PDA

View Full Version : Hillary in 2008: 47% Say, "No way."


Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 02:24 PM
I've been saying this for a long time: Hillary's negative ratings disqualify her as a candidate, but here are the numbers.....

Yes, they could change in two years....but good luck.

Her nomination would be a concession to the Republicans before the general election campaign even began....

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/19/poll.presidential/index.html


Poll: Clinton gets high 'no' vote for 2008

Respondents also ranked who they were likely to vote for.



(CNN) -- With the presidential election more than two years away, a CNN poll released Monday suggests that nearly half of Americans would "definitely not vote for" Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Respondents were asked whether they would "definitely vote for," "consider voting for," or "definitely not vote for" three Democrats and three Republicans who might run for president in 2008.

Regarding potential Democratic candidates, 47 percent of respondents said they would "definitely not vote for" both Clinton, the junior senator from New York who is running for re-election this year, and Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts, the party's candidate in 2004.

(Poll (http://java script:CNN_openPopup('/interactive/allpolitics/0606/2008.polls/frameset.exclude.html','620x430','toolbar=no,location=no,directories=no,status=no,menubar=no,scrollb ars=no,resizable=no,width=620,height=430');))

Forty-eight percent said the same of former Vice President Al Gore, who has repeatedly denied he intends to run again for president. (Watch why the list of potential candidates is ridiculously long -- 2:25 (http://java script:cnnVideo('play','/video/politics/2006/06/19/schneider.2008.candidates.cnn','2006/06/26');))
Among the Republicans, Sen. John McCain of Arizona and former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani fared better than the Democrats, and Florida Gov. Jeb Bush fared worse.

Only 30 percent said they would "definitely not vote for" Giuliani; 34 percent said that of McCain.


As for Bush, brother of the current president, 63 percent said there was no way he would get their vote. The younger Bush has denied interest in running for president in 2008.

Among all choices, Clinton had the highest positive number; of those polled, 22 percent said they would "definitely vote for" her.

Giuliani was next with 19 percent, followed by Gore with 17 percent, Kerry with 14 percent, McCain with 12 percent and Bush at 9 percent.

This telephone poll of 1,001 adult Americans was conducted June 1-6 by Harris Interactive for CNN. The poll had a sampling error of plus or minus 3 percentage points...

WoodDraw
06-20-2006, 04:12 PM
My guess is that she gets out of the way fairly early, and puts her weight behind another canidate. Even if she doesn't run, she'll have a ton of influence in this next election.

htismaqe
06-20-2006, 04:13 PM
I'll bet the nominate John Edwards. He almost handled Kerry last time around...

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 04:14 PM
My guess is that she gets out of the way fairly early, and puts her weight behind another canidate. Even if she doesn't run, she'll have a ton of influence in this next election.

That would be the wise thing for her to do. I wonder whether she suffers from the same hubris as her husband (or Tom Delay, for that matter). :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 04:16 PM
I'll bet the nominate John Edwards. He almost handled Kerry last time around...

He's one of three or four who have a good chance.....Warner, Biden, Clark....and maybe Obama, if the party is feeling really brave. But I suspect Obama is probably at least another election cycle away....

Donger
06-20-2006, 04:17 PM
I believe that Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, and he'll win.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 04:18 PM
I believe that Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, and he'll win.

He's a dark horse, but unless the Repubs nominate someone from the Santorum/Hatch wing of the party, the can still beat him.

WoodDraw
06-20-2006, 04:18 PM
That would be the wise thing for her to do. I wonder whether she suffers from the same hubris as her husband (or Tom Delay, for that matter). :hmmm:

She knows it would be an ugly campaign though. If the national numbers stay like they are I just can't see her going through it. Plus, Warner and Feingold both have all but declared for '08; they will only gain popularity as their name gets out. Hillary's negative numbers are hard and her popularity is soft. She'll be smart and get out.

htismaqe
06-20-2006, 04:18 PM
I believe that Kerry will be the Democratic nominee, and he'll win.

I don't think either Kerry or Bush could win an election after the last one. I'm pretty sure he can't carry Iowa, especially if No-sack were to get in on this...

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 04:25 PM
I'm guessing Obama. Dean will go after the "you're a racist if you don't vote for him" angle.

the Talking Can
06-20-2006, 04:35 PM
Clinton or Kerry would make me stab someone's favorite pet.

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 04:40 PM
I'm guessing Obama. Dean will go after the "you're a racist if you don't vote for him" angle.

You could be right; although I do think it's too early. He could be tough.....unless closet-racists lie to pollsters, as they seem too.

WoodDraw
06-20-2006, 04:44 PM
I don't think Obama will run just yet. My early money is on Warner.

banyon
06-20-2006, 05:01 PM
I'll bet the nominate John Edwards. He almost handled Kerry last time around...

He's one of the few that would get my vote. I believe that he's currently leading polls in Iowa. But you probably know that living in Iowania and all.

Anyway, I heard him when he came through Larryville in 04. I've always thought that he made Kerry look like a wooden board with his excess of Charisma. I wanted him at the top of the ticket, but the Dems were so afraid (as usual) fo being villified by the Republican's "Dirty Tricks Campaign" (always liked that Perot phrase) as being cowards or non-Patriots or whatever, that they had to go with the dolt Kerry.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:03 PM
If Guiliani would forgo his millions, he'd be the shoe-in.
Barring that, I'm going Biden -v- Romney, with a strong anti-war 3p 'Perot'ing the Dems.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 05:06 PM
Hopefully John Edwards wins, then Christopher Reeve can get out of that wheelchair and walk again

NewChief
06-20-2006, 05:17 PM
I've been saying that Hillary was unelectable for a long time, but Cons keep trying to prop her up as a strawman and representative of the DNC. The fact is that the majority of Dems don't want or like her either.

jiveturkey
06-20-2006, 05:24 PM
Kill me now...

and then bring me back to life and kill me again. :banghead:



So we know that the Dems have a pantry full of turds and turdetts. Who in the name of all that is holy will the Repubs put out there?

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 05:25 PM
I've been saying that Hillary was unelectable for a long time, but Cons keep trying to prop her up as a strawman and representative of the DNC. The fact is that the majority of Dems don't want or like her either.

Then why are there polls, of registered Democratic voters, every few weeks announcing her as the frontrunner? :shrug:

I agree with you that she's unelectable; but I'm not sure it's the Cons trying to prop her up. It seems to be an effort somewhere, in the media at least, to soften her....to drive those negs down, because many activists within the party keep mentioning her name.

I realize it's early, but if she maintains this "frontrunner" status over the next year, I think they may try to figure a way to make it happen. Let's hope not, though....

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 05:26 PM
If Guiliani would forgo his millions, he'd be the shoe-in.
Barring that, I'm going Biden -v- Romney, with a strong anti-war 3p 'Perot'ing the Dems.
Concise. And quite possible--if Romney can get through the early primaries.

Mr. Laz
06-20-2006, 05:28 PM
don't want hilliary, unless she is the only choice to Bush part 2 errr 3 [/edit]



gotta be a better choice........ somewhere.

jiveturkey
06-20-2006, 05:29 PM
don't want hilliary, unless she is the on choice to Bush part 2.

gotta be a better choice........ somewhere.You mean part 3.

I propose that no Clinton's of Bush's be allowed to run...


EVER!!!

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:32 PM
Concise. And quite possible--if Romney can get through the early primaries.
Weld getting skunked by Kerry back in the day notwithstanding, you gotta figure there's something going for a Repub Governor of Massachusetts.

jAZ
06-20-2006, 05:35 PM
I don't expect for a minute that Hillary will end up being the Dem nominee nominee. Gore has a better likelyhood than Hillary. She won't make it out of the primary.

