jerseyhoya wrote:3. I am going to read to you a list of names of public figures. Please tell me whether your feelings toward each of them are very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative -- or if you don't know who they are. Are your feelings toward (FILL PUBLIC FIGURES) very positive, somewhat positive, somewhat negative, or very negative -- or don't you know who he/she is?

4 3 2 1 0
VERY SOMEWHAT SOMEWHAT VERY
FIGURES POSITIVE POSITIVE NEUTRAL NEGATIVE NEGATIVE WHO? MEAN

Ted Stevens......36.0%....42.7%.....6.0%....10.8%.....4.5%.....0.0%...2.949
Lisa Murkowski...29.6%....43.0%.....8.3%....12.3%.....6.7%.....0.0%...2.764
Sean Parnell.....23.1%....48.5%....13.1%....12.1%.....3.2%.....0.0%...2.763
Ralph Samuels.....9.5%....19.8%....19.1%.....5.0%.....2.5%....44.1%...2.516
Bill Walker.......6.9%....21.9%....24.9%.....5.1%.....2.5%....38.7%...2.418
Mead Treadwell....7.6%....17.2%....23.5%.....7.0%.....1.0%....43.6%...2.415
Don Young........21.9%....34.9%....11.7%....20.7%....10.9%.....0.0%...2.361
Joe Miller.......11.7%....25.7%....19.1%....11.9%.....6.1%....25.4%...2.335
Sarah Palin......32.3%....23.8%.....8.1%....15.5%....20.4%.....0.0%...2.320
Jay Ramras........6.0%....26.1%....14.9%....11.9%.....5.3%....35.7%...2.241
Sheldon Fisher....2.6%.....6.5%....18.9%.....3.7%.....1.2%....67.1%...2.171
Eddie Burke.......3.4%....10.3%....15.3%....14.0%....10.0%....46.9%...1.681
Mark Begich......12.1%....23.9%....10.2%....19.4%....34.3%.....0.0%...1.603



Alaska GOP Primary voters

I'm not sure what's the more surprising number. Ted Stevens' or Palin's. Major wow at Palin's approval being so brutal.

Murkowski throttling Palin's candidate in the primary.

Is this a trick question? Because your narrative description identifies 5 possible responses, while the #s for each name indicate 6 responses.

I would ordinarily jump to the conclusion that the 4th of the 6 %ages is "neutral" or the like - but I have not jumped, because you can be one tricky bugger.

my read of that poll is "to be known is to be mostly loved - unless you're an uppity bitch, in which case you'll be loved, but not really loved".

but it mostly looks like the poll sucks.

32.3%....23.8%.....8.1%....15.5%....20.4%

Palin's viewed positively by 56.1% of GOP primary voters in Alaska, negatively by 35.9%. I find that number astonishingly bad for her. These are her people.

Meanwhile, corrupt Ted Stevens is at 79/15.

Ted Stevens just got traded for John McCain+cash, Wolf Blitzer confirmed via his Twitters.

W

jerseyhoya wrote:32.3%....23.8%.....8.1%....15.5%....20.4%

Palin's viewed positively by 56.1% of GOP primary voters in Alaska, negatively by 35.9%. I find that number astonishingly bad for her. These are her people.

Meanwhile, corrupt Ted Stevens is at 79/15.

well she did quit on them

Someone thought this was a good idea to compile into a report and send to the press

Amazing

jerseyhoya wrote:Someone thought this was a good idea to compile into a report and send to the press

Amazing

haha, it was New York. I figured it'd be South Carolina. Or Central PA.

TenuredVulture wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:Someone thought this was a good idea to compile into a report and send to the press

Amazing

haha, it was New York. I figured it'd be South Carolina. Or Central PA.

New York City

Staten Island mostly, but some Brooklyn too

Chris Rock in the House, dropping the mic at the end
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4zwCMf8dsc[/youtube]
That was a great wrestling promo. And he had a good point, too, actually...unlike Grayson's poorly done crap.

Why is Jim Gerlach, my congressman, all for this crap involving adding poison pills to the 9/11 Victims Compensation Fund? Horrible. LET TEH DAMN BILL GET TO THE FLOOR


BTW:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bu8q0EU4b9w[/youtube]
Gonna be shown on Lifetime, Hallmark, CNN and the weather channel. haha

(not a comment, just the first thing I think of when I see/hear Andy Griffith)

2012 baby

<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOlM1pPMNBc&hl=en_US&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/aOlM1pPMNBc&hl=en_US&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

azrider wrote:2012 baby

Basil Marceaux

he's not waving a light saber, but he's every bit as awe-inspiring

causes me reflect on just how rare it is to actually smell alcohol on the breath of someone in a videoclip

http://politics.freesitenow.com/basilmarceauxforgovernor/

Colbert featured him the other night. His website is interesting to say the least,

Member of the Freedmen's Bureau, which was disbanded in 1872.

"VOTE FOR ME AND IF I WIN I WILL IMMUNE YOU FROM ALL STATE CRIMES FOR THE REST OF YOU LIFE!"

He was born in Strousburg,Pa.

