What the Left Needs to Start (Really)

[Rikurzhen]

I think its comforting to many republicans to believe that everyone is as ideologically extreme as they are. Its not true, but I think it soothing for them to believe it, as it provides a sense of balance.

Sell that someplace else, sister. Pew reports:

 

[Rikurzhen]

Republicans have won the popular vote in a national election exactly once in the last 22 years. And note you don't actually disagree with me on any point I've raised.

Democrats have learned a lesson from the UK Labour Party:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
​

When the voters aren't supporting your ideas, never mind about reforming your ideas, just import new voters, a new client class.

Your observation about Republicans not winning the popular vote is resting on the unstated premise that there has been a contest of ideas taking place within a unified polity. Destroying the nation in order to win elections doesn't say squat about the merit of Democratic policies.

 

[Skylar]

Sell that someplace else, sister. Pew reports:

Voteview is exactly what is the name implies: a record of actual votes. Not professed positions, but the way their votes were actually cast. Which I regard as a much better indicator of their actual positions than what they say.

Also, vote view is measuring the political polarization of actual elected officials. In comparison to the general public in the Pew Research Study.

 

[Dutch]

Liberals all ready presided over the first, most important Tea Party in Boston. Don't need another.

 

[Skylar]

Republicans have won the popular vote in a national election exactly once in the last 22 years. And note you don't actually disagree with me on any point I've raised.

Democrats have learned a lesson from the UK Labour Party:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
​

When the voters aren't supporting your ideas, never mind about reforming your ideas, just import new voters, a new client class.

Its a nice theory. But it doesn't play out in actual policy. Take...gay marriage. There has been no new 'client class' imported from anywhere. The nation has simply shifted dramatically to the left on the issue. On abortion, there's been no new 'client class'.

There's no new client class on back ground checks for gun purchases or healthcare issues or tax cuts for the rich. Even on immigration, the nation's views on immigration reform far more align with Obama's than the 'Republican plan.' Namely, inaction. And that's before any new 'client class' could have been imported by the immigration reform.

Your observation about Republicans not winning the popular vote is resting on the unstated premise that there has been a contest of ideas taking place within a unified polity. Destroying the nation in order to win elections doesn't say squat about the merit of Democratic policies.

My observation is that republicans don't do particularly well in convincing the electorate in voting for their candidate on the national scene. Managing to do it exactly once since 1988. Democrats in contrast have done it 5 times. I posit that its because republicans are on the wrong side of most major social and economic issues. With Bush having burned through much of republican's credibility on foreign policy issues.

On the environment and global warming republicans are the wrong side as well.

And portraying anything you don't like as 'destroying the nation' isn't really an argument. Well, outside the right wing echo chamber. Americans want healthcare reform. They don't want tax cuts for the wealthy. They do care about the environment and global warming. They want background checks on guns. They want abortion to be legal.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Sell that someplace else, sister. Pew reports:

Voteview is exactly what is the name implies: a record of actual votes. Not professed positions, but the way their votes were actually cast. Which I regard as a much better indicator of their actual positions than what they say.

Also, vote view is measuring the political polarization of actual elected officials. In comparison to the general public in the Pew Research Study.

Obama is the least liberal of recent Democratic Presidents while simultaneously nationalizing the health care industry. Does that compute?

The action here is in how the center is defined. Once you contrive a biased methodology you can apply neutral data to the experiment and you're going to get your biased output.

 

[Skylar]

Obama is the least liberal of recent Democratic Presidents while simultaneously nationalizing the health care industry. Does that compute?

I don't think nationalization means what you think it means.

Nationalization is taking private assets and private industry into public ownership by the State. And that hasn't happened. Obamacare is a system of insurance programs that overwhelmingly utilize the private healthcare industry. Its been a boon to the private healthcare industry, as it mandates that more people use their services. And the government has taken no ownership of the private healthcare industry.

Obama is the least liberal president in the post war era. Less than half as liberal as house republicans are conservative.

The action here is in how the center is defined. Once you contrive a biased methodology you can apply neutral data to the experiment and you're going to get your biased output.

