[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

A president can make a budget, many have submitted them to congress over the years, Clinton submitted 6 of them during his time in office. I absolutely agree, a national economy would be much more challenging. All the more reason why Krugman and the like should be viewed with cynicism, since they have no practical experience. On that issue, Romney was right. Was that supposed to be a stinging rebuke?

Yes, but you don't seem to understand that handling an economy for a business like Romney did is a different ball of wax than handling a national economy and all of the politics that accompanies it. Romney's Bain experience would have given him no more of a head start than your learning karate would give you a head start in learning how to ski.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

It's completely silly, because it erroneously assumes that managing personal finances or finances for a business is the same as managing a national economy, and of course, a president doesn't create a budget anyway.

This is the same argument that Mitt Romney tried to make.

The annual Appropriations process begins with the President submitting a Budget to Congress and then Congress passes Budget resolutions around it. A President is seen as a rallying force behind what it is a country needs. In economic downturns, the free market needs to hear from leaders that speak their language, that are in touch with their concerns, and understand what motivates business. Experience in this sector is always a plus, particularly when you've demonstrated an ability to move investors and successfully grow businesses. There are few environments more political than Corporate leadership and skills developed here can be extremely helpful.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by cgc 

Actually, debt is exponentially increasing but debt-to-GDP is not.

One of the reasons the relationship is not as apparent in debt-to-GDP is because government spending is part of GDP.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Romney's Bain experience would have given him no more of a head start than your learning karate would give you a head start in learning how to ski.

I think karate would actually give you a good head start at skiing. Lots of the skills are transferrable, such as balance, falling, pain management, leg strength, acceptance of committing to momentum without a known exit strategy (let's call it improvisation), and the skill at learning skills (of your own body) by mimicry.

It doesn't increase my trust in Romney though

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The annual Appropriations process begins with the President submitting a Budget to Congress and then Congress passes Budget resolutions around it. A President is seen as a rallying force behind what it is a country needs. In economic downturns, the free market needs to hear from leaders that speak their language, that are in touch with their concerns, and understand what motivates business. Experience in this sector is always a plus, particularly when you've demonstrated an ability to move investors and successfully grow businesses. There are few environments more political than Corporate leadership and skills developed here can be extremely helpful.

Being an advocate for things and drafting appropriations bills is a different skill set than being able to draft a budget that takes into account the sorts of long term projections that economic scholars love to debate, and the cause and effect of national policy on, say, entitlement programs which businesses do not administer. The president surrounds himself by advisers for that. Sure it would help if a president was an economics scholar, but even then, a national budget as it relates to politics is a different area of economics than what it takes to run a successful single business.

In economic downturns, you're right, a president that can pander towards certain businesses and inspire them to take risks that can help a national economy, but the interests of businesses are not one monolithic thing. There are always tradeoffs to big and small business friendly legislation, and times when pandering to one but not the other is of national interest. In Romney's case, he may have been able to sweet talk big business, but do you think small businesses not making millions of dollars would have gotten a stiffy over the sorts of causes he may have championed, such as retaining the bush tax cuts on income levels that most small businesses do not reach?

I would say that one reason that Obama won is because he was perceived as somebody that would "stand up for the little guy", rightly or wrongly. Being an advocate for one type of business has its upside and downside, but being an economics scholar entails understanding the short and long term effects of legislation that is friendly to all businesses.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

I think karate would actually give you a good head start at skiing. Lots of the skills are transferrable, such as balance, falling, pain management, leg strength, acceptance of committing to momentum without a known exit strategy (let's call it improvisation), and the skill at learning skills (of your own body) by mimicry.

It doesn't increase my trust in Romney though

You just can't help yourself, can you?

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Yes, but you don't seem to understand that handling an economy for a business like Romney did is a different ball of wax than handling a national economy and all of the politics that accompanies it. Romney's Bain experience would have given him no more of a head start than your learning karate would give you a head start in learning how to ski.

Jackie Chan admitted that his martial arts training made water skiing easy to learn, as both are primarily about balance (the first time he tried to ski his leg was in a cast, no less). Bain was good prep for Romney, but better was his work with the Olympics and that little thing about him being a former governor. I don't like him, and still wouldn't vote for him, but I won't attack his credentials as an executive, which are much more formidable than Obama's when he entered the oval office. Being a successful businessman helps, high-level managerial experience does too. Dodging or "poo-pooing" those points is plain laziness.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

Jackie Chan admitted that his martial arts training made water skiing easy to learn, as both are primarily about balance (the first time he tried to ski his leg was in a cast, no less). Bain was good prep for Romney, but better was his work with the Olympics and that little thing about him being a former governor. I don't like him, and still wouldn't vote for him, but I won't attack his credentials as an executive, which are much more formidable than Obama's when he entered the oval office. Being a successful businessman helps, high-level managerial experience does too. Dodging or "poo-pooing" those points is plain laziness.

Okay, I think I get what you are saying. You are saying that some of the concepts and experiences are transferrable, but not necessarily in a direct way? In other words, running a business is not like going to medical school is for a doctor as far as prepping for overseeing a national economy?

If you agree, does it matter what that management is in as far as providing experience in the concept of managing goes? I'd say it probably doesn't, and that Romney's olympic management experience is a perfectly applicable experience in managing.

I'd say in the same way that being an economic academic like Krugman is is a legitimate way to gain insight and knowledge, and that direct experience in an unrelated area such as running a company like Bain isn't the only way to walk away with applicable knowledge, insight, adaptability, etc..

If there was something akin to medical school for running a national economy, that would be ideal, but there isn't, so I disagree with overplaying the "I have experience" card like Romney did. What I'd look for in a president is the ability to learn, to adapt, and to see things. Having experience in a loosely related area can be a net positive, but it can also be a negative if that person insists on trying to make the job of presidency just like their other job, when it isn't.

I don't know if I'm making sense, I'm having a hard time pinpointing my thoughts here.

[Shaddim]

No, they're transferable in a direct way. He was a governor, for gods' sake.

Looking at macroeconomics from a historical perspective, an academic would be ideal. However, I'd be extremely cautious with accepting their advice, as they have zero practical experience in finance or administration. Right now, if I had to choose anyone in this country to get us out of where we are, I'd take NYC mayor Bloomberg. I went to a conference in Atlanta ~5-6 years ago and he was the guest speaker, and there's not a better financial mind in the world. I learned more about money management in that 90 minutes than in the previous 37 years of my life.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I would say that one reason that Obama won is because he was perceived as somebody that would "stand up for the little guy", rightly or wrongly. Being an advocate for one type of business has its upside and downside, but being an economics scholar entails understanding the short and long term effects of legislation that is friendly to all businesses.

I generally agree with the above. Romney's problem was that he governed his campaign out of fear and opposition, not out of advocacy and transparency. This made him appear cold and calculated and did not motivate the right to move on election day. He failed the little guy and he failed the minority. There are others who believe Republicans need to modify their platform or water down their conservatism and I disagree. It's all in the delivery as the principles these people advocate are the things we unwittingly teach our children every day. I've long-maintained that Republicans have a PR problem and they still have it.

