Winds of Change.NET: Liberty. Discovery. Humanity. Victory.

Formal Affiliations
  • Anti-Idiotarian Manifesto
  • Euston Democratic Progressive Manifesto
  • Real Democracy for Iran!
  • Support Denamrk
  • Million Voices for Darfur
  • milblogs
Syndication
 Subscribe in a reader

In Case You're Wondering Why McCain Is Ahead In The Polls...

| 113 Comments

Go check out the Village Voice today, as they profile 10 moderate and conservative bloggers (Ann Althouse is included because she "disapproves of nearly everything the Democratic Party does").

Note that aside from the high-school level snark, they rate each blogger on their "STUPID/EVIL RATIO".

The author is Roy Edroso from the ever-wise alicublog...and aside from being a juvenile jackass, he's a tool. Why? Because while nonsense like this is great for making the 15% of True Believers feel Really Really Good about themselves, it makes the other 36% that we on the left need to do things like - you know, win elections - pretty pissed off at the smug arrogance that's so proudly on display.

And it's timely, because Obama's perceived invulnerability is being rattled by the fact that he dropped the mask at least rhetorically in Bittergate.

Look, I'm not sure why urban intellectuals feel do disrespected as a class, and why they have such a chip on their shoulder. But you know what?

We're in an election cycle where the GOP candidate should be staked out like a sacrificial goat waiting for the knife. Instead, we get Democratic thinkers worrying - appropriately - that the Democratic candidate is going to actually lose in November. And one of the big reasons is that the public voice of the Party is cranky, smug yuppies.

I never in my life thought I'd be nostalgic for the Walter Reuther and George Meany Democrats. But you know what? If I have to choose between these clowns and those dead fat white guys, the dead guys are starting to look a whole lot better.

113 Comments

Hmm.

Armed Liberal, I admit that I don't see where you're coming from here. Whom do you picture as being in that reachable 36% that will be angered by Roy Erdroso mocking some right-wing bloggers? Do you literally think Erdroso's piece has hurt Obama's chances, or are you saying that this is more of a symptom of a problem?

I guess I don't see why you believe that something like this is nearly as meaningful, in terms of national politics, as the media narratives against Obama (he's a crypto-muslim, his middle name is Hussein, he's an uppity negro, his preacher said 'damn America' once, etc. etc.).

Those "clowns" are now running your party, thanks to seniority and safe leftist districts. Why should I want to be one of the 36% that helps them into more power? You hold elections with the party you have, not the party you wished you had.

Having grown up in a GM family, I have no nostalgia whatsoever for the old gang, either. The arrogance of the UAW and its puppet lawmakers - with a very large assist from incompetent management - helped drive major chunks of our industrial base out of business or out of country.

atheist, surely you remember the demographic math from 2004. Democrats only made up 37% of the voters (same as GOP); Independants were 26%. AL's thesis is that in order to win a general election, you can't focus on the leftmost wing of that 37%, and expect to capture a large enough portion of the 26% of independants needed to win. You aren't even guaranteed to capture the full 37% of your own party, if the candidate espouses radical enough policies.

I agree with his basic point, although I think the exact percentages are slightly off: assuming 15% of likely voters are lefty true believers, that leaves 22% as Democrats who need to vote for the Democrat, and another 14% as Independants (i.e. 54% of the Independant vote) who need to be convinced to vote for the Democrat, before you reach a majority in the general election. However this ignores the question of concentrated votes in large states skewing electoral math, and party defections (R's voting for the D candidate were 2.22% of the overall vote in 2004, D's voting for the R candidate were 4.07%).

I never took it as a given that Democrats would retake the White House this Fall so long as they controlled Congress going into the election (which they do). The meme from the last three elections was always “divided government” because in part of the out-of-control spending, corruption, and alleged failure to prosecute the war in the most effective manner. A McCain presidency continues “divided government” thereby preventing the radicalism of the Democrats from being put into effect (e.g. further government control of health care, setting a date for surrender in Iraq, etc.) with a candidate who has demonstrated that unlike Clinton or Obama – he’s actually serious about things like controlling spending, reforming government and winning the War.

This is nothing more than the ramblings of a Concern Troll.

And one of the big reasons is that the public voice of the Party is cranky, smug yuppies.

Please, this is complete and utter bunk. What social class do you think the Rigtwingers "profiled" in the piece represent? Goldberg? Althouse? Reynolds the Professor? The Powerline Lawyers? Smug yuppies every one, elitist and intolerant to the core.

IN CASE YOU'RE WONDERING WHY MCCAIN IS AHEAD IN THE POLLS...

One of the big reasons, ignored by an alleged Obama supporter such as yourself (I see no history of addressing such issues here), is that the MSM has had one of its characteristic pile-on party recently with both Clinton and more undeservedly Obama, while Mcain is being brought donuts and having his multiple mis-statements on both foreign and domestic issues helpfully explained away by the press as un-representative of his "true beliefs or character". That's a much bigger Dem problem than any that you seem capable of recognizing.

And Edroso's piece or the attitude/ you think it represents cannot, by any reasonable measure, be considered as explicatory of the national polls that place an uncontested candidate against two who are still locked in a heated and increasingly nasty internecine battle. Gee, that wouldn't have any effect on the polls, now would it?

Because while nonsense like this is great for making the 15% of True Believers feel Really Really Good about themselves, it makes the other 36% that we on the left need to do things like - you know, win elections - pretty pissed off at the smug arrogance that's so proudly on display.

I thought it was funny, actually, rather than a display of "smug arrogance" that you on the right are always so keen on sniffing out and think you have some special talent for. Your comments are really more of an indication that you feel a kinship with the fools being skewered humorously in this piece rather than any genuine interest in what is best for the Democrats in the fall.

Yes, that does indicate that I'm on Edroso's side of the spectrum and see things as he does, but that is irrelevant to whether the Dems will do well or not in the fall. Other than the fact that I will soon max out my contributions to Obama and give my time campaigning for him in the fall against the Codger, and that a solid majority of people are desperate for some changes in Washington, and that my side is more motivated in this election by a long margin.

Sorry, I forgot to add my conclusion to the analysis in my last post.

atheist asked "Whom do you picture as being in that reachable 36% that will be angered by Roy Erdroso mocking some right-wing bloggers?"

I think the narrow answer is, the 54% of Independant voters who might be turned off by the STUPID/EVIL RATIO and overall tone of the author. You might also insult some of the 22% of the electorate--the non-hardcore Democrats--who actually want to believe in the message of hope, change, unity, etc over party politics or left/right sniping. And finally, if that comes to be the tone in the general election, you shut out the possibility of getting defectors from the GOP; a mere 2% of the electorate in 2004, but why should a "broad appeal" candidate like Obama throw away the possibility of collecting their votes so cavalierly?

No disrespect, but, wow -- Roy cast as smug yuppie mocking all those poor, simple law professors and right-wing thinktank legacies?

I mean, have you seen how he lives?

http://alicublog.blogspot.com/2007_09_23_archive.html#4166995299797666468

The man plays guitar, for chrissakes.

AL,

I'm neither a Democrat nor a Republican (though I'm pretty far to the conservative/libertarian side of you on many issues) but you are right on with this. Given that politicians are a necessary evil, my own nostalgia for George Meany and Scoop Jackson Democrats is so thick you could bottle and sell it.

The problem is, A.L., you have no standing, in advising democrats of what they need to do differently.

When do you use this pulpit to fight for legitimate liberal causes? Outside of Deborah Bowen, I haven't seen it.

