Luckily, we have the Emerging Diebold Protectorate.

Looks like Georgy has pissed off more people thank Tricky Dick.

However, if you extrapolate from the post-Watergate era, the two series are going to reverse course in the next few years.

That does not appear to bode well for the democrats.

Good chart anyway.

Hmm. I was 20 in 1991 and I'm a Democrat. Incidentally, I loved Reagan in the 1980's, so I guess Bush 41 changed all that.

I guess the hypothesis works on me.

Fascinating. This fits with another interesting observation, which is that most people's taste in music is fixed at about the same age. Time for a unified field theory of preferences?

No, the unified theory doesn't work for me since I came of age with The Boss and Reagan and while I will always be loyal to Springsteen, Reagan definitely doesn't do it for me.

Once those 20-somethings stop living off of student loans and making money, they'll realize that Democrats want to add yet more taxes to their already too-high burden. When that happens, they'll shift back to Republican.

Dear God,

Please keep Diebold safe so I do not have to think about icky stuff like politics.

- Al

This is not credibly unusual. People form usually affect first, then come up with the reasons to justify it. Liberals and conservatives, progressives and neocons, religious and seculars, blacks and whites, straights and lesbians all do this.

Most Democrats vote because of emotional reasons. Trying to claim thata rejection of torture, or the Iraq war, or whatever issue based on some hyper-rational chain of reasoning is the cause of shifts in public opinion is just flat out wrong and out of touch with reality. Some wonky liberals seem to over-analyze things and want to decide things on some mythical wholly rational plane of existence (specifically, I refer to people who I have debated with in the comments on places like Daily Kos about whether or not it is appropriate to appeal to religious groups), and that's why Democrats sometimes lose when they should win.

Once those 20-somethings stop living off of student loans and making money, they'll realize that Democrats want to add yet more taxes to their already too-high burden. When that happens, they'll shift back
to Republican.

Yep. One thing Kevin doesn't realize is that young people, because they're stupid and naive, are more liberal. As they grow older and wiser, they become more conservative and more likely to vote Republican. That's why Kevin's conclusion of a emerging Democratic majority is just a bunch of nonsense. I predict a landslide for the GOP in in the 2006 elections.

If you go by that chart, and I'm reading it right, it looks like Democrats outnumber Republicans by huge amounts in almost every age group. How do Republicans ever win elections?

Note to idiots: Diebold hasn't been around forever.

Interesting. I am of the JFK cohort, grew up in a Republican family and changed to a Democrat at 20 when I left home. And right after that JFK was killed.

The chart certainly suggests that twenty-year-old imprint on parties for life. The fascinating question is whether their impressionability is inevitably tied to a general thumbs-up-or-down evaluation of the current president or can instead be influenced by education.

The thing I don't understand about this chart is that it seems to indicate that there are overwhelmingly more Democrats in the country than Republicans. Presumably this is because it's based on recent polls, during which the GOP has been imploding. If this chart were produced from polls in 2004 or so (when the Republican party was less beaten up than it is now), do we think the blue points would all move down uniformly and the red ones up uniformly? Or would more interesting things happen? For example, is there a certain age group more likely to swing between the parties?

It's a great picture. I think the NYTimes does the best graphics of any news source out there.

I predict Al's paychecks will bounce in November.

I further predict that he and his fellow paid troll AH are too stupid to realize that seniors, and those in their 50's are filled with democrats too.

Most people in this country make less than $35,000 a year. They can't be scared for ever against taxing the rich more. Republicans have done a beautiful job convincing rubes that taxing the rich will affect the taxes on a family of four making $33k a year. Stupidity can only get you votes for so long.

Obviously the rule doesn't hold for everyone, just for enough people to produce swings. It doesn't much fit my experience, for example. And the inflection points in the graph are hardly perfect.

But they're still close enough to be interesting. As for how Republicans ever win elections, it's because plenty of self-identified Democrats vote for Republicans. They always have. And there's always the independents, too.

Seems to work anecdotally for me. I came of age during the fallout from Watergate and Vietnam and drank in my dad's dissillusionment, and while I was a year too late to vote for Carter (wasn't particularly intrigued by the campaign, though my girlfriend's parents had it on the TV nonstop and their Democratic political-junkie enthusiasm seemed kind of curious to me at the time. Isn't this stuff just boring as hell?). So I was pretty primed to immediately hate Ronald Reagan.

The thing that did it in for me was this ridiculously glossy post-RNC Convention spread in Time Magazine of him on his ranch in a coboy hat and riding horses. The imagemaking was revolting, though I wasn't equipped then at all to evaluate it. I became truly politically aware in the early 80s working for the League of Conservation Voters.

It's certainly true of me for music. I was "scarred for life" by early 70s progressive rock. And while I listen to tons of stuff in all sorts of genres, I do evaluate the music I like by the boundary and convention-stretching ideals I learned to love as a teenager.

Bob

Interesting.

The conventional wisdom used to be that people tended to be more liberal when they were young, and tended to become less so as they got older.

I remember freaking out the first time I met a young conservative who wasn't also a Jesus Freak. My god, I thought, if this person is right-wing now, what's he going to be like in 30 years? (This was back in the 1980s.)

I'm not sure this study is any more definitive than the old conventional wisdom. There are too many confounding factors: parental influence, influence of one's peers, understanding (or lack thereof) of history, what values the culture and society considered important during one's formative years, and how much a person was *aware* of politics during their youth.

Old European adage (that doubtless many of you have heard before, but it bears repeating):

Under 30 and not a Communist -- you have no soul.

Under 40 and not a Socialist -- you have no heart.

Under 50 and not a Moderate -- you have no brains.