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 05:42 PM
I don't expect for a minute that Hillary will end up being the Dem nominee nominee. Gore has a better likelyhood than Hillary. She won't make it out of the primary.

Hypothetical for ya.

If Hillary had kicked Bill out of the WH and divorced him immediately after Monicagate do you think she'd now poll better to the American public?

I do. I think she grossly miscalculated that one.

Donger
06-20-2006, 05:42 PM
I don't expect for a minute that Hillary will end up being the Dem nominee nominee. Gore has a better likelyhood than Hillary. She won't make it out of the primary.

Who is this Gore character? That global warming movie guy?

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:45 PM
Who is this Gore character? That global warming movie guy?
Manbearpig!!!

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 05:47 PM
Who is this Gore character? That global warming movie guy?

Don't laugh. Just yesterday I saw scientists lock like 6 million seeds of various plants into a "lock box" in case a future catastrophy eliminates most plant life.

I'm guessing it was Al's idea. I'm not sure anyone knows where they hid it though.

Baby Lee
06-20-2006, 05:50 PM
Don't laugh. Just yesterday I saw scientists lock like 6 million seeds of various plants into a "lock box" in case a future catastrophy eliminates most plant life.

I'm guessing it was Al's idea. I'm not sure anyone knows where they hid it though.
Was that his social security lockbox they used?

Adept Havelock
06-20-2006, 05:53 PM
Don't laugh. Just yesterday I saw scientists lock like 6 million seeds of various plants into a "lock box" in case a future catastrophy eliminates most plant life.

I'm guessing it was Al's idea. I'm not sure anyone knows where they hid it though.

Norway donated the site. It's up near the artic circle. While I do like the idea, I have to wonder just how accessable that would be after a disaster of sufficent magnitude to require it.

:hmmm:

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 06:03 PM
Was that his social security lockbox they used?

I'm not sure since when Gore was proposing the lockbox it was just a virtual one and we never really saw or understood the blueprints. I'm guessing it was still floating around in his Da Vinci/Edison like brain.

He might have actually built one by now though.

mlyonsd
06-20-2006, 06:05 PM
Norway donated the site. It's up near the artic circle. While I do like the idea, I have to wonder just how accessable that would be after a disaster of sufficent magnitude to require it.

:hmmm:

Well that's just fine. How am I going to get it from way over there when I'm the only one left on the planet?

FAX
06-20-2006, 06:47 PM
Well that's just fine. How am I going to get it from way over there when I'm the only one left on the planet?

I don't know about you, Mr. mlyonsd, but I'm going to put some sled dog semen in a lockbox in my basement.

FAX

jAZ
06-20-2006, 07:03 PM
Hypothetical for ya.

If Hillary had kicked Bill out of the WH and divorced him immediately after Monicagate do you think she'd now poll better to the American public?

I do. I think she grossly miscalculated that one.
I think that if she had done that she would never have gotten elected to the Senate in NY and would never be in the position she's in to even consider a run for President. The only reason she is considered the "frontrunner" right now is a result of the full campaign infrastructure that is in place as a result of Bill. She inherited much of his team in her run for Senate and her 2006 Senate campaign has basically been one big long fundraiser for the 2008 primary.

I guess I disagree with your view, though I see what you are getting at, and if she could have made a tough stand like that in 1998 AND kept all of his support for Senate then maybe that would be better.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 09:03 PM
Evan Bayh or Joe Biden.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 09:04 PM
Weld getting skunked by Kerry back in the day notwithstanding, you gotta figure there's something going for a Repub Governor of Massachusetts.

Weld-Kerry was actually a very close election.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-20-2006, 09:08 PM
If Guiliani would forgo his millions, he'd be the shoe-in.
Barring that, I'm going Biden -v- Romney, with a strong anti-war 3p 'Perot'ing the Dems.

A third party candidate is generally indicative of major political realignment. I still think that such a 3rd party candidate is more likely to appear in '12 than '08. 32-68 was the era of the Dems, 68-now the Republicans. The next realignment is more likely to be a fracture of the majority party (Republicans), in which case the 3rd party candidate would *probably* be a RWNJ type, considering that evangelicals comprise a quarter of the electorate.

jlscorpio
06-20-2006, 09:13 PM
McCain

NJ Chief Fan
06-20-2006, 09:18 PM
BILL GATES!

Adept Havelock
06-20-2006, 09:33 PM
Well that's just fine. How am I going to get it from way over there when I'm the only one left on the planet?
ROFL My point exactly.

If you are the only one left, why bother? Those two little pesky biological issues of an insufficent gene pool, and (more importantly) lack of a female would render it moot. Open a few leftover cans and bottles of hooch, and go out blitzed at that point.

Of course, at least you'll have "time enough at last" to read all those books you wanted to. ;)

BucEyedPea
06-20-2006, 09:58 PM
I get the feeling that would make someone here quite happy! o:-)

patteeu
06-20-2006, 10:07 PM
A third party candidate is generally indicative of major political realignment. I still think that such a 3rd party candidate is more likely to appear in '12 than '08. 32-68 was the era of the Dems, 68-now the Republicans. The next realignment is more likely to be a fracture of the majority party (Republicans), in which case the 3rd party candidate would *probably* be a RWNJ type, considering that evangelicals comprise a quarter of the electorate.

The most intense issue at stake right now is the GWoT in general and Iraq in particular. If that remains the case in 2008, I don't think the dems can win with a pro-surrender candidate. I think they will need a "fight the war better" candidate to have a chance. If they nominate such a candidate, there will be a strong anti-war faction looking favorably at 3rd party options, IMO.

Cochise
06-20-2006, 10:19 PM
The most intense issue at stake right now is the GWoT in general and Iraq in particular. If that remains the case in 2008, I don't think the dems can win with a pro-surrender candidate. I think they will need a "fight the war better" candidate to have a chance. If they nominate such a candidate, there will be a strong anti-war faction looking favorably at 3rd party options, IMO.

I tend to agree. I can't think of a time when an American election was won on a platform of taking an existing war and just hitting the eject button the day of innauguration.

I think the majority of the electorate knows that we have a lot invested there and want the job to get done right. Most people I believe feel we bear some responsibility to the people of Iraq to finish the work or clean up the mess we created depending on your perspective. Whether you regard it as a fool's errand or not, it's not as if we just have a few dollars invested there. You have to come with a platform that is going to make all the human sacrifices still come out to mean something. If you advocate cut and run, you're pitching the progress a lot of people have given their lives to build.

I don't necessarily think that Kerry had the totally wrong idea. I think he was right from a strategic perspective to go with "fight the war better". But I think he would have been better off standing by his past positions on the matter rather than trying to back away and revise history. Instead of saying, "I was tricked into it!" He should have said, "I thought it was a good fight in principle at the time and still do, but we can do it much better."

Claiming you were victimized by politics or were just plain suckered in doesn't inspire confidence. People don't want to vote for someone who makes mistakes and then points fingers. He would have gotten a lot more respect that way. Instead he ends up in no man's land, where the always anti-war don't like him because he's a Johnny-come-lately, and the people who did support it initially feel like he's thrown them under the bus.

I think it's winnable for the Democrats, if they don't have someone with strong negatives, and someone who comes up with a sensible position on Iraq that they haven't done plastic surgery on for an election campaign.

Nobody on either side seems really exciting. Things will tighten up no matter who runs, and the election will be decided within 5 points like they all are anymore.

I don't think elections are about candidates as much as people might think. They are about messages. The Dems were devoid of a discernable one last time around. I have a hard time thinking they would make such a big error again. Misguided as I feel they are...

