Well they have managed to turn the derp up to 11. 

Rick Perry wants to re-invade Iraq (despite the fact that the withdraw (which, if you recall, originality should have been only a few months after they 'hailed us as liberators' back early in the last decade), so that we could fight Iran, wow, now that's a sure fire vote-getter. 
{ed.comment: Oh, if only we had a strong secular leader in Iraq with a military that could counter Iran.}

Rick 'Frothy' Santorum wants to ban birth control (while rolling back Griswold and Roe)as a way of controlling sexual behavior, as one of his first actions, because that's just what small governments do.  Hey, that's vote magnet ain't it.  Women are going to be flocking to support him.  He also wants to eliminate the 9th Circuit based on some of the most marginal stats ever - but math does have a noted liberal bias.  Never mind that he would have no power to do that.

Mitt - well it's hard to say because everything he was for he's now against, and everything he was against he's now for, but for sure he knows how to create jobs (off-shore).  I will say that he looked properly pained to be there with the common folk.

Newt - well that was kinda brilliant how he answered the draft question saying he was married and had kids, only to have Ron Paul say that he served when he was married and had kids.  Ouch.
{ed.note: though Paul was being completely disingenuous, he was forced to go, its' not like he chose it.}

Of course, Ron Paul being Ron Paul after getting on Newt's case about things that were 40 years old, turned around and said that the newsletter issue was 20 years ago and not relevant. 
{ed.note: Can't manage a newsletter?  Can't manage a nation.}

And I got all that just by watching during the commercial breaks in the football game - I can't imagine what the rest of it sounded like, nor how much all this gets turned up in S Carolina next week.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 08, 2012, 09:13:02 AM
(snip)

Of course the problem with any poll is you can find another poll that will contradict that poll.  Even if you have two different groups asking the same thing of the same people, the poll results could be very different by simply asking the questions differently.

On the other hand, you could ask questions like:
1. Should we be a warring nation?
2. Should we spend more than we collect in revenue?
3. Should every citizen of this country have the same rights?
4. Should we allow people to get sick and die because they have no money for health care?

The vast majority would probably answer: 1. No, 2. No, 3. Yes, 4. Yes.  The last two would indicate there's a lot of socialists living in the good ol' USA.  OMG!

(snip)

Gallup has been asking the same political ideology and political identification questions for more than 50 years.  That is why they are so useful in looking at trends.  The trend is working against th Democrats.  As a party, they are becoming more extreme and less mainstream.

I would think most republicans and conservatives would answer "No" to question #4.  Of course, the devil is in the details, because they would also answer that each individual has a responsibility to provide for themselves and their future.  Cradle-to-grave socialism has proven to be a failed social model.

The role of government is to make sure there exiats a level playing field; not to ensure that the game end in a tie.

Yeah, Germany and France and other European nations sunk themselves with all that socialism stuff.  It's great that they destroyed themselves to the point that they can't compete with us anymore. 

Fact is health-care - far from being a matter of personal responsibility - is really an industrial issue.  It adds a considerable cost to US products that other companies in other nations don't have.  Odd that the US - one of the pioneers of Public Health back in the 1840s - would fall so far behind after taking the initial lead.

And here's the thing about polling data and why it's been so far off of late, and getting worse.  Polls use land lines.*  Which means they are polling an increasingly obscure and marginal section of the population.  One that is older, so of course, more conservative.  If you are polling by land line only the odds of getting anyone under the age of 35 is poor at best.  It's also going to cost you a lot of urban people as land line usage tends to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and it's now higher for businesses than it is for individuals - who are all on mobile/cell phones.  I know exactly one person (out of about say 50 I know well enough to say this about) who have a land line, everyone else went cell almost a decade ago now.  Since I'm on a DNC list, and have a cell phone, I'll never get polled.  And I think they are missing a huge segment of the population, which, again, is why the polling data anymore rarely supports the outcomes it's intended to predict.

*The also can't contact people on DNC lists, which also tend to a younger demographic.

Quote from: tekla on January 08, 2012, 05:34:08 PM
snip

And here's the thing about polling data and why it's been so far off of late, and getting worse.  Polls use land lines.*  Which means they are polling an increasingly obscure and marginal section of the population.  One that is older, so of course, more conservative.  If you are polling by land line only the odds of getting anyone under the age of 35 is poor at best.  It's also going to cost you a lot of urban people as land line usage tends to be higher in rural areas than in urban areas, and it's now higher for businesses than it is for individuals - who are all on mobile/cell phones.  I know exactly one person (out of about say 50 I know well enough to say this about) who have a land line, everyone else went cell almost a decade ago now.  Since I'm on a DNC list, and have a cell phone, I'll never get polled.  And I think they are missing a huge segment of the population, which, again, is why the polling data anymore rarely supports the outcomes it's intended to predict.

