« A Clarifying Month | Main | Politics by Other Means »

September 03, 2007

Comments

Right now my estimate is that the Dems would pick up about 4 Senate seats, giving them a 55-45 lead (counting Lieberman the Apostate as a Dem). The trouble is that this is still nowhere near being enough to break filibusters -- which the GOP has now officially decided to use as a tool to keep virtually any Democratic bill from ever getting passed (the McClatchy papers' survey has pointed out that in this term they're using it fully three times more often than it has ever been used before in US history). So taking over the Senate isn't going to make a tinkers' damn unless the filibuster is abolished somehow. (Of course, the Dems will be able to use it to completely block any bill the GOP ever wants to pass in the future, either -- but then, since the GOP is oriented more strongly toward an absence of government anyway, this is a win-win proposition for them, at least where domestic policy is concerned.)

I personally think that, as soon as the next Dem President gets in, the Senate Democrats should use the "nuclear option" to unilaterally abolish the filibuster, and then use that sinister little clause in Article Three, Section Two of the Constitution to strip the Supreme Court of any power to review the questionable constitutionality of that move. (The GOP, after all, has just broken the ice by using the same clause to strip detainees of their rights.) Then they can propose a single Constutitional amendment to abolish both the filibuster AND Article Three, Section Two, both of which are dangers to small-"d" democracy and remnants of the Framers' bizarre total failure to foresee the rise of political parties and the possibility of a resultant party-based quasi-tyranny in the US. We didn't even have a filibuster -- at all -- until that noble figure Aaron Burr talked the Senate into allowing it in his last act as Vice President.

Of course, the Dems would be in a better position to abolish it ifn they hadn't solemnly supported its existence in the past -- indeed, making their disastrous deal with the "Gang of 14", which got Roberts and Alito into the Court with hardly a whimper in return for the Senate GOP not using the "nuclear option", after which the Dems promptly found the filibuster being used against them. Despite this characteristic strategic brilliance on the part of the Democrats, however, after the filibuster has been used a few dozen more times by the GOP to block popular bills, the public support to get rid of the damn thing will grow rapidly with any encouragement at all from the Dems and their President -- enough for them to be able to get rid of it, if they choose, despite the predictable and ignorant tongue-clicking of the empty Talking Heads.

"since the GOP is oriented more strongly toward an absence of government anyway, this is a win-win proposition for them"

Surely you jest?

But if no GOP Senator can get anything for his or her state they will quickly unfuck themselves and start cooperating.

With Der Chimp gone and the GOP facing electoral extinction, they will start getting cooperative. Remember, FDR won the Presidency in 1932, but it wasn't until 1936 that he finally was able to overcome institutional barriers (like SCOTUS) and get the New Deal fully in place.

Isn't the GOP staffer in turn quoting Terry Pratchett?

The Republicans will lose more than four seats in 2008 (VA, OR, MN, ME, NH, CO) are just the start.

The Democrats will have to wait until January 2011 to get to 60 seats. The real question is how will the U.S. function as a one party state after the Republican collapse. Is Chicago, DC, Mass, or California examples of how the U.S. will function. What will the U.S. be like when the middle class has no say in how things are run?

"What will the U.S. be like when the middle class has no say in how things are run?"

huh? that's already what we have been living in, 2000-2007.

only bush's base--the haves and the have-mores--have had any say in how things are run. it has been class warfare with no holds barred, a country-wide extraction of wealth from the middle class that has gone straight into the coffers of the very richest of the rich.

look, i don't think one-party rule is healthy, either. but to suppose that the dems would be harder on the middle class than the republicans have been, is just delusional. look at how the median income household fared under clinton, and how it fared under bush, and get a clue.

Kid,

If you look at the bluest counties in the U.S., Detroit, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, St Louis, LA, SF, etc, the first thing that you notice is a absence of a middle class.

The richest Americans are almost all Democrats (Manhatten votes over 80% Democratic along with 90% in DC and 80% in SF). If you look at one party states now (see Mass and California) who will see that the middle class is moving out of those states). A middle class voter in Mass or California who wants voter taxes or job growth has no say in the government. They can only vote with their feet.

When the Democratic Party is the only relevant political party, the question is how does the middle class make any political changes when they can no longer vote with their feet?

As I understand both the Senate rules and the Constitution, the Senate can make up its own rules. But any change in the rules has to be approved by a 2/3 vote (that's straight out of Roberts', which doesn't govern the Senate but certainly has had an influence).

You cannot change a rule by simple majority -- unless you're also willing to change that rule by 2/3. That's just basic procedure.

I'm not sure where the Supreme Court can step in. The issue of Senate rules is for the Senate to decide. But if the Vice President decides to pretend the rules of the Senate don't say what they obviously say, there might be a case for the SC to rule that they while they can devise their own rules, they have to stick to them....

A middle class voter in Mass or California who wants voter taxes or job growth has no say in the government.

Voter taxes? OK, first, that's unconstitutional AFAIK.

Second, "a middle class voter who wants" is far, far, far, from "the middle class." You are practicing a moth-eaten form of logic, substituting your particular preferences for the melodious sounding phrase, "middle class."

You may be middle class, pal. That doesn't mean you represent "the middle class." And if you think the GOP cares more about middle class interests than the Democratic party... then, yikes. Just yikes.

While I'm at it-

If you look at the bluest counties in the U.S., Detroit, NYC, Philly, Baltimore, DC, St Louis, LA, SF, etc, the first thing that you notice is a absence of a middle class.