Mr. Kotter
06-20-2006, 11:45 PM
A third party candidate is generally indicative of major political realignment. I still think that such a 3rd party candidate is more likely to appear in '12 than '08. 32-68 was the era of the Dems, 68-now the Republicans. The next realignment is more likely to be a fracture of the majority party (Republicans), in which case the 3rd party candidate would *probably* be a RWNJ type, considering that evangelicals comprise a quarter of the electorate.

Dems controlled Congress from 68-94....most political scientists consider 68-now, more of a "new" type of realignment if they buy it at all....some refer to it as "dealignment" resulting from unhappiness with the two major parties, yes; but 1992 did not bring a definitive realignment along the lines of what you are suggesting....

Third party movements can signal a realignment, but there are instances where they have not....1912, 1948, 1968, and 1992 being the most obvious cases. Anderson in 80, and Nader in 2000 cost the Democrats dearly too.

The two major parties have learned an effective strategy for combating the rise of third parties: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The two major parties eventually adopt the third party ideas as their own, when the situation warrants.....and the third party fades into oblivion.

StcChief
06-21-2006, 12:09 AM
Go for it....she will pull it. Billy 'Bob' will help. ROFL

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:26 AM
Dems controlled Congress from 68-94....most political scientists consider 68-now, more of a "new" type of realignment if they buy it at all....some refer to it as "dealignment" resulting from unhappiness with the two major parties, yes; but 1992 did not bring a definitive realignment along the lines of what you are suggesting....

Third party movements can signal a realignment, but there are instances where they have not....1912, 1948, 1968, and 1992 being the most obvious cases. Anderson in 80, and Nader in 2000 cost the Democrats dearly too.

The two major parties have learned an effective strategy for combating the rise of third parties: "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em." The two major parties eventually adopt the third party ideas as their own, when the situation warrants.....and the third party fades into oblivion.

Wallace in 68 and Anderson in 80 were both indicative of major realignments...Wallace showed the Southern Dems broke away from the party (eventually becoming Republicans), and Anderson showed a fracture in the democratic base even further which helped to consolidate the "Reagan Revolution"

BigMeatballDave
06-21-2006, 01:19 AM
Clinton or Kerry would make me stab someone's favorite pet.
ROFL

BigMeatballDave
06-21-2006, 01:20 AM
Hopefully John Edwards wins, then Christopher Reeve can get out of that wheelchair and walk againOMG You are going to hell!
ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 08:52 AM
Wallace in 68 and Anderson in 80 were both indicative of major realignments...Wallace showed the Southern Dems broke away from the party (eventually becoming Republicans), and Anderson showed a fracture in the democratic base even further which helped to consolidate the "Reagan Revolution"

A realignment usually involves the demise of one of the two major parties themselves, organizationally.....not simply a shifting alliance among a demographic group of voters.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 09:01 AM
If Guiliani would forgo his millions, he'd be the shoe-in.
Barring that, I'm going Biden -v- Romney, with a strong anti-war 3p 'Perot'ing the Dems.

The religious zealots don't like Giuliani at all...

the Talking Can
06-21-2006, 09:05 AM
The religious zealots don't like Giuliani at all...

yup...he's an adulterer and gasp! a friend of gays....the evangelicals are not going to back him....

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 09:06 AM
The two major parties eventually adopt the third party ideas as their own, when the situation warrants.....and the third party fades into oblivion.
Interesting points. If true, then seems like the realignment has occurred...it's just stayed within the two-party system at the level of ideas.

Brock
06-21-2006, 09:06 AM
I think Guiliani could be president any time he wants to. No matter what his political affiliation.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 09:10 AM
I think Guiliani could be president any time he wants to. No matter what his political affiliation.

I'd vote for him as I think he is perhaps,one of the few, that may be outside the NeoConservative camp so he may be a more independent, even if I don't like him on a number of issues. I think he could break us out of the hold of these guys who run both the Dems and Pubs at a national level and as such get us off this imperialistic, let's-make-over-the-world into democracies which would mean permanent war and no return to our freedoms.

How he handled NYC in the aftermath of 9/11 is in his favor too.

Brock
06-21-2006, 09:20 AM
I'd vote for him as I think he is perhaps,one of the few, that may be outside the NeoConservative camp so he may be a more independent, even if I don't like him on a number of issues. I think he could break us out of the hold of these guys who run both the Dems and Pubs at a national level and as such get us off this imperialistic, let's-make-over-the-world into democracies which would mean permanent war and no return to our freedoms.

How he handled NYC in the aftermath of 9/11 is in his favor too.

I think he could win running as an independent. He's wildly popular.

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 09:25 AM
The religious zealots don't like Giuliani at all...
The worst that means is depressed turnout in some demographics. No way it turns into votes for the other team.
IMO, he gets right everything Bush gets right, AND gets right everything Bush gets wrong.

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 09:27 AM
I think he could win running as an independent. He's wildly popular.
It's gonna be hard enough to drag him away from his lecture circuit to be the Repub standard bearer. No way he runs in any other capacity.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 09:33 AM
The worst that means is depressed turnout in some demographics. No way it turns into votes for the other team.
IMO, he gets right everything Bush gets right, AND gets right everything Bush gets wrong.

I see what you mean, but you're talking about a general election.

He'll never get the party's nomination...he's too threatening to both the evangelicals and many of the old hard-liners...

FringeNC
06-21-2006, 09:44 AM
2008 is going to be crazy. Both parties are in disarray, and both frontrunners are not liked by the base. (McCain is hated by the base). Last time I checked McCain and Hillary were even money to get their party's nomination. Not sure about Hillary, but betting against McCain is easy money.

Guiliani has two problems: the Christian coalition doesn't like him and the libertarian wing doesn't like him for his strong pro-gun control views. I still think he has a better chance than McCain. I know no Republicans who can stand John McCain.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 09:57 AM
2008 is going to be crazy. Both parties are in disarray, and both frontrunners are not liked by the base. (McCain is hated by the base). Last time I checked McCain and Hillary were even money to get their party's nomination. Not sure about Hillary, but betting against McCain is easy money.

Guiliani has two problems: the Christian coalition doesn't like him and the libertarian wing doesn't like him for his strong pro-gun control views. I still think he has a better chance than McCain. I know no Republicans who can stand John McCain.

I don't see where people think McCain could never win the nomination. He's not off on any core issues that I know of. If he runs a good campaign in the primaries I think he could definitely win. I'd probably choose him if I had to pick right now, and I describe myself as evangelical.

Electability will have a large say in it. McCain could not be stopped in a general election. Sure, maybe the base liked a lot of things Gary Bauer had to say in 2000, but you didn't see him getting nominated.

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 09:58 AM
Interesting points. If true, then seems like the realignment has occurred...it's just stayed within the two-party system at the level of ideas.

And that's why some political scientist types DON'T consider it to be a realignment of parties, per se....but rather a shift in voter demographics.

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 10:00 AM
yup...he's an adulterer and gasp! a friend of gays....the evangelicals are not going to back him....

That's true. Many will not. It will depend on whether the party chooses to be pragmatic (select someone who is electable), or whether they become ideologically blinded by the extremists.....like some other party we know.

the Talking Can
06-21-2006, 10:08 AM
That's true. Many will not. It will depend on whether the party chooses to be pragmatic (select someone who is electable), or whether they become ideologically blinded by the extremists.....like some other party we know.

(*edited for kindness)

evangelicals elected Bush....James Dobson meets personally with Rove to tell him what issues they want addressed...like the gay-marriage ban...

there is no equivalent to the Evangicals in the Democratic party in terms of money, influence, size, or organization....

for a "democrat" you don't much about democrats...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 10:52 AM
A realignment usually involves the demise of one of the two major parties themselves, organizationally.....not simply a shifting alliance among a demographic group of voters.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.


