Somewhere in a Chick Fil A in Manassas, VA, Reince Priebus and his assistant meet to debate electoral strategy for 2016.
"Alright so, every non white non evangelical under the age of 65 that resides in a place with a stoplight pretty much hates us. What can we use to instill fear in what remains our supporters this year to entice them to come in off the farm and vote. Ideas?"
"Well, we could scapegoat poor African Americans."
"An oldie but a goodie. Sadly, that didn't work out too well in 2008 or 2012, and it doesn't look like we're going to have a candidate who can make that message stick. Besides which, we don't need an overt message against African Americans, we've passed voting restrictions in three dozen states to keep undesirables away from the polls. What's next?"
"What about gays? We're good at scapegoating gays."
"True, that did get George W Bush "elected" to a second term. Unfortunately, millennials don't really like that tack and the Supreme Court took away all of our fun. What else do you have?"
"We could say Democrats are coming for their guns."
*Text Alert* Mass Shooting Kills Eight in Southern Ohio.
"Well, that's out."
"Anything else?"
"We could scare people with the Zika virus like we did with Ebola before the 2014 midterms."
It's a thought, but white people get Ebola, and the Zika virus impacts primary Hispanics, so there's no way we'll get any traction with that. File that away for 2018, though. It may come in handy.
"I have it. What about transgender people? They're a really small part of the population and most of our supporters find the idea of cross dressing and using different gendered bathrooms totally disgusting. We can totally spin it as a public safety issue."
"C'mon now, that's ridiculous. I mean, transgender bathroom assaults happen at the rate of less than ten per year, and the majority of those assaults are committed by people who have mental problems and aren't actually transgender. At the same time, the assault and murder rate of transgender people reached it's highest point ever. "
"And even if you could pass a law like this, how would you enforce it, have someone in every public bathroom there to do a genital check?"
"Well, to be fair, sir, it would stimulate the economy." Reince and his assistant elbow each other and chuckle uproariously.
"I mean, this idea is about as dumb as suggesting we could win an election by building a wall to keep out Mexicans. No one would believe it, and it would alienate us even further from the rest of society, if that's even possible."
"So shall I get Pat McCrory and Mike Pence on the phone?"
"Assuming they can take time out from figuring out how to prevent non white people from voting yes, ring them immediately. Get yourself a frosted lemonade on me. Brilliant!"
Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
On Victory Speeches
One note from the Democratic side of the ledger tonight.
I've been careful not to state an opinion on both of the Democratic candidates for President of the United States, because I like both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I can acknowledge the best intentions and potentially fatal flaws of both candidates, and I think both candidates are doing both the party and the country a service by running.
But I had a very different takeaway from Hillary's speech tonight, which was very good. Beyond the high level rhetoric of a specific anti-Trump positive message in a speech I felt was very human, not traditionally her strong suit (it's worth noting that it was one of Bill's strong suits and I felt his hand in that speech) where specific shots at:
Wisconsin based Johnson Controls, for moving their headquarters overseas after taking federal bail out money.
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder for poisoning the entire city of Flint to save a few dollars.
The State of North Carolina for disenfranchising African American voters.
What do these three states have in common? They are, or have the potential to be Blue States with Republican governors. Two of the three have pivotal Senate races in the fall.
It was a terrific speech that will fall a bit under the radar considering the fact that the Republican clown show is going to get most of the oxygen tomorrow. But if this is who Hillary is now, and if she does earn the nomination, it's a sign of good things to come.
I've been careful not to state an opinion on both of the Democratic candidates for President of the United States, because I like both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. I can acknowledge the best intentions and potentially fatal flaws of both candidates, and I think both candidates are doing both the party and the country a service by running.
But I had a very different takeaway from Hillary's speech tonight, which was very good. Beyond the high level rhetoric of a specific anti-Trump positive message in a speech I felt was very human, not traditionally her strong suit (it's worth noting that it was one of Bill's strong suits and I felt his hand in that speech) where specific shots at:
Wisconsin based Johnson Controls, for moving their headquarters overseas after taking federal bail out money.
Michigan Governor Rick Snyder for poisoning the entire city of Flint to save a few dollars.
The State of North Carolina for disenfranchising African American voters.
What do these three states have in common? They are, or have the potential to be Blue States with Republican governors. Two of the three have pivotal Senate races in the fall.
It was a terrific speech that will fall a bit under the radar considering the fact that the Republican clown show is going to get most of the oxygen tomorrow. But if this is who Hillary is now, and if she does earn the nomination, it's a sign of good things to come.
I Don't Know Whether to Laugh (Wait, Yes I Do)
So, I'm running errands this afternoon when I happen across a news report that contained an audio clip of current Speaker of the House Paul Ryan making comments on the recent KKK related kerfuffle involving Donald Trump.
The full story can be read here, but the part that nearly made me spit out my drink was this:
"This party does not prey on people's prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals. This is the party of Lincoln. We believe all people are created equal in the eyes of God and our government," Ryan added. "This is fundamental, and if someone wants to be our nominee, they have to understand this.
Just let me know when you want me to stop because:
There are these classics
And this one
And I assume we were all alive in 2008.
Or this one, you "thug".
I mean, I could go on. But fortunately, I don't have to because, these fine folks do the work for me.
Seriously, who, other than whites without college degrees, do they think they're fooling with this?
The full story can be read here, but the part that nearly made me spit out my drink was this:
"This party does not prey on people's prejudices. We appeal to their highest ideals. This is the party of Lincoln. We believe all people are created equal in the eyes of God and our government," Ryan added. "This is fundamental, and if someone wants to be our nominee, they have to understand this.
Just let me know when you want me to stop because:
There are these classics
And this one
And I assume we were all alive in 2008.
Or this one, you "thug".
I mean, I could go on. But fortunately, I don't have to because, these fine folks do the work for me.
Seriously, who, other than whites without college degrees, do they think they're fooling with this?
The Trump Map
Well, I suppose it's time to address the elephant in the room.
I know we're all shocked (shocked!) to learn that the Republican Party's standard bearer is now a carnival barker that embodies all of the things anyone who has actually lived in this country for any length of time already knows about the Republican Party; that they earn their votes and money on racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric funded by both the military industrial complex and the backs of poor (white) people conditioned to resent and blame those with just a little bit less than they have, or have a different skin tone.
So good on Donald Trump for laying all of that so bare that the rank and file supporters have officially lost their taste for the genteel veneer of 'compassionate conservatism' that the party has used for all these years in favor of the raw red meat of an open false sense of superiority.
I'll explore why this is in another post, but the much easier question that occurred to me this morning is this:
Just what does a Presidential electoral map look like in a Trump versus Hillary or Bernie Sanders match up? For Republicans, it's ugly.
First, don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to do what they do well in Presidential election years, and that's drive up turnout. Is it likely to top the Obama years? Not really, simply because Hillary isn't as inspirational a candidate (though whether gender politics can make a difference has yet to be determined). But the anti-Trump turnout is likely to be quite high. Any candidate who walks into the election with negatives in the high 60s has a real problem; this was as if W decided he was going to run for a third term in 2012.
So let's mix in the usual assumptions of urban versus rural and the continued evolving demographics of the Republican Party into a white, rural version of the French National Front to get the following:
That's a 425-115 Democratic Party win if you're scoring at home or on the road. It is the most optimistic projection I can come up with, if we're being honest, and there are only four states that are seriously "in play".
Missouri - I've kept red, simply because I don't think the urban turnout in Kansas City and St. Louis is going to out pace the white and rural turnout in the rest of the state.
Georgia - On the other hand, I think, for the first time, we might see minority and urban turnout inside of Atlanta proper outweigh the suburban and rural vote so much that Georgia swings toward the Democrats, particularly if the candidate is Hillary and not Bernie Sanders. I don't regard this as a permanent trend, necessarily, just a by product of an anti-Trump vote.
Texas and Arizona - When 8 in 10 Latinos have a negative view of Donald Trump, you're going to have real problems in some states in which you ordinarily shouldn't. These two states wouldn't be close in a typical year, but in a year where Trump is the candidate, you can at least see trouble from here.