Is Obama an economics scholar? For whatever reason, he's struggling with the longterm affects of his policies on businesses both large and small.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There are others who believe Republicans need to modify their platform or water down their conservatism and I disagree.

I thought you supported them changing their stance on immigration and gay marriage?

I'd also point out most Americans were in favor of tax increases on the rich as well.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I generally agree with the above. Romney's problem was that he governed his campaign out of fear and opposition, not out of advocacy and transparency. This made him appear cold and calculated and did not motivate the right to move on election day. He failed the little guy and he failed the minority. There are others who believe Republicans need to modify their platform or water down their conservatism and I disagree. It's all in the delivery as the principles these people advocate are the things we unwittingly teach our children every day. I've long-maintained that Republicans have a PR problem and they still have it.

Is Obama an economics scholar? For whatever reason, he's struggling with the longterm affects of his policies on businesses both large and small.

The longer you think that the Republican party just needs to put a different marketing spin on its message, the longer you'll lose elections.

In addition to the positions Dakar has listed, consider the racial demographics, the perception of being unwilling to compromise, support of gun background checks, etc.

Marketing is the least of Republican worries at this point.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I thought you supported them changing their stance on immigration and gay marriage?

First, I think Republicans need to do a more effective job of espousing what it is they are for. Too much time spent on what the party is against makes them appear cold and unappealing to the collective. What I've advocated with regard to gay marriage is that the government get out of the business of attempting to define marriage and merely grant the writ of relationship to any two people who want to contractually bind themselves. I am for smaller government and social engineering should not be under their purview. If they want a count of "couples" in households, that's a census and civil unions would more than suffice for such a purpose. I believe this aligns well with conservative philosophy of a smaller, less intrusive government. With regard to immigration, I've never been a big fan of "rounding people up and shipping them out" and believe the focus should be on the borders; one of the limited and important functions of a government IMO - also very much in line with conservative principles.

I'd also point out most Americans were in favor of tax increases on the rich as well.

Yes, but unfortunately they heard "redistribution of wealth" and "food stamp President", "socialist", "entitlement mentality", "we gotta slash this, this, and this", and the unfathomable "$16 trillion" number. They did not hear an effective message on sound economic philosophy, why "socking it to prosperity" is not effective, a disciplined approach to cuts and why they're necessary, and what that $16 trillion dollar debt really means to all of us. Otherwise, people will often support a measure even if it's unfortunate for some people as long as it doesn't include them. They had very little information to go on. In short, platitudes are effective when they're about what the government can do for people, they're not as effective when talking about shared sacrifice and spending cuts. You need a particularly gifted messenger for this narrative. I see good things in the future of this party, but they've got a lot of work to do.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The longer you think that the Republican party just needs to put a different marketing spin on its message, the longer you'll lose elections.

In addition to the positions Dakar has listed, consider the racial demographics, the perception of being unwilling to compromise, support of gun background checks, etc.

Marketing is the least of Republican worries at this point.

It's all marketing. Trust me. Americans are in dire need of education and Republicans are in dire need of good teachers.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It's all marketing. Trust me. Americans are in dire need of education and Republicans are in dire need of good teachers.

The stance towards gay marriage and immigration you outlined will not fly with a number of Republicans. Those Republicans aligned with the NRA will not support increasing gun background checks. Most Americans have very low opinions of the Republican led-congress. There is a reason why Eric Cantor has called the Republicans the party of the stupid, given some of its vocal advocates, who at worst are an embarrassment, at best are a distraction from the core message and focal point. Maybe this would go in the "messaging" category though, but perhaps the problem is that there is no clear Republican proxy that can articulate a vision that includes what they'd like to replace Obamacare with, how to cut entitlements without damaging the economy, how specifically to create jobs, how they will help middle class people, etc.

Some of these positions require education, not simply new spin.

I agree with you though, better articulation of classic Republican values will help. This means no more 47%, "takers", defending the NRA's recent positions, and on and on.

The party needs to re-examine some of its positions *and* its message. Part of its new message should be about advocating and promoting better ideas rather than fear mongering and hysteria.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The stance towards gay marriage and immigration you outlined will not fly with a number of Republicans. Those Republicans aligned with the NRA will not support increasing gun background checks. Most Americans have very low opinions of the Republican led-congress. There is a reason why Eric Cantor has called the Republicans the party of the stupid, given some of its vocal advocates, who at worst are an embarrassment, at best are a distraction from the core message and focal point. Maybe this would go in the "messaging" category though, but perhaps the problem is that there is no clear Republican proxy that can articulate a vision that includes what they'd like to replace Obamacare with, how to cut entitlements without damaging the economy, how specifically to create jobs, how they will help middle class people, etc.

Some of these positions require education, not simply new spin.

I agree with you though, better articulation of classic Republican values will help. This means no more 47%, "takers", defending the NRA's recent positions, and on and on.

The party needs to re-examine some of its positions *and* its message. Part of its new message should be about advocating and promoting better ideas rather than fear mongering and hysteria.

The stances I've advocated wouldn't fly with a number of Democrats either and I'm not sure the Democrat-controlled Congress is getting any better ratings from the American people, are you?

Party introspect happens to the losing party every cycle and the Democrats have their own infighting such as gun control, Drones, gay marriage, and abortion will become increasingly problematic for them. If you're a principled person, you don't abandon your principles; you learn to articulate them more effectively. Reasonable people can disagree, it's when they appear unreasonable that they lose elections.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

First, I think Republicans need to do a more effective job of espousing what it is they are for. Too much time spent on what the party is against makes them appear cold and unappealing to the collective. What I've advocated with regard to gay marriage is that the government get out of the business of attempting to define marriage and merely grant the writ of relationship to any two people who want to contractually bind themselves. I am for smaller government and social engineering should not be under their purview. If they want a count of "couples" in households, that's a census and civil unions would more than suffice for such a purpose. I believe this aligns well with conservative philosophy of a smaller, less intrusive government. With regard to immigration, I've never been a big fan of "rounding people up and shipping them out" and believe the focus should be on the borders; one of the limited and important functions of a government IMO - also very much in line with conservative principles.

I think you're unintentionally changing the narrative here. We're talking about the GOP platform and you're talking about conservative principles. I'm also pointing out that on two issues with high visibility, the GOP is currently running against popular opinion (per their 2012 playform). That is not a messaging problem. That's a philosophy problem.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Yes, but unfortunately they heard "redistribution of wealth" and "food stamp President", "socialist", "entitlement mentality", "we gotta slash this, this, and this", and the unfathomable "$16 trillion" number. They did not hear an effective message on sound economic philosophy, why "socking it to prosperity" is not effective, a disciplined approach to cuts and why they're necessary, and what that $16 trillion dollar debt really means to all of us. Otherwise, people will often support a measure even if it's unfortunate for some people as long as it doesn't include them. They had very little information to go on. In short, platitudes are effective when they're about what the government can do for people, they're not as effective when talking about shared sacrifice and spending cuts. You need a particularly gifted messenger for this narrative. I see good things in the future of this party, but they've got a lot of work to do.

