Truthfully, I doubt that Pale Rider will be up to contributing to this thread either. He's way too angry, and I sense that the rage is real.

Hey, I'm not trying to start anything. I'm just saying.

The 1/3 of white evangelical vote was a specific reference to Webb's win in VA. I think Begala said it on CNN on Tuesday...

FACT #1: When Democrats lose elections, they make bogus claims about cheating and voter suppression and intimidation of Black voters. When GOP loses, they admit they lost.

I know you're just talking ballparks here, but it seems a bit odd to be saying that the change from 17% to 20% is the same as the change from 25% to 28%, or from 55% to 60%. For the people whose careers depend on this stuff (be they politicians or academics), there are pretty big differences between increases of 18, 12, or 9 percent.

Frequency! Would you like to go over some of your pre-election prognostications?

I would say that the difference is the Democratic party had legitimate complaints and the R's do not. And really - ate they the party that wants election fraud investigated too closely?

Fact #2: When Republicans lose an election, it's because they're responsible for the deaths of over half a million Iraqis.

Frequency nails it! There is nothing to the voter roll purges in FL or the 6-hour lines in black areas in OH! And that exit polls just happened to be totally off in FL in 2000 -- nothing to see here! Harris and Blackwell are totally upstanding citizens!

Myth #4: Democrats won because Republicans were too conservative.

Fact: Republicans lost because they weren't conservative enough. The ideas of conservatism weren't beat. Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values. Rather than challenge liberals, Conservatives have tried to appease liberals and the liberal media. Because of that, the American people don't have confidence conservatives will make conservative policies when they are in power. Also, conservatives have given in to the tax and spend impulses of liberals rather than cut taxes and cut spending. Also, conservatives have not done enough to defend traditional American values by banning abortion, gay marriage, flag burning, and protecting unborn stem cell embryos. If we stay true to our conservative values, conservatives will rout liberals in the next election.

Miller: I don't quite get you. The three numbers you mention are changes of 5, 3, and 3 percent. Those just aren't big differences.

More to the point, they aren't any different than the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats, which was 5 points. If you want to say that a particular demographic group was heavily responsible for the Dem win, that group needs to have swung much more strongly than the country as a whole. None of the three groups I mentioned did.

And it isn't as though we Good Guys have opposed paper trails at every turn! NO! Not us!

And robocalls in the middle of the night? And bussing in homeless to hand out bogus voter guides? NEVER!

Al also nails it! America just LOVES those of us who oppose Baby Butchers! And who oppose stem cell research! And want gays run out of the country!

If only we'd run on that, and our brilliant fiscal record, we'd have every seat!

Clap louder ALoser.

Conservatives have tried to appease liberals and the liberal media

Conservatives are appeasers? That explains why they should not be trusted with power.

/wingnut

Democrats in 2006 verus Republicans in 1994
http://www.stat.columbia.edu/~cook/movabletype/archives/2006/11/the_democrats_i.html

The Democrats received 56% of the average district vote for the two parties in 2006, whereas the Republicans only averaged 51.6% in 1994.

56% of the vote, only 53% of the seats
Even with their large vote majority, the Democrats only received 53.3% of the seats in the House. This is as we and Bafumi et al. anticipated. More info on the seats-votes relationship is in our recent paper. (For example, had the Republicans received 56% of the vote in 2006, we estimate they would've won about 250 seats.)

By the way, the Democrats' 56% share of the two-party vote tracks closely with the "generic congressional vote" in which they were also getting 56% in the polls ...I think the 56% share was depressed by low turnout in NY and CA, because the statewide races in those two states were blowouts. States where statewide races were expected to be tight had much higher turnouts.

I wnat to know where the fuck this so-called "liberal media" is hiding?

Is that the "liberal" media that sat on the NSA domestic spying for a year?

Or the "liberal" media that gave Judith Iscariot a microphone to pump up support for a war based on lies?

Or is it the "liberal" media that failed to report that Jim Talent had skipped 65 of 95 Senate Armed Services Committee meetings, even as he touted his seat on that committee?

The "liberal" media that thinks balanced means the Dems have to be painted with the same corruption brush, whether it is deserved or not? Did anyone else see Leslie Stahl trying her damndest to make Pelosi look specious on 60 Minutes?

Where is this "liberal" media?

I think it is just another myth.

My blockquote was messed up. Most of the stuff at the bottom of my comment was from Columbia U. and was spozed to be in the blockquote box.

The stuff about CA and NY was from me.

Kevin,

I think Miller's point is about the denominator:

• (20 - 17)/17 = 18%


• (20 - 17)/100 = 3%

I'm not sure what's the proper denominator to use to figure out the growth in support. Consider different numbers: Suppose only one white, evangelical, conservative Christian in 1000 voted for Democrats in 2004, while ten in a 1000 voted for Democrats in 2006. Is it more meaningful to say that the increase was about 1%, or is it more meaningful to say that the support increased tenfold?

What about:

Myth #4 -
Republicans didn't cheat as much because Dems had 7000 lawyers watching them.

Michael Bloomberg, the Republican mayor of NYC sent a team of attorneys to St. Louis to keep an eye on the tactics of his own party. That is telling.

The ideas of conservatism weren't beat. Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values.

And that's why you guys lose elections. (I've been dying to use that line!)

If I'm reading Kevin's "mythbusting" correctly, and I'm not sure I even understand it, frankly, this indicates that no one demographic can claim responsibility for the Republican's thumping.

So, does this indicate that the Democrats' victory is a result of being more generally appealing to voters across the spectrum? Or that revulsion of Republicans' incompetence and arrogance was basically universal, that is, not limited to any one particular group?

Al:

Please, by all means continue to believe that.

After all, your entire moderate wing was halved in the Northeast by Democrats -- even more reason to believe that Republicans can't win by being Democrat Lite !