Under 60 and not a Conservative -- you have no money.

Bob

American Hawk said:
"Once those 20-somethings stop living off of student loans and making money, they'll realize that Democrats want to add yet more taxes to their already too-high burden."

Once they realize that any wealth they've accumulated is only because of the social and economic infrastructure that was created by a commonwealth composed of those taxes, and that without that "commonwealth" they wouldn't have a pot to pee in, they'll realize that (as Oliver Wendell Holmes said:) "taxes are the dues we pay for civilization", they won't be so quick to try to tear down that very commonwealth the way their selfish Baby-boomer neocon predecessor generation tried to do in the 90's and the first 5 years of the new millenium.

Then, they'll realize just how close this nation came to losing it's entire treasure of freedom, not to dirty-shirt terrorists, but to greedy authoritarians who tried to destroy the middle class in order to fund just one last spasm of their own grubby consumerist lifestyle.

I'm betting on the next generation turning it's back on the ugliness of the Rove era and looking toward another age of civic responsibility.

Plus, all the kids of the religious nuts will certainly come to hate their parents and once they get sober will realize that the twisted fear of their superstitious, dominionist parents almost cost them their birthright of liberty. Then it will really be game over for the American Taliban and the Rovists who used them to accumulate power.

Yes, you can quote me.

This is the first demographically-based "emerging Democratic majority" theory that's made any sense to me, that seems like it might be based on something with some staying power.

The last such idea was the Hispanic theory - that Hispanics lean Democrat, and they're one of the fastest-growing ethnic groups, therefore the proportion of Dems is on the increase.

The problem is that over time, the voting preferences of racial, ethnic, and religious groups change. White Catholics, for instance, used to be a lot more pro-Dem than they are today. Bush's success with the Hispanic vote in 2004 certainly suggested that Hispanics weren't immune to this possibility.

But this theory looks like it may have something to it. But like the Wise Commentators always say, "It's too soon to tell."

"The conventional wisdom used to be that people tended to be more liberal when they were young, and tended to become less so as they got older."

Liberal programs lose their cause and become institutions. So we do not become less liberal, we become more anti-conservative, rebelling against staleness liberal programs over time as these programs become permanently overrun by elites.

Liberals, by my definition, are those who try to manage government such that it is not so egregiously, mismanaged by others.

We are liberal because the alternative is much worse. The Matt who has posted for years has been noticed to become more liberal. Not really, I have simply reasserted liberalness in response to the nonsense that is currently in power.

Anthony:

I think yo make a very important point. People to tend to lead with affect and then apply justifications after the fact for what initially compels them (and that's equally true, of course, with music). While I don't necessarily buy into all your wonk-bashing, I do think that the George Lakoff / What's The Matter With Kansas ideas are important -- if occasionally overstated or hoped for as a magic bullet.

Sure, it's about more than framing -- but the central idea that people are *moved* by political values and then *think about them* later is an important one. This is why the Democrats are being so successful now in the polls without having formulated a clear set of policy or even values statements. We're capitalizing on the lizard-brain visceral disgust with current Republican rule.

What we need to do if we want to sustain this success is to articulate a set of policy and value prescriptions that appeal as strongly to the lizard (limbic) brain as do the more mean-spirited and resentment-driven memes that the GOP has so successfully used.

And that means that it may be time to begin harnessing some of the irrational resentment into more constructive flavors of poulism. This is why so many of these new Democratic-leaners are sympathetic to both eat-the-rich and immigrant-bashing rhetoric.

We need to harness these drives while leeching out some of their inherent poison. And that will be, unfortunately, no easy task.

Bob

Wait a minute. Bush 41 was a popular president? Based on what? His high approval rating after Iraq I and before being voted out due to the economy?

rmck1: Seems to work anecdotally for me. I came of age during the fallout from Watergate and Vietnam and drank in my dad's dissillusionment, and while I was a year too late to vote for Carter (wasn't particularly intrigued by the campaign, though my girlfriend's parents had it on the TV nonstop and their Democratic political-junkie enthusiasm seemed kind of curious to me at the time. Isn't this stuff just boring as hell?).

Yes, but it also doesn't make sense. You begin by saying it works for you. But your chronology seems to indicate that when you were the age (20) that purportedly brings about lifelong allegiance to the party in power if it was a popular administration when you reached that age, and to the opposing party if the party in power was not popular--which was the circumstance in your case. Therefore, according to the chart's prediction, you should be a Republican.

These are the affiliations that the people of these ages have now. We can't really say with much certainty what the affiliations of people who are 20 now will be later in life, especially since the chart gives no indication of, for example, what the affiliations of people who were 20 back in the Nixon years were then. Presumably indiduals' political affilations change some over time.

What is most significant is the cumulative preferences of living adults. As I said on an earlier post today on a different thread, most people identify with Democrats. Republicans only win elections because of dirty tricks, treachery and voter apathy of the economically disadvantaged.

Ha - works for me. I'd slowly gnaw my arm off before voting for a Republican after seeing what these monsters have done over the past 6 years (my early 20's). In fact I'd gladly gnaw off any Republican's arm to prevent him or her from voting!

There's a lot more to an age cohort than who was president when that cohort turned 20.

First off they need to demonstrate that a cohorts political preference isn't a function of time. Hell, maybe Bush is just pissing off people in their 20's and 50's. After all he's threatening to send some to war and to take away the others social security.

So we see the snivelling twits and their little polls running amok this evening, and I have to catch myself and stop from laughing out loud--the Dumbocrats are about to take over? Take over what? The House or the Senate? Perhaps you liberals know something I don't but there's over three weeks to go until election day and I wouldn't be counting my chickens before they're hatched just yet.