Let me hear more about this "socking it to prosperity" as you've taken to calling it, because what I've seen says tax rates on upper americans have no tangible effect on the economy.

Second, the people are for attacking the deficit with the two-pronged attack of increasing revenue and cutting spending.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The stances I've advocated wouldn't fly with a number of Democrats either and I'm not sure the Democrat-controlled Congress is getting any better ratings from the American people, are you?

They are.

Images of NRA, Congressional Republicans on the decline - Public Policy Polling

While the Democrats in Congress aren't popular (-12 at 38/50) their approval rating is a net 48 points better than their Republican counterparts (-60 at 15/75).The Republicans in Congress have only a 25/61 approval rating even with the GOP base

That disparity in approval numbers extends to the leaders in both the House and Senate. It would have been unthinkable a couple years ago but Nancy Pelosi now has a net approval rating (-21 at 34/55) that's 18 points better than John Boehner's (-39 at 21/60). Boehner has lost the faith of his party base, with Republicans giving him a 36/43 rating. On the Senate side Harry Reid comes in at 30/46 to Mitch McConnell's 24/46. Although both bodies of Congress are unpopular, the Senate (28/56) has a better image with the public than the House (15/69). Asked straight up which body they have a higher opinion of, voters pick the Senate over the House by a 38/27 margin.

Cue rationalizing that both are negative therefore they're both equally bad.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Party introspect happens to the losing party every cycle and the Democrats have their own infighting such as gun control, Drones, gay marriage, and abortion will become increasingly problematic for them.

Forgot about this. I saw no introspection after 2008. What I saw was the GOP solidifying under a banner of obstruction with the idea that after 4 years the public would turn back to them by default.

[screener]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Forgot about this. I saw no introspection after 2008. What I saw was the GOP solidifying under a banner of obstruction with the idea that after 4 years the public would turn back to them by default.

Yeah, they have a problem deciphering the numbers, charts...

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

They are.

Images of NRA, Congressional Republicans on the decline - Public Policy Polling

Cue rationalizing that both are negative therefore they're both equally bad.

There's no reason to get nasty. When I'm corrected, I have no problem admitting it and in this case I stand corrected. It seems the biggest decline was among Republicans suggesting a decreasing lack of faith in their party leadership which aligns with a Pew poll from the year before showing the decline beginning among Republicans and their very similar conclusion on that evidence.

Republicans need better PR and teachers.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Forgot about this. I saw no introspection after 2008. What I saw was the GOP solidifying under a banner of obstruction with the idea that after 4 years the public would turn back to them by default.

You certainly share the views of the collective, but then -- I believe the collective has been wholesale duped by this narrative. Yes, there was obstruction just as there is in any contentious battle between parties and leadership, but I maintain that the American people have not been paying close attention to Congress. For example, how many Republican proposals were included in the health care insurance overhaul? How many Republican ideals have been included in the numerous debt negotiations, regardless of how well they aligned with Obama's own debt commission? Notwithstanding the difficulty in negotiating with people and policies you're more interested in slandering and demagoguing. The American public read "filibuster" and "obstruction" because that's what the media feeds them. They don't understand "cloture" and how the Dems have been running an end-around the legislative process. The place where people get information is not giving them an equal pallet of distasteful actions to choose from. It has been virtually silent on the Drone controversy, Obama's open mic gaffe with Medvedev, Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc... and it matters. Obama is getting a pass on essentially every matter that has dragged many a Republican through the dirt. This is a public that is swayed by advertisements on television and polling around their sentiment shows a very bipolar nature. For example, the overwhelming majority believes government spends too much, but they also feel the government should do more. Americans want compromise between the parties, but they want change. As long as a Congressperson doesn't make news or are quiet, they'll be okay and I believe Nancy Pelosi's growing approval ratings are exhibit A. Not that she's been an effective representative or legislator mind you, but because someone obviously told her to shut up during election season and she did. Eureka, she's now more popular.

I've seen many a complaint on our two-party system; that the amount of compromise between them has rendered them without appreciable differences and that we get the same no matter who is in office. But, we don't like it when they're disagreeable and one of the parties must modify their platform to look more like the party that is winning elections? Okay, yes and no. I believe the Republican party must try to maintain a Conservative platform, but they need more effective PR and better teachers to teach a fickle populace in dire need of education.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

I think you're unintentionally changing the narrative here. We're talking about the GOP platform and you're talking about conservative principles. I'm also pointing out that on two issues with high visibility, the GOP is currently running against popular opinion (per their 2012 playform). That is not a messaging problem. That's a philosophy problem.

Because the GOP platform has been defined by conservative principles. They need to be expressed in a manner that indicates what they are for, not what they're against. It's not a philosophy problem, it's a PR problem.

Let me hear more about this "socking it to prosperity" as you've taken to calling it, because what I've seen says tax rates on upper americans have no tangible effect on the economy.

Right, so why is it such a popular idea? Let me answer, because the American public doesn't know a damned thing about the economy and because the increase is not being proposed for them. They believe an extra dollar in the Treasury would actually go toward the deficit because in a fleeting moment, they forgot that they also believed government spends too much, but they also want the government to do more for them.

Second, the people are for attacking the deficit with the two-pronged attack of increasing revenue and cutting spending.

And of course, it makes sense the people are for raising revenue because no one proposed raising it on their backs as they do in virtually every country that has managed to either avert or minimize the impact of our recent recession. Do you suppose these people would support a tax increase on themselves? Do you think they really understand that our deficits and debt continue to grow in spite of increasing Federal revenues year-after-year? If they truly did, it'd be hard to justify such a counterintuitive notion.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

There's no reason to get nasty.

That was a presumptive block on anyone who might jump in on it.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

When I'm corrected, I have no problem admitting it and in this case I stand corrected. It seems the biggest decline was among Republicans suggesting a decreasing lack of faith in their party leadership which aligns with a Pew poll from the year before showing the decline beginning among Republicans and their very similar conclusion on that evidence.

You'll also notice an increasing trend of less people self-identifying as republicans and more as independents. This doesn't mean that conservatives are converting to liberals –– I think it has more to do with the increased influence of the tea party in national GOP politics leaving a bad taste in their mouth.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You certainly share the views of the collective, but then -- I believe the collective has been wholesale duped by this narrative.

Forget about the collective. The question was, what soul searching did the GOP do after 2008? If the Democrats were as bad the past four years as implied, why did the country reelect them again?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The place where people get information is not giving them an equal pallet of distasteful actions to choose from.

Fox News is still the national leader. So I disagree.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because the GOP platform has been defined by conservative principles. They need to be expressed in a manner that indicates what they are for, not what they're against. It's not a philosophy problem, it's a PR problem.