Do you have any evidence for this claptrap?

superdestroyer: that's not really true of Baltimore, where I live. Nor of LA, where I used to live. It is getting to be more true of Boston proper, but only if you exclude the surrounding towns.

the fact that there are some blue counties in which the middle-class is underrepresented really says very little about whether the middle-class as a whole is under-represented in the national party as a whole. it is not.

indeed, given that more people currently self-id as dems than as reps, it would be pretty much impossible for the middle-class not to be majority dem, given a reasonably broad categorization of upper, middle, and lower.

more importantly, party membership is only a rough guide to the question whose interests the party pursues. the confederacy contained many small farmers and landless whites, and yet systematically pursued the interests of the largest land-holders. the confederacy's political descendant, i.e. the southern-strategy republican party, pursues the same systematic screwing-over of its deluded members.

so, you've got a lot of claims to substantiate here, sd. you need to show that there really are such middle-class-free blue counties (hilzoy disputes that one). then you need to show that their existence, if proved, really tells us much about party-membership at the national level. then you need to show us how you get from party-membership to party interests.

meanwhile, i think that looking at the actual redistribution of wealth under the last few administrations might give you a quicker way to cut through the fog. under clinton, the middle class got wealthier and more secure. under bush, the richest of the rich have profited most, while life for the broad middle has stagnated and become far less secure.

Kid: while life for the broad middle has stagnated and become far less secure

The latest census data actually shows median income up and poverty slightly down.

Real median household income in the United States climbed between 2005 and 2006, reaching $48,200, according to a report released today by the U.S. Census Bureau. This is the second consecutive year that income has risen.

I’m not sure what you consider to be middle class. If we define it as households making between $25,000 and $100,000 then over half of the country qualifies.

Under $25,000: 29,306,000
$25,000-$100,000: 64,553,000
Over $100,000: 22,152,000

I suspect that the increase in household income represents more people in the household working than an actual increase in wages per person, but household income is still up. Now security, there I think you are probably correct in that many people feel less secure.

thanks, ocsteve.
yes, supporters of the current administration have trumpeted the modest rise in household income.

but you have probably seem the break-outs that show that median househod income went up *only because more members of the household worked, and worked longer hours*.

actual hourly wages for median male worker? down.
actual hourly wages for median female worker?
down.

so we all worked longer and harder just to stay in the same place.

that's stagnation.

Also, despite the rise, the median real household income is still lower than it was in 2000.

I don't have figures for this, so I admit it is somewhat of a guess, but it is that the blue-collar middle class has diminished in size.

Additionally, as pointed out above, the whole issue of earnings vs wages vs productivity is a perfect example of how just about any point can be made with statistics to back it up.

BTW, I haven't seen it elsewhere, and this thread looks a good as anywhere. Happy Labor Day everybody. My labor today is home oriented, so no wages involved except the wages of self-satisfaction. Which, come to think of it, are pretty important.

Happy Labor Day everybody.

Yeah, happy Labor Day. And could I just hog the pleasure of paraphrasing the GOP pollster quoted above:

"It's always darkest right before it actually gets darker."

Hey, it's no worse than the original saying. Clearly it's not darkest just before the dawn, and I don't understand how anyone ever came to claim that it was.

It is *coldest* just before the dawn.

I've noticed in hills and valleys it seems darkest just at dawn. The sky is getting light and my eyes adapt, but the everything at ground level is still in shadow and seems darker than when my eyes were dark-adapted.

But no one carries the current trends to its natural conclusion: What will the U.S. be like as a one party state? If you look at the counties that vote 80% or more Democratic now, it will not be a very pleasant place to live for the middle class. No one has even bother to really distupt this. I would love for someone to point out a neighborhood or zip code in Baltimore, DC, ST Louis, Detroit, or any other of the bluest counties where the middle class are prospering. I do not believe that they exist. The bluest counties in the U.S. (the current examples of one party states) have little in the way of a middle class.

Also, how the U.S. function when the general election is meaningless. Is Chicago or DC the example of what it is like? Will any incumbent face the prospect of being voted out of offce? Or will the Democratic Party become more moderate when the current Republian voters start voting in the Democratic Primaries?

Also, how the U.S. function when the general election is meaningless. Is Chicago or DC the example of what it is like?

Chicago has been a one-party town for decades and it is a damn fine place to live.

Steve,

If is such a great place why is the population going down and why are so few whites and asians using the public schools?

What will the U.S. be like as a one party state?

Never happen. If the American electorate decisively rejects the current Republican platform, the Republicans will eventually change their platform in order to try to appeal to the median voter. If their sense of self-interest fails to adequately motivate them to do this, a third party will arise to fill the vacuum.

I think my poli-sci 101 professor called this the Arrow Theorem.

Also, how the U.S. function when the general election is meaningless. Is Chicago or DC the example of what it is like? Will any incumbent face the prospect of being voted out of offce? Or will the Democratic Party become more moderate when the current Republian voters start voting in the Democratic Primaries?
Isn't it already with the usual rates of incumbent reelection as result of both ownership of the megaphone and gerrymandering?
From a Central European perspective the Dems are center-right at best and will become less "moderate", if they follow the GOP march to the right. The GOP is the "classical" right that considers/ed Hitler a Leftie.

Btw, Gates, Buffett and Soros are not the majority of the ultra-rich. Could you please provide us with the party affiliation of US billionaires (I think those can be considered as "the ultra-rich")?

Why do prosperous families have fewer kids? I dunno, but it's odd to use population growth as a benchmark for livability, unless you think Africa is more livable than Europe.

Kid: that's stagnation.

Mostly agreed. Anecdotally, not so much. Everyone I know, friends and family, are doing better now than ever. These would be all lower middle class, blue collar folks. All are nervous however that it could collapse overnight. One traumatic illness in the family is all it takes to ruin you for many people.

So I would say that it is good times for most people I know, but everyone seems wary that they can lose it all overnight.

john miller: My labor today is home oriented, so no wages involved except the wages of self-satisfaction. Which, come to think of it, are pretty important.

Well said. A happy holiday to all. It’s a gorgeous day here on the Eastern Shore. I need to get to work on my picnic dinner…

The District of Columbia proves that the arrow theorem does not work. Even though the local government fails in almost everything it tries to do, the local voters have become more Democratic instead of less. The same hold for California. The Republicans have zero chance of ever being the majority party in California, Mass, NJ and many other places. If California can operate as a one party state, then why can't the U.S.

Also, the changing demograpnhics will keep a third party from starting. Virtually all swing voters are white. A third party has to earn every vote it get. Yet, the Democratic party benefits from the automatic votes that come from black, hispanic, jewish, union, and government employee voters. The demographic advantage that the Democrats have no only means that the Republicans will become irrelevent, it also means that a third party cannot get started.

