2016 Presidential Candidate

[beltim]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats. 

[sol]

If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.

He didn't say anything about intelligence levels, that was all you.

He said more highly educated, and on that point he is correct; liberals tend to have a slightly higher average level of education.  Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.

[Vertical Mode]

. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.

As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why?  I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.

EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.

I don't find it surprising at all. Here's why:

First, I would like to posit that, although the right likes to see itself as fiscally conservative, in practice I do not see this as the case. I will assume that most conservatives will simply dismiss this out of hand, but there is ample evidence to support it.

Second, MMM disparages blind consumerism. Which could also be cast as a healthy skepticism about free market capitalism at all costs.

Finally, MMM's philosophy includes a strong message about treading as lightly on the earth as possible, and not destroying it through wanton consumption of natural resources.

All three of these aspects of mustachianism, I would argue, align more closely with the left than with the right. So, to me, it isn't surprising that the participants on this forum tend to lean more left.

I suspect that the small subset of "financially-minded" people in the ER community are more progressive/perhaps more open-minded than what we are assuming the average is. I base this speculation on the way MMM/ERE seems to be treated every time it appears in a mainstream media outlet, that mix of skepticism and dismissal for being "too radical".

I think the answer may be some combination of that and and Kris' points 2/3 above.

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

[MoonShadow]

If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.

He didn't say anything about intelligence levels, that was all you.

He said more highly educated, and on that point he is correct; liberals tend to have a slightly higher average level of education.  Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.

I think that would depend a great deal on who you ask, and how we define "education".

[Cressida]

If this is a jab at conservatives with the old "progressives are smarter than conservatives" myth, then you are going to have a hard time if you are ever exposed to the real data on the matter.

He didn't say anything about intelligence levels, that was all you.

He said more highly educated, and on that point he is correct; liberals tend to have a slightly higher average level of education.  Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.

I think that would depend a great deal on who you ask, and how we define "education".

What would depend on who you ask? Whether liberals have a slightly higher level of education on average? Or whether it's a different discussion than the correlation of intelligence and education? I'm sure it's easy enough to find statistics proving or disproving the former; the latter is just plain true on its face. I'm not sure any of it depends on "who you ask."

[MDM]

Whether or not intelligence and education are correlated is an entirely different discussion.

I think that would depend a great deal on who you ask, and how we define "education".

And how one defines and measures intelligence.

[Bob W]

well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican?      I think the right will rise up come general election time.   A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates.    Conservatives are done with that.   

Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.

If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.

. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still,  it would have been all Republican.  The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

[MoonShadow]

They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still,  it would have been all Republican.  The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

There was good reasons for that.

[beltim]

well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican?      I think the right will rise up come general election time.   A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates.    Conservatives are done with that.   

Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.

If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.

. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still,  it would have been all Republican.  The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

You may want to review your history.  The Constitution didn't give the state legislatures the power to appoint delegates - the Constitution gave legislatures the power to choose how to select the electors.  Even in the first election, six of ten states that actually selected electors used the popular vote.

[MoonShadow]

well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican?      I think the right will rise up come general election time.   A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates.    Conservatives are done with that.   

Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.

If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.

. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still,  it would have been all Republican.  The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

You may want to review your history.  The Constitution didn't give the state legislatures the power to appoint delegates - the Constitution gave legislatures the power to choose how to select the electors.

This is true, but I think that he was referring to the Seventeenth Amendment, wherein the US Senate was elected by direct vote as opposed to appointed by state legislators under the original wording of the Constitution.  Although if correct, he didn't put it well.  The electoral college is a mirror of congress, but is not actually composed of members of congress.  I've run into this mistaken belief so often, I basicly assume most people believe it until they prove otherwise.

  Even in the first election, six of ten states that actually selected electors used the popular vote.

Yes, six out of 13 bothered to actually follow the electoral process defined in the Constitution they just ratified.  Under half.  While three didn't bother with electors at all.  It's an enormous irony that the first POTUS under the new constitution was functionally appointed, not popularly elected.  Most Americans are taught that Washington won the electoral college by unanimous vote, which is factually correct.  Almost none are taught that the properly elected electors didn't even manage a proper quorum.  If there were a proper vote of the public, there is a decent chance John Adams would have been the first POTUS.

[beltim]

well if the country is tending left then why is the house, senate and most state governments Republican?      I think the right will rise up come general election time.   A socialist or ultra socialist seem to be the likely Democrat candidates.    Conservatives are done with that.   

Gerrymandering. The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states. And the Congressional districts are drawn so that Democratic voters are packed in high percentages into their districts while Republican voters have slight majorities in their districts more frequently. For example, in 2012 Democratic House candidates beat Republican House candidates by over 1.3 million votes. Yet the election tally had Republicans win in terms of seats with 234-201.

If you look at the presidential level, the Democratic candidate has won the popular vote in 5 of the last 6 elections.

. They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still,  it would have been all Republican.  The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

You may want to review your history.  The Constitution didn't give the state legislatures the power to appoint delegates - the Constitution gave legislatures the power to choose how to select the electors.

This is true, but I think that he was referring to the Seventeenth Amendment, wherein the US Senate was elected by direct vote as opposed to appointed by state legislators under the original wording of the Constitution.  Although if correct, he didn't put it well.  The electoral college is a mirror of congress, but is not actually composed of members of congress.  I've run into this mistaken belief so often, I basicly assume most people believe it until they prove otherwise.

