US Politics: I Pledge Allegiance to the...

[sologdin]

probably. it's hard to quantify. fair to conclude that there's no anarchists actually running any states, surely.

i'd be reluctant to conclude, along with our local objectivists, though, that statism is automatically socialism, and vice versa.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

The Fivethirtyeight article said that people who turned 18 during Bush's tenure are much more likely to be Democrats, but people who who turn 18 during Obama ' s, it's much more even if not skewed towards Republicans.

[grumdin]

The Fivethirtyeight article said that people who turned 18 during Bush's tenure are much more likely to be Democrats, but people who who turn 18 during Obama ' s, it's much more even if not skewed towards Republicans.

The young will have Obamacare to educate them on the joys of socialism. They've also been saddled with giant amounts of debt to fund a bloated education system. Oh and all real wage growth has been in the shitter for a decade. I don't think that signifies much good for the Dems in the long run.

[The Marquis de Leech]

The young will have Obamacare to educate them on the joys of socialism. They've also been saddled with giant amounts of debt to fund a bloated education system. Oh and all real wage growth has been in the shitter for a decade. I don't think that signifies much good for the Dems in the long run.

Well no. They've been saddled with debt to fund massive tax cuts for the rich, and the disaster that was Iraq.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Sologdin,

I agree not all statists are socialists. However, socialists, as I said above, will more often than not, be statiats.

[grumdin]

Well no. They've been saddled with debt to fund massive tax cuts for the rich, and the disaster that was Iraq.

Yes there's that to. But Iwas referring to non dischargeable student loans. Just what every twenty something needs, a mortgage sized debt for a third rate liberal arts degree.

[Shryke]

The Fivethirtyeight article said that people who turned 18 during Bush's tenure are much more likely to be Democrats, but people who who turn 18 during Obama ' s, it's much more even if not skewed towards Republicans.

Where are you getting this from?

The 538 article and the other things it links to just point to the kids coming of age during Obama's term being less democratic then those that preceded them. They are more like the GWB1 crowd then GWB2 crowd. Not that they skew republican.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think it would be more accurate to say that (non-anarchist) socialists see the state as a tool - they have no particular interest in worshipping the state as an entity in itself, but rather are more interested in what can be done with state power. Redistribution or nationalisation is a state power that socialists are interested in - I can't see why they'd be interested in getting children to salute a flag.

[Fez]

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.

Although Republicans were consistently elected to the Presidency, the New Deal coalition dominated US politics at the federal and state from '32 to the late '70s (and thanks to the Watergate scandal Democrats continued to have extraordinary legislative election success up until the early '90s despite how much political views had shifted against them). And look at the Republicans who won, Eisenhower and Nixon would be complete apostates in today's GOP. Its doubtful that either party will obtain that level of dominance again for an extended period of time, but its possible.

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.

Democratic areas are generally more compact, but the fact that Nate Silver always ignores is that both parties are capable of gerrymandering. When Democrats control the process they split up the big city votes and spread them into the suburbs to build their own majorities from funky-looking districts. They didn't have that many opportunities this last time, but just look at Illinois.

In other news, although he completely denies it, I'm starting to wonder if Bob Dole is planning a comeback either this election or in two years (if his health permits).

Now in his tenth decade, the former Senate majority leader has embarked on a barnstorming tour of his native state, riding from town to town in Northeast Kansas to crack wise with throngs of his former constituents, sharing cookies and Dole pineapple juice with them as he did in his many campaigns. Dole has more than a dozen stops planned this week and intends to return again in June

The Republican stalwart said repeatedly Tuesday that the purpose of his sentimental journey was simply to visit with the people of Kansas and express his appreciation for their long support. Friends of the former senator say Dole has been angling to make a trip home for years now, but only recently has his health improved enough to make that possible. A few weeks ago, Dole simply picked up the phone and started calling friends and former aides in Kansas to enlist them in planning a trip.

Granted he his old even by congressional standards (although that isn't stopping Edwin Edwards from running), and his message of "compromise where necessary to advance your goals" doesn't fit with today's Republican party. However, he is very popular in Kansas, and it sounds like he's having a lot of fun out on the road; so who knows?

Also, like all members of the moderate wing of the Kansas GOP (which is a very real thing), I'm sure he's unhappy with the party purges that have been occurring since Brownback was elected.