If you really push and prod your even *more* conservative caucuses to stay that way -- if you persuade them that the Solid South can trump the Solid Northeast and the Purple West (those mountains' majesties) and Plains, guess what?

You'll never win another national election and the entire country will call the GOP a party captured by elitist extremists, just as you have painted the Democrats for coming on 30 years.

You wanna turn "conservative" into a dirty word -- by all means, Al -- continue to convice yourself of this thesis.

BTW, I dunno if Pale Rider has anything to contribute to this thread or not.

But whoever spoofed me at the top of the thread on his behalf sure seems to lack something in the sense of humor department ...

Bob

RobW:

That's essentially what Kevin is saying, yes.

It was an across-the-board rejection of the GOP.

Which implies that the election wasn't driven by ideology, but rather by disgust at the Bush Administration and its congressional enablers.

Bob

Kevin, is there some mechanism whereby the tiresome cliches in Al's posts would automatically render his blatherings unpublishable?

Al, child, it's C- stuff in any English 101 class in the land.

See Daryl.

If 17 out of every 100 conservatives vote for you in election 1, and then 20 out of every 100 conservatives vote for you in election 2, that's a 17.6% jump in conservatives voting for you. If 55 of every 100 youths vote for you, and then 60, that's a 9.1% change. The first change is almost twice as significant as the second, even if the second changed by 5 percentage points, while the first changed by only 3. It of course matters (as you point out for youths) what the absolute size of the group is for vote-counting, and thus in some sense it matters what the percentage-point change is, but in terms of comparing changing levels of appeal between different groups, Democrats improved their evangelical vote a lot more than they improved their youth vote. (Though of course there was a lot more room for improvement for the former, starting at only 17%.)

I know I'm not making a very deep point here, just distinguishing between percentage point increase and percent increase. Perhaps best would be to report a) percent increase, and b) the raw number of votes before/after, to give a proper sense of the scale and electoral importance of these demographic shifts. Heck, even better would be to focus on non-overlapping groups, to not double-count additional votes (eg, in youths with "no religion").

Another thing to remember is that in most cases this is a zero-sum game: 3 more conservatives (out of 100) voting for us is also 3 fewer voting for them. If there were 10 million conservatives, that would be a change from being down (8.3 mil - 1.7 mil = 6.6 mil) to being down (8 mil - 2 mil = 6 mil)-- that is, although our votes only increased by 300,000 (17.6%), our deficit decreased by 600,000 (6% of the total). Of course, this last point makes no difference in comparing between groups--except when you keep the raw totals in mind and look at how much you gain for each tweak. Again, nothing deep here--but those apparently small changes can make big differences.

Isn't the definition of evangelicals something like anyone who goes to church more than once a month? That might be over half the population. A 3% change in that demographic that votes very reliable is potentially pretty big. I'd be interested in knowing what the percentage of actual voters are evangelical similar to the number that was given for the youth vote.

It was an across-the-board rejection of the GOP.
Which implies that the election wasn't driven by ideology, but rather by disgust at the Bush Administration and its congressional enablers.

This is the best evidence yet that you are, in fact, probably the finest liberal that this blog has to offer. I bask in the glow of the analysis you shine outwards to illuminate a world that is cold and dark and wondering how the world really works.

I say that because you are 100% correct--you Dumbocrats gave the American people a reason to vote AGAINST the Republican Party (of which I'm not a member-I'm a Libertarian) and no reason whatsoever to vote FOR the Dumbocrat Party.

How does it feel to know that you have not been embraced at all? The other side merely wandered off into the wilderness. And who can blame them? Defending a country and fighting two wars and keeping the American economy running smoothly has simply worn out the Republican Party to the point where they became punchy-like a long haul trucker who has been driving for 12 hours. That's exactly what happened to the Republican Party, I believe. Faced with the burdens presented to them, they tired and they let the big rig drive straight into the pylons supporting the overpass and they burst into flames. Not even a fist full of trucker speed could have kept them going. I pity them; at one time, I may have had common cause with them. Being a Libertarian means you can find common cause with people who have good ideas.

And you wonder why no one's talking about the Dumbocrats' ideas. Taxing everyone into oblivion and surrendering to al Qaeda just aren't going to cut it.

Al's Mommy,

Well, you must admit that the some of the Pubs have come a long way. Robo-calls in the night? Well, they used to just have "knocking on doors in the middle of the night"

Is there a not a bit of coincidence of bragging about such things as 1,000 year reigns and becoming the dominate party in perpetua and both lasting for 12 years?

And you wonder why no one's talking about the Dumbocrats' ideas. Taxing everyone into oblivion and surrendering to al Qaeda just aren't going to cut it.

Has Speaker Pelosi set the date to surrender yet? I need to clear my schedule for that day.

I'm fairly sure the "taxing us into oblivion", is part of the first hundred hours, but I could be wrong on that.

Paulthethirdone-

Robo-calls in the night? Well, they used to just have "knocking on doors in the middle of the night"

Do you (or anyone for that matter) know how to get the American Red Cross to stop calling us? No shit-we gave money to the Katrina Fund and the Tsunami Relief and they won't frickin' stop calling us - Saturday mornings, after 8pm, etc.

It's like all the telemarketers that lost their jobs when the Do Not Call thing happened ended up going to the Red Cross to torment America.

Saaaaaaaaaaay-maybe Normie can fix this problem for me.

Whaddya say, old bitch-can you fix it for me?

...Incidentally, I'm starting to lose my ability to tell which of the comments here are satire and which are in earnest. This is a very post-modern flavored blog you've got here, Kevin!

Hey GC,

better watch that blood pressure now

you know you want to be around for the 2008 massacre

Remember Veterans Day every one !

One on the Wall - Brian L. Wells

Norman:

You know, you're really quite a bore when you try to be serious.

We're all talking about Democratic agenda items on the long itemized thread for it, if you care to join in the discussion.