I don't think he was talking about the Senate because he was talking about the popular vote and the electoral college.  In any case, he was mistaken about something.

  Even in the first election, six of ten states that actually selected electors used the popular vote.

Yes, six out of 13 bothered to actually follow the electoral process defined in the Constitution they just ratified.  Under half.  While three didn't bother with electors at all.  It's an enormous irony that the first POTUS under the new constitution was functionally appointed, not popularly elected.  Most Americans are taught that Washington won the electoral college by unanimous vote, which is factually correct.  Almost none are taught that the properly elected electors didn't even manage a proper quorum.  If there were a proper vote of the public, there is a decent chance John Adams would have been the first POTUS.

Well, there were only 11 states that had ratified the constitution at that point, so 6 out of 11.

What are you talking about when you say "the properly elected electors didn't even manage a proper quorum?"

Edit: Changed "10" to "11."  New York had ratified the Constitution, but didn't select electors.

[Cressida]

The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?

And what "2 elections" are you talking about? Like 2014, where the Republicans took back the Senate? That one? That's the one the "Republican base simply sat out of"?

Do you *really* think any of your post has a passing acquaintance with reality? If so, why? And if not, why did you post it?

[Kris]

. As has been pointed out numerous times, this forum typically leans heavily to the left. I'm not sure why this comes across as any sort of surprise to you unless your reading comprehension is even more suspect than you let on.

As for myself, I quickly noticed that this forum leans hard to the left, but what I can't quite understand is why?  I'm neither left nor right, but it's been my experience that financially minded types actually lean a little to the right, but not nearly as strongly as this forum leans left.

EDIT: However, I do find it encouraging that Rand Paul leads among Repub candidates; but I still don't know what that says about the membership of this forum.

I don't find it surprising at all. Here's why:

First, I would like to posit that, although the right likes to see itself as fiscally conservative, in practice I do not see this as the case. I will assume that most conservatives will simply dismiss this out of hand, but there is ample evidence to support it.

Second, MMM disparages blind consumerism. Which could also be cast as a healthy skepticism about free market capitalism at all costs.

Finally, MMM's philosophy includes a strong message about treading as lightly on the earth as possible, and not destroying it through wanton consumption of natural resources.

All three of these aspects of mustachianism, I would argue, align more closely with the left than with the right. So, to me, it isn't surprising that the participants on this forum tend to lean more left.

I suspect that the small subset of "financially-minded" people in the ER community are more progressive/perhaps more open-minded than what we are assuming the average is. I base this speculation on the way MMM/ERE seems to be treated every time it appears in a mainstream media outlet, that mix of skepticism and dismissal for being "too radical".

I think the answer may be some combination of that and and Kris' points 2/3 above.

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

VerticalMode, I'd just like to take a moment and express my appreciation for your reasonableness and clarity of thought. Thank you.

[nereo]

They may have won the popular vote but if the constitution hadn't been amended to change the electorial crap and the state legislators appointed delegates still,  it would have been all Republican.  The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

A constitutional amendment is among the hardest of things to pass - the framers intended it to be that way so that it could only be changed when there was broad support.

If the constitution hadn't been amended, blacks and women also wouldn't have been able to vote.  Just sayin'...

[forummm]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.

State   St Popn   St Popn D1   St Popn D2
 Alabama   4,822,023   0   0
 Alaska   731,449   0   0
 Arizona   6,553,255   0   0
 Arkansas   2,949,131   0   0
 California   38,041,430   38,041,430   38,041,430
 Colorado   5,187,582   5,187,582   0
 Connecticut   3,590,347   3,590,347   3,590,347
 Delaware   917,092   917,092   917,092
 Florida   19,317,568   19,317,568   0
 Georgia   9,919,945   0   0
 Hawaii   1,392,313   1,392,313   1,392,313
 Idaho   1,595,728   0   0
 Illinois   12,875,255   12,875,255   0
 Indiana   6,537,334   6,537,334   0
 Iowa   3,074,186   0   0
 Kansas   2,885,905   0   0
 Kentucky   4,380,415   0   0
 Louisiana   4,601,893   0   0
 Maine   1,329,192   1,329,192   0
 Maryland   5,884,563   5,884,563   5,884,563
 Massachusetts   6,646,144   6,646,144   6,646,144
 Michigan   9,883,360   9,883,360   9,883,360
 Minnesota   5,379,139   5,379,139   5,379,139
 Mississippi   2,984,926   0   0
 Missouri   6,021,988   6,021,988   0
 Montana   1,005,141   1,005,141   0
 Nebraska   1,855,525   0   0
 Nevada   2,758,931   2,758,931   0
 New Hampshire   1,320,718   1,320,718   0
 New Jersey   8,864,590   8,864,590   8,864,590
 New Mexico   2,085,538   2,085,538   2,085,538
 New York   19,570,261   19,570,261   19,570,261
 North Carolina   9,752,073   0   0
 North Dakota   699,628   699,628   0
 Ohio   11,544,225   11,544,225   0
 Oklahoma   3,814,820   0   0
 Oregon   3,899,353   3,899,353   3,899,353
 Pennsylvania   12,763,536   12,763,536   0
 Rhode Island   1,050,292   1,050,292   1,050,292
 South Carolina   4,723,723   0   0
 South Dakota   833,354   0   0
 Tennessee   6,456,243   0   0
 Texas   26,059,203   0   0
 Utah   2,855,287   0   0
 Vermont   626,011   626,011   626,011
 Virginia   8,185,867   8,185,867   8,185,867
 Washington   6,897,012   6,897,012   6,897,012
 West Virginia   1,855,413   1,855,413   0
 Wisconsin   5,726,398   5,726,398   0
 Wyoming   576,412   0   0

Total Democratic: 334,769,533 ~53.5%
Total Republican: 291,793,901 ~46.5%
Democratic Senators: 46
Republican Senators 54

So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).