Per Wiki:

They describe a dramatic change in politics. More specifically, they refer to any one of several U.S. presidential elections in which there are sharp changes in the rules of the game (such as campaign finance laws or voter eligibility), new issues, new leaders and new bases of power for each of the two political parties, resulting in a new political power structure and a new status quo that will last for decades. The usual focus is on the transition between party systems, as between the First Party System and the Second Party System, and then to the Third Party System and so on.

The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V.O. Key's 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections", is that American elections, parties, and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps.

V.O. Key Jr., E.E. Schattschneider, James L. Sundquist, and Walter Dean Burnham, some of the most distinguished election scholars of the past two generations, studied the election returns going back 150 years, and found patterns so similar and so peculiar that at first they seemed difficult to believe. Though they differed on some of the details, it was concluded that not only do realigning elections occur, but that they occur on a regular schedule: once every 36-years or so.

banyon
06-21-2006, 11:10 AM
(*edited for kindness)...


:hmmm: I don't know if I like the new "kinder, gentler" Talking Can.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 11:20 AM
(*edited for kindness)

evangelicals elected Bush....James Dobson meets personally with Rove to tell him what issues they want addressed...like the gay-marriage ban...

there is no equivalent to the Evangicals in the Democratic party in terms of money, influence, size, or organization....

for a "democrat" you don't much about democrats...

I don't agree with the part in bold at all...

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 11:23 AM
You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about here.


Per Wiki:

They describe a dramatic change in politics. More specifically, they refer to any one of several U.S. presidential elections in which there are sharp changes in the rules of the game (such as campaign finance laws or voter eligibility), new issues, new leaders and new bases of power for each of the two political parties, resulting in a new political power structure and a new status quo that will last for decades. The usual focus is on the transition between party systems, as between the First Party System and the Second Party System, and then to the Third Party System and so on.

The central holding of realignment theory, first developed in the political scientist V.O. Key's 1955 article, "A Theory of Critical Elections", is that American elections, parties, and policymaking routinely shift in swift, dramatic sweeps.

V.O. Key Jr., E.E. Schattschneider, James L. Sundquist, and Walter Dean Burnham, some of the most distinguished election scholars of the past two generations, studied the election returns going back 150 years, and found patterns so similar and so peculiar that at first they seemed difficult to believe. Though they differed on some of the details, it was concluded that not only do realigning elections occur, but that they occur on a regular schedule: once every 36-years or so.I don't intend this to be a pissin' match....just pointing out, your view of realignment is a very narrow one.

Key's work has been since reworked and improved, IMHO, by James Wilson and others....to account for the inability to neatly analyze what has happened since 1968..... the phenomena of divided government, the decline of parties generally, increased split-ticket voting, and a rise in cyncism among voters that hasn't been seen since the days hey days of political party machines. Wilson speaks in terms of "dealignment" rather than a realignment....

The Democratic dominance of Congress from 1968-1994, and certainly the election of Clinton to consecutive terms also defies the standard for a Key-type realignment.

Wiki is a great resource, but it's not the end all to what some would consider to be esoteric discussions such as political realignments...

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 11:24 AM
I don't agree with the part in bold at all...

Self professed evangelicals make up 1/4 of the electorate. Blacks at most are 13%, and generally lower than that, since their turnout numbers are lower.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 11:25 AM
I don't agree with the part in bold at all...

Labor unions, for one come to mind.

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 11:37 AM
Labor unions, for one come to mind.

Especially if you include Teachers and Lawyers, who dominate the delegates at the DNC convention.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 11:37 AM
Labor unions, for one come to mind.

Yep. That's the first one that came to my mind as well. I know a good many "religious" people that would be considered evangelical but would NEVER vote Republican because of their allegiance to the UAW.

FAX
06-21-2006, 11:42 AM
Labor unions, for one come to mind.

I think I recall that law firms contributed more to the DNC than any other industry sector during the 2000 election cycle.

FAX

banyon
06-21-2006, 11:49 AM
Labor unions, for one come to mind.

I think...I mostly agree with this point.

But it is certainly diminished. You can almost trace the demise of the Democrats with the demise of organize labor in this Country.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 11:49 AM
Yep. That's the first one that came to my mind as well. I know a good many "religious" people that would be considered evangelical but would NEVER vote Republican because of their allegiance to the UAW.

Yeah. My dad has been UAW since before I was born, and he says that's how it is at his workplace too. He told me many times that of the dozens of people at work he didn't know anyone other than himself that didn't tow the union line faithfully.

And this is before you consider all the one-issue groups that comprise a good chunk of the Democratic party; the environmentalist lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, etc. The Republican party doesn't have a chance at any of those voters.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:01 PM
Kotter, there is probably no reason why you would have noticed this, but I was the one who brought political realignments into this thread. I did so because I have studied them in various Poli Sci courses that I have taken over the years. I used wiki b/c I didn't want to traipse upstairs and grab my poli sci texts that discuss Key, Wilson, et. al. Two other texts that are beneficial in such a discussion are Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican Majority' and "The Emerging Democratic Majority" by Judas (sp?) and Texeira

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 12:12 PM
Kotter, there is probably no reason why you would have noticed this, but I was the one who brought political realignments into this thread. I did so because I have studied them in various Poli Sci courses that I have taken over the years. I used wiki b/c I didn't want to traipse upstairs and grab my poli sci texts that discuss Key, Wilson, et. al. Two other texts that are beneficial in such a discussion are Kevin Phillips' "The Emerging Republican Majority' and "The Emerging Democratic Majority" by Judas (sp?) and Texeira

Fair enough. It must pain you then, to teach your students that so many Americans have left the Democratic Party and realigned themselves with the Republicans over the past 38 years....

It use to pain me too. Now it's just so pathetic, that it's almost amusing....in a demented sort of way.

FringeNC
06-21-2006, 12:16 PM
(*edited for kindness)

evangelicals elected Bush....James Dobson meets personally with Rove to tell him what issues they want addressed...like the gay-marriage ban...

there is no equivalent to the Evangicals in the Democratic party in terms of money, influence, size, or organization....

for a "democrat" you don't much about democrats...

Teachers' unions and trial lawyers.

Dr. Van Halen
06-21-2006, 12:18 PM
good resource:Wikipedia::fair and balanced:Fox News

That said, the Democrats have no chance of winning the presidency. They are disorganized and simply don't have what it takes. The Republicans (hopefully not the Neocons) will find an issue that unifies and energizes the base and gets them to the polls.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 12:25 PM
Yeah. My dad has been UAW since before I was born, and he says that's how it is at his workplace too. He told me many times that of the dozens of people at work he didn't know anyone other than himself that didn't tow the union line faithfully.

And this is before you consider all the one-issue groups that comprise a good chunk of the Democratic party; the environmentalist lobby, the gay lobby, the abortion lobby, etc. The Republican party doesn't have a chance at any of those voters.

It's funny to listen to them talk - they hate "beaners" for stealing their jobs, they hate NAFTA for letting their employer move factories to Mexico, they hate environmentalists, they hate gays, and on and on and on.

But they LOVE Bill Clinton. Why? Because the UAW told them to.

the Talking Can
06-21-2006, 12:25 PM
Teachers' unions and trial lawyers.

niether has a fraction of orgaqnization, power, or actual influence of the Evangelicals....

FringeNC
06-21-2006, 12:39 PM
niether has a fraction of orgaqnization, power, or actual influence of the Evangelicals....

