...that resulted in Republican gains. That, and the current level of support for the War on Terrorism. Thought I'd mention this, to check the fervent belief on the part of certain bbs conservatives that there's been a paradigm shift in America. Wouldn't want you guys to have heart attacks if the next election changes things around... I'm fond of most of you . From http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/26/politics/26POLL.html?pagewanted=2 . Statistics crom from an NYtimes/CBS poll.
I don't totally disagree with your premise...but every time you post a poll saying that the tax cut was unwelcome, someone else can post one that says it was. We have no idea how the questions were posed. Also..who the hell cares what the guy who never votes thinks? Politics or ideology??? who cares??? The resonant issues that brought people to the polls that day are ones the Republicans are getting right with the public at large.
MadMax: Your post doesn't dissent with anything I just mentioned. I'm not attempting to prove... anything other than the fact that the election results are the result of politics, more than pure ideology. If there'd been a pure ideology shift, the Democrats would be in deep doodoo. If it's merely a case of gross political mismanagement, then the answers are much easier. The evidence presented in the article illustrates that the Democrats do have certain issues they can tap into... they just have to do it. The next election can't be based on being Not-Republicans.
you're a really smart guy and that's one of the smartest things i've ever seen posted here! the villification of the republican party is getting absolutely ridiculous. i'm thinking people see past the cartoons of GWB pushing little old ladies in wheelchairs down a flight of stairs...that's quite insulting to the intelligence of voters. having said that, i'm not sure most americans think enough about political science to develop a real ideology.
This is classic NY Times demagoguery and "polling" using leading questions. If I see another question that asks whether people want to A) Cut taxes *or* B) Cut the deficit, I'm going to puke. Cutting taxes is what is necessary for our economy to prolong the past two quarters of strong growth. An improved economy will bring higher tax receipts. Why is this such a difficult concept for the NY Times to grasp? Phrases like "big business" and "tax cuts benefitting the rich" (of course -- they are the ones *paying* the taxes) should never see the light of day in a neutral, un-biased newspaper. If you rephrased the question on producing energy vs. preserving the environment to a choice between [creating jobs, generating money for local schools and national parks, lowering national fuel costs, and decreasing dependence on Iraqi oil in an environmentally friendy way] versus [saving a remote wooded area] then the numbers would look a lot better.
TJ: Things can always be worded differnetly to alter the result of polls. I'm currently only going to address the last point in your diatribe. "Producing energy" and "protecting the environment" are both abstractions. Take one of your phrasings... then poll it against "preventing children from developing asthma" or "protecting old people from respiratory disease" or "prevent thousands of deaths each yeare from respiratory infection" and see what you get. Besides, there very often are negative economic consequences of producing energy w/o environmental restraint. They're just externalized throughout the region. Not a good method of distributing costs, imo.
But this *rarely* happens these days. A significant amount of environmental restraint is shown by virtually all energy firms -- much of it above and beyond what is required. This is what really gets me -- the environmentalists always characterize this issue as one in which energy companies could care less about the environment. This is absolutely wrong. These firms bend over backwards to accommodate the enviromentalist lunatic fringe and they *still* get attacked.
TJ: Define "environmentalist lunatic fringe?" Are you referring to the spotted owl lovers, or those of us who believe that air pollution, etc, results in serious respiratory problems? If you don't buy the latter party, do a little research and look at the studies that liken the effect of current pollution problems in our cities on individuals... to being a smoker in a rural area. I believe that by living in Paris (not the US, but they had a really good study) one does the same amount of damage to one's lungs as by smoking 8 cigarrettes per day.
Haven, Did you know that in Europe they use lower grade gasoline that we do in the U.S.? Even in Eastern Europe were the concept of unleaded fuel has escaped most consumers use. T_J, I couldn't agree with you more, energy companies do more about protecting the enviroment than most enviromental groups. To energy or power companies, its an image that they have to portray because there are so many enviromental wackos willing to protest and stain that image. Remember, energy companies want to look good to the consumer because in most places deregulation allows consumers to choose different providers. Another great example of energy companies that were enviromentally aware was Enron, 15% of there generation assets were renewable (wind and solar).
http://www.psr.org/breathe.htm A very unpleasant link. if you honestly believe that industry is its own best watchdog, there's not much to argue about. I think history is against you. In the past, the government has always had to intervene to enforce safety standards, whether in the auto industry, environmental controls, or with harmful medicines, etc. Besides regulation, the other great check has always been tort liability. It is extremely unlikely that such liability will be extended to industry concerning pollution. It's contrary to logic that industry is going to be environmentally sound w/o coercive checks. That just doesn't seem to be the way entities function. Large organizations pursue their own benefit, usually in the narrowest sense. Encourages efficiency... but often at the expense of the whole system when costs are externalized.
Haven, I guess you are agreeing with me by posting that article. I remember when I when to Budapest and notice that all the building were black because of the smog and polution from buses and trabies. I agree that polution is bad, but there has to be a happy medium between industry and enviromentalism.