[FIPurpose]

Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.

[regulator]

The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?

Largely irrelevant, IMO.  If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not.  This is a tragedy of the commons thing.  If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.

[beltim]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.

...
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).

That's fine, but not what you said.  You said Republicans had the advantage in the Senate because they tend to come from really small states.  Unless "really small" is like the 20th- lowest in population, then that's not the explanation.  Saying that Republican senators on average represent fewer voters is different. 

[Bob W]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.

State   St Popn   St Popn D1   St Popn D2
 Alabama   4,822,023   0   0
 Alaska   731,449   0   0
 Arizona   6,553,255   0   0
 Arkansas   2,949,131   0   0
 California   38,041,430   38,041,430   38,041,430
 Colorado   5,187,582   5,187,582   0
 Connecticut   3,590,347   3,590,347   3,590,347
 Delaware   917,092   917,092   917,092
 Florida   19,317,568   19,317,568   0
 Georgia   9,919,945   0   0
 Hawaii   1,392,313   1,392,313   1,392,313
 Idaho   1,595,728   0   0
 Illinois   12,875,255   12,875,255   0
 Indiana   6,537,334   6,537,334   0
 Iowa   3,074,186   0   0
 Kansas   2,885,905   0   0
 Kentucky   4,380,415   0   0
 Louisiana   4,601,893   0   0
 Maine   1,329,192   1,329,192   0
 Maryland   5,884,563   5,884,563   5,884,563
 Massachusetts   6,646,144   6,646,144   6,646,144
 Michigan   9,883,360   9,883,360   9,883,360
 Minnesota   5,379,139   5,379,139   5,379,139
 Mississippi   2,984,926   0   0
 Missouri   6,021,988   6,021,988   0
 Montana   1,005,141   1,005,141   0
 Nebraska   1,855,525   0   0
 Nevada   2,758,931   2,758,931   0
 New Hampshire   1,320,718   1,320,718   0
 New Jersey   8,864,590   8,864,590   8,864,590
 New Mexico   2,085,538   2,085,538   2,085,538
 New York   19,570,261   19,570,261   19,570,261
 North Carolina   9,752,073   0   0
 North Dakota   699,628   699,628   0
 Ohio   11,544,225   11,544,225   0
 Oklahoma   3,814,820   0   0
 Oregon   3,899,353   3,899,353   3,899,353
 Pennsylvania   12,763,536   12,763,536   0
 Rhode Island   1,050,292   1,050,292   1,050,292
 South Carolina   4,723,723   0   0
 South Dakota   833,354   0   0
 Tennessee   6,456,243   0   0
 Texas   26,059,203   0   0
 Utah   2,855,287   0   0
 Vermont   626,011   626,011   626,011
 Virginia   8,185,867   8,185,867   8,185,867
 Washington   6,897,012   6,897,012   6,897,012
 West Virginia   1,855,413   1,855,413   0
 Wisconsin   5,726,398   5,726,398   0
 Wyoming   576,412   0   0

Total Democratic: 334,769,533 ~53.5%
Total Republican: 291,793,901 ~46.5%
Democratic Senators: 46
Republican Senators 54

So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).

Wow that was a lot of work!   I have no ideas what those numbers mean or what you were trying to demonstrate statically?   In our winner take all political game you've shown that the Republicans are winning.  That is a trend likely to continue. 

The original discussion on this subtopic was on left vs. right so simply juxtaposing Dem and Rep isn't entirely accurate.  For instance,  I'm Libertarian (both IQ scores and education much higher for our group) and could either be classified and ultra conservative or ultra liberal.   Or you could just say we are realists without party affiliation. 

Many people who vote as Democrats are very conservative.   Many Catholics in big cities have traditionally voted Democrat even though they agree with most every Republican social policy.  They have done this with regard to Union affiliation.  Hispanics as a group can easily be termed conservative in that they are generally more Catholic.   Their voting has trended Democrat.   

It is also a widely accepted truism that as people age they become more conservative and more likely to vote Republican.   So yeah,  we are in an aging population with a declining Union workforce.   (I also might mention that at one time many Democrats were ultra conservative. Dixicrats ruled for a long time but party affiliations have changed drastically in my lifetime)

Is it just me or is Thursday gonna be a huge show?    They should put that shit on pay per view. 

 Imagine a stage full of ass wipes competing for title of biggest ass wipe with Trump leading the parade.     I can just see Huckabee in his grandfather voice   ---- "not only is global warming a liberal lie but data shows that the earth has had much higher CO2 levels when dinosaurs roamed the earth-- and that was just 10,000 years ago -- and we used them as farm animals"  All other candidates nod their head in agreement. 