This is election analysis, and Pelosi was very wise indeed not to give out a detailed platform the Republicans could attack.

You'll recall that the Contract With America wasn't given wide publicity prior to the landslide of '94, either.

When an election is a clear referendum on the party in power, it would be dumb politics to do otherwise, as I've told you many times before the election. The American people have given us a chance, and they'll know soon enough what the content of our proposals will be.

The first 100 hours have already been more than clearly outlined.

Bob

AkaDad,

As to the surrender, we first have to get the USS Missouri out of mothballs, sail the Big Mo around the Cape and dock in the harbor of New York City - Sort of fitting, don't you know, to have the formal surrender there.

But, will al-Quada really attend the ceremonies. What if this is a devilish plot by the Speaker of the House to have the vessel rigged with explosives, then when Omar and his cutthroats sit down - Ka-Boom

As you well know, one can never, never trust a sneaky Demo. We want your babies, your graves, and your money, especially all of your money. Do you ever see a true Democrat during the day time?

daCascadian - I shall not be purchasing any poppies this year after the Duckworth slap in the face.

We live mere blocks from the national headquarters and my husband went in and quit his membership in person. Told them they exhibited real "Band of Brothers" thinking - with the emphasis on "Brothers."

Sorry, one last point, that in fact ties together my previous two. I don't know whether, once this thread descends into flame-wars (as most comment threads here seem to), you (Kevin Drum) ever return to read the comments. As far as I can see, you will reply to comments made in the first 15 minutes or so, and then never be seen on a thread again. This discourages the reasonable folks who want to discuss your ideas from commenting at all. I know you're a big fish in this pond and don't have time to debate everyone, but when the evidence suggests you don't even open a comment thread after your first 10-minute-later glance, it means that most of the time, reasonable folks who check your blog a couple times a day have no real reason to post thoughtful comments.

That said, I won't take your non-reply to this post as proof of my point :)

Miller:

If you'd like to make a substantive point later in the thread, you can always email Kevin with it. There's a chance it could include your idea in a later thread.

Kevin actually does respond to his email and takes suggestions from commenters. I think it's more a question of time for him than it is something calculated about the way the threads evolve.

Bob

posted by: thethirdPaul on November 11, 2006 at 12:09 AM

I never considered that angle. That would be devious of her, and it just might work.

Pre-911 mentality, Ha!

. Taxing everyone into oblivion and surrendering to al Qaeda just aren't going to cut it. Norman Rogers at 11:49 PM

9/29/2006 $574,264,237,491.73
9/30/2005 $553,656,965,393.18
9/30/2004 $595,821,633,586.70
9/30/2003 $554,995,097,146.46
9/30/2002 $420,772,553,397.10
9/30/2001 $133,285,202,313.20
9/30/2000 $17,907,308,271.43

Of course, others aside from Bush bitter enders also know that bin Laden prefers Bush.

On Oct. 29, 2004, just four days before the U.S. presidential election, al-Qaeda leader Osama bin-Laden released a videotape denouncing George W. Bush. Some Bush supporters quickly spun the diatribe as “Osama’s endorsement of John Kerry.” But behind the walls of the CIA, analysts had concluded the opposite: that bin-Laden was trying to help Bush gain a second term.
That's all you have to offer: deferred taxes, bullying, namecalling, and doing all you can to aid the cause of international terrorism.
When will Republicans sober up?

Yeah - the "Ideas of Conservativism" have the same problems as Communism.

If you try to implement those ideas, you need POWER to do that.

And Power Corrupts.

This lesson on the triumph of pragmatism of ideology brought to you by the letters F, and U.

s/of/over/

rmck1:

This is election analysis, and Pelosi was very wise indeed not to give out a detailed platform the Republicans could attack.

Yes--it was wise to keep the American people from figuring out just how badly the Dumbocrats want to raise taxes, surrender to al Qaeda and give everyone who has a pathetic look on their face a free handout. When do you stagger into the local welfare office with your palms out and ask for your unearned share?

Pale Rider:

Whaddya say, old bitch-can you fix it for me?

You'll need a veterinarian who accepts payment on the barter system for that, you whiny cunt.

akaDAD:

Has Speaker Pelosi set the date to surrender yet? I need to clear my schedule for that day.

It's going to be early March, if memory serves me. The olive branch will be extended and Usama bin Laden will be welcomed to the US Capitol to address a joint session of the newly-Dumbocratically controlled Congress. The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown.

Yes, so sad, but true - We are often left without adult supervision around here.

They used to sing "When the lights go on, all over the world" thinking that there would finally be peace. Not to be.

However, Armistice Day, Remembrance Day in Canada and Veterans Day here in the states is nigh.

To all who honorably served, combat or non-combat, of whatever gender or sexual orientation, hold your heads high and fly your banners and flags proudly.

And by the way, Semper Fi to the birthday of the US Marine Corps.

Kevin actually does respond to his email and takes suggestions from commenters. I think it's more a question of time for him than it is something calculated about the way the threads evolve.

Apparently, rickmick's nose is up everybody's ass these days.

[and that was my shot for this thread-well, not a great shot but that's it for me tonight. While I would not normally miss the opportunity to be called the C-word for anything in the world, I think it's hilarious that Normie would think that the abandonment of a US soldier to the enemy is anything other than the Republican Party surrendering to al Qaeda.]

Source of Myth #2: ABC News, which said: "Almost a third of white evangelicals voted for Democrats in today's election"

Was ABC wrong? Maybe. If ABC and CNN give significantly different numbers, then one of them has to be wrong. But we don't know which one it is. Until there's a reason why we know CNN's right and ABC's wrong, who's to say ABC's claim is a 'myth'?

Pale,

I think he rather liked Operation Backward Together, orchastrated by Gen "Lick Spittle" Casey.

stupid git:

Yeah, it ain't a good sign when our allies are ordering us to abandon our own troops because they want to push back against the Republicans.

