LastPommerFan

I think that the Wright argument overstates the influence religious leaders have over secular democrats. I was married and all my children baptized in the same catholic church by the same priest who ardently supports a repeal of Roe and dropping the Birth Control requirement. I don't see things his way. Obamacare is certainly not a bone thrown to the wing, which wanted nothing short of single payer. Offshore Drilling decline is a result of the most massive oil spill in US history, not a nod to super partisan environmentalists. The CIA criminal probes were a charade to begin with and led nowhere as was expected. He didn't cancel the pipeline, he only delayed it. I'll grant moving the trials, but then the democratic party stepped in a stopped it. The Supreme Court justices are no more liberal than would be expected, and Conservative Jews are hardly the hyper partisan wing of the Democratic Party. He tramples due process with his drone campaign and extra judicial killings. That is and was the #1 thing the far left wanted changed from Bush II. No criminal trials for the bankers that helped set up the financial collapse. That was #2. everything you've listed is way down the scale from those two items. Edit: Regarding Kagan "The filibuster should be relegated to extreme circumstances, and I don't think Elena Kagan represents that," Arizona Sen. Jon Kyl during the confirmation process.

For some odd reason, reading this story made my stomach hurt. http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/sport/woods-testicle-warrington-rugby/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Thank you, that's the information I was trying to get. In elections that are decided inside 3% of the vote (Like the 2 times the GOP has won the presidential race in the last 20 years) That small margin makes a difference. I contend the GOP is more aligned with it's strong partisans because it can less afford to lose them in a tight race. If you look at the official party platforms you can see that the GOP is more aligned with it's base. In addition, every year that passes, public opinion becomes less supportive of several GOP "Base" issues. With fewer and fewer independent voters, formerly a strong contingent of the party, available due to shifting cultural dynamics, the GOP needs their base more every election. This is why the Republican Platform has shifted to the right in the past 3 cycles, and this is a strong driver of the partisan gridlock in Washington. (I'm confident the above analysis has holes in it, and I look forward to hearing them, I put it out there because I want a good Political Science critique)

Is it the same number by percent or absolute members? do they each have 5 Million Strong Partisans (Meaning the smaller GOP would have a higher percentage of partisans) or are they each 5% strong partisan (meaning the larger Democratic party would have more partisans)? Edit: I use those numbers only for an example, I'm not basing them on anything.

Do the voting coalitions for both parties consist of the same number of the voter-type you describe here? Conversely does one party contain more "Strong Partisans" than the other?

There is a multi-billion dollar special interest group preventing this from happening. They play on Saturdays (and thursdays (and fridays (and sometimes wednesdays (But Never Sundays (or mondays)))))

There are millions of Americans who find spiritual fulfillment in Christianity without accepting every tenant of their particular church's teachings without question. I am one of them. If anything, I believe there is a strong case that the President has done LESS for his party's wing than most presidents. This really applies to the last 3 democrats in the white house. The party tends to be more pragmatic (in my opinion, one of our party's best qualities) than the GOP.

I completely agree with your assessment. A better analogy for me would be, "I go to Catholic Mass every Sunday, I still believe in birth control and legal abortion." Of course the president is a product of his environment. We all are. But I reject any insinuation that the president is somehow being covert about his beliefs. He is not a Marxist terrorist. Focusing on 2 people, especially a pastor since Obama is so secular, misses the thousands of other people and situations that inform any persons world view.

Not calling you a racist at all, I apologize if it came across as that, I was attempting to point out the absurdity of these allegations: Being a disciple of Jeremiah Wright would make him a militant black and being a member of the weather underground would make him a marxist terrorist. If you think he's a sleeper, go ahead and say so, if not, don't bother bringing it up. I go to Catholic Mass every sunday, I don't support Child Abuse Cover-ups. Edit: Seriously, It's worth repeating, I was not trying to call you a racist. I try to keep the dialog a little more substantive than that.

every game we win is a step away from improvement. What really sucks is that this is a weak QB class.

About Romney, I was pointing out the change in timing. Usually the shift is done before the convention or at least at the convention. I think he milked the move to the right a little longer than others have, mostly to sure up his base, I think. About Obama's shift, I don't think it was nearly as pronounced and the timing certainly was earlier. But freeman's words suggest we currently have a militant black marxist terrorist as our president. If anyone believes that, surely they have moved into their bunker by now.

So the "socialist president" shifted center at the debates? Against McCain? denying previous policy descriptions? I missed that part.

I have to second this, there is no point in denying the massive shift that will result, at least temporarily, from that debate.