You're losing me here – I just gave two specific instances where the GOP platform doesn't match the national voice. Being for traditional marriage instead of against gay marriage doesn't change the end result. Being for tighter immigration instead of against amnesty doesn't change the end result. Are saying it's a messaging problem because you believe people would be swayed to the GOP platform is they advertised it as being for traditional marriages and for better immigration control?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Right, so why is it such a popular idea? Let me answer, because the American public doesn't know a damned thing about the economy and because the increase is not being proposed for them. They believe an extra dollar in the Treasury would actually go toward the deficit because in a fleeting moment, they forgot that they also believed government spends too much, but they also want the government to do more for them.

Your answer makes no sense. They didn't forget the government spends too much because they see cutting spending and raising taxes as the best solution to that very problem.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

And of course, it makes sense the people are for raising revenue because no one proposed raising it on their backs as they do in virtually every country that has managed to either avert or minimize the impact of our recent recession. Do you suppose these people would support a tax increase on themselves? Do you think they really understand that our deficits and debt continue to grow in spite of increasing Federal revenues year-after-year? If they truly did, it'd be hard to justify such a counterintuitive notion.

You make a fair point regarding self-taxation. I'd counter that this view is a result of the income gap and the perception of how little the rich were impacted in the long run by the recession.

Second, the budget was a strong part of the GOP platform this past election (i.e., they just did a lot of messaging on it). Why didn't it connect?

[besson3c]

The problem with the Republican party is a lack of leadership, a lack of vision, and poor messaging.

The Democrats want to reduce the deficit, create jobs, and reform spending as well. I know some of you Republicans simply cannot believe this, but there is no logical basis to believe that this isn't so. I believe that most Americans just see the two approaches as being different, which they are, but most have no real means to assess which approach is the best outside of their gut feelings and ideological bias. Some gut feelings believe that the Republican approach will not help them personally, as a middle class individual.

If the economy is sort of a toss up in the minds of voters (although I think polls showed a slight Republican edge there), why else would anybody in their right mind vote Republican in these last couple of elections? You had a freak show parade of candidates ranging from Sarah Palin to Michelle Bachmann to Rick Santorum to Herman Cain, you had a freak show of congressional candidates saying idiotic things about rape and a myriad of other things, and no leadership to marginalize this stuff and to make it clear what the prevailing message was on these issues, perhaps because they were afraid to alienate the Tea Party base. You of course had some pretty bad campaign gaffes too like the 47% thing, the takers thing, etc. I realize that there are always campaign gaffes though. What wasn't a campaign gaffe though was a lack of specifics over what the party would do to create jobs, replace Obamacare with, etc. I guess the party was mired in focusing on their economic messaging.

Honestly, you guys should be thankful that Romney is not president now. Not because of his ideas, but because with the Republican party in the disarray it is in now, its inevitable inability to accomplish stuff would just set the party back even further.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

You'll also notice an increasing trend of less people self-identifying as republicans and more as independents. This doesn't mean that conservatives are converting to liberals –– I think it has more to do with the increased influence of the tea party in national GOP politics leaving a bad taste in their mouth.

You have to take the good with the bad. The Tea Party was instrumental in the GOP sweep of 2010 that saw more than a 60-seat swing in the House of Representatives in taking the majority by substantial margin, 5 new seats in the Senate, a net-win of 5 gubernatorial races, and fared much better than their Democratic counterparts downballot as well including the majority of races for Attorney General and Secretary of State.

A GOP sweep -- just three years ago. It's not panic time.

Forget about the collective. The question was, what soul searching did the GOP do after 2008? If the Democrats were as bad the past four years as implied, why did the country reelect them again?

Because... they really didn't. The 2010 mid-term election was viewed as a GOP sweep and a referendum on Obama's first two years in office. The collective voted for checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches as they often do. 2012 was little changed in sum and the largest dichotomy in turn-out was the missing 8-12 million white votes. Some attribute this to the Tea Party, some to Romney's Mormonism, some to Romney's gaffes, and much to Obama's slanderous, but effective campaign. What can I say, the stupid ads work on people or so many millions wouldn't be spent on strategically placing them each election cycle. I don't think you're giving the Obama campaign enough credit here.

Fox News is still the national leader. So I disagree.

Fox News' peak viewership had reached what, 11 million people during the height of the election cycle and averages less than 2 million prime time? Florida alone cast more than 8 million votes for President in 2012. I disagree with your analysis here. The fact that their viewership dwarves the other major news outlets suggests simply one of two things; we already know a wealth of people are getting their news online and from their favorite clowns on Comedy Central, but what it's really saying is that most simply aren't availing themselves of news. At all. It just doesn't hold a candle to gaming and FB.

You're losing me here – I just gave two specific instances where the GOP platform doesn't match the national voice. Being for traditional marriage instead of against gay marriage doesn't change the end result. Being for tighter immigration instead of against amnesty doesn't change the end result. Are saying it's a messaging problem because you believe people would be swayed to the GOP platform is they advertised it as being for traditional marriages and for better immigration control?

The two instances you gave above were integral parts of the platform in 2010 that saw a GOP sweep. Again, just three years ago. This is not a fire drill, it's something both parties have had to deal with after large election losses. Certainly the prize of the 2012 election was the Presidency and the Republicans lost, but this is not what others are deeming an outright end of the GOP as we know it. I can see how this would be a fanciful notion, but there's no reason those who know better would sheeple into despair over it.

Your answer makes no sense. They didn't forget the government spends too much because they see cutting spending and raising taxes as the best solution to that very problem.

They weren't reminded that "the rich" are already paying 25% higher taxes under our progressive tax structure. Federal Receipts vs Outlays were never communicated in an illustrative enough manner that people would really see the root cause of the problem and what it really means to them. Romney was so concerned (in light of effective slander against success in the private sector) that he would be viewed as "defending the rich", he never went into any details on why you'd ever want to be rich, how, or why that MO is ultimately good for the economy. Furthermore, it was never clearly articulated why "the rich" are an unreliable base of taxation both mathematically and historically and why a government that does more will merely justify taxing more (on everyone, but you -- I promise) while doing nothing for the root cause of the problem. It was never pointed out how other countries manage to provide the types of services Obama's interested in providing as they would show a decided shift in tax burden to "the little guy" as THE only reliable base of taxation and why taxes will be coming to them soon. Romney talked about Greece, but didn't really get into any details on why Greece was such an apt example; just assumed people would know what's going on in Greece. No one knows or gives a friggin' rip about Greece.

You make a fair point regarding self-taxation. I'd counter that this view is a result of the income gap and the perception of how little the rich were impacted in the long run by the recession.

Again, this is a lack of an informed electorate. Obama did an extremely effective job of framing the debate. It was Romney's responsibility to educate, but he avoided it out of fear of "defending the rich". Everyone was impacted by the recession, primarily in the valuation of their homes, and the rich saw a huge loss as heavy investors throughout the entire affair. People move in and out of the upper quintile income every day. It's not the same, cigar-chomping fat cats getting the same money by robbing the same people. This was never articulated. There needed to be a huge myth-busting and no voices were there to do it. Paul Ryan is typically brilliant at this for example and generally fares very well with the average Joe and enjoys a great deal of respect throughout both parties, but was rendered virtually silent so as not to upstage his running mate. It was most unfortunate to watch.