When will the Republicans wise up?  All's they need to do is admit climate change, roll over on Abortion and it would be game set match.

I can't decide if it is more embarrassing to be a "climate change is just a big lie"  Republican or a "we think violent criminals are just oppressed and misunderstood"  Democrat. 

What a country!

[MDM]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

No, still true.
...
Total Democratic: 334,769,533 ~53.5%
Total Republican: 291,793,901 ~46.5%
Democratic Senators: 46
Republican Senators 54

Have to give this one to beltim, as the two "10, 10, and 10" claims are supported by the data in forummm's post.

There is a separate argument one could make (and many have) about current proportional representation (or lack thereof) in the House of Representatives.

But the Senate, from its inception, was designed specifically not to be representative of overall population (as flyingcircle noted).  E.g., see http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Constitution_Senate.htm.

[Bob W]

The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?

Largely irrelevant, IMO.  If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not.  This is a tragedy of the commons thing.  If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.

Crap no!  I live in a rural Republican area.  Most of the welfare,  social security,  Medicare,  Government employees,  military, school teachers vote Republican.     Hell we even have the "Creation Museum"  here where you can go and see for yourself that evolution is a lie and the sedimentary record was all laid down by God just before he wrote the Bible.

We take and take as many free televisions around here as possible.   Every Medicare/Republican around here has a standing monthly $150 doctor visit to make sure they are still fat, have high blood pressure and are diabetic.  Shit their not paying for it and it gives them something to look forward to.

We even use our food stamps to buy jumbo shrimp to use for fishing bait.

What a country!

[sol]

Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.

No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen.    As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state.  You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation?  That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.

I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either. 

American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress.  I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote.  Ditto for the stupid electoral college.  It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.

But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.

[forummm]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.

...
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).

That's fine, but not what you said.  You said Republicans had the advantage in the Senate because they tend to come from really small states.  Unless "really small" is like the 20th- lowest in population, then that's not the explanation.  Saying that Republican senators on average represent fewer voters is different. 

No, I said "The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states." My analysis is enough to support that.

The 10 state analysis is a quick idea, but not exactly what I said. And is an arbitrary number. The large states are still disproportionately represented by Democrats, and the large states represented by Democrats are much larger than the large states represented by Republicans. If you go with the largest 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 12, 13, or 14 states, there are more Democratic senators. You just chose 10 (one of only 3 numbers missing from that list). And all of the missing ones (2, 8, and 10) still have more population being represented by Democrats cumulatively. CA has 12 million more people than TX. The differences are large with the bigger states.

The top 14 states have 200 million people and (using the method of counting each person twice) are represented  roughly 253 million D to 147 million R.

[forummm]

Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.

No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen.    As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state.  You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation?  That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.

I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either. 

American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress.  I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote.  Ditto for the stupid electoral college.  It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.

But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.

And meanwhile DC has no voting members of the House or Senate, but Congress controls their governance more than any state.

[beltim]

The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states.

You're right about the other points, but the Senate claim isn't really true.  The 10 lowest population states are represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.  The 10 highest population states are also represented by 10 Republicans and 10 Democrats.

No, still true. Here's an analysis using 2012 population data (easiest available) and the current U.S. Senate seat occupancy, assigning the independents to the Democratic tally since they caucus with the Democrats. For simplicity each person gets counted twice (once for each senator that represents them), and I only tallied the number of people represented by Democrats. The 3rd column is the state population if they have at least 1 Democratic senator. The 4th column is the state population if they have 2 Democratic senators. A 0 means the senator is a Republican.

...
So Republicans are over-represented in the Senate as well (by about 7.5 seats).

That's fine, but not what you said.  You said Republicans had the advantage in the Senate because they tend to come from really small states.  Unless "really small" is like the 20th- lowest in population, then that's not the explanation.  Saying that Republican senators on average represent fewer voters is different. 

No, I said "The Republicans in the Senate tend to come from really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats who tend to come from larger states." My analysis is enough to support that.

The 10 state analysis is a quick idea, but not exactly what I said. And is an arbitrary number.

Maybe we're just disagreeing about what "really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats" means then.  There are just as many Democratic Senators as Republicans in the 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, smallest states by population.  At no point do Republicans have more than 2 more Senators than Democrats until you get to the 18th state.

Incidentally, showing the Democratic Senators tend to come from the largest states doesn't prove anything about whether Republican Senators come from really small states.  And, a majority of the population effect that you're describing comes from the fact that CA has two Democratic senators.  If that went to 1/1, the average number of people represented by Republicans versus Democrats would be within 10% of each other.

[Glenstache]

Sidebar: the single-axis left vs right is a very convenient tool of discussion for a system dominated by two parties. However, I think among just the people participating in this forum it is clear that the mix of issues in politics does not fit that one-dimensional view. I think it is a two-axis spectrum:
1. Social Issues
2. Financial Issues (and by extension size of Government)


Returning to the point about this forum leaning left, at a personal level many of us lean left on social issues be it for left or libertarian reasons. While we are largely pretty conservative in our personal finances, there is much more spread among us in axis 2 as it applies to our society.

Philosophical points on republicanism vs federalism aside, economic understanding is an overlay of axis 2, which boils down to a Milton Friedman vs Keynes spectrum, or more broadly if a person believes that microeconomics principals apply at the macroeconomic level (and yes, I am showing some of my own bias there and doing great injustice to economists... which is exactly what reducing things to an axis does).

[beltim]

Oh, and if you look at how many votes current Senators actually got, it's pretty close to 50/50, with a slight advantage to Democrats (51/49).  There are a bunch of caveats about that, though it's still pretty interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html

[Chris22]

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government.  Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.

That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it. 

The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles.  I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.

[Glenstache]

The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles.  I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.

As a first guess, I'd have to say there is a pretty huge opportunity cost to defense spending. Remember, much military hardware is often built to be blown up or otherwise expended with very few opportunities for alternate uses.

[forummm]

Maybe we're just disagreeing about what "really small states that represent much fewer people than the Democrats" means then.  There are just as many Democratic Senators as Republicans in the 2, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15, and 16, smallest states by population.  At no point do Republicans have more than 2 more Senators than Democrats until you get to the 18th state.

Incidentally, showing the Democratic Senators tend to come from the largest states doesn't prove anything about whether Republican Senators come from really small states.  And, a majority of the population effect that you're describing comes from the fact that CA has two Democratic senators.  If that went to 1/1, the average number of people represented by Republicans versus Democrats would be within 10% of each other.

Maybe the arbitrary cutoffs is the discrepancy. That and doing simple counts instead of tallying population (which was the point I was making). If you tally the populations (using same methodology as above) for the smallest 5 states for example it's 5M R vs 2M D. For 20 states, it's 43.5M R vs 21.1M D. For 30 it's 100M vs 52M. There are certainly places where the numbers are about even in the smaller states (e.g. 10 states), but that's why I said "tend".

I do think it's interesting (although maybe not useful) that the states that have 2/3 of the entire nation's population are so skewed (2/3 to 1/3). Yet another reason the primary system that focuses on states that are tiny, rural, homogeneous, and very unrepresentative of the nation leads to candidates focusing on issues that are not of interest to so many people.

Oh, and if you look at how many votes current Senators actually got, it's pretty close to 50/50, with a slight advantage to Democrats (51/49).  There are a bunch of caveats about that, though it's still pretty interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html

Yeah, the caveats are too large to really pay too much attention to that. There are huge differences in the number of people who could be voting in certain states, and the 3 tier rotation makes the comparison between mid-year and presidential cycles without adjusting for that. And a lot of states had races that were not competitive. So it's not a reliable number.

[forummm]

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government.  Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.

That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it. 

The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles.  I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.

Why is it that "government can't create jobs" unless they are military jobs? I'm not saying you hold those two views. It's just commonly repeated by people who want to spend huge amounts on the military and not much on anything else.

Since military spending is generally to destroy things, it would be a better investment to invest in things that produce greater economic output. For example, investing in infrastructure (universal gigabit Internet, roads, etc), research, education, etc. So while "defense" could be worthwhile spending money on as it does benefit us, it's not a very useful "investment" beyond the level necessary to sustain our independence as a nation. I would actually say that money "invested" in the military has been a net drain on resources since we tend to waste those excess resources in a way that further decreases our economic output (say by creating terrorism).

[regulator]

I think its funny that you guys apparently believe that votes matter.  Its all about who writes the checks, not who votes for what.

[forummm]

I think its funny that you guys apparently believe that votes matter.  Its all about who writes the checks, not who votes for what.

I generally agree. Because our choices on people to vote for are controlled by the people who write the checks.

[Bob W]

Oh, and if you look at how many votes current Senators actually got, it's pretty close to 50/50, with a slight advantage to Democrats (51/49).  There are a bunch of caveats about that, though it's still pretty interesting.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/01/05/the_myth_of_democrats_20-million-vote_majority_125145.html

Well the Republicans would have had another Senator at the last turn if that idiot Republican hadn't said it is  impossible for a woman to get pregnant from being raped. 

[Bob W]

Sidebar: the single-axis left vs right is a very convenient tool of discussion for a system dominated by two parties. However, I think among just the people participating in this forum it is clear that the mix of issues in politics does not fit that one-dimensional view. I think it is a two-axis spectrum:
1. Social Issues
2. Financial Issues (and by extension size of Government)


Returning to the point about this forum leaning left, at a personal level many of us lean left on social issues be it for left or libertarian reasons. While we are largely pretty conservative in our personal finances, there is much more spread among us in axis 2 as it applies to our society.

Philosophical points on republicanism vs federalism aside, economic understanding is an overlay of axis 2, which boils down to a Milton Friedman vs Keynes spectrum, or more broadly if a person believes that microeconomics principals apply at the macroeconomic level (and yes, I am showing some of my own bias there and doing great injustice to economists... which is exactly what reducing things to an axis does).

Yeah that is pretty much the rub ---- I couldn't give a rip about gays or abortions but at the same time believe in reducing government spending.   Of course as one poster noted ---- the Republicans are all show and no go on this.   They are freaking terrible at budgeting which might be expected from people who can't understand the simple numbers behind global climate change.   

So yeah --  Many of us are stuck and have to pick the least of the crazies.  Luckily in the Presidential Election there is always a Libertarian to chose from.

[Cressida]

The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?

Largely irrelevant, IMO.  If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not.  This is a tragedy of the commons thing.  If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.