I dunno. I think the impact of evangelicals is at the local level, not at the federal level. There is certainly a lot of rhetoric coming from guys like the PA Senator I can't remember the name of, but as far as actual policy? Yeah, they do complain to the FCC about decency

The solution to all these hot-button social issues is to return power to the states, and let people sort themselves according to their preferences. Abolish the FCC, allow states to do what they want regarding gay marriage and abortions, etc. In the 21st century, people are mobile and can move to a jurisdiction that reflects their beliefs...unfortunately, we have gone to a federal one-size-fits-all solution. Had abortion not been federalized, it wouldn't even be an issue today.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 12:55 PM
Fair enough. It must pain you then, to teach your students that so many Americans have left the Democratic Party and realigned themselves with the Republicans over the past 38 years....

It use to pain me too. Now it's just so pathetic, that it's almost amusing....in a demented sort of way.

I teach comp, for me to talk about that, unless to answer a specific question about a paper would be an unnecessary incursion of my political beliefs onto my students.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 01:04 PM
I dunno. I think the impact of evangelicals is at the local level, not at the federal level. There is certainly a lot of rhetoric coming from guys like the PA Senator I can't remember the name of, but as far as actual policy? Yeah, they do complain to the FCC about decency

The solution to all these hot-button social issues is to return power to the states, and let people sort themselves according to their preferences. Abolish the FCC, allow states to do what they want regarding gay marriage and abortions, etc. In the 21st century, people are mobile and can move to a jurisdiction that reflects their beliefs...unfortunately, we have gone to a federal one-size-fits-all solution. Had abortion not been federalized, it wouldn't even be an issue today.
WoW! I agree! Except the FCC should sell their spectrums...'cause they are considered the property of the public so they can regulate.

"This claim of public ownership has given rise to a centralized system of licensing, which provides the legal and technical basis for many of the FCC's other rules and regulations.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=877


I'd also like to add, regarding local customs and standards ruling: you'd then have competition between the states. That there would bring about some degree or harmony and or homgenization. Of course some fundamental rights should have some fed protection.

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 01:06 PM
WoW! I agree! Except the FCC should sell their spectrums...'cause they are considered the property of the public so they can regulate.

"This claim of public ownership has given rise to a centralized system of licensing, which provides the legal and technical basis for many of the FCC's other rules and regulations.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=877


I'd also like to add, regarding local customs and standards ruling: you'd then have competition between the states. That there would bring about some degree or harmony and or homgenization. Of course some fundamental rights should have some fed protection.

State's rights...does the South ever f*cking give up??

Cochise
06-21-2006, 01:07 PM
The solution to all these hot-button social issues is to return power to the states, and let people sort themselves according to their preferences. Abolish the FCC, allow states to do what they want regarding gay marriage and abortions, etc.

The left would never consent to that, because they would never win on those issues at those levels.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 01:10 PM
I dunno. I think the impact of evangelicals is at the local level, not at the federal level. There is certainly a lot of rhetoric coming from guys like the PA Senator I can't remember the name of, but as far as actual policy? Yeah, they do complain to the FCC about decency

The solution to all these hot-button social issues is to return power to the states, and let people sort themselves according to their preferences. Abolish the FCC, allow states to do what they want regarding gay marriage and abortions, etc. In the 21st century, people are mobile and can move to a jurisdiction that reflects their beliefs...unfortunately, we have gone to a federal one-size-fits-all solution. Had abortion not been federalized, it wouldn't even be an issue today.

It all sounds great on paper, but it wouldn't work.

Let's use abortion as an example - it's an easy subject because it's so polarizing.

South Dakota makes abortion illegal. Minnesota doesn't. Not only that, but Minnesota doesn't have parental consent or any other legal restricition. Now underage girls from Sioux Falls drive across the border to get abortions. Minnesota tries to curb it by limiting it to in-state residents only. People begin to move.

Seriously, what you're talking about could possibly set the stage for a second Civil War.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 01:11 PM
State's rights...does the South ever f*cking give up??

Looks like you and I were thinking alike there.

FAX
06-21-2006, 01:11 PM
...does the South ever f*cking give up??

No, Mr. 'Hamas' Jenkins. It doesn't.

FAX

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 01:26 PM
It all sounds great on paper, but it wouldn't work.

Let's use abortion as an example - it's an easy subject because it's so polarizing.

South Dakota makes abortion illegal. Minnesota doesn't. Not only that, but Minnesota doesn't have parental consent or any other legal restricition. Now underage girls from Sioux Falls drive across the border to get abortions. Minnesota tries to curb it by limiting it to in-state residents only. People begin to move.

Seriously, what you're talking about could possibly set the stage for a second Civil War.
The revolution will be fought with U-Hauls!!!!

Seriously, that tagline is a real Bob Beamon.

Seems to me, the pro-life movement has more in common with the Abolitionists. So your position is that, the Civil War wouldn't have happened if slavery had been a NATIONAL policy?

FringeNC
06-21-2006, 01:29 PM
State's rights...does the South ever f*cking give up??

The Founders sure believed in it, and it sure seems like the answer for our polarized electorate. I really don't see how anyone could be against it. The gap between what the coastal cities want and what the evangelicals want is getting bigger, not smaller.

Hell, even the EU leviathan has something called the subsidiarity principle that mandates implementation of a regulation be moved to the lowest level of government possible.

FringeNC
06-21-2006, 01:32 PM
It all sounds great on paper, but it wouldn't work.

Let's use abortion as an example - it's an easy subject because it's so polarizing.

South Dakota makes abortion illegal. Minnesota doesn't. Not only that, but Minnesota doesn't have parental consent or any other legal restricition. Now underage girls from Sioux Falls drive across the border to get abortions. Minnesota tries to curb it by limiting it to in-state residents only. People begin to move.

Seriously, what you're talking about could possibly set the stage for a second Civil War.

As opposed to the way it is now?!! A civil war is much more likely when decisions are made through judicial fiat as opposed to making them democratically at the lowest level of government possible.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 01:41 PM
The Founders sure believed in it, and it sure seems like the answer for our polarized electorate. I really don't see how anyone could be against it. The gap between what the coastal cities want and what the evangelicals want is getting bigger, not smaller.

Hell, even the EU leviathan has something called the subsidiarity principle that mandates implementation of a regulation be moved to the lowest level of government possible.
Absolutely!

It's what our Constitution actually says. That the federal gov't is subject to "specific and enumerate powers" leaving those not specified to the "states or to the people."

To equate every single local issue as if it's were another lynch-the-blacks is just mass identifying all other issues as one and the same when not all issues involve fundamental rights. What is never looked is the dangers of centralizing too much power at the top.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 01:58 PM
A civil war is much more likely when decisions are made through judicial fiat as opposed to making them democratically

I would liken this a lot more to the American Revolution than the Civil War. I think the monolithic judiciary bears more in common to George's England than to Lincoln's Union.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 01:59 PM
The revolution will be fought with U-Hauls!!!!

Seriously, that tagline is a real Bob Beamon.

Seems to me, the pro-life movement has more in common with the Abolitionists. So your position is that, the Civil War wouldn't have happened if slavery had been a NATIONAL policy?

I don't honestly know. Slavery was just one issue. I think it's entirely plausible that had some of these issues been national, the War could have been avoided.

And no, I'm not going Bob Beamon. I just hate extremes, and it seems as if some think returning to the governmental structure of ancient Greece is what is needed to cure our bureaucratic ills...

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 02:00 PM
As opposed to the way it is now?!! A civil war is much more likely when decisions are made through judicial fiat as opposed to making them democratically at the lowest level of government possible.