Second, the budget was a strong part of the GOP platform this past election (i.e., they just did a lot of messaging on it). Why didn't it connect?

The GOP does typically carry an appreciable edge on the economy, but toward the last days of the election managed to lose even that. It didn't connect because platitudes on shared sacrifice won't work on people who refuse to accept its necessity. You need more than platitudes.

[besson3c]

So, just find several million white voters and the party is good to go?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

So, just find several million white voters and the party is good to go?

Excellence is a game of inches. You can't win over hearts and minds without being in the public eye and winning office is a good way to do it. At the end of the day, we're not talking about huge numbers in the difference between winning and losing the election; and then we'd be sitting around discussing how it is the shamed Democratic Party is in complete upheaval and must essentially become Republicans to win elections. Yeah, somehow I don't think so.

Otherwise yes, and everything else I said in that post.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Excellence is a game of inches. You can't win over hearts and minds without being in the public eye and winning office is a good way to do it. At the end of the day, we're not talking about huge numbers in the difference between winning and losing the election; and then we'd be sitting around discussing how it is the shamed Democratic Party is in complete upheaval and must essentially become Republicans to win elections. Yeah, somehow I don't think so.

Otherwise yes, and everything else I said in that post.

Are you kidding? I was abundantly clear that the Democratic party was in disarray under Bush.

Good luck with this strategy. It will not work until people in the party can take stock of reality though, as several have already started to do.

[ebuddy]

So you're saying the Democratic Party is in disarray.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So you're saying the Democratic Party is in disarray.

How on Earth did you get that from what I wrote?

[ebuddy]

So... they changed their platform then? They relented to reality and changed their platform?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

So... they changed their platform then? They relented to reality and changed their platform?

Could you be less cryptic?

[screener]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Could you be less cryptic?

When you got nothing...

[ebuddy]

^^^

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

You have to take the good with the bad.

Boy that sums up the tea party faction pretty well.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Because... they really didn't. The 2010 mid-term election was viewed as a GOP sweep and a referendum on Obama's first two years in office. The collective voted for checks and balances between the Executive and Legislative branches as they often do.

If 2010 was a referendum on Obama, I don't see how 2012 wouldn't be a referendum on the rest of Government. To me, it didn't paint a pretty picture for the GOP.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

2012 was little changed in sum and the largest dichotomy in turn-out was the missing 8-12 million white votes. Some attribute this to the Tea Party, some to Romney's Mormonism, some to Romney's gaffes, and much to Obama's slanderous, but effective campaign. What can I say, the stupid ads work on people or so many millions wouldn't be spent on strategically placing them each election cycle. I don't think you're giving the Obama campaign enough credit here.

I feel like you're rationalizing away a lot of the loss rather than accepting part of it may be philosophical. Didn't the GOP outspend the Democrats by a considerable sum? Why didn't their "stupid ads" work?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Fox News' peak viewership had reached what, 11 million people during the height of the election cycle and averages less than 2 million prime time? Florida alone cast more than 8 million votes for President in 2012. I disagree with your analysis here.

Absolute numbers, really? Is the 11 million people static? Do they not disseminate what they hear? I constantly hear about the left-wing medias influence, but point out that Fox News has the most influence and suddenly its vastly overrated metric.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The two instances you gave above were integral parts of the platform in 2010 that saw a GOP sweep.

I disagree with 'integral.' It was integral in 2004. In 2010 it was all about the economy.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Again, just three years ago. This is not a fire drill, it's something both parties have had to deal with after large election losses. Certainly the prize of the 2012 election was the Presidency and the Republicans lost, but this is not what others are deeming an outright end of the GOP as we know it. I can see how this would be a fanciful notion, but there's no reason those who know better would sheeple into despair over it.

I don't think it's the end of the GOP because people are fickle, but I think it's demonstrative of a trend. I don't think it's coincidence that both issues are social in nature. And I'd point out the Rs also lost senate and house seats. That's a loss on all national fronts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Romney talked about Greece, but didn't really get into any details on why Greece was such an apt example; just assumed people would know what's going on in Greece. No one knows or gives a friggin' rip about Greece.

Greece is a terrible example. No one paid their taxes, everyone retired very early, and the government was embezzling their funds at a high level.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Everyone was impacted by the recession, primarily in the valuation of their homes, and the rich saw a huge loss as heavy investors throughout the entire affair.

The majority of their losses was in discretionary income or asset value. You can tell the working class that the rich saw huge losses that might prevent them from taking longer vacations or meeting that third car payment, but I suspect they won't sympathize when they're juggling decreased money for necessities such as gas to get to work or oil to heat their home.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

People move in and out of the upper quintile income every day. It's not the same, cigar-chomping fat cats getting the same money by robbing the same people. This was never articulated.

If they're falling into the second highest quintile, they're still making $90k plus. That's a significant percentage higher than median.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The GOP does typically carry an appreciable edge on the economy, but toward the last days of the election managed to lose even that.

The GOP has an edge on the economy? I may be mistaken but since when? My recollection is its always been Democrats = Economy Republicans = Defense.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It didn't connect because platitudes on shared sacrifice won't work on people who refuse to accept its necessity. You need more than platitudes.

Heh, I think we have different perceptions of who refuses to accept its necessity. The past 40 years has been nothing but cutting the share of sacrifice.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

Boy that sums up the tea party faction pretty well.

It sums up every party faction.

If 2010 was a referendum on Obama, I don't see how 2012 wouldn't be a referendum on the rest of Government. To me, it didn't paint a pretty picture for the GOP.

I completely agree. A picture of bullies.

I feel like you're rationalizing away a lot of the loss rather than accepting part of it may be philosophical. Didn't the GOP outspend the Democrats by a considerable sum? Why didn't their "stupid ads" work?

They focused too much on emotion rather than reason; too much against, not enough for. I suspect they worked a great deal however, just not as much as Obama's. Again, I think his campaign should get some credit here.

Absolute numbers, really? Is the 11 million people static? Do they not disseminate what they hear? I constantly hear about the left-wing medias influence, but point out that Fox News has the most influence and suddenly its vastly overrated metric.

I gave you the numbers as they apply to general ratings, I cannot know for certain how influential word-of-mouth is in this regard, but I can attest to a measurable left-wing bias in the news media, beginning with the composition of the overwhelming majority of its fellows.

I disagree with 'integral.' It was integral in 2004. In 2010 it was all about the economy.

If it's in the party platform, it's an integral part. An ideal becomes problematic when it's delivered in a sloppy way. Reasonable people can disagree, unreasonable people lose votes. I suspect Obama himself lost a few over the "You didn't build that" nonsense. But, that should have been allowed to speak for itself after it was first brought up. Instead, it became a stupid ad.

I don't think it's the end of the GOP because people are fickle, but I think it's demonstrative of a trend. I don't think it's coincidence that both issues are social in nature. And I'd point out the Rs also lost senate and house seats. That's a loss on all national fronts.

