So how will those reliably GOP voters react to the current tax plan the GOP is pushing? It wuill screw them in a number of ways, in order to provide lavish tax breaks on millionaires. Polls show this isn't actually very popular, even among Republican voters. So how is this tax bill good for the GOP when most of its base already hates it?

Michale [30] -

You should look up the actual stats. It ain't a few damn cherries... it's the whole freakin' orchard.

Blue states are donor states. The ones Mitt Romney called the "makers." The red states are the "takers." Period. Democratic states have better economies, and they prop up the states with worse economies, run by Republicans (see: Kansas, the last few years, compared with, say, California).

neilm -

Sorry about the filter problems, they've been freed.

OK, that's it for now, folks...

-CW

Positraction?
positraction?
Posi-Traction?

Just to be scrupulously fair, y'know...

-CW

No, no... the ultimate quote from the movie is:

Lisa: The car that made these two, equal-length tire marks had Positraction. You can't make these marks without Positraction, which was not available on the '64 Buick Skylark!
Vinny: And why not? What is Positraction?
Lisa: It's a limited-slip differential which distributes power equally to both the right and left tires. The '64 Skylark had a regular differential, which, anyone who's been stuck in the mud in Alabama knows, you step on the gas, one tire spins, the other tire does nothing.
[the jury members nod, with murmurs of "yes," "that's right"]
Vinny: Is that it?
Lisa: No, there's more! You see where the left tire mark goes up on the curb and the right tire mark stays flat and even? Well, the '64 Skylark had a solid rear axle, so when the left tire would go up on the curb, the right tire would tilt out and ride along its edge. But that didn't happen here. The tire mark stayed flat and even. This car had an independent rear suspension. Now, in the '60's, there were only two other cars made in America that had Positraction, and independent rear suspension, and enough power to make these marks. One was the Corvette, which could never be confused with the Buick Skylark. The other had the same body length, height, weight, wheel base, and wheel track as the '64 Skylark, and that was the 1963 Pontiac Tempest.

Man, you really are slipping...

Heh.

-CW

O'Keefe just demonstrated that time honored techniques of professional journalism are pretty good at spotting fraud...and that journalists video their interviews. O'K is going to have to up his game or go for softer targets.

Two of the "big three" DID collapse. GM went bankrupt and had to default on their bond debt, in order to re-organize with taxpayer bailout, and Chrysler got bought out by Fiat.

Republicans trying to weaponize the #MeToo movement, and O'Keefe up to his usual dirty tricks?

Also not surprising, considering I've been out here in the wilderness asking, "How did Roger Stone know in advance about the Franken allegations?"

https://hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6

https://hackernoon.com/more-than-a-million-pro-repeal-net-neutrality-comments-were-likely-faked-e9f0e3ed36a6

1. An attempted sting against the Washington Post to discredit the Moore sexual assault reporting:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html?tid=pm_pop&utm_term=.3e4da3a6014c

I know, and I agree. But when our current President runs around giving himself credit for everything, so it only seems fair ;)

The "great recession" resulted from loaning mortgage money to tens of thousands of unqualified buyers, who gambled that because the price of houses had never declined in three-quarters of a century, that theirs would keep going up forever.

I was selling real-time risk management software to capital markets for many years, including this period, and spent a lot of time in NY and London with the big banks. They gave the Obama administration pretty high marks for their handling of the crisis, so he does deserve some credit for the turn around at the time. Plus he did, with Bush's help, stop the auto industry from collapsing.

I'm well aware that we give presidents credit for all the good things that happen during their terms in office, and blame for all the bad things, but the truth is, they mostly do not deserve either.

The "great recession" resulted from loaning mortgage money to tens of thousands of unqualified buyers, who gambled that because the price of houses had never declined in three-quarters of a century, that theirs would keep going up forever.

Of course, when the bubble burst, they all defaulted, the worst lenders went bankrupt, and the economy tanked. No single president had very much to do with all those bad loans (congress, however DID have VERY much to do with them), and Obama just happened to be in office when the turn-around began.