Crap no!  I live in a rural Republican area.  Most of the welfare,  social security,  Medicare,  Government employees,  military, school teachers vote Republican.

then why did you contrast "Republican" and "welfare" in your post ...

oh never mind, I give up.

[regulator]

The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?

Largely irrelevant, IMO.  If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not.  This is a tragedy of the commons thing.  If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.

Crap no!  I live in a rural Republican area.  Most of the welfare,  social security,  Medicare,  Government employees,  military, school teachers vote Republican.

then why did you contrast "Republican" and "welfare" in your post ...

oh never mind, I give up.

Waste of time.  All the process of gubmint these days is about looting the public coffers and delivering spoils to your backers.  We can put labels on this activity or not, but it boils down to the same thing no matter which legislator is delivering what to which recipient.

[FIPurpose]

Except Senators are not based on population by design. And anyone that lives in a low population state knows that the Senate is their only real representation. I can't imagine anyone in Wyoming thinking their state has great power in the House. Without equal representatives in the Senate these States would quickly become disenfranchised.

No, without equal representative in the Senate, people on those states would have proportional representation in Congress like every other American citizen.    As it stands, the Senate effectively gives you more political power if you live in a low-population state.  You're seriously arguing it would be LESS fair to give every person equal representation?  That's not disenfranchisement, that's fairness.

I understand why the Constitution was written to give extra power to some states, but I also understand why it made slaves count as 3/5 of a person and I don't agree with that logic either. 

American citizens should all have an equal voice in Congress.  I'd be in favor of expanding the Senate to look like the House, and then deciding those elections based on the popular vote.  Ditto for the stupid electoral college.  It made sense in the 1700s, not so much today.

But it's a stupid dream, this notion of representative democracy, and it will never happen in America because Republicans know they would lose power in a system where the voices of American citizens were all counted equally.

There is already a body that votes based on population; we don't need two.

What would be the point of the Senate being a smaller version of the House? You might as well get rid of it altogether then. But the fact remains that representatives vote based on the needs and desires of their constituents.  Most federal bills affect states disproportionately for good or for bad. And Reps fight to bring home jobs to their States, but what happens if a bill comes to the floor that is favorable to large population states and not favorable to small population states? One would hope that Reps. would not harm small states out of compassion, but there wouldn't be anything to stop Large State Reps to push a bill through for their own good and the detriment of small states. Without the Senate, small States would have essentially no voice in what can happen in their own land by federal powers.

It is not antiquated. It is in fact, the only thing that keeps the small States sovereign from larger ones.

[Vertical Mode]

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government.  Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.

That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it.

The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles.  I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.

Why is it that "government can't create jobs" unless they are military jobs? I'm not saying you hold those two views. It's just commonly repeated by people who want to spend huge amounts on the military and not much on anything else.

Since military spending is generally to destroy things, it would be a better investment to invest in things that produce greater economic output. For example, investing in infrastructure (universal gigabit Internet, roads, etc), research, education, etc. So while "defense" could be worthwhile spending money on as it does benefit us, it's not a very useful "investment" beyond the level necessary to sustain our independence as a nation. I would actually say that money "invested" in the military has been a net drain on resources since we tend to waste those excess resources in a way that further decreases our economic output (say by creating terrorism).

Chris22, the part that I've bolded is what I get hung up on. An example of this would be Senators insisting on purchasing tanks that the military doesn't want or need, because tanks are manufactured in their district:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html

I'm harping on tanks, but they're hardly the only culprit here. Just an example.

Your point about defense being one of the primary charges of the Government (and therefore one of its priorities) is well taken. My issue is with those who resist the notion that we could be more efficient in how we go about doing this and insist that we continue to devote resources even where they aren't needed (Especially when those who use them explicitly say so).

Forummm, that's what the "...expense of investment in other areas" I was referring to is. It's no secret that our digital and physical infrastructure could use some design and construction funding. Understanding these things as an "investment" vs. "spending" is the first step toward galvanizing public opinion on making them a priority and fixing them. Government spending can absolutely create non-military jobs - mine, for starters.

Both of you touch on the notion of spending under the umbrella of "defense" creating other externalities in the economy. Perhaps directing some of the surplus tank funding to DARPA, research grants, or similar kinds of things, might pay more dividends and preserve some of those white-collar opportunities you mention, Chris? IIRC, DARPA research gave us the Internet (or was that Al Gore?), NASA scientists working toward the Apollo program gave us WD-40, etc. To the extent that we could allocate these resources where they'd produce positive externalities, I could be OK with that.

[Chris22]

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government.  Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.

That being said, even as someone pretty "hawkish" I think there's a TON of waste in defense spending, and I would be happy to vote for a candidate who cut defense, but there's an intelligent way to do that and a dumb way to do it.

The other thing is that as defense is also a huge jobs creator in the US, and many of the jobs are well-paid professional/white collar roles.  I'd love to see a true end-to-end analysis on the cost of defense when you consider the taxes paid and economic stimulation provided by all of those who build our advanced weapons platforms and such.

Why is it that "government can't create jobs" unless they are military jobs? I'm not saying you hold those two views. It's just commonly repeated by people who want to spend huge amounts on the military and not much on anything else.

