Lucky Forward
Member
This individual is Chairman of the
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
PoliGAF 2015 |OT2| Pls print
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
This individual is Chairman of the
No, that's Lamar Smith. Still probably true, but not who they were referring to in that quote.
Lucky Forward
Member
Actually I meant to say "Senate" subcommittee.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astr...l_oversee_senate_committee_for_oversight.html
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Daniel B is 40-something.
Plinko
Wildcard berths that can't beat teams without a winning record should have homefield advantage
Every election we have the same thing happen: "If the candidate is Romney/Trump/etc., I'm voting democrat or staying home!"
Then election day comes around and they nearly always vote for the GOP guy. Like clockwork.
Atomic Playboy
Member
It's like the people who swear up and down "if _____ is elected, I'm leaving this country!" Not one person in the history of time has ever followed up on that threat. People talk big, but it's hard to break away from the familiar; if you're a lifelong Republican voter, it's hard to take the step of actually voting for Hillary just because the (R) is next to Trump.
Bam Bam Baklava
Member
If that was true David Vitter would be Gov-elect right now. Sometimes a candidate is so bad that they can blow it no matter what. Martha Coakley would be another good example.
Aaron Strife
Banned
There's a reason Ann Coulter is against women's suffrage.
Ignoring the sheer stupidity and pettiness of her suggestion, she's wrong - Obama, Clinton and Carter all won men in their first elections. They all lost them for re-election, but that's besides the point.
brainchild
Banned
If any GOP candidate becomes president, I'll be posting pictures of me moving to my new house in Canada. Guaranteed.
Aaron Strife
Banned
'sup. I could live with Bush, Kasich or Rubio (who would probably be more about preserving the status quo than anything else) but that's about it. I wouldn't trust Trump, Carson or Cruz with the nuke codes.
Is it just me or does the media seem to be working in overdrive to assure us that Trump's star is going to come crashing down any day now? Clap your hands harder, Politico and it might actually happen!
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
As an interesting side note, the United States is almost unique in Western democracies in that women are more likely to vote for the leftwing party than the rightwing one compared to men.
Poodlestrike
Banned
I wouldn't trust Trump, Carson, or Cruz with the keys to my car, let alone the nuclear codes.
You bet your ass one of those three wins I'm getting the hell out of dodge as soon as I wrap up my degree.
campfireweekend
Member
Wait, it's flipped in other countries? That's weird.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
How did John Bel Edwards get elected?
Veritigo_X
Member
I've noticed a lot of negative articles about his recent comments, but it really seems business as usual. Media calls him out, Trump ducks and dodges, his supporters eat it up.
Articles are saying he's a fascist and comparing him to Nazis but the reaction from Trump and his supporters is exactly the same.
Coriolanus
Banned
Not really. Much like how what are considered minorities in the US usually back the conservative option in their country of origin.
Do recall that in the last election down here the largest brazilian communities in the exterior were polled over who should be elected. The conservative option accrued 80%+ in nearly every country that had a significant BR community.
Basileus777
Member
Any evidence backing this? It's a strange comparison to women in any case.
Frank the Great
Banned
There's a left wing party???
Third Strike
Member
If a Republican gets in, and then subsequently packs the Supreme Court with conservatives, then I'm out. Hopefully Trudeau makes immigration easier...
Coriolanus
Banned
What links i can provide are in portuguese. Well, and castelaño. Macri rekt Cristina outside the country. I'll venture a wild guess and say that Maduro also doesn't poll that well outside of Venezuela.
This is tied to that thing that gets brought up on occasion here, where it's explained that what's really holding back conservative appeal amongst minorities isn't their economic policies (which could very easily gain traction), but racism and xenophobia, and if the reps would just drop those bloody topics, they could very well become a greater threat.
Yellowtail
Member
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal-a/2015_11/why_the_gop_has_grown_so_hosti058754.phpPew Research surveyed 35,071 Americans between June and September of 2014 and compiled information about their religious and political beliefs. O
Some things have been remarkably stable. For example, separate research by Pew shows that party preference among whites has been nearly identical in the last three elections: (2010: 37D 60R, 2012: 39D 59R, 2014: 38D 60R).
That 59% Republican number from 2012 serves as the baseline for the popular vote calculator used at Latino Decisions. You can play around with the racial and turnout variables to see how small changes can alter the outcome of our presidential elections. This doesn’t account for the Electoral College, of course, but the popular vote predicts the winner most of the time, doesn’t it?
One thing you’ll discover is that if the white percentage of the vote comes in as predicted at 70.5% and the Republicans continue to get 59% of the white vote and other ethnic groups’ preferences and turnout hold constant then the GOP candidate will need about 47% of the Latino vote in order to win the popular vote. It’s actually worse than this because the calculator assumes that without Obama at the top of the ticket, the Republican will get 12% of the black vote rather than the 6% Romney received.
