tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post2745219191768006483..comments2023-10-26T01:59:40.483-07:00Comments on The Dividist Papers: Carnival of Divided Government UNDECIMUS - Springtime for Divided Government Editionmwhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-4379426355748949552007-03-26T10:53:00.000-07:002007-03-26T10:53:00.000-07:00You seem to believe ..." - supeSupe,And you seem t...<I> You seem to believe ..." - supe</I><BR/><BR/>Supe,<BR/>And you seem to believe that nothing matters in electoral politics except race.<BR/><BR/>No matter how many times you vehemently repeat your unsupported dogmatic beliefs, it does not make them any more true. <A HREF="http://themoderatevoice.com/politics/11687/decision-time/" REL="nofollow">As Cosmoetica said in a reply to your similar comments in a TMV thread:</A><BR/><BR/><I>"SD- people predicted the demise of the Republicans during the Great Depression and WW2- then came Ike. After ‘64 and Goldwater, they were dead. Then came Vietnam, which led to Nixon, and after Watergate, the R’s were left for dead. Then came Reagan and the Iran hostage crisis. Same unexpected results have led to resurgent D’s. <B>You are following the fallacy of uninterrupted trends. Your view is also ahistoric.</B>"</I><BR/><BR/>On a more troubling topic, I find your broad generalizations and characterizations based on race to cross the line into prejudice and bigotry. It is one thing to quote historical trends based on demographic data. It is another thing to make broad characterizations about blacks or any other group based solely on skin color or ethnicity. These are the comments that you make that cross the line:<BR/><BR/>From this thread:<BR/><I>"Look at current black culture, it focuses on getting goodies from the government instead of expanding opportunity in the private sector."</I><BR/><BR/>From the TMV thread:<BR/><I>"Look at the buzzwords used by the current Democratic candidates. Does anyone doubt that when the black and hispanic population hear John Edwards say “Tax increases on the Rich” what they hear is “Tax increases on whites.”</I><BR/><BR/>I moderate comments on this blog to control spam and not to limit debate. However, I am not interested in letting my blog become a forum for promoting prejudice. I don't know you, and I don't know what is in your mind so you get the benefit of the doubt. I assume you are really not intending to say what it sounds like you are saying, But if you are, you'll just need to take it elsewhere.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-11598619722849596782007-03-25T05:55:00.000-07:002007-03-25T05:55:00.000-07:00MW, You offer nothing to support any of your claim...MW, <BR/><BR/>You offer nothing to support any of your claims. You seem to believe that politics is like professional sports where the loser gets an easier schedule or higher draft picks. <BR/><BR/>What happens in politics these days is a negative feed back cycle. Republicans are failing and everything in politics will reinforce the failure. <BR/><BR/>The feedback loop was less important because Democrats could/can always count on the support of blacks, hispanics, jews, unions, and government workers. <BR/><BR/>A third party can not realistically get started in the U.S. because blacks,hispanics, jews, and other demographic groups will not leave the Democrats. <BR/><BR/>I believe that you are incredibly naive to believe that there is an issue and will help Republicans appeal to blacks or hispanics. <BR/><BR/>Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happinses differs greatly based upon culture and ethnicity. Look at current black culture, it focuses on getting goodies from the government instead of expanding opprotunity in the private sector. How can the Republican ever hope to appeal to a group that demands expansion of government goodies? It cannot and thus the Republicans will eventualy fail. <BR/><BR/>I also find it laughable that you believe that the Republicans can ever hope to carry California in a presidential election. You live there and should be able to see how hopeless it is for Republicans in <BR/>California. I wonder when the last Republican will be voted out of the State Senate in California? Probably early than almost anyone suspects.Superdestroyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708119879383713312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-49458798055509669462007-03-23T11:16:00.000-07:002007-03-23T11:16:00.000-07:00Let us deconstruct.Supe says:"You should realize t...Let us deconstruct.<BR/><BR/>Supe says:<I>"You should realize that demographics of a country dictate its destiny."</I> <BR/><BR/>You offer absolutely no support for this statement. It is ridiculous on the face of it and incompatible with the notion that ideas matter. You also apparently limit the definition of "demographics" to mean exclusively race, which means you are using the word incorrectly. Demographic factors also include economic status, age bracket, geographic region, and simple population growth trends and more. I consider trends in each of these categories to be more important demographic factors than race or religion in assessing US politics, political affiliation and the country's "destiny". <BR/> <BR/>Supe says:<I>"The U.S. is becoming more black, hispanic and Asian... Those groups vote overwhemingly for Democrats and have for decades. There is no issue or strategy that will give the Republicans any advantage with blacks, hispanics, jews, asians, or gays."