So why, other than an occasional "I favor this", do you either:

a. Promote vigorously a liberal cause you believe in, and the politicians and people who stand for that cause.
b. Criticize those who, stand in opposition, both in action and in policy, against those liberal causes you favor?

"Armed Liberal", seems to be only a stand-in for friendly fire against your fellow liberals.

Is that the in-joke?

How are you different than a concern troll?

When the outrage of the week, regarding right-wing pet causes comes up - there you are, joining in with the right wing blog pile on.

When a clear betrayal of liberal causes is happening, that ostensibly you would be upset by, given the values you profess, this site is silent as a graveyard.

When there is a "gray area", such as one must apply an interpretation to events to game out "what this means" - be it a comment, or a event in the world - 9 times out of ten, your interpretation will cast the entire liberal movement into doubt, as, you put it, "urban intellectuals", "out of touch elitists", etc.

Heck, there is no one as out of touch as the defense firms ripping off our government, big business, oil firms, using our taxes as an ATM machine. Andrew detailed some of that last post.

I still find it interesting posting here - one of the few spaces where wildly different points of view post - but you REALLY have got to take this feedback in, after being given it by umpteen liberals -

we can only judge you by what you write. So this particular "advice", will be seen based on your history - again some concern trolling - not feedback based on a proved loyalty to the values that you SAY you profess.

If you want to further this conversation, or even if you simply disagree with me - and I'm not sure you do - it would be useful to get what is YOUR definition of a liberal. What are the values that you think the government of an Armed Liberal should espouse?

Either one - your beliefs, on a basic level - will be shown to be wildly at variance with liberals.

Or two - it will be shown, based on a history of your posting - that you don't WRITE in defense of your own values!

Trust me on this - me, Chris, Andrew, etc, - we can use the history of your posting on this site, to show that one of the two options are true. NOT that you are a liberal and we liberals "just don't understand" you.

Should an Armed Liberal government take care of it's old people, yes or no?

Should an Armed Liberal government have transparency and accountability to its citizens, yes or no?

Should an Armed Liberal goverment have a chief executive that needs to remain within the law, yes or no?

Should an Armed Liberal government believe in fundamental rights of an average citizen, yes or no? What would those rights be? If a policy issue espoused or propounded by a government intrude on those rights, should an Armed Liberal object? Or remain silent, as seems to happen with you?

Having listened to your airy rationalizations and defenses, it's about time you realize you don't use your pulpit to promote the values you say you have, or to defend those values from those who would deprive or limit those values.

The proof is in the history.

And furthermore, I find it extraordinarily curious why you don't also think that the bile spewed forth from the Right wingers against their opponents on the Left and elsewhere damages the Republican party, who they baldly support?

I think an examination of the evidence would rather support that view rather than the one you are promoting. And at minimum, if you think this CAN be a mechanism for changing or influencing the electoral success (or at least the results of national polls, which seem to be as far as you are willing to go to seek evidence in support of your claim) than it should affect both sides.

So, actually, I think you're right in principle but wrong, by 180 degrees, in understanding it's influence over public sentiment. People are sick of the bile from your side where any opposition to Bush/Cheney is Anti-American or Pro-Terrorist. The ugly nature of the Right wing has been on display for at least 6 years now, interesting how it has coincided with the electoral decline in the Republican party.

Smug vs. Evil...that's a no-brainer to decide upon, now isn't it?

Atheist:

Armed Liberal, I admit that I don't see where you're coming from here. Whom do you picture as being in that reachable 36% that will be angered by Roy Erdroso mocking some right-wing bloggers?

Me.

The automatic assumption that prominent people you do not agree with as being some combination of stupid, evil, and nothing else-- the automatic dismissal of all dissent as unserious, in other words-- causes me to think of the speaker as unserious as well. Why? Because it tells me that when I dissent with these people, although I may agree with them on some or many points, that I will be automatically dismissed as unserious, stupid, and evil myself.

This is not unique to the Democrats, but it is a deep and wide streak in a particular segment of the Left.

Do you literally think Erdroso's piece has hurt Obama's chances, or are you saying that this is more of a symptom of a problem?

Why can't it be both?

I guess I don't see why you believe that something like this is nearly as meaningful, in terms of national politics, as the media narratives against Obama (he's a crypto-muslim, his middle name is Hussein, he's an uppity negro, his preacher said 'damn America' once, etc. etc.).

Who says he doesn't? A.L. isn't required to give advice to the other side. All of the things you listed, with the exception of the "Damn America" references do hurt the Republican message in my mind. (Except McCain, to his credit, called someone out on the Hussein references without himself being called out on it first.)

Tu quoque is a bullshit argument.

Look, I'm not sure why urban intellectuals feel do disrespected as a class, and why they have such a chip on their shoulder.

Hmm, let's see...in modern electoral history the Dems have run:

Mondale, Dukakis, Clinton (twice), Gore, Kerry.

4 elites and one down to earth guy. Guess which one won.

Another data point. Early Obama (the hopeful, gracious, uniter) ran rings around everyone. Current Obama (bittergate, Wright, etc), way down from his early high, slightly trailing Hillary in the stuff still up for grabs.

Sepp, of course it does - and I'm happy to let them do it. Solving their electability problems isn't a big concern of mine. Should I suggest better ways for the GOP to win elections? Why?

hypo, I've posted on redistribution, energy, tax policy, environmental policy, race, electoral integrity and gay marriage. I'm not sure what issues I've left uncovered here.

These are buried, because I support the war and because I believe in a patriotic liberalism. I've dealt with that issue a long time ago. But from my first postings over at armedliberal.com, I've tried to challenge my party to do better, both so it can with and so it can do good once it has (because I presume that simply having officeholders with (d) after their names only matter to staffers looking for jobs).

I'm going to keep doing that, and if it makes me a concern troll, so be it. That - along with chickenhawk - is one of the stupidest memes the Left has come up with; it's like one of those names the kids on the schoolyard use to maintain their sense of superiority, but that mean nothing once you step off school grounds.

So be it...

A.L.

I'm just curious.

How exactly would a liberal blogger describe folks like Charles Johnson, Michelle Malkin, Ace of Spades (we're talking Ace of Freaking Spades here AL!) without engaging in snark?

Of course, AL and each [...] blogger share one two things in common.

1. All consider the disastrous, ill concieved and poorly executed yet always doomed to fail Iraq war as issue numero uno on their political radar.

2. There's not a chance in hell that any of them are going to vote for either democrat come november. (see article 1)

So spare us the concern troll tripe and run out and cancel your non existant subscription to the Village Voice oki doki?

Davebo, while it makes you feel good to make the claims you're putting forth here, you might note that I blogged about why hawks ought to support the D candidate (with a sidenote that I felt that reality would temper their campaign promises - as it will McCain's more bellicose ones).

So where's the link between your unproved point #1 and your ridiculous point #2?

A.L.

I think it's funny that he rates Glenn Reynolds as 95% evil and 5% stupid. The evil/stupid thing is emotionally overwrought to begin with, but such an imbalance indicates deeply held feelings. It's not the first time I've seen Instaphobia, the irrational fear of Glenn Reynolds.

It would be much easier to rate you, Davebo. 50% whining, 50% repetition.

Roy Edroso in comments: "I've been called a lot of things, but never 'the public voice of the [Democratic] Party.' Thank God my mother is dead!"

AL, is "jumping the shark" also on your list of stupid Leftist memes? Because it seems to me you just did. I mean really, a freelance writer and guitarist is now the spokesman of Teh Elitist Left? Come off it.

