Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[froot loops]

Republican Presidential candidates have run on the same basic platform for a long time. There is really not that much difference between the three remaining candidates other than personality. That platform has a ceiling that gets lower every cycle. To win a Presidential election based on that, you need a really good candidate to get over that ideology. George W. Bush was the only guy who could do that, he was a lousy President but he was a good campaigner.

[hack]

You really don't think Trump is all that different? Or, at least the version of himself he has been in this campaign? Campaign finance is a no-brainer. It's quite the thing, IMO, to see a GOP candidate talking about money in politics in that way. I think talking about trade deals in an us-vs-them way is fundamentally different, IF he means it.

[CGVT]

The late start times are terrible. I live in the central and it is still an hour too late. My 13 year old is paying for it this week

[Dr. Strangelove]

The conservative philosophy emphasizes decentralizing power away from the fed govt and maybe that's why conservatives tend to take state governments more seriously? Dunno

When you get down to the local and county levels, 80% or better of America's significant cities are dominated by Democrats. The State level of government is the only area where R's truly thrive. And the state level draws the map of the congressional districts. Small wonder the House has taken a sharp turn rightward since the mid-90's

[iam416]

Redistricting doesn't explain it away.

When you get down to local and county levels, 80% of counties (or more) are dominated by Rs.

And they dominate at the state level, which is better than at the city level any day (to wit, Alabama sensibly prohibiting cities from trying to drive jobs away like Seattle w/ huge increases to the minimum wage).

There's really no poo-pooing R gains over the past two decades. For example, in Ohio the D organization/"establishment" is fucking awful. One can blame redistricting all they want or take great pride in running Cleveland...lol...but if they want to win statewide they need to own their incompetence. Unlike Cleveland, Statewide ought to be competitive.

Meanwhile, a quick survey of D-controlled cities perhaps suggests why their policies are rejected statewide.

[Mike]

It really breaks down along urban/rural lines. People in cities want public services and people in the country want to be left the hell alone and not pay for services in the city.

[iam416]

BTW, I'm not sure how or why the Ds decided to trot out Strickland to run against Portman, but there HAVE to be a number of better candidates. I would think Tim Ryan would have been a shoo-in (but, he's a Strickland patron, so he deferred).

They've managed to put up the one credible guy that Portman actually has a fighting chance against in a Presidential-election year (he'd win by 6-8 points in 2018). In the end, the R up-ticket chaos will fuck Portman, but even so -- they've picked a guy that's in his 70s and won't run for re-election in 6 years -- and Presidential off-year -- when the Ds only real chance is name value. Stupid.

[iam416]

It really breaks down along urban/rural lines. People in cities want public services and people in the country want to be left the hell alone and not pay for services in the city.

That analysis leaves out suburbia -- where elections are decided.

I also wouldn't break things down quite like that. I think it's generally true, but city politics, at least in shitass rust belt cities, are still giant patronage machines. It's all single-party and god only knows how corrupt. Hell, my boy -- the Mayor of Youngstown -- was just convicted of misdeameanor bribe receiving or something and immediately announced he'd still be seeking re-election (and he'll probably win).

If it were just services perhaps non-urban folks would be a bit more understanding. But when there's a gnawing (and, IMO, correct) opinion that the services are being provided in wildly inefficient and corrupt ways, well...no...just no.

[froot loops]

At the end of the day Trump's policy proposals are more Laffer curve nonsense and cult of personality. The policy stuff that is different about Trump probably lowers the ceiling of how many votes to can get. Sure it is fun to talk about the money in politics, those are the moments of clarity but I don't think it does much other than petrify the donors.

On the whole I was talking generally about Republican Presidential candidates over the last quarter century. Trump is different but he is an outlier and he's a weaker candidate than the previous candidates.

[hack]

OK, fair enough.

[iam416]

Rs still get beat on identity politics. African-Americans, in particular, are ideologically diverse but party loyal. There are tons of socially conservative AAs who are very much in line with the key interests of, say, the "christian right". But they don't vote their ideology, they vote their party. Hispanics do that, too, but to a lesser extent.

The demographics aren't permanent, though. I think the Rs numbers with minorities are about as low as they can possibly be and, IMO, they'll slowly improve over time. More and more people will continue to make money. And when you make money, you start caring about things beyond identity.

[hack]

Corruption in Youngstown!!! Maybe it would help if they read this:

[iam416]

Thankfully, Youngstown State has been cleaned up and is on the rise!

[Da Geezer]

Hack said:

DC is made up of mostly moderates, on both sides. It makes sense that processs-oriented people aren't going to be ideologues, and they have an interest in maintaining the system they know and in which they make their living. It's also good for condescending to those outside that circle. If I had a nickel for every time some smug asshole said ``well you have to understand the process here...''

One of my favorite quotes:

"You will never understand bureaucracies until you understand that for the bureaucrat, procedure is everything and outcomes are nothing" Thomas Sowell

But there is no way the DC metro area is moderate, except maybe to Bernie or Karl Marx. Shoot, the expansion of the (very wealthy) suburbs has turned Virginia purple, and Maryland bright blue.

[Da Geezer]

At the end of the day Trump's policy proposals are more Laffer curve nonsense ....

Well, every time the Laffer Curve has been applied in my life, it has worked as its assumptions indicate. Jack Kennedy based his economic plan for his presidency on it (although by another name) as did Reagan. It is silly to believe in static scoring where a tax cut has no impact on citizens' economic decisions. Of course it does. Kennedy never believed that a tax cut paid for itself, or at least, he didn't phrase it that way. Reagan did believe a cut would produce more income for the Federal Government, and his cuts did just that. This was during a time when taxation was viewed as raising necessary money to run the government and not as a "social justice" mechanism (which means taking from the productive to give to the non-productive). The history of that period has been rewritten to accommodate redistribution.

In 1981 or so, I was paying 70% to the Feds and 4.6% to the state not including SS. That was cut to 28%, later raised to 33%. When you go from 80% or more to roughly 1/3, you stop trying to advantage yourself by using tax dodges, and you start producing.