SD,

Why are you trying so hard to fit this square peg into a round hole? At least half of the "facts" you've cited have been either refuted or cast into doubt. You've cited no support for any of your claims, even after asked--you simply repeat arguments by assertion. You just keep making claim after claim after claim.

So I ask, again: why are you trying so hard to convince us of counterfactuals? Reading between the lines, it looks a lot like you're trying to bail out the Republicans by discouraging people from voting the Democrats into control of the country, and doing so by waving around vague and unfounded scare stories about one-party government under Dems.

Or, in short: put up or shut up, source or retract.

Catsy : it looks a lot like you're trying to bail out the Republicans by discouraging people from voting the Democrats into control of the country

I took it more as legitimate concern about what a single party system would mean here. I have no qualms about seeing the GOP as it exists today going away, but I do wonder what might arise to replace it. Either a single party system or what replaces the GOP may be equally scary…

The demographic advantage that the Democrats have no only means that the Republicans will become irrelevent, it also means that a third party cannot get started.

Only if you ignore the numerous times in United States history where this precise thing has happened. Look up the Democratic-Republican party sometime, for example.

Party identity has calcified quite a bit since then, but the parties are not entirely arbitrary--they do, at least in the minds of those who vote for them, represent a point of view. If the Republican party completely collapses into irrelevancy, there will still be a sizable chunk of the United States population who will want nothing to do with the majority of the Democratic party's agenda. Something new will coalesce out of the ashes of Republicanism, whether by that name or another. I can only hope that it is something far less toxic than modern Republicanism.

I took it more as legitimate concern about what a single party system would mean here. I have no qualms about seeing the GOP as it exists today going away, but I do wonder what might arise to replace it. Either a single party system or what replaces the GOP may be equally scary…

In a vacuum, I can totally understand that concern and could see any single one of his posts taken that way. In the context of all of them taken together, he's throwing around a whole lot of counterfactual and unsupported noise that basically amounts to "don't let the Democrats take over the country".

Oh noes! :)

Catsy,

Tell me what you want a source to say that you would find acceptable and i will try to find it.

I know how the liberal activist playbook works. Demand sources and when they are supplied you will nitpick them.

The easist way to determine if a middle class still exist in an area is to look at the enrollment of the public schools. The middle class is usually not rich enough to afford private school.s According to Wikipedia, the DC pubic schools are The ethnic breakdown of students enrolled is 84.4 % black, 9.4 % Hispanic, 4.6 % white, and 1.6 % Asian American. Yet the district is 30% white. That means that are few middle class white families in DC. In the City of Baltimore, 85% of the students are on reduced lunch. That is not a city with a large middle class.

The same holds for Detroit, St Louis (where the schools lost local control), Newark, LA, SF, etc.

If you look at the states that have one party Democratic control (Mass, Michigan, even Illinois), the population is going down because people (and especially middle class whites) are leaving.

The District of Columbia proves that the arrow theorem does not work. Even though the local government fails in almost everything it tries to do,

There are some things about the District's relationship with Congress that I think you may be ignoring away here.

catsy,

Historic comparisons are not relevent because in the past, only whites voted. In the futre, the white voters will continue to be a smaller fraction of the voter politics. Since white voters are the only block that swing between the two parties, it seems the idea of a new party creating itself out of anything but the small block of moderate white voters cannot be support.

Maybe if you supplied a source that shows that black or Hispanic voters are potential swing voters, your ideas would have greater support.

However, when you consider that most blacks have never voted for any candidate other than a Democrat and the same holds for a majority of hispanic voters, it seems foolish to believe that a third party will ever get start.

What is more likely, that the U.S. becomes a one party state like Chicago, DC, Mass, Maryland, or California; or that ethnic voting blocks will leave the Democratic party and vote for other parites. The first scenerio is much more likely. The only question then is what will the impact be on the U.S. when it becomes a one party state. Many posters here have argued that the U.S. will be better as a one party state. I argued that if the U.S. has the same political strucutre that currently exist in Chicago, DC, or Mass, you will get the same economic and social results for the entire U.S.

If you look at the states that have one party Democratic control (Mass, Michigan, even Illinois), the population is going down because people (and especially middle class whites) are leaving.

Kind of an odd statement, considering Michigan has a Republican-controlled legislature, and a substantial Republican advantage in its congressional delegation.

That said, the cherry-picking here is so ridiculous as to defy comment. Tell me, what are your criteria for "one-party Democratic control," and how many states that don't fit those criteria are also losing population?

What is more likely, that the U.S. becomes a one party state like Chicago, DC, Mass, Maryland, or California; or that ethnic voting blocks will leave the Democratic party and vote for other parites.

The latter, obviously. Once the Republican Party finds that it can no longer win elections by campaigning as the party of what Bill O'Reilly terms the "white, Christian male power structure," they will transform their agenda to appeal to new constituencies.

There's nothing magical that says blacks, Jews, or any of the other dreaded "ethnic voting blocs" you reference are guaranteed to vote Democratic from here to eternity, irrespective of the actual positions of the two political parties. That view relies on a particularly short-sighted view of political history, one typically espoused by Republicans who can't figure out why minorities won't give them a chance, even though they gave a nice speech to the NAACP this year.

Look, a "legitimate concern" about how a "one party state" would work is simply answered. MA, my home state, has been largely democratic for years, although with a growing admixture of "independents" (ie people too embarrassed to call themselves republicans). We are no worse, and in most cases a lot better, than most other states. If someone wants to look it up, we are as well or better run than most southern states and our population fares better on most measures. The statistic that our resident hysteric offers that "middle class" people must "vote with their feet" is not wholly accurate. MA is losing population not because people dont like the government but because the government is so good, and the economy remains so strong, that in this small state housing prices are very high. So people move out to get *cheaper housing*--a republican government wouldn't magically produce cheaper housing or, if it did, it might do it in the time honored way seen in southern states: by destroying public education, gutting social services, refusing to maintain roads and bridges, refusing to invest in society, and turning governance and the economy over to sa series of large and rapacious corporations. Housing prices would plummet, true, but who wants to live there?

