his facts wrong, and doesn't seem to understand that the Democrats are a broad-based Party comprised of liberals, conservatives, neoliberals and not just a "liberal" party, which is just the uneducated populist way of understanding political dynamics. Remind me to never read anything this trailer trash writes ever again.

  • db||

    Wups? You don't get paid for being the second person to post the talking point.

  • American||

    This comment needs moderator attention.

  • John||

    I am shocked Romney got 7% of the black vote. That is very interesting. If a Republican can get 7% of the black vote with the first black President on the other side, what does a Republican get in 2016, especially if things continue to go so badly for black people.

    Since most white liberals don't actually know any black people, they have very little understanding of them. The liberal crusade against "food deserts" and soda is not going down well in black communities. And neither is framing gay marriage as a civil rights issue. If even 20% of the black vote ever abandons the Democrats, they are in big trouble.

  • ||

    Are you serious?
    10 years ago black republicans were 10-15% of blacks.
    Romney's score is LOW, John.

    Anyway, if I was a black person, I would probably vote for Obama too, just so my kids would know that a black man can be President. I think Colin Powell basically said this. Look, even if you think Obama is shit on the economy, for black people racial identity is going to trump shitty economics for a long time.
    But the D's aren't ALWAYS going ot run minority candidates from now on.

    Also, as I said elsewhere the reason that black vote D so overwhelmingly, is because, as a group, African Americans honestly think society owes them something (500 years of slavery and all that), so telling them to be "self-reliant" isn't going to appeal.

    Not saying that they are RIGHT to feel owed and take it out by demanding welfare. Just that that is how it is, as I see it. The party offering free shit is always going to do well with people who honestly think they are entitled to free shit.

  • John Thacker||

    I think he's agreeing that 7% is low in general, he's actually surprised that Romney got that much because, hey, who can blame black people for voting for the first black President.

    So I think that the two of you agree there.

    McCrory got 13% of blacks.

    Oddly, in NC there was no gender gap among whites, but 9% of black men voted for Romney, 1% of black women. Though polling is unreliable at low percentages.

  • ||

    Libertarians ought to be praying for the Republican party to completely implode.
    It's the one thing that would open the playing field for a new party to emerge.

    Canada saw this happen in the last 10 years, although they have a parliamentary system so the forces that push people into two parties aren't as strong. In the US, the ONLY way for a new party to emerge is for one of the two dominant ones to collapse.
    However, if you follow what happened in Canada, after the "Progressive Conservatives" collapsed, the Reform Party Emerged in Western Canada, and the Bloc Quebecois emerged in Quebec. After 2-3 eleciton cycles, the (New) Reform Party and the rump of the PCs got together and formed the "Canadian Alliance" (IIRC). One more election cycle and a corruption scandel in the liberals later, the Canadian Aliiance morphed into the "Conservative" party and elected Stephen Harper.

    Thing is that there's always dicontents and said discontents are always better off forming a coalition against the established party. Morover the most marginal groups of the dominant coalition tend to get sidelined even more when the dominant coalition no longer needs them to win, which makes them ripe for picking off to form an opposition.

  • John||

    But the party will never completely implode. What is more likely is for it to divide in two and hand a united Democratic party complete control of everything.

  • ||

    If that happened, one of the two factions would eventually "win", partly by peeling off voters from the marginalized factions of moderate Democrats, and partly by being more "electable" from the perspective of the remaining rump faction.

    They would not remain two separate parties for very long, precisely because of the electoral calculations.

  • Coach Panto||

    So what does a libertarian do when the "silent majority" votes against freedom?

    Think about the non-aggression principle. It means we don't initiate force. It doesn't mean we don't respond to force with force.

    Statists put a hardcore marxist into power, and he aggressed against us with nationalizations and higher taxes, and justified it by fraudulent charges of thievery and racism by the "rich".

    So we are justified in legal retaliation. What kind of force should we use?
    Social and economic power, decisions which punish and disadvantage statists:

    1. If you have a statist friend or spouse, get rid of it.
    2. If you have a statist employee under your supervision, fire it.
    3. If you have a statist customer or supplier, get rid of it.

    Do not treat them with dignity when they do not treat us with dignity.

    When they call you greedy or racist, treat it like they called you a pedophile...which means you either boycott them or challenge them to hand to hand combat.

    What they have done to the country is unforgiveable. When the economy contracts as a result of the expanding govt, de-select statists first as you shrink your enterprise, and let them know why you let them go: They were unfit to participate in helping the organization survive, because their philosophy is one of parasitism.

    These people must be de-selected from the gene pool if this species is going to survive. Do what you know you need to do.

  • Calidissident||

    Dondero?