</I><BR/><BR/>While historically accurate, your extended conclusion is complete nonsense. I cannot believe that anyone would even assert this. You are saying that one's skin color, religion, or sexual orientation absolutely determines political party affiliation. Not philosophical ideas, not political vision, not economic self-interest - only color and creed matter according to you. You are just flat wrong. You are not Moses, and just because you've decided to carve your opinions into a tablet does not make them true. <B>Nothing</B> is set in political stone. For decades the Solid South was dependably Democratic. Now the South is dependably Republican. People will vote out of ideology and economic self-interest. As any group moves up the economic scale, their politics inevitably change. <BR/><BR/>Supe says:<I>"Also the American Dream is definitely not colorblind. Just look at your own California and it become a majority hispanic state and with the total number of whites decreasing."</I> <BR/><BR/>WTF??? Who cares if it is a majority Hispanic state? Hispanics want the identical American Dream that everyone else wants - An opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their family. Ever hear of <I>"Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness." </I>??? That is what Hispanics want. And Blacks. And Asians. And Whites. And Gays. And Jews. And Evangelicals. That is what all Americans want. That <I>is</I> the American dream, and it <I>does</I> reside in Americans of all color, creed and sexual preference. <BR/><BR/>To the degree that the Republican party can once again be identifed with that ideal (as opposed to the Party that wants to use government to tell people how to live), to exactly that degree the Republican party will begin to pick up suppport in all those groups.<BR/><BR/>Supe says:<I>"Look at California, it is no longer in play for the Republican during presidential elections or U.S. Senate elections..."</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. California has voted for Republican Presidiential Candidates in the past, and will again. California has elected Republican Senators in the past, and will again. I'll bet on it, and I'd bet that we will see either or both in the next 10 years (within two Presidential/Senate election cycles).mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-49753014231402916972007-03-23T06:51:00.000-07:002007-03-23T06:51:00.000-07:00MW, You should realize that demographics of a coun...MW, <BR/><BR/>You should realize that demographics of a country dictate its destiny. The U.S. is becoming more black, hispanic and Asian just like the California where you live. Those groups vote overwhemingly for Democrats and have for decades. <BR/><BR/>There is no issue or strategy that will give the Republicans any advantage with blacks, hispanics, jews, asians, or gays. <BR/><BR/>Also the American Dream is definitely not colorblind. Just look at your own California and it become a majority hispanic state and with the total number of whites decreasing. <BR/><BR/>Currently, when middle class whites live a Democratic dominate area they quickly realize that they can change nothing at the ballot box but just vote with their feet and move to another state. <BR/><BR/>Eventually enough states will become so solidly Democratic like Mass. or DC that the Republican will not be able to win. <BR/><BR/>Look at California, it is no longer in play for the Republican during presidential elections or U.S. Senate elections. The total number of U.S. congressmen, State Senators, or state reps will never be as high in the future as they are now.Superdestroyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708119879383713312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-19852534073249007612007-03-22T18:24:00.000-07:002007-03-22T18:24:00.000-07:00Cripes. I thought I was going out on a limb by mak...Cripes. I thought I was going out on a limb by making predictions for 2010. <I>30 years?</I> Are you really trying to predict the voting preferences for people who are not even born yet?<BR/><BR/>The American Dream is color blind. Most Americans just want the opportunity to build a better life for themselves and their family. To the degree that Republicans can once again identify themselves as the party of prosperity and opportunity (as opposed to the party of elective wars) they have plenty of time to build a constituency in any demographic.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-13773769375292139522007-03-22T17:07:00.000-07:002007-03-22T17:07:00.000-07:00mw,I was not discussing the 2008 or 2010 election ...mw,<BR/><BR/>I was not discussing the 2008 or 2010 election but further out. If you look at the last thirty years of elections, the only ethnic group that the Republicans win more than 50% of the vote is whites. Since whites are a shrinking demographic group in the United States, that means that the Republicans will slowly lose their ability to get a majority. <BR/><BR/>If you look at California, the Republicans have no chance of ever winning a majority in the state house of senate. As the demographic of the United States become more like California, National politics will become more like California. <BR/><BR/>The reason that so many liberal political writers wrote about the Republican majority is that refuse to look at demographics. They liberal, Democrat voting college professor do not like to think that the Democratic Party gets about half of its votes from non-whites that over 70% or more for Democrats.Superdestroyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708119879383713312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-1475336470401146002007-03-22T15:13:00.000-07:002007-03-22T15:13:00.000-07:00"...how will you feel when the Democrats get such ...