As a brand, the Dumbocratic Party is like buying a Yugo when the Republican Party--the Cadillac of political parties--beckons with a sweet deal and leather seats.

The Conservative Bloviator:

What is most significant is the cumulative preferences of living adults. As I said on an earlier post today on a different thread, most people identify with Democrats.

Were that true, President Kerry would be enjoying himself, living high on the hog right now in his little enclave of liberals, crazy wife and all by his side. He'd have his tax and spend little hind end planted on every seat at the great table of commerce, ruining the stock market and spending billions to ensure fifth graders get free condoms and methadone. MOST people identify themselves as AMERICANS and MOST Dumbocrats are certainly not Americans. And you wonder why I gasp at your ridiculous thoughts.

rmck1:

...So I was pretty primed to immediately hate Ronald Reagan.

The thing that did it in for me was this ridiculously glossy post-RNC Convention spread in Time Magazine of him on his ranch in a coboy hat and riding horses. The imagemaking was revolting, though I wasn't equipped then at all to evaluate it. I became truly politically aware in the early 80s working for the League of Conservation Voters.

The thing that a shit-eating twit like yourself forgets is that Reagan was a winner; Americans love a winner; and you also forget that Americans look upon you and your kind with a pitiful disdain. What diseased and broken aspect of your character causes you to hate a winner? Oh, that's right! You've never held a decent job and a man with charisma and strength and ability causes you to chew your little fingernails and hate the people who do well in life. Poor fellow--you have a long life full of hating winners ahead.

Ignore these trend lines and numbers. When the American people get a nice helping of Nancy Pelosi, Michael Moore and Alec Baldwin, they'll vote with their feet and return to the Republican Party, which will be stronger when we excise a few bad apples.

Know this, Dumbocrats: the Republican Party's grip on power is permanent.

I'm wagering the House stays the same and the Republicans gain a seat or two in the Senate. No one here is smart enough to take that bet.

As I said on an earlier post today on a different thread, most people identify with Democrats.

Lot's of people can say all sorts of things. What you failed to do was provide any reasoning for your position, thus the fact that you said something is actually completely worthless. You know, zero calories, or Garbage In, Garbage Out.

As for this chart, all informed observers know that young people are predominantly liberal and there is a transference to conservatism as people get older and start families. Witness the growing trend of married women voting conservatively, or those with families favoring conservatives while those who are single favor liberals.

What this chart doesn't show is how strong the postulated effect is when working against the countervailing effects. Further, we also know that going to college increases the chances of the student becoming more conservative:

The most recent evidence on this subject comes from the mid-1990s, in the University of Michigan's National Election Studies. These survey data uncover two facts. First, people who go to college are more likely to vote Republican than those who don't go to college. Adults 25 and under from Republican homes are, for example, 11 percentage points more likely to vote Republican if they attended college than if they didn't. And young adults from Democratic households are 11 percentage points less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if not.

Second, nearly everybody grows more likely to vote Republican as they age--but especially college graduates. It is no shock that the vast majority of people of all educational backgrounds from Republican homes vote Republican by age 40. It may come as more of a surprise that 40-year-olds with Democrat parents are far less likely to vote Democrat if they've gone to college than if they haven't. In fact, while three-quarters of the uneducated group still vote Democrat, the odds are only about 50-50 that the college graduates vote this way. And they've not all become skeptical political independents: Fully a third are registered Republicans.

Best.Fake.Norman Rogers.Ever.

Norman:

Blow me you delusional twit. I'd be happy to pound some sense into your thick Republican skull, if you give me the location of the hole in the ground you live in.

Fred

fart reader:

Wait a minute. Bush 41 was a popular president? Based on what? His high approval rating after Iraq I and before being voted out due to the economy?

He most certainly was. Were it not for the fact that H. Ross Perot took 19 percent of the vote in 1992, he would have been easily re-elected. How did that turn out, liberals? Oh, yes. We threw a degenerate pity party for eight years and nearly ruined America forever.

Tango Man:

You are a man among children here, and I salute you sir.

Perhaps you could locate some evidence that hippies are dirty and smelly liberals who are inferior to people who wear decent clothing and take baths--I would very much like to hear more of your ideas. There is definitely an ethnic sensibility that is missing as well--the Republican Party commands a startling number of White Anglo Saxon Protestants (WASPs) but it also contains a growing number of Catholics. Perhaps they should fight for the soul of the Republican Party, yes? Oh, what a grand thing it would be to hand those Papists back to the Dumbocrats.

General:

This is me sneering at you:

:\

Suck it up and blow it out hard, liberals. Americans love winners, and you couldn't pick a winner if your lives depended on it. And you wonder why I can't stop laughing at your silly notions!

Hormonal Citizen:

Best.Fake.Norman Rogers.Ever.

So you say.

Fled Fartlock:

Blow me you delusional twit. I'd be happy to pound some sense into your thick Republican skull, if you give me the location of the hole in the ground you live in.

Threatening me with physical harm is typical for a liberal tough guy. But if you would please join your mouth breathing brethren for a moment and have a look at what it is I'm trying to explain to you, I think you'll find that you Dumbocrats have no ideas, no decent candidates, and a lock on the Hollywood voting bloc.

Just ask President Kerry how effective it was to have Barbra Streisand and Janeane Garafalo pulling for him to win in 2004.

And you wonder why I shake my head and look away in disgust...

Excellent! I revel in thy foam-flecked, if satirical, glory.

Chart Reader:

Yes, you're correct and I thought about that after I posted. Problem is, I can't read the chart and so didn't have the specific correlates in my mind when I posted.

