Politics Thread of the DayFollow

Ok, how about just calling Jophiel an assface? You can even do it on this thread. Hell, sneak it into the middle of one of your paragraphs...

Come on Gbaji, you can't ignore me on this!

Diabolical!

Well, this is Connecticut we're talking about

If you want to put it as "He was voted off the ballot for failing to represent the Democrats of his state", so be it. It was, after all, a vote for who will be on the Democratic slate. If it makes you feel better, there's an excellent chance I'll be voting Republican in the Illinois gubernatorial race this fall.

Hah! Sorry. Since Arnold took office here in California, this word is just naturally much funnier then it used to be... ;)

Then again "California" is funnier too!

Is it time for my "Gore/Lieberman - sounds like an atrocity at a Jewish Bullfight" joke again?

Been a while.

So you rant on about how I must equate opposition to the war with liberalism if I'd dare say Lamont was more liberal and then go on to cry about MoveOn.org when I point out that you didn't have a clue what I was refering to?

Yeah, yeah.. downfall of the Democratic party, lunatics running the asylum, rude awakening in the making, etc etc. Gotcha

So Joph. Are you retracting this statement then?

You clearly believ(ed) that's why Lieberman lost. Why is it then wrong for me to respond as though that's why he lost and talk about what that means to the rest of the voters in the country?

Either he lost for this reason, and this is a shift towards Dems defining themselves by their opposition to the war, or it's not and you, the moveon.orgers, Air America, and every other person in the country is just talking about something that's not going on.


Look. It doesn't really matter why Dems voted for Lamont in this primary. It's the perception of why they voted that's going to matter. If the first assumption you made was that it was Lieberman's position on the war that caused this vote result, then it's reasonable to assume that most other people will assume the same thing, right? And that's going to cause the perception among moderates that I've already discussed at length.

And that *will* hurt Dems this November. It doesn't matter if the nuts are actually hijacking the Dem party, or they're just making it look like they are. The end result is the same in terms of moderate voters. I've already shown that while opposition to the war may be high among Liberal voters, it's *not* high among any other group. They're outnumbered pretty significantly by the "support a pro-war candidate", and "wont change my vote" positions nearly 2 to 1. The perception that a vote for a Dem candidate is a vote for dramatic anti-war action that may be more harmful then useful will drive moderates away from Dems.


Certainly, the highlighting of this issue by groups like moveon.org and Air America is hurting the Dems more then anything else. They're practically crowing over this primary victory right now. Which is amazing to me. You'd think someone in one of those two groups would have the smarts to realize that this really only strengthens their position with people who were already Liberals and were already going to vote for a Liberal anti-war candidate. Everyone else is pushed away.

There's a saying about battles and wars that these guys really should learn...

And a lot of people in CT. And even though you may not listen to them, or browse to moveon.org, their actions and statements have influenced you.

Where did you get the idea that Lieberman lost because of his position on the war? Someone wrote that somewhere and you read it, or you heard it on a news station somewhere, or in a conversation with someone. Guess where *they* got it from? You think your local reporter conducts in-depth political analysis? He's going to report what organizations like moveon.org say it's about.

You don't have to listen or read those sources for them to affect your views on things. They already have, and you didn't even notice.

Nope. Although you're trying to make "suggested closeness to Bush, especially on the issue of Iraq" into "Only Iraq matters and nothing else". Lieberman famously allied himself with Bush on the Schiavo case. Lieberman is against gay marriage (he's also against an amendment to ban it but he doesn't support the notion of gay unions). Lieberman is for school vouchers and privatization. Sure, the war is a big deal. But it's one piece of a campaign to link Lieberman to Bush policies.I said why I believe Lieberman lost. Because the people voting in the primary felt that Lamont would better represent them. Anything beyond that is conjecture.

I also said that the Republicans would try to seize upon this to make the people who are against the war into a fringe group (hey, like you're trying to do!) when poll numbers indicate that being against the war and feeling like the administration is doing a shitty job isn't a fringe opinion by any stretch.

I also tried to use actual links, cites and other data to back up my suggestions rather than just making guesses and saying that anyone would see that my guesses are clearly the truth Wow, that is amazing!

