We lost nationally by 7.25%. We lost in PA by 10.25%. It's a swing state that leans slightly to the Democrats. We need to run better in Bucks/Montco/Delco if we ever want to win this state again, but that describes the problems we have nationally.

which republican party is going to win in those counties, jh? demographics are not in your corner. montco and delco are never going back, and bucks probably isn't either.

pacino wrote:I didn't realize that he won in the primary, cool stuff.

I sort of meant in the 'religious right' portion. The edges of Berks County, Lancaster County and Lebanon County houses some mighty interesting churches.

There's been a battle for the soul of the Lancaster County Republican Party over the last couple of years. Around the early 1990s, the religious fanatics wrested control of the Party from the old-school fiscal conservatives, and subsequently demonstrated that they have no concept of how to govern, their megachurches became hotbeds of corruption and cronyism, and they generally just screwed things up. The Scrooge McDuck types, who can actually govern, are taking some of the power back, as voters realize that the Jesus People are basically retarded when it comes to operating things that require reason and logic.

Bakestar wrote:

pacino wrote:I didn't realize that he won in the primary, cool stuff.

I sort of meant in the 'religious right' portion. The edges of Berks County, Lancaster County and Lebanon County houses some mighty interesting churches.

There's been a battle for the soul of the Lancaster County Republican Party over the last couple of years. Around the early 1990s, the religious fanatics wrested control of the Party from the old-school fiscal conservatives, and subsequently demonstrated that they have no concept of how to govern, their megachurches became hotbeds of corruption and cronyism, and they generally just screwed things up. The Scrooge McDuck types, who can actually govern, are taking some of the power back, as voters realize that the Jesus People are basically retarded when it comes to operating things that require reason and logic.

I'm only 24 so the Sam Rohrer, High Point Baptist church-type republicans are all I know in northeastern Lancaster County /CHester and southern Berks. Thanks for the history.

Coming off our worst set of elections since the great depression, it's hard to see how we're going to run better in those areas. But the Democrats are going to do fifteen retarded things in the next four years and people in the suburbs will get pissed off at them.

Democrats aren't just going to dominate national politics for the next 25 years.

When I served a church in Lancaster, I really felt like I was the only one who wasn't a diehard conservative there. And as much as some Obama-ites worship the guy, damn if the people at the Bush rally in 2004 didn't just about cry when Airforce One landed at the Lancaster Airport.

democrats are going to dominate those counties, though. demographic shift is beyond anyone's control. i'm not talking conversions, i'm talking people moving from philly/ny/jersey into those counties. and it's happening. and of those moving in, democrats outnumber republicans, and it's been slowly happening since the 1960s

I wonder why. Only old people living near the beach?

people have moving out of urban areas into more suburbanized areas for 50 years now, and those people are majority democrat who closely vote straight ticket. the exodus from philly has largely slowed to a crawl, but not before a large population of white and black, and mostly democratic, voters moved into the suburban counties over the past 10-15 years.

Rev_Beezer wrote:When I served a church in Lancaster, I really felt like I was the only one who wasn't a diehard conservative there. And as much as some Obama-ites worship the guy, damn if the people at the Bush rally in 2004 didn't just about cry when Airforce One landed at the Lancaster Airport.

People parked in front of my parents house and walked the three miles to the Airport.

I was the only person in my first grade class to vote for Mondale in our little mock election...

(Beez, I apologize for using the pejorative "Jesus People," a term I reserve for a particular species of socially conservative "Christian" who tends to actually ignore, you know, the teachings of Christ).

jh - so why should republicans be against that bill? what was wrong with it? did they not like the bill they helped design?

Last 20 years of presidential elections in PA, % more Democratic statewide than national Dem/GOP split...

1988 - 5.41%
1992 - 3.46%
1996 - 0.69%
2000 - 3.17%
2004 - 4.96%
2008 - 3.06%

Fairly consistent slight Dem lean. Definitely a toss up state though.

Bakestar wrote:
People parked in front of my parents house and walked the three miles to the Airport.

I was the only person in my first grade class to vote for Mondale in our little mock election...

(Beez, I apologize for using the pejorative "Jesus People," a term I reserve for a particular species of socially conservative "Christian" who tends to actually ignore, you know, the teachings of Christ).

Not offended at all, I know what you mean.
The church I was working with at the time was on the corner of Lititz Pike and Delp Road, and people parked in the church parking lot and walked all the way there.

pacino wrote:jh - so why should republicans be against that bill? what was wrong with it? did they not like the bill they helped design?