Since military spending is generally to destroy things, it would be a better investment to invest in things that produce greater economic output. For example, investing in infrastructure (universal gigabit Internet, roads, etc), research, education, etc. So while "defense" could be worthwhile spending money on as it does benefit us, it's not a very useful "investment" beyond the level necessary to sustain our independence as a nation. I would actually say that money "invested" in the military has been a net drain on resources since we tend to waste those excess resources in a way that further decreases our economic output (say by creating terrorism).

Chris22, the part that I've bolded is what I get hung up on. An example of this would be Senators insisting on purchasing tanks that the military doesn't want or need, because tanks are manufactured in their district:

http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/01/28/pentagon-tells-congress-to-stop-buying-equipment-it-doesnt-need.html

I'm harping on tanks, but they're hardly the only culprit here. Just an example.

Your point about defense being one of the primary charges of the Government (and therefore one of its priorities) is well taken. My issue is with those who resist the notion that we could be more efficient in how we go about doing this and insist that we continue to devote resources even where they aren't needed (Especially when those who use them explicitly say so).

Forummm, that's what the "...expense of investment in other areas" I was referring to is. It's no secret that our digital and physical infrastructure could use some design and construction funding. Understanding these things as an "investment" vs. "spending" is the first step toward galvanizing public opinion on making them a priority and fixing them. Government spending can absolutely create non-military jobs - mine, for starters.

Both of you touch on the notion of spending under the umbrella of "defense" creating other externalities in the economy. Perhaps directing some of the surplus tank funding to DARPA, research grants, or similar kinds of things, might pay more dividends and preserve some of those white-collar opportunities you mention, Chris? IIRC, DARPA research gave us the Internet (or was that Al Gore?), NASA scientists working toward the Apollo program gave us WD-40, etc. To the extent that we could allocate these resources where they'd produce positive externalities, I could be OK with that.

100% with you.  The right way to do it is to identify stupid programs or purchases that we can do without.  The wrong way is to cut X% of all budgets or other across-the-board measures that don't make sense.  I also think that there can be a lot done on the manpower side as far as realigning retirement programs, etc, to make them more advantageous for both the military member and the country (ie, no reason to have a pension that goes from 0% vesting to ~50% vesting at year 20 which is an arbitrary line; scale it up by year, or do something else that aligns manpower needs with retention.)

[MoonShadow]

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government.  Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.

That's true, but the national library system is also in the Constitution.  I typically don't see many fiscal conservatives arguing in favor of the public library system on either a local or national level.

[Chris22]

Sidebar: the single-axis left vs right is a very convenient tool of discussion for a system dominated by two parties. However, I think among just the people participating in this forum it is clear that the mix of issues in politics does not fit that one-dimensional view. I think it is a two-axis spectrum:
1. Social Issues
2. Financial Issues (and by extension size of Government)


Returning to the point about this forum leaning left, at a personal level many of us lean left on social issues be it for left or libertarian reasons. While we are largely pretty conservative in our personal finances, there is much more spread among us in axis 2 as it applies to our society.

Philosophical points on republicanism vs federalism aside, economic understanding is an overlay of axis 2, which boils down to a Milton Friedman vs Keynes spectrum, or more broadly if a person believes that microeconomics principals apply at the macroeconomic level (and yes, I am showing some of my own bias there and doing great injustice to economists... which is exactly what reducing things to an axis does).

Yeah that is pretty much the rub ---- I couldn't give a rip about gays or abortions but at the same time believe in reducing government spending.   Of course as one poster noted ---- the Republicans are all show and no go on this.   They are freaking terrible at budgeting which might be expected from people who can't understand the simple numbers behind global climate change.   

So yeah --  Many of us are stuck and have to pick the least of the crazies.  Luckily in the Presidential Election there is always a Libertarian to chose from.

Correct with the bolded.  The problem is, we as voters have had to chose between people who said they were in favor of cutting spending, and didn't cut it, and people who didn't say they were in favor of cutting spending, and didn't cut it.  I'd rather vote for the guy who says he's going to do what I agree with even if he doesn't over voting for the guy who tells me he's going to do exactly what I don't want him to do.  Voting for the latter rewards the behavior and virtually guarantees I'll never get the former.

[Chris22]

Kris, as a conservative myself, it pains me to admit that you're probably right about the first point. The Republican party of today is full of hawkish types that regard defense and military spending as sacred, even at the expense of investment in other areas. One of the only exceptions to that trend is MoonShadow's friend Rand Paul, who looks surprisingly good compared to the field of alternatives right now.

Most fiscal conservatives tend to also be pretty strict Consitutionalists, and would point out that defense is one of the specifically enumerated powers given to the federal government.  Therefore, it's not necessarily a contradiction for a fiscal conservative to believe the Feds should pay for a good standing Army and Navy.

That's true, but the national library system is also in the Constitution.  I typically don't see many fiscal conservatives arguing in favor of the public library system on either a local or national level.

I wasn't aware they were pushing to disband or defund it to any substantial degree, either. 

[MoonShadow]

   They are freaking terrible at budgeting which might be expected from people who can't understand the simple numbers behind global climate change.   

I have reviewed those simple numbers, and they are far from simple.  You are playing with a can of worms and a can opener here.

[Bob W]

The Republican base simply sat out of the last 2 elections while the welfare crowd was energized.

I just ... Dude. Do you really think no Republicans are on welfare? Seriously? Do you really think this?