So is it the position of the lefty commenters of this site that it is literally impossible to engage in decent dialogue with your political opponents, therefore they should not try, and any voters turned off by the sniping can just go to hell?

Or are we hearing just another aggrieved attempt to retroactively claim the middle, then declare that everyone who agrees with you is a moderate/centrist and everyone who disagrees is an extremist whose dismissal will not bother the "rational" people.

I don't know which force is in play here, but don't come looking for sympathy from me after this election cycle. Or rather, in 2010, which I will Boldly Predict will be a landslide towards the GOP on the off chance Obama wins in 2008. (That's not a preliminary prediction of Presidential failure, more an electoral momentum forecast. McCain or Clinton winning will cause all kinds of other chaos, but of a different manner.)

The "evil/stupid" ratio is pretty weak and ad hominem, but then again, each of the bloggers criticized do pretty much the same thing. With the exception of McArdle, none of the bloggers examined speak to voters that the post-Voting Rights Act Democratic Party would ever have had a chance of getting, so I don't see why you are so exorcised about this.

Marc asked.

So where's the link between your unproved point #1 and your ridiculous point #2?

Huh? Point one was that both you and the bloggers listed supported and continue to support the war in Iraq. If it was the adjectives, well that's not a point of contention for the majority of Americans.

Point 2 is strongly supported by your own history of writing here.

The Unbeliever wrote:

So is it the position of the lefty commenters of this site that it is literally impossible to engage in decent dialogue with your political opponents, therefore they should not try, and any voters turned off by the sniping can just go to hell?

No that is not my position at all. However I do believe that, for instance, engaging in thought provoking dialogue with someone who makes a video in a cheerleader outfit that explains how I'm a traitor to my country is counter productive.

I'd add it's counter productive to engage in thought provoking dialogue with someone who calls me objectively pro terrorist

We've heard those lines literally years from the bloggers listed in the article.

They are caricatures and deserve every ounce of derision that's tossed their way. They represent the very worst of political discourse in this country, however they only slightly out do some on the left in my opinion.

This is not unique to the Democrats, but it is a deep and wide streak in a particular segment of the Left.

Oh, come on Marcus V.

When right wingers disagree with you they call you a Traitor and call for you to be imprisoned or worse. I don't see how you can consider Erdroso's mockery to be even half as worrisome as that.

Furthermore, Erdroso is not mocking Malkin, Reynolds, Hinderaker et. al. because he disagrees with them. He's mocking them because they are essentially dishonest, cruel people. There really is a big difference.

Steve - really? You don't think Althouse or Reynolds talk to an audience that could vote for Obama? I certainly think they do, and that reaching that audience ought to be a really damn high priority for the party.

A.L.

[...].

No charge Davebo- just wanted to make sure you got that in there.

It remains the case that Conservatives are looking for converts, and liberals are looking for heretics.

"When right wingers disagree with you they call you a Traitor"
...
"mocking them because they are essentially dishonest, cruel people."

Ah sweet hypocrisy.

Atheist, #21

Oh, please, yourself.

It's hard to tell me that brand of condescension isn't a wide and deep streak in the Left when Obama is still trying to explain to poor religious dirt-farmers how he's going to represent their interests all the while claiming they're not responsible for their deeply-held religious beliefs and that the economic policies he will enact will cause them to become things they would rather not (e.g., less religious.)

Republicans dig their graves deeper with me every time they let their own masks slip, but don't even think about telling me that Republicans' lack of standards are an excuse for yours. Have a little damn self-respect before you ask for mine.

You asked whose vote you thought was at stake, and I told you: Mine. So go ahead. Tell me why you don't want it.

Disagreement is one thing. I disagree with Pat Buchanan over many things, sometimes vehemently. He seems very racist to me. But I would not have the same kind mocking attitude toward him that I have toward, say, Hinderaker. Because Buchanan may be a bigot, but seems to have some redeeming qualities. Hinderaker, on the other hand, is just a dishonest toady, with a deep attraction toward violence, but lacking the courage to carry out violence.

Also, I really don't see how the mockery of someone like Erdroso can be seen as even vaguely in the same league as the eliminationist rhetoric that people like Hinderaker or Malkin spout every single day.

You asked whose vote you thought was at stake, and I told you: Mine. So go ahead. Tell me why you don't want it.

You can vote for whoever you like. Don't you think it is rather absurd to say that what I say is going to change your mind about Obama? Me, a random dude on the internet?

athiest (#21), come on yourself.

I wasn't kidding when I said I disagree with AL on many issues--in fact there's hardly an issue in domestic politics where I would agree with him. I have yet to even remotely think of him as a traitor, much less call him one. That's because he isn't--he's a decent person, a worthy political opponent (not "enemy", please note), a fellow citizen, and someone I'm quite proud to call fellow-countryman. I have no doubt he'd say the same of me, or would if I had publicly blogged all my own policy positions.

But someone like, say, Jim McDermott? Not so much.

AL: "You don't think Althouse or Reynolds talk to an audience that could vote for Obama? I certainly think they do...."

The discussion might get somewhere if you could explain just WHY it is you think that.

Mark from #24

When you call someone a traitor, you are saying that the authorities should come and kill them because they have committed a crime against the state.

When you call someone dishonest and cruel, you are describing their personal character.

The two things are very different.

Oops, sorry about the runaway italics! Can a moderator fix them? (Just take them out, they weren't that important to begin with.)

Um, because Ann Althouse and I both voted for Obama and have stated preferences for him? Because, like me, Glenn Reynolds is asocial liberal as well as a hawk, and the social conservatism (and fiscal irresponsibility) of the GOP seem to turn him off - hell, he just admitted voting for Dukakis...

How about that for starters?

A.L.

Mark Buehner

Let me get this straight. It's beyond the pale for me to use the term [...].

But it's perfectly acceptable for Marc or Joe to use the term [...]?

How does that work exactly? And are these rules in print somewhere so I can ensure I follow proper posting guidelines?

IOKIYAARPTBAD

Kirk in #28, read my post again. I did not call AL a traitor in any way.

Davebo, you may have missed my comment in which I suggested banning both wingnut and moonbat as terms that had far outlived their usefulness.

A.L.

I am pleased to present today's did not know that

When right wingers disagree with you they call you a Traitor and call for you to be imprisoned or worse.

Don't forget that all right-wingers indulge in sweeping generalizations.

"When you call someone a traitor, you are saying that the authorities should come and kill them because they have committed a crime against the state."

"When you call someone dishonest and cruel, you are describing their personal character."

And when you call someone EVIL you are saying some avenger should come and Jack Ruby his ass. If you are willing to play your silly game.

But its obviously complete ad hominem and strawmanning. I dont recall ever having seen Ann Althouse or Glenn Reynolds suggesting political opponents should be locked up (or worse) and I don't read the others. But i'm sure you can dig up some Michelle Malkin tripe about traitors just as i can easily dig up some popular lefty blogger suggesting prominent conservatives belong belong in front of a firing squad.

OK, Jim in #37, you're right. I should have said, right wing bloggers such as Hinderaker, Ace, etc.

"Let me get this straight. It's beyond the pale for me to use the term [...]."

"But it's perfectly acceptable for Marc or Joe to use the term [...]?"

I agree with A.L. (and would agree with the ban)- both words are totally played out, have lost any comedic value, and serve only to instantly start a fight.

Its particularly annoying when used so consistantly its practically a sig.

Look, people are sick of the bile, regardless of which side it comes from.

You can't say "the other side is the problem, because their rhetorical firebombing supresses reasonable criticism and debate" and then apply the same incendiary weapons in your response without completely cutting the legs out from under your own point.