*The also can't contact people on DNC lists, which also tend to a younger demographic.

Pew Research has been looking at the landline/cell phone issue for some time.  So have the other major polling groups.
HERE is an article from the time of the 2010 elections by Pew which addresses those issues.

Gallup published an interesting table concerning its accuracy record with respect to presidential elections.  Table

Gallup tends to slightly overestimate the support of the more liberal candidate.

QuoteWell they have managed to turn the derp up to 11.

This is my favorite election cycle yet.

Possibly inappropriate humor: I was at my daughter's school for a performance a few months ago, and I texted a friend and said "you haven't lived until you've seen a [special education] talent show." His answer was "what about the GOP debates?"

Hahaha I'm a monster.

It's really hard to look at the field, particularly the standouts like the mobbed-up developer with a slight ego problem (really, not only does the US NOT want a President who would pick a public fight with Rosie O'Donald, but yeesh, damn it you at least have to win), or the Pizza Guy who was delivering more than pizzas cause his sauce was so boss, the disgraced ex-Congressional leader on his third marriage running on the Family Values platform, the guy who not only couldn't get re-elected, but lost by a record amount (who wants to start a war with Iran), an anti-gay Congressperson considered by many to be flat-out crazy (who wants to use nuclear missiles on Iran), the guy who followed Bush as governor of Texas and made Bush look smart (and want's to re-invade Iraq), and and some guy who thinks that the US shouldn't have any foreign policy at all but heroin should be legal and has a cult-like following who's not likely to support anyone but him.... well its hard to look at that bunch and think that anyone who is supporting that mess is serious about helping out America.

Remember when the Republicans were the party people trusted to run foreign policy?  Yeah, about that...

Nope, because against some of the worst economic stuff we've ever faced, they really want a Ka-Billionare (they relate so well with average Americans don't 'cha know), Mister 1% himself who's every fiber of his being screams: "I'm an entitled, inconsiderate ->-bleeped-<-" >>> who you would think being that kind of person would have a regular LoveFest going on in the Republican Party, but it turns out he's a member of a weird religious cult, and having actually governed a major state has had to sign off on decisions that were not 1000% Tea Party Pure (meaning: they worked) so he gets denounced as being a RINO (Republican In Name Only).

And the one guy who actually has some real credentials, a governor with real foreign policy experience who actually sounds sane when he speaks, he's the one in trouble (though to be sure I think he's really running for 2016) - though in fairness... supporting scientific evidence for global climate change and being able to speak another language and actually doing so - never mind it's freakin' Mandarin - makes me wonder if he actually knows what party he is running in.

And it's at a point where it's far more than just Who Is Going To Best Solve Our Problems?  I can't find anyone who is even willing to discuss the very nature of the problems without either sticking their heads in the sand or skidding off the tracks on some Saul Alansky/Socialism/UFOs/Illuminati Knights Templar tangent.

Here's an example.  Almost everyone agrees that we've lost the war on drugs.  (Yeah, and by any standard you'd care to use)  We have totally failed not only at attempts to stop the flood of illegal narcotics into this country, we can't even seem to curtail the amount of illegal drugs produced in this county.  I can go to work and get anything I want between what's out on the streets and what rock workers and patrons have (particularly the bar-staff if you know what I mean).  And you can say, "Well Kat, that's because you work in a human sewer overflowing with alcohol and filled with a bunch of dopers" - and OK, that's true.  But Felix above me here, Felix who is NOT working around 'those rock star' people in some big city club, Felix who does NOT have a couple of hundreds in his pocket for walking around money that's just waiting to be spend on personal indulgence...Felix can find drugs just as easily as I can.  So can the people in NYC, or Chicago, or Topeka (it might be easier to find meth in Topeka than it would be for me), or any town large or small, or rural or Downtown LA.

And that's not just me saying we've failed.  Law enforcement officers admit we've failed.  Drug addicts admit we've failed - and are proof of it.  Teachers, kids, priests, even local and state politicians all admit that our current anti-drug policies are abject failures, and half of them have some drugs around -or are on drugs right now - to prove it.  Forty years - 4 decades, two generations now - we've had a huge War on Drugs and as far as I can see the amount of drugs has increased, the number of drugs has increased (X and the club/designer drugs and crack were not even around at the beginning of The War), and the potency of the drugs has gone off the charts.  That's some mighty fine police work there Lou.