Here's a nice wikipedia article on the DW Nominate scaling method.

NOMINATE scaling method - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

I'd suggest reviewing the methodology before dismissing it as 'contrived'. Its been in use since the early 80s. Its award winning, having received the Society for Political Methodology Best Statistical Software Award in 2009....and is one of the preferred measurements of political polarization of Nate Silver. Who pretty much nailed the 2012 election.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Republicans have won the popular vote in a national election exactly once in the last 22 years. And note you don't actually disagree with me on any point I've raised.

Democrats have learned a lesson from the UK Labour Party:

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
​

When the voters aren't supporting your ideas, never mind about reforming your ideas, just import new voters, a new client class.

Even on immigration, the nation's views on immigration reform far more align with Obama's than the 'Republican plan.' Namely, inaction. And that's before any new 'client class' could have been imported by the immigration reform.

Do you actually believe that any nonsense that pops into your imagination and gets typed into a comment magically transforms into truth?

Really, Democrats have favored inaction on immigration? All those Democratic bills, all the Democratic pressure on Republicans, all that is a sign that Democrats favor inaction? Meanwhile all the pressure from the Republican base to do nothing, to not pass any immigration bill, let me guess, that's a sign of action, right?

You actually think the new client class is still awaiting introduction? No, it's been here for decades:

What is the appeal that Democrats hold for immigrants? Redistribution of income, a client class. More immigrants are in poverty than native-born citizens. These are the clients that Democrats are importing. It's a marriage made in hell. Democrats get to expand the welfare state, create administrative jobs for Democratic voting white ladies, the immigrants get the benefits and the bill gets sent to native-born citizens who tend to use welfare redistribution less and thus vote more for Republicans.

 

[Rikurzhen]

Obama is the least liberal of recent Democratic Presidents while simultaneously nationalizing the health care industry. Does that compute?

I don't think nationalization means what you think it means.

Nationalization is taking private assets and private industry into public ownership by the State. And that hasn't happened.

Ownership and control are two different concepts. Obama took control of the health care industry via regulation. The outcome is the same, all that's different is that he allows private investors to profit in exchange for putting up the capital to run the insurance industry so long as the industry does his bidding. Democrats gain nothing by taking ownership because then they have to supply the capital which is used to earn the returns. It's control which is important. So to claim that Obama is the least liberal President while he nationalized 1/6th of the US economy is a sad joke.

 

[Skylar]

Do you actually believe that any nonsense that pops into your imagination and gets typed into a comment magically transforms into truth?

So far, I've found my posts to be far more factual and supportable than what you've posted.

Really, Democrats have favored inaction on immigration? All those Democratic bills, all the Democratic pressure on Republicans, all that is a sign that Democrats favor inaction? Meanwhile all the pressure from the Republican base to do nothing, to not pass any immigration bill, let me guess, that's a sign of action, right?

Perhaps I was unclear. Let me reiterate to make sure you understand me:

Even on immigration, the nation's views on immigration reform far more align with Obama's than the 'Republican plan.' Namely, inaction. And that's before any new 'client class' could have been imported by the immigration reform.

In this passage I'm citing inaction as the 'Republican Plan'. Does that help clear up your misconceptions on my position?

You actually think the new client class is still awaiting introduction? No, it's been here for decades:

Your chart shows the republican party losing the latino vote. Especially among immigrant citizens. Not only in real numbers. But in proportion. How does the failure of the republican party to appeal to latinos translate into 'importing client classes'?

Worse, for immigrant non-citizens, there's a move *away* from the democratic party. A 10% decrease. And 1.5% increase for republicans. Given that non-citizen immigrants don't vote....I don't see the point that the right leaning Center for Immigrant Studies was trying to make when assembling stats on non-citizen immigrants. To show us the tendency of those who may one day achieve citizenship? If so, it shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

What is the appeal that Democrats hold for immigrants? Redistribution of income, a client class. More immigrants are in poverty than native-born citizens. These are the clients that Democrats are importing

And immigrants are especially pro-choice? Concerned about Global Warming? In favor of gay marriage? Support background checks for fire arms? Oppose tax cuts for the rich?