Good night to you, Stupid Git-keep giving them hell.

The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown.

Now THAT was funny.

Night, all.

I'm more than a little pissed at Carville right now for trying to stir up dissent and oust Dr. Dean from the DNC chair.

I have a better idea than fragging the winning General.

Let's throw Carville and his ilk under a bus, but let's set them on fire first.

'Night Shortstop. They can try, but they can't succeed in wresting the sweet victory from our clutches.

Norman:

I really have no idea why I'm addressing this to you, because this is a post about ideas and you've yet to give me any faith you take ideas seriously. But, since this concerns Libertarianism, you could do worse than to listen to me think out loud about this.

On an earlier thread, Matt wrote something that's been rolling around in my head all night, and may well fundamentally influence my thinking about political alignment. In a nutshell, he says that there's a three-pronged alignment of American ideology: Libertarian -- Liberal -- Conservative, with Liberal being the synthesis between the two antipodes of Libertarianism and Conservatism.

Lemme 'splain:

First of all, forget you ever heard the phrase "small-government conservative." If this was ever true, it's mostly a myth and an epiphenomenon of American history. Conservatives at root are statists. They're authoritarians and traditionalists. They believe in an imposed hierarchy because human nature is inherently flawed. Conservatives revere the past.

The anthesis is not liberalism, but rather Libertarianism. Libertarians are anti-statist. They believe in political and legal equality founded on natural rights. They're suspicious of hierarchy and tradition, and believe "human nature" is what we make of it. Libertarians look to the future.

Neither pole on their own can govern. A pure Conservative social order is an idealized feudalism that never existed. A pure Libertarian utopia devolves into anarchism. What steps in the breach to mediate between the two is Liberalism.

Liberals are neither statists nor anti-statists. Liberals believe in appropriate government, less when government is oppressive, more to assure natural rights. Government in the role of referee, to assure the political and legal equality essential to liberty for all. Liberals are conservative in the sense that they believe in the rule of law and adjudication by a central government, and honor the traditional values that uphold them. But Liberals are libertarian, because the government is subordinated to the service of guaranteeing natural rights and not equal outcomes.

Liberalism is not Socialism, which looks to the well-being of the collective over the individual. Liberalism serves to militate between the two tendencies of conservative hierarchy and libertarian anarchism by providing the pragmatically -- not ideologically -- appropriate level of government for a given situation.

And these ideas are just fresh out of my head, so please, good people, be gentle on them ...

Bob

Globe:

I caught Carville's snarky comment in The Note -- but how is he attempting to get Dean ousted?

Bob

Pale Rider:

No, it was a really dumb shot since all I did was make a practical suggestion to somebody who wanted Kevin to read his comment.

Bob

And these ideas are just fresh out of my head, so please, good people, be gentle on them ...

Eye-popping contradiction #2,985 from the swirly-eyed freak named rmck1.

It is always amusing to be lectured on an ideology that I have lived my whole life--and one that has brought me success and great fortune--by someone who is not even remotely able to understand that of which he speaks.

What is a theory to you is a life to me; what is the amateur analysis of yours is the professional assessment of my own.

Lecturing a parody doesn't make you look very bright, now does it?

And you wonder why you're the mouse that kitty-cat me just ate. Nummy!

Norman:

Now speaking of inconsistent, Norm ol' chap -- but isn't a cornerstone of your persona that Thurston Howell III aura of entitlement you like to project? You know -- all that matters about a man is who his father worked for and all of that? Don't you heap all kinds of scorn at your fellow conservative rdw, mock him with the snide epithet Working Class Hero, because he is not, as are you, To The Manner Born?

So you speak of living Libertarianism. Really. A product of your own bootstraps. Well, if it were genuinely true, you'd hardly be a person worth parodying, would you. You'd be ... honest and hardworking, rather than such a gleefully scamming white-collar criminal -- right?

You only started calling yourself a Libertarian because the Republicans lost, Norman :)

And sorry you couldn't follow my discussion. I posted it to you more so you could kind of look over my shoulder and ask your mom what the big words meant.

Bob

Thanks for the advice, bob/rmck1.

Bob - maybe that he came right out and said Harold Ford should replace howard Dean as RNC chair? That was enough of a proclamation for me.

.... The olive branch will be extended and Usama bin Laden will be welcomed to the US Capitol to address a joint session of the newly-Dumbocratically controlled Congress. The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown....
Posted by: Norman Rogers on November 11, 2006 at 12:24 AM | PERMALINK

You forgot the institution of the new holiday:
National Baby-Eating and Grave-Robbing day.

And Stalin's Birthday.

And the creation of a new government Bureacracy to ensure separation of church and state:
The Department of Lion Feeding.

rmck1;
Not sure I agree with your assessment. (see my prior post on unpragmatic ideological utopians). Libertarians are a subset of Republicans - who were forced to unite the Corporatist Church of Mammon, with the American Taliban of Jerry Falwell, and James Dobson, coupled with some kind of Secret Republican Gay Sex Fratboi Ring, and of course, Eisenhower's "Texas Oil Millionaires". Most of them have bought into the "evil communist conspiracy menace" story of the McCarthy era. All of them are morally bankrupt, and fairly gullible with their ideological positions. So in order to get their fantasy to WORK, they have to get Power to enforce their fantasy onto reality. And the first thing they do when they get power, is they are seduced, and realize that power for it's own sake is important, and that they must fool the other subsets of Republicans that they're in mutual coalition (instead of a scam-fest). They will use any rationalization, including fooling themselves into believing that since they're working for the good of the nation, they're patriotic, and anyone who opposes them, for whatever reason, is evil, and therefore must be part of the communist conspiracy.

You really can't use a rational political theory to explain these people. There's only two ways to deal with the reality-challenged; prison, or antipsychotic drugs.