But, no matter the level of failure that everyone sees and admits to we don't change our drug policies.  In fact, anyone who stands up and says 'we need to discuss this issue' is slammed for being 'weak on crime' and either laughed at or hunted down and either way their career destroyed.

There are lots of little reasons as to why we are so hung up on not changing it - money in the criminal justice system being a huge one - but I think the one big overriding one is that our culture can't admit defeat and it's killing us.  We'd rather thousands of people a day keep getting hooked on drugs than stop the madness and rethink our entire strategy.  And its the same thing with the war on terror or our budget crisis.  We can't admit that we've got a problem and that how we're doing things might be wrong.  It's more important for 'our team' (whichever team it is you happen to root for come election season) to win.

And so long as the real nature of the problem is unstated, so long as the real causes are not looked at, so long as attention is paid to everything BUT the rational choices, so long as no body is even going to describe it in realistic terms - then so long is nothing going to happen, and everything is going to just get worse.

And, with everything getting worse I'm expected to somehow take seriously this bunch of people as the potential leaders - AS THE OPPOSITION TO THE REALLY CRAPPY WAY THINGS ARE BEING RUN - as the folks that will that will help guide us out?  With a national economy on the skids, the international economy looking even worse, a declining educational base, a manufacturing base that's all but destroyed,  huge health care issues including: the rise of infectious disease, the drug problem, bankrupting costs, entrenched interests manipulating the system for their own profit, and a vast difference in care levels regardless of the problem (how do you think that infectious stuff gets going and keeps going?), I'm supposed to listen to derp about gays and birth control and abstinence - do they have some sort of penis/sex infatuation or what? - as somehow being the least bit relevant to anything meaningful?

Am I really supposed to take seriously anyone who even for a nano-second thought about giving Rick Santorum or Michele Bachman the nuclear launch codes? Am I supposed to put the economy in the hands of someone who bankrupted two casinos?  I'm supposed to put someone who delivered pizzas in charge of foreign policy?  I'm supposed to put the police power of the government in the hands of Newt?  And I'm going to put the well being of the entire citizenry as well as the wealth and treasure of the United States into the safe keeping of Mitt?  You're kidding me right? 

I think they should rename the Republicans the Thelma and Louise Party because they sure are pedal to the metal heading toward the edge and they ain't even thinking about tapping the break.  I think we're heading towards a very large cliff and the best any of us can do is to hopefully get the hell away from the rest of the herd before they plunge off into the abyss and take us with 'em.

PS.  I want god to strike dead the next one of these scumbags who says 'the government can't create jobs' as they try to get a government job.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 08, 2012, 04:51:20 PM
I would think most republicans and conservatives would answer "No" to question #4. 

Thanks for catching that.  It should have said, "No".  I'll make the correction. 

Only a heartless bastard who didn't care what anyone thought of him or her would publicly say those who can't afford healthcare can get sick and die.  If the heartless bastard does care about what others think of him or her, that statement will be reworded so as not to sound so heartless and cold.  At that, politicians excel.

Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 07:10:39 AM
Am I really supposed to take seriously anyone who even for a nano-second thought about giving Rick Santorum or Michele Bachman the nuclear launch codes? Am I supposed to put the economy in the hands of someone who bankrupted two casinos?  I'm supposed to put someone who delivered pizzas in charge of foreign policy?  I'm supposed to put the police power of the government in the hands of Newt?  And I'm going to put the well being of the entire citizenry as well as the wealth and treasure of the United States into the safe keeping of Mitt?  You're kidding me right? 

This should be asked of anyone and everyone who is voting Republican, over and over and over, until they get it.

(that launch code thing sent chills down my spine...)

I'd also like to add,

Am I supposed to put education in the hands of a man who's solution to the failure of schools in poor neighborhoods is to fire the union janitors and pay the students to be janitors so they learn a skill?

Am I supposed to place the responsibility of civil rights in the hands of a man who tells children of gay parents they would be better off if their parents were straight and in prison?

Am I supposed to put freedom of religion in the hands of anyone who runs on a religious platform?

Am I supposed to put the hope of living in peace in the hands of anyone who is planning a war before even getting into office?

Maybe the real drug problem is within the Republican candidates.  They have to be on something.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 09, 2012, 10:39:15 AM
This should be asked of anyone and everyone who is voting Republican, over and over and over, until they get it.

(that launch code thing sent chills down my spine...)

You seem content with an Administration that put Joe Biden on the ticket to beef up its foreign policy credentials 

I'd also like to add,

Am I supposed to put education in the hands of a man who's solution to the failure of schools in poor neighborhoods is to fire the union janitors and pay the students to be janitors so they learn a skill?