I detest these vapid, number and concept free discussions of "the middle class" when we aren't even beginning to talk about anythign other than the posters dream of a shifting center with the poster at the dead middle. Im middle class? You're middle class? give me some actual definitions and numbers before you start spouting off about "what the middle class voter" wants or needs.

aimai

It is easy to understand why blacks, Hispanics, jews, gays, government workers, and union members vote Democratic. It is in their own personal interest to do it. Only Asians vote Democratic for no good reason since they are employed in the private sector and are much more likely to be private businessmen than any other business. Maybe it is because the Democrats always lump Asians in with whites for diversity purposes which gives them a huge advantage.


I do not except voting patterns to change because they have not change for over 40 years. Why would I expect blacks to vote for any other party than Democrats when most blacks have vote straight Democrat their entire lives (incluing voting for idiots like Cynthia McKinney. If you look at U.S. house seats held by Congressional Black Caucus or Congressional Hispanic caucus, most them never have to face opponents. As those populations grow, most districts will have no race during the general election.

If the latter is possible, (continue two party rule) then please explain any scenerio where the Republicans become the majority party in California again. Even if the Republican get to the left of the Democrats (incrediblity unlikely), I doubt if the growing Hispanic vote will vote for them. The hispanic vote automatically votes Democratic and that is not going to change.


In Michigan, the Republicans have a slight lead in the State Senate and a slight lead in U.S. House seats that will disappear after the 2010 redistricting. The number of Republicans in Congress will probably be half what it is today n 2012 (if there is still a relevant Republican party around).

In Michigan, the Republicans have a slight lead in the State Senate and a slight lead in U.S. House seats that will disappear after the 2010 redistricting.

I guess I missed your explanation of how this equates to "one-party Democratic rule."

It is easy to understand why blacks, Hispanics, jews, gays, government workers, and union members vote Democratic. It is in their own personal interest to do it.

As a Jew, I'm very interested to hear your explanation of how voting Democratic is in the "personal interest" of Jews. Do go on.

I know how the liberal activist playbook works. Demand sources and when they are supplied you will nitpick them.

Yes, and we've all seen the wingnut playbook. "We don't need no steeenking sources!" "Whatever I tell you three times is true!"

Look, the reason that careful thinkers nitpick at the facts is that we want to actually get at truth. And it's so easy to get stuff wrong we want to be careful. Like, due diligence.

You still haven't provided a source for *anything* you've said. Couldn't you at least point to a Rush Limbaugh essay or something? Show us you aren't just making it all up out of your own head, from scratch?

Jews (on average) ecnomically benefit more from a large, expanding governmet and would suffer economic harm is the government shrank in size.

I define one party rule as a state where only one party can affect government programs or politices. Even when states like Mass., Md, or California have Republican governors, the special interest that make up the Democratic Party still get whatever they want and the Republicans cannot do anything other than try to delay their implementation.

I am still waiting for your ideas on a strategy or a plan that would put the Republicans back into the majority. I doubt you have any idea how they can do it and thus, California will stay a one party state.


aimai

A shrinking population with increasing real estate prices is a great thing for the rich and affluent but usually sucks for the middle class and working class. If the population is shrinking but real estate prices are still going up, it is a sign of expensive regulstions (that benefit the rich), large scale declining neighbhorhoods that people are fleeing, and/or very high taxes. Remember, one of the reasons that NH is now a blue state that the large number of middle class that have fled Mass. but took their voting habits with them.

Look at a 3-d map of the 2004 election. Those very high blue spikes are the locals of the one party states in the U.S. Then pick your quality of life number and compare them to the tallest red spikes. Things like crime rates, quality of public schools, commute times, government tax levels, job creation, or even the odd numbers about things like trusting your neighbors.

I'm curious about the several-times repeated claim that Massachusetts and Michigan are losing population. A check of the Census Bureau's QuickFacts pages for MA and MI shows that they are growing more slowly than the rest of the USA, but they are not in decline.

Hmph; SD doesn't mention West Coast blue cities, perhaps because that would undermine his premise. Seattle is about as blue as you can get, and some days it seems like everyone is moving here. The fact that housing prices are completely ridiculous is because they're all moving here.

SD's claim that blue cities and states are in dire condition is certainly the first I've heard of that. The usual breakdowns (job opportunity, educational opportunity, median income; proportion of tax dollars paid to those used; number of abortions, divorces, and out-of-wedlock babies) all favor the blue over the red. So I'm not sure what SD is using for comparison.

The easist way to determine if a middle class still exist in an area is to look at the enrollment of the public schools. The middle class is usually not rich enough to afford private school.s According to Wikipedia, the DC pubic schools are The ethnic breakdown of students enrolled is 84.4 % black, 9.4 % Hispanic, 4.6 % white, and 1.6 % Asian American. Yet the district is 30% white. That means that are few middle class white families in DC. In the City of Baltimore, 85% of the students are on reduced lunch. That is not a city with a large middle class.
Of course, whether one is "white" or not has nothing whatever to do with whether one is "middle class" or not.

Yet superdestroyer feels compelled to conflate non-economic issues of "race" into an argument ostensibly about economic categories.

This doesn't seem a debate worth encouraging.

I am still waiting for your ideas on a strategy or a plan that would put the Republicans back into the majority.

Why don't you consult Karl Rove on this extremely important topic?

One-party rule? Which party held both the executive and legislative branches of the federal gov't for 6 recent years? What became of that experiment in one-party rule??

The beauty of the two-party system is that given two major parties, one will always gravitate right (less tax, less proactive gov't) and the other will always gravitate left (more tax, more proactive intervention.)

Your insistence on analyzing our politics in racial terms is folly of the highest order. Politics, Aristotle recognized, is ever a matter of class interest. Leading the ignorant masses around by their noses is possible because of foolish prejudices of exactly the sort you exhibit. And the party of the rich, not the party of the poor and middle class is the party with the incentive to exploit those inane prejudices.

