Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I've heard this argument, but the counterargument is Gore winning the popular vote and losing the electoral vote. I think the counterargument prevails.

See if this persuades:

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...l-college-edge

Well, the Senate small state advantage is baked in (and also baked in to the electoral vote), so nothing wrong with it and we ain't doing anything about it.

The House is different. The redistricting that sets who redistricts is all state house controlled. The Rs simply have a gerrymandering advantage. One election cycle won't break it, only a sustained effort to turn red states blue at a local level will.

If Democrats are in a bunch of urban districts with no Republicans, you could have a distribution where a GOP with minority support nonetheless gets majority support in a majority of districts.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Trump and Lady Di.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

ggg is ignorant. If he'd met the big three of FB's he'd include you all. My best memory of ncs is that laugh, as an aside to what she is saying. In the background a giggle, that probaby ggg will/should never hear now?

Well done, sir. "Charming Hank" is a delightful fellow.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

I meant this: being intellectually honest with yourselves doesn't seem to matter, on a board where there really is no contrary poster. There is no reason for me to be here. Enjoy!

I think that the problem was the lack of clarity in my post. I should have made it clearer that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in many of the Democratic leaders and members on this issue. I like to think that I am intellectually honest most of the time, but we all have blind spots, and it's a Not Bad thing to try to remind oneself about the possibility that one's position on an issue might be based upon a blind spot or defensive reaction.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Wise words from Josh Barro in 2013:

The failure of conservative politicians and think tanks to advance serious alternatives on health policy reflects their complete lack of interest in fixing health policy: They don't want to spend money, they don't want to change Medicare in ways that affect elderly Republican base voters, they don't want to cut the incomes of Republican-voting doctors, and they don't want to change the (often overly expensive) health coverage situations of the overwhelmingly insured Republican electorate.

They do want to stop Democrats from having legislative accomplishments. Sometimes, conservative health care "plans" are useful as a concern trolling exercise to interfere with Democratic legislating on health care. But Republicans are not about to let their own side's plans get anywhere near the implementation stage, lest they do any of the things I listed in the above paragraph.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

I think that the problem was the lack of clarity in my post. I should have made it clearer that there is a great deal of hypocrisy in many of the Democratic leaders and members on this issue. I like to think that I am intellectually honest most of the time, but we all have blind spots, and it's a Not Bad thing to try to remind oneself about the possibility that one's position on an issue might be based upon a blind spot or defensive reaction.

You are only feeding Hank's delusion that he's the only honest person on the Board (perhaps in the world).

Maybe you should go to a 12-step program and offer people vodka shots and meth. That's less destructive.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

See if this persuades:

http://www.bloombergview.com/article...l-college-edge

He's identifying one particular factor among many. Another way of making his point is pretty straightforward, which is that there are a number of rural areas in purple states where Dems have been making headway - upstate NY and Pennsylvania are the places I focus most on.

But there is no reason to assume that "progress" is the result of inexorable and inevitable forces. From what I can see it's driven as much by issues as by demographic trends (where Dem hopes in Texas have a lot more to do with demographic patterns). We're gaining in Binghampton and Saratoga mainly because the old guard Rockefeller moderate Republicans are dying off and their children are realizing their views just aren't welcome in the Republican party.

But there are lots of other trends, and the right candidate and strategy on the Republican side can nullify the supposed gains. Who knows, maybe Trump can convince these people he's Rockefeller's true heir.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

If Democrats are in a bunch of urban districts with no Republicans, you could have a distribution where a GOP with minority support nonetheless gets majority support in a majority of districts.

Likewise if Rs are in a bunch of rural districts with very few Democrats.

Both happen.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

Ahem.

My apologies.

You're a tough one. On the one hand, beach-babe hippy artsy chick from Southern California kind of screams Bernie.

On the other hand, the no-nonsense upstate New Yorker in you has to be a Hillary fan.

But, Bernie will be out of it by the time you vote, so I guess Hill.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

But there is no reason to assume that "progress" is the result of inexorable and inevitable forces. ... But there are lots of other trends, and the right candidate and strategy on the Republican side can nullify the supposed gains. Who knows, maybe Trump can convince these people he's Rockefeller's true heir.

Indeed, and that is why I said the Democrats have [present tense] a structural advantage, rather than saying that they always have had and always will have a structural lock on the presidency.

As for Congress, I think there are more overwhelmingly Democratic urban districts than there are overwhelmingly Republican rural districts, though you are undoubtedly correct that it could hypothetically be otherwise -- it's just that we live in an increasingly urban country. To your point, redistricting makes a difference. Pennsylvania has 13 Republicans and 5 Democrats, thanks to the 2010 redistricting.

[notcasesensitive]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

He's identifying one particular factor among many. Another way of making his point is pretty straightforward, which is that there are a number of rural areas in purple states where Dems have been making headway - upstate NY and Pennsylvania are the places I focus most on.

But there is no reason to assume that "progress" is the result of inexorable and inevitable forces. From what I can see it's driven as much by issues as by demographic trends (where Dem hopes in Texas have a lot more to do with demographic patterns). We're gaining in Binghampton and Saratoga mainly because the old guard Rockefeller moderate Republicans are dying off and their children are realizing their views just aren't welcome in the Republican party.

But there are lots of other trends, and the right candidate and strategy on the Republican side can nullify the supposed gains. Who knows, maybe Trump can convince these people he's Rockefeller's true heir.

You consider NY a purple state? I know upstate is conservative (believe me, I know), but the state would never go Republican in a presidential election would it? I can't believe with the population disparity between NYC/downstate and upstate there could be any chance of that. But I'm pretty far removed from following NY politics (now that my mom doesn't have Pataki to complain about anymore)...

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by notcasesensitive

You consider NY a purple state? I know upstate is conservative (believe me, I know), but the state would never go Republican in a presidential election would it? I can't believe with the population disparity between NYC/downstate and upstate there could be any chance of that. But I'm pretty far removed from following NY politics (now that my mom doesn't have Pataki to complain about anymore)...

I'm thinking the upstate congressional districts. State itself is solid blue, but the congressional districts upstate used to be red and now are trending blue.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

But are they really that scared? Really?

No, just that racist.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

You are only feeding Hank's delusion that he's the only honest person on the Board (perhaps in the world).

Maybe you should go to a 12-step program and offer people vodka shots and meth. That's less destructive.

If I may put my Earnest Doogooder hat on (didn't I have a sock with that name at the other place?), I think that Hank is occasionally serious here and occasionally correct.

And as for me, I do know that I misunderstood or misinterpreted something serious that Hank said here a long time ago about race, and made an ass of myself. I also know that I sometimes assume that my point is clearer than it actually is in what I've posted. So, I went back to look at the back and forth, and decided that I was Not Clear.

At any rate, speaking of race, bravo to Chris Rock for creating the phrase "sorority racism" to describe people in Hollywood who are not too different from me (other than their bank accounts) and to Mark Ruffalo for pointing out that #OscarsSoWhite can be fixed by all of the liberals who control the film industry.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/0...uestion-219976

TM