I do think it's still true generally though -- if the thesis is expanded to mean that one's political ideology grows out of one's formative years -- which, after all, they don't call "formative" for nothing.

So if you want to set the chronology back by five years -- I was politically formed in the crucible of disgust at Nixon, which is what the broader theory would predict.

If I'm an outlier in the stats (and it's to be expected that many people are), that doesn't change the validity of the basic mechanism underling the chart's point.

Bob

Norman quotes his ex-wife And you wonder why I shake my head and look away in disgust..

Norman, you asshole:

Just ask President Kerry how effective it was to have Barbra Streisand and Janeane Garafalo pulling for him to win in 2004.

Hollywood is about to send frickin' Arnold back for a second go-round in the governor's mansion--so much for your thesis, you bag of nuts.

It alarms me that there are so many soulless opportunists in America who are willing to sell America to the highest bidder and who are willing to say absolutely anything to get that Establishment job making mega-bucks.

I think we all realize that now the Cold War is over (if it was ever anything serious) and except for nukes we're pretty safe. Why do we spend so much on the military? Why don't we aggressively spend it on getting rid of the nukes?

Now that the public opinion is shifting towards Democrats I see the media and book publishers shifting their positions toward the Left; no doubt we'll soon hear the wailing of Republicans about the 'Liberal Media'. Oh how I long for an unbiased media who just investigate and report. I guess I'll have to keep reading RawStory.com and other Internet news sources.

As I get older my political position hasn't changed, but my understanding of why I stand where I do has become more complete and well-defined.

I sympathize with the real Conservatives of America who feel betrayed by the current Republican 'leadership'. I have occasionally felt that way about Dem leadership (Joe Lieberman is only one recent example). I suppose the worst was in the late '60s when both Dems and Repubs were flayed by Johnson & Nixon.

These days I admire the idealistic Progressives, but I still stand to their left.

How can America hope to have true representation when it can be bought so easily by the rich? Are ALL of the Senators millionaires? Remembering the story Indians told about contributing to Abramoff's causes to get a hearing within the White house it makes me wonder just how much money you have to give to see Democracy work. Can a private citizen still petition their government? Can we still speak freely without fear of retaliation?

Hormonal Citizen is much better than the anaemic attempt by Jay (global idiot) to paint himself as oh-so-clever.

Besides, it has the added bonus of being true.

Speaking of the guy whose parents named him after an initial, we haven't seen him since the "atom bomb was dropped on Japan, not a nuclear bomb" gaffe of last week.

Oops, regarding 'idealist progressives', it was "to their left", but should be "to their right".

Norman:

> The thing that a shit-eating twit like yourself [...]

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*

Ahhhhh ... the pleasures of civil discourse.

How ... unburdening :)

Bob

We are being spoofed by the best, Gentlemen. Enjoy the satire.

We threw a degenerate pity party for eight years and nearly ruined America forever.

I think this says it better than you, NR

"My fellow Americans," Bush said, "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Bush swore to do "everything in [his] power" to undo the damage wrought by Clinton's two terms in office, including selling off the national parks to developers, going into massive debt to develop expensive and impractical weapons technologies, and passing sweeping budget cuts that drive the mentally ill out of hospitals and onto the street.

During the 40-minute speech, Bush also promised to bring an end to the severe war drought that plagued the nation under Clinton, assuring citizens that the U.S. will engage in at least one Gulf War-level armed conflict in the next four years.

We are being spoofed by the best, Gentlemen. Enjoy the satire.

Were that it so, liberals, your uncle Norman would still have a good laugh at your attempt to seize political power in this country.

Won any elections lately? President Kerry is wishing for a larger majority in the House and Senate. Speaker of the House Pelosi wants more votes so she can put a Cadillac in every welfare mama's driveway. Majority Leader Reid wants to surrender to al Qaeda and make everyone denounce Christmas as a blasphemy.

Thank God for Chief Justice Roberts. He is perhaps the only thing saving America from lawlessness and sexual perversion right now. Consider him a hedge fund against President Billary Clinton Rodham.

That Norman person is a pretty funny guy. Reminds me of a typical FreeRepublic forum member.

Here's a clue, guy: Once you take the name of anything - first name, political party, etc - and change it in an attempt to be funny, you are no longer relevant, and everything you had to say to begin with will generally be ignored. This goes for both sides - Democrat or Republican.

Secondly, to everyone else: Don't feed the troll. You're giving the man exactly what he wants. He wants people to be pissed off at him for coming in and insulting the lot of you Democrats and left-leaning peoples.

There are proper ways to debate, and there are improper ways to debate. He starts off improper, sure, but fighting fire with fire is simply retarded. Argue the man when he becomes civil. If he becomes civil. He might be making a good point, but I would never know. I stopped at the first instance of "Dumbocrat" and never bothered to read any of his other posts.

Alan - this is a caricature of the Norman Rogers we used to know. A pretty good one, but a spoof none the less.

dark avenger, be fair. violent crime is only up for the past two years, and that's clnton's fault, somehow.

Norman Rogers (more seriously this time):

Richard Nixon was one of those tenacious, never-say-die evenual winners that Americans have always had a soft spot for. Of humble origins, he worked hard in school, became a lawyer and rose through the ranks of the GOP. He even pursued his future wife Pat so attentively that he drove her for miles to go on dates and sat in the car waiting for her to come back, to drive her home.

A real gentleman, and a credit to the anti-Communist cause, as he inherited that mantle after Joe McCarthy self-immolated.

He lost to a glamour-boy for president, but did that embitter him? (Well, maybe ... ) But did he give up? Oh no. From the ashes of the Checkers speech and "they won't have Dick Nixon to kick around anymore," he arose phoenix-like as the New Nixon and intimated (lied) that he had a "secret plan to end the war." And thus he took the White House, and (after eight more years of carnage) brought us Peace With Honor.