I'll say "Thanks Obama" again, once for myself and once for Michale because I know he'd want me to ;)

Time for a crash ;)

http://news.gallup.com/poll/222299/mentions-economic-issues-top-problem-lowest-1999.aspx

http://news.gallup.com/poll/1675/most-important-problem.aspx

Turns out that the #1 problem by a country mile is:

Dissatisfaction with government/Poor leadership - 23%
Race Relations - 10%
...
Economy - 4%

But only has to harken back to the Obama elections and listen to all the people saying how Obama is going to give them a free phone and Obama is going to pay their mortgage to know that the Democrat Party is the Free Ride Party...

Talk about cherry picking - the old "Obama phone" chestnut - I thought we'd fact checked that for you and you'd realized you'd been duped by some right wing blogger.

Seems not. Here we go again:

https://www.snopes.com/politics/taxes/cellphone.asp

The Lifeline program originated in 1984, during the administration of Ronald Reagan; it was expanded in 1996, during the administration of Bill Clinton; and its first cellular provider service (SafeLink Wireless) was launched by TracFone in 2008, during the administration of George W. Bush. All of these milestones were passed prior to the advent of the Obama administration.

CRS - are you not receiving social security and getting Medicare?

There are pocketbook issues and non-pocketbook issues. If this was only about pocketbook issues you should be a Democrat based on your model of Democratic voters - i.e. people who receive more from the Government that they are currently giving.

I'm only in my sixth decade and have three kids at college, so I'm still working and paying plenty of Federal taxes so in the simple model I should be a Republican.

Since the two people who are discussing the model don't fit into it themselves, are you sure it has value?

Fair enough. Me too.

But you're entirely mistaken if you think that any cross-section of Democrats would list or consider food stamps and public housing at or near the top of their motivations list, as those programs support relatively few folks, compared to the overwhelming number of Democrats that own homes or rent apartments and feed themselves, even splurging for a McDonald's burger from time to time. Most Democrats aren't vegetarians, don't believe in the healing power of crystals, or join in drum circles, either. We're ordinary folks, with normal needs and wants, and mostly with loved ones we care for. And believe it or not, middle class Black and Latino families have more in common with middle class Republican families than not. Waaay more.

So instead of (mis)characterizing each other, let's discuss the relative merits of proposals we support. That wouldn't seem like such an enormous waste of time.

I have many times, here and elsewhere, pointed out that two of the primary motivations that move people to vote as they do would be 'pocketbook' issues, and ideology.

While I wouldn't dispute the validity of your long list of gov't benefits, beginning with "Nat'l Defense" and ending with child toy testing", I seriously doubt that such remote benefits enter into the normal voter's evaluation of whether he's coming out ahead or behind.

Were you to survey a cross section of Dem voters, I'd be willing to bet that a single direct benefit such as food stamps or public housing, would far outweigh your entire list as voting motivation.

But I join you in wondering "How all that ties into giving huge tax breaks for billionaires?" It is likewise "beyond me".

I have to conclude that you and I were simply not communicating on this exchange. If that's because I'm a poor writer, I apologize. If it's because you have reading comprehension problems, I cannot help.

BTW, to preclude you jumping to any more unjustified conclusions, I'd mention I'm well into my eighth decade and as such have not paid any income tax in years. My motivation must be ideology.

If on the other hand, you feel like you get back more from the government than you are forced to contribute, meaning you feed at the public trough, you tend to vote liberal, which translates to Dem.

And you actually believe that? Shows how much you have to learn about the actual motivations of Democratic voters.

But let's deconstruct the first paragraph, since you've apparently described your own motivations there: You feel that you contribute more to the 'common pot', i.e., you pay more in taxes, than you feel you receive back from the government.