From the swaying, I suppose he is loaded, but he also honestly sounds to me to be... um... mentally challenged.

So, I was just futzing around with 270towin.com (a silly game I was playing was seeing how big my "electoral victory' would be if I got the electoral votes from every state I've visited). You can use projected electoral college votes for the various states, pending the reapportionment following the 2012 census, when constructing hypothetical scenarios for 2012.

And right now, I've gotta say, re-apportionment is not favoring Obama.

I can't see the President picking up any states he didn't win in 2008, at least not as things currently stand. Moreover, I think Obama has a very hard time winning Colorado, Virginia, Indiana, Ohio, and North Carolina again. That, if the 270towin projections are correct, whittles his EV total down to 292.

New Mexico, Nevada, and Florida all present him with better opportunities for retention, though I would think all of those are firmly "swing" states right now, particularly Florida. Lose there and the jig is up for Obama. I have to think Ohio is a loss for him as things stand now, but if he manages to win Ohio, while losing Florida (I think the reverse is much more likely, or losing both), that leaves with only 282, but Republicans will have a much harder time finding the 14 EVs necessary to oust him from what is left on the board in that scenario.

So, Florida and Ohio get to be where it's at once again. Obama keeps one of the two, he gets to stay. Lose them both, and he's out, unless he keeps all of New Mexico, Colorado, and Nevada.

I don't think of PA as a swing state, even now, so that's why I haven't included them.

Long way to go yet, have to see who we nominate, economic and political winds could look much different in 2+ years

But yeah reapportionment will favor the GOP in the electoral college, maybe even more than it did in 2000

Known socialist David Stockman (Reagan's budget director) spews socialist nonsense:

Republicans used to believe that prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government, in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial affairs of private households and businesses, too. But the new catechism, as practiced by Republican policymakers for decades now, has amounted to little more than money printing and deficit finance — vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological vestments of the prosperous classes.

His nefarious Reagan administration comrade Bruce Bartlett says much the same:

DiA: More generally, which party do you find more credible when discussing America's fiscal challenges?

Mr Bartlett: The Republicans don’t have any credibility whatsoever. They squandered whatever they had when they enacted a massive UNFUNDED expansion of Medicare in 2003. Yet they had the nerve to complain about Obama’s health plan, WHICH WAS FULLY PAID FOR according to the Congressional Budget Office. The word “chutzpah” is insufficient to describe how utterly indefensible the Republican position is, intellectually.

Furthermore, Republicans have a completely indefensible position on taxes. In their view, deficits cannot arise from tax cuts. No matter how much taxes are cut, no matter how low revenues go as a share of GDP, tax cuts are never a cause of deficits; they result ONLY AND EXCLUSIVELY from spending—and never from spending put in place by Republicans, such as Medicare Part D, TARP, two unfunded wars, bridges to nowhere, etc—but ONLY from Democratic efforts to stimulate growth, help the unemployed, provide health insurance for those without it, etc.

The monumental hypocrisy of the Republican Party is something amazing to behold. And their dimwitted accomplices in the tea-party movement are not much better. They know that Republicans, far more than Democrats, are responsible for our fiscal mess, but they won’t say so. And they adamantly refuse to put on the table any meaningful programme that would actually reduce spending. Judging by polls, most of them seem to think that all we have to do is cut foreign aid, which represents well less than 1% of the budget.

Consequently, I have far more hope that Democrats will do what has do be done. The Democratic Party is now the “adult” party in American politics, willing to do what has to be done for the good of the country. The same cannot be said of Republicans, who seem unwilling to do anything that would interfere with their ambition to retake power so that they can reward their lobbyist friends with more give-aways from the public purse.

Unfortunately, I don’t think Democrats have the guts or the stamina to put forward a meaningful deficit-reduction programme because they know—as I do—that it will require higher revenues. But facing big losses in the elections this fall I can’t blame them. That leaves us facing political gridlock between the sensible but cowardly party and the greedy, sociopathic party. Not a pleasant choice for those of us in the sensible, lets-do-what-we-have-to-do-for-the-good-of-the-country independent centre.

With the Bush tax cuts expiring and the "99ers" growing in number, I honestly wonder if the Democrats are smart or courageous enough--and I'm not talking about something that requires a great deal of brains or guts--to frame the immediate question as whether to extend tax relief for the wealthiest sliver of the public, or to extend unemployment insurance and other supports for the long-term jobless. The second intervention would be much cheaper, last a shorter period, and be far more stimulative. But I wouldn't bet on it happening.

dajafi wrote:With the Bush tax cuts expiring and the "99ers" growing in number, I honestly wonder if the Democrats are smart or courageous enough--and I'm not talking about something that requires a great deal of brains or guts--to frame the immediate question as whether to extend tax relief for the wealthiest sliver of the public, or to extend unemployment insurance and other supports for the long-term jobless. The second intervention would be much cheaper, last a shorter period, and be far more stimulative. But I wouldn't bet on it happening.

Please let the Dems do this.

That is some damning stuff right there from former Reagan officials. It's been an interesting turn for Republicans these last several years: a publication like The Economist, with a long tradition of economic conservatism, has repeatedly questioned the party's fitness to govern.