This is the very, very bad night scenario for the Republicans at the Presidential level.
The Senate
It gets even better in the Senate in this scenario:
Barring local controversies, Democrats are likely to hold their Senate seats in Nevada, Colorado, the only two that conventional wisdom considers contestable among candidates standing for re-election at this point.
This scenario puts Democrats in what I would consider a strong position to pickup seats in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin, along with retaining open seats in Maryland and California.
It also puts them in a soft position to pickup seats in Arkansas, North Carolina, Missouri, Florida (which is the seat Marco Rubio is vacating) and Indiana, and it puts even Kentucky in play if Jim Gray campaigns sufficiently deftly against Rand Paul (though I'm not optimistic). Louisiana is also an open seat but the Democratic bench is so shallow there that I doubt a candidate steps forward that can take David Vitter's vacated seat, diapers and all.
Democrats need to pick up five of these Senate seats to get to a 51-49 majority. Even a 50-50 tie, with a Democratic President, nets them the Senate.
So that's the skinny on the damage the Donald can cause to the Republican Party. It's not quite Goldwater in 1964, but it's pretty grim.
Next time, we'll talk about why Sanders and Trump supporters have very different responses to the same fundamental angst that drives their political views.
I know we're all shocked (shocked!) to learn that the Republican Party's standard bearer is now a carnival barker that embodies all of the things anyone who has actually lived in this country for any length of time already knows about the Republican Party; that they earn their votes and money on racist, sexist, homophobic rhetoric funded by both the military industrial complex and the backs of poor (white) people conditioned to resent and blame those with just a little bit less than they have, or have a different skin tone.
So good on Donald Trump for laying all of that so bare that the rank and file supporters have officially lost their taste for the genteel veneer of 'compassionate conservatism' that the party has used for all these years in favor of the raw red meat of an open false sense of superiority.
I'll explore why this is in another post, but the much easier question that occurred to me this morning is this:
Just what does a Presidential electoral map look like in a Trump versus Hillary or Bernie Sanders match up? For Republicans, it's ugly.
First, don't underestimate the ability of Democrats to do what they do well in Presidential election years, and that's drive up turnout. Is it likely to top the Obama years? Not really, simply because Hillary isn't as inspirational a candidate (though whether gender politics can make a difference has yet to be determined). But the anti-Trump turnout is likely to be quite high. Any candidate who walks into the election with negatives in the high 60s has a real problem; this was as if W decided he was going to run for a third term in 2012.
So let's mix in the usual assumptions of urban versus rural and the continued evolving demographics of the Republican Party into a white, rural version of the French National Front to get the following:
Missouri - I've kept red, simply because I don't think the urban turnout in Kansas City and St. Louis is going to out pace the white and rural turnout in the rest of the state.
Georgia - On the other hand, I think, for the first time, we might see minority and urban turnout inside of Atlanta proper outweigh the suburban and rural vote so much that Georgia swings toward the Democrats, particularly if the candidate is Hillary and not Bernie Sanders. I don't regard this as a permanent trend, necessarily, just a by product of an anti-Trump vote.
Texas and Arizona - When 8 in 10 Latinos have a negative view of Donald Trump, you're going to have real problems in some states in which you ordinarily shouldn't. These two states wouldn't be close in a typical year, but in a year where Trump is the candidate, you can at least see trouble from here.
This is the very, very bad night scenario for the Republicans at the Presidential level.
The Senate
It gets even better in the Senate in this scenario:
Barring local controversies, Democrats are likely to hold their Senate seats in Nevada, Colorado, the only two that conventional wisdom considers contestable among candidates standing for re-election at this point.
This scenario puts Democrats in what I would consider a strong position to pickup seats in Illinois, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Ohio and Wisconsin, along with retaining open seats in Maryland and California.
It also puts them in a soft position to pickup seats in Arkansas, North Carolina, Missouri, Florida (which is the seat Marco Rubio is vacating) and Indiana, and it puts even Kentucky in play if Jim Gray campaigns sufficiently deftly against Rand Paul (though I'm not optimistic). Louisiana is also an open seat but the Democratic bench is so shallow there that I doubt a candidate steps forward that can take David Vitter's vacated seat, diapers and all.
Democrats need to pick up five of these Senate seats to get to a 51-49 majority. Even a 50-50 tie, with a Democratic President, nets them the Senate.
So that's the skinny on the damage the Donald can cause to the Republican Party. It's not quite Goldwater in 1964, but it's pretty grim.
Next time, we'll talk about why Sanders and Trump supporters have very different responses to the same fundamental angst that drives their political views.
Wednesday, December 16, 2015
And This Goes On And On And On.....
The American media landscape is so disparate that networks cover what
will get the attention of the portion of the audience that is most
easily duped into spending money and spend the most time listening
to/watching their product.
In an era where the only way you keep this audience is through the age old trick of making that audience feel victimized/held back/terrorized by "others" and being charismatic enough to convince your idiot uncle that they, and only they, are telling you the truth.
It's just a deviation on the Evangelical church model, really.
To that end, among this group of people, which is primarily white, rural and aging, that make up somewhere between 9 and 12% of the US adult population, Donald Trump is more or less their Holy Grail. In a normal election, a Republican field filled with charisma sucking black holes like Mitt Romney who have some cross demographic appeal would be fine. This group would even grumble at an egghead like Ted Cruz or someone as vapid as Marco Rubio (who would and will get slaughtered in debates like labor laws in a Walker Administration) and fall in line.
But this time, they're being led by the nose by the Carnival Barker in Chief, and there's no one who's going to talk them out of it.
Quite the dilemma for the GOP this cycle, wouldn't you say?
Is Trump going to be President? Not if the Democrats scrounge up even a reasonable ground game. There's a zero percent chance he takes any significant demographic slice out of the existing Democratic coalition, as unenthusiastic as it may be. The eight remaining moderate Republicans, three of whom are wondering why they're still donating money to Jeb Bush's campaign, would likely either cross the aisle or sit it out.
Is Trump going to get the Republican nomination? Unless he gets bored, he has a decent chance of conquering the hinterlands and earning enough delegates as part of the process to cause a serious schism in the party at a national level, resulting in a brokered convention. Which makes me glad I'm half an hour away from downtown Cleveland when the true believers set the Quicken Loans Arena on fire. (And a good chance for Republicans to learn the consequences of the Cleveland Police Department's 'shoot first and ask questions later' police first hand).
Normally, I'm screaming at the Democrats for playing rope-a-dope, but for once it's working brilliantly. The schism on the right Trump is causing is absolutely consuming the news cycle and is destroying, possibly once and for all, any hope the GOP had at image rehab someone like Marco Rubio could employ with non-white people below the age of 50. And for that, we have Donald Trump to thank.
In an era where the only way you keep this audience is through the age old trick of making that audience feel victimized/held back/terrorized by "others" and being charismatic enough to convince your idiot uncle that they, and only they, are telling you the truth.
It's just a deviation on the Evangelical church model, really.
To that end, among this group of people, which is primarily white, rural and aging, that make up somewhere between 9 and 12% of the US adult population, Donald Trump is more or less their Holy Grail. In a normal election, a Republican field filled with charisma sucking black holes like Mitt Romney who have some cross demographic appeal would be fine. This group would even grumble at an egghead like Ted Cruz or someone as vapid as Marco Rubio (who would and will get slaughtered in debates like labor laws in a Walker Administration) and fall in line.
But this time, they're being led by the nose by the Carnival Barker in Chief, and there's no one who's going to talk them out of it.
Quite the dilemma for the GOP this cycle, wouldn't you say?
Is Trump going to be President? Not if the Democrats scrounge up even a reasonable ground game. There's a zero percent chance he takes any significant demographic slice out of the existing Democratic coalition, as unenthusiastic as it may be. The eight remaining moderate Republicans, three of whom are wondering why they're still donating money to Jeb Bush's campaign, would likely either cross the aisle or sit it out.
Is Trump going to get the Republican nomination? Unless he gets bored, he has a decent chance of conquering the hinterlands and earning enough delegates as part of the process to cause a serious schism in the party at a national level, resulting in a brokered convention. Which makes me glad I'm half an hour away from downtown Cleveland when the true believers set the Quicken Loans Arena on fire. (And a good chance for Republicans to learn the consequences of the Cleveland Police Department's 'shoot first and ask questions later' police first hand).
