What do we Dems do with the House once we get it?

LOL

Wow, what an interestingly warped view of history and facts.

Love the article from the radical alt-left Progressive Mother Jones. Now there is a credible source. Certainly explains the bit of fantasy you've been posting.

As to poverty, California lead the Nation in the highest supplemental poverty rate. Pretty easy to understand when one considers the 3 million illegal aliens the left have invited here.

 

Hmm. Last time I checked, California was the fifth-largest economy in the world -- up from sixth in 2016.

It has an unemployment rate of 4.3%.

Some "collapse".

Does California have challenges? Yep. Particularly around affordable housing.

But it's not even close to collapsing.

Now, maybe your'e referring to the collapse of the GOP in California, and suggesting that doubling down on white voters delayed the collapse. Which makes no sense, unless the most obvious option -- to adjust your policies to reflect the actual demographics of the state -- is for some reason not viable.

 

I guess when suffering from such a limitation, it's hard to admit it, or recognize it.

 

I guess when accusing someone of being racist, it's impossible to explain it.

 

Thanks for my first chuckle of the day. Any one that supports trump has absolutely no business talking about someone else's brain.

 

What do you have to support the conclusion that AZ is going to go even further right?

 

I've been a registered Republican in California for 45 years. I've been very involved in matters of the state, especially in the business community.

At no time was there ever a policy in place by Republicans, discussed, or in execution, that focused on whites. You bring that racist BS to the table, and I call it as you present it.

 

The polls of Kelli Ward and the support/love of Joe Arpiao.

 

These polls where Sinema is up by 10.8 against Ward?

 

I am mostly concerned with economic inequality. California has a thin layer of the ultra-rich and a mass of poor people. It is becoming Mexico. In fact, if you adjust for cost of living, California drops to 11th place, behind France and just above Mexico.

https://www.politifact.com/californ...alifornia-really-have-sixth-largest-economy-/

Its GINI coefficient of .49 (44th among the states) places it firmly in the third world between Honduras and Congo and worse than Mexico.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_Gini_coefficient

https://www.indexmundi.com/facts/indicators/SI.POV.GINI/rankings

The high cost of living is driving the middle class to other states, exacerbating economic inequality.

Why did the CA Democrats abandon the middle and lower classes to become the party of the Plutocrats?

 

You didn't read the article I linked, did you?

Here is what the GOP-controlled California did as their state was rapidly diversifying in the 1980s and 1990s:


California voters passed ballot measures in the 1980s and ’90s that deeply offended minorities. They had measures to:

• make English the state’s official language,
• outlaw affirmative action,
• severely punish gang members, and
• cut off all public benefits to undocumented immigrants, including health care and education.

Three of the four policies are explicitly anti-minority or anti-immigration, and the fourth -- going after gangs -- was seen by many as a thinly veiled attack on minorities, since many gang members are minorities.

So the GOP responded to a rapid increase in minorities by passing laws and ballot measures that targeted minorities. Does that seem like a smart political move in a state with a rapidly growing minority population? No ... unless your target is NOT minorities, but your existing, largely white base.

 

1. Oh there certainly is a disconnect here. People's assertions of what is or is not a 'right thing to do' is most often not related with employment or personal satisfaction levels. They can think protecting ones children in a tornado is the 'right thing to do' whether they have a job or not. Their political views and party affiliations are likewise fairly stable whether they are employed when they vote or not .
2. I have been gainfully employed 40 plus hours consistently for most of last 35 years. I have not been unemployed for more than one week in the last 10 years.

You don't have to be a jerk here, to post here.

 

There's something wrong with your lists, because the values listed by state don't square with the value for the United States as a whole.

Let's take a consistent source for the world, the CIA Factbook:
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2172rank.html

Those numbers match your Wikipedia list much better.

As you say, California has a GINI coefficient of .49. But the United States as a whole has a coefficient of .45, putting the entire country in the company of third-world countries like Peru, Mozambique, Guyana, Cameroon, Iran and the Phillippines -- and substantially BEHIND countries like Chad, Zimbabwe and Congo.

So perhaps the GINI coefficient isn't the best definition of "third-world". Unless you are calling the entire United States "third-world".

And if you think California is a mess, what do you think of deep-red Texas, with a GINI coefficient of .48? Or Florida, which comes in at .4852.

Income inequality is an important factor. But it is not a good measure for determining whether a country or state is "third-world" or not.

Yep, which is why I said affordable housing may be the biggest issue facing California right now.

But you don't get too-expensive housing unless the demand for housing vastly outstrips the supply. If California really were emptying out, the housing crisis would solve itself.

You haven't really proven that that's the case.

 

Correct. And at no time prior to now did you have donald trump as president.

 

That is a load of BS.

Don't sing a liberal/progressive song and think everyone buys the lyrics.

Prop 63 was not an English Only question. It simply stated that English was the Official Language of the State. It did not seek to diminish or restrict the many languages spoken in the state. It passed 5.1 million to 1.9 million. Many of those yes votes were from minorities across the state.

Outlaw Affirmative Action? You mean reverse discrimination? Where are we now with those policies. Are you suggesting Democrats are responsible for it's removal?

Severely punish gang members who murder innocent victims and turn challenged communities into war zones? That is offensive to minorities? I don't think you want to go there.

Cut off benefits to illegal aliens? You mean so more money can be made available to legal citizens in need?

One of the things that caused me to eliminate support for Republican's in California is because they always took the high road, while the left pushed out the king of total BS you've posted here.

I argued you fight fire with napalm. The California Republican party decided to allow Democrats to get away with the lies and deceit that has now brought the State to it's knees.

 

And that has what to do with the lies and racism the left engages in by the hour?

 

I am unconvinced. I absolutely believe that the GOP gained ground since Obama and the Dems from obstructing him, being consistently recalcitrant, and by moving towards its base. You think the Dems screwed up with ACA, I think they were offered only this or nothing by the GOP determined to stop any health care reform bill with Obama's signature on it. I think the GOP was exceptionally aggressive and uncompromising and was rewarded for it by the voters. . I encourage my party to use the exact same tactics that the right did to get a near stranglehold from its minority position to gain the Senate. If give- no- quarter and defy- the- administration won them seats, we should continue to see if it will win us back the Senate.

I am not interested in true solution based bipartisan legislation as long as the greatest bomb-thrower-in-chief remains in that oval office.

Trump is actually not a very good negotiator or deal maker at all. Two of most important attributes a good negotiator must have, is a malleable personal ego that gives more credit than it accepts, and a solid hand-shake all parties respect as honest. In a Washington DC that works to build rather than tear down, you have a reputation in Congress that you keep your promises and commitments.

How have moderates been faring these days in congressional and presidential elections these days? If the voters want bipartisan solution-based politics, maybe they need to reward those politicians to engage in them. They have been rewarding bomb-throwers with simplistic slogans as policies , for most of the last decade.

 

Easy to say about the middle or independents. Who chooses the candidates? They are chosen in the two major party primaries. In most states they are closed primaries where those in the middle can't vote. Have no say whom each party nominates. So the choice come November is usually between a far right and a far left candidate. So which party are you more angry at, that decides whom you vote for.

If independents had a say in whom is nominated, they sure wouldn't have nominated Trump and Clinton. 54% of all independents disliked both candidates. Didn't want neither one to become the next president. 25% of all Americans disliked both candidates, so their choice boiled down to whom they disliked the least or whom they wanted to lose the least. Not win!

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/pol...mericans-dislike-presidential-candidates.aspx

It's probably the same with these congressional elections. Neither congressional party is liked by independents. Only 5% of independents have a very favorable view of Democrats in congress, 18% somewhat favorable. Republicans in congress, 5% very favorable, 16% somewhat favorable. Questions 113A and B

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/q6cfmfwwh4/econTabReport.pdf

That isn't a whole lot of love there for either congressional party. But that is what the choice boils down to come November. Which party are you mad at the least or in this election, a chance to vote against Trump. Not for a Democratic congress, no way. But for a chance of voting against Trump.