Remember, Republicans are on the wrong side of a variety of issues. For your 'imported client class' argument to be even remotely plausible, the 'imported' folks would have to be on the opposite side of republicans on all these issues. Do you have evidence this is the case?

And even on immigration reform....4 out of 5 republican primary voters want step by step immigration reform. With GOP primary voters supporting a path to legal status for illegal immigrants by a rate of 56 to 36%. Are you saying that 4 out of 5 republican primary voters are 'imported' latinos? If not then how do you resolve this obvious contradiction to your assertions?

 

[Skylar]

Obama is the least liberal of recent Democratic Presidents while simultaneously nationalizing the health care industry. Does that compute?

I don't think nationalization means what you think it means.

Nationalization is taking private assets and private industry into public ownership by the State. And that hasn't happened.

Ownership and control are two different concepts.

Yet ownership is the concept central to nationalization. The meaning of the word doesn't change just because its inconvenient to your argument.

Obama took control of the health care industry via regulation.

The healthcare industry was already regulated. What he did was institute new regulations centered around pre-existing conditions. Requiring insurers to offer insurance regardless of them. That's pretty much it.

And this you claim is 'taking control'? I don't think control means what you think it means either.

The outcome is the same, all that's different is that he allows private investors to profit in exchange for putting up the capital to run the insurance industry so long as the industry does his bidding.

Actually, the outcome is radically different. The government doesn't own any of the private insurers. The government doesn't control their day to day operations, has little say on their leadership, has very little say on their internal policy or the methods that healthcare is distributed, and the private insurers still keep their profits.

Where if the government nationalized private insurers, the government would own them all, the government would control all day to day operations, would have complete say on their internal policy and methods healthcare is distributed, the government would choose leadership, and the government would keep all the profits.

While you can't recognize a distinction between those two situations, I'm guessing most folks could.

 

[Rikurzhen]

In this passage I'm citing inaction as the 'Republican Plan'. Does that help clear up your misconceptions on my position?

I propose a grand experiment. You get on the phone with Obama and tell him to executive amnesty all the illegal infiltrators BEFORE the upcoming election and then we can use the election as a referendum on immigration. I'm game for that. This way we can test your proposition.

Your chart shows the republican party losing the latino vote. Especially among immigrant citizens. Not only in real numbers. But in proportion. How does the failure of the republican party to appeal to latinos translate into 'importing client classes'?

You think that immigration is a force of nature, like the tide coming in or the seasons progressing or the sun rising? Stop immigration and you cut off the immigrant pipeline. As immigrants, hopefully, assimilate to the American mean, they abandon the Democrats. Importing poor people is a godsend for Democrats.

The Washington Post:

These advances are especially impressive because the massive immigration of unskilled Hispanic workers inflated the ranks of the poor. From 1990 to 2007, the entire increase in official poverty was among Hispanics.​

What the Washington Post is describing is the result of choice, policy choice, not a force of nature.

The Democrats are following the script of numerous liberal/labour parties in the West - they import new people who in turn become clients of the welfare state. A variant of this strategy is in play with public unions - Democrats in power award generous settlements to public unions, those unions in turn return the favor by directing, laundered, campaign contributions back to the Democrats. A parasitic mutual dependency. Public unions, welfare dependent immigrants. Any opportunity exploited.

If so, it shows the exact opposite of what you claim.

I'm seeing the problem here - your analytic skills take you to irrelevancies. You entirely missed the increase in immigrant voter support for Democrats from 55% to 62.5%.

Remember, Republicans are on the wrong side of a variety of issues.

We'll have to put this to the test won't we. Let's await November's confirmation of your position - the Democratic sweep fueled by voters who back Democratic policy positions.

.4 out of 5 republican primary voters want step by step immigration reform. With GOP primary voters supporting a path to legal status for illegal immigrants by a rate of 56 to 36%. Are you saying that 4 out of 5 republican primary voters are 'imported' latinos? If not then how do you resolve this obvious contradiction to your assertions?