ETA: New poll numbers out for CO-Sen. Udall 45 Gardner 44.

[grumdin]

Although Republicans were consistently elected to the Presidency, the New Deal coalition dominated US politics at the federal and state from '32 to the late '70s (and thanks to the Watergate scandal Democrats continued to have extraordinary legislative election success up until the early '90s despite how much political views had shifted against them). And look at the Republicans who won, Eisenhower and Nixon would be complete apostates in today's GOP. Its doubtful that either party will obtain that level of dominance again for an extended period of time, but its possible.

Democratic areas are generally more compact, but the fact that Nate Silver always ignores is that both parties are capable of gerrymandering. When Democrats control the process they split up the big city votes and spread them into the suburbs to build their own majorities from funky-looking districts. They didn't have that many opportunities this last time, but just look at Illinois.

In other news, although he completely denies it, I'm starting to wonder if Bob Dole is planning a comeback either this election or in two years (if his health permits).

Granted he his old even by congressional standards (although that isn't stopping Edwin Edwards from running), and his message of "compromise where necessary to advance your goals" doesn't fit with today's Republican party. However, he is very popular in Kansas, and it sounds like he's having a lot of fun out on the road; so who knows?

Also, like all members of the moderate wing of the Kansas GOP (which is a very real thing), I'm sure he's unhappy with the party purges that have been occurring since Brownback was elected.

ETA: New poll numbers out for CO-Sen. Udall 45 Gardner 44.

Is there any point in taking notice of polls this far out?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

Well, you know what they say about power, even if seen as a tool, it corrupts.

[The Marquis de Leech]

RBPL,

Well, you know what they say about power, even if seen as a tool, it corrupts.

Which is the anarchist argument: the state is a poisonous creation of class oppression, so rather than taking it over, the working class must destroy it.

[Shryke]

RBPL,

Well, you know what they say about power, even if seen as a tool, it corrupts.

That doesn't really cover what he's saying though. Corruption has no relation to his point. Non-anarchist socialists aren't statist in that they see loyalty to the state as a goal, they are statist in that they see the power of the state as a tool. Pledges of allegiance make no sense in the context of how they view the state.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

RBPL,

Well, you know what they say about power, even if seen as a tool, it corrupts.

Which is a good reason to have power under real democratic control rather than granted disproportionately to the well-propertied with the backing of a liberal/libertarian/limited state meant only to protect property and the power relations that come along with it.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

What limits, if any, would you place upon the power of the people to take via democratic action? A mob acting on its passions can be just as tyrannical as a dictator or an aristocracy.

[Linsox]

Yes there's that to. But Iwas referring to non dischargeable student loans. Just what every twenty something needs, a mortgage sized debt for a third rate liberal arts degree.

Do the Republicans have a plan to help with student loans besides "get a job, freeloader"? Elizabeth Warren has been touting the idea that the federal government shouldn't profit from student loans. She has some other interesting ideas as well.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

What limits, if any, would you place upon the power of the people to take via democratic action? A mob acting on its passions can be just as tyrannical as a dictator or an aristocracy.

Certainly there are examples of mob violence and abuses, but I doubt we could really come up with an example from history of mob rule that has matched the most tyrannical dictatorial or aristocratic governments.

However, to your question, the only limits that should be placed on democratic action are those actions which would limit democracy. Despite being wildly undemocratic in its structures, the Constitution gets a lot of this right in the Bill of Rights. Free speech, assembly, association, conscience are clearly necessary to democracy. A principle of equal treatment under law (due process, no bills of attainder) is clearly necessary to prevent reprisals against political opponents or specific minority groups, which would stifle opposition and be undemocratic.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

What about private property. Should the State be able to take it with "fair compensation" for non-punlic uses?

[OnionAhaiReborn]

OAR,

What about private property. Should the State be able to take it with "fair compensation" for non-punlic uses?

I'm having trouble imagining to what non-public use a truly democratic state could possibly put property.

I definitely do not consider private property necessary to democracy, and thus it would not be outside the purview of democratic rule. Nor is it now.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

OAR,

See, Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005) for the relevant US case law and extensive discussion on the taking of private property by the State to transfer to other private entities.