Morris Says A Landslide Is On The Way

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

As in 2010, they were told but they turned a deaf ear.

What makes them think things are any better for them than 2010? Its the elephant in the room they dont wanna talk about. I dunno, I said all along I thought it was Obamas election to lose, and I think he lost it. I suspect people see him for what he is, a clueless sock puppet for the guys back in Chicago.

I will prolly go vote, and hold my nose.

 

[Wrong Element]

Dick Morris is simply nuts or attempting to attract whatever attention is available by being outrageously contrarian. Every legitimate polling organization has this as a neck and neck race to the finish. The probability of them ALL being wrong is about as close to zero as it gets.

I think it's the Jeane Dixon strategy--idea being that if you make a wild-ass prediction no one else is making and you turn out to be right, you can live off it for the rest of your life; but if you're wrong, well, who is ever going to remember?

I try to seek out as much as I can and not just the folks who are telling me what I want to hear, and the consensus seems to be:

* That Obama has a lead beyond the margin of error in Nevada, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
* Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't been as heavily polled because they haven't been perceived as battlegrounds, but Obama's leads there likewise appear safe.
* Obama's lead in Ohio is narrower, but persistent in a 2 to 4 point range. Ditto for New Hampshire, which isn't getting polled near as much because it's so small.
* Colorado, Florida, and Virginia are extremely close. (My intuition is that Obama will hold on in Virginia if turnout isn't impacted by the hurricane.)
* The one battleground state where most polls have shown Romney with a persistent lead is North Carolina, but even here I don't think too many people think he's leading NC by more than Obama is leading, say, Ohio.

So who the hell knows where Morris is getting his data.

Bottom line is a LOT is going to have to go right for Romney to win next Tuesday. What he really needs is something to shift the entire electorate about 2 points between now and then, and I'm not even sure a bad jobs report Friday would do the trick.

 

[renard_ruse]

I put Morris into google and got cars and cats, so whoever this guy is, he's not important enough to show up on the first page of google results, and thus none of my concern.

I don't know if this is meant as a joke, but he was Bill Clinton's chief electoral strategist. He is widely respected as a political strategist by people across the spectrum. He also likes to suck women's toes.

 

[renard_ruse]

I think it's the Jeane Dixon strategy--idea being that if you make a wild-ass prediction no one else is making and you turn out to be right, you can live off it for the rest of your life; but if you're wrong, well, who is ever going to remember?

I try to seek out as much as I can and not just the folks who are telling me what I want to hear, and the consensus seems to be:

* That Obama has a lead beyond the margin of error in Nevada, Wisconsin, and Iowa.
* Pennsylvania and Michigan haven't been as heavily polled because they haven't been perceived as battlegrounds, but Obama's leads there likewise appear safe.
* Obama's lead in Ohio is narrower, but persistent in a 2 to 4 point range. Ditto for New Hampshire, which isn't getting polled near as much because it's so small.
* Colorado, Florida, and Virginia are extremely close. (My intuition is that Obama will hold on in Virginia if turnout isn't impacted by the hurricane.)
* The one battleground state where most polls have shown Romney with a persistent lead is North Carolina, but even here I don't think too many people think he's leading NC by more than Obama is leading, say, Ohio.

So who the hell knows where Morris is getting his data.

Bottom line is a LOT is going to have to go right for Romney to win next Tuesday. What he really needs is something to shift the entire electorate about 2 points between now and then, and I'm not even sure a bad jobs report Friday would do the trick.

Its disgusting how all the immigrants have turned Nevada from a reliable Republican stronghold into a political cesspool in such a short time. That's what changed Nevada, go to Vegas now and see how much "diversity" there is. It didn't used to be like that even 15 years ago. Was a lot of white bluecollar trash and rednecks, now its all diversty up the ying yang.

 

[mercury14]

Its disgusting how all the immigrants have turned Nevada from a reliable Republican stronghold into a political cesspool in such a short time. That's what changed Nevada, go to Vegas now and see how much "diversity" there is. It didn't used to be like that even 15 years ago. Was a lot of white bluecollar trash and rednecks, now its all diversty up the ying yang.

In 2016, Arizona will be a swing state.

In 2020 Texas will be a swing state... and Colorado and Nevada will be blue states.


How does that make you feel?

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Damn, must be some denial gong on.

Can't argue with you there. You've got enough denial going on for the whole board.

 

[doubleover]

In 2016, Arizona will be a swing state.

