And yet somehow I can't bring myself to feel sorry for the repulsive little toad. Better to get all Republican on his ass and tell him tough shit about the tough childhood but you have grievously violated our laws and customs and You Must Pay.
The TNR article looks kinda Chicken Little to me. Lots of ooh, the scary Republicans win even when they lose, which is hard to falsify.
There are some good points in there, but 88/90 percent of liberals hold certain liberal views, while only 51 percent of the population does? Why is that surprising? And "Democrats have become majority female"? WTF? Isn't America majority female?
Yeah, what makes that scarier than the fact that Republicans are majority male?
Democratic Party, thy name is woman!
my muther wuz a masculine woman, and that's why I iz a masculine man!
Watch out for us Texan white trash. We're scarey. Luckily most of us lack brains, or will, or shoes.
It's a weird article (if it is the one I read). It seems like a summary of Edsall's book, and makes no real argument as such about his thesis. It's all topic sentences.
At a minimum, if it's only 6% of the electorate that's in play, then, at worst, the Republicans start with a lead of 50%-44%, and we were able to capture 2/3 of the truly undecided vote in '04. That seems a reason for hope. And if he's simply saying that the Republican coalition is coherent in a way that our isn't--something that seems less clear these days--what of it? For a long, long time, Republicans identified themselves primarily as against Democrats; you see that to this day. If that's the Democratic Party's lot, it's hardly clear that it can't win the majority of elections on that basis. Gawd knows I'm scared to death of them, and an increasing number of Bush voters seem to feel the same way.
If standing up against torture and in for the right to vote is a loser, then winning elections is probably a bad thing.
The fact that many observers view this presidency to be a string of contradictions may actually have a very pluasible explanation. One needs look no further than some of the programs that this administration has promoted. The Medicare prescription drug program is seen to be one of the largest expansions of entitlements in decades…but it courts the elderly voter. The tax reductions and the waiver of the capital gains tax, while argued to have stimulated the economy, have been extended while budget deficits and spending continue to swell…but they court other constituencies. There are other examples including controversial issues like Social Security and immigration reform. Collectively, the efforts and objectives of this administration don't make ideological sense...except when looking at assembling a majority voting block.
I believe Rove’s approach is anything but conventional. Many strategists gauge what a candidate needs to give each constituency in order to maintain their support. I’m convinced that Karl Rove calculates the tolerance thresholds of each constituency to determine the amount of disappointment each group can withstand and still remain a part of the patchwork coalition. To provide an analogy, I would equate it with the principle of ascertaining the least common denominator. It is a bare minimum equation. At the same time, he evaluates the amount of vitriol that may need to be directed at the opposition in order to augment the disappointment delivered across the board. This is done to keep the coalition voters engaged and motivated so they will turn out to protect the establishment's chosen vision for America.
Read more here:
Yeah, what makes that scarier than the fact that Republicans are majority male?
I think the idea is that boys won't vote for girls, whereas girls will vote for boys. Much like the Dora the Explorer situation.
Wait, Dora's on the ballot? I thought she was Mexican.
But "majority female" doesn't mean "majority of people running for office are female." Sadly.