As Norman so aptly demonstrates, it's very difficult to keep these guys on their meds. And those who have stolen a great deal of money in their pursuit of power for it's own end, it's very difficult to keep them in prison for any significant length of time.

It's tragic, really. For the rest of enlightened, rational, human civilization.

Myth #3 is actually a variation of the daily spin by right-wing nutjobs and the media; i.e. the Democratic Party is made up of nothing but left-wing radicals and they'll never win without embracing conservative values and blah-blah-blah. in fact, there's never been a lack of centrist Democrats (Feinstein, Daschle, Reid, just to name the obvious) and even some with conservative leanings (Nelson, for one; not Lieberman because he is an unthinking sycophant to the right wing). Until Tuesday, they've been too weak counter the demagoguery from the right abetted by a complacent and compromised media. The post-election b.s. talking points spew from Bay Buchanan and the other tools is just more of the same, except now they have to tweak it to justify having their right-wing asses kicked and claim conservative values for obviously centrist Democratic winners. Aside from abortion, there's no effective difference between Bob Casey's viewpoint and Dianne Feinstein's, I will wager, but there's a massive split between Casey's views and the ugly, hard-core extremism of Sen. Ricky. PA voters backed far away from the right and went to the middle with Casey.

Globe:

Shit. That sucks. Where did you read that?

Bob

On some mainstream website that isn't blocked by the net-nanny at the hospital. CNN maybe? I was paying more attention to the bloodbank than the news, but that leaped right the hell out at me.

I didn't elect Nancy Boyda all by myself. I had to have some help from Dr. Dean and the 50 State Strategy.

OBF / IRCPJ:

Oh, I don't disagree with you at all on a practical level. Capital-L Libertarianism has always been one kind of rationalization or another. Always helps to know that most Randroids in cyberspace are highschool students :)

I was making a more political science-y kind of argument, to ressurect liberalism as *the* practical governing philosophy of America -- which militates between the good and bad tendencies of Conservatism and Libertarianism alike.

Bob

Shit. That sucks. Where did you read that?

It's called the "Internet" shit for brains.

See? Now I can be Pale Rider! Good show for me! Would anyone else care to engage in a rousing game of insults in lieu of discussing the topic at hand? Anyone?

I was making a more political science-y kind of argument, to ressurect liberalism as *the* practical governing philosophy of America -- which militates between the good and bad tendencies of Conservatism and Libertarianism alike.

By pulling bullshit from your ass?

I like this, I like this a lot. Oh, your uncle Norman has found a new way to wreak havoc upon the liberals.

secularhuman:

Agreed.

Globe:

Fuck. Believe me, Globe -- I was firmly behind what Dean was doing back when I was posting on BlogForAmerica after he got the DNC nod. It bugs me to no end the way the media have thrown him under the bus in favor of Rahm- and Chuck-worship.

Rahm and Chuck did a stellar job, and kudos all around for them.

But damn straight that more than a few of the victors would have never come out of the woodwork to win without the netroots/state organizating spadework laid by Dean, and in some cases Democracy For America.

Harold Ford, DNC chair? That mealy-mouthed centrist? No fucking way.

Bob

Norman:

It's called "thinking."

Bob

Stellar Job? Rahm-lets-concentrate-on-25-races-Emmanuel? Please. I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire in the center of my synagogue. Fuck.Rahm.Emmanuel. He can go strait to hell as far as this red-state Democrat is concerned.

The ideas of conservatism weren't beat. Conservatives beat themselves by not staying true to conservative values -AL

So, my Son, you are saying the Conservatives got tired of the Conservative [non-Conservative] bullcrap and turned to the left because they were more conservative than the neo-liberals that you elected, and apologized for, because they told you they were neo-conservatives?

Boy that is one confusing tale you got to rationalize a bunch of screwups in office. And Amazingly NONE of it is your fault. You did nothing in support of these neo-cons?

I thought I raised you better AL jr. Now get your fanny perpendicular to school right now young man.

Wow, rmck1 Bob, that's about the clearest and most succinct summary of the American political/philosophical landscape I ever seen. I think you're right on the mark.

A few comments comments:

Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by the need to control personal behavior. They think that human behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some nominative social standard. To them a primary role of government is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Both conservatism and libertarianism are driven by fear. Conservatives fear anarchy, libertarians fear tyranny. Both are fatalistic in their world view, rejecting the the thesis that people can work together for the common good absent a selfish motive. That selfish motive is usually greed, but it's occassionally self preservation in the face of an external threat.

In my experience people who call themselves conservative or libertarian usually lack the self awareness to understand their own motivations and don't understand the philosophical basis of their belief system. Most self-professed libertarians are really only conservatives without the religious baggage.

Democrats/liberals are closer to libertarians when it comes to personal liberties. We generally believe that the government should stay out of peoples personal lives. But we believe that people can work together for the common good based on altruism, not just greed and fear.

aa

I was firmly behind what Dean was doing back when I was posting on BlogForAmerica after he got the DNC nod.

Well, well, well. Let's go have a look and see what gems we can find.

Perhaps on this other blog from several years ago we'll find a person such as myself giving you hell for being a self-contradicting bloviating jackass who couldn't add two and two with an abacus and a calculator that only to go up to "two." I highly doubt we'll find a dozen acolytes who are fawning all over you.

To the liberals who are waiting for me to tell them what to do, a mild apology--I am under house arrest. I am forced to wear a monitoring device on my ankle. We have done just about everything possible to slip it off and defeat the infernal thing, but there it is. I have a great deal of free time and I shall be working on these matters with due diligence. I'll be spending a few hours researching rmck1's previous blog comments--I shall synthesize the best parts and report back to the group. Please--talk amongst yourselves and engage in lively debate until I return.

I like this, I like this a lot. Oh, your uncle Norman has found a new way to wreak havoc upon the liberals. --Norman Rogers

I see our Princeton Ivey League Neo-Liberal is back.