If your stated problem is the tone, condemn away, but be sure to police your own with great care, given the high emotions of the times. Otherwise, it just becomes a complaint over who has the power, not how it is exercised, and that is a losing position among the tired moderate voters needed to win a presidential election.

AL is saying, don't continue to perpetuate the problem. Who started it is not relevant to that fundamental point, even though it makes for a nice shouting match, with pointed fingers and injured tones.

Piercello

I do read Althouse and Reynolds. Both of their views tend to match mine: I am what I would call a liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal and national defense issues. The candidates put forward by both left leaning democrats and right leaning conservative republicans (the parties respective bases in the primary contests, I believe) make it difficult to support either candidate in the general. There is, as Armed Liberal properly notes, a middle group of the electorate whose support is necessary for any candidate to win the general. The bloggers to whom I referred above represent that middle section.

The bloggers to whom I referred above represent that middle section.

No they don't; they represent a muddled fringe.

And when you call someone EVIL you are saying some avenger should come and Jack Ruby his ass. If you are willing to play your silly game.

Ah, then Erdroso must actually be the equal, in terms of offensiveness, of Hinderaker, Malkin, et. al.

I really don't believe that, either. Erdroso always seems to give people more credit than they are due, as far as I am concerned.

Sepp - as opposed to the Morally Pure and Righteous? Sorry, doesn't wash. Go read some more Hume and come back to us.

A.L.

atheist -

"Erdroso always seems to give people more credit than they are due, as far as I am concerned."

...maybe you should get out more.

A.L.

Also, if you never read any of them other than Althouse and Reynolds, how do you know that Erdroso isn't actually on target?

...maybe you should get out more.

Meaning...?

Armed Liberal: your comments are precisely on target; Every statistic says the democrats should win this fall, but unless the internecene war of who is more "morally pure and righteous," John McCain--already with a maverick imprimateur among that essential (muddled to use Sepp's expression) middle, is going to take the general in November.

"Also, if you never read any of them other than Althouse and Reynolds, how do you know that Erdroso isn't actually on target?"

I don't generally associate many of my countrymen (on either side of the aisle) as being EVIL unless i have some pretty solid proof. Misinformed, belligerent, wrongheaded? Sure. But i see no need to malign people's intentions unless the evidence is pretty clear.

This need to demonize one's political opponents i think reveals an inability to meet them on the battlefield of ideas. There's no use or need to debate someone's ideas if you believe their goals are evil. Seems like an easy out to me.

internecene war (added) and over-the-top language stops in post 49 above

I wasn't kidding when I said I disagree with AL on many issues--in fact there's hardly an issue in domestic politics where I would agree with him. I have yet to even remotely think of him as a traitor, much less call him one. That's because he isn't--he's a decent person, a worthy political opponent (not "enemy", please note), a fellow citizen, and someone I'm quite proud to call fellow-countryman.

And that goes double for me although I agreed with the piece who wrote on mine safety and support for RTKBA in general. He’s just wrong on nearly everything else ;)

Atheist: I really don't believe that, either. Erdroso always seems to give people more credit than they are due, as far as I am concerned.

How do you give people less credit than the assumption that their entire make-up is a ratio stupid to evil? No, seriously, how? Make the numbers add up to 150%?

When you call someone a traitor, you are saying that the authorities should come and kill them because they have committed a crime against the state.

You know, atheist, this is a school day. What are you doing on the internet?

"Hillary Clinton: putting the Meany back in the Democratic Party."

Hey, it could work.

You know, atheist, this is a school day. What are you doing on the internet?

Oh, you know, pretty much the same thing you are. Talking and arguing with people. Seeing what others think.

Seriously though, the penalty for being a traitor is death. That's why it seems beyond even calling someone 'evil', which has no defined penalty.

AL answers why Althouse and/or Reynolds "talk to an audience that could vote for Obama":

Um, because Ann Althouse and I both voted for Obama and have stated preferences for him? Because, like me, Glenn Reynolds is asocial liberal as well as a hawk, and the social conservatism (and fiscal irresponsibility) of the GOP seem to turn him off - hell, he just admitted voting for Dukakis...

The first and biggest problem with this answer is that AL's talking about the bloggers themselves, rather than their audience. IIRC, both bloggers started to get substantially more of an audience when they started to trash liberals and Democrats, which suggests to me that those audiences are pretty damn anti-Democrat, regardless of the past voting behavior of the bloggers themselves. The comments on Althouse's site, and the general commentary Reynolds posts, also give the vibe of a pretty conservative bunch.

Let's also point out that 9/11 and the Bush years have produced a watershed moment that have flipped many people from one political side to the other - permanently, in most cases, I think. I haven't read Althouse or Reynolds in a year or so, but up until then they gave every appearance of people who'd jump on any and all critiques of the Democratic party, no matter how asinine or trivial (Althouse's "Boobgate" comes to mind in particular), while generally turning a blind eye to Republican failings. (Certainly Reynolds, for all his claims of being a libertarian, hasn't had much of a problem with GWB's intrusions on civil liberties.)

But I think this is actually beside the point for what AL's talking about - I see him making this argument not so much because Althouse, Reynolds, etc. are particularly inclined to flip in 2008, but because he'd like to see flipping Althouse, Reynolds, etc. made a priority for the Democrats.

Because what would the Democrats have to do in order to entice those guys this year? Well, among other things, they'd have to become far less critical of the Iraq war, and of supporters of the Iraq war, like Armed Liberal himself. Given the situation in Iraq, and how massively unpopular the war's become with most of the country, AL's not able to make the case for supporting the war on its own merits, and really doesn't even try any more. But he can make this rehabilitation more palatable if cloaked in terms of electoral politics, centrism, etc. Even if the new formulation doesn't actually hold up on the merits particularly well, it still helps him feel better about himself, and gives red meat to those, like Mark B. above, who desperately want to believe that Democrats are rigidly ideological, while Republicans are the friendly, "Big Tent" party of the 1980s. (Which can really only be done by ignoring all the converts - like John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Greg Djerejian, etc. - who went the other way.)

Finally, I could probably make a pretty good argument about AL's claims that the Democrats are doomed, DOOOOOMED for not being way ahead in the polls right now... but Matt Yglesias already did a pretty good job of that this morning, so I'll just link to him instead.

"Seriously though, the penalty for being a traitor is death."

So what are we to think of the famous MoveOn.org ad in the NYT addressed to General 'Betrayus'? Or the NYT itself for subsidizing the ad (until the got caught, woops!)?

I guess that means George Soros and everyone he has tainted is calling for the death sentence for the good general?

Game, set, match?

Chris, why in the world would I care about my "rehabilitation"? Who is on the Committee on Public Safety that I need to appear before? I supported the war, and in the absence of a better plan than "quit" am kinda looking for some path forward.

The problem of dealing with the issues in the ME is a real one, and I've blogged a number of times my hope that the Democrats would suggest some kind of a plan for dealing with them that didn't involve hope and a warm handshake.

A.L.

I haven't read it all, but I thought some of it was funny in a sophmoric way. I'd say the proper response is to commission Glen Wishard to do a counterattack.

Steve Smith (110% evil, because most bloggers have dials that only go to 10, but see these knobs? They go to 11)

"Given the situation in Iraq, and how massively unpopular the war's become with most of the country, AL's not able to make the case for supporting the war on its own merits, and really doesn't even try any more."

If that were really the case this election SHOULD be a total walkover. What are you suggesting, that the Democratic stance on running for the exits is in fact wildly popular, but McCain who expressly says he'll stay in Iraq continues to lead... why exactly?

