U.S. Politics, 12

[Jaerv]

Oops, I was wrong: Research shows that political attitudes are rather stable (se below), so there is hope for Ser Possum's hope ;)

Evidence of the long-term persistence of adults' political predispositions

The persistence hypothesis holds that core political predispositions tend to be highly stable through the life span. It has rarely been tested directly, given the scarcity of long-term, large-sample longitudinal studies. We address it using the Terman longitudinal study, in which the party identification and ideology of 1,272 respondents were measured on four occasions between 1940 and 1977, from roughly age 30 to retirement age. These partisan attitudes were highly stable over this long period, yielding continuity coefficients of about .80 between each measurement (separated by at least 10 years), and .65 for the full 37-year span. Examination of the trajectories of individual attitudes reveals that the most common pattern was constancy across time. A substantial minority changed in small but consistent ways, but changes from one partisan side to the other were not very common. Surprisingly, early-life racial attitudes had a resurgent effect on partisan attitudes in the 1970s. There was evidence of increasing attitude crystallization through the life span, infusing core predispositions with increasing psychological strength over time. Limitations of the study include the high intelligence of the respondents and the "steady state" of the party system through most of this period.

[Inigima]

I am intrigued but have no idea what you are talking about. Did he accuse them of clinging to something?

I am home now and trying to find some links but it's hard to sift through the noise. I remember a few people, including Obama and Reid, making scathing remarks about young voters and the left for what they considered naive expectations.

My point, generally, is that if you had a groundswell of youth support, you shouldn't be surprised when, having failed to deliver, they aren't inspired to go to the mat for you again. I don't expect shit to happen overnight and I understand that compromise is a political necessity. But I expect you to make an effort.

Obama has been a profound disappointment on many issues that are of concern to young voters, chiefly social policy ones. FISA and warrantless wiretapping was a huge one for me, as is unlawful detention; Obama took positions as bad as or worse than Bush's on the former, and while AG Holder has made some strong steps on the latter, Guantanamo Bay remains open, and U.S. citizens are still detained and held without charge. (My understanding is that Congress has not approved funding for a domestic detention center, which is why Gitmo is still open. My tolerance for such an excuse from a Democratic president with a Democrat-controlled House and a Democrat-controlled Senate is limited. This is not a small issue. I suppose this is what happens when, in order to put little Ds next to a lot of races, you invite a lot of what are essentially Republicans into your party. That shit worked when the opposition wasn't an organized bloc that voted en masse against anything you proposed, but it doesn't anymore, no matter how many nominal "Democrats" you have.)

Young voters expected compromise, but we expected compromises to fall somewhere between the left and the right. Instead, we got compromises that fell between the center and the right. Or, sometimes, the right and the more right.

Democrats have provided fuckall but lip service on gay marriage and Don't Ask Don't Tell, but they still expect LGBT citizens to open their wallets come campaign time for no other reason than that the other guys would set them on fire if they could.

The Democrats had the numbers to do much more than they did. Instead, they lacked party discipline, they wasted time with Republicans who pretended to be interested in "bipartisanship" long past the point it was clear they weren't, and they took positions actively offensive to the youth voters who made history by turning out in record numbers to support them. Democrats implemented half-assed versions of what they claimed to want to implement -- look at the stimulus. It was always known that the stimulus bill wasn't nearly enough, and we've seen now that it wasn't. But since they went ahead with that piece of shit, Republicans can now claim that they tried it our way and it didn't work. They had the numbers, on paper, to make shit happen for real, and they didn't.

The Democrats, of course, didn't have the numbers they appeared to, because a whole bunch of them were the Evan Bayhs and Blanche Lincolns of the world. Which I understand, but then don't expect me to cheer when Evan fucking Bayh gets elected.

I hadn't intended this to turn into a rant about Obama's policy initiatives or the Democrats' performance. But it's an insult to those of us who worked hard during the '08 election season to act the way they have and then be pissed off when we aren't so enthusiastic.

EDIT:

Regarding Prop 19, I don't know that it would have passed anyway, but I've read that Prop 19 gave no organizational parameters within which to operate, and would have left administration up to local jurisdictions and generally been a mess, and that this cost it some number of votes x > 0.