In 2020 Texas will be a swing state... and Colorado and Nevada will be blue states.


How does that make you feel?

As a non union working person, royally fucked.

 

[Wrong Element]

In 2016, Arizona will be a swing state.

In 2020 Texas will be a swing state... and Colorado and Nevada will be blue states.


How does that make you feel?

Of course, this all assumes the GOP won't change at all between now and then. That's unlikely, if only for reasons of self-preservation. And I suspect that the second generation of our Latino immigrants will become swing voters in time, as has happened with most immigrant groups.

There are things about American politics that seem eternal, but there are also ways it can change surprisingly quickly. As recently as 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected while winning Mississippi, Texas and West Virginia; but losing California, Vermont, New Jersey and Illinois.

 

[renard_ruse]

In 2016, Arizona will be a swing state.

In 2020 Texas will be a swing state... and Colorado and Nevada will be blue states.


How does that make you feel?

First off, that's not necessarily true, but I'd ask you the same thing, how does it make you feel to win by flooding the country with foreigners? If you really think the country is better for two million more foreigners per year is the question, not what impact it may or may not have on politics. If you really support unrestricted immi just for political purposes you are a real idiot.

You like traffic congestion? You like overcrowded schools? You like ever more burdens on public services? You like your children having to compete for jobs with immi's?

 

[njlauren]

I don't know if this is meant as a joke, but he was Bill Clinton's chief electoral strategist. He is widely respected as a political strategist by people across the spectrum. He also likes to suck women's toes.

That was a long, long time ago, Dick Morris basically lost all credibility past the Clinton years and has become exceedingly eratic. Basically, he pulls stuff out of his ass and claims it is gold and it sells in certain quarters because he can say "I worked for Bill Clinton" 20 years ago....he makes these outrageous claims because he hopes one of them will actually happen and then he can say "I predicted this to happen" and get paid again as a consultant...he is like the handicapper whose numbers don't work who continues betting and losing on idiotic long shots, so if one of them comes in he will be known as a handicapper, not a schmuck.

I don't know who is going to win, the polls are all over the place, but one thing I am pretty certain of it isn't going to be a landslide for either side, it is going to be a close election that probably will come down to a couple of counties in Ohio or something. The Jesus freaks dream of a landslide where they can force their medieval view of life on everyone else, the uber rich dream of having a president who will really make their day, the rednecks think Jim Crowe is coming back again, old people think we can continue to spend money hand over fist on medicare and SS and balance the budget on the backs of everyone one else, and so forth, and it ain't gonna happen, no matter who wins it is going to be the same gridlock, the GOP is going to be crippled from pragmatic action by the Tea party ranters and the religious right trying to go extremist, and if Romney wins the Democrats are going to stifle him, if Obama wins the GOP is going to stifle him and very little will get done.

 

[renard_ruse]

The Jesus freaks dream of a landslide where they can force their medieval view of life on everyone else

The transsexual femi-nazi baby murdering Hollywood freikoid dream of forcing their queer view of life on everyone else is going to ensure a hidden cache of Values Voters turn out.

 

[phrodeau]

First off, that's not necessarily true, but I'd ask you the same thing, how does it make you feel to win by flooding the country with foreigners? If you really think the country is better for two million more foreigners per year is the question, not what impact it may or may not have on politics. If you really support unrestricted immi just for political purposes you are a real idiot.

You like traffic congestion? You like overcrowded schools? You like ever more burdens on public services? You like your children having to compete for jobs with immi's?

You don't have a very good understanding of the population of America. Immigration is a major pillar of our society.

 

[renard_ruse]

Of course, this all assumes the GOP won't change at all between now and then. That's unlikely, if only for reasons of self-preservation. And I suspect that the second generation of our Latino immigrants will become swing voters in time, as has happened with most immigrant groups.

There are things about American politics that seem eternal, but there are also ways it can change surprisingly quickly. As recently as 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected while winning Mississippi, Texas and West Virginia; but losing California, Vermont, New Jersey and Illinois.

And you assume Hispanics will always want milliions more of immigrants coming just because they happen to be from Latin American countries. In a couple of generations they probably won't want that anymore than the average white wants unlimited immigration from Eastern Europe or whatever.

 

[renard_ruse]

You don't have a very good understanding of the population of America. Immigration is a major pillar of our society.

Actually, we are not a "nation of immigrants." Immigration levels have fluctuated throughout our history. During the 1950s and 60s immigration levels were quite low, and that just happned to correspond with one of the most prosperous times in our history. We can't sustain two million or more newcomers every year forever. We'll have a billion people in a few decades. The country will collapse.

