openly not hate gays/lesbians/women

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno, it doesn't seem like a complete overhaul is needed (or possible). Retool the message a bit on a few issues where you're losing voters (most notably immigration), hand out a tipsheet to everyone who wins a GOP primary for state or federal office telling them not to talk about abortion and rape in a creepy way in the same sentence, etc. But the biggest key for 2016 will be having a deeper field of candidates so we can get a better candidate. I really did grow to like Romney a lot over the course of the campaign....

uhhh.... yer gonna need more than a tune-up here, sparky

Give it a couple of weeks. You're too close to it right now. I say this because I feel like practically every word you've written here is...not something you'd say on genuine reflection, because your observations are lucid and insightful practically all the time. Just not today.

What did Democrats change between 2004 and 2008 to run 9.6% better?

That's a good question for you to examine. Include this variant; what did Reps not change in that span? (mind you I will deny with my last breath any attempt here to usurp werthless' position as BSG's Socratic zen master)

Things to make you say hm.

It's frustrating how the system is rigged in this country... in both PA and WI, for example (and I'm sure this pattern holds in lots of mid-west states), Dems do very well state-wide, but because the state legislatures and the federal congressional seats are skewed towards the rural areas (in that, each stupid little rural area with 12 people and a cow gets a rep in the state legislature), Republicans control the states that really are solidly blue. Letting low-population areas punch so much above their weight is really frigging aggravating. Liberals in each state need to spread out more. Have to convince my friends to move with me to Schuylkill county or something.

mozartpc27 wrote:It's frustrating how the system is rigged in this country... in both PA and WI, for example (and I'm sure this pattern holds in lots of mid-west states), Dems do very well state-wide, but because the state legislatures and the federal congressional seats are skewed towards the rural areas (in that, each stupid little rural area with 12 people and a cow gets a rep in the state legislature), Republicans control the states that really are solidly blue. Letting low-population areas punch so much above their weight is really frigging aggravating. Liberals in each state need to spread out more. Have to convince my friends to move with me to Schuylkill county or something.

How are legislative and congressional seats skewed toward rural areas?

Patty Murray is a tough broad.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno, it doesn't seem like a complete overhaul is needed (or possible). Retool the message a bit on a few issues where you're losing voters (most notably immigration), hand out a tipsheet to everyone who wins a GOP primary for state or federal office telling them not to talk about abortion and rape in a creepy way in the same sentence, etc. But the biggest key for 2016 will be having a deeper field of candidates so we can get a better candidate. I really did grow to like Romney a lot over the course of the campaign....

uhhh.... yer gonna need more than a tune-up here, sparky

Give it a couple of weeks. You're too close to it right now. I say this because I feel like practically every word you've written here is...not something you'd say on genuine reflection, because your observations are lucid and insightful practically all the time. Just not today.

What did Democrats change between 2004 and 2008 to run 9.6% better?

I think 2004 was the fluke. Absent 9/11, Bush very probably loses that year and maybe it would be six in a row the Rs had lost the popular vote.

Most of the analysis is focusing on demographics, and that's clearly a part of it. Tactics too--you will appreciate the Sasha Issenberg article in Slate today. That the advantage there has flipped so decisively in eight years is amazing to me. And candidate quality does matter.

But the core problem might be that the Republicans are totally incoherent when it comes to message. Total laissez-faire, if-it-feels-good-do-it on economics, but to the right of reactionary on everything else. Half-libertarian is a very tough sell. Worse, the in-party majority and the passion is for the Akin stuff, while the brains and money, and likely the path back to power, is with the libertarian leaners.

The big trend in the country over the last 50 years, which explains why we've gone so far "left" on social issues while deregulating everything and reverting to Gilded Age income inequality, is toward "the pursuit of (individual) happiness."

Santorum is consistent: he's a social reactionary with a soft spot for activist government. Huckabee too, and he's even a decent politician. Huntsman was the closest to consistent on the other side of the question, and he was nowhere in the primary. Romney kind of had to try being all things to all Republicans, and the incoherence caught up to him.

Basically you should get Werthless installed as head of the RNC.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:It's frustrating how the system is rigged in this country... in both PA and WI, for example (and I'm sure this pattern holds in lots of mid-west states), Dems do very well state-wide, but because the state legislatures and the federal congressional seats are skewed towards the rural areas (in that, each stupid little rural area with 12 people and a cow gets a rep in the state legislature), Republicans control the states that really are solidly blue. Letting low-population areas punch so much above their weight is really frigging aggravating. Liberals in each state need to spread out more. Have to convince my friends to move with me to Schuylkill county or something.

How are legislative and congressional seats skewed toward rural areas?