Side note that's kinda political: In my house, we never talked politics when I grew up. I simply learned to do my own research and reading on subjects and I've voted how I saw fit through the last nearly twenty years. I found out yesterday that what I thought was mostly true, my parents are Republicans. My mom was flat out shocked I was mostly liberal and willing to vote Democratic. Mind you, mom also informed me that only the really good stuff that's happened in the last 100 years has been under Republican presidents...though I pointed out that FDR and Truman got us through the Second World War, she respsonded that, "Except FDR was a Republican!" I had to let her know she was wrong. I had to have dad confirm that...then I reminded her that Nixon left office in shame. She harrumphed at that one... :lol: Mind you, I think my mother basis some of her politics on how much she knows about the infidelities of the Presidents (i.e. Kennedy and Clinton). I love my mom.

My mother told me yesterday that the Republican candidate for governor she supported had pledged not to cut education. I sent her a link when I got home to the very first thing I found on the subject, in which he pledged to cut $150 million from education to finance a sales tax cut. People don't know a fucking thing.

[Altherion]

Obama will win in a landslide against any current GOP prospect. There is no one.

Your first sentence is fine, but your second one... you do know that in stories, somebody the speaker does not expect shows up after somebody says that, right? :)

More seriously, I don't think the Republican candidate for 2012 is necessarily somebody well known right now. I mean, how many people had even heard of Obama in November 2006, let alone thought him a credible presidential candidate at that time?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

yet they offered no solutions or they offered things that might have been solutions but they couldn't be clear about...that's not going to get my vote. I hope that made sense.

It makes sense, but just to present the other side of the argument, a lot of folks believe that an economy has some ability to pull itself out of hard times. And that for some hard times, there's no easy way to shortcut that recovery without making things worse. The first rule of a physician is "do no harm", and I think that concept has applicability to legislation as well.

I know folks here disagree strongly on that. I'm just pointing out that just because people want something to happen doesn't mean the government has to be the entity making it happen. Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything. Just saying that those of us who opposed government action aren't blind for the need for things to improve.

[Shryke]

I am home now and trying to find some links but it's hard to sift through the noise. I remember a few people, including Obama and Reid, making scathing remarks about young voters and the left for what they considered naive expectations.

My point, generally, is that if you had a groundswell of youth support, you shouldn't be surprised when, having failed to deliver, they aren't inspired to go to the mat for you again. I don't expect shit to happen overnight and I understand that compromise is a political necessity. But I expect you to make an effort.

Except they did deliver. That's the problem.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

This has been the most progressive and productive congress in like 40 years.

It may not be the most diplomatic way of putting it, but Obama/Reid/etc are 100% correct. They passed a ton of shit and got no credit.

So when you deliver to your base and they complain it wasn't good enough (measured against some fantasy congress that could (not) have been) and say "We aren't gonna come out and vote for ya" .... well, yeah, your reaction is probably gonna be "WTF? Look at all this shit we did. Stop whining and get your asses out to the polls!".

Again, not the diplomatic answer, but certainly an accurate one.

And, as a sort of side note to this, 39 Democrats voted against Health Care Reform. Only 12 of those people will be returning.

[TerraPrime]

Re: FLoW

Of course, there's only 1 type of flat tax proposal out there, ever...

Also, as I understand it, progressive and regressive refers to the tax rate. A progressive tax is where your tax rate goes up. Flat rate, by definition, mandates the same tax rate for everyone. In your example, the fact that the the 250K household is paying more tax than the 45K household does not make the taxing plan a progressive one, because, lo and behold, both groups are taxed at the same rate regardless of their income.

[Ormond]

Oops, I was wrong: Research shows that political attitudes are rather stable (se below), so there is hope for Ser Possum's hope ;)

Limitations of the study include the high intelligence of the respondents and the "steady state" of the party system through most of this period.

I feel I should point out that the Terman sample was chosen because they had IQs of 135 or higher, meaning they were in the top 2% of the population on that measure. They were not just "highly intelligent", they were "intellectually gifted" in modern terms. I think I'd like to see more general data before I was confident that political attitudes were quite that stable for the populatioh as a whole.

[Inigima]

Except they did deliver. That's the problem.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

This has been the most progressive and productive congress in like 40 years.

It may not be the most diplomatic way of putting it, but Obama/Reid/etc are 100% correct. They passed a ton of shit and got no credit.