Republicans have always been more interested in border control than opposing a path to citizenship, but they've allowed themselves to be framed as anti-immigrant. Republicans' movement toward a more aggressive and swift path to citizenship is encouraging and an idea their hero supported along with a huge bloc of conservatives. For a long time. The difference is at the border. With regard to gay rights, it'd be encouraging if the Republican party would support civil unions because I think it's the right thing to do and the right place for government, but while most support some right for gays to wed, it ranks in importance just below rearranging one's sock drawer. Reasoned people can disagree, unreasonable people lose votes.

Greece is a terrible example. No one paid their taxes, everyone retired very early, and the government was embezzling their funds at a high level.

Exactly. Way too convoluted an example when there were so many more tangible examples to draw from. I thought there should've been more on what we should or could be, not what not to be.

The majority of their losses was in discretionary income or asset value. You can tell the working class that the rich saw huge losses that might prevent them from taking longer vacations or meeting that third car payment, but I suspect they won't sympathize when they're juggling decreased money for necessities such as gas to get to work or oil to heat their home.

Well then you can imagine how frustrating it is for the working class to watch capable people struggle with gas and home heating oil while maintaining a smart phone bill and cable subscription. This doesn't matter, it's just pitting people against one another. What matters is means-tested. What matters is effective and compassionate, smaller government.

If they're falling into the second highest quintile, they're still making $90k plus. That's a significant percentage higher than median.

And they're still paying a significant percentage more into the system than the median. Many need to be reminded of this, but why would anyone want to be in this bracket? That's what people need to hear.

The GOP has an edge on the economy? I may be mistaken but since when? My recollection is its always been Democrats = Economy Republicans = Defense.

Well, the Republicans maintained the edge on the economy throughout nearly the entire election season for the most recent example. Do you have something to substantiate that the American people have felt Democrats = Economy, Republicans = Defense? Somehow I thought it was Welfare and regulation vs Defense and Business. That might be more recent however as the Republican Party has an isolationist history.

Heh, I think we have different perceptions of who refuses to accept its necessity. The past 40 years has been nothing but cutting the share of sacrifice.

It is easy to convince you of the need for more money and the idea that it should obviously come from someone other than you. It is increasingly difficult to convince you that you should get less money because it is having to be taken from someone else. The problem is when the ones with more are viewed as something and not someone.

[besson3c]

Republicans have always been more interested in border control than opposing a path to citizenship, but they've allowed themselves to be framed as anti-immigrant. Republicans' movement toward a more aggressive and swift path to citizenship is encouraging and an idea their hero supported along with a huge bloc of conservatives. For a long time. The difference is at the border. With regard to gay rights, it'd be encouraging if the Republican party would support civil unions because I think it's the right thing to do and the right place for government, but while most support some right for gays to wed, it ranks in importance just below rearranging one's sock drawer. Reasoned people can disagree, unreasonable people lose votes.

The sock drawer argument is a losing strategy, because to gays this is of paramount importance, and if you put yourself in their shoes I don't think you can blame them.

I think that *resistance* to marriage/civil unions should rank in importance as rearranging one's sock drawer, but unfortunately there obviously has been a lot of resistance. The media loves to make mountains over every possible molehill with stories of all kinds, but many Republicans also don't help themselves by making such big fusses over sock drawer level of importance issues like various campaign gaffes, various appointments, social issues, etc. They also create hysteria over issues such as gun control, rather than taking a more reasonable, less drama queeny/Glenn Becky tone.

This is part why I label the party as being in disarray right now.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

The sock drawer argument is a losing strategy, because to gays this is of paramount importance, and if you put yourself in their shoes I don't think you can blame them.

I think that *resistance* to marriage/civil unions should rank in importance as rearranging one's sock drawer, but unfortunately there obviously has been a lot of resistance. The media loves to make mountains over every possible molehill with stories of all kinds, but many Republicans also don't help themselves by making such big fusses over sock drawer level of importance issues like various campaign gaffes, various appointments, social issues, etc. They also create hysteria over issues such as gun control, rather than taking a more reasonable, less drama queeny/Glenn Becky tone.

This is part why I label the party as being in disarray right now.

The campaign gaffes were telling from both sides, they're newsworthy. The trick is to have less of them, particularly if you're a Republican. See, the "47%" gaffe was made within the same speech as what loopholes and deductions overwhelmingly benefit the wealthy and should be eliminated. The media got to report on the "47%" gaffe while maintaining that Romney hadn't offered any loopholes or deductions for the wealthy to be cut. It was unfortunate to watch. The Dems get beat up when they overplay the global warming and gay rights hand and Republicans get beat up when they overplay the "welfare" meme and perhaps a little gun control although I maintain the left's stance on gun control is going to become problematic for the party. There are zealots on both sides of the issue sullying otherwise reasoned measures. I don't think Glenn Beck has near the impact on the Republican Party as he does your perception of the Republican party. i.e. He's much more important to you than he is to conservatism.

Otherwise, I agree. PR is critical to party success or failure, they don't have to become Democrats just as the Democrats didn't have to become Republicans to overcome their problems from the Bush Administration. The Republicans need more effective representatives.

[screener]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

The Republicans need more effective representatives.

The party of stupid needs less stupid, period.
They were already effective in promoting stupid.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by screener 

The party of stupid needs less stupid, period.
They were already effective in promoting stupid.

And somehow they still managed to win the presidential election.

CNN host suggests link between asteroid, global warming - Washington Times

Pelosi: Federal government doesn't have a spending problem - Washington Times

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It sums up every party faction.

In that case, I think you're not giving the tea party enough credit for the havoc they wreak. I think it's likely that they helped create the enthusiasm (or outrage) that helped the Rs crush the House races in 2010. But they also compromised a few races by primarying entrenched Republican candidates, opening the door for Democrats in a few races that would have been written off.

Their unwillingness to compromise has put Republicans at a disadvantage politically and popularly. Ex: Boehner couldn't even get his party to vote on a tax plan to hold over Obama politically. Ex 2: The House has the most unfavorable ratings.

Third, while they are content to suckle on the tit of the Republican label, they fancy themselves independent enough that they give their own SOTU rebuttal. Taking things to the next level, Marco Rubio (once referred to as the "crown prince of the Tea Party movement") is delivering the official Republican response this year, and somehow the tea party still feels the need to have Rand Paul deliver a separate response again this year. They've definitely fractured what was once a frustratingly united base.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I completely agree. A picture of bullies.

Huh? You think it made the GOP look like bullies? I'm not sure what I'd say but that feels overstated to me.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

They focused too much on emotion rather than reason; too much against, not enough for. I suspect they worked a great deal however, just not as much as Obama's. Again, I think his campaign should get some credit here.