Supreme Court said state legislative district have to be proportional in terms of population. It's actually suburban voters and how probably lots of these races are incumbents running unopposed or with token opposition. Dem parties in these states need to get their shit in gear. Start party capacity varies widely in quality, and they often have little real incentive to actually win tough elections.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:It's frustrating how the system is rigged in this country... in both PA and WI, for example (and I'm sure this pattern holds in lots of mid-west states), Dems do very well state-wide, but because the state legislatures and the federal congressional seats are skewed towards the rural areas (in that, each stupid little rural area with 12 people and a cow gets a rep in the state legislature), Republicans control the states that really are solidly blue. Letting low-population areas punch so much above their weight is really frigging aggravating. Liberals in each state need to spread out more. Have to convince my friends to move with me to Schuylkill county or something.

How are legislative and congressional seats skewed toward rural areas?

It could be that I'm just exhausted, but it seems as if Republican areas of the state are over-represented in the state legislature relative to their actual populations. You know, how like the U.S. Senate gives as many senators to fucking Wyoming as it does California.

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:It's frustrating how the system is rigged in this country... in both PA and WI, for example (and I'm sure this pattern holds in lots of mid-west states), Dems do very well state-wide, but because the state legislatures and the federal congressional seats are skewed towards the rural areas (in that, each stupid little rural area with 12 people and a cow gets a rep in the state legislature), Republicans control the states that really are solidly blue. Letting low-population areas punch so much above their weight is really frigging aggravating. Liberals in each state need to spread out more. Have to convince my friends to move with me to Schuylkill county or something.

How are legislative and congressional seats skewed toward rural areas?

It could be that I'm just exhausted, but it seems as if Republican areas of the state are over-represented in the state legislature relative to their actual populations. You know, how like the U.S. Senate gives as many senators to fucking Wyoming as it does California.

It's just you

Heard interesting insight into Dick Morris tonight. An older couple I know are very good friends with Morris' sister in law. They see each other at parties and whatnot.

Didn't know he used to work for Clinton and at the 96 convention the whole cheating thing came out while he was in the VIP suite of the arena.

Anyways. Said he's a real creep and these people are staunch republicans.

Wheels Tupay wrote:

Well

Ok, in addition to Obama winning, pundits being called out on their bs, the third thing I'm really happy about is how all those rich people gave all that money to Superpacs and squandered it almost as certainly as if those rich people have given their money to Madoff.



Rich people...how do they work?

Silver is on Daily Show tonight. Should be on soon.

The denial of empirical evidence and thisis going to make it very difficult for the Republicans to learn anything from their experience.

David Simon:

http://davidsimon.com/inevitabilities-and-barack-obama/

Sam Seder made a very astute point about Citizens United. It proved to be misused by hucksters like Rove on the a national level, THIS TIME. He wasted lots of money for these millionaires by making big, useless ad buys when he should've concentrated on swing states more. Much like other new capital ventures, smarter people will come in and be better. Next time around, the hucksters will probably fall and people who know how to exploit the ruling will reign, so something has to be done legislatively to fix this.

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:

mozartpc27 wrote:It's frustrating how the system is rigged in this country... in both PA and WI, for example (and I'm sure this pattern holds in lots of mid-west states), Dems do very well state-wide, but because the state legislatures and the federal congressional seats are skewed towards the rural areas (in that, each stupid little rural area with 12 people and a cow gets a rep in the state legislature), Republicans control the states that really are solidly blue. Letting low-population areas punch so much above their weight is really frigging aggravating. Liberals in each state need to spread out more. Have to convince my friends to move with me to Schuylkill county or something.

How are legislative and congressional seats skewed toward rural areas?

It could be that I'm just exhausted, but it seems as if Republican areas of the state are over-represented in the state legislature relative to their actual populations. You know, how like the U.S. Senate gives as many senators to #$!&@ Wyoming as it does California.

It's just you

actually, rural areas are completely overrepresented because of how democratic votes are lumped together in the state.

jerseyhoya wrote:

drsmooth wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:I dunno, it doesn't seem like a complete overhaul is needed (or possible). Retool the message a bit on a few issues where you're losing voters (most notably immigration), hand out a tipsheet to everyone who wins a GOP primary for state or federal office telling them not to talk about abortion and rape in a creepy way in the same sentence, etc. But the biggest key for 2016 will be having a deeper field of candidates so we can get a better candidate. I really did grow to like Romney a lot over the course of the campaign....

uhhh.... yer gonna need more than a tune-up here, sparky

Give it a couple of weeks. You're too close to it right now. I say this because I feel like practically every word you've written here is...not something you'd say on genuine reflection, because your observations are lucid and insightful practically all the time. Just not today.

What did Democrats change between 2004 and 2008 to run 9.6% better?

For all the cries of socialism, Obama was a significantly more centrist candidate than Kerry. Obama's unique skill was being able to appeal to the idealism of left and left-leaning young voters without having to drift nearly as left of center as past Dem presidential candidates who garnered the enthusiastic support of those young voters. Of course the biggest change was the one the GWB administration made to the state of the economy.