Normally, I'm screaming at the Democrats for playing rope-a-dope, but for once it's working brilliantly. The schism on the right Trump is causing is absolutely consuming the news cycle and is destroying, possibly once and for all, any hope the GOP had at image rehab someone like Marco Rubio could employ with non-white people below the age of 50. And for that, we have Donald Trump to thank.
Wednesday, July 22, 2015
Donald Trump as Wish Fulfillment
Donald Trump and Doug Flutie at a 1984 press conference, because why not?
Primary season is always an interesting season, because you get a good idea at how the coalitions that make up the two dominant parties in American politics will behave.
And that brings us to the GOP clown car field, which consists largely of people backed by billionaires, business failures and, of course, The Donald.
It's no coincidence that Donald Trump dominates the GOP field at this early point. He is loud, obnoxious, brash and adept at sucking the oxygen out of a room on a moment's notice. Oxygen, at this point in a primary, is essentially press coverage.
But what's most interesting to me is what he represents. His favorables essentially exist among one subset of Republican voters; white males above the age of 65.
This makes sense, since Trump is 69, white and male. (This also seems to be roughly the sweet spot for the average demographic of a Fox News viewer).
It occurred to me recently what Trump is. He is the unchecked ID of the Republican Party. He speaks without regard for consequence. He cares nothing about the responsibilities of his actions. He boasts of obscene wealth that doesn't exist. Nothing is his responsibility. He trades in wives once they reach a certain age. He rails against the "other" as if they are the source of all problems, covering the external locus of control position that is the default position for the entire platform of the Republican Party.
Essentially, he embodies the perception that life can be lived to excess without consequences or regard for anyone other than one's self, and is expert at creating the perception of excess. He is, along with aviator sunglasses and Hall and Oates revivals, the 1980s last stand. And if we're being honest, living that by proxy is much more fun than slapping a Reagan '84 bumper sticker to cover over the rust spots on your Lexus LS 430 or Mercury Grand Marquis and dreaming of the good old days (that never actually existed).
But he's also the wish fulfillment personality of every angry old white male temporarily displaced millionaire that makes up the Republican Party's base. And that's why he's so popular. You don't have to have any regard for women, or minorities or foreigners, you can walk around saying whatever you want and you roll through life with 'fuck you' money. Who wouldn't want to be that person by proxy if they could?
Well, for starters, people with basic human empathy and an understanding that the world consists of more than elderly white people and their willing arm candy. Also, it should be noted that this is an election for the highest office in the United States, not Prime Minister of Italy, so maybe the person being chosen should have a bit more intellectual and diplomatic gravitas than Trump.
Who am I kidding, as soon as he's due to reveal his financials, he'll rage against the transparency machine and ride off into the sunset with middle fingers blazing until the next election cycle. Then we're left with boring old Jeb! trying to pretend he's smarter than his brother, and won't that be a treat?
Tuesday, July 21, 2015
Sunday, July 5, 2015
Coming Soon: 1964, Revisited
In April 1964, Anne Newman attempted to walk into one of Maurice Bessinger's BBQ restaurants and sit down for a meal. She was barred from doing so by the owner on religious grounds.
Maurice Bessinger was a pretty scummy guy as you can read about here among other places. Although, to be fair, his barbeque sauce is terrific. What he was first and foremost, was an evangelical who attempted to refuse service to African Americans on the grounds that it was against his religious beliefs.
So Anne Newman did what people of the time, and to some extent today, still do, she sued. And won in an 8-0 shutout (It should be noted that Thurgood Marshall abstained). The case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, is really more noteworthy in legal circles for establishing the ground work by which people who sue and win Civil Rights cases can have the defendant pay their attorney's fees, but I mention it because I think, ultimately, it's going to come into play on fairly short order for another reason.
On the fringes of the news recently are those private business owners, the cake bakers, photographers, florists and pizza places, who refuse to serve gay couples. They do so due to religious objections.
Clearly, some states, such as Oregon, address this type of discrimination already, and we see certain well deserved victories when state legislatures attempt to push anti-gay measures in places such as Indiana and Louisiana.
But if you're looking for proof that while history doesn't repeat itself, it does rhyme, get ready for another visit from Good Ole Boy and virulent racist Maurice Bessinger, because the parallels between how people like him treated African Americans in the wake of the Civil Rights Act are likely to manifest themselves in the wake of Obergfell v. Hodges. Only this time, there is no sweeping Civil Rights Act to defend against.
My own personal opinion that you shouldn't be able to refuse to do any aspect of your job due to religious reasons, and that includes pharmacists and the Morning After Pill aside, I do think the legal minefield we're likely to end up walking through in the post gay marriage Equal Protection Clause enforcement world will be an interesting one. It's one thing to gain equal protection under the law, it's another to gain it within your own community. Rather than one sweeping Civil Rights Act, what we're likely to see are dozens of state legislative fights over the coming years, and lawsuits around those fights, unless and until we have a Congress willing to step in and codify anti-discrimination measures for the LGBT community. (And I wouldn't look for that until after 2020).
While the moral arc of the universe is long, ultimately, it does bend toward justice. Just ask Maurice Bessinger's kids.
Maurice Bessinger was a pretty scummy guy as you can read about here among other places. Although, to be fair, his barbeque sauce is terrific. What he was first and foremost, was an evangelical who attempted to refuse service to African Americans on the grounds that it was against his religious beliefs.
So Anne Newman did what people of the time, and to some extent today, still do, she sued. And won in an 8-0 shutout (It should be noted that Thurgood Marshall abstained). The case, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, is really more noteworthy in legal circles for establishing the ground work by which people who sue and win Civil Rights cases can have the defendant pay their attorney's fees, but I mention it because I think, ultimately, it's going to come into play on fairly short order for another reason.
On the fringes of the news recently are those private business owners, the cake bakers, photographers, florists and pizza places, who refuse to serve gay couples. They do so due to religious objections.
Clearly, some states, such as Oregon, address this type of discrimination already, and we see certain well deserved victories when state legislatures attempt to push anti-gay measures in places such as Indiana and Louisiana.
But if you're looking for proof that while history doesn't repeat itself, it does rhyme, get ready for another visit from Good Ole Boy and virulent racist Maurice Bessinger, because the parallels between how people like him treated African Americans in the wake of the Civil Rights Act are likely to manifest themselves in the wake of Obergfell v. Hodges. Only this time, there is no sweeping Civil Rights Act to defend against.
My own personal opinion that you shouldn't be able to refuse to do any aspect of your job due to religious reasons, and that includes pharmacists and the Morning After Pill aside, I do think the legal minefield we're likely to end up walking through in the post gay marriage Equal Protection Clause enforcement world will be an interesting one. It's one thing to gain equal protection under the law, it's another to gain it within your own community. Rather than one sweeping Civil Rights Act, what we're likely to see are dozens of state legislative fights over the coming years, and lawsuits around those fights, unless and until we have a Congress willing to step in and codify anti-discrimination measures for the LGBT community. (And I wouldn't look for that until after 2020).
While the moral arc of the universe is long, ultimately, it does bend toward justice. Just ask Maurice Bessinger's kids.
Thursday, July 2, 2015
So About All Those Criminal Illegal Aliens
So it occurred to me the other day that the key to getting ahead in a Republican primary is to be the most effective carnival barker at stoking the perpetual state of righteous indignation that the increasingly aging, white and rural isolationist suckers who make up what remains of the party (you know, the ones the richer wing grift off of) live in.
Right now, of course, the best barker is Donald Trump. Now, the Donald knows a thing or ten about grifting, one need look no further than Jim Byrne's The $1 League for a view of just how he operates among people at his economic level and above.
So, now that the Republican Party has been more or less neutered in treating gays and African Americans as the evil other to be feared (not that some candidates aren't trying, ahem, Piyush Jindal) we're back to race bating illegal immigrants.
“They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They’re rapists,” Mr. Trump said about Mexican immigrants, adding, “some, I assume, are good people.”