And then he, umm, imploded. Spectacularly.

And watching that was the defining political experience of my life.

Which is why the popcorn is tasting especially good right now.

Bob

Alan:

Normie is a parody. A spoof. A perfect send-up of a typical moronic right-wing knuckledragger.

Pop some popcorn and enjoy it.

There are proper ways to debate, and there are improper ways to debate. He starts off improper, sure, but fighting fire with fire is simply retarded. Argue the man when he becomes civil. If he becomes civil. He might be making a good point, but I would never know. I stopped at the first instance of "Dumbocrat" and never bothered to read any of his other posts.

Civil, you say?

Blow me you delusional twit. I'd be happy to pound some sense into your thick Republican skull, if you give me the location of the hole in the ground you live in.

*unzipping fly, whipping it out, pissing into Norman's mouth*
Ahhhhh ... the pleasures of civil discourse.
How ... unburdening :)

Yes, I can see how liberals would blame me for their problems, but here's what you fail to understand: Mr. And Mrs. America think you're all foul-mouthed little pity-party throwers and they're not about to hand you their car keys. As I think I've stated over and over again, how many elections have you won? George W Bush sits astride a nation on the ascent, and liberals are little gnats trying to tear it down. As far as I can see, the man still has a smile for his enemies and a kind word for his adversaries as he stands by his friends and shows unparalleled gumption and ability, something none of you have ever had in your miserable little lives.

Fighting fire with fire is certainly retarded--thank you for illustrating what's wrong with the Dumbocratic Party.

And you wonder why I think you're a moron.

Norman:

Of course you have to quote all of that out-of-context and leave off what it was that, umm, stimulated such creative rejoinders :)

GOP shills, after all, are nothing without having mastered the Disingenuous Arts.

Bob

Richard Nixon wasn't "A real gentleman." He was a ruthless son of a bitch who, for example, didn't merely defeat Jerry Voorhis and Helen Gahagan Douglas for the House and Senate respectively. He destroyed those people by smearing them as communists.

At least Gahagan Douglas got the last laugh. We have her to thank for branding Nixon with the moniker that will travel with him throughout history:

Tricky Dick

Mr. Rogers writes:

I'm wagering the House stays the same and the Republicans gain a seat or two in the Senate. No one here is smart enough to take that bet.

I'll take that bet. How much?

When *Norman* types, I have a regular Green Acres moment of reverie - I hear the fife and drum in the background. Much like Lisa did every time Oliver spoke of the little "seedlings, shoosting up through the soil."

rmck1:

Of course you have to quote all of that out-of-context and leave off what it was that, umm, stimulated such creative rejoinders :)

What's the matter? Don't like being lumped in with the mouth breather who physically threatened me earlier on this thread? How many elections do you liberals think you're going to win with such public displays of lewdness and violence. You're third rate, if nothing more than common thugs. Perhaps you have a sexual need to simulate urinating in another the mouth of another man--that's nothing to do with me. I have read that thread where you have essentially dissolved into a maniac and a shrill little man, and I don't much care to respond to someone who has these types of perversions. We've had enough of Bill Clinton, my good man. We certainly don't need any more of that.

GOP shills, after all, are nothing without having mastered the Disingenuous Arts.

Dumbocrat shills merely make threats they cannot support or follow through to conclusion; and you wonder why I'm not concerned about you as a political force.

CORRECTION:

How many elections do you liberals think you're going to win with such public displays of lewdness and violence. You're third rate, if nothing more than common thugs. Perhaps you have a sexual need to simulate urinating in another the mouth of another man--that's nothing to do with me.

I misspoke. This section should properly read:

How many elections do you liberals think you're going to win with such public displays of lewdness and violence? You're third rate, if nothing more, than the common thugs you really are. Perhaps you have a sexual need to simulate urinating in the mouth of another man--that's nothing to do with me.

Distracted from laughing at the liberals?

Yes. Guilty!

Winda Warren Terra:

Hey, aren't you one of the ones who's convinced that ol' Normie's a parody? (My personal jury's still out on that -- though if he's not, he certainly may as well be :)

You didn't hear the High Snark in that Tricky Dick thumbnail?

Of *course* Nixon was a broken bottle-wielding sonovabitch.

And chauffeuring Pat around on his dime while she flirted with footballers and more attractive guys is less a testament to gentlemanliness than pathos.

Bob

qd铃声 来电铃声 经典铃声 性爱贴图 性生活图片 作爱图片 艳情小说 性交姿势 做爱电影 人体摄影 明星裸照 裸女图片 黄色小说 成人小说 乱伦小说 强暴电影 轮奸视频 性虐待电影 迷奸图片 写真集 全裸美女 淫荡小说 淫乱小说 淫书金瓶梅 舒淇写真 美女脱衣图片 裸体女人 人体写真 手淫图片 波霸美女 淫水美女鲍鱼 阴户阴道臀部阴毛 美女图库 口交肛交图片 联通铃声下载 联通手机铃声 中国联通铃声 联通免费铃声 联通用户铃声 联通cdma铃声 联通和弦铃声 联通mp3铃声 联通特效铃声 联通炫铃 中国联通炫铃 联通炫铃下载 联通炫铃网站 联通炫铃业务 联通cdma炫铃 联通手机图片 联通手机炫铃联通彩铃 联通彩铃下载 中国联通彩铃 联通手机彩铃下载 联通彩铃业务 联通彩铃网站 联通免费彩铃 联通cdma彩铃 A片下载 毛片 偷窥图片 裸体视频聊天室 成人网站 成人论坛 性变态图片 淫女图片 日本女学生 美女下阴图 女性生殖器 操逼图片 美女激情免费电影下载 免费在线电影 看免费电影 免费电影网站 韩国电影 免费黄色电影 最新电影 成人性爱电影 免费小电影 免费性电影 免费成人电影 免费电影在线观看 宽带电影 经典电影 恐怖电影 免费影片 免费影院 最新大片 十八电影网 美女写真 两性生活 性教育片 两性知识 性爱图片 激情电影 人体艺术 美女图片 美女走光 美腿图片 三级片 美少女图片 日本av女优 情色电影 同志电影 激情视频下载 明星露点图片 写真电影 阴部图片 乳房图片 明星裸照 性爱视频 偷拍图片 美眉图片 泳装美女 美女内衣内裤 强奸电影 美女祼体图片 美女自拍 黄色电影下载 免费色情电影 激情图片 激情小电影 性感美女图片 漂亮妹妹图片 做爱图片