 

[njlauren]

Of course, this all assumes the GOP won't change at all between now and then. That's unlikely, if only for reasons of self-preservation. And I suspect that the second generation of our Latino immigrants will become swing voters in time, as has happened with most immigrant groups.

There are things about American politics that seem eternal, but there are also ways it can change surprisingly quickly. As recently as 1976, Jimmy Carter was elected while winning Mississippi, Texas and West Virginia; but losing California, Vermont, New Jersey and Illinois.

Your point is well taken, but think about this, Obama and Romney are campaigning in 10 states, period, 35 years ago they often campaigned in close to all 50. With the kind of data analysis they now have, because of the idiotic electoral college and the way it is chosen, lines have solidified and it is a lot more difficult to expect change like that because those in political power game the system to make sure it doesn't, gerrymandering election and congressional districts for example to skew electoral votes or trying to pass laws discouraging voting by certain groups they feel threaten their power. It is why elections often come down to a couple of counties in Ohio that in many ways don't represent the broad majority of Americans, and with this kind of system the fault lines are so hardened change is impossible. Some states have fluctuate, like Virginia, thanks in part to the demographic changes in northern virginia that counterbalance the very red rest of the state, but those are exceptions. Carter won in Mississippi, Texas and West virginia because he still could attract the old guard white southern voters who had always voted traditionally Democratic, but that generation is gone and they are all solidly GOP now, for example. Vermont, California and New Jersey and Illinois represented the old GOP, the one that was fiscally conservative, but socially moderate, at times even somewhat liberal, and librarian, which has been replaced by the hard right of the Tea party extremists and the religious right and the old guard GOP types , people like Lugar in Indiana, Snow in Vermont and the like, are long gone, it is now a radically right party that appeals in flyover country. While the Democrats are not particularly liberal, not compared to what they were in the 70's, given the hardening of lines there is very little chance they will take places like Mississippi and Texas, because anything to the left of attila the hun is considered socialism. Neither party resembles the one that existed back then, and given the way things are going, some states will remain swing states, and wll be fought over, while the rest of the country basically turns into stone in terms of movement.

 

[renard_ruse]

... Vermont, California and New Jersey and Illinois represented the old GOP, the one that was fiscally conservative, but socially moderate, at times even somewhat liberal, and librarian, which has been replaced by the hard right of the Tea party extremists and the religious right and the old guard GOP types ...

You're a complete and total idiot or maybe just a troll, I'm not sure, but nobody was what you would call "socially liberal" by today's definition even 30 years ago. Nobody would tolerate two men kissing on TV that gets shoved down our throats now. Even young people would have barfed at that just a generation ago. You have a delusional view of political history. Also, the Tea Party is not "extremist" but Democrats sure have become so. Its Democrats who have become beyond the pale of extremist in the past 30 years. What's saved them electorally is racial change, not values issues. I could go on but you are full of manuar so I won't waste my time.

 

[renard_ruse]

While the Democrats are not particularly liberal, not compared to what they were in the 70's

Sure. They have driven anyone who doesn't conform to their radical social liberal orthodoxy out of the party. Try being a pro-life Democrat today and see how much support the party gives you. In the 70s, many prominent Democrats were still pro-life, even Jesse Jackson. Since then you either change your view or you are pressured out.

 

[njlauren]

Actually, we are not a "nation of immigrants." Immigration levels have fluctuated throughout our history. During the 1950s and 60s immigration levels were quite low, and that just happned to correspond with one of the most prosperous times in our history. We can't sustain two million or more newcomers every year forever. We'll have a billion people in a few decades. The country will collapse.

That isn't entirely true. Immigration from many places was effectively cut off in 1920 (southern European and Irish) and during the 1930's was minimal. In the post war world those limits still existed, but there was migration going on, people were coming from Mexico (not in the numbers of today) from South Asia (India), and some from Asia proper, plus there were immigrants/refugees from eastern Europe in not small numbers, and even legal and illegal immigration from Ireland. It wasn't at the levels it has been recently, but it was there.