  • RyanXXX||

    Did you type this from your FBI desk or do they let you do it at home?

  • Politics Debunked||

    Obama won in part because he got away with blatant lies

    George Orwell expressed a fear in the book 1984 that leaders would gain so much influence they could: "announce that two and two made five, and you would have to believe it." Previously he wrote: "This prospect frightens me much more than bombs".

    We seem to have reached that point. Obama claimed at the Democratic National Convention on Sept. 6th, 2012: "I'll use the money we're no longer spending on war to pay down our debt".

    Yet the White House site contains his 2013 budget proposal with a table showing his planned national debt at the end of each year through 2022. It adds at least $900 billion to the debt every year, $9.6 trillion over a decade.

    If a CEO lied about his company's finances to get people to buy stock, the public would cry "fraud! send him to jail!". Should we trust someone to run our government that we wouldn't trust to run a company? This isn't a one time gaffe, he has repeated it from the State of the Union in January, through dozens of speeches into October and a campaign commercial.

    People failed to point out his own site contradicts him, there is no need to trust a partisan source. He'll keep lying if people don't spread the word since he gets away with it. See this short video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zJbYNDRn_Y or http://www.PoliticsDebunked.com for more including links.

  • American||

    There are two reasons for this shift in attitudes. There are three groups of people who are going to vote Democrat no matter what, and these are African American, Hispanic Americans, and feminist Americans. The first group gives 95+ support to Obama. The second group gives 72%(estimate) support for the president. This is not, contra Reason, because Hispanics oppose Republican immigration policies. It is because of Democratic economic policies. Most hispanics are poor, and they are much more likely to be dependent on government. If you look at opinion polls of hispanics, they favor democratic economic policies by about the same percentage as they favor his immigration policies.[1][2] That doesn't mean their aren't intelligent, upwardlly mobile hispanics that would be willing to vote Republican or even Libertarian. (continued in reply)

  • American||

    (continued from comment)
    But, as a whole, Hispanics will always support the Democrats. The third group, an ideological group, gives 99% support to the president. These feminists believe in big government, it is the hart and soul of their ideology. They personally don't like men, and they want a big government to redistribute the wealth to them. They hate religous people and want a government that subsidizes their hatred. They want to have sex, and they will never, ever, support a party that has Christians in it, even libertarian Christians. The numbers of the latter two have grown dramatically. All libertarians should be aware of this. For hispanics it is immigration, supported by many libertarians, that has caused this increase. Libertarians should be aware that, if they support immigration, they are making impossible a libertarian society. Feminism is driving the massive youth vote for the Democrats. Yet, many libertarians think it is only fit to decry when it advocates statism, and do not decry the ideology itself.
    1. http://www.vdare.com/articles/.....ris-kobach
    2. http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MS.....sample.pdf

  • ||

    I think you are wrong on two counts.

    Hispanics may like Democrats because they are poor, but that's only true if they stay poor. And their current poverty is a function of being recent immigrants starting from scratch. Hispanics also tend to be hard working and entrpreneurial. Which means they are likely to get wealthier and become more middle class in the future.
    Republicans ought to ease that process along by supporting the Dream act. After all the Dream act just says "you're allowed to live and work here" it's not a handout or a welfare program. It's the freedom to do everything other Americans get to do. It's hypocritical to claim to believe in freedom and oppose the Dream act. And I think THAT is what hurt Republicans the most.

    Second, your perspective of feminists is ludicrous. The kind of feminist you believe in are a tiny number of people. The reason women vote Democrat is (IMO) largely because they are socialized to believe that as a female they are supposed to be concerned about children, the poor and the sick. Women still grow up being presented with teachers and nurses and nuns as role models, and that gets internalized as a generalized concern about healthcare and education policy and such.

  • American||

    "Hispanics also tend to be hard working and entrpreneurial"

    A major problem with this talking point is that not everyone is smart enogh to understand differential calculus. Not everyone can invent something or build a buisness. And not all Janitors value "hard work," for obvious reasons. Many would rather sit at home and collect welfare.
    My position on feminism is not ludicrous. Feminists believe that, "the man" is trying to get them. Thus the government must punish "the man." To a feminist(they can have y chromosomes) a capitalistic society is a society where they have to be reliant on men to help them take care of their children. They want a society where the government always supports them, they can divorce their husband and go on welfare, they can have sex with whoever makes them feel good without having to ask the man to pay for their birth control, and if they ever get pregnant they don't have to drop 1,000$ for an abortion.