Norman:

You won't respond to me -- expect in multi-screen diatribes alleging psychosexual proclivities because you're apparently too stone-stupid to detect sardonic snark when you read it, or own up to what crawled off your own fingers to provoke it :)

And you *wonder* why we think you're a parody?

And those of us who don't, think you're a self-parody :)

Bob

You won't respond to me -- expect in multi-screen diatribes alleging psychosexual proclivities because you're apparently too stone-stupid to detect sardonic snark when you read it, or own up to what crawled off your own fingers to provoke it :)

In point of fact, I did; what's the matter? Have you been paying attention or are you full of yourself?

Bill Clinton stick his wang in your claptrap? Billary take your shrunken balls for her own use?

The unhinged left is such a spectacle to behold. The point of Kevin Drum's post was a radical assertion that the Dumbocrats are headed for a permanent majority because of the number of kiddies who are coming of age.

Well, this thread proves that it is not so: far too many unhinged, smelly hippie types and not enough brains means those kids will reject such politics as displayed here and summarily flock to the Republican Party when they get jobs and start to make some money; and as the song says, same as it ever was.

Get a life, liberals, and quit waiting for the world to hand you power.

Norman reminds me of nothing so much as the big Lebowski.

"My advice to you? Get a job, sir ... "

Which reminds me -- I haven't seen that movie for a few years ...

Bob

I'm not so sure how meaningful the comparisons are to earlier swings, particularly to the '60s swing. Remember, these aren't measurements taken in the '60s, they're measurements taken today; it's entirely likely that many of those who came of age in the '60s became more conservative over time, and that took the edge off the surge in this chart.

EXACTLY THE NEW MATH IS BUSH = NIXON. THE 2O SOMETHING GENERATION THINK BUSH IS MORE THAN A JOKE.

Norman:

I'm not willing to bet that the Democrats take the Senate this year. The VA race looks a bit problematic, and sadly, Webb is something of a stiff as a candidate. A more dynamic presence on the stump would definitely make the difference, but southern VA is a different ballgame than the wealthy, highly educated suburban North -- and Allen's support is pretty solid there. Plus I'm a bit uneasy about the TN race. Ford's a bit too glib for all his polish and "language of faith" stuff.

But I most certainly *am* willing to be that we'll take the House. Not a sweep -- I don't predict anything bigger than a 5-seat margin; the GOP still has an awesome GOTV machine. But I will make a wager on that if you like.

Bob

The theory/chart works anecdotally for me. Mostly. I was in JrHi and HS during the Watergate/Ford/Carter era and I turned 20 in 1979. I was nominally a Dem--repulsed by Nixon, but less-than-enamored of Carter--but I was crushed by Reagan's election in 1980 and overwhelming re-election in 1984. So I spent my formative 20s under the Reagan era.

And I'm from Arkansas and know all about Clinton--his strengths and his flaws--and I watched, with ever-increasing revulsion, the Repub slime machine campaigns against him and every other prominent Dem over the last 15 years. And now we have The. Worst. President. Ever. I will NEVER vote for a Republican.

The Repubs lost me during my 20s but they had a chance (slim though it was, admittedly) to appeal to me after Reagan. But not after what they did to Clinton and certainly not after Bush II.

So, yea, the disdain I had for the Repubs in the 80s has turned into utter loathing, thanks mostly to Bush II, but my voting-preference-for-life was set during the political climate during my 20s.

Bonues points to Norman for mentioning 'a few bad apples' in his first post.

Mainlining the zeitgeist, baby!

rmck1:

I don't banter with common scum.

Zzzzzedar:

it's entirely likely that many of those who came of age in the '60s became more conservative over time, and that took the edge off the surge in this chart.

As we like to say when someone says something blitheringly obvious, duh!

The hippie dream crashed and burned at Altamont. When the hippies discovered that they had to go out and get jobs, they realized the sham of the Dumbocratic Party. Few, if any, of you remember Hubert Humphrey and the choice he offered America--chaos or strife, take your pick. They conveniently remember Nixon, if only because it's the only victory, and I speak of his untimely resignation, liberalism has had in forty years. George W Bush is the fulfillment of a dream for the convervative movement. One tough election season isn't going to undermine that.

To those of you who want to take my offer of a bet, please. The only thing you can bank on is that a bunch of liberals aren't going to have two nickels to rub together. I cannot in good conscience take money from the destitute.

If there were any justice, the sight of a blonde floating down a river face down near Chappaquidick would be pasted on the logo of the Democratic Party. That might win you the serial killer degenerate vote, you know.

And you wonder why I haven't stopped laughing at all of you.

Catcher:

Same age as I am. Same basic macro-political experiences (though I grew up in NJ).