"and gives red meat to those, like Mark B. above, who desperately want to believe that Democrats are rigidly ideological, while Republicans are the friendly, "Big Tent" party of the 1980s."

I'm just observing. How many pro-life Democrats ran for president this year? How many support education vouchers? How many insisted on staying in Iraq? How many were anti-illegal immigrant (if you don't count Hillary on even number days- i'll give you a .5 for her)? How many anti-gay marriage? If you look at the two fields idealogically its pretty obvious the Republicans had a much bigger tent.

"(Which can really only be done by ignoring all the converts - like John Cole, Andrew Sullivan, Greg Djerejian, etc. - who went the other way.)"

And thats about ALL the converts. But how many were essentially chased out of the Democratic party? Lieberman, Koch, Dennis Miller, Andrew Sullivan (before he found out bad things can happen in a war)?

AL,

The problem of dealing with the issues in the ME is a real one, and I've blogged a number of times my hope that the Democrats would suggest some kind of a plan for dealing with them that didn't involve hope and a warm handshake.

Well, clearly invading and occupying a country, wasting 100 billion a year (I think it's actually more now - 14 billion a month?), wasting US money on Iraq, rather than spending it here at home, stretching our military to the breaking point, saddling future generations with the debut -

is even less of a plan.

Also - to back up what others have said - Roy Edroso as an out of touch elite?

More so than who? Any right wing talking head out there?

"dropped the mask", what?

Are you TRULY asserting an equivalence between Edroso's snark patrol, and Obama's hope message?

That is simply bonkers.

[Total waste-of-space drive-by. Deleted. Feel free to contribute substance next time. --NM]

Chris, why in the world would I care about my "rehabilitation"? Who is on the Committee on Public Safety that I need to appear before?

AL, you consistently portray yourself as representative of a group of disaffected Democrats (or, more lately, disaffected centrists) who've been rejected by the mainstream party leadership. And as such, I think the word "rehabilitation" is apt to describe your consistent claims that you could lead the party to glorious victory (if only we anti-war types would see the error of our ways).

The problem of dealing with the issues in the ME is a real one, and I've blogged a number of times my hope that the Democrats would suggest some kind of a plan for dealing with them that didn't involve hope and a warm handshake.

As opposed to the current Republican plan, which merely involves endless occupation (at a cost of hundreds of US lives and hundreds of billions of dollars a year) and the hope that Iraq will eventually fix itself... somehow?

If that were really the case this election SHOULD be a total walkover. What are you suggesting, that the Democratic stance on running for the exits is in fact wildly popular, but McCain who expressly says he'll stay in Iraq continues to lead... why exactly?

I repeat my assertion that Matt Yglesias covered this pretty well. Actually engage those arguments, and maybe we can move forward.

I'm just observing. How many pro-life Democrats ran for president this year? How many support education vouchers? How many insisted on staying in Iraq? How many were anti-illegal immigrant (if you don't count Hillary on even number days- i'll give you a .5 for her)? How many anti-gay marriage? If you look at the two fields idealogically its pretty obvious the Republicans had a much bigger tent.

The Republicans had a relatively diverse field of contenders this year in large part because the current Republican officeholder ran the party into the ground. That said, Ron Paul aside, how many Republicans ran on a platform to get us out of Iraq? Or to provide universal health care? Or to substantively fight global warming? Or to raise taxes and balance the budget? If the Republican tent was so big this year, why was Arnold Schwarzenegger, who'd have been the nominee in a walk if he wasn't foreign-born, giving the stink-eye to the candidates through most of the nominating process? You really believe his wing of the party was well represented?

And thats about ALL the converts. But how many were essentially chased out of the Democratic party? Lieberman, Koch, Dennis Miller, Andrew Sullivan (before he found out bad things can happen in a war)?

Andrew Sullivan was a Democrat? Do tell - he's Obama's biggest cheerleader, but he's still an independent.

But we could go back and forth on converts all day and night - how about Daniel Drezner? Jim Jeffords? How many Iraq vets came back home and ran in 2006 as Democrats with the explicit goal of ending the war? In the end, though, the final and best proof is simply the fact that the 2006 elections would have never gone the way they did had millions of voters not flipped for the Dems.

Chris: That Matt Y link is way unimpressive. Nationwide polls mean squat for electoral votes. Most Democrats (currently) think the electoral college system is evil, but if it serves any function, it’s to force the President to appeal to a more diverse set of interests. I think A.L. represents one of those interests, but not necessarily the only one.

I think it’s interesting that the Village Voice chose to leave this one out:

Armed Liberal: When this blogger is not dressing up as his favorite Village People for a rousing bit of YMCA, he enjoys cross-examination of his credentials from the Committee for Truthiness in Liberal Advertising. Will respond with garish regulatory proposal backed by basic corporate profit/loss balance sheet. Prides blog on civil discourse. Downside are not-so-civil discourse on who is being more uncivil than whom.

Chris,
At this point in 2004, wasn't John Kerry substantially ahead of President Bush? And wasn't Dukakis ahead the first President Bush by a large margin at this same point in 1988? All evidence points toward a landside win for the Democrats, but the polls don't show it. Now of course, the extended primary has to hurt some but this much? Maybe something is wrong with the Obama and Clinton, maybe McCain is doing something right, or maybe something else is going on but I would expect both Clinton and Obama to be at least 4 or 5 percentage points ahead of McCain at this time.

Maybe something is wrong with the Obama and Clinton, maybe McCain is doing something right, or maybe something else is going on but I would expect both Clinton and Obama to be at least 4 or 5 percentage points ahead of McCain at this time.

But then, as you point out, Kerry and Dukakis had leads back when and they lost. So maybe, just maybe, the first part of your post answers the meaningfulness of the second part.

POLLS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING YET.

McCain has had years of basking in great media -- frankly, it's a miracle he polls so low, but again, it doesn't much matter. It's rare when someone refutes themselves within the entirety of a single paragraph, and yet, it happens.

AL, since you've been exactly wrong about the most important issue in the last 50 years (war and occupation will cure what ails the Middle East) -- and so demonstratedly so, backed by reality, elections and polls -- I feel confident that the prediction you make here (that a piece in the Village Voice will doom the Democrats) will be as wrong in kind, if not in stakes.

Look, I'm not sure why urban intellectuals feel do disrespected as a class, and why they have such a chip on their shoulder.

Yeah, when's the last time you've ever heard phony bullshit against coastal elites? You know, the Fifth columnist types. Gays and liberals. Never.

Of course, even the simperingest urban liberal would have a hard time equaling the preening victimization and feelings of 'disrespect' as a Centrist who feels the party has left him ...

Well, Jay, I'd be happy to debate Iraq; and I'll suggest that your flat assertions about Iraq are absolutely unproven (although popular), so please don't assert them as fact.

A.L.

RHSwan:
At this point in 2004, wasn't John Kerry substantially ahead of President Bush? And wasn't Dukakis ahead the first President Bush by a large margin at this same point in 1988?

It seems to me that Democrats generally enjoy an automatic lead in the polls early in the election year. The closer you get to actually electing the Democrat in question, the more the poll evens up. It happens quicker in some cases than in others. Dukakis sank to unelectable levels months before the election, and even the media was not interested in pretending otherwise. But Kerry sank to Obama's current level only a few weeks before the election. Right at the time when Dan Rather was driving CBS News like a suicide bomb-truck to come to his rescue.