Which should sound familiar to anyone who has to put up with the crazy elderly uncle/aunt/grandparent/cousin who comes in from the sticks at holiday dinner (I'm assuming you've set their Fox News based e-mail forwards to go directly to your Junk folder and weeded them out of your Facebook feed at this point.)
But it does open the question, just what is the crime rate among illegal immigrants, anyway, and how does it compare to the non illegal population at large?
Well, I'm glad you asked that. I wanted to find that answer myself, and to at least get some statistical background on it, I had to dig through some research courtesy of another, even dumber, race bater, former Texas Governor and stem cell treatment recipient Rick Perry.
The Texas Department of Public Safety estimates that 1.7 million illegal immigrants reside in the state. Over the period of October 2008 to July 2014, there were roughly 204,000 arrests of immigrants, or 34,000 per year.
That's an arrest rate of 2% annually.
If we examine Texas arrest statistics, and you can pick your period here but I'm going to use 2013, of the 26.5 million legal residents, there were 967,470 arrests.
That's an arrest rate of 3.66% annually.
Now, you can slice or dice numbers as finely as you want, but if we focus on violent crimes, and take those numbers at face value, despite Politifact and the FBI telling us we shouldn't bother, the percentage of overall crimes committed by illegal aliens (defined as homicide, sex offenses and sexual assault) constitutes just 7.7% of the overall arrests of illegal aliens over that same time frame.
For legal Texas residents, violent crime arrests constituted 10.9% of all arrests in 2013.
I'm sure you aren't surprised that Trump and his ilk are wrong. But it's interesting to see just how wrong.
Happy Fourth of July everyone!
Right now, of course, the best barker is Donald Trump. Now, the Donald knows a thing or ten about grifting, one need look no further than Jim Byrne's The $1 League for a view of just how he operates among people at his economic level and above.
So, now that the Republican Party has been more or less neutered in treating gays and African Americans as the evil other to be feared (not that some candidates aren't trying, ahem, Piyush Jindal) we're back to race bating illegal immigrants.
“They are bringing drugs. They are bringing crime. They’re rapists,” Mr. Trump said about Mexican immigrants, adding, “some, I assume, are good people.”
Which should sound familiar to anyone who has to put up with the crazy elderly uncle/aunt/grandparent/cousin who comes in from the sticks at holiday dinner (I'm assuming you've set their Fox News based e-mail forwards to go directly to your Junk folder and weeded them out of your Facebook feed at this point.)
But it does open the question, just what is the crime rate among illegal immigrants, anyway, and how does it compare to the non illegal population at large?
Well, I'm glad you asked that. I wanted to find that answer myself, and to at least get some statistical background on it, I had to dig through some research courtesy of another, even dumber, race bater, former Texas Governor and stem cell treatment recipient Rick Perry.
The Texas Department of Public Safety estimates that 1.7 million illegal immigrants reside in the state. Over the period of October 2008 to July 2014, there were roughly 204,000 arrests of immigrants, or 34,000 per year.
That's an arrest rate of 2% annually.
If we examine Texas arrest statistics, and you can pick your period here but I'm going to use 2013, of the 26.5 million legal residents, there were 967,470 arrests.
That's an arrest rate of 3.66% annually.
Now, you can slice or dice numbers as finely as you want, but if we focus on violent crimes, and take those numbers at face value, despite Politifact and the FBI telling us we shouldn't bother, the percentage of overall crimes committed by illegal aliens (defined as homicide, sex offenses and sexual assault) constitutes just 7.7% of the overall arrests of illegal aliens over that same time frame.
For legal Texas residents, violent crime arrests constituted 10.9% of all arrests in 2013.
I'm sure you aren't surprised that Trump and his ilk are wrong. But it's interesting to see just how wrong.
Happy Fourth of July everyone!
Wednesday, October 16, 2013
But He Said He'd Stop Drinking.....
There are very few editorials funnier than this one.
In it, the Houston Chronicle "regrets" its endorsement of Ted Cruz for Senate. Here's the money quote:
Either way, no sale. When you lie down with dogs, you get to scratch at the fleas. You own it, Chronicle. Good luck with that.
In it, the Houston Chronicle "regrets" its endorsement of Ted Cruz for Senate. Here's the money quote:
When we endorsed Ted Cruz in last November's general election, we did so with many reservations and at least one specific recommendation - that he follow Hutchison's example in his conduct as a senator.Making a statement like this is akin to marrying an alcoholic and then being shocked he didn't quit drinking. There was more than ample evidence that Ted Cruz was a moron. The Chronicle either didn't do its research prior to the endorsement, or is just trying to cover its ass before its readers.
Either way, no sale. When you lie down with dogs, you get to scratch at the fleas. You own it, Chronicle. Good luck with that.
Thursday, June 27, 2013
Rick Perry - hypocrite!
Yes! I said it! Governor Rick Perry of Texas is the biggest piece of shit hypocrite there is! His stance of pro-life but executed Kimberly McCarthy on the same day? This guy is the biggest piece of crap. He knows you can't be pro-life and pro-death penalty at the same time. That is why his is a scumbag... Rot in hell Rick Perry!
Monday, June 17, 2013
We Never Hate Saying We Told You So
Score one for the voters. Even Scalia was on the right side of this ruling.
Saturday, April 27, 2013
The Demand Economy, or Lack Thereof
Supply side economics. Austerity. Cutting our way to prosperity. The perpetual application of the Laffer Curve.
All bullshit.
But you knew that already, right?
Corporate America may finally be catching up to this novel idea. One that was so novel that it dates back at least as far as Henry Ford.
The money quote, if you find this article too long to read:
Freeze says that revenue presents a more accurate picture of Corporate America's health. "You can play with the earnings numbers and have them skewed," he says. "But you can't mess with the revenue numbers - they are what they are. If people are not coming in droves to buy your products, your revenue's going to miss even if your earnings beat projections."
Demand based economies. How do they work again?
All bullshit.
But you knew that already, right?
Corporate America may finally be catching up to this novel idea. One that was so novel that it dates back at least as far as Henry Ford.
The money quote, if you find this article too long to read:
Freeze says that revenue presents a more accurate picture of Corporate America's health. "You can play with the earnings numbers and have them skewed," he says. "But you can't mess with the revenue numbers - they are what they are. If people are not coming in droves to buy your products, your revenue's going to miss even if your earnings beat projections."
Demand based economies. How do they work again?
Thursday, April 11, 2013
Wednesday, March 27, 2013
Justice Scalia is a douchebag
Okay. My beef is with Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia. His outburst today concerning gay rights just makes me sick. How is this guy still on the court?
Today he said... "O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff now? I've told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don't understand why we're going on and on about it unless you all hate me."
He continues... "For two days, it's been gay this, gay that. You're all just talking about this stuff as if it's normal thing in the world. Well, it's not, O.K.? It's weird and it's wrong. And just talking about it like it's O.K. and whatnot is making me angry."
Do I sense a lack of professionalism from Justice Scalia? Why, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, would you say such hateful comments? Should Justice Scalia resign over these insesnstive comments? Yes, I agree so. He is a douchebag and not a Justice of the Supreme Court...
Today he said... "O.K., could we just stop talking about this stuff now? I've told you all how I feel about this topic, and I don't understand why we're going on and on about it unless you all hate me."
He continues... "For two days, it's been gay this, gay that. You're all just talking about this stuff as if it's normal thing in the world. Well, it's not, O.K.? It's weird and it's wrong. And just talking about it like it's O.K. and whatnot is making me angry."
Do I sense a lack of professionalism from Justice Scalia? Why, as a Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, would you say such hateful comments? Should Justice Scalia resign over these insesnstive comments? Yes, I agree so. He is a douchebag and not a Justice of the Supreme Court...
Friday, March 1, 2013
Instant Karma's Gonna Sequester Ya
I have a friend of a friend. Let's call her Jenny. Jenny is a school teacher, who has worked in a district without a contract for the last two plus years. Jenny is a Republican, both in an economic and religious sense of the word. And a union member. So right away, the cognitive dissonance she has to use to get through the day leads her to the more than occasional migraine.