Only difference is that after my junior high Nixon infatuation (my mom worshipped Nixon), I never thought of ever voting for a Republican except in local races (where ideology is irrelevant and I used to live in a one-party Democratic machine county) and once for Millie Fenwick because the Leage of Conservation Voters endorsed her bid for US Senate re-election.

She was a relic (in her late 70s when I voted for her) of that bygone era when Republicans actually took the public weal seriously.

Bob

I don't banter with common scum.

Yeah, they've got standards, I'm sure.

Under 30 and not a Communist -- you have no soul.
Under 40 and not a Socialist -- you have no heart.
Under 50 and not a Moderate -- you have no brains.
Under 60 and not a Conservative -- you have no money. posted by rmck1

I know what you are trying to say but somehow your inequalities don't work. i.e Everyone under 60 is also under 50 , under 40 and under 30.

There must be a better wording.

Norman:

Glad to know that I got under your skin :)

I was the only one who offered to take you up on your bet, btw. Calling me "common scum" is a rather ungentlemanly way of backing out of it, don't you think?

Whassamatter, Norman? Lost the courage of your convictions?

I have $100. We can escrow it in PayPal and make the transfer online.

Heh :)

Bob

ppk:

Oh jesus -- it's a *saying*, not a frickin' Boolean equation.

And, since these sentiments are (tongue firmly in cheek) expressed by each new group, they are merely projecting their own newly changed views onto everybody younger than them without much introspection. That's why the line is meant humorously, not literally.

Bob

They conveniently remember Nixon, if only because it's the only victory, and I speak of his untimely resignation, liberalism has had in forty years.

Oh, I don't know:

The gradual acceptance of gay rights; gay marriage in the more enlightened countries of the world; popular music, films and literature; the interest in non-mainstream religions and/or secularism; the rise of youth culture; the collapse of the military dictatorships in South America; the end of apartheid in South Africa...

The way Bush is a complete laughing stock worldwide...

We've had plenty of victories, Normie baby. Progressivism progresses, my sad little friend. It's what it does. You're the conservative - keep trying to hold back the tide.

It's good for my soul to laugh at you.

And I'm from Arkansas and know all about Clinton--his strengths and his flaws--and I watched, with ever-increasing revulsion, the Repub slime machine campaigns against him and every other prominent Dem over the last 15 years.

Woo, Pig! Sooie! Sooie!

And who should come running but a Razorback? Did the so-called slime machine create out of sackcloth every degenerate thing that man did? Hardly. You, of all people, should know a phony when you see one.

And now we have The. Worst. President. Ever. I will NEVER vote for a Republican.

That's a shame; I doubt very much whether you'll ever vote at all.

I will tell you that when they write the history of the Bush years, they'll remark sadly as to how the fringe hippie liberal left came completely unhinged and started to squawk and bark in public. Again, this thread is a testimony as to how far away from electoral success the Dumbocratic Party really is. Read it and weep, Dumbocrats. The posters you see here are probably the best you have, and a good many of them should be incarcerated and kept away from decent folk.

I heard David Gergen once say that you take on your grandparents' politics. I think there's some truth to that observation (and in fact I think it goes beyond politics). I was born in the 1970s, and sadly never knew either my paternal grandfather Edward Hempel (he was an alcoholic who died in the early 1970s), nor did I know my maternal grandfather (Kennie C Smith of the SE Kentucky Smiths; he died of complications from a gunshot wound sustained between the wars in the months before my mother was born).

But the GIs were good to my generation. They were the great-uncles who bought you a carton of smokes and a six pack of beer for your thirteenth birthday then took you out shooting. They were the teachers who shared unseemly details of the black dahlia case (my high school psych teacher was one of the first cops on the scene; he had a girlfriend in Vegas named "'Cile" [short for Celia I guess]...he went outside to smoke about every fifteen minutes), told you what kind scotch and cigarettes you should prefer (that was one a gay, alcoholic Episcopal priest), and inspired you to convert from your parents' mushy Methodist faith to high Anglicanism (not least because they taught you to read Eliot properly).

We adopted a lot of their (later-life) libertarian attitudes (which always seemed more benevolent in their hearts and minds than they were embodied by your half-indifferent parents). We took up swing dancing and hard liquor drinking. The men made it seem okay to be soft and tough at the same time, and your grandmothers taught you to respect intelligence and independence in women.

The GIs were a great generation, but they were different later in life, and great in a sense not often recognized, or revered.

Norman, you're such a freakin' relic.

Altamont.

*snickering helplessly*

You haven't had a new idea in 30 years.

Bob

Some very good posts here.

I grew up in a conservative Republican household and practiced that religion myself into my 20s, was a Goldwater Girl in 64 (but too young to vote), voted for Nixon when I was 22 in 68. In 72 I abstained, disgusted with Nixon, not yet enough of a leftist to vote for McGovern. Gradually kept leaning further left.

OK, my "formative" years politically speaking were during JFK/LBJ, but I wasn't really influenced by them particularly. But the Republicans have always been too authoritarian and too lacking in concern for fellow human beings for me to be totally comfortable in their camp, although they were not nearly as mean-spirited back in the 60s.

I am a radical egalitarian. I don't think that everyone should have equality in all things; people are too diverse for that, and I celebrate that diversity. I'm ok with people being wealthy as long as everybody has at least some chance to make a decent living. I have NO desire to be wealthy myself, but if others feel that need, as long as they aren't stepping on and ripping off people in the process, then go for it.

The Democrats are only marginally better than the Republicans. Both parties are way too beholden to special interests. But Democrats wouldn't be trying to dismantle Social Security. They don't always act only for wealthy people. Had Al Gore been able to take his rightful seat in 2000, we wouldn't be bleeding people and treasure in Iraq now. Katrina would have been handled more efficiently, although lives would still have been lost and property destroyed.