Jews (on average) ecnomically benefit more from a large, expanding governmet and would suffer economic harm is the government shrank in size.

Really? Am I unique among my Jewish brethren in not being a welfare recipient? My impression is that, on the whole, we're pretty entrepreneurial and well off.

Here are a few facts, just so you know what a fact looks like.

A quarter (24%) of Jewish adults 18 years of age and older has received a graduate degree, and 55% have earned at least a bachelor’s degree... The current comparable numbers for non-Jews are 5% and 28%.

The majority of employed Jews (59%) work in management, business and professional/technical positions, compared to fewer non-Jews (46%). The plurality of Jews are in professional/technical positions (41%), noticeably more than is the case among non-Jews (30%).

The median household income of the Jewish population is about $50,000, which is higher than the approximately $42,000 median for all U.S. households reported by the Census Bureau. A fifth (19%) of all Jewish households are low income, defined as $25,000 or less per year, compared to 29% among all U.S. households.

Now, consider the fact that a full 87% of Jews voted Democratic in the most recent election, and tell me again how they did it out of "personal interest." Tell me again how we Jews rely on Big Government to take care of us. Truly one of the most laughable claims ever made.

Steve,

I never said that jews benefited because of government handouts. The Jewish professional benefit becasue they run the government programs that big government creates. Jews are about 4% of the popualtion but a much larger portion of lawyers who are a core group to the Democratic party. Also, jews, being a very affluent group, manage to avoid many of the problems of the blue cities like staying out of the public schools or using many public services.

Obscure,

The Democratic Party never really worried because they knew that demographics were on their side. As the Hispanic and black populations grow, they knew more states would trend Democratic. The high water mark for Republicans was getting 50% plus a couple in the house an Senate. The Democrats will soon have over 60% in both houses and when that happens, they can protect modreate Democrats while passing a very liberal agenda.

For all the talk of a one party Republican State, the Republican accomlished very little. Yet, the future, the Democratic Party will probably be able to do whatever it wants without consideration of the negative impact on elections.

"The Jewish professional benefit becasue they run the government programs that big government creates."

superdestroyer: this is false and, frankly, offensive. You have been saying all sorts of completely false things here -- about the class composition of various cities, the dangers of one-party rule, etc., etc. You have, in addition, conflated questions of class and ethnicity before now. Please stop.

I do not believe superdestroyer understands the difference between a fact and an urge to say something.

He/she bears the marks of a person lacking the patience to study a question.

Any minute now i expect superdestroyer to say his name is Jamie and he just wanted to stir up a discussion.

Except I don't Jamie is as offensively bigoted, racist and ignorant as SD.

Hilzoy,

Ok, what is your explanation of why Jewish voters vote so overwhemingly for Democrats. Are you arguing that they are the only group in the U.S. that does not vote its own economic self interest?

Also, are you arguing that whites and blacks in the U.S. have the same percentage of middle class in their respective populations?

Also, if you look at the post above, their is a split opinion. Many have argued that the U.S. will be fine as a single party state. Some have gone as far to say that the U.S. will be better as a one party state. Other, however, have argued a one party system is impossible in the U.S. (even though it actually exist in many states and cities already).

Tell me what proxy you think works for determine the percentage of a city that is middle class and I will use it.

Actually SD, many if not most groups do not vote in their economic self-interest and it is foolish to try to say that is the primary motivation for how a vote is cast.

If the majority voted in their economic self-interest, it would be amazing that the republican Party has won any elections.

JM,

If you look at the last few elections, the Republican won the presidency by winning about 54% of the white voters.

If a white person is married, has children, and works in the private sector, they vote at more than 60% for Republicans. Since they are the group that pays the taxes and conforms with federal regulations, they are voting their pocketbook. It is the same for government workers, union workers, college professors, lawyers, and physicians. They generally vote their pocketbooks.

Why do you think that the Democratic candidates are promising free healthcare and free college for all. They are appealing to voters self-interest. The same goes for Republican candidates proposing tax cuts.

Do you really think that social conservatives are willing to vote against their own economic self-interest?

In answer to your last question, they have been doing that for the past several years.

Plus, which Dems are doing the promising you are talking about?

Get your facts straight, cite references as requested above, and then come back.

superdestroyer: why use a proxy at all? It's not as though no one has ever collected income statistics before. I don't particularly feel like doing the research myself, but you might start here -- on p. 17, you'll find the share of income controlled by each quintile, broken down by state. Cities would be better, but since you've said that MA, for instance, is a one-party state, this might suit you for now. You can also get city statistics for 2000 here, but it will take more work.

"they are the group that pays the taxes and conforms with federal regulations."

too funny. you know, sd, if you keep this up, you run the risk of giving ignorant bigots a bad name.

Only Asians vote Democratic for no good reason since they are employed in the private sector and are much more likely to be private businessmen than any other business. Maybe it is because the Democrats always lump Asians in with whites for diversity purposes which gives them a huge advantage.

This is appallingly ignorant of political history and Asian American history.

You should remedy that.

I've entered dnftt territory. Ymmv.

Other letters available on request.

hilzoy, I apologize. Mostly to myself, because I told myself not to, but it just got under my skin too much.

I can think of lots of letters, but when put into certain sequences, they would cause you to ban me for life.

The Jewish professional benefit becasue they run the government programs that big government creates. Jews are about 4% of the popualtion but a much larger portion of lawyers who are a core group to the Democratic party. Also, jews, being a very affluent group, manage to avoid many of the problems of the blue cities like staying out of the public schools or using many public services.

Oh. My. God.

I'm not quite sure what to say to this. Other than, "SD left out the fact that we also control Hollywood, Big Media, and international finance."

SD's comments about Jews, blacks - and, well, everyone else who isn't a white male Christian Republican - are very nearly Platonic combinations of ignorance and bigotry. They could almost be put under glass and exhibited at county fairs.

Hilzoy, I look at Table 5 and saw little signifcant difference between states for the top quintile. However, if you look at Mass. the state has lost 450K white residents since 1990. If the government services were go great, then why did those people leave. Versus a state like North Carolina that has grown in population?

Ok Gwangung, why do private business owning Asian-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats? I googled for any essays and professional papers and none of them seemed to have a clear idea of why Asian-Americans vote Democratic. There were theories based on immigration policy, or welfare spending, or education. But that does not explain voting for higher taxes, more regulation, and higher crime.

John,

All you have to do is look at John Edward's or Barack Obama;s homepages. They use phrases such as "employers pay for healthcare for all employees" or "college for all."

Kid, are you disputing that white business owners are one of the most likely groups to vote Republican?

Superdestroyer,

Is Mississippi your ideal state?

How about Idaho?

Utah?

SOD,

Considering the bad employment prospects, lousy education system, and bad climate, Mississippi would not be my first choice.

You need to ask all of the rich(white) Californias who have moved to Utah and Idaho about those states.

However, if you look at state growth, it is Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Georgia that have grown the most. Long term residents in North Carolian complain about the number of yankees who have moved in.

How do you know wealthy white people have left California in droves?

People have been migrating all over the US for hundreds of years.

I also know working-poor whites seem to move to Idaho and Utah, joining right-wing militia groups who cater to their fears.

googling for employers pay for healthcare for all employees

results in:

Your search - "employers pay for healthcare for all employees" - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

* Make sure all words are spelled correctly.
* Try different keywords.
* Try more general keywords.

I could add a couple more suggestions but I think the posting rules dictate otherwise.

SD, while I hate to address what appear to me to be your racial prejudices, but the simple fact is that Asian americans are only into the 4th generation, 5th gen at best, which means that almost all of the asian americans had their voting preferences set when popular Democrats were in power. This post at Drum's site sets out the point.

john m: no need to apologize.

I feel compelled to say: I left MA in the 90s, because I finished grad school and got a job in another state. In my profession, we have very little geographical flexibility.

looks like ObWi has attracted Yglesias' comment section! awesome.

i've almost convinced myself to stop reading there, because of all the Borat-level anti-Jew diatribes. if i had anything else to do while Clarion compiles, i'd stop completely.

[Gary Farber | September 03, 2007 at 06:27 PM]
This doesn't seem a debate worth encouraging.

Indeed.

The answers to sd are clear and interesting, but he/she only seems to be reading them for rhetorical targets, not information.

Back to the original post and first post, I doubt that Democrats will have a filibuster-proof Senate after the 2008 elections.

But with enough public pressure Republican Senators will to allow critical measures to pass. There is much mainstream voter frustration with the war. An organized argument -- that the Democrats have no plan, and that only the challenger must provide one -- is limiting the pressure this is applying to Republicans.

Voters will pressure Republican Senators to move on the war if the Democrats agree on a coherent plan (unlikely) or if these voters decide that the administration has no plan (more likely).

I haven't seen anyone arguing in favor of a one-party system, but even in strongly Democratic DC, incumbents do get voted out. In 2004, six council members were up for reelection and three of them were defeated -- by challengers in the Democratic primary, of course.

Not that I think we're in any danger of a one-party system. My whole life it seems like people have been alternating between declaring the Republican Party dead and declaring the Democratic Party dead. Even people in elementary school should be capable of remembering back to the last declaration for the Democrats, so it's surprising the declarations keep coming.

I know how the liberal activist playbook works.

And now I know I can ignore pretty much anything you have to say. Thanks for saving me the trouble of taking you seriously.

However, if you look at state growth, it is Florida, North Carolina, Texas, and Georgia that have grown the most. Long term residents in North Carolian complain about the number of yankees who have moved in.

Posted by: superdestroyer | September 03, 2007 at 09:03 PM

Well I can see SD is the type of right-winger who loves cheap labor, and hates paying for it.

...why do private business owning Asian-Americans vote overwhelmingly for Democrats?

Here's a possibility. Suppose that the Democratic party is not ideal for these people. And suppose that they see the Republican party as a private club that won't let them in. Wouldn't that explain it?

"I wouldn't belong to a club that wouldn't have me for a member."

Even if they like Republican campaign promises and soundbites, you can't expect hardheaded businessmen to vote based on those intangibles. The immediate concern is always the competition with immediate competitors. And if your competitors can get important favors from the GOP but you can't, then you'd better try to keep the GOP out of power.

Here's a similar example. Look at all the countries that became soviet client states without being invaded. Cuba. Egypt, libya, iraq, syria. North vietnam. Etc. Soviet foreign aid was way inferior. Soviet weapons were inferior. And the russians kept sending in communist infiltrators to try to overthrow the local governments and convert them to real communist nations. Why did all these countries sign up with the obvious second-best superpower? The answer is, in every case, we didn't want them and wouldn't take them. When egypt got the chance to dump the russians and become a US client state they jumped at it. When Saddam thought he could become a US vassal he jumped at it too, and then he found out we still wouldn't have him.

A whole lot of these people aren't democrats because they're in love with the democrats' ideology. They're democrats because they have no choice, because they know that the GOP doesn't want them and will not give them *anything* for their support.

Similarly, white racists have to be republicans because the Democratic party scorns them utterly and offers them no incentive to join.

D'you ever notice how certain people blame the other for all the world's problems. D'you know, for a number of years now, they have jused other james to say what they really mean:

Jiberals, Jollywood jypes, jojojexual jactivists, jaber junions, joverment jemployees, Jemocrat(s), the Junited Jations, Josama Jin Jaden, jillegal Jexicans, Juppity Jiggers, Jemijazis, Jolitically jorrectjess, jocialists, Jeachers junions, Jatholics, Juddhists, Jindus, Juslims, Jorastians, the Jrench, the Jommies, Jall Jtreet, jejejarians, jeojonjerjajives, Jonty Jython, Jarbara Jreisan, jobal jarming, Jave J, Jiljoy, the jews jedia, jewjursliac, jesbians, Jedijade, Jedijare, jaxes, jojial jejurity, the Jew Jeal, Jabrajom Jincoln, Jillary Jlinton, Jill Jlinton, Jonica Jewjinsky, Jornography, Jeace jewps, well, jew jet ja jidea?

Nice to see it out in the open for a change. Not since the Nixon tapes have we been so jewluminated.

"Look at all the countries that became soviet client states without being invaded. Cuba. Egypt, libya, iraq, syria. North vietnam. Etc. Soviet foreign aid was way inferior. Soviet weapons were inferior. And the russians kept sending in communist infiltrators to try to overthrow the local governments and convert them to real communist nations. Why did all these countries sign up with the obvious second-best superpower? The answer is, in every case, we didn't want them and wouldn't take them. When egypt got the chance to dump the russians and become a US client state they jumped at it."

I hate to let some actual history interfere with a theory, but there are a lot of problems with this extremely simplistic thesis.

For one thing, the AK-47 is generally considered in many ways the best field automatic hand weapon in the world; putting together how cheap and easy it is to make, its reliability, and all-around excellence, it's a keeper with reason for those states and armies that have adopted it.

Similarly, most Soviet equipment was, in fact, excellent, and often at times, the best in their category for a time; certainly a number of the early MiG categories were, for instance. In other cases, to be sure, Soviet equipment didn't stand up to top-of-the-line U.S. equipment, but top-of-the-line U.S. equipment could also cost many multiples of what almost-as-good Soviet equipment would cost a Third World country.

Eqypt was, it seems to have escaped your attention, a British/American client state, under King Farouk. Nasser ended that because he wanted to nationalize and control the Suez Canal, and make his country fully independent of Britain, rather than the puppet that it had been. But that was only after the U.S. and Britain refused to finance the Aswan Dam.

Nasser didn't turn against the British and Americans until then.

The Soviet Union was happy to finance Aswan, though, and so he became a Soviet client. Doesn't quite fit your theory, though.

North Vietnam became a semi-client of the USSR and China, playing both against each other, and never taking orders from either, because of U.S. support for the French returning to colonial control of Vietnam after 1945; that's not the same as us not "being interested"; it's not as if colonialism is a factor dismissable as unimportant in the role it played in the third world, and who was a client of whom, after all.

"And the russians kept sending in communist infiltrators to try to overthrow the local governments and convert them to real communist nations."

This is mostly not true. One might say it had some applicability in Afghanistan, but you cite Libya, and I'd like a cite to back that up. Ditto North Vietnam, Egypt, and Syria. Note that some rhetoric in support of "fraternal communist parties" isn't remotely the same as "kept sending in communist infiltrators to try to overthrow the local governments."

"Why did all these countries sign up with the obvious second-best superpower? The answer is, in every case, we didn't want them and wouldn't take them."

And the real answer is that, no, that would be a fairly misleading explanation in many cases, and is entirely too simplistic to be a useful or terribly accurate analysis.

Every case? Pish-tush.

Frankly, the majority of Soviet client states wound up as such due to where everyone was standing when WWII came to a crashing halt. The smattering that entered into their sphere in subsequent decades tended to do so for reasons specific to the history and geography of those countries, far more than to the U.S. having a master list of who was worth picking to play dodgeball with, and the Soviets getting the rejects.

It's not as if we didn't want Cuba on our team, after all. Or Guatemala. Or Iran. Or even Angola.

Let alone, you know, China.

The bluest counties in the U.S. (the current examples of one party states) have little in the way of a middle class.

I have no idea where you live. I live just north of Boston.

MA has its headaches, but it's actually a reasonably well run state. It's strongly Democratic, but we have a Republican governor, and the last three governors have been R's.

The suburbs where I live are more or less the definition of middle class. Boston and Cambridge, likewise, have a very, very strong middle class. If you want to argue that, perhaps, Lawrence and Holyoke do not, you might have a stronger case. That has nothing to do with political affiliation, they're just poorer cities.

Folks who live here in liberal MA, and who oppose taxes or take otherwise conservative positions, have absolutely no trouble getting their voices heard. They are represented in government, are able to propose motions and laws for public consideration, and do so frequently. In general, they are less successful electorally than they might be in other places. That's because they are, generally speaking, outnumbered by folks with other points of view. C'est le vie.

Your comments bear no relationship to the reality I see, hear, experience, and live in. They seem, to me, to be purely ideological, and to have no correspondence to the facts on the ground.

Shorter me: I live here, and have done for many years. I don't see what you're describing.

Thanks -

Sorry, having read through the rest of the thread and seen superdestroyer's other comments here, I'm sorry I made any reply at all.

To reply briefly to OCSteve's concern about single-party rule:

There are an amazing variety of political points of view in the US. IMO absolute, and long-lasting, dominance by one political party over the others is just not something that is going to happen.

We may not have the *same* parties we have now, but we'll always have more than one.

Thanks -

Gary, don't confuse me with facts when I'm trying to master superdestroyer logic.

However, while I of course overstated my case I believe you overstated your rebuttal. We weren't willing to have cuba on our team under Castro, and we weren't willing to have china under Mao. Mao thought he could get by without being anybody's client, but Castro made a collection of overtures to us before he went with the russians.

I read a book by a major egyptian government figure who complained about the russians supporting communists in egypt who tried to overthrow the government, and that this was a big point of friction between them. I don't remember the details now and I don't know how hard it will be to give you a link. It's possible that the egyptians were being paranoid and that russian support for communists was the minimum required for ideological reasons. Also, I read it during the cold war days when our own government may have cared enough to put out disinformation. I stand by the claim that I saw it, I don't yet have a link, and it could have been a lie that I saw.

Yes, egypt had been a western client and only switched when we showed them we didn't actually intend to give them patronage.

... I just did a 1-minute search and found a link that vaguely refers to the international communist threat in egypt. I expect I could do better with a few more minutes. But this link also claims that egypt was trying to get aid from USA and USSR both by playing them off against each other, that he wasn't truly a USSR client. So it doesn't exactly support my larger claim.

link

You point out the same thing about vietnam, getting aid from russia and china. But consider that historically vietnam was sometimes independent and sometimes owned by china. Vietnamese nationalists would be wary of too much dependence on china, and needed an ally. In an alternate history with a few incidents changed, might they have pitched a proposal to the US? We support them against china? A communist buffer state, internal disputes inside the communist world, a block to the domino effect? I can imagine them proposing it with a straight face. I can't imagine us accepting it. Military support for a communist country, that was trying to destroy our anticommunist client? We couldn't accept them so they had to take the USSR as second-best. And a few years later when china did invade vietnam, how much help was the USSR to them? But we had taken on china in korea.

I think some details of my claims can be somewhat supported. But please don't take it too seriously. I'm following a superdestroyer approach, and by rights when some of my claims are challenged I should just make a whole bunch of new claims that sound superficially plausible and not actually support any of them either. And my claim that many americans support one political party because the other one won't have them, is plausible. Isn't it? And doesn't the homologous claim -- that some nations became clients of one superpower they had no ideological agreement with because the other superpower wouldn't take them -- serve to make the first claim even more plausible?

Don't confuse me with official histories, while I'm responding to superdestroyer. Most of us learn the lessons of history in our dreams and nightmares, not from critical thinking.

"I'm following a superdestroyer approach, and by rights when some of my claims are challenged I should just make a whole bunch of new claims that sound superficially plausible and not actually support any of them either."

Oh, well, then: carry on.

"Most of us learn the lessons of history in our dreams and nightmares, not from critical thinking."

Explains a lot, doesn't it?

"...while I'm responding to superdestroyer."

That's not necessarily mandatory, you know. Or even other than counter-productive. Just a suggestion, however.

Generally speaking, engaging in mirror logic with a troll doesn't tend to produce a useful or edifying spectacle. But the troll loves it, and is encouraged to look for more.

Just for the record:

... I just did a 1-minute search and found a link that vaguely refers to the international communist threat in egypt.
Having now read the 1961 Time piece you linked to, I'll point out that it certainly would support any claim that Nasser and Krushchev squabbled with each other, but, that that wasn't the claim. It was that "the russians kept sending in communist infiltrators to try to overthrow the local governments and convert them to real communist nations," which criticizing each other with nasty remarks isn't exactly identical to.

Just for the sake of clear history, and that critical thinking thing. :-)

Nice flashback, though; I've always enjoyed reading old newspapers and magazines so much that I did it for fun in libraries when I was a kid, and when I was in junior high, worked in the school library and spent much of my "work" time (since there was nothing else to do, and having finished reading all the remotely interesting books in the small library) reading old issues of Life and Look and Time and The New Republic, and all the several dozen magazines in the back room on file going back through around the 1930s.

Seeing how stuff looked to, and was reported to, people back then, is about as close to time-traveling as we can get.

This also explains my fascination with political diaries.

For instance, here's an amusing flashback to a little debate in 1959 between Nikita Khrushchev, and some American labor leaders.

In an alternate history with a few incidents changed, might they have pitched a proposal to the US?

I believe that Tuchman in The March of Follies states that Ho did go to the League of nations, asking for help in obtaining self-rule from France. when the West declined to help, Ho went to the lesser of two evils, China.

At least that's how I remember that history.

Actually, I think Ho went to Woodrow Wilson with a petition, and was ignored. OSS officers also worked with Ho during WWII, and Ho petitioned Harry Truman concerning Vietnam independence, but both his communist links and French pressure led to these overtures being rejected.

For crying out loud, Superdestroyer! The District of Columbia is overwhelmingly Democratic because the DC is overwhelmingly black -- period. And the huge Democratic tendencies of nonwhite voters are neatly balanced by the massive Republican tendencies of Southern whites -- in both cases due to the Democratic Party's 1960s conversion to the cause of equal rights for nonwhites, and the rage against this from Southern white bigots (which gradually transmuted on their part into a less angry but still reliable reflex vote for the GOP, just as Southern whites had previously so long voted reflexively against the GOP even after it had long ceased to be the Party of Lincoln). Polls of Northern whites show them splitting between the parties about evenly, like the national population as a whole.

And there are ALWAYS going to be at least two parties, because -- as in every modern society -- there is always going to be a general political split between voters more or less favorable toward redistribution of income away from the purely market-determined distribution of it. At some point, either party -- even it becomes dominant for a litle while -- will always overplay its hand. The GOP may fade for a while, but at some point in the not very distant future it will reshuffle its political priorities to start gaining again against the Dems. The real question is what the details of those new two opposing coalitions will be. (How far to the Left will the current center of balance of US politics shift; and how much, and in what way, will the forces of social conservatism continue trying to influence American electoral politics?)

Gary, what Kruschev and Nasser were squabbling about was Nasser jailing communists who were trying to overthrow him and put in a communist state. And Kruschev pointed out that Nasser ought to let them install a communist state because it would be better for egypt to have communists running things instead of Nasser.

That doesn't prove that Kruschev was giving financial or other support to the communists in egypt, but it sort of supports the possibility. Of course, today Bush tells Mubarak that he ought to stop jailing democracy advocates and allow free elections because it would be better for egypt if he let somebody democratic else replace him. And Bush obviously isn't supporting egyptian democrats. But still....

And there are ALWAYS going to be at least two parties, because -- as in every modern society -- there is always going to be a general political split between voters more or less favorable toward redistribution of income away from the purely market-determined distribution of it.

But today both parties favor redistribution of income. Just, the republicans favor redistribution toward the rich.

But today both parties favor redistribution of income. Just, the republicans favor redistribution toward the rich.

Speaking as one of The Rich: I don't need any money from The Poor, thanks very much. Give my share to someone who wants and needs it, if that pleases you.

But I'd like a statement, if that's not too much bother.

The middle class is usually not rich enough to afford private school.s According to Wikipedia, the DC pubic schools are The ethnic breakdown of students enrolled is 84.4 % black, 9.4 % Hispanic, 4.6 % white, and 1.6 % Asian American. Yet the district is 30% white

Having lived there, many of the white people who live in DC are young and single and do not have children in either public or private school. Even leaving aside a debate of the proposition that white=middle class, this statistic proves nothing about SD's point.

The comments to this entry are closed.