If you put two people that make the same amount of money in the same room, one a Republican, and one a Democrat, odds are very good you'll be able to unearth that one understands that their actions, for better or for worse, impact those of others, and so they should use the spirit of cooperation to help build the infrastructure of support to help the less fortunate and others around them, and that they understand that without the hard work and sacrifices made by those before them, some of whom earned more, some of whom earned less, they wouldn't be where they are, and that the other feels that people are trying to steal from them or are free riders. You can sort out who ideologically falls on which side of the aisle.
I tried to politely engage Jenny once on the subject of what Planned Parenthood means to women's health for rural residents. That turned out to be a mistake, as that conversation quickly turned into nonsensical vitriol on lobbyists and abortion, facts be damned. I mean, why should a woman who lives in a rural area care about the reproductive health of other women who live in rural areas, right?
On the subject of the cognitive dissonance it takes to be a Republican union member, through this article we come across this gem of a quote, uttered by someone so utterly confused it will make your head hurt, just so you're warned (sourced from here):
On the heels of the passing of Senate Bill 5 in Ohio, another one of my friends, a police officer, remarked at how unjust it was. Then, in the next breath, he said "man, I hate spending tax dollars on government programs." At which point, I rather bluntly reminded him that he was a government program.
The school district in which Jennifer works is part of a community of people with her attitude toward teaching and teachers. They make too much money. They work 7 hours per day and have summers off. The school system is poor. The people are "overtaxed". That school district is facing what is likely to be a long strike beginning Monday. The gentleman at the center of the Washington Post story is facing a layoff, and the police officer I mentioned above is facing a furlough.
All three of these people, along with tens of millions of others, are learning a hard lesson. We are all interconnected. We all need each other, and need to support each other. We all rely on each other. The roads don't pave themselves, the streets don't clean or patrol themselves, the kids don't teach themselves, the ships don't build themselves. And until these people experience an adequate amount of pain and suffering at the hands of others with the same attitudes as them, they, unfortunately, are never going to learn.
It's a basic lesson of life, shared across nearly all of the world's religions. Do good to others, and they do good to you. Do bad to others, and bad things happen to you. It's karma. And it's a bitch.
If you put two people that make the same amount of money in the same room, one a Republican, and one a Democrat, odds are very good you'll be able to unearth that one understands that their actions, for better or for worse, impact those of others, and so they should use the spirit of cooperation to help build the infrastructure of support to help the less fortunate and others around them, and that they understand that without the hard work and sacrifices made by those before them, some of whom earned more, some of whom earned less, they wouldn't be where they are, and that the other feels that people are trying to steal from them or are free riders. You can sort out who ideologically falls on which side of the aisle.
I tried to politely engage Jenny once on the subject of what Planned Parenthood means to women's health for rural residents. That turned out to be a mistake, as that conversation quickly turned into nonsensical vitriol on lobbyists and abortion, facts be damned. I mean, why should a woman who lives in a rural area care about the reproductive health of other women who live in rural areas, right?
On the subject of the cognitive dissonance it takes to be a Republican union member, through this article we come across this gem of a quote, uttered by someone so utterly confused it will make your head hurt, just so you're warned (sourced from here):
In the smoky bar, ideological lines get blurred. Somers is a union guy but not an Obama fan. He wants cash to keep flowing to the large military contractor that employs him, but he opposed the auto bailout. He needs Washington but feels manipulated by it.At least this guy is willing to put his money, and his kids health and well being, apparently, where his mouth is, I'll give him that much. But this idea that "I'm essential, but you aren't", (better expressed as 'I should get mine and Fuck You') this idea that the pie is limited and we have to fight with each other over the scraps, autoworkers versus shipbuilders, and that people like the person above should hate themselves for being on the government teat, even though they earn the same living essentially the same way as an autoworker does (only, it should be noted, for higher pay and with better benefits), and that they should then wish ill upon others, is utterly asinine.
“They spend our money like a drunk sailor. . . . ‘We’ll give you a little bit of something, a little piece of cheese.’ Dangle that cheese. We’re pawns, that’s what we are,” he said.
But Somers has four kids and ultimately, he said: “I’m willing to accept anything to turn the country around. If it takes me getting laid off, so be it.”
On the heels of the passing of Senate Bill 5 in Ohio, another one of my friends, a police officer, remarked at how unjust it was. Then, in the next breath, he said "man, I hate spending tax dollars on government programs." At which point, I rather bluntly reminded him that he was a government program.
The school district in which Jennifer works is part of a community of people with her attitude toward teaching and teachers. They make too much money. They work 7 hours per day and have summers off. The school system is poor. The people are "overtaxed". That school district is facing what is likely to be a long strike beginning Monday. The gentleman at the center of the Washington Post story is facing a layoff, and the police officer I mentioned above is facing a furlough.
All three of these people, along with tens of millions of others, are learning a hard lesson. We are all interconnected. We all need each other, and need to support each other. We all rely on each other. The roads don't pave themselves, the streets don't clean or patrol themselves, the kids don't teach themselves, the ships don't build themselves. And until these people experience an adequate amount of pain and suffering at the hands of others with the same attitudes as them, they, unfortunately, are never going to learn.
It's a basic lesson of life, shared across nearly all of the world's religions. Do good to others, and they do good to you. Do bad to others, and bad things happen to you. It's karma. And it's a bitch.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Let's Talk About Guns
Have you ever shot a gun?
No, seriously. Did you ever go out to the gun range, rent a handgun, take it out and just start shooting at a target? Perhaps you had relatives that lived on a farm and had guns and, on a holiday visit, took you out back to shoot at empty bottles.
I'm not going to lie. There is a visceral thrill to picking up, handling and shooting a gun. It has an excitement that very few things can match.
But guns, as we all know, are serious business, and as we've learned recently, if not managed responsibly, or even if they are managed responsibly, the sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a tool of destruction, regardless of the motivation of the person using it.
The tragic events in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO and suburban Portland, OR, along with the exceedingly violent series of deaths that are plaguing inner city Chicago, may have finally tipped the scales of civil discourse in the United States in the favor of those who seek to impose some degree of limits on the process of acquiring a gun, what types of guns people really need to own and how they should be permitted to use guns in defensive situations.
As with the voting rights issue, discussing Gun Control is a complex and multi-layered issue. So my hope here is to start to peel back the onion on the issue and provide a framework for discussion.
Gun Control
What does this mean? Well, whatever you want it to mean, by and large.So let's start with guns.
By some estimates, there are 280,000,000 guns in private ownership in the United States. At the current rate of gun acquisition, there will be one gun for every person in the U.S. by the year 2020. We are already approaching an era where, statistically, every American is armed. From this, I think we can conclude the Swiss solution isn't practical.
When we talk of guns, we really need to approach guns in three different categories. There are tactical/assault weapons a ban upon which expired in 2004. There are handguns, which these rulings more or less permitted people to own, and there are hunting rifles.
Absurdities
If you have a liberal friend who thinks we're going to gather 280 million guns up and melt them down, thus solving our gun violence problem, ask him why he left Rhea Pearlman. Certainly, governments at all levels can create incentives for people to voluntarily do so, in the form of tax credits, and this is a worthwhile course to pursue. But the idea that we can eliminate guns by melting them all is silly.
By the same token, the idea that arming everyone will solve our gun violence problem is equally absurd. Beyond the anecdotal evidence that armed people panic in live fire situations, the limits of this situation can be expressed by the story of what happened earlier this summer when all nine bystanders in a shooting near the Empire State Building were wounded by the NYPD. And these are officers trained in the most dense urban area of the United States. Not random CCW license holders.
Let's express, and dismiss, the foolishness of arming everyone with a cost-benefit analysis. The NYPD estimates it's hit rate, the rate at which officers who use their firearm to hit an intended target, as 34%. Which means that, 66% of the time, they miss. But for argument sake, let's assume that everyone is as good as the NYPD, and none of the bullets that miss their intended target cause any collateral damage whatsoever.
The UK ban on handguns administered after the 1997 Dunblane shootings resulted in a 40% decline in the number of handgun related homicides over the subsequent 10 year period.