More statistically significant, however, is the fact that Romney only received an estimated 27% of the Latino vote in 2012. So, here’s what this looks like for the Republicans. If they can double the percentage of black votes they got in 2012 and do 20% better among Latinos, they can win the popular vote without doing any better (or worse) with white voters.
Numbers like these are daunting, and they explain why the Republican National Committee’s post-2012 Growth and Opportunity Report (better known as “The Autopsy Report”determined that passing comprehensive immigration reform was an absolute prerequisite for them having any chance of winning the presidency in 2016. This is why the Senate Republicans made it a top priority in 2013 and ultimately passed a bill in a bipartisan 68-32 vote that included 14 members of their caucus.
I don’t think I need to belabor this point, but what happened next is not going to help the eventual Republican nominee improve twenty points on Romney’s performance with Latinos. If Donald Trump is their nominee, I think he’ll be fortunate to get half the Latino votes that Romney gathered.
Now, here’s the important point.
Since the Republicans didn’t pursue the easier path of improving their popularity with Latinos, they have no choice to jack up that 59% number they got with whites. Let’s look at how much they’ll need.
Using the other Latino Decisions assumptions, if the GOP gets 27% of the Latino vote, they’ll need 62% of the white vote to win the popular vote. If they get only 13% of the Latino vote, they need 64% of the white vote to win the popular vote. And, again, both of these predictions assume that the GOP will double their support in the black community and also not lose any Asian or “Other” voters.
It’s probably a lot easier to get new voters from a group that is generally opposed to you than it is to keep adding voters to a group you’re dominating. In other words, it might be an easier task for the Republicans to get back to the 40-plus percent Latino support that George W. Bush once enjoyed than to grow their white support from 59% to 64%.
But it’s the latter strategy (if we can call it a strategy) that the Republicans are pursuing. They need to racially polarize the electorate in a way that gets them 3-5% more of the white vote.
They can do some of this through turnout instead, of course, so if they can keep lots of blacks and Latinos from voting in the first place, they don’t need to improve quite so much with whites.
I think what’s key to understanding this situation is that the Republicans actually have crossed the Rubicon and they no longer have the option of going back and pursuing more of the Latino vote. They must pursue more of the white vote and there are not too many ways to do that other than aggravating racial consciousness and jacking up the sense of white racial grievance.
This has been a mainstay of conservative/Republican electoral strategy since at least the time that Nixon pursued the Southern Strategy, but I doubt that it’s ever been this much of an urgent and indispensable part of their path to success.
So, we’re seeing two things: a revival of open racism that had been dormant on the presidential campaign trail, and continued efforts to suppress the minority vote. These aren’t really choices anymore. They can’t win any other way.
There's an assumption some people are making right now (particularly on conservative websites) that Trump will be able to drive up the white vote in the general election by appealing to disaffected white working class voters (either by converting "Reagan Democrats" or turning out "missing whites"), but I think that's a mistake. Whatever gains he'd make with working class voters, he'd lose among upscale suburban whites, particularly white women. The latest Marquette poll shows Trump polling fifth in the Milwaukee suburbs in the GOP primary, and the only Republican to lose to Clinton and Sanders there in a general election. The suburbs saved Romney from getting routed in many swing states in 2012. I'd like to see whether other good swing state polls like Selzer confirm Trump's electoral weakness in suburbia.
Also, I think the electoral benefit of the Republican Party at least superficially reaching out to minorities isn't so much to actually win over minority voters (who see the GOP brand exactly for what it is) but to make moderate white voters feel comfortable voting for them. I doubt Rubio can turn the needle much with Hispanic voters outside of Florida, but he can make whites who want to vote Republican without feeling they're endorsing open bigots vote for him. Trump is the very opposite of that.
Hey, our Supreme Court situation isn't all sunshine and rainbows*:
*Actually Harper appointing all those justices didn't stop them from giving him hell, and none of them seem as blatantly partisan as their American counterparts, but it is still worrying to see how much one party can have over the process. If a Republican appointed 7/9, America would be doomed.
BertramCooper
Banned
Anyone else catch the predictably unhinged Karl Rove interview on Tom Ashbrook today?
It's pretty entertaining.
It's pretty entertaining.
Fenderputty
Banned
Was there any math involved?
BertramCooper
Banned
Nah, just some bizarre William McKinley ball-licking and a few hilarious rants about unions ("Citizens United leveled the playing field!"), Dodd-Frank and Donald Trump.
What did they talk about? And is there a link?
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Well, no. It's flipped in the United States, therefore you're weird.
