Waning days of a political movement

[SageAgainstTheMachine]

You know, when I say:

 

"The trouble with you and far too many Democrats today is: you base your arguments on some of what is true, but more of what you wish was true, rather than what actually is true."

 

And then you post links like this....

 

You are doing a fine job of proving me right. I wonder if Sage against the Machine appreciates the superiority of my "perspective" here.

 

Thanks for making it easy for me this week. I'm going to be kinda busy, so it's good that you are allowing me to get right to the "You're all idiots" inevitable conclusion in one post.

 

Don't get me wrong, OCin. It seems as if you know your stuff a lot of the time. It also seems as if you're convinced you know everything and that any contrary opinion is invalid simply because it challenges your omniscience (I'm not talking specifically about this thread, by the way).

 

When it comes to rare moments of legitimate conversation, you bring a good deal of knowledge and even a certain understated wit to the table. More often, though, you're preoccupied with writing mini-diatribes about how stupid other people are because they fail to comprehend the incontrovertible truth that you always seem to brilliantly recognize.

 

That's the impression I get, anyway.

Edited August 18, 2011 by SageAgainstTheMachine

[OCinBuffalo]

Black Rock thank you very much.

 

 

And factually on the wane and not embraced are both true. We just witnessed it in NY and Wisconsin. And while the real power and money behind the astroturf movement continually attempt to change the rules of the game with activist judges and influence peddling they are fighting a losing battle. Changing demographics and all. I consider the teabagger movement the last dying fart from the corpse of conservatism.

The short version: a number of factors, including redistricting, demographics, and trends means it is the liberal party, not the Tea Party that is mortal danger of disappearing everywhere but a small concentration of districts, that are incontestable anyway. If you can't accept that accurate and rational conclusion based solely on the data, read on. If you can't because you're retarded, don't bother.

 

...

 

 

In the history of politics, I don't think any party has ever misinterpreted, or ignored, election results worse than the Democrats have with the 2008 election. The country is center-right, and always will be. Deal with it. Nobody wants irrational change. We'd rather make our own hope, than have the government issue it to us. How about the data that proves you wrong:

 

1. Every poll, every longitudinal study, every long term trend we have says: the Conservative movement has grown steadily since 1950. But, we are supposed to throw all of that data out because you say so? I'm not talking about one month or "the day Obama was inaugurated". I am talking about year to year, decade to decade.

 

2. The recent massacre in the state houses means a net +12-15 auto-elected seats for the Republicans, maybe as high as 20...making the house nearly unobtainable for Democrats for at least the next 10 years...and you think...the Tea Party is going to die? How many Democrats will want to run in bloody elections trying to unseat incumbents in districts where they start down 10-15 points? That gets old quick. So does not winning the House year after year after year. Get used to it. If anybody is going away, it's the liberal party, not the Tea Party. This is based on sheer relevance alone. You won't have the seats to be relevant. And the swing seat moderate dems that do win won't be caught dead in a room with Nancy Pelosi, or they will be gone.

 

3. It's not party affiliation here: The data says that for every 2 conservatives there is one liberal, in terms of "values". So, on the extremes, the Right wins big. This is why no moderate Republican can simply ignore the far-right, because there are far too many votes there. This is part of the reason why McCain lost. This is why a Republican has to go out and win that base first, and then come back and pick up independents, because if they do, they start out with a 2-1 advantage on the Left. The votes, not the Tea Party is what matters here. Whatever those votes want to call themselves is irrelevant, provided the average Republican candidate can secure them. The difference is: the Tea Party far right doesn't have the religiosity that has traditionally made them an easy target, and, that's what correctly scares liberals.

 

4. This is why the far-left should be ignored by Democrats. They simply don't have the votes. Do you get it? Far too few people agree with you and, those that do, are concentrated into uncontested areas. This is why the average Democrat candidate has to forget the base, and move to the middle, everywhere but the coasts and Chicago. And thus, this is why Obama's approval is 40%, not 20. There are tons of people in Democratic urban centers, and they all suffer from groupthink, which is why we probably won't ever see Obama get less than 35%. But, the Tea Party is everywhere, spread out all over. This is why, if you can secure them, in any moderate district, you start the election ahead by 10 pts at least.

 

Given this, the Tea Party, or whatever incarnation of them, will always be relevant. Liberals in swing districts have to look to far away cities for $ and support...it's like Mecca. Conservatives only have to go to the local bar, Rotary club, bowling alley, etc. "All politics is local", which means Tea Party WIN, liberals FAIL, over time. It is inevitable.

 

Democrat leaders know this, but they can't respond, so the get good little parrots like you to repeat the only thing liberals can say: declare victory over the Tea Party and go home. Say they are dead, and stick their heads in the sand. What did I tell you? "You have an overdeveloped sense of wishful thinking. It's going to get you into trouble some day". For the last time, the country did not move left because of Obama. For the last time, stop the wishful thinking.

[/dev/null]

Oh, wait, I know this dance. This is where Hedd calls you a Tea Partier only pretending to be independent, and then you respond saying nice try but you hate everyone, and then Hedd responds with some barely relevant blather that everyone ignores, then EII jumps in with something completely incomprehensible...