Largely irrelevant, IMO.  If you are a rational person, you take the welfare whether you think it is appropriate or not.  This is a tragedy of the commons thing.  If the gubmint says "free televisions for everyone!" you would be foolish not to take one even if you think it is stupid/criminal/already have enough televisions.

Crap no!  I live in a rural Republican area.  Most of the welfare,  social security,  Medicare,  Government employees,  military, school teachers vote Republican.

then why did you contrast "Republican" and "welfare" in your post ...

oh never mind, I give up.

I'm not sure you know how this show works?   It isn't about reality.

The Republicans are generally opposed to "welfare" which is a code word for inner city welfare queens.   They are in favor of "gun owners" which is code word for poor rural folks who happen to live in their districts. 

And more significantly Republicans are opposed to federal taxes of which their bible thumping southern supports generally pay net negative.  That is why the Republicans never actually lower taxes because a majority of that tax money is routed to poor southern states either directly through welfare programs or indirectly through military bases/spending. 

It is curious and ironic that the south, which is occupied by the Yankee army, is so pro military.   It comes down to who butters their bread.  And yes, all Republican politician know a large part of their base is low income, tax dependent. 

It is the tragedy of the commons when it comes to taxes and welfare.  i.e.  The belief that we should cut taxes --- just don't mess with social security,  Medicare or military spending.   Which leaves very little left to cut.   (I believe that food stamps are off the table now as well,  since many a southern farmer,  WalMart and a large constituency of the R party are now dependent on this ridiculous buy as many steaks and lobsters as you like program.)

What a Country!

[Bob W]

This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.   It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote --- it is a kinda stick it to the man,  screw politicians,  we're are sick of the way this country has been going and want a real man to run the show attitude.   That and all agreed that Hillary can eat shit and die for all we care. 

And these are Republican voters.   I think the powers of the R party may have underestimated Trumps appeal to the right, middle and left.   Name recognition means a lot in these matters (thus Bush and Clinton).   My guess is that most voters have spent more time watching Trump in the last 4 years than they have Bush (what's his first name?) and Rodham Clinton (oh wait she dropped that first part didn't she?)   I know if he came to our area there would be a huge turnout.

_____________

Think of how stupid the average person is.  Now realize that half the people are even stupider than that.  Now realize that those people are voting for President.  In my field I work with people who generally have IQs lower than 80.   Guess what?  They are all registered voters. 

[MoonShadow]

This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.   It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote

May God forgive us.

[regulator]

This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.   It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote --- it is a kinda stick it to the man,  screw politicians,  we're are sick of the way this country has been going and want a real man to run the show attitude.   That and all agreed that Hillary can eat shit and die for all we care. 

And these are Republican voters.   I think the powers of the R party may have underestimated Trumps appeal to the right, middle and left.   Name recognition means a lot in these matters (thus Bush and Clinton).   My guess is that most voters have spent more time watching Trump in the last 4 years than they have Bush (what's his first name?) and Rodham Clinton (oh wait she dropped that first part didn't she?)   I know if he came to our area there would be a huge turnout.

_____________

Think of how stupid the average person is.  Now realize that half the people are even stupider than that.  Now realize that those people are voting for President.  In my field I work with people who generally have IQs lower than 80.   Guess what?  They are all registered voters.

On the other side, I have plenty of leftists and statists in my facebook feed.  They are all pounding the table for Sanders.  The latest was some poll that has Col. Sanders drawing even to slightly ahead of Clinton II in New Hampshire.

So how about Sanders v. Trump?

I think I need to build an underground bunker in my backyard.

[Bob W]

This just in --- over lunch with 5 coworkers we are all excited to see Trump in the debate Thursday night.   It appeared that all agreed that Trump was likely to get their vote --- it is a kinda stick it to the man,  screw politicians,  we're are sick of the way this country has been going and want a real man to run the show attitude.   That and all agreed that Hillary can eat shit and die for all we care. 

And these are Republican voters.   I think the powers of the R party may have underestimated Trumps appeal to the right, middle and left.   Name recognition means a lot in these matters (thus Bush and Clinton).   My guess is that most voters have spent more time watching Trump in the last 4 years than they have Bush (what's his first name?) and Rodham Clinton (oh wait she dropped that first part didn't she?)   I know if he came to our area there would be a huge turnout.

_____________

Think of how stupid the average person is.  Now realize that half the people are even stupider than that.  Now realize that those people are voting for President.  In my field I work with people who generally have IQs lower than 80.   Guess what?  They are all registered voters.

On the other side, I have plenty of leftists and statists in my facebook feed.  They are all pounding the table for Sanders.  The latest was some poll that has Col. Sanders drawing even to slightly ahead of Clinton II in New Hampshire.

So how about Sanders v. Trump?

I think I need to build an underground bunker in my backyard.

Or even more interesting -- Bush, Clinton, Trump, Sanders!     

[MoonShadow]

So how about Sanders v. Trump?

I think I need to build an underground bunker in my backyard.

Well, I have to give Bernie his due.  At least he is up front and honest about his ideology, even if it has been proven to fail numerous times over the past century.  Trump isn't being honest about his intentions or beliefs.  He is as much a politico as the rest of the field.  He may say what the unwashed masses are thinking, but there will be no better connection between what he says now and what he would do in the office than what Obama said and actually did.  I'm still waiting for one bankster prosecution under Obama's justice department.