One could also say that the "Won't support a pro-war candidate" and "won't change my vote" combined totals (77%) are even higher yet! Now the "pro-war" guy is outnumbered over 3 to 1! Dems win! OMG! Dems win! Do you get your news from the Penny Saver or something? My news sources tend to have political commentators, Washington bureaus and correspondents and that sort of thing. I dunno.. maybe your news guys just browse the web to find opinions.

Edited, Aug 12th 2006 at 2:18am EDT by Jophiel

Joph, I think it's great you're not completely locked into one party and will consider options. I think party loyalty is a disease - but what do I know?

I also worry that even here, in the so-called "elite" realm of the Asylum, we're overly influenced by partisan politics and mainstream media (God help us, our "lenses on the world"). So many of our discussions are, like it or not, led by "others" (and "others" who are ... basically scum) - led by TV broadcasts - led by what some special interest group got some politicial to speechify about - etc. - ... and it irks me.

Forgeting whether or not insiders in the media influence output with their hidden or not-so-hidden agendas, mainstream media is heavily warped by their need to compete with Oprah, American Idol, etc. (i.e. to reach the average dummy and to compete to hold his or her attention). If it doesn't fit neatly into a "sound bite," we're not going to hear about it. Even non-mainstream media is, imo, not truly imaginative and daring in their scope (to me non-mainstream is warped more by insider politics, i.e. it's thinly veiled propaganda - whereas, again to me, mainstream media is most warped by the need to be commercial, appeal to "average folk," and make money).

Partisan politics ... do I really need to fill out a paragraph about what's wrong here? Well, maybe I should be specific about one thing - the polarizing (if not paralyzing) effect of the reality of party power. All the party really cares about is getting and maintaining power. To do that they need to get people to vote. To get the masses to vote they have to concoct a simple message (so the average dummy can understand it) that motivates them (usually it's alarmist - I find Maedros's post ironic because ALL parties engage in the conduct his Goerging quote outlines). But it's not truth. It's not deep. It's often not real. And don't tell me "your side" is above that! You'll lose so much kharma with that lie you'll be coming back as a sea slug!

One of the most hurtful downsides of party power is that we tend to feed it, even in the sanctity of our own minds. We become seduced by, "Oh, if I don't take this seriously, the other side might win." And then we find ourselves talking about "their" agenda - not necessarily "our" agenda. We also find ourselves becoming dismissive of topics which maybe we shouldn't dismiss - again - because "Who cares? My party isn't into that; therefore, it's irrelevant."

I just wonder how many of us are truly aware of how "non-independent" we are? I came to realize a few years ago how much my thinking was led by these sh*theels, and it really bothered me. It doesn't mean I think that anything said by any establishment goon is wrong - I'm not stupid. I just hate this weird hegemony that ... seems to have a stranglehold on us. And could very well be choking us from being as visionary, imaginative and free-thinking as we could and perhaps should be. Maybe I'm crazy. But non of us seem to like the status quo. And if you're looking for a root-cause that doesn't involve gray aliens or people in tinfoil hats using mind control... could this be it?

I'm not saying it is. But I'm not convinced it isn't, either.

Anyway, I'd love to challenge the "elite" Asylum to come up with some fresh, "serious" topics to discuss that are above the media sound-bite level and that are not driven by partisan rhetoric. Sometimes we do this (I'm not trying to suggest all of us are always under the media and politicians' sway), but it's usually on oddball topics which, while safe and fun, have no real impact.

I'd love to challenge you all to stretch your minds and find a political topic to discuss that's unique, non-sound-bite-driven - and is beyond party pettiness. I know, most of you are already saying "Wtf? Go away! I come here cuz I'm bored at work! I just want something edgy and silly to laugh at. Take your "serious" crap and shove it where it's always dark!" Or maybe you're thinking "EG - you asshat - you don't get me at all - don't you read my posts?!" Hey, I do, and I still see TONS of media and politician influence here. Even in my own posts! I'm guilty - I want to fight it - but I can see how the phenom. I'm discussing here has a hold on my head - and I don't like it!

But for those of you who might like this - can you come up with something we as a society really "should" be addressing but aren't because it doesn't fit neatly into sound-bite-media, it doesn't get votes because it's too complex for voters to understand (or for other reasons, like neither party benefits from it), or for whatever decent reason? Well, if you're up for it, see what you can do. I have an idea, but I'm going to hold off and see if there's any interest. If no one "gets" what I'm talking about, I don't want to waste my time.