 

 

Hold on, I'm gonna need more popcorn for this...

 

What do you need popcorn for? It's a re-run.

When you're channel surfing and run across an episode of Happy Days, do you get the popcorn ready for the scene where Fonzi jumps the shark?

[3rdnlng]

The short version: a number of factors, including redistricting, demographics, and trends means it is the liberal party, not the Tea Party that is mortal danger of disappearing everywhere but a small concentration of districts, that are incontestable anyway. If you can't accept that accurate and rational conclusion based solely on the data, read on. If you can't because you're retarded, don't bother.

 

...

 

 

In the history of politics, I don't think any party has ever misinterpreted, or ignored, election results worse than the Democrats have with the 2008 election. The country is center-right, and always will be. Deal with it. Nobody wants irrational change. We'd rather make our own hope, than have the government issue it to us. How about the data that proves you wrong:

 

1. Every poll, every longitudinal study, every long term trend we have says: the Conservative movement has grown steadily since 1950. But, we are supposed to throw all of that data out because you say so? I'm not talking about one month or "the day Obama was inaugurated". I am talking about year to year, decade to decade.

 

2. The recent massacre in the state houses means a net +12-15 auto-elected seats for the Republicans, maybe as high as 20...making the house nearly unobtainable for Democrats for at least the next 10 years...and you think...the Tea Party is going to die? How many Democrats will want to run in bloody elections trying to unseat incumbents in districts where they start down 10-15 points? That gets old quick. So does not winning the House year after year after year. Get used to it. If anybody is going away, it's the liberal party, not the Tea Party. This is based on sheer relevance alone. You won't have the seats to be relevant. And the swing seat moderate dems that do win won't be caught dead in a room with Nancy Pelosi, or they will be gone.

 

3. It's not party affiliation here: The data says that for every 2 conservatives there is one liberal, in terms of "values". So, on the extremes, the Right wins big. This is why no moderate Republican can simply ignore the far-right, because there are far too many votes there. This is part of the reason why McCain lost. This is why a Republican has to go out and win that base first, and then come back and pick up independents, because if they do, they start out with a 2-1 advantage on the Left. The votes, not the Tea Party is what matters here. Whatever those votes want to call themselves is irrelevant, provided the average Republican candidate can secure them. The difference is: the Tea Party far right doesn't have the religiosity that has traditionally made them an easy target, and, that's what correctly scares liberals.4. This is why the far-left should be ignored by Democrats. They simply don't have the votes. Do you get it? Far too few people agree with you and, those that do, are concentrated into uncontested areas. This is why the average Democrat candidate has to forget the base, and move to the middle, everywhere but the coasts and Chicago. And thus, this is why Obama's approval is 40%, not 20. There are tons of people in Democratic urban centers, and they all suffer from groupthink, which is why we probably won't ever see Obama get less than 35%. But, the Tea Party is everywhere, spread out all over. This is why, if you can secure them, in any moderate district, you start the election ahead by 10 pts at least.

 

Given this, the Tea Party, or whatever incarnation of them, will always be relevant. Liberals in swing districts have to look to far away cities for $ and support...it's like Mecca. Conservatives only have to go to the local bar, Rotary club, bowling alley, etc. "All politics is local", which means Tea Party WIN, liberals FAIL, over time. It is inevitable.

 

Democrat leaders know this, but they can't respond, so the get good little parrots like you to repeat the only thing liberals can say: declare victory over the Tea Party and go home. Say they are dead, and stick their heads in the sand. What did I tell you? "You have an overdeveloped sense of wishful thinking. It's going to get you into trouble some day". For the last time, the country did not move left because of Obama. For the last time, stop the wishful thinking.

 

That's hitting the nail squarely on the head there. When the Birdogs of this world can't automatically group conservatives in with Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell they lose their only viable talking points.

Edited August 18, 2011 by 3rdnlng

[drinkTHEkoolaid]

If anything the tea party is more alive now than ever before. Let's see what happens and the results of 2012 elections

 

And if arrogant liberals and the main stream media want to write off conservatives/tea party type and not take us seriously, than all the better when they are suprised because they would not have taken us seriously.

[Bishop Hedd]

What do you need popcorn for? It's a re-run.

When you're channel surfing and run across an episode of Happy Days, do you get the popcorn ready for the scene where Fonzi jumps the shark?

they weren't all Happy Days. When Leather Tuscadaro crashed Fonzie's bike that wasn't a Happy Day. Or when Richie woke up with a hangover after drinking all that beer at the lodge, or when the hardware store was broken into or when....

[GG]

More often, though, you're preoccupied with writing mini-diatribes about how stupid other people are because they fail to comprehend the incontrovertible truth that you always seem to brilliantly recognize.

 

Mini?

 

The short version:

 

And how long would the long version be?