  • Calidissident||

    I agree with a lot of your points, but I think that the biggest reason Hispanics and other minorities vote Democrat is cultural branding. I don't think it's really about issues at this point (and to be fair there are groups that vote Republican that this would also apply to). Asians make more money than whites, have lower welfare rates, etc and voted for BHO in greater proportions than Hispanics did. Jews vote Democrat in similar numbers. Almost every racial, ethnic, and religious minority votes Democrat, regardless of educational or economic achievement

  • el Diablo Gigante||

    show me a single "hispanic" country that has its shit together and can function without rampant corruption, and a huge destitute poor population that will never get beyond the basic poverty line.

    Much like the Islamic nations, Hispanic ones are regulated to third world shit holes that subsist on handouts from benefactors. This includes Spain and Portugal as well as nearly all of South America.

  • el Diablo Gigante||

    There are more people who get free shit than there are people who pay for it. Pretty simple really.

  • Fool||

    This article is a pathetic lie. Democrats are deeply concerned about privacy and personal freedoms. Well, sexual freedom. For women and gays.

    Republicans need to run a lesbian n 2016. She probably won't be a social conservative, and we can accuse any Democrats who won't vote for her of being sexist and homophobic. Bonus points if she's black or Hispanic.

  • American||

    For feminist women and gays. No sexual freedom for polygymous Americans or Prostitutes or those who have the audacity to submit to their husbands.

  • hotsy totsy||

    Condaleeza Rice. Have you ever seen her with a man?
    She's super intelligent and accomplished as well.

    The only thing is, she seems like the type who would never run AS a lesbian.

  • JeremyR||

    I think she dates NFL players. Or used to.

  • ||

    I think it's a bit of a stretch to say it's a Liberal nation, if you're talking about popular opinion. Yea, Obama won. Electorally, it was a landslide. Popularly, it was a a photo finish, with Obama just barely able to brag he got the majority of the vote. Romney wasn't conservative, even by neo-con standards, and the voter turnout was less than the last two elections. Also, and you touched on this in the article, the house is very strongly Republican, as well as around two-thirds of state leadership.

    IMHO, the electorate overwhelming said the candidates were underwhelming, and were too chicken to vote third party.

  • Sam Grove||

    Wouldn't it be just as accurate to say that Romney lost handily?

  • MSimon||

    "there's been a fundamental shift in how Americans view government's role in society, and the GOP is losing the argument."

    Uh. The GOP is making the same argument. Just about different stuff. One Progressive Party. Two wings.

  • pradaguccioutlet@gmail.co||

    There was no theoretical hope peddling this time around. There was a record. And Barack Obama also promised the most explicitly left-wing agenda in presidential history—more government, more taxes, more dependency, more bailouts, more regulations—and he won easily. He promised universal health care, more crony "investments" in proven economic losers, more interference in cheap nfl jerseys markets—yet he cruised.

    Conservatives may be shocked by statist slogans such as the Democratic National Convention's "government's the only thing that we all belong to," and they may be scandalized when they hear a candidate say "you didn't build that," but their neighbors ... well, not so much. When you can't beat a candidate who—judging him on his own terms—owns both a brutal economic record on jobs (this is the first time since FDR cheap MLB jerseys that a president has won re-election with an unemployment rate this high) and the feeblest economic recovery in the nation's history, it's time to rethink what you're doing.

  • pradaguccioutlet@gmail.co||

    Optics, rhetoric and perception matter. If Republicans have any hope of persuading independents, they'll need charismatic people, people who look and sound like a modern America and not a boardroom of Brahmin, because real-world competency is no match for fresh packaging and a good slogan. Welcome to democracy.

    The fight starts in Congress. You've no doubt heard that the House is crammed with hard-core right-wingers, folks who have the temerity to represent constituents and take conservative positions. Well, this is also the most left-wing Senate cheap nfl jerseys in history. Warren, Sherrod Brown, Ben Cardin, et al. vote with socialist Bernie Sanders because—despite a gag order on the pundit class—by European standards, that's exactly what they are.

    Whether Republicans mean what they say or not, there will be a distinct debate over the direction of the nation. Right now, left-wing economic populism is the political center. Republicans have a lot of the wrong people in a lot of the right places to change that. If that stands, they've lost for good.

  • زوجناكم||

    thanx

  • nikea||

    The GOP will have an internal battle for direction — and possibly a civil war: Screenplay formula requires that late in every http://www.nikefootballcleatstrade.com/ story, protagonists hit their lowest points, and then spend a few minutes in what’s known as a “long dark night of the soul,” where the protagonist ponders what he’s learned and comes to grip with who he really is. After its second successive presidential loss, the Republican party is likely to perform a similar public http://www.cheapfootballcleatsairs.com/ soul searching, perhaps with a long-simmering public battle.

  • Tablet pc||

    I think Democrats is good for us, and i like them

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement