POG Politics Thread

[well named]

Here in MT the incumbent Governor's re-election ads touted his opposition to Real ID and how he would protect our privacy from the federal govt. They also touted his A+ NRA rating. And the guys a Democrat. We're kind of our own little world (not that conservative dems are really all that rare, but you'd know what I mean if you saw the ads here.)

[clowntable]

We've had ID cards for a long time (dunno how long but I wouldn't be surprised if they were invented by the Nazis and just kept). I don't like the idea but most people that are opposed to these cards live in countries that actually have indirect ID cards anyways (and most of them like the convenience they bring). SS #s + Driver's licenses, passports, tax identification numbers etc.
I think it's pretty naive to assume they are not used the same way that ID cards are used.

[well named]

I think most of the objections to the Real ID act were not so much objections to the idea of having authentication schemes in general, even at the federal level, but more that the act itself was predicated on being good for national security, but that this assertion is not really justified.

Bruce Schneier wrote a lot about it. He's a security guru I've always enjoyed reading.

http://www.schneier.com/blog/archive...5/real_id.html

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0404.html#1 (National ID specifically)

http://www.schneier.com/crypto-gram-0402.html#6 (ID as a security device, generally)

In a nutshell: why force states to spend money on something that is unlikely to increase security, while at the same time increasing risks of certain kinds of ID theft, privacy invasion, or governmental abuse.

[clowntable]

Is that the same Bruce Schneier of Honeypot/Honeynet fame?
Cause I may have snatched some of his honey :P

[well named]

I'm sure that it is, although I didn't remember that he was involved in the honeynet project, although that makes sense.

[DustinG]

I want to make a prediction that Obama's pick as treasury secretary (more like treasury czar if you look at the bailout bill) will either be Robert Rubin (former head of Citigroup, former treasury sec under Clinton, co-chair of the board of directors at the CFR) or Jon Corzine (governor of New Jersey, former executive at Goldman Sachs)

[well named]

Rubin has already said he would not take the position, from what I understand.

[Madtown]

Before the thread dies completely, I wanted to make a point I had thought of awhile ago, and have been thinking about post-election.

Speaking strictly in a political analysis and not a partisan sense, I said earlier in the thread repeatedly that the GOP will need to remake itself in many areas before they will be able to compete with the Democrats on a national level. I believe that more than ever, based on the demographic breakdown of this election.

When I start to consider how this hypothetical new Republican Party's policies should shift (again, from a political analysis stance and not a partisan one), something very interesting becomes readily apparent: John McCain is, by far, the Republican closest to that hypothetical.

- Budget hawk / fiscally conservative. Absolutely necessary; conservative spending (and particularly a balanced budget) is probably the most popular stance the Republicans hold. Large swaths of Americans hate the idea of wasteful and/or deficit spending in government. The problem right now is that there hasn't been a fiscally conservative (particularly when it comes to deficits) Republican president in several decades, Bush II being the worst and most recent.
- Against Roe, against abortion but considers it a state issue, pro-stem cell research. Probably the most moderate position a Republican can take on the issue without completely alienating the Evangelical base, and not far off from what I would consider the mainstream American opinion (close enough that I think pro-choice moderates and Independents wouldn't consider it a disqualifying stance if they otherwise supported him).
- Against gay marriage. Which is still the mainstream opinion. He's also against civil unions, which I think is a grayer area right now, but he's made contradicting statements on those as well.
- Has a record of working for immigration reform. Honestly, I think immigration is one of the most damaging issues for the GOP right now and will only get worse in the future if they don't shift their position and rhetoric.

I think the first and the last are the biggest, while the middle two (abortion and gay marriage) are areas where they largely hurt themselves through rhetoric and inability to accept marginal shifts.

There's also huge interplay at work here. If you look at two key demographics in this election -- demographics that went overwhelmingly Democrat, but should have a large persuadable contingent -- they are youth and Hispanics.

Youth went 2:1 for Obama, something like 55:45 for Kerry; while I don't think the GOP is likely to win them any time soon, it's reasonable to assume they would get back to 10 points or less if they'd embrace a less divisive rhetoric, and if they started living up to fiscally responsible, balanced budgets.

Hispanics went even bigger for Obama, and again, while I don't think the GOP is likely to win them any time soon, I think it's reasonable to assume that if they would seriously shift their approach and rhetoric on immigration, they could narrow the margins significantly. There's a large portion of socially conservative Hispanics that particularly could be won over based on abortion and/or gay marriage, if the GOP didn't flip them off every time immigration comes up. Evidence: Obama waffle-crushed in California, but Prop 8 passed, and I believe Hispanics approved of it in a majority.

Obviously I think the country would have been better off had McCain been elected in 2000 instead of Bush (god, it's hard to think of how it could be worse). How much better in what specific areas is debatable. But I also think the Republican Party would have, in result, been dragged in the right direction on these issues and would be in a much better position to realize the "permanent majority" in 2008 that everyone declared they were building in 2004.

The sad thing, for both the Republican Party and the country, is that you can already see the GOP infighting, both among the leadership and the base -- and that most are taking away the wrong lesson of this election. "Palin '08. This is what happens when you nominate a Republican In Name Only."

The lesson isn't "wrong time" -- it was, but that doesn't say much. It's not "wrong man." It's "right man eight years too late, with an inept campaign and reprehensible campaign rhetoric." McCain lost this election because of the Bush administration and the economic meltdown, factors beyond his control. He lost it so strongly because rather than living up to the maverick McCain image -- particularly on the issues that image was built on -- he either played down or flipped his stance on those issue to play to the base, and engaged in SOCIAAAAAAAAAAAALIST Rove-style fearmongering.

The fact that GOPers are saying McCain lost because he didn't attack strongly enough, or that he lost because he isn't a "true conservative," makes it likely that they'll take awhile to learn this particular lesson.

And while I doubt I'd personally vote for this hypothetical new Republican Party (assuming they didn't moderate/reprioritize in other areas), I still think the country as a whole would be better off with a strong, viable, reasonable minority party.

The point of this post obviously being that, imo, the GOP is not strong (pretty uncontroversial), not viable (debatable), and not reasonable (personal opinion) as it currently exists and operates. They need to undergo a significant shift to satisfy those criteria. They don't need to become Democrats or Democrat-lite to do it either. And I'm honestly disappointed that they appear poised to do the exact opposite of what they should.

[clowntable]

Youth went 2:1 for Obama, something like 55:45 for Kerry; while I don't think the GOP is likely to win them any time soon, it's reasonable to assume they would get back to 10 points or less if they'd embrace a less divisive rhetoric, and if they started living up to fiscally responsible, balanced budgets.

I think this has more to do with grandfather vs young guy running than anything else.

Also I think the doomsday scenarios for the GOP will disapear rather quickly once the Democrats are responsible for everything and fail in epic ways.

[DustinG]

Originally Posted by clowntable

Also I think the doomsday scenarios for the GOP will disapear rather quickly once the Democrats are responsible for everything and fail in epic ways.

QFT.

4 years (or even 2 years) is a very very long time, especially given how fast things are happening.

There are certain states that Republicans could once count on that they no longer can- states like Nevada and New Mexico.

Colorado, Indiana, and Carolinas could easily go back red though- and Nevada and New Mexico don't mean much electoral vote wise.

Its still all about Ohio and Florida imo. If Republicans field a candidate that can win those two states then they can field a candidate who can win a national election- and those states are still going to be swing states.

Not that the Republican party doesn't face a lot of challenges. The evangelicals hurt them more than they help them, and they are losing states more than they are gaining them.

But ultimately I think given the impending economic calamity, dollar devaluation, etc- it makes it very hard to say anything about whats going to be happening a few years from now.

[JaredL]

There's a debate about the Republican party going on in the politics forum that is pretty good.

I haven't read all of madeus's post, but I definitely think something will need to change for the Republicans to win in the foreseeable future unless the Democrats royally **** up, which is possible. Even then, it's likely to be a one off.

If you look at the states where one party or the other won the last 3 presidential elections, that gives the Dems 240 electoral votes and the Republicans 181. Note that I'm using an estimate that takes into account changes in representation that will take effect after the 2010 census. Just using todays numbers it's worse for the Republicans. I actually think North Carolina and Arizona should switch so that NC is considered a 3-time won Republican state and Arizona a state that wasn't swept by either. The reason for this is that I don't think any Republican other than McCain would have carried Arizona this year and no Democrat other than Obama would have won in North Carolina.

So if you take that into account, the Democrats start with the same 240 electoral votes as a base, while the Republicans will have 185.

Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Arizona are all states that have a high percentage of hispanic voters and that % will only increase as time goes on. This election, Obama won hispanic voters in those four states by 23%, 39%, 54% and 15% according to exit polling. Note that the last figure is in Arizona, which was McCain's home state.

If you add the estimated electoral votes that those 4 states will have to the Democratic base you get 272 electoral votes.

So basically if the Democrats can win the states that both Gore and Kerry won, and I don't see any of those that will flip, and the Republicans can't make inroads with hispanic voters, then the Democratic presidential candidates won't even need to win in Ohio or Florida.

Note too that in Florida the population is increasingly hispanic. It's a bit different there. Hispanic actually refers to a pretty diverse group of people (as does Asian since Japanese-Americans and Indian-Americans aren't likely to vote the same way). In Florida they tend to be Cubans and they vote much more evenly than others because they apparently prefer the Republican policy toward Castro to that of the Democrats.

note: I typed up a similar post in the politics forum, but I mistakenly put New Hampshire in with the states that Gore, Kerry and Obama won. It doesn't matter as it brings the tally from 276 to 272. The numbers here are correct.

[Madtown]

Originally Posted by clowntable

I think this has more to do with grandfather vs young guy running than anything else.

wrong

Originally Posted by clowntable

Also I think the doomsday scenarios for the GOP will disapear rather quickly once the Democrats are responsible for everything and fail in epic ways.

i obviously reject your premise of inevitable democratic failure, but even shifting it to a more reasonable framing of "if the democrats fail in epic ways," hoping that the other guy ****s up isn't a particularly strong argument for the gop being a-ok

again, i don't think gop doomsday is inevitable nor do i think democratic success is inevitable, but anyone who doesn't think the republican tent has shrunk in fundamental, demographic ways (or that it has, but that it's irrelevant and should be ignored) is delusional or hasn't examined the data whatsoever

[DustinG]

Originally Posted by Madtown

again, i don't think gop doomsday is inevitable nor do i think democratic success is inevitable, but anyone who doesn't think the republican tent has shrunk in fundamental, demographic ways (or that it has, but that it's irrelevant and should be ignored) is delusional or hasn't examined the data whatsoever

I think this is very true.

But that doesn't change the fact that elections are won and lost in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida

*the point is that you can talk about demographics all you want, but its still the electoral college that matters, and right now there are still going to be some states you can guarantee are going to be red (wtf Montana?!) and some states you can guarantee are going to be blue, and some key battleground states that decide elections

[JaredL]

By the way, for those saying Obama voters are destined for disappointment, you might be right for some, but not me.

The main things I like about Obama are that he is significantly more intelligent than any of the other candidates this year (or four and eight years ago) and that he has a very reasoned approach to problem solving and policy decisions. Essentially he is as far as possible away from the go-with-your-gut style of Bush and McCain for that matter.

Does that mean we can expect miracles? No. But it does make him significantly more likely to make better decisions than someone with a worse thought process. That alone will be such a massive improvement that it's reason to celebrate.

There are some things that I expect to be somewhat disappointed on. I think a massive improvement in the health care system is needed. I don't think it'll happen though as we can't really afford expensive programs right now even if they significantly help the public good. I think the situation in Iraq will remain quite tricky and I don't think there will be anything close to a 100% pullout for a few years at least.

I could go on with some reasons that I'm excited about Obama that won't lead to disappointment but my main argument is that most Obama people aren't expecting the world. A lot of us just like his approach to government and believe him to be smart enough to generally make good decisions. Also, I think a lot of it is just pent up disappointment from the last two elections and being excited to have not only won one, but done so convincingly.

I will definitely concede that there are a lot of young people who do expect way more than any politician could deliver. These people will be disappointed for sure.

[JaredL]

Originally Posted by DustinG

I think this is very true.

But that doesn't change the fact that elections are won and lost in Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Florida

*the point is that you can talk about demographics all you want, but its still the electoral college that matters, and right now there are still going to be some states you can guarantee are going to be red (wtf Montana?!) and some states you can guarantee are going to be blue, and some key battleground states that decide elections

Not sure if you'd read my post when you made this, but with the changing demographics this is not obviously a fact. If the Democrats continue to wafflecrush the Mexican-American vote then they will be able to win by getting only one of those 3 and even though I consider Pennsylvania conservative (I'm an Oregonian what can I say?) I don't think it will be flipping any time soon.