I wasn't talking about "a" civil war. I was talking about "the" Civil War.

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 02:01 PM
Absolutely!

It's what our Constitution actually says. That the federal gov't is subject to "specific and enumerate powers" leaving those not specified to the "states or to the people."

To equate every single local issue as if it's were another lynch-the-blacks is just mass identifying all other issues as one and the same when not all issues involve fundamental rights. What is never looked is the dangers of centralizing too much power at the top.

Whatever happened to balance and moderation?

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 02:01 PM
I would liken this a lot more to the American Revolution than the Civil War. I think the monolithic judiciary bears more in common to George's England than to Lincoln's Union.

I was talking about decentralized state-vs-state conflict.

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 02:03 PM
Whatever happened to balance and moderation?
What happened to diff'rent strokes for diff'rent state. . . er. . folks.

Cochise
06-21-2006, 02:03 PM
I was talking about decentralized state-vs-state conflict.

Right, I was commenting on his 'judicial fiat' remark more than what you said.

I could see a time in the future where rule by the judicial oligarchy, where judicial decree establishes practically all social norms and effectively dictates the government's policy, has become so out of control that we have an untennable government situation. It's not inconceivable.

All empired die eventually, and it seems as though it's usually self-inflicted. This is the way I see it coming about, if we don't bankrupt ourselves with our social fool's-errands first.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 02:12 PM
Whatever happened to balance and moderation?


I don't know where you get this idea that this violates balance and moderation?

Federalism is supposed to bring about more balance and moderation....but is not perfect. I am not opposed to the feds stepping in for certain things as I said...but the balance has been much more in the opposite direction by centralizing power to the point where it never ends. For instance, if we still had congress debate whether or not we go to war, who rep the people we may have avoided an Iraq situation.

The Constitution, is not just a horizonatal check on the three branches of govt but is also a vertical check on the people. The safest bet through history, and according to our Framers was to diffuse power not just amoung the three branches but down through the states, locals, communities and ultimately the family as the smallest governing unit. It's a specific formula...it does not mean no govt at all.

FringeNC
06-21-2006, 02:23 PM
What's sad is that it's hard to get back to states' rights. It's not as if it would mean anything to run as a "return powers to the state" presidential candidate. There's not a lot a president can do other than Supreme Court nominees, which is a hit or miss thing.

Scalia talks up states' rights, but then sided with the feds on the CA drug medical marijuana thing through a ridiculous argument. The only true states' right guy on there I think is Clarence Thomas. Alito and Roberts may be, too early to tell.

banyon
06-21-2006, 02:32 PM
Seriously, that tagline is a real Bob Beamon.?

who's that?

Mr. Kotter
06-21-2006, 02:36 PM
niether has a fraction of orgaqnization, power, or actual influence of the Evangelicals....Lawyers and teachers OWN the DNC....
who's that?
Are you serious? :spock:

I teach comp, for me to talk about that, unless to answer a specific question about a paper would be an unnecessary incursion of my political beliefs onto my students.I'd forgotten; I just assumed you were a Poli Sci instructor.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 02:38 PM
What's sad is that it's hard to get back to states' rights. It's not as if it would mean anything to run as a "return powers to the state" presidential candidate. There's not a lot a president can do other than Supreme Court nominees, which is a hit or miss thing.

Scalia talks up states' rights, but then sided with the feds on the CA drug medical marijuana thing through a ridiculous argument. The only true states' right guy on there I think is Clarence Thomas. Alito and Roberts may be, too early to tell.

Interesting. I don't know all their opinions but I do know on abortion Scalia and Rehnquist, when he was alive, felt it was a state matter. Not Thomas who believes in applying the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment to the unborn as a "person" having those rights. Interesting how, if that happened the left would be in an uproar using the same sections for allowing an abortion. They shoot themselves in the foot sometimes. Thomas view is supposed to be the conservative view and Scalia/Rehnquist's the moderate view. Scalia and Roberts both continually state, that the people do not have to keep on relying on judges...that's what a legislature is for.

Example for me is the eminent domain cases. As much as I despised that law, it still would have been better for this country to leave it at the state level and allow the people there to use their legislature to change the law. Now we have this horrific decision causing multiple damage across the whole country.

But I'd have to agree with you it's hard to get back to the balanced center and state's rights.

banyon
06-21-2006, 02:52 PM
Are you serious? :spock:

Is he talking about this guy?:

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.hupe.hu/szerv/tanszekek/ti/nyelv/_images/beamon.gif

The analogy didn't come to mind right away. I think of "stretch" and "long jump" differently I guess.

I was just making sure, cuz I really do know this complete a-hole named Bob Beamon who has nothing to do with the long jumper and couldn't jump over the Eudora phone book.

Baby Lee
06-21-2006, 02:57 PM
Is he talking about this guy?:

http://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.hupe.hu/szerv/tanszekek/ti/nyelv/_images/beamon.gif

The analogy didn't come to mind right away. I think of "stretch" and "long jump" differently I guess.
How about 'leap' . . . of logic? ;)

htismaqe
06-21-2006, 03:02 PM
I don't know where you get this idea that this violates balance and moderation?

Federalism is supposed to bring about more balance and moderation....but is not perfect. I am not opposed to the feds stepping in for certain things as I said...but the balance has been much more in the opposite direction by centralizing power to the point where it never ends. For instance, if we still had congress debate whether or not we go to war, who rep the people we may have avoided an Iraq situation.

The Constitution, is not just a horizonatal check on the three branches of govt but is also a vertical check on the people. The safest bet through history, and according to our Framers was to diffuse power not just amoung the three branches but down through the states, locals, communities and ultimately the family as the smallest governing unit. It's a specific formula...it does not mean no govt at all.

Someone earlier in this thread mentioned abolishing the FCC. That's what I'm talking about.

I've lived this on a micro level in telelcom. Outside of North Carolina, Iowa has more independent telephone companies than any other state - about 175. When I worked for the equal access provider that serviced those independents I often got questions like:

"Why do I have to pay $50 per month for 100 hours of dialup? My neighbor 1 mile away has 256K DSL for $29.95 per month."

Certain things require Federal attention, particularly things like infrastructure.

patteeu
06-21-2006, 03:04 PM
2008 is going to be crazy. Both parties are in disarray, and both frontrunners are not liked by the base. (McCain is hated by the base). Last time I checked McCain and Hillary were even money to get their party's nomination. Not sure about Hillary, but betting against McCain is easy money.

Guiliani has two problems: the Christian coalition doesn't like him and the libertarian wing doesn't like him for his strong pro-gun control views. I still think he has a better chance than McCain. I know no Republicans who can stand John McCain.

I think you're wrong about McCain. I used to think he couldn't win the Republican nomination, but I'm changing my mind. I still wouldn't want him, but he's mostly right on Iraq, he's pro-life (unlike Guiliani), and it's been a long time since he's bucked the party line in a meaningful and annoying way. He caused some problems with judges, but it all worked out OK in the end.

the Talking Can
06-21-2006, 03:05 PM
Lawyers and teachers OWN the DNC....

Are you serious? :spock:

I'd forgotten; I just assumed you were a Poli Sci instructor.

they don't compare to evangelicals...in any way...in power, money, or agenda setting....they can't get dems elected the way Evangelicals elected Bush...they don't dictate party platforms the way Evangelicals do with abortion and homophobia....I mean, seriously, it's like comparing Nacho Libre to Hulk Hogan....

banyon
06-21-2006, 03:06 PM
How about 'leap' . . . of logic? ;)

works for me. Maybe the funny portion of my brain isn't working today.

BucEyedPea
06-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Someone earlier in this thread mentioned abolishing the FCC. That's what I'm talking about.

