Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Hannibal]

Making Silicone Great Again

[Mike]

Fake tits.

Your point?

[iam416]

Well, hey, welcome to America. There have been party machines and corruption in major city governments since at least the 1820's. Mostly the Democratic Party. Rural folks love to imagine themselves as being ethically and morally virtuous whilst the wicked demons dwelling in all cities reap the benefits from their back-breaking toil. 81% of all Americans currently live in urban areas, FWIW.

I'm not sure they're imagining that there little enclaves are less corrupt and more virtuous than governments in large cities. I mean, isn't that an actual fact?

FWIW, I assume you're using the census bureau definition of "Urban" area, and that doesn't do much for me. It includes Urban Area of more than 50,000 and any Urban Cluster of more than 2,500 people. So, places like in Ohio North Baltimore, Baltimore, Marysville, Plain City, West Jefferson, Chardon, Cedarville, etc are counted as part of the 81% living in UAs. LOL. Right. The Census Bureau's date on cities is 62.5% of the US population. But then you need to look at the cities themselves -- how many are urban and suburban -- NYC is entirely urban; places like Phoenix, Houston, etc. are so vast that they are actually more suburban than urban (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...erican-cities/). In Ohio, the obvious compare and contrast is Cleveland/Columbus -- with Cleveland's paltry population being entirely urban while Columbus has a massive suburban component because it's so much larger in size.

Anyway, I don't really care much about how your cited fact plays one or the other -- I do think it's considerably misleading. The US is definitely more urban than rural, but when it comes to real urban vs suburban + rural I think it's probably close to 50/50.

I do think the Republicans have better state party machines. I think their political philosophy encourages to focus on that level of government and in turn it helped lead to their seizure of the House for the past 20 years. But from 1945-1995 the Democrats absolutely dominated the House and to a degree that the Republicans today don't enjoy. Is it just state level organization that's fallen apart for the Dems?

So what I would say to that is 1945-95 is a product of history, right. The magnitude of FDR's presidency in terms of changing the political landscape in the US really can't be overestimated. The Ds went from a largely regional party postbellum to the dominant national party b/c FDR flipped northern states and the solid south, of course, held. And once you're able to control state government you're able to gain small advantages the House that aggregate over the country.

I think the Rs flipped the country more gradually, but it happened, starting w/ Goldwater and the flip of the Solid South.

The other thing worth noting is that the Rs power is state government-based. The current electoral college map makes the Presidency a tough nut to crack. So it seems natural that the Rs would take states far more seriously because that's where they HAVE to win. It's also natural that the Ds would try to govern through the administrative state because that's where they have power.

The other factor, I guess, is turnout. R voters vote on their own. GOTV isn't critical. Ds vote when the D machine is throwing tons of GOTV money into it, but when they don't turnout falls. That explains Ohio to a tee, IMO.

[entropy]

didn't she just have a baby??

[Wild Hoss]

I'm not sure they're imagining that there little enclaves are less corrupt and more virtuous than governments in large cities. I mean, isn't that an actual fact?

No. Greed doesn't recognize demographics.

[iam416]

Greed and corruption aren't the same thing. Try again.

Fire doesn't burn w/o a spark no matter how flammable the fuel. You don't get corruption w/o money no matter the greed.

If you think a small burg like Ogallala is as or more corrupt than, say, Cleveland, well, lmao.

[hack]

Your point?

Processed cheese. Not my thing, but somebody's gotta eat it.

[hack]

If you think a small burg like Ogallala is as or more corrupt than, say, Cleveland, well, lmao.

I agree with this. Anywhere there's a governing body there is a person who views it as a trough to feed at, but when the stakes are higher there will be more people with that view, and more people without it who eventually adopt it. That's why petrostates are more corrupt. Very easy to trace it back.

[Da Geezer]

Hodgkal said:

One of my favorite books was Sowell's "A Conflict of Visions" written in 1982. It is one of the most coherent explanations of how liberals conservatives see the world differently. Well worth reading. It has helped shape my thinking ever since.

You hit it on the nose, Doc. I read that book during a period of my life when I was questioning a lot of what I thought was true. When I was looking for the exact quote, I googled it and was able to read several of Sowell's quotes. They still ring true. I've always wished I could have had him as a professor.

[entropy]

first quote that popped up on my search:

"If you have always believed that everyone should play by the same rules and be judged by the same standards, that would have gotten you labeled a radical 60 years ago, a liberal 30 years ago and a racist today." - Thomas Sowell

[lineygoblue]

That's a very good one.

[Wild Hoss]

Greed and corruption aren't the same thing. Try again.

Fire doesn't burn w/o a spark no matter how flammable the fuel. You don't get corruption w/o money no matter the greed.

If you think a small burg like Ogallala is as or more corrupt than, say, Cleveland, well, lmao.

Greed causes corruption.

There is more corruption in Cleveland than Ogallaga b/c there is alot more opportunity for it. Per capita however, I think your premise is all wet. And I have a pretty good window into the subject.

Most people have no idea whatsoever how much fraud and corruption is going on around them, both public and private, and it happens everywhere. There is no Mayberry.

[entropy]

there will be very different behaviors when the opportunity is $1M vs $100K.

[SeattleLionsFan]

"“[Ivanka posing for Playboy] would be really disappointing — not really — but it would depend on what’s inside the magazine. I don’t think Ivanka would do that, although she does have a very nice figure. I’ve said if Ivanka weren’t my daughter, perhaps I’d be dating her.” -Donald Trump.

[Da Geezer]

good discussion today about voting trends in the US, urban/rural, North/South, R/D.

The rural/urban dichotomy has existed since at least Jefferson, and probably before. I think both sides of the divide view the other as, at least, ignorant. But that is nothing new in America.

As to the shifting strengths of the parties, I'd only add that:

(1) the flipping of California from solidly Republican to solidly Democratic in my lifetime was almost as significant as Goldwater (and Johnson) flipping the South. Texas today resembles CA in the 1980's.

(2) 2010 was a wave election for the Rs, and it coincided with the Census and the redrawing of congressional districts. The Tea Party had more impact on this than it is ever given credit for. That is why the administration went after the TP so strongly in 2012.

(3) The state-level ascendance of the Rs has created a good "bench" for the GOP. When the talking heads on TV talk of a Dem "open convention", they often postulate an outsider getting the nomination. Jerry Brown is mentioned, and to a lesser extent, Cuomo. In 2004, it was clear that the future of the Ds was with Obama. Who is out there now with that stature for the Ds? That is not a rhetorical question. I just don't know many rising young guns for the Ds.