The credit I give Obama's campaign is purely on the ground game. I worry about how close the race would have been without it (probably matching a reverse 2004, like I was predicting). I don't think a margin for the Ds like 2012 is at all realistic in 2016. ANother part of what suck the Republicans is they focused on the economy early but by summer it resolved itself to place where the general populace didn't see it as a strike against Democrats any more. What was left after that? National Security? Obama's taken the Bush approach so he's nigh untouchable. Spending? Not an issue that's close to people's hearts.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I gave you the numbers as they apply to general ratings, I cannot know for certain how influential word-of-mouth is in this regard, but I can attest to a measurable left-wing bias in the news media, beginning with the composition of the overwhelming majority of its fellows.

My understanding is the media is liberal on TV, declining as we go into print, and reversing by the time we reach radio. No idea about online.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

If it's in the party platform, it's an integral part. An ideal becomes problematic when it's delivered in a sloppy way. Reasonable people can disagree, unreasonable people lose votes. I suspect Obama himself lost a few over the "You didn't build that" nonsense. But, that should have been allowed to speak for itself after it was first brought up. Instead, it became a stupid ad.

Ok, then I'll accept your term, integral, and use 'prominent' to refer to its... prominence. I stipulate gay marriage and immigration were more prominent parts of the platform in 2004. They were not prominent in the 2010 take back of the house.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Republicans have always been more interested in border control than opposing a path to citizenship, but they've allowed themselves to be framed as anti-immigrant.

I'm not sure how to put this delicately. The majority of legislation seems to target hispanics. They think amnesty rewards illegals. I see that. But what would their stance be towards raising the cap on immigrants south of the border? Somehow I doubt it'll be better.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Republicans' movement toward a more aggressive and swift path to citizenship is encouraging and an idea their hero supported along with a huge bloc of conservatives.

You'll have to be more specific as to what you're talking about because I'm wondering who the hero is. I know Bush was pro-DREAM act and still couldn't get it done. Since then, it still hasn't passed.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

With regard to gay rights, it'd be encouraging if the Republican party would support civil unions because I think it's the right thing to do and the right place for government, but while most support some right for gays to wed, it ranks in importance just below rearranging one's sock drawer. Reasoned people can disagree, unreasonable people lose votes.

In the tea party environment, not being against civil unions is as bad being for gay marriage.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well then you can imagine how frustrating it is for the working class to watch capable people struggle with gas and home heating oil while maintaining a smart phone bill and cable subscription.

Haha, on this you'll get no argument from me. I have no understanding how families can have multiple smartphones nor multiple DVRs.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What matters is means-tested. What matters is effective and compassionate, smaller government.

Means tested what?

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Many need to be reminded of this, but why would anyone want to be in this bracket? That's what people need to hear.

Anyone who would not want to be richer because the tax rate is slightly higher is out of their god-damned mind. Tell the guy making $30k a year he can make twice the money but he'll have to pay a higher % in taxes and see if he turns you down.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well, the Republicans maintained the edge on the economy throughout nearly the entire election season for the most recent example. Do you have something to substantiate that the American people have felt Democrats = Economy, Republicans = Defense? Somehow I thought it was Welfare and regulation vs Defense and Business. That might be more recent however as the Republican Party has an isolationist history.

I actually tried to google some polls before submitting the previous post but either my google-fu now sucks or google now sucks, because all I get is current polls. I wouldn't deny republicans having the edge this election season, though – the party in power usually takes the blame for current conditions (and yet...). Still, I'd welcome any info from the past that you can find that supports your position.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It is easy to convince you of the need for more money and the idea that it should obviously come from someone other than you. It is increasingly difficult to convince you that you should get less money because it is having to be taken from someone else. The problem is when the ones with more are viewed as something and not someone.

I realize I'm in the minority, but I'm one of those psychos that was fine if everyone's tax rates went up. How much money would I have lost per year, really? Were we really suffering in 90s? 80s? I mean, I don't want to stall the economy either, but that's an argument against sequestration as well.

As far as I'm concerned, if the rich want the lower classes to start paying a bigger share the solution is easy – start paying them more. However, I think they're more content to just keep their record profits and bitch.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

And somehow they still managed to win the presidential election.

CNN host suggests link between asteroid, global warming - Washington Times

Pelosi: Federal government doesn't have a spending problem - Washington Times

How Team Obama Justifies the Killing of a 16-Year-Old American - Conor Friedersdorf - The Atlantic

A CNN host is not a member of the democratic party. The other stuff said here (while I didn't read these articles in their entirety) is probably more disagreeable than stupid. The whole body shutting down rape thing on the other hand, is just flat out stupid.

[besson3c]

ebuddy: would these 8 seconds be clumped into the category of ineffective representation?

The funniest drink of water in world history - YouTube


Not trying to get my digs in, I just thought this was funny.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

A CNN host is not a member of the democratic party. The other stuff said here (while I didn't read these articles in their entirety) is probably more disagreeable than stupid. The whole body shutting down rape thing on the other hand, is just flat out stupid.

I was trying to point out how worthless the post I quoted was. Lost on you, I suppose, but your bias becomes readily apparent. I'd also like to point out that a CNN host is not a member of the democratic party, but Beck and Limbaugh are part of the GOP?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I was trying to point out how worthless the post I quoted was. Lost on you, I suppose, but your bias becomes readily apparent. I'd also like to point out that a CNN host is not a member of the democratic party, but Beck and Limbaugh are part of the GOP?

There is a reason why some prominent Republicans such as Bobby Jindal have called themselves the "party of the stupid", and that has to do with some of their representation. Whether you feel this label is just or not is pretty irrelevant, these are common perceptions that will have to be overcome. The example I gave of the rape comment is one of many that have no doubt inspired Jindal putting his opinion on record.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

In that case, I think you're not giving the tea party enough credit for the havoc they wreak. I think it's likely that they helped create the enthusiasm (or outrage) that helped the Rs crush the House races in 2010. But they also compromised a few races by primarying entrenched Republican candidates, opening the door for Democrats in a few races that would have been written off.

This is no different than any Democratic hopeful that loses an election. I'm not into the fashionable loathing of the Tea Party. They're just a bloc of people and they will be as easily motivated by a quality candidate. The Republicans need more quality candidates, that's all.

Their unwillingness to compromise has put Republicans at a disadvantage politically and popularly. Ex: Boehner couldn't even get his party to vote on a tax plan to hold over Obama politically. Ex 2: The House has the most unfavorable ratings.

I grant you, Obama's my-way or the highway approach is taking them aback. It has been a long time since they've dealt with such a combative and contentious a President. The more contentious the policies and the methods of communicating them, the more contentious the politics. Kennedy's platform was smaller government, less taxes, and getting to the moon not unlike Bill Clinton in many respects-- with a lot of stuff you can really support. This ain't your father's Democratic Party, but contentious politics is nothing new. It simply requires an adjustment in strategy. The Republicans need to speak directly to the American people and they need quality representatives to do the speaking.

Third, while they are content to suckle on the tit of the Republican label, they fancy themselves independent enough that they give their own SOTU rebuttal. Taking things to the next level, Marco Rubio (once referred to as the "crown prince of the Tea Party movement") is delivering the official Republican response this year, and somehow the tea party still feels the need to have Rand Paul deliver a separate response again this year. They've definitely fractured what was once a frustratingly united base.