Enthusiasm about voting this midterm is sky high for Democrats and Republicans. Both parties see it as a vote for or against Trump. Independent enthusiasm is down except among those who view Trump either very favorably or very unfavorably. It's a case of here we go again, not voting for, but voting against the party we disliked the most. Right now it is the Republicans, depending on what the Democrats do, it could very well be them next election.

According to Gallup, independents make up 41% of the total electorate. I would be surprised if more than 20% of them make up of who actually voted. even in presidential years, 2016, independents made up 40% of the electorate, but only 31% of those who actually voted. When you dislike both candidates or parties, there is very little reason to vote. Unless you want to make a statement like 12% of independents did in 2016 by voting third party, against both Trump and Clinton. I was one of them.

so what's happening. Go back to 2008 according to Pew Research, 38% identified with the Democrats, 28% with the Republicans and 29% as independents. 10 years later its 30% with the Democrats, 26% with the Republicans and 41% as independents. This shift to the extreme left and right by both major parties are leaving more and more Americans without a political home. The only question left, is when will middle America finally get fed up with those who want a far right or far left America? Will they ever or just continue to vote one party in one election and out the next?

 

it is far exceeded by the lies and racism of the right engaged in by the minute

 

Nothing you wrote actually rebuts what I said. I never said it was an "English Only" question. And you simply assert your support for all four measures, as if that contradicts their anti-immigrant or anti-minority flavor.

I repeat: do you think it's a politically smart move to push anti-minority and anti-immigrant measures in a state with a rapidly growing minority and immigrant population?

 

I actually agree with most of what you are saying here in the big picture, but I think you may be conflating different definitions of 'independent' here. There is this notion of an independent which simply means they are not especially emotionally or politically loyal to either party or its agenda, even if they are formally registered with one. Then there are those who are registered as independent or unaffiliated with any party. Either way, Gallup polling for self identification by label is an ineffective measure. Either you just check the registration numbers, or you ask a very different series of questions. What you are measuring is how 'popular' this ill defined notion is, in popular culture and the bias is strong. Everyone loves to think of themselves as independent-minded free thinking types. Lots of people say they are ' independent' of their party, but are they really? Do they mean what you think and the Gallup thinks they mean Does that reflect behavior or actual views? You have a serious problem of definition here.

To your larger point, we have to ask why two party politics is less effective at accomplishing our national goals than before rather than simply blame the partys. They are not acting any differently than they did in the 1800's and their goal is exactly the same: o win power and allegiance of voters and candidates. What has changed is forms of media covering political ideas and candidates, how it profits, and what it showcases. An even more interesting question is whether the way voters digest the political material they are exposed to, is changed or compromised.

 

The only thing good that comes from the Dems retaking the House, if they do, is how quickly they remind us of why they lost it in the first place. The US electorate acts like a recovering drug addict who keeps falling back to his old destructive ways. Hopefully, we will stop going back to that swamp of bad ideas known as the Democratic Party.

 

Perhaps, you do have independents who lean toward one party or the other. History shows that if one identifies with a political party, you will vote for your party's candidate 90% of the time. Independents who lean towards one party or other fall off to around 75% of the time. That may not seem like a big difference. But that difference is what gives us elections like 1994, 2006, 2010 and perhaps 2018. Pure or true independents with no leans make up between 10-15% of all independents.

You do have at the moment 61% of all Americans who think we need a viable third party, this waxes and wanes, goes up and down.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/219953...utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication

I do think the recent rise is our two major parties leaving middle America to fend for themselves as they continues to go to the extreme left and right. Then you have this; Americans favor compromise to get things done in Washington.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/220265/americans-favor-compromise-things-done-washington.aspx

I do think some don't mean it. Compromise is great as long as it isn't your own hot issue. I do think many are getting tired of the Democrats trying to stop everything Republican and Republicans trying to stop everything democratic.