The reason the economy was good back then was pretty simple, the US after the end of WWII was the economic giant left standing and few had the means to compete with the US. We had a population where the middle class was exploding, thanks to the GI Bill and yes, folks, thanks to blue collar workers earning a near middle class wage, new technology was being developed and there simply wasn't competition out there, Europe was rebuilding after WWII and had its own problems, Japan was decades away from gaining economic superiority, China was a communist country being wrecked by its own leadership, and so forth. The early 70's represented the zenith of the US economy of the past 2 decades, and it wasn't because of immigration, it was that the rest of the world was catching up, plus quite frankly our industries had grown fat and stupid with no competition, and the economy was wrecked by the Vietnam war and by trying to spend there and on domestic programs (not unlike what happened in the last decade, with two wars whose cost will make Vietnam look like a birthday party and a combination of tax cuts and high spending),and it hastened the spiral. It was in the 1970's that manufacturers discovered they could take 100 year old factory equipment, and ship it to indonesia, Thailand and other third world countries, pay them squat, and still charge high prices and it was the beginning of the end. Japan used lean production to produce products that were of my high quality and cheaper then US made goods (in large part because they were efficient and actually listened to people like W. Edwards Demming instead of laughing at him the way the US auto industry did).

Immigration didn't take away the jobs, it was that the jobs themselves immigrated, and that trend is continuing. They tell US students to go into science and technology, for example, but then US companies either send jobs to India which cannot create jobs but instead imports them from elsewhere, at dirt cheap prices, or thanks to the government, allows companies to use a visa program that was designed to bring in real hight tech talent (I am talking physicists and scientists) to bring in engineers and computer people at below market rates and in ways where the workers have very little rights, they are basically indentured servents.

I am not saying having millions of immigrants is a good thing, we need to have a rational immigration policy there is no doubt, but immigration didn't take away factory jobs and customer service jobs, that was because that was sent offshore to boost the bottom line. We also benefit from immigration, in the 1960's they finally got rid of the Asian exclusion acts that kept Chinese and other Asian immigrants out, and they have ended up helping boost our economy, their kids are the ones working their asses off in school and are helping drive a lot of things in industry in the US, and if 'our kids' are competing with them, they have earned a spot at the table because they have taken advantage of it.

 

[Ishmael]

Actually, we are not a "nation of immigrants." Immigration levels have fluctuated throughout our history. During the 1950s and 60s immigration levels were quite low, and that just happned to correspond with one of the most prosperous times in our history. We can't sustain two million or more newcomers every year forever. We'll have a billion people in a few decades. The country will collapse.

The great waves of immigration in this nation occurred before we instituted wide sweeping social safety net programs. And while the liberals LOVE to point out that the nation was built on the immigrants, the fact is that we can no longer sustain that situation. We are/have reaching/reached the point where we can no longer sustain the obligations that we've made to our natural born and naturalized citizens.

Do away with ALL social safety net programs and I'll be right on board with opening the borders. Let everyone in as far as I'm concerned under those circumstances. Sink or swim sparky.

Ishmael

 

[SgtSpiderMan]

Your point is well taken, but think about this, Obama and Romney are campaigning in 10 states, period, 35 years ago they often campaigned in close to all 50. With the kind of data analysis they now have, because of the idiotic electoral college and the way it is chosen, lines have solidified and it is a lot more difficult to expect change like that because those in political power game the system to make sure it doesn't, gerrymandering election and congressional districts for example to skew electoral votes or trying to pass laws discouraging voting by certain groups they feel threaten their power. It is why elections often come down to a couple of counties in Ohio that in many ways don't represent the broad majority of Americans, and with this kind of system the fault lines are so hardened change is impossible. Some states have fluctuate, like Virginia, thanks in part to the demographic changes in northern virginia that counterbalance the very red rest of the state, but those are exceptions. Carter won in Mississippi, Texas and West virginia because he still could attract the old guard white southern voters who had always voted traditionally Democratic, but that generation is gone and they are all solidly GOP now, for example. Vermont, California and New Jersey and Illinois represented the old GOP, the one that was fiscally conservative, but socially moderate, at times even somewhat liberal, and librarian, which has been replaced by the hard right of the Tea party extremists and the religious right and the old guard GOP types , people like Lugar in Indiana, Snow in Vermont and the like, are long gone, it is now a radically right party that appeals in flyover country. While the Democrats are not particularly liberal, not compared to what they were in the 70's, given the hardening of lines there is very little chance they will take places like Mississippi and Texas, because anything to the left of attila the hun is considered socialism. Neither party resembles the one that existed back then, and given the way things are going, some states will remain swing states, and wll be fought over, while the rest of the country basically turns into stone in terms of movement.

My person jury on the popular vote/electoral college debate is still out, but you can't gerrymander the electoral college. That would imply that states are changing boundaries, and that isn't happening.