Yeah, the industry regulates itself very well voluntarily. Just like they did when they convinced Bush to sign into law "voluntary regulations" to help solve the pollution problem as Texas governor that every energy company then (shockingly) ignored.
Phi83: Article mentions some things in the US as well. I don't necessarily have an opinion on European gasoline quality . I'm sure you're right about it, since it would seem a simple factual matter. Of course there should be a happy medium. I'm worried about human costs. Does it really do good if kids have clean lungs, but their quality of life diminishes because of reduced efficiency? Or what if elderly people stop dying from respiratory ailments caused by pollution... but can't afford quality health care for other matters in their dotage because of reduced affluence. I don't believe in absolutes on the issue. I'm not a "mother earth" type of environmentalist - there's no inherent value in a clean earth, only in how having a clean earth benefits human quality of life. However, I think that the environmentalist side of the equation gets short shrift for two reasons: 1. It's less direct. Easy to see money in your pocket, harder to see gradual increases in respiratory disease and cancer rates due to pollution. 2. The benefits are more concentrated, immediately, for industry. If you strengthen environmental standards, there's a group that immediately is hurt. They lobby. As for the environment, the cost is apportioned over all of society, but not specifically on an individual group with money htat's going to fight hard. Certainly, you have the enviro-nuts... but sometimes they hurt their own cause as much as help it. The common person doesn't have must use for the spotted owl when protecting it means a real cost to themselves.
once again...i really hope the dems can put up a candidate like gore again...he's a strong leader and clearly the public loves him...if the dems have any chance of winning back the white house, they best nominate al gore! http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/26/p...00&en=4be259b114b3361c&ei=5062&partner=GOOGLE At the same time, nearly half of the respondents expressed an unfavorable opinion of the Democratic Party — the highest percentage with such a view since 1996. Americans said Democrats had failed to offer a plan for the future or a reason to vote against Republicans in this latest campaign, suggesting that the election's outcome was as much a testament to what Democrats did wrong as to what Republicans did right. In a measure of additional concern for Democrats, Al Gore, who is the best-known Democrat who might run for president in 2004, is viewed unfavorably today by a ratio of almost two to one, despite a weeklong bath of favorable publicity that accompanied his national tour promoting two new books about the American family. Nearly two-thirds of all respondents, including just over 50 percent of Democrats, said that Mr. Gore should step aside and allow someone else to run against Mr. Bush. The poll's finding strongly suggests that Mr. Bush's popularity — he has a 65 percent job approval rating — and heavy schedule of campaign appearances contributed to the strong Republican showing on Election Day. Among those who voted Republican, 55 percent described their vote as being cast in support of Mr. Bush; 37 percent of those who voted Democratic described their vote as being against the president.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, 64% of Americans now identify themselves as Republicans, according to the more neutral CNN/USA Today poll. It is about the ideology.
How's being stupid working for you? 1. I want a link to such a poll. AFAIK, actual party identification has never been that high either way. Just a bit skeptical. My apologies if you're right. 2. My very argument was that Republican success was premised on political mismanagement, not policy. Even if your supposed poll #'s are true, that would not negate the premise that such affiliation might be politically based. Issue resonance is not the same as party resonance... at all. Many times in the past, parties have failed to capitalize on issue resonance as a result of poor planning (not just this last time). So, don't quote irrelevant statistics. And when you do, please supply the links.
That is an interesting debating tactic. Political party affiliation is based on current ideology, which flucuates as political party leadership changes. Almost 2/3 of voters identify with the current Republican ideology, and you are having a tough time grappling with this idea. The Democrats are moving further left along the political spectrum, and they have lost the independent voters. Choosing Pelosi is only going to make the situation worse. Face it- Clinton's brilliance was his ability to keep the party faithful satisfied, while governing like a Liberal Republican. His duplicity was responsible for his ascent to power, and his downfall. Let's stop now, because I don't want to ask you to argue a topic with a stupid person- that is beneath you. (nobody calls me stupid.......I am sending this guy's girlfriend a gift certificate to Shipley's Donuts)
Errrp... I happen to disagree with almost everything you said, fundamentally. Hayes has produced some very intelligent discussion of the relevant theory. But that's been debated to death. Party affiliation is not based on ideology. And, generally speaking, voting for a particular candidate is not representative of party affiliation, either. In the US, at this very moment, about 30% of the electorate considers themselves as a Democrat. Another 30% or so considers themselves to be Republican. It's all about winning the 40% that don't have party affiliation that determines the winner of an election. If one party had 64% affiliation... it would be historic on a level unprecedented in not only American history, but Western democracy. The only situation in which you've got anything remotely near that level would be the LDP in Japan from about 1952-1996 (approximate dates). Even there, the LDP only reached those statistics at its absolute peak, and generally, identification was around 50%. If that statistic is true, then you won't see Democrats elected into national positions for decades. Fortunately for me, it's not . Edit: I apologize for the rude comment in my previous post. I'm trying to be work on being less derisive while arguing. The comment was inappropriate.