I've lived this on a micro level in telelcom. Outside of North Carolina, Iowa has more independent telephone companies than any other state - about 175. When I worked for the equal access provider that serviced those independents I often got questions like:

"Why do I have to pay $50 per month for 100 hours of dialup? My neighbor 1 mile away has 256K DSL for $29.95 per month."

Certain things require Federal attention, particularly things like infrastructure.
I understand what you're saying. I believe congress can regulate interstate commerce if that falls under that. I am not sure.

Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who decentralized this industry....in order to bring in competition? I thought that's what helped facilitate the new technologies?

I don't know if I actually espoused abolishing the FCC as much as I felt there should be ownership of spectrums though.

Competition is rough...I get it in my industry today too....clients want things cheaper and faster....and care less and less about quality.

patteeu
06-21-2006, 03:07 PM
Labor unions, for one come to mind.

I think labor unions have declined and the pro-choice movement has replaced them at the top of the democrat special interest pile although the labor unions are probably more well organized.

*edit* I take that back. I think the unions are a better analogy to the christian right. "Pro choice" is more like the "cut taxes" of the left. */edit*

'Hamas' Jenkins
06-21-2006, 08:30 PM
I understand what you're saying. I believe congress can regulate interstate commerce if that falls under that. I am not sure.

Wasn't it Jimmy Carter who decentralized this industry....in order to bring in competition? I thought that's what helped facilitate the new technologies?

I don't know if I actually espoused abolishing the FCC as much as I felt there should be ownership of spectrums though.

Competition is rough...I get it in my industry today too....clients want things cheaper and faster....and care less and less about quality.

You are thinking of the suit against ATT for its monopoly that was filed in 1974 (tail end of Nixon admin)

The rest of the telephone monopoly lasted until final settlement of a 1974 United States Department of Justice antitrust suit against AT&T on January 8, 1982, under which AT&T ("Ma Bell") agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business (see AT&T Computer Systems). Although the Department of Defense did not want AT&T to be broken up, effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Bell Operating Companies known as "Baby Bells". AT&T, reduced in value by about 70%, continued to run all its long distance services through AT&T Communications (the new name of AT&T Long Lines), although it lost some market share in the ensuing years to competitors MCI and Sprint Corporation.

htismaqe
06-22-2006, 04:35 PM
You are thinking of the suit against ATT for its monopoly that was filed in 1974 (tail end of Nixon admin)

The rest of the telephone monopoly lasted until final settlement of a 1974 United States Department of Justice antitrust suit against AT&T on January 8, 1982, under which AT&T ("Ma Bell") agreed to divest its local exchange service operating companies, in return for a chance to go into the computer business (see AT&T Computer Systems). Although the Department of Defense did not want AT&T to be broken up, effective January 1, 1984, AT&T's local operations were split into seven independent Regional Bell Operating Companies known as "Baby Bells". AT&T, reduced in value by about 70%, continued to run all its long distance services through AT&T Communications (the new name of AT&T Long Lines), although it lost some market share in the ensuing years to competitors MCI and Sprint Corporation.

:clap:

You're exactly right.

Those 7 RBOC's gradually consolidated with each other and then began acquiring the IXC's (long distance companies) - the lone exception was Qwest, in which Qwest acquired US West (Northwestern Bell). Southwestern Bell (SBC) acquired AT&T Long Distance, and AT&T is once again the largest telephone company in the world.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2006, 04:55 PM
You are thinking of the suit against ATT for its monopoly that was filed in 1974 (tail end of Nixon admin)

Yes I am thinking of this suit, but I was thinking it was under Carter's Justice Department for some reason. The break up didn't occur until 1980's.

I just searched it myself. Where I made the Carter connection was due to this:
http://telephonyonline.com/mag/telecom_harold_greene_dies/index.html

Greene drew the AT&T lawsuit soon after his appointment to Washington's Superior Court by President Jimmy Carter in 1978. By that time, the AT&T case had become a dispute over local access between AT&T, which operated both local and long-distance service, and upstart long-distance provider MCI. The Justice Department also had opted to bring an antitrust suit against AT&T, citing the company's use of profits from regulated services, such as phone, to subsidize unregulated businesses, such as equipment manufacturing.


As for the rest of your post, I thank you. However, I was aware of it on a general basis as my older sister's hubby has worked for them for years now under Verizon.

BTW I was just reading a free-market article that actually gives Carter long overdue credit for his over all deregulation efforts ( depsite his more statist approach) that made it easier for Reagan to do some of the things he did. That both have made contributions to some of the prosperity we still see today.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2006, 05:18 PM
:clap:

You're exactly right.

Those 7 RBOC's gradually consolidated with each other and then began acquiring the IXC's (long distance companies) - the lone exception was Qwest, in which Qwest acquired US West (Northwestern Bell). Southwestern Bell (SBC) acquired AT&T Long Distance, and AT&T is once again the largest telephone company in the world.


I didn't know this...I knew some but not like this. This seems to defeat the purpose of the anti-trust suit.

I remember my aunt and my mother complaining about the break up in the 80's and it seemed no one really liked it that way; that things got more expensive with poorer service. I just read from googling this that this break up was not only very espensive for the Bell companies, but the taxpayer too as it spawned a cottage industry for lawyers. Many business plans for Bell failed too. Some articles say it was also expensive for the consumer.

If all the above is true, then you can actually blame govt for this—not the freemarket. Freemarketers claim that only coercive monopolies are harmful. These are ones that are legislated into existence by govt and which bar competition from entry in exchange for regulated rates. On the other hand large merged firms provide economies of scale and streamlined efficiency instead of a fistful of bills and a runaround when things go wrong.

But even here it's govt regulators that are allowing the new mergers.

A better way to have brought competition into the industry would have been to have deprived AT&T of its legal monopoly status. Better yet, the monopoly privileges should never have been granted in the first place.

FCC: Chronic Meddler (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=313&id=77) This is 1999 but the pertinent points still apply.

htismaqe
06-22-2006, 07:42 PM
I didn't know this...I knew some but not like this. This seems to defeat the purpose of the anti-trust suit.

I remember my aunt and my mother complaining about the break up in the 80's and it seemed no one really liked it that way; that things got more expensive with poorer service. I just read from googling this that this break up was not only very espensive for the Bell companies, but the taxpayer too as it spawned a cottage industry for lawyers. Many business plans for Bell failed too. Some articles say it was also expensive for the consumer.

If all the above is true, then you can actually blame govt for this—not the freemarket. Freemarketers claim that only coercive monopolies are harmful. These are ones that are legislated into existence by govt and which bar competition from entry in exchange for regulated rates. On the other hand large merged firms provide economies of scale and streamlined efficiency instead of a fistful of bills and a runaround when things go wrong.

But even here it's govt regulators that are allowing the new mergers.

A better way to have brought competition into the industry would have been to have deprived AT&T of its legal monopoly status. Better yet, the monopoly privileges should never have been granted in the first place.

FCC: Chronic Meddler (http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=313&id=77) This is 1999 but the pertinent points still apply.

Having worked for companies from as small as 30 to as large 135 thousand, I can tell you that large companies don't provide economies of scale the way they should. Instead they offer hours and hours of endless bureaucratic red tape...

The problem is double-edged. A good example is the debate about network neutrality. Do you want the federal government to legislate network neutrailty and force the ISP's to keep the network neutral? I think we all do. However, you're then handing the government a blank check to involve itself in the future. First they want to eliminate child porn to "save the children" and soon their firewalling the whole damn thing in an effort to erase the word "freedom" from websites. China did it.