Granted, Obama still has Hillary to finish off, and he can expect a bounce in the polls when that grisly task is complete. But it doesn't make sense that he's polling so weak when so many people are convinced that he's got the nomination in the bag.

I can guarantee you that the Carville-types in Obama's camp are worried about these numbers, and about a couple of other things:

- The Bradley Effect, which states that black candidates poll better than they perform. This means that even these tepid numbers might overstate Obama's actual strength. Combined with the early season inflation that he should get as a liberal Democrat, Obama's numbers should be significantly higher right now. (Some people don't believe in the Bradley Effect, but I do, especially for Democratic candidates.)

- Obama's strategy, successful so far, probably peaked during the last month. He can't squeeze any more altitude out of vague talk about "hope" and "we can do it". And he can't get back the clean image he had before Wright, Rezko, and the whole Pennsylvania Deliverance episode - though he still has a real pretty mouth, don't he?

I believe Kerry was 4 ahead of Bush at this point.

Credit Bob Shrum for Kerry's pusillanimous response to the Swift Boat ads that caused that loss. I don't see Obama as making that mistake.

How many Iraq vets came back home and ran in 2006 as Democrats with the explicit goal of ending the war?

And a bang-up job they're doing with it.

Seriously, Progressives are so proud of 2006 they haven't really noticed that in point of fact nothing has changed. Except troop levels are up, come to think of it. And casualties have trended steadily down. And the War keeps getting less and less precedence in "voter concerns" polls.

Somebody is fighting the last war, but I don't think it's the Pentagon this time.

Oh, by the way, I was thinking I'd vote Obama in November, because McCain's struck me as just a conservative Democrat and if I'm going to vote for a Democrat I'd vote for a real one, and I liked Obama's vibe. Now, not so much.

Keep in mind that conservatives, you know, REPRODUCE, while leftists do not (whether for social, mental, or physical reasons).

The solid red counties in America grow at a faster rate than the solid blue counties by a net difference of 1% a year.

In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 62m vs. 59m votes. 4 years later, the Bush's 62m vote pool has grown to about 64.5m, while the Kerry pool has stayed the same.

Thus, the gap has grown from 3m to 5.5m.

Think about it. Even if Obama wins the election by getting to 270 electoral votes, he has almost no chance of getting 50% of the popular vote. That only matter symbolically, but it does.

And in the 2011 census, another 7 electoral votes will move out of blue states and into red states for 2012, just like in the 2001 census a decade earlier

PD Shaw,

Since no one else has commented on it - number 68 above:

Very nice little sketch - don't agree completely, but it's creative, and make me chuckle.

Jay B:
POLLS DON'T MEAN ANYTHING YET.

Oh, yes they do. The current polls may be far from what happens in November, but that doesn't make them meaningless. Even their exaggerations and understatements follow identifiable trends. Identical numbers can mean different things depending on whether your candidate is a challenger or an incumbent, for example. Polls don't really tell you what people are thinking, but they give you a good idea of what people are saying. It's not gospel, but it definitely means something. They would be meaningless only if they were fabricated from top to bottom.

Rest assured that the pros, the people who actually go out and win these stupid Potato Queen contests, pay attention to the polls at all times. The good ones can read them the way a sailing captain can read a shifty wind.

"I repeat my assertion that Matt Yglesias covered this pretty well. Actually engage those arguments, and maybe we can move forward."

What argument? He said McCain is at a high water mark because the Dems are bashing each other. That doesnt explain how 50% of voters are still willing to vote for a man who you claim is completely on the wrong side of the most important issue in this election. Then he claims McCain is the incumbent so he should be winning by far more, which is ridiculous and unfounded.

Reexamine your assumptions. Its entirely possible for the American people to be unhappy with the war but also unhappy with letting Obama or Clinton run the sprint for the exits.

"The Republicans had a relatively diverse field of contenders this year in large part because the current Republican officeholder ran the party into the ground. "

Sure. Who would want McCain, Guilianni, & Fred Thompson as their candidate? They are only some of the highest polling politicians in the country. Damn you Bush for keeping us from another Bob Dole.

"That said, Ron Paul aside, how many Republicans ran on a platform to get us out of Iraq?"

Ron Paul, which gave Repubs precisely 1 more choice than Democratic voters had.

"Or to provide universal health care?"

Mike Huckabee sounded practically identical to HRC, at last in rhetoric. Any kind of government takeover scheme is wildly unpopular and obviously wouldnt be championed by a republican, but i listed very popular position one would expect in a big tent.

"Or to substantively fight global warming?"

Er, John McCain

"The Arizona senator has been among Congress' loudest voices for aggressive action, co-sponsoring legislation in 2003 that called for capping greenhouse gases — principally carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels — and frequently chiding the Bush administration for its failure to support mandatory measures to reduce such emissions."

"Or to raise taxes and balance the budget?"

Well i won't argue there, but I will say there is a very good reason for it- the one thing that holds Republicans together anymore is the tax issue. Philosophically, you cant very well be a Republican if you want to tax and spend, and there isnt any demographic likely to cross over that would buy into that.

But please, this is a ridiculous line of argument. McCain, Guiliani, Thompson, Romney, Huckabee, Ron Paul? Those guys are absolutely all over the map, and all of them did quite well in their own ways. You seriously want to argue that the Democratic card was REMOTELY as diverse idealogically?

GK, have you considered the possibility that "red" counties are not growing by reproducing, but by immigration of new blue voters? Before you answer that, you might want to check out the state of play in Montana, Colorado, and even Idaho.

I guess that means George Soros and everyone he has tainted is calling for the death sentence for the good general? Game, set, match?

There is no equivalence between one MoveOn ad and a theme that right wing bloggers, media stars, and political figures flog continuously. Read Hinderaker, Malkin, or Glenn Beck. Or listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, or Coulter. Limbaugh has two themes: liberals are faggots, and liberals are traitors. The idea of left-wing treachery is catnip to the entire right wing media class, and they will always return to it.

----------------

How do you give people less credit than the assumption that their entire make-up is a ratio stupid to evil? No, seriously, how? Make the numbers add up to 150%?

Edroso tends to give each person he satirizes and honest listen, even after they start calling for a war on Iran or whatever crazy ass thing. That's more than most people would do.

There is also a deeper reason why I defend Edroso. Simply put, his descriptions of these ten bloggers are dead on. The Stupid/Evil ratios are probably correct for most of them. People who want to elect a president need to make tactical alliances, and don't want to alienate allies, it is true. But there has to be a place for simple truth-telling as well. And that is what Edroso is doing.

"There is no equivalence between one MoveOn ad and a theme that right wing bloggers, media stars, and political figures flog continuously."

Oh. There is no equivalence. I see. So calling someone a traitor doesnt by definition always mean you want the government to come shoot them. Only sometimes (ie, when atheist says so). Thanks for clearing that up. YOU decide who is serious and who is funnin throwin that word around. Heh.

Oh. There is no equivalence. I see. So calling someone a traitor doesnt by definition always mean you want the government to come shoot them. Only sometimes (ie, when atheist says so).

I'm saying there's a difference between what that one guy said once, and what an entire class of people has devoted their whole careers to saying in every possible way.

"GK, have you considered the possibility that "red" counties are not growing by reproducing, but by immigration of new blue voters? Before you answer that, you might want to check out the state of play in Montana, Colorado, and even Idaho."

Nope, because :

1) Those migrating out of California are CONSERVATIVES that are leaving the state. Remember that CA was red as recently as 1988.
2) Republican fertility rates are inherently higher. There is tons of data to support this.