There's no doubt that Republicans must reconcile some of their differences between them, but this is a good and necessary fight of ideals. Compromise is how we go to war, generally. Compromise is how we tax too little, or too much. Compromise is how we spend too much or focus too little on this group of people or that. By not standing up a staunch, dedicated bloc of principled Democrats, they've had to compromise on Gitmo, warrantless wiretapping, Drone attacks, and unprovoked military action, among other things; is this a good thing? You might be able to argue it's a greater-good thing because they've maintained office, but is that alone a sign of progress?

Huh? You think it made the GOP look like bullies? I'm not sure what I'd say but that feels overstated to me.

The collective knows Republicans are fighting Democrats, but they don't know what Republicans are fighting for. There's a difference between fighters and freedom fighters, bullies and those seeking justice of some sort.

The credit I give Obama's campaign is purely on the ground game. I worry about how close the race would have been without it (probably matching a reverse 2004, like I was predicting). I don't think a margin for the Ds like 2012 is at all realistic in 2016. ANother part of what suck the Republicans is they focused on the economy early but by summer it resolved itself to place where the general populace didn't see it as a strike against Democrats any more. What was left after that? National Security? Obama's taken the Bush approach so he's nigh untouchable. Spending? Not an issue that's close to people's hearts.

Again, (particularly as an Independent who must decide whether or not to go to the polls) it's harder to stand behind a good antagonist than it is a good advocate.

My understanding is the media is liberal on TV, declining as we go into print, and reversing by the time we reach radio. No idea about online.

So... liberal + liberal + AM-Conservative + all over the place only feeding what it is a prejudiced person is already looking for up to and including conspiracy theories, horoscopes, and pewter balancing bracelets.

Ok, then I'll accept your term, integral, and use 'prominent' to refer to its... prominence. I stipulate gay marriage and immigration were more prominent parts of the platform in 2004. They were not prominent in the 2010 take back of the house.

Because the messages on the more contentious matters did not bring attention to themselves, that's all. It won't make news and cause a problem for you unless you botch the message.

I'm not sure how to put this delicately. The majority of legislation seems to target hispanics. They think amnesty rewards illegals. I see that. But what would their stance be towards raising the cap on immigrants south of the border? Somehow I doubt it'll be better.

The idea is (and supported by most) that we need a stronger border presence and we need to stop the influx of new, illegal immigrants. You're right, when the message is focused more on illegals than it is on crime prevention, you are more clearly against one thing than for another thing. You're fighting people, but it's not clear what you're fighting for.

You'll have to be more specific as to what you're talking about because I'm wondering who the hero is. I know Bush was pro-DREAM act and still couldn't get it done. Since then, it still hasn't passed.

The Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 signed into law by Reagan. It was amnesty. A lot of conservatives supported amnesty then and now as long as it carries with it tighter controls on the border. They got the former, not the latter.

In the tea party environment, not being against civil unions is as bad being for gay marriage.

Yes, but gay marriage is not a polarizing or important enough matter that it'll lose you elections unless you botch the message. Support of gay marriage is not the key to a Republican resurgence and opposition could be destructive to them if delivered in too hostile a fashion.

Means tested what?

I assumed you had heard the common usage of the term means-tested with regard to entitlements. We would have more for those who have less if the money was focused on the ones with less. Instead, too many entitlements are going to those who do not need them and it's putting a strain on available resources for those who truly do. This is what I mean by compassionate, but effective and small.

Anyone who would not want to be richer because the tax rate is slightly higher is out of their god-damned mind. Tell the guy making $30k a year he can make twice the money but he'll have to pay a higher % in taxes and see if he turns you down.

I completely agree and yet there are many thousands who do not avail themselves of opportunities for advancement. Tell the guy making $30k a year that he can double his money, but he'll be responsible for 30 other people and have to work some nights. This changes things. Now you have to want advancement.

I actually tried to google some polls before submitting the previous post but either my google-fu now sucks or google now sucks, because all I get is current polls. I wouldn't deny republicans having the edge this election season, though – the party in power usually takes the blame for current conditions (and yet...). Still, I'd welcome any info from the past that you can find that supports your position.

I think it's a google problem and getting worse. I'll concede the point instead of wading through the mire of hype around the recent election to get to some semblance of a polling history on which party holds the public's trust on the economy. I can say Republicans have got to be very careful here and this is where they hold the greatest opportunity. Instead of being against welfare moms, illegals, food stamp recipients, and the majority of households receiving some form of government aide; they need to more clearly articulate what it is they are for and provide a positive image people can stand behind.

I realize I'm in the minority, but I'm one of those psychos that was fine if everyone's tax rates went up. How much money would I have lost per year, really? Were we really suffering in 90s? 80s? I mean, I don't want to stall the economy either, but that's an argument against sequestration as well.

Ultimately, sequestration is a slow-down of growth and not really a cut at all and I'm glad Rand Paul had an opportunity to articulate this last night. Republicans need to do a more effective job of selling reasonable people on why more money from you is not necessary unless and until we've done what we can to address the spending problem. Most acknowledge a spending problem and in this you may be in the minority.

As far as I'm concerned, if the rich want the lower classes to start paying a bigger share the solution is easy – start paying them more. However, I think they're more content to just keep their record profits and bitch.

Most businesses understand what happy employees can do for them. I don't work for tyrants and I'd be willing to bet you don't either. The shame is a company that wants its employees to get a $1500 bonus must pay them $2700.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

I was trying to point out how worthless the post I quoted was.

Besson covered the "party of stupid" label.
Not my fault you didn't know where it came from.
Fox didn't cover it?

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

I grant you, Obama's my-way or the highway approach is taking them aback. It has been a long time since they've dealt with such a combative and contentious a President. The more contentious the policies and the methods of communicating them, the more contentious the politics. Kennedy's platform was smaller government, less taxes, and getting to the moon not unlike Bill Clinton in many respects-- with a lot of stuff you can really support. This ain't your father's Democratic Party, but contentious politics is nothing new. It simply requires an adjustment in strategy. The Republicans need to speak directly to the American people and they need quality representatives to do the speaking.

This paragraph is staggering.

Obama's current tactics are an adjustment to his failed first term tactics in which he tried to reach out and compromise with a Congress on a whole range of issues that was taking a "my way or the highway" approach and was more interested in seeing Obama fail than it was getting stuff done.

Stuff needs to get done. It is perfectly understandable that Obama would be taking this tone now given his experience over the last four years. Maybe he'll revert back to being willing to compromise if Congress shows that they are interested in being productive.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

This paragraph is staggering.

Obama's current tactics are an adjustment to his failed first term tactics in which he tried to reach out and compromise with a Congress on a whole range of issues that was taking a "my way or the highway" approach and was more interested in seeing Obama fail than it was getting stuff done.

Stuff needs to get done. It is perfectly understandable that Obama would be taking this tone now given his experience over the last four years. Maybe he'll revert back to being willing to compromise if Congress shows that they are interested in being productive.

OAW