I have a great deal of free time and I shall be working on these matters with due diligence

rmck1 uses a SOCK PUPPET:

aa
Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

By the by, why did you use a "sock puppet" style posting to try to bolster your argument? What kind a twit thinks he can slip that by the more observant members of the group.

In the past you have stated that you have a "tic" on your computer that prevents you from posting text in a manner which formats the comments as those of us who use normal means of posting would utilize.

I leave it to the group. Read these sentences and see if they are not, in their phrasing and composition, merely rmck1 performing a sock puppet dance for all of us to see:

To them a primary role of government is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Now, compare to what rmck1 wrote earlier:

They're authoritarians and traditionalists. They believe in an imposed hierarchy because human nature is inherently flawed. Conservatives revere the past.

And this:

The anthesis is not liberalism, but rather Libertarianism. Libertarians are anti-statist. They believe in political and legal equality founded on natural rights. They're suspicious of hierarchy and tradition, and believe "human nature" is what we make of it. Libertarians look to the future.

Now, we'll go to the sock puppet post and review again:

Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by the need to control personal behavior. They think that human behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some nominative social standard.

I would submit that these paras were written by the same person.

And, I would say rmck1 is busted.

Welcome to the world of dishonest sock puppetry, rmck1.

You are discovered and revealed, sir.

Take your dishonesty and leave.

Globe:

I don't blame you at all. Rahm was a latecomer to the truth about Iraq, and I think all he's concerned about *at all* is "the game" of politics. I don't like him one little bit, either.

I was just being dryly sardonic in acknowledging the media's turning him into some kind of new Karl Rove of the left, is all.

Bob

FACT #1: When Democrats lose elections, they make bogus claims about cheating and voter suppression and intimidation of Black voters. When GOP loses, they admit they lost. -FK

Like George Allen who was having a nightmare???

BWHAHAHHAHAHAAAAAA!

aa

Posted by: aaron aardvarka on November 11, 2006 at 2:03 AM | PERMALINK

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on November 11, 2006 at 2:14 AM | PERMALINK

Nothing fishy here at all. (rolling eyes in disbelief)

Good night, liberals. I don't engage in debates with individuals who resort to sock puppetry. How pathetic and dishonest.

Well, I'm going to bow out of this flame war. Goodnight all. When we wake up tomorrow, you know what?

We will still be the winners of last Tuesdays election. Just once more before I go, check out this this election map. No bright red at all, just lots of bright blue!

Sweet!

Hormonal Citizen:

Well, I'm going to bow out of this flame war.

You're not a bad debater. I don't see you utilizing a sock puppet like rmck1 would. I will grant you that one point of order before I tell you to go shave your other armpit.

Bwah hah hah hah hah hah!

(rmck1--I shall not let you live this down. This is a promise made to you by your uncle Norman. Bank on it, you dishonest hack.)

Norman, shaving is so yesterday. We tough girls wax.

Norman:

*rolling eyes*

Aaron aardvark is a regular here, you goof.

Search the archives for his posts.

And, while I appreciate the kind words, I don't quite agree with his thesis. If I weren't so tired, I'd point-by-point it. I may do that tomorrow.

I don't violently disagree; I think our ideas are in the same ballpark. But there are some key distinctions.

Bob

G'night, Globe.

Bob

(rmck1--I shall not let you live this down. This is a promise made to you by your uncle Norman. Bank on it, you dishonest hack.) Posted by: Norman Roger

Your assuming alot of facts not in evidence unk

Computer TCP/IP packet logs, with computer name, some IP numbers,something along those lines because otherwise you look like a gibbering gibbon...

Night Bob. Night Norman. Night lurkers. Night Mary Ellen. Night John Boy.

Ah, Norman...

I seem to recall that you made some pretty specific predictions as to the outcome of Tuesday's elections in advance of the fact, but I can't bring the figures to mind.

Could you refresh my memory?

Well Storman Norman, you have proved that you are technically, textually, and most likely verbally illiterate, in one fell swoop.

Congratulations!

Bwahahahhahahaaaaa!!

Rand Careaga:

Norman wouldn't know. He's a Libertarian now.

ROTFL !

Bob

GOD FUCKING DAMMIT THE YOUTH VOTE WAS NOT A GODDAMN FIZZLE!!!!1111!!1!one!!

Sure less youth voted than in 2004 but more Americans voted in 2004 than had EVER voted before. To claim youth votes put the Dems over the top (that is, more than any OTHER voting bloc) is hyperbole but to say it was some how a disappointment is wrong. They increased their turnout proportionally in regards to an off year election (2002) more than any other single demographic and they were just as valuable to Dems this year as any other demographic.

You know, for someone who's party has a substantial bloc of young voters you sure like to beat on them.

This is a very post-modern flavored blog you've got here, Kevin!

You want post-modernism - how about regulars arguing with with their own parody sockpuppets and then having their sockpuppets accuse other regulars of sockpuppetry.

Or is that merely cubism?

aaron aardvark:

> Wow, rmck1 Bob, that's about the clearest and most
> succinct summary of the American political/philosophical
> landscape I ever seen. I think you're right on the mark.

Well thanks, aaron, but don't say stuff like this too effusively,
lest the Moron Contingent accuse you of being my sock puppet :)

> Conservatives, being essentially authoritarians, are obsessed by
> the need to control personal behavior. They think that human
> behavior is driven by an internal battle between innate evil
> impulses (original sin) and social pressures to conform to some
> nominative social standard. To them a primary role of government
> is to reinforce social standard. Their authoritarian impulse doesn't
> extend to big business because big business itself is authoritarian
> in nature, and so fits into their psycho-social comfort zone.