So when you deliver to your base and they complain it wasn't good enough (measured against some fantasy congress that could (not) have been) and say "We aren't gonna come out and vote for ya" .... well, yeah, your reaction is probably gonna be "WTF? Look at all this shit we did. Stop whining and get your asses out to the polls!".

I agree with you but it wasn't on our hot-button issues, and they spent all the time in which they could have done that stuff and wasted it by telling Max Baucus to go back to the table with Republicans.

And, as a sort of side note to this, 39 Democrats voted against Health Care Reform. Only 12 of those people will be returning.

Yeah, I'm wondering if that'll be enough to keep us from having more DINOs nominated. I'm thinking not, since Evan Bayh and co. apparently think the base was unenthusiastic because they weren't conservative enough.

Let me say again, I voted and I voted for Democrats. I appreciate what they did. But they dropped the ball, inexcusably, on a number of issues important to younger voters.

[Commodore]

Re: FLoW

Of course, there's only 1 type of flat tax proposal out there, ever...

Also, as I understand it, progressive and regressive refers to the tax rate. A progressive tax is where your tax rate goes up. Flat rate, by definition, mandates the same tax rate for everyone. In your example, the fact that the the 250K household is paying more tax than the 45K household does not make the taxing plan a progressive one, because, lo and behold, both groups are taxed at the same rate regardless of their income.

Like I said, a reasonable compromise is a flat tax rate on discretionary income.

It mitigates the negative effects of a regressive/progressive tax structure.

[Old Nan]

Uh, no, they aren't.

If you actually payed attention to the crosstabs, you'd see that it's pretty much a slap-you-in-the-face trend:

The older you get, the more you didn't support Prop 19

Which means as old stupid people die, the chances of it winning rise continuously. There's no real delineating line, it's a straight trend.

Well, if I were inclined to phrase my interpretation more strongly, I'd say that only 18-24 year olds show any great interest in legalizing pot. 25-39 year olds have a 52-48 vote in favor, which will change to a 55-45 vote against as they age to 40-64. Even if tomorrow's old fogies don't adopt a two-thirds negative view of pot-smoking, and you've done nothing to show they will not, it is likely that the majority of Californians will continue to reject calls for legalizing pot-smoking for the foreseeable future.

Particularly if the much-discussed demographic shift toward a Mexican southwest continues, since Latinos have the most negative view of pot of any race other than Asians.

[Altherion]

Except they did deliver. That's the problem.

http://whatthefuckhasobamadonesofar.com/

Those things fall into roughly 3 categories.

1) Token efforts. This covers stuff like allowing the media to cover the return of fallen soldiers to Dover. It has no impact on the vast majority of people and they probably don't even know it happened (maybe they heard it on the news once, but almost surely forgot).

2) Giving money (or increasing the amount given) to certain causes. This is good, but every president can make this sort of claim, only the causes are different. Again, this is generally not something that people would be aware of unless they're one of the lucky recipients.

3) Things that sound good, until you know the details. Practically all financial reform falls under this -- it sounds great when summarized in a single sentence, but you have to keep in mind that the legislation was written with the full consent of the banks (some of it was probably even written by the banks). It's not going to contain any limitations they can't work around. The problem the Democrats and Obama in particular have here is that the details (or at least a summary of them) are well known to the general public and probably even better known to the young people who supported Obama in 2008. He did not challenge the banks and investment firms; he just balanced doing what they wanted with deflecting the outrage of the public over what happened.

4) Genuinely important legislation. This is basically only the health care stuff and even then some of it falls under 3). It's controversial so while it helps, it also hurts.

[Jaerv]

Limitations of the study include the high intelligence of the respondents and the "steady state" of the party system through most of this period.

I think I'd like to see more general data before I was confident that political attitudes were quite that stable for the populatioh as a whole.

Some people say that the social sciences are completely useless, since the researchers never agree on anything:

Shaky attachments: Individual-level stability and change of partisanship among West German voters, 1984-2001

Individual voters' identification with a political party is believed to be a highly stable core of the political personality, and an 'unmoved mover' of political behaviour. In this article, the authors take advantage of a unique longitudinal database - the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP) - to test the basic premise of partisanship's high persistence. Analysing individual-level data from 18 annual panel waves conducted in West Germany between 1984 and 2001, it was found that only a minority of the electorate appears steadfast with regard to partisanship over the entire period. Using event history analysis, the authors demonstrate how movements from partisanship into independence and changes between parties are affected by: personal attributes of voters, especially cognitive mobilisation; by properties of their social contexts, in particular spousal relationships and family constellations; by situational contexts, specifically election campaigns; and by the type of party with which voters identify. © 2006 (European Consortium for Political Research).