So even an equally absurd, best case scenario can't top the effects of a simple ban, where none of the existing weaponry was taken from the population at large.
Hunting Rifles, and Bridging the Urban/Rural Divide
The trick to winning support from conservatives and responsible gun owners, in my opinion, is to make clear up front that hunters are not the problem. There's a story that says that while the President and First Lady were campaigning in one of the Dakotas, Michelle remarked to the President "You know, I could understand why you'd want a gun if you lived out here."
And there is a fundamental lack of communication between Gun Control advocates, who tend to be urban, and view gun violence as urban, and the rural audience of gun owners who, due to their isolation or lifestyle, have a reasonable and respectable right to own a gun that facilitates their hunting related hobbies and self defense.
Bridging this communications gap is the key to enacting common sense gun ownership regulation. Neither a group that is commonly engaged in the purchase and stockpiling of tactical assault weapons, and neither group supports it. But seeing the perspective of both sides, and avoiding regulatory limitations on weapons that are reasonably classified as hunting weapons, is important. This is the role that West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin needs to play in this debate.
Tactical Weapons/Assault Rifles
The first order of the new Congress will be to propose and pass a ban on weapons similar to the original 1994 ban. With Newtown fresh in the minds of most Americans, and broad support for such a measure, there is no reason this shouldn't be done by the time you're finished reading this sentence.
Handguns
But passing a Tactical Weapons ban is the easy part. The hard work comes with handguns. Cheap and easy handgun access, legal or otherwise, plagues violence in urban areas. DC v. Heller and Chicago v. McDonald put an end to outright handgun bans in the U.S., although Heller, in particular, left open state and local municipalities rights to place restrictions on gun acquisition and ownership. This is a hard question with no easy answers, and would force the Democratic Party to expend considerably political capital it may not have to address.
Still, there are loopholes that can be closed. The federal government could actually enforce and prosecute Brady Bill violators. The Gun Show Loophole in particular needs to be addressed and closed. In a society with mobile communications and tablet PCs, there is no reason Gun Show dealers and organizers shouldn't be able to perform background checks onsite.
Finally, there's always the Chris Rock Rule. In one of his routines, Chris Rock suggested that guns should remain legal, but bullets should cost $5,000 apiece. And while he was joking, he has a point. The federal government could, in theory, do nothing on guns themselves, but ban ammunition, or make it cost prohibitive. It's a difficult parsing of the law, but a smart way to pursue addressing this issue.
My own personal opinion is this. We will never rid our country of the gun. It is engrained in our culture, the one English speaking culture that was not raised on the British tradition. The political will doesn't exist to do so, and the paranoia inherent in a significant swath of our political sub-culture will never allow it. Regardless, we still need to address the issue proactively around the edges, and the political will exists to do at least this much. Tactically speaking, the issue is a winner for the Democratic Party. So address it.
No, seriously. Did you ever go out to the gun range, rent a handgun, take it out and just start shooting at a target? Perhaps you had relatives that lived on a farm and had guns and, on a holiday visit, took you out back to shoot at empty bottles.
I'm not going to lie. There is a visceral thrill to picking up, handling and shooting a gun. It has an excitement that very few things can match.
But guns, as we all know, are serious business, and as we've learned recently, if not managed responsibly, or even if they are managed responsibly, the sole purpose of a gun is to be used as a tool of destruction, regardless of the motivation of the person using it.
The tragic events in Newtown, CT, Aurora, CO and suburban Portland, OR, along with the exceedingly violent series of deaths that are plaguing inner city Chicago, may have finally tipped the scales of civil discourse in the United States in the favor of those who seek to impose some degree of limits on the process of acquiring a gun, what types of guns people really need to own and how they should be permitted to use guns in defensive situations.
As with the voting rights issue, discussing Gun Control is a complex and multi-layered issue. So my hope here is to start to peel back the onion on the issue and provide a framework for discussion.
Gun Control
What does this mean? Well, whatever you want it to mean, by and large.So let's start with guns.
By some estimates, there are 280,000,000 guns in private ownership in the United States. At the current rate of gun acquisition, there will be one gun for every person in the U.S. by the year 2020. We are already approaching an era where, statistically, every American is armed. From this, I think we can conclude the Swiss solution isn't practical.
When we talk of guns, we really need to approach guns in three different categories. There are tactical/assault weapons a ban upon which expired in 2004. There are handguns, which these rulings more or less permitted people to own, and there are hunting rifles.
Absurdities
If you have a liberal friend who thinks we're going to gather 280 million guns up and melt them down, thus solving our gun violence problem, ask him why he left Rhea Pearlman. Certainly, governments at all levels can create incentives for people to voluntarily do so, in the form of tax credits, and this is a worthwhile course to pursue. But the idea that we can eliminate guns by melting them all is silly.
By the same token, the idea that arming everyone will solve our gun violence problem is equally absurd. Beyond the anecdotal evidence that armed people panic in live fire situations, the limits of this situation can be expressed by the story of what happened earlier this summer when all nine bystanders in a shooting near the Empire State Building were wounded by the NYPD. And these are officers trained in the most dense urban area of the United States. Not random CCW license holders.
Let's express, and dismiss, the foolishness of arming everyone with a cost-benefit analysis. The NYPD estimates it's hit rate, the rate at which officers who use their firearm to hit an intended target, as 34%. Which means that, 66% of the time, they miss. But for argument sake, let's assume that everyone is as good as the NYPD, and none of the bullets that miss their intended target cause any collateral damage whatsoever.
The UK ban on handguns administered after the 1997 Dunblane shootings resulted in a 40% decline in the number of handgun related homicides over the subsequent 10 year period.
So even an equally absurd, best case scenario can't top the effects of a simple ban, where none of the existing weaponry was taken from the population at large.
Hunting Rifles, and Bridging the Urban/Rural Divide
The trick to winning support from conservatives and responsible gun owners, in my opinion, is to make clear up front that hunters are not the problem. There's a story that says that while the President and First Lady were campaigning in one of the Dakotas, Michelle remarked to the President "You know, I could understand why you'd want a gun if you lived out here."
And there is a fundamental lack of communication between Gun Control advocates, who tend to be urban, and view gun violence as urban, and the rural audience of gun owners who, due to their isolation or lifestyle, have a reasonable and respectable right to own a gun that facilitates their hunting related hobbies and self defense.
Bridging this communications gap is the key to enacting common sense gun ownership regulation. Neither a group that is commonly engaged in the purchase and stockpiling of tactical assault weapons, and neither group supports it. But seeing the perspective of both sides, and avoiding regulatory limitations on weapons that are reasonably classified as hunting weapons, is important. This is the role that West Virginia Senator Joe Manchin needs to play in this debate.
Tactical Weapons/Assault Rifles
The first order of the new Congress will be to propose and pass a ban on weapons similar to the original 1994 ban. With Newtown fresh in the minds of most Americans, and broad support for such a measure, there is no reason this shouldn't be done by the time you're finished reading this sentence.
Handguns
But passing a Tactical Weapons ban is the easy part. The hard work comes with handguns. Cheap and easy handgun access, legal or otherwise, plagues violence in urban areas. DC v. Heller and Chicago v. McDonald put an end to outright handgun bans in the U.S., although Heller, in particular, left open state and local municipalities rights to place restrictions on gun acquisition and ownership. This is a hard question with no easy answers, and would force the Democratic Party to expend considerably political capital it may not have to address.
Still, there are loopholes that can be closed. The federal government could actually enforce and prosecute Brady Bill violators. The Gun Show Loophole in particular needs to be addressed and closed. In a society with mobile communications and tablet PCs, there is no reason Gun Show dealers and organizers shouldn't be able to perform background checks onsite.
Finally, there's always the Chris Rock Rule. In one of his routines, Chris Rock suggested that guns should remain legal, but bullets should cost $5,000 apiece. And while he was joking, he has a point. The federal government could, in theory, do nothing on guns themselves, but ban ammunition, or make it cost prohibitive. It's a difficult parsing of the law, but a smart way to pursue addressing this issue.