While I am someone who has a neutral position on abortion, I do revel in the fact that abortion has caused the loss of millions more potential Democrat voters than GOP voters. This is an irony entirely lost on leftists.

The only source of 'blue' population growth is Hispanics. Dems will continue to survive, barely, as long as they can keep the Hispanic vote.

Andrew:
I believe Kerry was 4 ahead of Bush at this point.

That's approximately right. Kerry peaked in July, when a nice convention bounce put him in the double digits for a while.

He nose-dived in September. He recovered partially in October, as the last undecideds were divided up.

Obama should get a good convention bounce, and he's going to need it - looking like a loser can make you actually lose. In his favor, I think the threatened wrath of the jilted Clintonites is mostly bluff. But he's going to need more than that in his favor.

"I'm saying there's a difference between what that one guy said once, and what an entire class of people has devoted their whole careers to saying in every possible way."

Your definition. Excuse me, your strawman. Only in the tinfoil hat world do people really believe that conservatives like the bloggers in question are beating the drum to lock up people across the isle.

But specifically you built your case on the seriousness of a single word. I'm just reminding you that far more people saw that NYT ad than surely ever saw whatever blog posts you claim are out there. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

This will be an extremely negative general election, dominated by the 527s and the blogosphere. The results will hinge on the ability of the blogosphere to constrain itself, as much as possible, to matters of fact. The tendency of the left blogosphere is to over-reach, since they're constitutionally opposed to discipline. Obama has already established a pattern that he could easily reinforce, with just a little help from his "friends." All the right blogosphere has to do is remain vigilant, and catch them out... just as it did in 2004.

I understand that even Oprah's poll numbers have taken a dive.

The problem with too much political spin is that it tends to induce motion sickness in the practioners.

Keep in mind that conservatives, you know, REPRODUCE, while leftists do not (whether for social, mental, or physical reasons).
Facepalm.

This may matter in, say, 14 years. Nice ad hominem attack btw, almost never see that on the interweb.

In 2004, Bush beat Kerry by 62m vs. 59m votes. 4 years later, the Bush's 62m vote pool has grown to about 64.5m, while the Kerry pool has stayed the same.
Thus, the gap has grown from 3m to 5.5m.

Just in case you have a tendency to go spreading this around further, you really should look up actual data, and consider that the population changes have been a result of people changing states. Nevada, for example, isn't out birthing everyone - they're having people move in from other states. Just because the population grew in a red state does not make a magical addition to this "gap" you speak of.

If you want to get really advanced, go get some CDC stats on birth rates by state, race, income and metro areas, and see how to cross reference that against voting tendencies.

Dave,

There is tons of data on the large gap between GOP and Leftist birth rates

Again, this is for a variety of reasons, as I mention.

More on how abortion is culling the ranks of future leftist voters

I mean, it is quite obvious, really.

Only in the tinfoil hat world do people really believe that conservatives like the bloggers in question are beating the drum to lock up people across the isle.

But specifically you built your case on the seriousness of a single word. I'm just reminding you that far more people saw that NYT ad than surely ever saw whatever blog posts you claim are out there. Sorry, you can't have it both ways.

It's probable that more people saw the NYT ad than read right-wing blogs. But, it seems to me that more people listen to right-wing radio than read the NYT. Right-wing radio is way more eliminationist, all the time, than that NYT ad.

"These are buried, because I support the war and because I believe in a patriotic liberalism. "

So do I, and I thus wish I had a second choice beyond the GOP.

But the number of patriotic liberals, I can count on one hand. Two of the most prominent, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, have been run out of the Democratic party.

atheist@ #82: But calling Republican Party leadership "war criminals" isn't nearly as bad as the "traitor" label because "war criminal" just gets you a few years in a comfy Swedish prison, right?

As I have pointed out in a previous comment thread where you guys showed up in droves to dance around the swing set pointing at AL and calling him a 'concern troll', you guys really don't get how obnoxious the "EVIL STUPID I AM RIGHTEOUS" pose looks to the rest of us. Really, really obnoxious. If you "just can't see how someone could possibly think X in good faith," maybe that says more about you than them. But I must just be a 'concern troll', or whatever other term you come up with that equals the fundamentalist conviction that "the only reason people disagree with us is because they are sinners." So very tiresome.

AL, I continue to read and enjoy your posts, but the comments...I'm gonna start skipping.

AL:
Look, I'm not sure why urban intellectuals feel so disrespected as a class, and why they have such a chip on their shoulder.

I am. The urban intelligentsia and party apparatchiks still follow economic and cultural Marxism, root and branch, despite how thoroughly it has been discredited by history, and the suppressed recognition of their own willful ignorance produces an inner conflict that erupts in rage at anyone who talks like an intellectual but is not similarly conflicted.

Listening to them makes me laugh for the same reasons I laugh at teenagers talking about deep topics (not to their faces though, that would be rude).

You know, Joe Lieberman tried his luck in the 2004 Democratic primaries and he never got into double digits. He wasn't run out of the party; his view of more war in the Middle East makes him feel uncomfortable there. Were Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords run out of the GOP, or did their moderate and liberal beliefs seem incompatible with it?

I must say, for a party on its last demographic legs the Democrats are doing pretty well. Why, we may even flip another House seat in Louisiana soon.

Planter:

AL, I continue to read and enjoy your posts, but the comments...I'm gonna start skipping.

I envy you. I really do. :)

Marshal Nortius "Big Tuna" Maximus

There is tons of data on the large gap between GOP and Leftist birth rates

You'll also see that it doesn't actually say that - it says adults who have children, including the elderly, not of child bearing age. Nowhere does he take into account that the 25% of conservatives who make up the 58+ age group shrinks to about 15% at the 18-31 age group, while ignoring that liberal takes up about 20%+. In addition, take a look at this

The correlation is religion, not party. Honestly, that article is a whole bunch of ignoring facts that go against message, such as ignoring the big old 40% of flexible people in the middle.
Fun with statistics! Here's some more, and I hope you take it.
Go to the GSS site Warning! It's hosted at Berkeley, and we know how shifty they are.

Run a search with CHILDS as row, POLVIEWS as column, and put a selection filter on age(18-50), YEAR. You'll see that the 3 leftmost and 3 rightmost groups work out to ~1250 to ~1450, about a 15% difference, not 40%. Then, work the age down.

Age 18-50: 1241 v 1443
Age 18-45: 1042 v 1178
Age 18-40: 873 v 919
Age 18-35: 711 v 656

And, I'll be assuming people 18-35 are more likely to have more children, of the given groups. So, what is this?
That liberals who are in children-having range are actually having more than conservatives?
More?

...

Mwahahahahaa

MWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Of course, both your link and my numbers ignore the massive 40% of the middle, which dwarf a 10% difference in birth rate.

But the number of patriotic liberals, I can count on one hand. Two of the most prominent, Zell Miller and Joe Lieberman, have been run out of the Democratic party.
See, there's your problem. Neither of them are liberals, they are centrists.

Demosophist:
I understand that even Oprah's poll numbers have taken a dive.

Yes, and there's a lesson there for Obama, even though I don't think it's directly Obama's fault.

Oprah has been extremely popular and successful for many years, as a sort of vague, nice person who might believe or stand for almost any nice thing - sound familiar? When she tried to cash that in for a political objective, she got slapped in the face. It wasn't because of Obama, exactly, it was just that she ruined her Oprahness. You can't get mixed up in the political rackets and be everybody's friend.

Could I suggest that Obama really missed his calling as a daytime television host?

Planter -

AMEN! The comments started circling the drain on this one about #8. And it has gone to >90!