I've read a few papers on it and the main suggestion for it is that women are typically taught/encouraged to value family and family morality much more than men, which leads to them being more likely to vote for conservative parties because of the emphasis on said family values. I think the Republican Party would also probably get the majority of the woman vote if it weren't for the fact they were so obviously misogynistic.What's even more interesting, though, is that the trend of women-voting-for-rightist-parties actually disguises the fact that in many of these countries, young women (30 and below), are *far* more likely to vote for the leftist party than young men. The difference of opinion between young women and old women absolutely dwarves the difference of opinion between young men and old men.
BertramCooper
Banned
Half of it is about Rove's stupid new book about William McKinley.
The other half is the predictable (but entertaining as ever) Karl Rove shitcockery.
http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/11/24/karl-rove-jeb-bush-election-2016-william-mckinley
campfireweekend
Member
Well, no. It's flipped in the United States, therefore you're weird.
What's even more interesting, though, is that the trend of women-voting-for-rightist-parties actually disguises the fact that in many of these countries, young women (30 and below), are *far* more likely to vote for the leftist party than young men. The difference of opinion between young women and old women absolutely dwarves the difference of opinion between young men and old men.
How does this affect the policy platforms of parties in these countries?
Like is the right leaning party better on women's health issues because of their support, or does the left leaning party support more women's health issues regardless of receiving less support?
Yuuup, especially with a new Liberal party in power there. I'm young and in a generally healthy field (computer science to be general) and no dependents or house or personal car to think about. It would be an easy move provided Canada doesn't build a wall, because I wouldn't blame them if Trump, Carson, or Cruz become President.
Lol, I guess all of the above is FYGM in a way but damn, I'm sorry, self preservation rules out here. I'm out but I'll try to convince as many friends and family to join and of course help them out after I'm settled.
Manmademan
Member
Well, no. It's flipped in the United States, therefore you're weird.
What's even more interesting, though, is that the trend of women-voting-for-rightist-parties actually disguises the fact that in many of these countries, young women (30 and below), are *far* more likely to vote for the leftist party than young men. The difference of opinion between young women and old women absolutely dwarves the difference of opinion between young men and old men.
yeah, but the "left" party is the US is basically a center right party anywhere else in the world. ACTUAL left wing politics doesn't exist here.
Our "right wing" are hard right xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, gun loving evangelical lunatics. Women tend not to warm to those in huge numbers.
campfireweekend
Member
Weird how people always repeat this when so many of the "center left" and even "socialist" parties of Europe were complicit in austerity while our "center right" party fought so hard for stimulus.
Thing is, Republican economic policies hurt the poor working class, and disproportionately hurt minorities. This is part of why the Southern Strategy works so well, since all the economic damage can be sold to racist whites as stopping "moochers". If they did somehow do a 180 on social issues, and made the difference between the parties as far as identity politics goes negligible (I have no idea how, right wing media alone would ruin any such attempt), then any minority voters they'd gain would be more than offset by losses from poor whites starting to vote in their economic self interest again.
In our two party system, any sufficiently large bloc of voters simply has to be catered to by one of the two parties, or the other will pursue it and the smaller groups within the big tents will find a new equilibrium. The Dixiecrats are still too large to abandon, and I can't even conceive of what a GOP attempt to drop identity politics would look like. Like, what would even be the first steps? They couldn't even get past their own post-mortem. Any such attempt would have to be top down, because it's clear that their base won't have any of it.
The Republicans really seem to be in a pretty stable demographic pit trap of their own making.
Manmademan
Member
there are no socialist parties in the US. the closest you'll get is bernie sanders and that's one guy from vermont.
Get a democrat and a republican on a debate stage about economics, and you'll have a circlejerk about who loves capitalism more.
I think it would look a lot like what we're seeing now. A deep divide between moderate/establishment republicans who want one thing, and complete lunatics falling over themselves to nominate people like Donald Trump that double down on racism whenever they can.
It's not hard to imagine a scenario where the donald (or someone with his appeal) goes third party and takes a ton of support with him, splitting the GOP in half- or at least reduces it by a third. Vulnerable republicans in the house would go along with the movement or get primaried into oblivion, which is exactly what happened with the tea party in 2010.
brainchild
Banned
Good to know I'm not alone. Maybe in the unlikely event that Trump, Carson, or Cruz wins, we'll all have a PoliGAF meetup commemorating our migration!
campfireweekend
Member
I'm not disputing that. All I'm disputing is what you said, that the Democratic party is equivalent to center right parties in other countries.
What's your response to what I actually said? Why did our "center right" party support Keynesian stimulus while the left leaning parties of Europe were complicit in austerity?