Ideologically they are a mess, and yet there is enough rage out there among (particularly) older white folk that they can capitalize on it simply by stoking that fire, and providing precious little else in the way of governance or ideas.

Above all, I question their pandering not so much because I dislike the anger-masqueraded-as-political-ideology of those they are pandering to (though lord knows I do), but because they are pandering to an increasingly dwindling percentage of the populace. In the late sixties and early seventies, the Nixon-team strategy of appealing to the "silent majority" was a stroke of genius that led to a run of Republican dominance of the executive interrupted only because of Nixon's own misstep and because of a bad-ish hiccup in the economy in 1992 (and in both cases, it took the Democrats running Southern governors to break the run, in the latter case one who, in the event, was forced by the political realities of the 1994 election to become essentially the best Republican President in 40 years).

I suppose it's hard to walk away from a winning strategy when it appears to be winning, but something turned in time for the 2008 election: Virginia, North Carolina, and Indiana (!) voted blue. Mostly what has changed has been the demographics of the country. We're not as middle-aged-to-old and white as we used to be. You can continue appealing to that group, screaming to them about how Big Government steals their hard earned money and hands it out to darkies in the ghetto who are on their 8th kid without a husband, and during a recession that may even work... but sooner rather than later, they are going to have to find a new line. I mean, a black Democrat won North Carolina in the last election: unthinkable even ten years ago. That signals a real shift in the political power in this country, and one that the Republicans are ill-equipped to handle.

I honestly think that what the Republicans need to do is to take an election off and have a day of reckoning inside their own party not unlike the one the Democrats had in 1964. I realize their visceral hatred for all things Obama will make that impossible this time around, and besides, from the looks of it at the moment, they have a good chance of winning, so we're unlikely to see a move of this kind in 2012. But the reality is that, on the one hand, there are some defensible economic and even social principles for which the Republican party can stand, ones that are totally legitimate, etc. However, as long as they permit the confederate-flag waving sorts to be openly a part of their party, moderates and minorities will always be (and not without cause) suspicious of the party's true motives, which is a hit that is going to become increasingly difficult for Republicans to take.

In 1964, the Democrats drew a line in the sand behind Lyndon Johnson, who pushed the Civil Rights Bill through congress and essentially told those traditional Democrats in the South who didn't like it that they could go jump in a lake. The practical effect was that most of the voters motivated by race switched parties, to the Republicans: in 1964, for the first time since 1880, Mississippi, Louisiana, Alabama, South Carolina, and Georgia voted for the Republican candidate (Barry Goldwater). In 1968, Tennessee, Kentucky, Virginia, and North Carolina, which had generally been Democratic states with a few exceptions going back to 1880 - followed suit (in that year, the five states who went Republican in '64 actually voted for the anti-integration candidate, George Wallace).

The South has generally been a Republican stronghold ever since, particularly Mississippi, Alabama, and South Carolina. Carter was able to win much of the South in the aftermath of the Nixon debacle in 1976, but he lost all but his own home state of Georgia by 1980; Clinton, also from the South, got support from his own home state of Arkansas twice (which has been Republican otherwise since 1980), from Georgia in 1992, and from Kentucky and Tennessee (Al Gore's home state) in 1992 and 1996. But the South was reliably Republican in 2000 and 2004, so much so that Gore didn't even manage to win his own state in 2000 - the real reason he lost the election.

Ever since this flip of party affiliations, lots of moderates out there have been - and not without cause - suspicious of the motivations of the rank and file of the Republican party, especially in those areas, a suspicion that is often extended to party leaders themselves. Over the next 30 years, the percentage of the country that is middle-aged or older and white will dwindle in favor of younger people (as the Baby Boomer generation begins to die off) and minorities, almost all of whom are suspicious of a party that has allowed itself for far too long to be too closely identified with the sort of people who used to oppose things like Civil Rights (J. Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms are not that distant of memories, for just one example). The Republican party's modern coalition was built, in part, on the exodus of southern whites from the Democratic party to the Republicans, who they perceived as more "friendly" to their views.

In the coming years, then, I think the Republicans need to have a 1964-style purge, and I think this is how they can do it: in 1992, for the first time since 1876 (!), Mississippi elected itself a Republican governor. After a one-term Democrat held the office from 2000-2004, the governor's mansion returned to the Republican party in 2004. Republicans also hold the state senate.

Very simply, CHANGE THIS FLAG with Republicans spear-heading the movement:



It can become a nation-wide reckoning for the Republican party. Even if it is more perception than reality that there are a lot of racists in the Republican party - and there is a solid argument that this is the case - this is the kind of thing that can help correct perception, and probably usefully purge some undesirables at the same time. That a state institution that is supposed to try to represent all people fairly would fly that flag is a disgrace; a movement that originates from Republicans to get rid of that flag could spark a national conversation that: (1) can only serve to benefit the Republican party in the minds of the moderate voter and (2) will probably give the worst elements of the party the hint they need: we aren't for you. Get out.

I think this, or something like it, needs to happen for the Republican party to maintain a healthy base in this country going forward.