So tell me, does that include National Defense, water and food safety, highways, disaster relief, border security, law enforcement, research grants, national park services, firefighting, federal deposit insurance, flood abatement, coastal water management, wetlands management, national weather forecasting, all agricultural programs, land management, mine inspection, workplace safety, the federal justice system, the court system, port management, national intelligence agencies, arctic research, space programs, telecommunications management and policy, college loan programs, securities and exchange regulation, international aid and development, diplomatic missions, international treaty negotiation and enforcement, US embassies, the US mint and treasury, printing operations, aviation control and management, air safety systems, Amtrack and rail system management, tourism, commerce, trade, patents, standards, certification, drug testing and development, disease control, weapons development testing and control, nuclear stockpile management, nuclear waste management, nuclear power generation and management, and child toy testing, just to name a small percentage of what the government does?

Note that that list doesn't include any assistance programs, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans programs, healthcare programs, Native American reservation programs, CHIP, education, housing, or family planning, since you might not personally use any of those programs, and your premise is that your tax dollars should be used to benefit YOU and YOU alone.

Now, how all that ties into giving huge tax breaks for billionaires is beyond me, except that one might name a cocktail after you or something.

But only has to harken back to the Obama elections and listen to all the people saying how Obama is going to give them a free phone and Obama is going to pay their mortgage to know that the Democrat Party is the Free Ride Party...

The Democrats have that reputation and it is well-earned..

The reddest states get way more net income from the Government than the big blue states. Both Mississippi and Louisiana relied on federal aid for more than 40 percent of their general revenue. Tennessee, Montana and Kentucky came in just under 40 percent. All are red states.

Can't argue with the logic..

*I* am not doing a thing. You are the one making clear that you can't function without your Safe Space, Snowflake....

But hay.. If you want to cede the field of battle because yer a skeered, I understand...

Political debating can be a full on contact sport.. There is no shame in not being able to hang....

Awww, who am I kidding.. Yea there is.. :D

Don't flatter yourself.

Democrats feel that their platform speaks for itself and, if anyone can't see that Dems are the better choice, then they are simply Deplorable and the Dem Party will attack them incessantly...

It's why they lost so big in 2009 thru 2016...

They don't want to work for votes.. If a voter can't see that the Dims are better on their own, the Dims don't want or need their vote......

So goes the "wisdom" of the Democrat Party...

Sounds WAY overoptimistic to me. 75 months might be more realistic, sad to say.

I think it's going to be a lot longer than that...

Further, I also believe that the minorities aren't going to be the TOE THE LINE lemmings that the Democrat Party hopes they are going to be..

MANY minorities are turned off by the Dim's tendency to see them as a black person or a gay person and not as an American..

Trump did very well with minorities and those minorities who don't WANT to be professional activists will likely go with the GOP..

THAT fact, coupled with the slow growth of the demographic makes my prediction of 100 years not so outlandishly optimistic..

In short, minorities are not the sure fire Dem vote the Democrat Party thinks they are...

Thank you for re-establishing my Safe Space.. I am now safe from facts and reality I don't like....

Installed the new line 26, and scroll length is 50% of the unblocked version.

Many Thanks, I was barking up the wrong tree with my own attempted revision.

TheStig

Sounds WAY overoptimistic to me. 75 months might be more realistic, sad to say.

Yes.. In 75-100 years, demographics will favor Democrats with their Identity Politics policy...

If the Democrats, and our fellow Weigantians, are content to remain the minority Party for that length of time, that suits me just peachy keen wonderful...

I agree that most lasting political change is incremental, 95% is as good aguesstimate as any. To me, grassroots is simply the bottom of the organizational pyramid...the part that holds up the rest of the edifice. In my experience, Republicans are typically better at this than Democrats. They are more organized at the local level. They hobnob, at home, at work, at play at church and more of them seem to get involved in the nitty gritty of political organization...and they do it year after year, without monetary compensation. This translates into voter turnout and makes Republicans punch above their demographic weight. Add to that the proportional over representation of rural and suburban districts in Congress and the Electoral College and you get the sewage we see in the White House, Senate and House.

Democrats cannot afford to ignore this gap.