Keep up the good work NM - you're still a mensch.

The Hobo

Ugh, I messed up that post - posted an old version of what I had in notepad. Ignore it completely, it's near useless, everything from run a search to the evil cackling.

But still, have fun with the site.

"See, there's your problem. Neither of them are liberals, they are centrists. "

My problem? It appears the problem is yours. According to the exclusion of centrists above, there is now exactly ONE patriotic liberal in America - Marc Danziger.

"Were Lincoln Chaffee and Jim Jeffords run out of the GOP, or did their moderate and liberal beliefs seem incompatible with it?"

er... Chaffee LOST his seat, by losing an election. Lieberman is still in the Senate and proceeding as usual, except that the Democratic party moved away from him.

Plus, Chaffee was not the VP candidate just 6 years before being run out of the party. Furthermore, he never won his seat in the first place, he merely replaced his father.

Your pathetic attempts to take the flimsiest of examples to counter much stronger points against becomes more pathetic by the day. It exposes the paucity of genuine points you have at your disposal, on this topic as well as others.

"I must say, for a party on its last demographic legs the Democrats are doing pretty well."

I don't know what planet you live on, but it is not Earth. Democrats have won only 3 of the last POTUS 10 elections, with the GOP winning 7. 7-3 is a crushing margin. Democrats have not won 50% of the vote since 1976, with the GOP winning 4 times since then (1980, 84, 88, 2004). 4-0 is even more crushing. It will soon be 5-0.

That is what has happened on Earth. You may want to learn about Earth.

I finally stepped into the ocean puddle of Edroso's little soul pastiche. He lost me at Lileks: "[L]eaning toward George Wallace"?

AL, your characterization of Edroso is an insult to functional tools everywhere. He's about as sharp as a sack of sand.

athiest,

What you did say was, "When right wingers disagree with you they call you a Traitor". I was pointing out a counterexample.

Nort:
He lost me at Lileks: "[L]eaning toward George Wallace"?

You missed the best part, then. The quotes from Lileks, which he presents as being very shocking, are the only funny thing in the piece.

McCain is ahead in the polls because Roy Edroso is making fun of Ann Althouse? You're aware that 99% of America would not know who either of those people are, right? I'm fairly certain the main reasons McCain is ahead have to do with McCain, Obama, the Clintons, and the media coverage, etc. But if you wanted to put a poll in the field asking people why they were supporting McCain, and mentioning Edroso's criticism of two law professsors and some other assorted bloggers as the cause, that would be hilarious.

I'd also note that John Kerry lead at this point, and Al Gore was down by 20 points. Neither of those were particularly good predictors.

Mark Buehner has an excellent point about the basic convergence of the Democratic field. My quibble is Reid's a much more important Democrat than Guiliani is a Republican even if he didn't run for President, but overall, yes, more differences of opinion on the GOP side.

GK, however, is playing lame games. I'm guessing you count Al Gore as "losing" even though he won 550,000 more votes despite a serious challenge from the left. But for that, that Jewish voters in Florida suddenly became ardent Buchanonites, and the Supreme Court ignoring the law Gore becomes President.

Also, why 10 elections? Why not 8? Or 12? Wait, don't tell me, I know that one. Anyway, so in your cherry-picked example, its 6-4. And Republicans just lost the House after only 12 years of control.

As I have pointed out in a previous comment thread where you guys showed up in droves to dance around the swing set pointing at AL and calling him a 'concern troll', you guys really don't get how obnoxious the "EVIL STUPID I AM RIGHTEOUS" pose looks to the rest of us. Really, really obnoxious. If you "just can't see how someone could possibly think X in good faith," maybe that says more about you than them.

OK, Planter, I accept that Edroso looks obnoxious to you.

If others have questioned your honesty, then I'm sorry about that. They should not have. It is possible for people to disagree on something major, and neither one is lying. I know that, and hope others do.

I still defend Edroso because I honestly think that his descriptions of those ten right wing bloggers are spot on. I don't like to uselessly piss people off, but I always have to appreciate humorous, well-written satire. And humorous, well-written satire tends to piss off someone or other.

I also honestly don't get why Edroso's piece hits such a nerve with you, but the constant accusations of treason, or dishonest propaganda, from Malkin, Hinderaker, et. al., apparently don't. I came here, not to accuse you all, but to try figure out what the deal was. I wanted to understand why this "Armed Liberal" took exception to Edroso's piece. Now I guess I understand a bit more.

What you did say was, "When right wingers disagree with you they call you a Traitor". I was pointing out a counterexample.

Now I see what you mean Kirk. I thought you were accusing me or something. I appreciate that you don't call people traitors. But I'm saying that it seems like a very entrenched and habitual strategy for many conservatives.

The quotes from Lileks, which he presents as being very shocking, are the only funny thing in the piece.

Well, to be fair, he presents Lilek's quotes as being shockingly, hilariously bizzarre.

Fair or not, I find the first jape -- I guess you'd call it... the "George Wallace" bit -- simply bizarre. Chacun à son goût.

#104 JoshA: I think you jump too quickly to a quirky interpretation. I think AL is claiming that it's smugness of the sort he attributes to Edroso that is at issue, not Edroso per se. I have no opinion about the truth of that claim.

Hippies. The gift that never stops giving.

Fair or not, I find the first jape -- I guess you'd call it... the "George Wallace" bit -- simply bizarre.

Edroso is saying that Lileks is clinging to a old, and segregated, view of society.

[OK, thanks for the drive-by and shout-out. Both deleted. Tough love. --NM]

[OT drive-by copy of a post somewhere else by someone apparently named "Scott". Deleted. Do it again and be banned. We welcome substantive, on-point comments. This was not that. --NM]

I'm closing this thread. AL can re-open it later if he wants, but I think it's pretty played out and we seem to be getting too many drive-bys, if I'm any judge of trends.

Recent Comments
  • TM Lutas: Jobs' formula was simple enough. Passionately care about your users, read more
  • sabinesgreenp.myopenid.com: Just seeing the green community in action makes me confident read more
  • Glen Wishard: Jobs was on the losing end of competition many times, read more
  • Chris M: Thanks for the great post, Joe ... linked it on read more
  • Joe Katzman: Collect them all! Though the French would be upset about read more
  • Glen Wishard: Now all the Saudis need is a division's worth of read more
  • mark buehner: Its one thing to accept the Iranians as an ally read more
  • J Aguilar: Saudis were around here (Spain) a year ago trying the read more
  • Fred: Good point, brutality didn't work terribly well for the Russians read more
  • mark buehner: Certainly plausible but there are plenty of examples of that read more
  • Fred: They have no need to project power but have the read more
  • mark buehner: Good stuff here. The only caveat is that a nuclear read more
  • Ian C.: OK... Here's the problem. Perceived relevance. When it was 'Weapons read more
  • Marcus Vitruvius: Chris, If there were some way to do all these read more
  • Chris M: Marcus Vitruvius, I'm surprised by your comments. You're quite right, read more
The Winds Crew
Town Founder: Left-Hand Man: Other Winds Marshals
  • 'AMac', aka. Marshal Festus (AMac@...)
  • Robin "Straight Shooter" Burk
  • 'Cicero', aka. The Quiet Man (cicero@...)
  • David Blue (david.blue@...)
  • 'Lewy14', aka. Marshal Leroy (lewy14@...)
  • 'Nortius Maximus', aka. Big Tuna (nortius.maximus@...)
Other Regulars Semi-Active: Posting Affiliates Emeritus:
Winds Blogroll
Author Archives
Categories
Powered by Movable Type 4.23-en