Am I supposed to place the responsibility of civil rights in the hands of a man who tells children of gay parents they would be better off if their parents were straight and in prison?

Am I supposed to put freedom of religion in the hands of anyone who runs on a religious platform?

Am I supposed to put the hope of living in peace in the hands of anyone who is planning a war before even getting into office?

How is "living in peace" helped by a person who orders assassinations while violating another country's sovereignty?

Maybe the real drug problem is within the Republican candidates.  They have to be on something.

I have yet to read the praise for the current occupant of the White House.  Odd. 

Quote from: Jamie D on January 09, 2012, 01:18:08 PM
I have yet to read the praise for the current occupant of the White House.  Odd. 

I praised him.  I said he throws the dog a bone once in a while.

Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 07:10:39 AM
It's really hard to look at the field ...

PS.  I want god to strike dead the next one of these scumbags who says 'the government can't create jobs' as they try to get a government job.

I must admit, that was an impressive rant.

Just to clarify one thing.  There can be little doubt that Mr. Obama is a Saul Alinsky acolyte.  For those who don't know who Saul Alinsky was, I refer you to his book, Rules for Radicals.

In speaking about the Obama campaign and Democratic Convention in 2008, the son of the late communist community organizer said,

"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness ....  It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board.  When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen.  Obama learned his lesson well.

  "I am proud to see that my father's model for organizing is being applied successfully beyond local community organizing to affect the Democratic campaign in 2008.  It is a fine tribute to Saul Alinsky as we approach his 100th birthday."

High praise indeed!

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 09, 2012, 01:36:11 PM
I praised him.  I said he throws the dog a bone once in a while.

Lucky dog.

You seem content with an Administration that put Joe Biden on the ticket to beef up its foreign policy credentials
Happy though everyone was to see the Office of the Vice President return to it's natural 'under a rock somewhere, and who cares anyway?' Constitutional status after The Dick Cheney Years (now running at an undisclosed location, that turned out to be his house) Obama's foreign policy has been nothing short of brilliant.  He returned the policy decision to the Secretary of State (from the National Security Adviser and the aforementioned Dick Cheney) put someone beyond totally competent in charge and left them alone.  And you've hardly heard a peep of problems from any of those pesky foreign countries who always seem to be peeping all the time.  Hillary Clinton is going to go down as one of the best SofState ever.  And we were damn lucky to have her.

How is "living in peace" helped by a person who orders assassinations while violating another country's sovereignty?
Can't bring yourself to say it can you?  Barrack Obama killed Osama bin Laden.  There.  It's done.  And we could quibble morality, but the moment he took responsibility for 9-11 he was dead^*, the only issue was going to be how long?  And no sovereign nation would ever say that they didn't have the right to hunt down and kill someone who attacked them like that.  And after reading the WikiLeaks on the conduct of Pakistan I'm really OK with it.

I guess we could have sent him something that made it look like he won a prize, a vacation in Disney World or something and nabbed him when he tried to get on the Mad Tea Cup Ride.  Think that would have worked?


* - and he was dead because BO did what anyone in that office would have done, what I would have done had I been sitting there and they walked in and said "We know where he is" - and that's ask "Then why is he still alive?"  No doubt that there were many people in the intelligence community as well as the military - the kind of people who when they make up their mind to do something, they get it done - they pretty much swore a blood oath to revenge 9-11.  And no matter how long, or how far, they were going to find him and kill him.  Done deal.

Quote from: tekla on January 09, 2012, 03:22:01 PM

snip

Obama's foreign policy has been nothing short of brilliant.  He returned the policy decision to the Secretary of State (from the NationalSecurity Adviser and the aforementioned Dick Cheney) put someone beyond totally competent in charge and left them alone.  And you've hardly heard a peep of problems from any of those pesky foreign countries who always seem to be peeping all the time.  Hillary Clinton is going to go down as one of the best SofState ever.  And we were damn lucky to have her.

snip

Mr. Obama's foreign policy began with the "bow, kowtow, and apology tour."  And it hasn't improved since.

He is inconsistent (i.e. Egypt ... Libya ... Syria??), has destabilized Iraq, emboldened Iran, punted in Afghanistan, and enabled Islamo-fascism around the world.  No one can argue the world is a safer place today than it was in 2008.

Quote from: Jamie D on January 09, 2012, 01:39:17 PM
"Barack Obama's training in Chicago by the great community organizers is showing its effectiveness ....  It is an amazingly powerful format, and the method of my late father always works to get the message out and get the supporters on board.  When executed meticulously and thoughtfully, it is a powerful strategy for initiating change and making it really happen."