[Bishop Hedd]

reading on line the few conservative sources I can ingest without immediately wanting to throw up I am not surprised to find they are all pretty much either down-playing the Times survey with mocking indignation such as the National Review, or scathingly defensive like many on this board. They fail to acknowledge that these views didn't come from the authors but rather the same people they had talked to five years ago when they were writing a book about religion and politics. These are peoples views. I used the term "waning" rather than say "the last days of a political movement" because I am not niave enough to believe this movement will be gone next election. I do think that their ideological purity is only going to come back and bite them in the ass in another classic case of conservative overreach. The signs are all there and I know some of you are smart enough to see them.

 

 

 

 

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/us/29cncwarren.html?_r=1

[erynthered]

Nice work, Deb.

[OCinBuffalo]

And how long would the long version be?

 

Your attempt at being a wiseass has FAILED. Now go back, re-read the post, and realize your error.

[Magox]

Your attempt at being a wiseass has FAILED. Now go back, re-read the post, and realize your error.

actually it was pretty funny

[OCinBuffalo]

Don't get me wrong, OCin. It seems as if you know your stuff a lot of the time. It also seems as if you're convinced you know everything and that any contrary opinion is invalid simply because it challenges your omniscience (I'm not talking specifically about this thread, by the way).

 

When it comes to rare moments of legitimate conversation, you bring a good deal of knowledge and even a certain understated wit to the table. More often, though, you're preoccupied with writing mini-diatribes about how stupid other people are because they fail to comprehend the incontrovertible truth that you always seem to brilliantly recognize.

 

That's the impression I get, anyway.

 

1. I tell the truth, too bad if you don't like it. If you try to duck it, I hit you with it again, and again, until you accept the facts as they are. IF that take 4 words or 400 words, too f'ing bad..

 

 

2. I do know a lot. I certainly know more than many posters but that's not the real reason I know a lot. The real reason is: I haven't stopped learning. They have.

 

It's pretty funny when people who call themselves "intellectuals" mess up basic economics, history, statistics, etc. They could choose to take these classes any time at community college. But they don't. They could choose to educate themselves a number of ways but these "I am on the left, so that makes me smart" people choose to argue based on ignorance. The same goes for the Ron Paul people. Few of them can actually back up their wild ass accusations, and even fewer, including Ron Paul himself the other night, can tell us HOW they would accomplish their agenda in the real world we live in today...yet they all tell us they are smarter and know more than we do.

 

3. I am wholly unconcerned with contrary opinion. That is because I base what I say only on what is true, not what I wish was true.

 

4. If you really look at it though, them "failing to comprehend incontrovertible truth" is exactly what has happened. I have been right on so many things, and they have been wrong on so many things, without being accountable for any of it, issue after issue, year after year. That's also why I write such long posts sometimes, so I can absolutely cover the entire issue...so that they can't come back later and say "yeah but". So they can' t come back and say "yeah but you didn't write about X, so you weren't 100% right"....

 

actually it was pretty funny

 

Another fish? Go back and re-read the post.

[Magox]

1. I tell the truth, too bad if you don't like it. If you try to duck it, I hit you with it again, and again, until you accept the facts as they are. IF that take 4 words or 400 words, too f'ing bad..

 

 

2. I do know a lot. I certainly know more than many posters but that's not the real reason I know a lot. The real reason is: I haven't stopped learning. They have.

 

It's pretty funny when people who call themselves "intellectuals" mess up basic economics, history, statistics, etc. They could choose to take these classes any time at community college. But they don't. They could choose to educate themselves a number of ways but these "I am on the left, so that makes me smart" people choose to argue based on ignorance. The same goes for the Ron Paul people. Few of them can actually back up their wild ass accusations, and even fewer, including Ron Paul himself the other night, can tell us HOW they would accomplish their agenda in the real world we live in today...yet they all tell us they are smarter and know more than we do.

 

3. I am wholly unconcerned with contrary opinion. That is because I base what I say only on what is true, not what I wish was true.

 

4. If you really look at it though, them "failing to comprehend incontrovertible truth" is exactly what has happened. I have been right on so many things, and they have been wrong on so many things, without being accountable for any of it, issue after issue, year after year. That's also why I write such long posts sometimes, so I can absolutely cover the entire issue...so that they can't come back later and say "yeah but". So they can' t come back and say "yeah but you didn't write about X, so you weren't 100% right"....

 

 

 

Another fish? Go back and re-read the post.

relax nancy, it was a joke.

[OCinBuffalo]

relax nancy, it was a joke.

 

Go back and re-read it.

[Magox]

Go back and re-read it.

no

[OCinBuffalo]

no

 

Do it.

[Adam]

I have no problems with the Tea Party or their methods- the filibuster needs to be limited. Their use of it is no different that when the democrats and republicans use it. Its use has become a joke in recent years.

[....lybob]

actually it was pretty funny

unfortunately OC is probably an Authority on humor I'm sure he has a long meandering incoherent emoticon filled rant as to why Brevity is not the soul of wit.

[Adam]

unfortunately OC is probably an Authority on humor I'm sure he has a long meandering incoherent emoticon filled rant as to why Brevity is not the soul of wit.

&*%*%*&I %^^%&&*&* %$^&$^%^&$

[3rdnlng]

&*%*%*&I %^^%&&*&* %$^&$^%^&$

 

Contribute much?