Funny game you're playing. Poll responses can be shaped by the question asked. Look, let's put it to the test. Get Obama to amnesty those illegal infiltrators and we'll see how much support the public has for the Democratic plan to import clients.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The slogan for the Right Tea Party is Taxed Enough Already
For the Left Tea Party it will be Tax Everyone Again

 

[Bush92]

I think its comforting to many republicans to believe that everyone is as ideologically extreme as they are. Its not true, but I think it soothing for them to believe it, as it provides a sense of balance.

Sell that someplace else, sister. Pew reports:

Great set of data showing why there could be a 4 party system.

 

[Skylar]

I propose a grand experiment. You get on the phone with Obama and tell him to executive amnesty all the illegal infiltrators BEFORE the upcoming election and then we can use the election as a referendum on immigration. I'm game for that. This way we can test your proposition.

Given that republicans are on the wrong side of so many issues before all the 'illegal infiltrators' receive 'amnesty', what would that measure? And of course, even the most expansive 'amnesty' proposal doesn't involve voting rights for any of the 'illegal infiltrators' for more than a decade. Making your 'grand experiment' doubly irrelevant to the upcoming election.

As you still can't explain republicans being on the wrong side of the issues before the election. And you can't explain how the amnesty would effect the election during the election.

Perhaps you can resolve these inefficiencies in your reasoning.

You think that immigration is a force of nature, like the tide coming in or the seasons progressing or the sun rising? Stop immigration and you cut off the immigrant pipeline. As immigrants, hopefully, assimilate to the American mean, they abandon the Democrats. Importing poor people is a godsend for Democrats.

I think that a solid majority of the electorate favors it. Even a solid majority of republican primary voters. And your own right leaning Center for Immigrant Studies graphic showed the exact opposite of what you suggested. Showing that the non-citizen immigrants (which would presumably include 'illegal infiltrators') moving toward the republicans. While the citizen immigrants (the ones that can vote) are with democrats.

And of course, you're still assuming that all of the policy positions that republicans are on the wrong side of are because of immigration. That's an assumption you've never been able to back up. On immigration, there's strong support for immigration reform and step by step legal status for 'illegal infiltrators' among the general public *and* republicans. Toasting your attempt at externalization to excuse republican inconsistencies with the will of the electorate.

You've never been able to establish any connection between immigrants and say, gay marriage. Or global warming. Or background checks on guns. Or any of the litany of issues with which Republicans differ from the electorate.

Your argument is very swiss cheesy.

I'm seeing the problem here - your analytic skills take you to irrelevancies. You entirely missed the increase in immigrant voter support for Democrats from 55% to 62.5%.

Oh, I didn't miss it. In fact, I commented on it extensively. You simply weren't paying attention:

Your chart shows the republican party losing the latino vote. Especially among immigrant citizens. Not only in real numbers. But in proportion. How does the failure of the republican party to appeal to latinos translate into 'importing client classes'?

Skylar
Post #50

I invite you to try again, this time reading for comprehension.

The Democrats are following the script of numerous liberal/labour parties in the West - they import new people who in turn become clients of the welfare state.

There are several obvious problems with your analysis. First, Republicans are on the wrong side of most major social and economic issues. Gay marriage, background checks, global warming, etc....that have no specific connection to immigration. Yet you blame the all differences between republican positions and that of the electorate on immigration.

That dog won't hunt.

Second, republicans demographic problems transcend immigrants. Republicans do comparatively poorly with blacks, native latinos, asians, essentially any group that isn't white. With a full 88% of Romney voters being white. You can try and keep hitting that 'importing client class' schtick all you like, but it breaks on republican performance with any non-white demographic, regardless of immigration status. Just like it breaks on the diversity of issues that Republicans are on the wrong side of. Most of which have no plausible connection to immigration.

How do you resolve these numerous, overlapping, and theory crippling inconsistencies in what you choose to believe and the evidence? By using an old classic: you ignore them.

I choose not to.

Funny game you're playing. Poll responses can be shaped by the question asked. Look, let's put it to the test. Get Obama to amnesty those illegal infiltrators and we'll see how much support the public has for the Democratic plan to import clients.