Except that you didn't mention any of those in your post, did you. Your first statement was "Lieberman's big problem was his suggested closeness to Bush, especially on the issue of Iraq". Only after doing a bit of digging and research did you come up with the other things.



You didn't say anything remotely like that until several posts and quite a bit of argument. I've already quoted your first response Joph. You can go read it if you want. What you came up with after debating the issue for a few days and seeing a need to expand the reasons for him losing beyond just the war doesn't really count, now does it? Someone who's on the fence as to whether to vote Dem or Republican this fall isn't going to go looking for other reasons. He's going to accept the same first one you started with, which is the same reason everyone else has talked about, and he's going to react to the situation based on that.

It's all about perception Joph. You can't reasonably expect that other people wont have the exact same knee-jerk reaction to the CT primary that you did.




No. The Republicans don't need to do anything of the sort. They'll just allow folks to see that Lieberman was voted out of his own party, of which he's been a staunch member for 18 years and of which he was recently a VP candidate, primarily over his position on the war. They don't need to spin this at all. Everyone's going to make the same assumption you did. And you know what? Either that'll push them away from the Dems this fall, or it wont.

You're the one who brought up the whole "But it's not a fringe position" issue. Not me. I'm somewhat assuming it is, but I feel no need to argue with someone about it (aside perhaps from this forum, cause hey! What else are we here for?). I'm certainly not going to be printing up signs saying "Those against the war are on the fringes!" or something equally silly.

Their position is either as popular as you think it it, or as unpopular as I think it is. We'll find out this November which of us is wrong. I personally believe that the anti-war position presented in the CT primary is far less popular among moderate voters then you think it is. I don't have to convince you of this. The Republican's dont have to convince anyone of this. The voters will react to that all on their own.

It's just funny, because you seem to be trying to simultaneously argue that the CT vote wasn't really about Lieberman's position on the Iraq war to mitigate the impact that one issue had, and *also* arguing that the anti-war position isn't a fringe.

Well, if it's so much not a fringe, why try to mitigate its impact? Why not stand up on the highest mountain and shout to the world: "Yup. Lieberman lost because he's not against Bush on the Iraq war! And anyone who continues to follow Bush on this issue will get the same!". If you really thought this wasn't a fringe position, you'd not feel any need to back away from it by trying to bring up other things that might have explained Lieberman's loss.



Except you're arguing a position that requires specific "extreme" support for a specific action (voting out a candidate over an issue). If we assume that the edges (folks that will always vote Democrat or Republican) represent the left 25% and the right 25% respectively, and we also assume (reasonably) that the middle 50% may swing depending on specifics of issues and candidates (reasonable for Representatives at least, maybe not so broad for Senators and Presidents), then that means that of the "middle", you've got 13% who will vote Dem because of a choice like this, and 37% for whom it will "not make much difference".

Which, if this were a neutral issue, would be fine. But we're talking about a reaction to the primary. A primary in which it appears as though the voters decided it made a "large difference" in great numbers in this case. That sets the stage for the election. It tells those voters in the middle what they're "getting" if they vote Dem. And of that middle 50, the Dems might pick up 13%, but the other 37% will tend to go the other direction. Purely because they are going to view such an extreme change based on this issue as opposing their views on it. They're "moderates". They're going to tend to shy away from a party that's showing signs of radical shifts based on issues that they don't believe should have that large of an impact.


It's kinda like a group of people who are ordering pizza. 5 guys really like peperoni and would prefer it to be on their pizza. 6 guys absolutely hate peperoni. 10 guys don't care one way or another. If you're one of the middle group, and you have to choose which group to hang out and have pizza with, you're pretty likely to go with the one that *didn't* make a huge stink about not getting exactly what they wanted last time, right? It's not about which type of pizza you like a bit more. It's 100% about which "side" is percieved as being unreasonable. And right now, that's the Dems.

Edited, Aug 14th 2006 at 10:10pm EDT by gbaji

Huh. Any rational person would probably be able to read "especially on the issue..." as meaning "This is one of multiple issues".

I guess not you though. Gee, you sure got me there.

God... I forgot how insane you people really are.

You're ******* pathetic.

I pity you.