 

[phrodeau]

You're a complete and total idiot or maybe just a troll, I'm not sure, but nobody was what you would call "socially liberal" by today's definition even 30 years ago. Nobody would tolerate two men kissing on TV that gets shoved down our throats now. Even young people would have barfed at that just a generation ago. You have a delusional view of political history. Also, the Tea Party is not "extremist" but Democrats sure have become so. Its Democrats who have become beyond the pale of extremist in the past 30 years. What's saved them electorally is racial change, not values issues. I could go on but you are full of manuar so I won't waste my time.

I suppose that you never tuned in to watch these:

http://jewishcurrents.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/22.jpghttp://www.timstvshowcase.com/flipwilson1.jpghttp://ic.pics.livejournal.com/sutherwinds/35298922/109669/109669_original.jpg

 

[phrodeau]

The great waves of immigration in this nation occurred before we instituted wide sweeping social safety net programs. And while the liberals LOVE to point out that the nation was built on the immigrants, the fact is that we can no longer sustain that situation. We are/have reaching/reached the point where we can no longer sustain the obligations that we've made to our natural born and naturalized citizens.

Do away with ALL social safety net programs and I'll be right on board with opening the borders. Let everyone in as far as I'm concerned under those circumstances. Sink or swim sparky.

Ishmael

You don't get it. The baby boomers are retiring, and we need more able-bodied workers to contribute to the safety net programs.

 

[Ishmael]

You don't get it. The baby boomers are retiring, and we need more able-bodied workers to contribute to the safety net programs.

Hmmmm, what a thought. With 16% unemployment we need more and more immigrants to pay the payroll taxes. You're a real fucking genius there.

In the 1970's and 80's the EU was in the same situation. The Germans opened the doors to the Turks and the French the North Africans. They did get fodder for their factories, but that was about it. Their social safety nets required 4 workers for every non-productive recipient. And now that ratio is even lower, even after the wholesale immigration to their nations. And look at the EU now!!! It's falling apart. All of those magical giveaways are coming back to bite them in the ass.

Do you really think that opening the doors to a hoard of uneducated workers is going to solve this problem? Do you really think that a massive wave of concrete workers, sheet rock hangers, painters, lawn mowers, framers, and roofers is the way out?

We are evolving into a post-industrial society where machines are going to replace most of the manpower workers required in the past. We don't need hoards of workers, as a matter of fact those hoard merely become welfare recipients.

In my lifetime I've watched us evolve from an Industrial society, to a Service society, to an Information society, and now to an Automated society. We don't need the manpower anymore, we need educated brains. More uneducated immigrants just means more mouths for the productive to feed.

But no politician will ever tell you that.

Ishmael

 

[renard_ruse]

You don't get it. The baby boomers are retiring, and we need more able-bodied workers to contribute to the safety net programs.

We already have Generation Y, there are plenty of them. We need to bring back the manufacturing jobs for them. Problem solved, if its even a real problem.

 

[renard_ruse]

Hmmmm, what a thought. With 16% unemployment we need more and more immigrants to pay the payroll taxes. You're a real fucking genius there.

In the 1970's and 80's the EU was in the same situation. The Germans opened the doors to the Turks and the French the North Africans. They did get fodder for their factories, but that was about it. Their social safety nets required 4 workers for every non-productive recipient. And now that ratio is even lower, even after the wholesale immigration to their nations. And look at the EU now!!! It's falling apart. All of those magical giveaways are coming back to bite them in the ass.

Do you really think that opening the doors to a hoard of uneducated workers is going to solve this problem? Do you really think that a massive wave of concrete workers, sheet rock hangers, painters, lawn mowers, framers, and roofers is the way out?

We are evolving into a post-industrial society where machines are going to replace most of the manpower workers required in the past. We don't need hoards of workers, as a matter of fact those hoard merely become welfare recipients.

In my lifetime I've watched us evolve from an Industrial society, to a Service society, to an Information society, and now to an Automated society. We don't need the manpower anymore, we need educated brains. More uneducated immigrants just means more mouths for the productive to feed.

But no politician will ever tell you that.

Ishmael

Interesting points. I think its a bit more nuanced that you imply but there is a core of truth in your statement. Its not just immigration, but too many children being born as well. There's too much population for the number of available jobs and it will get worse as time goes on.

The military has been a safety valve for a lot of today's young people who can't find jobs, but what happens when we can't afford all the military spending anymore?