Really, we're damned if we do and damned if we don't. Too little government regulation and the corporations run amock. Too much government regulation and well, we know the drill.

BucEyedPea
06-22-2006, 07:54 PM
Having worked for companies from as small as 30 to as large 135 thousand, I can tell you that large companies don't provide economies of scale the way they should. Instead they offer hours and hours of endless bureaucratic red tape...

Is that from the worker's view on the inside? Because large corps, especially public ones are like that inside. Or is that from the view of the customer getting one bill? Just curious.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 08:51 AM
Is that from the worker's view on the inside? Because large corps, especially public ones are like that inside. Or is that from the view of the customer getting one bill? Just curious.

Both.

The idea of getting "one bill" is a fallacy. In MCI alone, from the WorldCom merger and the UUNet merger, we had 5 billing systems. We condensed that to 3 prior to the Verizon merger, however I've heard that Verizon has 4 or 5 of their own.

StcChief
06-23-2006, 08:57 AM
Both.

The idea of getting "one bill" is a fallacy. In MCI alone, from the WorldCom merger and the UUNet merger, we had 5 billing systems. We condensed that to 3 prior to the Verizon merger, however I've heard that Verizon has 4 or 5 of their own.

A consolidation to one system. Sounds great, it's expensive IT project.
bottom line, ROI come first.

Most utility related companies donot care about their customers.

A phase approach looking at all the needs converting one at a time.
Pilot one system conversion.

Moooo
06-23-2006, 09:16 AM
IN repsonse to the OT, I don't think the Democrats feel they are at a point where they can fool around with selecting a female leader...

They've been out of the White House for 8 years and out of the majority for congress for about 12-14, if I'm not mistaken... Although I do believe there should be a female president or a minority president someday, I don't think now is the time they will push for it.

Though I could be looking at it wrong, it may be that since American politics are starting to push back to the left a bit, this would be a prime time.

Moooo

BucEyedPea
06-23-2006, 09:27 AM
Most utility related companies donot care about their customers.
If my brother-in-law's statements are any indication (a VP with Verizon, NY) that would seem to be true: "We'd charge people up the wazooo, if we could get away with it! "

My free-market economist sources say: charging up the wazoo in a deregulated market, would just invite competition as they could also make a killing by entering that market at cheaper rates. Their own greed shoots them in the foot eventually. So it's the fear of competition entering.So long as the govt does not bar entry into that market. Only coercive monopolies do that.

Also, per my brother-in-law on a separate occassion: It's not as easy to get away with when there is competition.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 10:03 AM
A consolidation to one system. Sounds great, it's expensive IT project.
bottom line, ROI come first.

Most utility related companies donot care about their customers.

A phase approach looking at all the needs converting one at a time.
Pilot one system conversion.

Yeah, don't get me wrong.

The number 1 reason we're consolidating systems is because it will save us money.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 10:06 AM
If my brother-in-law's statements are any indication (a VP with Verizon, NY) that would seem to be true: "We'd charge people up the wazooo, if we could get away with it! "

My free-market economist sources say: charging up the wazoo in a deregulated market, would just invite competition as they could also make a killing by entering that market at cheaper rates. Their own greed shoots them in the foot eventually. So it's the fear of competition entering.So long as the govt does not bar entry into that market. Only coercive monopolies do that.

Also, per my brother-in-law on a separate occassion: It's not as easy to get away with when there is competition.

At least in the telcom sector, government is not the only impedance to entrance. Since the dot-com bubble burst, lack of capital for new startups is also an issue. It's further aggravated by the current movement of mergers - smaller companies can't hope to compete against $100B mega-corporations.

BucEyedPea
06-23-2006, 10:17 AM
I changed my phone and my cable from Verizon to knology past two years.
I don't know how big knology is exactly, but I know they're not as big as Verizon. Customer service is excellent even if there were some issues in the switch.

htismaqe
06-23-2006, 10:33 AM
I changed my phone and my cable from Verizon to knology past two years.
I don't know how big knology is exactly, but I know they're not as big as Verizon. Customer service is excellent even if there were some issues in the switch.

You'll be changing again in less than 5 years. Bet on it.

|Zach|
06-23-2006, 02:25 PM
That's true. Many will not. It will depend on whether the party chooses to be pragmatic (select someone who is electable), or whether they become ideologically blinded by the extremists.....like some other party we know.
Thats a one party thing going on?

Serious?

the Talking Can
06-23-2006, 02:51 PM
Thats a one party thing going on?

Serious?

he's serious

Mr. Kotter
06-23-2006, 08:25 PM
Thats a one party thing going on?

Serious?
If there is a real question anywhere in there, I'd be pleased to try to address it, Zach. Just be direct; put it in the form of a discernible question. It's liberating....

CHIEF4EVER
06-23-2006, 10:01 PM
they don't compare to evangelicals...in any way...in power, money, or agenda setting....they can't get dems elected the way Evangelicals elected Bush...they don't dictate party platforms the way Evangelicals do with abortion and homophobia....I mean, seriously, it's like comparing Nacho Libre to Hulk Hogan....

Sir, enough of the religiophobia. You label anyone who believes in Christ a political 'evangelical' and that is the most uninformed and ignorant position anyone can take. Heck, even in my church we have both Dems and Reps and I am neither. Being a christian is not equal to an automatic political affiliation.

penchief
06-25-2006, 02:51 PM
A Hillary candidacy would just be another opportunity for the presidential election to be about personalities and character attacks as opposed to issues that really matter.

Because the republican tactic has been to avoid issues via smear campaigns and pre-packaged slogans, it is tantamount that democrats find a way to make future elections about issues and not fear or resentment. Hillary has been made into a polarizing figure and her candidacy would only hurt the opportunity to expose the Bush administration's failures and dishonesty.

IMO.

Jenson71
06-25-2006, 03:39 PM
Here

mlyonsd
06-25-2006, 03:42 PM
I think a Biden/McCain battle would be awesome.

Jenson71
06-25-2006, 03:48 PM
I would be proud to make my first presidential vote for Rudy.

Vilsack will come out looking bad after Iowa's primaries. His campaign will die right there, if not sooner.

Baby Lee
06-25-2006, 04:25 PM
Because the republican tactic has been to avoid issues via smear campaigns and pre-packaged slogans, it is tantamount that democrats find a way to make future elections about issues and not fear or resentment.
That is paramount to a decent take. ;)

Adept Havelock
06-25-2006, 04:33 PM
That is paramount to a decent take. ;)


ROFL

penchief
06-25-2006, 05:55 PM
That is paramount to a decent take. ;)

Yes, you are correct. That would have been the word I was thinking of. Sometime the brain doesn't work as quickly as the fingers.

HC_Chief
06-25-2006, 06:11 PM
Gore, Kerry, Rodham-Clinton, with an outside chance of Edwards, and Dean.

Wow.

What's on the republican side?

McCain, Giuliani, Gingrich, ??

I would like to see a true fiscal conservative take office. Someone needs to curb spending. That someone also needs to be one tough SOB, as the political heat will be tremendous. Perhaps W can alleviate some of that heneceforth via the line-item veto? :hmmm:

Mr. Kotter
06-26-2006, 07:55 AM
....Because the republican tactic has been to avoid issues via smear campaigns and pre-packaged slogans...

IMO.

Yeah. Lord knows, they are the only party to have ever used those tried and true tactics....:rolleyes:

penchief
06-26-2006, 11:38 AM
Yeah. Lord knows, they are the only party to have ever used those tried and true tactics....:rolleyes:

Probably not but they sure have raised it to Orwellian heights. They have exhibited zero shame at the level of their manipulations and the utter dishonesty of many of their "win at all costs" tactics.