I think Alinsky' son was a bit generous in praising Chicago politics and his father.  George Dunne and Rod Blagojevich, both students of that "amazingly powerful format", ended up in jail.

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 09, 2012, 06:44:55 PM
I think Alinsky' son was a bit generous in praising Chicago politics and his father.  George Dunne and Rod Blagojevich, both students of that "amazingly powerful format", ended up in jail.

"Generous"?  I'd say spot on!

The Alinsky clique runs deep in Obama's Chicago circle. Need I mention Mr. Obama's long-time, close association with Alinsky followers and domestic terrorists Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn?  ACORN anyone?

You know anybody can (and has) used the Alansky community organizing stuff.  He might have had an ideology (it's political stuff, community organizing, so of course it has an ideology), but you don't have to share his ideology in order to employ his strategy and tactics.   And I don't think that BO was some huge follower, FTR I think Hillary was more a student of Alansky.  And lots of the Tea Party stuff is right out of Alansky's work. 

Though I do think it's cute that they've got all these people thinking that Harvard Law now is graduating a bunch of radical socialists instead of the rank and file, status quo of the 1%.

Quote from: tekla on January 10, 2012, 12:59:51 AM
You know anybody can (and has) used the Alansky community organizing stuff.  He might have had an ideology (it's political stuff, community organizing, so of course it has an ideology), but you don't have to share his ideology in order to employ his strategy and tactics.   And I don't think that BO was some huge follower, FTR I think Hillary was more a student of Alansky.  And lots of the Tea Party stuff is right out of Alansky's work. 

Though I do think it's cute that they've got all these people thinking that Harvard Law now is graduating a bunch of radical socialists instead of the rank and file, status quo of the 1%.

Not only was Mr. Obama a follower of the Alinsky Method, he taught it and wrote about it.

Case in point:

After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois
Chapter 4: Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City
by Barack Obama (1988)

There are certain buzz words in politics that cause irrational behavior in certain humans.  "Communism" and "socialism" are two of them.  If you can tag someone with either or both of those stigmas, you can seriously handicap them.  It's a lot like how certain christian identified people use the word "homosexual" instead of "gay".  For the ignorant, it stirs up a lot of irrational fear.

There is a rather humorous litany of labels that Obama haters have tried to attach to him.  For the educated, that hasn't worked.  I'm not saying he's a saint.  Simply being a politician precludes him from that category.  But when you compare him to the parade of GOP hopefuls that the Pubs are displaying as the Great White (or Black) Hope, Obama is simply the better alternative.

But regardless of who you like, if your trans, LGB, or just an advocate, supporting (most) Republicans is like a Jew in Nazi Germany supporting the Third Reich.  By and large, the entire Republican party has stood steadfast in NOT supporting ENDA.  They see LGBT people as third class citizens and, if given the ability to do so, would probably lock us all up in reparative therapy camps and keep us there until we're "cured".  And I don't see even a glimmer of hope this attitude will change anytime in the near future. 

Quote from: Julie Marie on January 10, 2012, 11:00:05 AM
But regardless of who you like, if your trans, LGB, or just an advocate, supporting (most) Republicans is like a Jew in Nazi Germany supporting the Third Reich.  By and large, the entire Republican party has stood steadfast in NOT supporting ENDA.  They see LGBT people as third class citizens and, if given the ability to do so, would probably lock us all up in reparative therapy camps and keep us there until we're "cured".  And I don't see even a glimmer of hope this attitude will change anytime in the near future.

I would say your analogy is a little off.  The Third Reich went about killing 6 million Jews and millions of other people. Only someone in the victim group who had complete self loathing for their own race would have supported the Nazis.

By contrast, American politics operates generally within certain somewhat predictable bounds. For many GLBT people, the slow pace of progress offered by Republicans would be unacceptable and would be their primary issue.  For others, other political issues may trump trans issues even if the voter is trans just as a rich person might vote for a a tax increasing liberal because of an issue like abortion rights.  Some people are economic libertarians and view social issues as irrelevant either way or view that government has simply gotten to big or powerful.  Others share Republican philosophy in other ways.  So those people who support the GOP might have rational reasons to do so even though you personally don't appear to agree with anything the GOP does. 

Also, while overall GOP policy is pretty clear, you can see trends moving towards more individual freedom for GLBT people when you look at polling data that increasingly supports rights for all GLBT people.  And when you dig into the data, it appears that majorities of Democrats, Independents, and Republicans agree that there should be equal rights for these people.   That being said, I would never criticize anybody who votes for whomever is on their side on these issues.  I just think it is a bit excessive to overly criticize someone else who votes the other way and to then compare them to Nazi supporting Jews.