Is it possible that it hasn't collapsed yet because we still have, by far, the strongest, largest, and most far reaching economy the world has ever known? You writing as if Quadafi was a friend and Syria has changed at all. There has been one significant change, in Egypt, and I will reserve judgement for when they actually so something. Also, your statement about Libya is equivalent to saying Colorado is a threat to movie goers. The polls are definately showing that ModerRomney is far more popular than RepubliRomney. If he keeps it up in the next couple of debates, this could be a new dynamic in presidential races: Feed the base in the primaries when only they are watching, abruptly about face in the debates when the general public is watching. I like the tactic, and Moderate Romney is not nearly as frightening to me as the GOP. Problem is, he'll still have to feed them when he becomes president.

The dollar hasn't collapsed because our debt/gdp ratio isn't at collapse currency levels, net even close, although we could get there in a decade if we don't change. I think the label of "not doing anything" is far too broadly applied. It ignores the fundamentally change averse system that is the US Senate. Pepper, Steagal, all the strict financial regulation that could prevent another meltdown would have been in Dodd-Frank if the Democratic Party didn't have to bend to a handful of Blue-Dogs and GOPers. In a parliamentary system, the 2008 election would have been enough to drive home the policies that would fix this problem, but we don't have majority rule in our congress, we have supermajority rule. It only takes 5 more votes to pass a constitutional amendment or override a veto as it does to pass a resolution congratulating the Olympic Gold Medalists. That's nuts, and it means Wall Street doesn't need to buy half the senate, they only need 40 votes to protect their interests.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush there, Who would you define as "pretty much every country surrounding Israel and SA"?

You'll have to bring that evidence into the conversation, because The Recession ended in June, and by then nearly everyone had (and likely spent) their 08 tax return check. That amounted over $100B in direct stimulus.

Has the economy improved?

Sound policy or stimulative? I thought you'd agree they were stimulative. Postponing was the goal. We needed to put off the hip surgery until after the quadruple bypass was done to cure the massive coronary.

Keeping people employed is economy stimulating. Whether they are an auto industry manager or a 3rd grade teacher. 40% of the stimulus was tax cuts. Remember that $400-$800 credit everyone got on their '08 taxes? Those are stimulative, even by GOP standards. And bailing out the state funding of the entitlements and unemployment was key to stemming the flood of municipal bankruptcies. Effectively, it was an attempt to bail out main street. EDIT: I was so excited about the last part I failed to address the first: The Obamacare (the GOP will grow to regret that name) taxes largely have not gone into effect yet, the drug companies backed them, and the HSA adjustments to remove OTC drugs has a very limited effect.

Massive new entitlement? Sounds like something that was done following a major financial collapse before. Raising taxes? Please clarify. Democratic Special interests: Sick people, schools, roads, green energy, bail out state governments. Solyndra was a disaster. It was also not EVERYTHING in the bill.

He can't win with a depressed Christian Right vote. It's impossible. Ohio, North Carolina, Iowa, and Missouri all go blue if even 10% of the Christian right stays home. He can move center on the economy, he can't move center on social issues. Too many one issue voters in his coalition. You cannot compare this to any other recovery, the underlying fundamentals were starkly different.

I think it is important to recognize that the current state of the economy is leagues better than the state of the economy in january 2009, and that an administrations impact on that economy cannot be judged by the current state, but by the change in state. All of the blocks I mentioned vote disproportionately for the democrats. That is for a reason.

I think there are real positives to highlight in his economic record. Auto sales from Detroit at a high for one, and 5M-ish private sector jobs is not nothing. Romney likes to compare the 82 recover and the 09 recovery, but there is probably not a single economist out there who would compare the 81 recession and the 08 recession. I like it as a campaign tactic, but it really falls down on further review. That "squishy" stuff is really, really important. I like to think of them as Freedoms. They are our version of the GOP's Gun Rights. We won't give them up without a fight. I think the GOP is miscalculating the impact. They felt they could solidify their base at the convention without sending away independents because they thought the election would be 100% about the economy. If you are gay, or a woman, or an immigrant, or a minority, or a white middle class male ally of any of these groups, the economy is really important, but you aren't going to spite your social views to go after a different path to economic gain. Very few are willing to sell their freedoms for money.

The President has specifically indicated that he encourages passing each piece individually to avoid tag-along items in the bills. Excise taxes rarely drive sales down, especially in inelastic demand industries like healthcare. To compare it to another typically inelastic industry, alcohol, the excise taxes in that industry make the 2.3% on devices look insignificant, and they have little effect on demand. For instance, Medical Device maker, Covidien, forecast just last month that 2013 will see a 4-7% increase in sales. That growth far out-strips average global GDP growth. My business sense says to look elsewhere for the cause in the revenue drop and R&D cuts at your firm, but I must admit, I only have brief experience in the medical device market with my time at GE working with the Healthcare unit.