My own personal opinion is this. We will never rid our country of the gun. It is engrained in our culture, the one English speaking culture that was not raised on the British tradition. The political will doesn't exist to do so, and the paranoia inherent in a significant swath of our political sub-culture will never allow it. Regardless, we still need to address the issue proactively around the edges, and the political will exists to do at least this much. Tactically speaking, the issue is a winner for the Democratic Party. So address it.
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
So Now What?
On the morning after the President signed an executive order allowing those who were brought to the US illegally as children could earn temporary amnesty, I found myself in line at the Dallas Airport. As the news was broadcast on CNN, the white Texas couple in front of me scoffed at the thought that illegals wanting to steal jobs would qualify for "a free ride."
The Hispanic family behind me, on the other hand, was quietly delighted, and began texting friends.
Anecdotes don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but if there's one thing that seems clear now is that the President and Senate Democrats have the high strategic territory as it relates to re-introducing the DREAM Act. If we consider that the Hispanic voting bloc is currently resoundingly anti-Republican, their continued obstructionism in the form of ludicrous suggestions like self deportation only causes more harm, and a pretty face and bilingual stump speeches aren't going to address that. If a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate pass the DREAM Act, an argument can be made that it solidifies the Democratic Party's stronghold on that demographic for a generation.
It is in the best interests of the GOP, then, find a way to reach a high profile compromise that grants amnesty to those who are in the country illegally. This removes the issue from the table, ultimately and frees the parties to address the Hispanic demographic on different ground.
Changing Attitudes and the Ascent of Millenials
Now seems to be a good time to talk about social attitudes. If you pose the question of Gay Marriage to a Millenial, the general answer you'll get is "it doesn't impact me, so what do I care?"
As Baby Boomers and aging evangelicals continue to shuffle off this mortal coil, they are replaced by Millenials that have increasingly Libertarian attitudes on social issues, including birth control and abortion, which are viewed through the prism of individual choice. This bodes well for those who are traditionally persecuted and scapegoated by Republicans. In particular, those states that have anti-gay marriage laws in place will slowly start to see them overturned, provided a Court doesn't wise up and find them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It also bodes well for Democrats who, aside from a few notable exceptions aim squarely in the wheelhouse of people with these attitudes. A Republican Party that preaches an overtly faith based message is preaching to a shrinking choir.
Don't assume, however, that Millenials have equally liberal attitudes about taxation and economics. Millenials, particularly the younger half of this generation, have somewhat conservative attitudes on economics, which leave them just as vulnerable to the "for me, but not for thee" economic policies that Republicans increasingly clumsily overtly espouse. The student loan reform bill directly benefits this generation as does credit card reform. Future Democratic politicians will need to find similar types of consumer and economic type reforms to appeal to this demographic.
Toward the Future
What we've seen clearly is that Tea Party Politics has a clear ceiling. In a Gerrymandered Congressional environment with predominately Republican districts, Congressional candidates can, for a time, continue to leverage the rural white portions of their districts to win races, barring a 2006 type wave, for the remainder of the decade.
However, outside of the states that are currently Red, Republican candidates that adopt this platform will continue to lose at the Senate level. The Rural/Urban composition of most Blue and Purple states will see to it that a nut like Tom Smith in Pennsylvania isn't take seriously. And a Presidential Tea Partyesque candidate isn't feasible either.
The next immediate Senate hurdle is 2014. While there is cause for concern, the map does not appear to be as bleak for the Democrats as it was, say, the day before yesterday.
2014 will underscore how much progress the Democratic Party makes in addressing a chronic problem; keeping an engaged electorate enthused enough to rollback the gains made by Republicans in 2010. Certainly there is an outstanding party apparatus in place, but the Party has struggled to utilize that infrastructure to effectively market the Party beyond the President. This advantage, which was such a disadvantage in 2004, is something upon which the Party must leverage more effectively.
So what is the early line on the future of the top of the Democratic ticket? Immediately people speculate that Hillary Clinton, who will not return as Secretary of State, will contemplate a run. Joe Biden has dropped hints that he's interested in running yet again. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley will certainly consider runs. One name to remember, somewhere on the ticket, is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who won re-election in a state that is red and getting redder.
Thinking strategically, while the Democratic Party has a deep collection of African Americans, the pool of prominent Hispanics is not deep beyond the local level. To that end, if you'd ask me for an ideal ticket, it would consist of Hillary Clinton and a prominent African American politician such as Patrick or, in an age in which our population is becoming increasingly urban, Newark Mayor Cory Booker.
But it's a long way from here to there, and four years is an eternity in politics.
The Hispanic family behind me, on the other hand, was quietly delighted, and began texting friends.
Anecdotes don't mean much in the grand scheme of things, but if there's one thing that seems clear now is that the President and Senate Democrats have the high strategic territory as it relates to re-introducing the DREAM Act. If we consider that the Hispanic voting bloc is currently resoundingly anti-Republican, their continued obstructionism in the form of ludicrous suggestions like self deportation only causes more harm, and a pretty face and bilingual stump speeches aren't going to address that. If a Democratic President and a Democratic Senate pass the DREAM Act, an argument can be made that it solidifies the Democratic Party's stronghold on that demographic for a generation.
It is in the best interests of the GOP, then, find a way to reach a high profile compromise that grants amnesty to those who are in the country illegally. This removes the issue from the table, ultimately and frees the parties to address the Hispanic demographic on different ground.
Changing Attitudes and the Ascent of Millenials
Now seems to be a good time to talk about social attitudes. If you pose the question of Gay Marriage to a Millenial, the general answer you'll get is "it doesn't impact me, so what do I care?"
As Baby Boomers and aging evangelicals continue to shuffle off this mortal coil, they are replaced by Millenials that have increasingly Libertarian attitudes on social issues, including birth control and abortion, which are viewed through the prism of individual choice. This bodes well for those who are traditionally persecuted and scapegoated by Republicans. In particular, those states that have anti-gay marriage laws in place will slowly start to see them overturned, provided a Court doesn't wise up and find them in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment. It also bodes well for Democrats who, aside from a few notable exceptions aim squarely in the wheelhouse of people with these attitudes. A Republican Party that preaches an overtly faith based message is preaching to a shrinking choir.
Don't assume, however, that Millenials have equally liberal attitudes about taxation and economics. Millenials, particularly the younger half of this generation, have somewhat conservative attitudes on economics, which leave them just as vulnerable to the "for me, but not for thee" economic policies that Republicans increasingly clumsily overtly espouse. The student loan reform bill directly benefits this generation as does credit card reform. Future Democratic politicians will need to find similar types of consumer and economic type reforms to appeal to this demographic.
Toward the Future
What we've seen clearly is that Tea Party Politics has a clear ceiling. In a Gerrymandered Congressional environment with predominately Republican districts, Congressional candidates can, for a time, continue to leverage the rural white portions of their districts to win races, barring a 2006 type wave, for the remainder of the decade.
However, outside of the states that are currently Red, Republican candidates that adopt this platform will continue to lose at the Senate level. The Rural/Urban composition of most Blue and Purple states will see to it that a nut like Tom Smith in Pennsylvania isn't take seriously. And a Presidential Tea Partyesque candidate isn't feasible either.
The next immediate Senate hurdle is 2014. While there is cause for concern, the map does not appear to be as bleak for the Democrats as it was, say, the day before yesterday.
2014 will underscore how much progress the Democratic Party makes in addressing a chronic problem; keeping an engaged electorate enthused enough to rollback the gains made by Republicans in 2010. Certainly there is an outstanding party apparatus in place, but the Party has struggled to utilize that infrastructure to effectively market the Party beyond the President. This advantage, which was such a disadvantage in 2004, is something upon which the Party must leverage more effectively.
So what is the early line on the future of the top of the Democratic ticket? Immediately people speculate that Hillary Clinton, who will not return as Secretary of State, will contemplate a run. Joe Biden has dropped hints that he's interested in running yet again. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley will certainly consider runs. One name to remember, somewhere on the ticket, is Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who won re-election in a state that is red and getting redder.
Thinking strategically, while the Democratic Party has a deep collection of African Americans, the pool of prominent Hispanics is not deep beyond the local level. To that end, if you'd ask me for an ideal ticket, it would consist of Hillary Clinton and a prominent African American politician such as Patrick or, in an age in which our population is becoming increasingly urban, Newark Mayor Cory Booker.