I would also argue your second point is only true on the surface. The economic policies of the Democrats are substantively different than those of the Republicans. Just because they're forced to couch progressive ideas in capitalist "ran rah" America speak doesn't change that.
Manmademan
Member
honest answer I'm not sure where you're from, so can't comment on it, beyond that to to say right and left politics go beyond one specific economic event in the recession. in the broader sense that's true.
But you also have to realize that republicans (the right wing here) don't actually object to stimulus. NEITHER party does. google the "bridge to nowhere" project in alaska, or any number of military bases whose purposes are to manufacture outmoded tanks and boats we'll never use. Republicans are just fine with funneling money to pet projects, the military, religious programs like abstinence only education etc, private charter schools over public, or the completely unpaid for Medicare Part D during Dubya's administration, etc.
The "right" only embraced austerity here during the recession because it was the opposite of what obama wanted. that is currently their entire philosophy. Everything Obama wants is bad, even if it's a clone of republican policies from half a decade ago like Romneycare.
Current democrats have policies that are identical to the GOP in the nixon administration. Democrats from the 70s are virtually extinct.
shinra-bansho
Member
I don't really think there are any socialist parties in power in any Western democracy. I don't think the major left-wing parties out of power are for the most part socialist parties. I can't really think of one off the top of my head right now at least where they're actually socialist and not just using the label like Sanders.
campfireweekend
Member
California, and yeah, I remember Nixon's famous quote, "We're all Keynesians now."
You're right on the larger point that our left wing in America isn't as left as most other left wing parties elsewhere. That's observable.
I just don't know that I'd go so far to say that the Democrats are roughly equivalent to the Conservatives in the UK or Canada, or the Republicans in France, the Christian Democrats in Germany etc, except in the perception that those parties being conservative, must pay lip service to policies such as single payer Healthcare (something Democrats can barely talk about). But they're only paying that lip service in the same way our conservatives pay lip service to Medicare, because it's already part of the social fabric.
Manmademan
Member
this is what I was getting at. There are differences in economic policy between democrats and republicans, but neither is socialist. One is simply more extreme than the other- we're arguing over the size of tax cuts going to the wealthy, and to what extent private healthcare companies should be regulated.
We're NOT talking about any serious wealth redistribution or equality measures, or socialized healthcare or higher education. neither party is anywhere close.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Oh yeah, well just wait until Jeremy Corbyn gets elected (lmao)
Coriolanus
Banned
Western democracy? Would be hard pressed to find one in the whole world.
Venezuela.
Butts-a-plenty
Banned
Huntington would disagree with you that Venezuela is a part of Western Civilization. It really depends on ones interpretation of "the west". I myself have always thought of Mexico, Central America and South America as distinct culturally from "the west" for whatever reason. I'd attribute it mostly to the west always being 1 for 1 with the First World of the Cold War period.
He said whole world.
j_k_redtail
Member
Gotta say this has been my observation as well, in the MidAtlantic. This is a big, diverse country and GOP primary polls don't reflect that. Trump's boosters are vastly overestimating his appeal.
D
Deleted member 231381
Unconfirmed Member
Do we mean socialist as in worker ownership of the means of production, or socialist as in pro-redistribution/social welfare nets? That changes the colour of the answer.
Abinash117
Member
Well, no. It's flipped in the United States, therefore you're weird.
What's even more interesting, though, is that the trend of women-voting-for-rightist-parties actually disguises the fact that in many of these countries, young women (30 and below), are *far* more likely to vote for the leftist party than young men. The difference of opinion between young women and old women absolutely dwarves the difference of opinion between young men and old men.
American women is more split in racial demographics. In other 'western countries' the women is overwelming one race. I think it depends on what race you are talking about I would think Hispanic fits with the family value stuff; but they still vote in large numbers for democrats. I don't think the GOP being racist or women-hating have most to do with it. It is mainly culture, history, and economic interests, since the GOP in 2012 won the white women vote I think. How I heard it describe is that in general women are slightly more liberal then men are at least in the US. What's different in the US is that the main parties have diverse subgroups and the two parties cover every single issue that there is.
Also, we do have a socialist party it just very small.
Well, I think it's worth noting that even Canada's Conservatives embraced Kenynesianism during the recession.
The Democrats have undeniably been center-right since at least the 80s. Reagan shifted the entire spectrum to the right, and Clinton's entire governing philosophy was to advocate for progressive social policy alongside more conservative economics. The party followed suit, and though Obama's election was expected to be the end of the "Reagan Era" (given his pro-stimulus / anti-NAFTA rhetoric), the reality is that not much has changed (Obama loves the TPP!).
Thankfully the progressive wing seems to be growing, but the impact of Third Way/New Democrats will be felt for quite a while longer.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked