Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
On a similar note to Fighteer's:
http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/11/13/1180251/five-ways-the-religious-right-imploded-in-2012/
Think Progress, of what I can tell, notes that a generational shift is beginning to break-up the lock-step power of the Religious Right voting bloc that the Republicans had since the Reagan Revolution.
You know, I've been one of the most outspoken critics of the Cult of Centrism, but increasingly I think that we should abandon that term. While it is perfectly on the nose, here's the facts: people like Barkey hear it and rather than thinking "Oh, they're talking about those that subscribe exclusively to the Golden Mean Fallacy" they think "This is liberals being raging liberals!"
Cult of Centrism may be catchy, but I'm not sure it serves the goals it was written to.
@Greenmantle: The VA is a huge success story, as is Medicare. So you are correct, and I forgot that we already have models on which to base such a system.
@Kostya: It's not Catholics driving the Religious Right. It's mainly Protestants and Baptists and other evangelical groups.
That little bit of Insane Troll Logic never ceases to amuse me. It's also true that the military is very conservative (in the original sense of the term) and has an insanely high testosterone quotient, plus a lot of its enlistees come from ... you guessed it, Southern White backgrounds.
edited 13th Nov '12 2:19:26 PM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"That raises an interesting point. The military is actual the most socialist institution in the country when you get down to it. However since socialism is bad and the military is good the military can't be socialist.
I know that but I expected Romney would win more of them than Obama based solely on the pro-life and anti-gay marriage stances they tend to take.
edited 13th Nov '12 2:18:54 PM by Kostya
The Catholic Church is more pro-life and anti-marriage equality than most American Catholics.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.But there are a lot of Catholics among minority groups: blacks and Hispanics in particular. Their tendency to vote Democrat regardless of religious affiliation is what's swinging that pendulum, I'll bet.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I'm with you on this one Fighteer. I'm still seething that Eliot Spitzer, by most accounts a good man dedicated to giving NY State politics a much-needed cleaning got canned because he likes hookers.
Um, hookers ain't the reason NY State is second to Illinois in being the Ur-Example of Fifthy Politics.
It was an honorRick Perry and RedState founder Erick Erickson are calling would-be secessionists to stand down.
edited 13th Nov '12 3:18:41 PM by tclittle
"We're all paper, we're all scissors, we're all fightin' with our mirrors, scared we'll never find somebody to love.""We here at Red State are American citizens. We have no plans to secede from the union," he wrote on the site Tuesday. "If you do, good luck with that, but this is not the place for you."
Okay, that's hilarious.
I guess it comes down to perceptions. Claiming to be an "independent" is a cheap way to raise yourself above party politics, which appeals to the Cult of Centrism (sorry for overusing it, but it's a valid critique). Third parties, on the other hand, are wacky fringe groups that nobody respects. Nobody said politics had to be logical.
As for the demagoguery, it does seem that the "career politician" types are admitting defeat, or at least conceding the victory. It's the folks at the far end of the spectrum — libertarians and Tea Party style obstructionists — who are vowing to press the party even farther right, more or less as predicted. This could still end up with a full on break between the establishment and radical right.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"^^
Libertarians tend to favor bigger government. Libertarians don't like nanny-ism.
Also, Democrats are pro gun control, where as being anti gun control is an extremely important and key Libertarian issue. What Libertarians ideally want is as little of a government footprint as possible when it comes to civil rights and freedoms. They tend to be in the "Why not? Doesn't affect me.." category where abortion and gay marriage are concerned, where as they also tend to be pro drug legalization, pro prostitution legalization, and against tighter gun control.
What I'm trying to get across is that what's murdering the Republicans is the alienation of independent or moderate voters as the slide down the scale further into extremism, and that it won't do the Democrats any favors to do the same. While I do agree with you in the fact that Democrats need to sack up and stick to their guns, you often make it seem like the Dems aren't liberal enough, as opposed to just seriously lacking conviction.
What do you call people who split right down the middle compared to the two parties then? You know, folks like me who are pro-choice, pro gay rights, but also pro-gun and against allowing illegal immigration to run unchecked?
edited 13th Nov '12 4:07:40 PM by Barkey
This is why I remain cynical of the idea that the GOP could ever fall and allow for the Dems to fall to the right and Greens take the left.
From 1980-2008,we had nothing but Neo-Cons taking up the GOP beating out the Rockefeller's with the disgrace of Nixon and unpopularity of Ford. And for a while that was the way of that party.
Then Iraq started raising the debt too high,and the recession struck,which pretty much ended any good,serious Neo-Con's chance of winning. There was disarray for a little while,but the Tea Party quickly took over that part.
Now the Tea Party is causing turbulence,forcing Repubs to rethink just like 2008 when Neo-Cons brought disaster or 1980 when the Rockefeller style fell out.
So you say the libertarians are angered? That means if not checked,they will probably be the new face of the GOP.
The GOP isn't falling,it's transitioning and will keep doing that as long as it is unified against "socialism".There's just enough unity to stop a Whig-style fallout.
edited 13th Nov '12 4:13:02 PM by terlwyth
Barkey: I don't think that's true. Something like 90+% of the country is a partisan in some fashion or another. What's more likely the case is that the Republicans just can't keep up the turnout. It's not independents, it's moderate Republicans.
And Dems aren't liberal enough, and I'm happy to go through it on a case by case basis, but I suspect what you think of as "liberal" isn't what liberal actually means.
edited 13th Nov '12 4:16:41 PM by TheyCallMeTomu
When I say Liberal, I'm applying it to the American standard for Liberal.
Anyhow, I was a Moderate Republican, but I've voted Obama two elections in a row.. So whatever that makes me.
Honestly, I'd say I'm a Libertarian. Unfortunately there isn't any opportunity to seriously vote that way.
edited 13th Nov '12 4:19:43 PM by Barkey

Currently? No. It would need to hire a ton of people, ideally from the insurance companies themselves. There would be a transition period that the GOP would do their best to sabotage, just to prove their point that it wouldn't work.
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"