Also, please ignore Norman. Don't respond to his incivilities with further incivilities. Same goes for other posters like Hawk and Al. Call them on their errors and irrelevancies but please don't insult them. Let's stay above that, ok?

aka Linus says:

heard David Gergen once say that you take on your grandparents' politics.

Truer words were never spoken. FINALLY, someone who can think and chew gum at the same time.

Dingbat extraordinaire Arianna Huffington sez:

"Remember Ned Lamont? He was that guy who came out of nowhere to beat Joe Lieberman in the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006, only to turn around and lose to him in the general election when he got too cautious and stopped running the hard-charging campaign that had excited everyone in the first place.

I really thought he was going to win there for a while. He probably could have, but, hey, hindsight is 20/20 -- too late to do anything about it now."

That's not a real quote -- yet. But if things keep going the way they're going in the Senate race in Connecticut, you're likely to hear many variations on it in the years to come. Which would be too bad -- especially because it's so preventable.

Yes, dirty hippies, read it and weep: Huffington the dingbat says very succinctly that the Dumbocrats very own Ned Lamont is probably going to lose to a good, decent man by the name of Joe Lieberman--remember him? Your 2000 VP candidate?--and that's because you are bloated, consultant driven and ineffective.

What say you now of the brand you're selling? Three weeks before the election and one of your movers and shakers is essentially tearing your best story a new asshole in public.

And you wonder why you keep losing elections.

Kenneth/Linus:

Always love your reflections on your upbringing and meditations on the GI generation. Though I've read them before in other contexts, they are especially appropriate here.

The GI generation changed later in life in response to the huge social currents sweeping up their boomer children. But with the wisdom of age, they were more able to take the good in those currents while preserving what was worthwhile from their own generations.

A noble synthesis of libertarian values with personal restraint. Hats off to all of them you celebrate in your posts.

Bob

fartmeister:

the collapse of the military dictatorships in South America; the end of apartheid in South Africa...

Which happened thanks to Ronald Reagan, of course. Did he send the US Marines to prop up the Botha regime? No, of course not.

Wolfdaughter:

I am a radical egalitarian.

Translation:

I wish to pick up Chairman Mao's Little Red Book and read you some sections that I have underlined with a red felt-tip pen.

And you wonder why you haven't won anything lately.

Anyone who suffers from head-in-ass syndrome, as I do, feel free to contact me for advice on how to type with this terrible affliction.

"...you are bloated, consultant driven and ineffective." Yes, I also suffer from severe projection disorder. Just another sad, pathetic member of the the Gay Old Pedophiles party.

Norman:

No, you're wrong about Lamont. If anything, it's the national Democrats (Joe's colleagues) getting timrous and backing off from strong support, knowing that either way a Democrat is going to take that seat. Lamont's running a classic insurgent campaign, not heavily bloated by inside-the-beltway types. If anything, his sagging polls might be more a testament to the inexperience of Tom Swann, his campaign organizer -- a man who came from labor and consumer issue organizing, not electoral politics.

Bottom line for Connecticut residents I think is senatorial experience. Joe brings home a lot of bacon. Plus, in response to Lamont's endless drumbeat, he's moderated his positions on the Iraq war and been much more aggressive criticizing the administration.

I can assure you though, that the progressive community has bigger fish to fry right now than that race. Let the CT voters sort it out; in any case, it remains in our column.

The reall piss-your-pants embarrassment is Schweitzer (I think that's his name), the single-digit Republican :)

Bob

More Dumbocrat insanity before election day:

October 15, 2006 -- Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton called John McCain yesterday to personally apologize and denounce comments an adviser of hers reportedly made slamming the GOP senator over his time in captivity in Vietnam.

The move from one potential 2008 presidential candidate to another was sparked by a column in The New York Times, in which Maureen Dowd quoted an anonymous adviser talking about McCain's criticism of the Clintons over their North Korea position.

The adviser said Team Clinton thought McCain was doing the White House's dirty work by criticizing the Clintons and ended up "looking similar to the way he did on those captive tapes from Hanoi, where he recited the names of his crewmates."

That was a reference to an unsubstantiated rumor used to tar McCain, a Vietnam war hero, as off-kilter during the 2000 GOP presidential primary.

MoDo is worth ten House seats and a Senate seat this year! She steps up to the plate and hits a home run for the Republican Party with one invective-filled, shrill column. I would call that a significant backfire, wouldn't you? Contrast that with the filthy, unhinged commentary found here and you'll see why the recipe for an electoral meltdown needs a healthy helping of Dumbocrat commentary. Karl Rove is simply beating you at the expectations game, liberals, and it has to be driving you batty. Moonbatty, as it were.

And you are STILL wondering why you can't get your act together and win an election.

The possibility of Joe Lieberman winning is the only possitive thing I have to cling to right now.

I'm sure gonna miss Rick Santorum in the Senate, that guy's more of a raving jackass than I am. Maybe racist, self-loathing Jew George Allen can eek out a win. Go figure, a racist in my party. Who woulda thunk it?

Anyone who suffers from head-in-ass syndrome, as I do, feel free to contact me for advice on how to type with this terrible affliction.
Posted by: Norman Rogers on October 15, 2006 at 11:08 PM | PERMALINK

Right on cue, one of you does a spoof when I am soundly handing you defeat.

Typical unhinged liberals--can't win an argument on the merits, why not sink deeper into filth and perversion--how's that going to play on election day?

A shame--a few of you had smarts and ability, only to be drowned out by the deranged and unfunny.