US Politics: I Pledge Allegiance to the...

[TrueMetis]

That's my point. If bankers and politicians don't follow the law, the answer is not "let's have more people also not follow the law", it's "let's stop those bankers and politicians not following the law".

Huh, for some reason I read your post as "So you think that bankers and politicians don't have to follow the law?"

[The Marquis de Leech]

Yeah, I agree that there's something a tad creepy about the Pledge of Allegiance.

[grumdin]

That's my point. If bankers and politicians don't follow the law, the answer is not "let's have more people also not follow the law", it's "let's stop those bankers and politicians not following the law

I would like to see the law applied to everyone without fear or favor. I would also like to see the laws on the books enforced in full, not selectively applied depending on what group you belong to or how much money you have. It seems that at the moment politicians and their banker friends are allowed to do things which would see ordinary folks locked up for years. These same guys call someone like Bundy a domestic terrorist for failure to pay fees, which btw is a civil matter and not even criminal.

[Shryke]

I would like to see the law applied to everyone without fear or favor. I would also like to see the laws on the books enforced in full, not selectively applied depending on what group you belong to or how much money you have. It seems that at the moment politicians and their banker friends are allowed to do things which would see ordinary folks locked up for years. These same guys call someone like Bundy a domestic terrorist for failure to pay fees, which btw is a civil matter and not even criminal.

The domestic terrorism is when you point guns and threaten to shoot the people who come to collect the fees you owe.

[TrueMetis]

I would like to see the law applied to everyone without fear or favor. I would also like to see the laws on the books enforced in full, not selectively applied depending on what group you belong to or how much money you have. It seems that at the moment politicians and their banker friends are allowed to do things which would see ordinary folks locked up for years. These same guys call someone like Bundy a domestic terrorist for failure to pay fees, which btw is a civil matter and not even criminal.

Why do you keep acting like refusing to pay his fees is the only thing he's done?

[SeanF]

I don't see anything of the sort in that article. No where I saw is the liberalness in the youth vote attributed directly and solely to the Iraq war. Regardless, the GWB is not an anomaly. It is a natural outgrowth, in a general way, of decades of political movement on the right. There's simply no reason to believe that republican policy as it exists and existed would be substantially different enough to make any difference in capturing the youth vote. The Iraq war may not be inevitable if Cheney et all weren't in control, but Iraq is not a lone issue of contention in a sea of things the youth would otherwise agree with. It's just part and parcel of a larger pattern.

On top of that, the book referenced in Chait's article is from 2002 and predicting the same thing based on data from before that point. So it's not like GWB was the turning point here.

The idea of the permanent republican majority was always a fantasy that didn't stand up to the data about trends in demographics.

The idea of a permanent majority for any political party is a myth. The US is pretty evenly divided between the two. The Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate (though they may lose the latter in November). The Republicans have the House and most State legislatures.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The idea of a permanent majority for any political party is a myth. The US is pretty evenly divided between the two. The Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate (though they may lose the latter in November). The Republicans have the House and most State legislatures.

The House majority is a creation of gerrymandering.

But yes, there is no such thing as a permanent majority. There are, however, periods of realignment that favour one party over the other for extended periods of time.

[Shryke]

The idea of a permanent majority for any political party is a myth. The US is pretty evenly divided between the two. The Democrats have the Presidency and the Senate (though they may lose the latter in November). The Republicans have the House and most State legislatures.

No, it's not. The structure of certain parts of the US government can skew this perception, as can the large variations in turnout. But it's not true that there is an equal division nor is there any need for their to be.

There is no permanent majority, but there are many periods where one party can have huge amounts of support compared to it's competitors and there's no reason for any sort of cyclical behaviour. Sometimes parties don't recover or only recover after radically changing.

[SeanF]

The House majority is a creation of gerrymandering.

But yes, there is no such thing as a permanent majority. There are, however, periods of realignment that favour one party over the other for extended periods of time.