Well I think you're conflating some things. While this is certainly
true of social and/or religious conservatives -- I don't think
it's true in the corporate or business world at all. Business
"conservatism" isn't really conservatism -- it's libertarianism;
an ideological belief in the Free Market whether it exists or not,
the upshot being that everybody in business is supposed to watch
their backs and be very insecure all the time. If they got
comfortable in their corporate niche (as used to happen in a different
age when the world wasn't so competitive with American business), this
would be scorned as a type of paternalism and these sorts of employees
would not be pitied if they were canned in the next round of layoffs.

> Both conservatism and libertarianism are driven by fear.
> Conservatives fear anarchy, libertarians fear tyranny.

That's what they seek to avoid, yes. But there's a key
distinction here. Conservatives are pessimists; libertarians
are utopians. Conservatives believe in externally opposed order
and hierarchy because human nature is weak; libertarians believe
that order and hierarchy will arise naturally from merit alone if
people (who are basically good) are left to their own devices.

This is a very very important distinction. Though they may believe
that a natural order may arise, and it may be quite ugly and
Darwinian, Libertarians are *not* temprementally conservative.

> Both are fatalistic in their world view, rejecting
> the thesis that people can work together for
> the common good absent a selfish motive.

Conservatives are more pessimistic than Libertarians. Conservatives
accept greed as a mainspring but aren't necessarily happy about it.
Libertarians believe that greed can become "enlightened self-interest"
which does indeed serve the common good, as John Locke laid it out.

> That selfish motive is usually greed, but it's occassionally
> self preservation in the face of an external threat.

Well, that happens at an instinctual level if the threat is
direct, so I don't know how connected it is to political ideology.
I think group preservation in the face of a collective threat
tends to produce conservative impulses to preserve the group,
and this has anti-libertarian implications (witness the erosion
of our civil liberties in the name of "fighting terrorism.")

> In my experience people who call themselves conservative or
> libertarian usually lack the self awareness to understand
> their own motivations and don't understand the philosophical
> basis of their belief system. Most self-professed libertarians
> are really only conservatives without the religious baggage.

I'd say this is true.

> Democrats/liberals are closer to libertarians when it
> comes to personal liberties. We generally believe that
> the government should stay out of peoples personal lives.

Yes. Democrats tend to be civil libertarians (while supporting
limiting economic liberty), because they accept the distinction
between the public sphere and the private sphere. Since economic
activity affects so many more people than the actor, it's right
that the actor's conduct should be regulated, whereas personal
behavior affects no one but oneself and one's associates.

> But we believe that people can work together for the
> common good based on altruism, not just greed and fear.

I'd hope that this would be true as well.

Bob

aaron ardvark:

A brief codicil about big corporations:

You're correct that there's an inherent authoritarianism in big business, and there's no getting around the corporate hierarchy in expressing this. Underlings are supposed to be subservient, top manargers are supposed to be "great men" (and women) who offer charismatic leadership. So in a way, corporate culture in terms of personal interactions can be feudal and plantation-like.

However, the ideas of corporate employeess are encouraged to be libertarian. Every employee is responsible for his or her own fate, for retraining themselves, for keeping their resumes out there, for aiming for promotions and not getting comfortable in one spot. This is all sustained with individualist ideology. Corporate managers are supposed to be "bold risk-takers," and a truly conservative outlook would smother a corporation not looking to adapt and continually grow.

So there are two sets of dynamics here -- one conservative, one libertarian -- operating at once, sometimes at cross-purposes.

Bob

By the way, y'all.
Rummy's probably not going to get that sweet CEO job at Halliburton;

He's not going to be able to be doing a whole lot of foreign travel for a while:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1557842,00.html

I guess Germany wasn't happy at being referred to as "The Old Europe".

Maybe Rummy can find some little banana republic or emirate with no extradition treaty with Germany - or maybe he can hide-out in France like the Ayatollah did under the Shah.

OBF / IRCPJ:

Yeah. When I read that in the AP, I was smilin' ear-to-ear.

They have the same deal for Henry Kissinger, too. Although in his case, I think the magic country is France.

Bob

I'm pretty sure I heard Dean say, on CNN, that the Democrats won 1/3 of the evangelical vote. (It might've been a different cable news channel.)

Miller: I don't quite get you. The three numbers you mention are changes of 5, 3, and 3 percent. Those just aren't big differences.

More to the point, they aren't any different than the overall nationwide swing in favor of Democrats, which was 5 points. If you want to say that a particular demographic group was heavily responsible for the Dem win, that group needs to have swung much more strongly than the country as a whole. None of the three groups I mentioned did.

Posted by: Kevin Drum on November 10, 2006 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

I am not good at math. However, I think what Miller is referring to is a concept used in Texas Hold 'em Poker. If I am dealt AK suited I am favored to win against 8 other player 25% of the time. If I am dealt AK offsuit I am favored to win 20% of the time. So, the odds of me winning the hand only went up 5% in absolute terms, but it really went up 25%. I would win 5/20 suited, 4/20 non suited. 5/4=25%.

I am not sure if that is a valid reasoning, but it seems like it a valid perspective.

However, your Myth #1 is not really refuted. You are comparing 2004 election results when a more valid comparison would be 2002.

WASHINGTON, Nov. 8 /U.S. Newswire/ -- An estimated 10 million young Americans under the age of 30 voted in Tuesday's midterm elections, an increase of at least two million compared to 2002, according to exit polls and early published tallies of votes that are likely to increase as additional precincts and ballots are included. The preliminary data were analyzed by the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE), which is the nation's premier research organization on the civic and political engagement of young Americans.

The estimated youth turnout rate or percentage of young eligible voters who cast votes also jumped from 20 percent in 2002 to at least 24 percent in 2006, an increase of at least four percentage points (see note one). Voters under the age of 30 accounted for 13 percent of all voters, which is an increase of about 2 points compared to the 2002 midterm elections.