The Dems writing it, then smiling and nodding when the GOP brings up their dealbreakers in the bill without changing them doesn't mean "helped design". When House GOPers were bringing up objections, Obama answered, "I won."

He did, he can pass the damn bill with his majorities. Holding meetings and/or listening to the other side while not changing anything substantive didn't count as bipartisanship for you guys when Bush was president, I don't think this all of a sudden counts as bipartisanship since Obama is president.

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:jh - so why should republicans be against that bill? what was wrong with it? did they not like the bill they helped design?

The Dems writing it, then smiling and nodding when the GOP brings up their dealbreakers in the bill without changing them doesn't mean "helped design". When House GOPers were bringing up objections, Obama answered, "I won."

He did, he can pass the damn bill with his majorities. Holding meetings and/or listening to the other side while not changing anything substantive didn't count as bipartisanship for you guys when Bush was president, I don't think this all of a sudden counts as bipartisanship since Obama is president.

the nah nah nah nah nah nah defense.

solid. so no substantive reasons.

pacino wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

pacino wrote:jh - so why should republicans be against that bill? what was wrong with it? did they not like the bill they helped design?

The Dems writing it, then smiling and nodding when the GOP brings up their dealbreakers in the bill without changing them doesn't mean "helped design". When House GOPers were bringing up objections, Obama answered, "I won."

He did, he can pass the damn bill with his majorities. Holding meetings and/or listening to the other side while not changing anything substantive didn't count as bipartisanship for you guys when Bush was president, I don't think this all of a sudden counts as bipartisanship since Obama is president.

the nah nah nah nah nah nah defense.

solid. so no substantive reasons.

I answered one of your three questions. That's pretty good. I've been getting kicked in the balls basically for six hours now.

As for the other two - A 40-Year Wish List

i've read it. was that supposed to make me against the package? it further cemented my view that it's a needed bill with worthwhile ideas in it. why we have the idea that we must fix 'bridges and highways' and yet ignore mass transport because you don't get dollar for dollar back is beyond me. you get NOTHING back for highways that aren't toll. the idea that mass transit is inefficient is a myth. it's been unfairly pitted against an overfunded highway and road system for years now.

what's the problem wtih money for food stamps(which is a nutritional program), medicaid, cobra, and SSI? These are needed programs that free up money for people to spend (which they have to), and will positively affect the lives of MILLIONS instantly. To deny that food stamps props up business is to deny existence itself. I see it EVERY DAY. Within 30 days thousands of new people will have more money in their pocket which they MUST spend within 3 months or its gone. That's how FS works. The horror of money going towards education.

This was written by someone who wanted bridges, highways, roads, and an sload of tax cuts and nothing else. broadband and electric grid development are 'arguably' worthwhile.

Seeing as the Republicans did pretty much nothing but play politics when they were in charge--how many days in the 109th Congress were spent on flag burning? Terri Schiavo? the anti-gay marriage amendment?--it seems like too much to expect them to do anything else now that they have no power. It's annoying, but not unexpected or, given who they are in 2009, illogical.

They've been all tactics, no strategy for about 12 years now. Maybe they can return to power on a wave of Democratic corruption or failure; that still wouldn't do much to address the problems of the country.

And actually, given how bad things probably would have to get under the Democrats to push the public past Bush's failures while his party spouts the same ideas he failed with, certainly at least the Republicans who own property, or aspire one day to do so, should be praying that Obama does okay.

I don't really think the stimulus is going to work.

I'm most interested in how Obama handles the failure over the next year, and what he plans to do next.

FTN wrote:I don't really think the stimulus is going to work.

I'm most interested in how Obama handles the failure over the next year, and what he plans to do next.

How are you defining "work"?

If you mean "turn the economy around within 12 months," you're probably right. But given that, and the fact that he got zero votes from their House caucus, he probably just should have loaded that sucker up with more spending; if you're going to own it, you might as well make someone happy. The real left folks don't love this package either.

He'll have to rely on a counterfactual argument: "if we hadn't passed the stimulus, unemployment wouldn't be 9 percent--it would be 11 percent." That's a tough sell. OTOH, he might be playing for the trajectory of Reagan's first term: things initially got much worse, then it turned around just in time for him to win landslide re-election.

The thing is, Obama's big-ticket items that he campaigned on--health care, sustainability--also will require enormous spending. And if he shoots his bolt with stimulus only, it'll be that much harder to do the things he wanted to do before the economy melted down. If you believe, as I do, that those things are important, he has to try and at least take some steps in those directions while also addressing the crisis.