But it's a long way from here to there, and four years is an eternity in politics.
About Last Night (or, Electoral Perversity in Chicago)
So, how was your evening? Anything interesting happen last night? Anything good on television?
All kidding aside, let me indulge in a moment of horn blowing and take a victory lap. Go ahead and re-read this and be sure to click the last link. I'll wait.
Why, oh why, did I not play the lottery that day instead?
Where were we? Oh yes. A whole heap of good news awaited those of us who were willing to stay up into the wee hours of the morning as President Obama relatively comfortably earned a second term in office as President of the United States. In addition, the Democratic Party picked up Senate seats in Indiana, North Dakota(!), Connecticut and Wisconsin.
At long last, the arc of the universe finally bent toward justice, with Gay Marriage rights affirmed in Maine (again), Washington and Maryland, with an additional referendum voted down in Minnesota. Marijuana legalization proposals were approved in Washington and Colorado, though the degree to which those have any legal standing relative to federal laws is subject to additional debate.
Beyond that, additional progress was made when Tammy Baldwin won the Senate race in Wisconsin to become the first openly gay Senator. Last night's election ensured that New Hampshire's Governor and entire Congressional delegation would be female, a first.
Amongst the good news is some bad. Though the Democrats gained some seats in the House, unfortunately the Gerrymandering that occurred in the wake of a disastrous 2010 midterm election wave saw to it that the House stayed in Republican hands. Also, Toledo lost at home to Ball State in football and will likely fall out of the Top 25 as a result. But no one wins all the time.
Grand Old (White) Party
There is a substantial amount of Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking material available that attempts to cut to the heart of the reasons behind the Republicans losing a Presidential race despite a lackluster economy, and failing to capitalize on an opportunity to seize control of Congress entirely. It's a large body of work, analyzed with more depth than I can do justice, but I'll try and touch upon some things that aren't so obvious and move on.
Much is made that the vast majority of African Americans vote Democratic. However, 88% of the Romney/Ryan ticket was white. That is no longer acceptable in a nation as diverse as the United States is. It was stated (in The Atlantic but sadly I can't find the article) that this was the last time a campaign micro targeted to a white suburban/exurban/rural audience could be tried at a national level, and that was proven true. The traditional coalition of white evangelicals, suburban/rural folks and the elderly cracked and sputtered to a halt in the face of changing demographics.
If the thought hasn't occurred to you already, it should: Romney/Ryan will be the last white male ticket you will see from the two major parties in your lifetime.
But to state "it's not the message, it's the medium", and to think that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz making speeches about the federal deficit and creeping socialism is going to make these races competitive again is a fools errand. The GOP needs to do some serious soul searching as it relates to casting off the evangelical yoke and ridding itself of the Grover Norquists of the world, or the marginalization will proceed apace, though slower than we progressives would like.
If it wasn't obvious already, the GOP has reached the point where the inmates are running the asylum. Referendums that scapegoated gays and Hispanics (2004 and 2006) ultimately led to widespread voter revolt. Even George W Bush, for all of his unending faults, tried desperately through the first six years of his terms in office trying to reach a reasonable compromise on the landed immigrant issue. He understood that, to some extent, demography is destiny, and if you don't reach out to Hispanics they will desert you en masse. Human Rights issues aren't single issues, they are economic, personal, and they cut across every other issue that impacts people's lives.
The Evangelical yoke runs counter to the emerging point of view of Millennials in particular. Public opposition to birth control, reproductive rights and equal pay offend not only younger women but they cut directly across an important Millennial trend that I'll discuss in another article. Regardless, the party's desire to impose Messianic Law on the majority of the population has reached its expiry date.
On The Plus Side
I would talk about what the President accomplished at this point, but if you're hitting this website, you're pretty familiar with those accomplishments already. The good news is that Obamacare is here to stay, with the resulting assurances that, no matter how flawed it may be, people no longer have to die because they can't afford healthcare, or go bankrupt in the event they become seriously ill. With a Democratic Senate, we are also likely to get Filibuster Reform, and Medicaid and Medicare will continue to exist in a feasible form.
So now that we know where we are, how do we figure out where we're going?
All kidding aside, let me indulge in a moment of horn blowing and take a victory lap. Go ahead and re-read this and be sure to click the last link. I'll wait.
Why, oh why, did I not play the lottery that day instead?
Where were we? Oh yes. A whole heap of good news awaited those of us who were willing to stay up into the wee hours of the morning as President Obama relatively comfortably earned a second term in office as President of the United States. In addition, the Democratic Party picked up Senate seats in Indiana, North Dakota(!), Connecticut and Wisconsin.
At long last, the arc of the universe finally bent toward justice, with Gay Marriage rights affirmed in Maine (again), Washington and Maryland, with an additional referendum voted down in Minnesota. Marijuana legalization proposals were approved in Washington and Colorado, though the degree to which those have any legal standing relative to federal laws is subject to additional debate.
Beyond that, additional progress was made when Tammy Baldwin won the Senate race in Wisconsin to become the first openly gay Senator. Last night's election ensured that New Hampshire's Governor and entire Congressional delegation would be female, a first.
Amongst the good news is some bad. Though the Democrats gained some seats in the House, unfortunately the Gerrymandering that occurred in the wake of a disastrous 2010 midterm election wave saw to it that the House stayed in Republican hands. Also, Toledo lost at home to Ball State in football and will likely fall out of the Top 25 as a result. But no one wins all the time.
Grand Old (White) Party
There is a substantial amount of Wednesday Morning Quarterbacking material available that attempts to cut to the heart of the reasons behind the Republicans losing a Presidential race despite a lackluster economy, and failing to capitalize on an opportunity to seize control of Congress entirely. It's a large body of work, analyzed with more depth than I can do justice, but I'll try and touch upon some things that aren't so obvious and move on.
Much is made that the vast majority of African Americans vote Democratic. However, 88% of the Romney/Ryan ticket was white. That is no longer acceptable in a nation as diverse as the United States is. It was stated (in The Atlantic but sadly I can't find the article) that this was the last time a campaign micro targeted to a white suburban/exurban/rural audience could be tried at a national level, and that was proven true. The traditional coalition of white evangelicals, suburban/rural folks and the elderly cracked and sputtered to a halt in the face of changing demographics.
If the thought hasn't occurred to you already, it should: Romney/Ryan will be the last white male ticket you will see from the two major parties in your lifetime.
But to state "it's not the message, it's the medium", and to think that Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz making speeches about the federal deficit and creeping socialism is going to make these races competitive again is a fools errand. The GOP needs to do some serious soul searching as it relates to casting off the evangelical yoke and ridding itself of the Grover Norquists of the world, or the marginalization will proceed apace, though slower than we progressives would like.
If it wasn't obvious already, the GOP has reached the point where the inmates are running the asylum. Referendums that scapegoated gays and Hispanics (2004 and 2006) ultimately led to widespread voter revolt. Even George W Bush, for all of his unending faults, tried desperately through the first six years of his terms in office trying to reach a reasonable compromise on the landed immigrant issue. He understood that, to some extent, demography is destiny, and if you don't reach out to Hispanics they will desert you en masse. Human Rights issues aren't single issues, they are economic, personal, and they cut across every other issue that impacts people's lives.
The Evangelical yoke runs counter to the emerging point of view of Millennials in particular. Public opposition to birth control, reproductive rights and equal pay offend not only younger women but they cut directly across an important Millennial trend that I'll discuss in another article. Regardless, the party's desire to impose Messianic Law on the majority of the population has reached its expiry date.
On The Plus Side
I would talk about what the President accomplished at this point, but if you're hitting this website, you're pretty familiar with those accomplishments already. The good news is that Obamacare is here to stay, with the resulting assurances that, no matter how flawed it may be, people no longer have to die because they can't afford healthcare, or go bankrupt in the event they become seriously ill. With a Democratic Senate, we are also likely to get Filibuster Reform, and Medicaid and Medicare will continue to exist in a feasible form.
So now that we know where we are, how do we figure out where we're going?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)