If you are a voter who feels that he is forced to contribute more to the government 'common pot' than he receives in benefits, you tend to vote conservative, which in actual practice turns out to be Rep.

If on the other hand, you feel like you get back more from the government than you are forced to contribute, meaning you feed at the public trough, you tend to vote liberal, which translates to Dem.

What the Dems have going for themselves long-term is that the percentage of the population of the former group is in long-term decline, while the percentage of people in the latter group is steadily growing, mostly due to immigration and huge birth-rate disparities.

Time and demographic factors appear to favor the Dems, which ought to cheer Chris and the majority of our fellow Weigantians.

These are the same ilk of people who refused to believe all the women who came forward with equally believable claims made by respectable women against their young, heartthrob president, Bill Clinton.

How do you know when a woman is lying? She is seated beside Gloria Allred and her lips are moving.
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/nov/26/case-roy-moore/

:D

"Stan.. Your in Ala-Fucking-Bama. You come from New York. You killed a good ole boy.. There was NO WAY this was not going to go to trial.."
-Joe Pesci, MY COUSIN VINNY

:D

Now, there was a certain amount of misogyny present in 2016, with Hillary Clinton at the top of the ticket, but there may have also been a lot of anti-Clinton feeling as well.

Maybe you can explain something to me...

If misogyny was the reason Hillary Clinton lost the election, wouldn't it ALSO have caused Hillary to lose the Vanity Vote??

It seems to me that ya'all want to have it both ways. You want to blame sexism for Hillary's lost, but ya'all (most of ya'all) crow about Hillary winning the Vanity Vote where sexism had no effect..

Laser Targeted Sexism???

How, exactly, does that work???

This group has been largely lost to Democrats since Ronald Reagan's time, and even in a state which as a whole is demographically shifting more and more reliably blue, the Democrat lost ground in the rural counties. That's a sobering lesson for any Democrat considering making a big bid to switch these voters next year.

It would probably help if Democrats would quit ATTACKING those voters...

But THAT is not going to happen any time soon..

This could ultimately be a good thing or a bad thing for the party as a whole. But over the next year, in my opinion the most important thing for the Democratic Party to achieve is to make a major and sustained effort to include all the "Resist!" groups which have sprung up nationwide in the party, with open arms. Don't disdainfully ignore them. Don't take them for granted. Instead, if this energy can be fully tapped it might add to any sort of wave which is building. But if Democrats return to the attitude of putting corporate interests before the grassroots, then this wave may never actually become reality. While speculation about the midterms may admittedly be premature at this point, I will be carefully watching what changes the party decides to adopt next month, to see indications of whether the party realizes what a turning point next year could be.

As long as Clinton is the de-facto head of the Democrat Party, nothing will change...

Great commentary, CW.. :D

http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/11/22/thankfully-2017-is-almost-over/#comment-111032

still got a long way to go (we're over 300 comments!) but gotta grind through them slowly...

:-)

-CW

I used to think, back in 2016, that the American electorate was sophisticated enough to spot a con man. Ain't so.

We need to either find a true leader or a better con man.

"...even if Ohio State did beat Michigan..."

Go Blue...

:-)

-CW

Thanks for the kind words! I have recharged my batteries with a long Thanksgiving weekend, and feel rarin' to go. Plus, I'm off jury duty for at least Monday and Tuesday. Rest of the week is still up in the air, but just wanted to provide that update...

-CW

That is an interesting way of putting it. While 2018 will be all over the map (435 House districts), 2020 will prove the point one way or another...

-CW

http://www.mattersofprinciple.com/?p=1481

And, it's not entirely off topic ...

Incremental change happens 95% of the time via expectation.

Passion happens 5% of the time. 45 is a classic example.

The challenge to Democrats is to give us an exceptional candidate, not a 95% candidate.

When the crazies go overboard, the normal people have to stand up.

Welcome to 2018.

It didn't work out well for Kansas, and now Oklahoma is starting to realize that voting Republican means your schools are only open four days a week. Oops.

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/the-red-state-revolt-spreads-to-oklahoma/546671/