Citing polls is a 'game'? Odd, you didn't think so when you cited the Pew Study on political polarization only a few posts ago. So is it all polling data that is a 'game', or just the polls that contradict you?

Since you seem to consider Pew reliable, their polling data shows pretty overwhelming support for illegal infiltrators being given a way to stay here.

So is the Pew Research center accurate or inaccurate? If its inaccurate, then say goodbye to your political polarization poll. If Pew is accurate, then pucker up butter cup. Because its about to get so much worse for you.

This is one of my favorites, showing a majority of republicans indicating that illegals should be allowed to stay legally. Almost a super majority of republicans. And a super majority of white, black and Hispanics.

So are all these studies wrong? Or is your view simply not the view of the overwhelming majority of the electorate? You can't even carry white folks or even republicans with your view.

But its the 'imported client class', huh? Your own source says otherwise.

 

[Rotagilla]

Anything that breaks the strangle hold the Democrats and Republicans have on our political system is a good thing in my eyes.

Theoretically, yeah.

But any Intro to Political Science 101 professor (or any good one, that is) will tell you that the two-party system in a representative democracy works best.

It may lend itself to marginalization and polarization and even aid and/ or abet the creation of an underclass, but the two-party system does theoretically ensure that everyone is represented, as everyone has to lay aside minor philosophical differences and choose a side that represents him/ her best overall, intrinsically speaking.

LMAO..."Pol Sci 101 professor"....Yes, well, we don't need "expert" theoreticians quoting from books they read...

The 2 party electoral system has run it's course.

All three branches have become corrupted and there is essentially no difference between the 2 parties..It's all controlled opposition and political theater to keep the hyperpartisans agitated and distracted...."electing" some "new" politicians isn't going to change anything.

 

[Rotagilla]

"redistribution of the wealth" is a myth, perpetraited by those who hope to cut capital gains taxes, inheritance taxes and make the income taxes flat so we all pay the same rate. Guess who benefits from these changes?

The citizens of the country are the ones who would benefit.
Why should the gvmt get a cut of anything I (or you) inherit?
Why should the gvmt get a cut of any money I (or you) make from selling MY property?
Why would you be against a fair tax rate for all americans?
You big gvmt statists think the answer to all social problems is for the gvmt to seize more money from the taxpayers.

 

[candycorn]

Nationally, the Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the next one looks more and more like it will be 6 out of the last 7. There is zero need for the Dems to change a thing.

 

[Rotagilla]

Nationally, the Democrats have won 5 of the last 6 popular votes and the next one looks more and more like it will be 6 out of the last 7. There is zero need for the Dems to change a thing.

Yes because "winning" an election is vastly more important than actually correcting problems.

zero need for the Dems to change a thing..

... everything is going SO well under democratic "leadership"...

 

[Wry Catcher]

Progressive/liberal ideas have traction in all but he most extreme conservative citizens. Most Americans agree women should be paid the same as men for the same work; seperate but equal is never equal and that the wealth of our nation is too much in the hands of the 1% for the long term good of our nation.

Most agree that having a child is a personal matter and one which a government should not impose; that a town, city, county or parish and state ought to be governed by political bodies which represent the demographics of the political subdivision, and that the rule of law must be applied equally and fairly to citizens and non citizens alike.

Yet the right seems to win the propaganda battle as reactionary forces work everyday to 'defrock' our democratic institutions and traditions. Why?

You certainly win the award for most vapid post.
Because at the same time most Americans would agree that allowing lawsuits against employers on spurious grounds is wrong, killing children is wrong, and confiscating wealth from hard working people is wrong.
Which are all other ways to word what you wrote.

The right is on the opposite side of the majority on most major issues. Abortion, immigration, wealth distribution, healthcare, background checks for gun purchases, gay marriage, even tax cuts for the rich.

That's why 2010 saw the biggest turnover in the House in history? Why the majority of state legislatures and governors are GOP?
Yeah, smoke some more.

And you wonder why I know you're stupid?