"This is an extraordinary turnout for young voters," said CIRCLE Director Peter Levine. "In a year of rising turnout, young people led the way -- repeating the pattern that we saw in 2004. Youth were an especially high proportion of voters in Montana, Michigan, Minnesota and Missouri. Nationwide, in House races, 61 percent of young people voted for Democratic candidates --the highest proportion for any age group."

http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=75954

I have felt the last few days, you have gotten into Broder, Brooks, and Kaus territory by willfully or ignorantly using misleading information or facts while withholding information that might refute or call into question your point.

Still a big fan.

I have no expectation of understanding this during my time on earth...but for SOME REASON it took six years for enough voters to realize what a bubblehead they have in BUSH and (geez a caller on WJ is making my point as I write) and voted AGAINST him and this corrupt administration and fools in greater numbers than we could pull off in 2004. This will only work for Democrats (and the rest of us) IF the newly elected are wise (and disregard the MSM pundits) with their upcoming moves and decisions. NOW, let's get to work on media consolidation issues before there are NO OUTLETS left for the people to receive actual REPORTING of facts and information!

ALSO...I think people in the Democratic party disparage and disregard Howard Dean at their peril. He should be listened to and his thoughts and observations and opinions weighed with care. He was correct about the 50 state focus and if now DEMS begin to eat their own (as it's actually fun watching REPUGS do) we'll deserve whatever the future holds.

According to Tne Independent (London), 40.4% of the potential population voted. Was this the same roughly 40% that voted in the presidential election, or another set of the voting population? Just curious.

Bob wrote:

"Democrats tend to be civil libertarians"

Eh, depends.

But Democrats don't agree internally on much here, do we? There are plenty of internal rifts in the Democratic Party on a variety of social issues where Democrats occasionally lean toward GOP style authortarianism (drugs, booze, sexual politics, tobacco, etc).

As a Democrat, it usually comes down to where you fall on the social-contract-versus-individual liberty scale.

Actually, Kevin, what you ought to be comparing is midterm-to-midterm, i.e. 2006 to 2002.

Re Bob on liberalism and conservatism and libertarianism:

My analysis of Marx is that he was correct in his analysis but wrong in his prediction. That is, he was correct that capital tends to concentrate in the hands of the rich but wrong that it inevitably results in revolution. I trace Marx’s error in prediction to John D. Rockefeller, Jr’s insight in 1914.

After the 1913 strike at the Colorado Fuel and Iron Co, where 40 people died, Rockefeller was afraid of an American communist revolution. He hired Mackenzie King, labor minister of Canada who later became prime minister, to tell him what he had to do to prevent a revolution. The answer included things like an 8 hour day. Rockefeller basically did what King told him to do. Then he hired Ivy Lee, early PR genius, to tell everybody about it.

That is, Rockefeller figured out how much he had to give workers to keep them from storming his castle with pitchforks, and he gave them exactly that much. Other capitalists understood and eventually followed suit.

The history of the US Congress since then is back and forth between the two factions on how much the workers have to be given to prevent a revolution. Marx’s prediction turned out to be wrong because capitalists figured out how to prevent it.

Four more troops killed yesterday in Iraq - Trools start your blame game - You've never mentioned any deaths before, but I believe that you find no hesitation now.

Ah, yes, the "There's a WMD directly pointed at YOU" election of 2002. Wasn't Fear a wonderful vintage in that off year? When it hit your palette, the trembles began.

Someone up thread had a little too much of Dick Kazmaier stepping on his head in days of old.

CBC Radio 2 will have a day of music honoring Remembrance Day, today. But, for we had the same for our Veterans Day.

And a solemn Taps to the Forty Three Canadians who have died in Afghanistan.

And kudos to the Teamster leaders in Vegas for maintaining strong contracts for those workers setting up Comdex today.

There's a piece on Karl Rove and his observations about the election in Time. He points out that a switch of the right (from memory) 79000 votes and the Republicans control the House. That wouldn't change the overall % of the vote much. Democrats would still have captured significantly more votes. But it exposes the huge structural and distribution problems that Democrats face in trying to forge a sustainable majority. Gloating and schadenfreude longer than 10-12 minutes would probably be a major mistake.

Howard Dean's 50 state plan probably prevented Rove's minority majority. Now, we've got to expand that.

Norman

It's going to be early March, if memory serves me. The olive branch will be extended and Usama bin Laden will be welcomed to the US Capitol to address a joint session of the newly-Dumbocratically controlled Congress. The Dumbocrats are going to formally apologize for American hegemony and bin Laden will be feted at McCormick & Schmick's downtown.

With arguements like this, how is it possible your side lost the election?

Many of the Democratic incumbents were conservatives that Democrats supported for partisan reasons despite their votes to give Bush war power, torture power and their subservience to large corporate issues like the pharma medicaid bill and reducing bankruptcy protection for the average American. In a normal year, an election year without Bush's War, these candidates would not have had party solidarity to help them win elections.

Tomeck - we need to let James Carville know that we will not stand for him and his ilk throwing Dr. Dean under the bus for Harold Ford Jr.

Hows about we throw that asshole Carville under the bus, after we set his ragin' cajus ass on fire?

All that happened was pissed off independents turned against the war, corruption and the economy. I know that people who do this for a living want to parse this kind of thing, but this time there's no parsing. There were no soccer moms, no angry white men, no Reagan democrats--just a vote by independents for accountability and a new direction.

Dear Nurdman Ragger:

Too often weak-minded individuals let others define nouns. They fail to see how Dumbocrat conveniently packs a noun and an opinion in one lumpy package.

This portmanteauism is a skill almost everyone is born with, but for most persons, it decays badly after junior high. Bravo to you for maintaining it!

It is especially heartening to see in a self-described Loonitarian--an adherent to the most deeply out-of-touch microparty this side of the theosophists. Do you really vote for other Loonitarians, or do you sell out to Dumbocrats, Rob-the-publ