<I>"...how will you feel when the Democrats get such a demographic advantage that the Republicans cannot win at the National Level" - SuperD</I><BR/><BR/>Supe,<BR/>I just don't buy it. Less than a year ago people were still talking about a "permanent majority" for the Republicans in Congress. Convetional wisdom was that they were unbeatable. These things always move in cycles. The pendulum will swing back, once Bush is out of the White House. <BR/><BR/>I agree, that the Dems have a huge structural advantage to maintain a majority in Congress in '08. That is why I am supporting a Republican for President in '08. But by 2010 the Republicans will likely have the structural advantage, with more Dems than Republicans up for re-election in the Senate. <BR/><BR/>I am really going to crawl out on the skinny limbs now, but I think there is a good chance that the Republicans will re-take the Senate majority in 2010. If they also keep the White House in 2008 - you now have 2 of the 3 in Republican hands. What does that do for your <I>'huge democratic advantage'</I> ? <BR/><BR/>thanks for the comment.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-9535252155015695892007-03-22T14:56:00.000-07:002007-03-22T14:56:00.000-07:00"there also may be times when it may be better if ...<I>"there also may be times when it may be better if the same party has control of both political branches"-bn1</I><BR/><BR/>bn,<BR/>I've heard variations of this, but I cannot really say that I understand what possible circumstances those would be. From Dems, I hear <I>"well - since the Republican had single party control for so long - we need it for a while to undo the damage they have done."</I> <BR/><BR/>From Reps I used to hear - <I>"We need all branches to implement limited government spending and tax reforms."</I> <BR/><BR/>I don't find either argument compelling. Reps had control for six years and the government grew bigger, spent more, and eroded more rights than under any administration in history. Dems are showing now that they are willing to use the exact same parliamentary games as the Reps did to stifle debate and steamroll their agenda. There is no indication that things would get better if they also controlled the White House. <BR/><BR/>I suppose one could make the case that in a time of war, it would be beneficial to have a unified single party government, <B>but</B> even that is not clear. In times of unambiguous national threat, the congress and the people will always give the President wide latitude as Commander in Chief. OTOH, when the threat is ambiguous, as Iraq certainly was, a single party government may permit precipitous and unwarranted action. <BR/><BR/>Niskanen and Slivinski have shown that we are <A HREF="http://westanddivided.blogspot.com/2006/08/divided-government-statistics-and-war.html" REL="nofollow">more likely to get engaged in major wars under single party control</A> than under divided government, so I guess how you feel about that argument, depends on whether you think our war waging decision process should be deliberative or on a hair trigger. <BR/><BR/>Thanks for stopping by and thanks for the comment.mwhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11181222537529037359noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-9548965043067948132007-03-22T10:37:00.000-07:002007-03-22T10:37:00.000-07:00I found you site from a link at The Moderate Voice...I found you site from a link at The Moderate Voice. <BR/><BR/>If divided government is always best then how will you fell when the Democrats get such a demographic advantage that the Republicans cannot win at the National Level or even on most state levels. <BR/><BR/>If you look at the changing demographics of the United States, national politics in 2020 will probably look like state politics in California (a huge Democratic advantage with a small possibility that a non-politician, already famous person can run as a Republican).Superdestroyerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14708119879383713312noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26542777.post-29684173234596668922007-03-21T19:59:00.000-07:002007-03-21T19:59:00.000-07:00You have a very reasonable approach to the perhaps...You have a very reasonable approach to the perhaps best way to keep government within certain boundaries. Yet, there also may be times when it may be better if the same party has control of both political branches. Let's see what 2008 brings and let's decide thereafter what solution may be the preferable one in the particular circumstances of that time.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00178909142521806307noreply@blogger.com