The stability of party identification in western democracies: Results from eight panel surveys

The concept of party identification is widely thought to be of limited utility outside the United States, where partisan attachments are regarded as unstable. The authors argue that estimating the stability of party identification outside the United States requires attention to problems of dimensionality and measurement error. The authors develop a model for estimating the stability of partisanship that addresses these problems, and they apply the model to eight panel surveys drawn from Great Britain, Canada, and Germany. The results suggest that partisanship has been extremely stable in each country, with the exception of recent developments in Canada. The model and findings presented here suggest the need for refinement in the way partisanship is measured, and partisan stability assessed, in multiparty systems.

:lol:

[Zap Rowsdower]

Ron Paul To Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee

This makes me inordinately happy. Mr. Paul needs to fit Mr. Bernanke' teeth around the curb and stomp.

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Ron Paul To Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee

This makes me inordinately happy. Mr. Paul needs to fit Mr. Bernanke' teeth around the curb and stomp.

This is great news.

[ljkeane]

Ron Paul To Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee

Ok that is massively concerning. How much power would he have over actual monetary policy?

[sToNED_CAT]

So they are knowingly giving power back to the GOP because the Dems couldn't fix things quickly enough. God, that is depressing. Fuck the average voter.

No, they just lost faith that Democrats will be able to fix the things even when given time. Can you name 1 thing passed by Dems administration in past 2 years, that can improve US economy in next few years? Most things Obama&co. passed (like stimulus bill) were intended to be immediate help with little future potential. People simply see no light at the end of the tunnel.

[Commodore]

Ok that is massively concerning. How much power would he have over actual monetary policy?

Important thing is oversight of the Fed, which there can never be enough of.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Paul's chairmanship could be very interesting.

[Ser Greguh]

Ron Paul To Chair Monetary Policy Subcommittee

This makes me inordinately happy. Mr. Paul needs to fit Mr. Bernanke' teeth around the curb and stomp.

This is terrifying. I'm quite convinced that Rand Paul is clinically insane.

[Shryke]

I agree with you but it wasn't on our hot-button issues

What "hot-button issues"?

Health Care Reform? Passed.

Financial Reform? Passed.

Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act fixing the huge issue that was fucking over anybody being discriminated against by their employer? Passed.

Student Loan Reform that ensures more students get loans for college by cutting out the useless bank middle-men who were just skimming off the top? Passed.

GITMO? Executive Order signed to close it.

Gays? Federal Employees now get coverage for their same sex partners. DADT repeal was put into the Defense Appropriation Bill but was fillibustered by McCain. They are planning to hit that again.

Credit Card Reform? Passed.

And this is just off the top of my head.

The problem is, people are comparing what did happen to what they wished could have happened, even if what they wished wasn't actually feasible, instead of looking at what actually happened. Letting the perfect be the enemy of the good. It's ridiculous.

What the Democrats needed to do was SELL these accomplishments. But they are/were too disorganized to form a cohesive media strategy. And it didn't help that a good chunk of their members were Blue Dog types who were busy running away from any accomplishment the party made and who's seats were not easily sustainable.

3) Things that sound good, until you know the details. Practically all financial reform falls under this -- it sounds great when summarized in a single sentence, but you have to keep in mind that the legislation was written with the full consent of the banks (some of it was probably even written by the banks). It's not going to contain any limitations they can't work around. The problem the Democrats and Obama in particular have here is that the details (or at least a summary of them) are well known to the general public and probably even better known to the young people who supported Obama in 2008. He did not challenge the banks and investment firms; he just balanced doing what they wanted with deflecting the outrage of the public over what happened.

4) Genuinely important legislation. This is basically only the health care stuff and even then some of it falls under 3). It's controversial so while it helps, it also hurts.

But this is ridiculous. Financial Reform wasn't perfect, but it's miles and miles better then what existed before. Even if you know the details, it's good stuff and it's ridiculous to pretend otherwise. It's just not as good as you might have wanted.