Nate Silver's view is that even non-partisan boundaries for the House would be likely to deliver a Republican lead in seats, even if the the Democrats had a 1% lead in votes. He thinks the Democratic vote is less efficiently distributed. Such results aren't unusual under First Past the Post. Labour had a big lead in English seats in 2005, despite finishing narrowly behind the Conservatives in terms of English votes.

[SeanF]

No, it's not. The structure of certain parts of the US government can skew this perception, as can the large variations in turnout. But it's not true that there is an equal division nor is there any need for their to be.

There is no permanent majority, but there are many periods where one party can have huge amounts of support compared to it's competitors and there's no reason for any sort of cyclical behaviour. Sometimes parties don't recover or only recover after radically changing.

Both the last two Presidential elections had the two parties close to 50%. The last time one party achieved absolute dominance over it's rival for a prolonged period was under Roosevelt.

[The Marquis de Leech]

No doubt there is an element of voter distribution, but when you have a situation where the Democrats would need to win the popular vote by 7% to get a bare majority, the major problem is gerrymandering.

(Labour in 2005 is less gerrymandering - since the Commission is neutral - and more an issue of turnout. Tony Blair killed turnout in safe Labour seats, while Tories still turn out in their own safe seats).

[Shryke]

Both the last two Presidential elections had the two parties close to 50%. The last time one party achieved absolute dominance over it's rival for a prolonged period was under Roosevelt.

The last two presidential elections saw a rather large difference in the voter margin, with 2008 being a very nice margin. And electoral college wise, they've been blowouts.

And yes, the last time there was a prolonged period of dominance was only about 60 years ago. And there's no reason it can't happen again.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Both the last two Presidential elections had the two parties close to 50%. The last time one party achieved absolute dominance over it's rival for a prolonged period was under Roosevelt.

Democrats had a clear advantage 1932-1964: 7 out of 9.

Republicans had a clear advantage 1968-1988: 5 out of 6, with only one narrow loss post-Watergate.

Democrats have a clear advantage 1992-2012: 5 out of 6 on the popular vote.

[SeanF]

Democrats had a clear advantage 1932-1964: 7 out of 9.

Republicans had a clear advantage 1968-1988: 5 out of 6, with only one narrow loss post-Watergate.

Democrats have a clear advantage 1992-2012: 5 out of 6 on the popular vote.

But, in terms of vote share, many of the results, such as 1948, 1960, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 were pretty close-run. And quite often, the party that lost the Presidency got to take the House and/or Senate.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Curiously, if you have a uniform swing on the 1984 Presidential map until Mondale wins, the map looks very similar to the modern Blue State/Red State divide. Buried beneath the Reagan landslide were the seeds of the current Democratic-leaning electoral map.

(Carter obviously did much better in the South, even in 1980, than modern Democrats, and McGovern did relatively better in the West).

[The Marquis de Leech]

But, in terms of vote share, many of the results, such as 1948, 1960, 1992, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012 were pretty close-run. And quite often, the party that lost the Presidency got to take the House and/or Senate.

1948, 1992, 2008, and 2012 were not close (Electoral College totalled more than 300 votes). 1960,1976, and 2000 were very close. 1968 and 2004 were merely close.

The only occasion where the losing side gained a Congressional chamber was in 2000, and that was because the 1994 bunch were up for re-election.

[sologdin]

It was dreamt up by a socialist that's enough for me.

but of course it has no socialist content?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

It does have a strongly statist perspective in implying that "liberty and justice" flow from the State. Don't socialists tend to fall on the statist side of the state power spectrum?

[sologdin]

scot--

dunno. some socialists are anarchists, some aren't. i don't read it as making the implication that you've identified, but fair to say that a loyalty oath, even though not enforceable, partakes of statist ideology. i'm on the statist end these days, and the pledge annoys me for its feudal silliness (a banner, really?), its theological import, and its oathiness. (it is of course not merely an oath to a banner, as the conjunct makes the oath out to the republic--very roman!)

on the other hand, bellamy's original version was to have a reference to equality, but he struck it because he expected it to piss off segregators.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

That's why I said "tend". The anarchist perspective (though interesting) tends to be a relatively small minority among today's socialists, doesn't it?