pageok
pageok
pageok
Karl Rove on the Election:

Interesting analysis of the election results from Karl Rove in yesterday's WSJ. After noting the big increase in minority turnout for Obama he notes the big story on the Republican side--the decline in turnout about Republican voters:

Then there were those who didn't show up. There were 4.1 million fewer Republicans voting this year than in 2004. Some missing Republicans had turned independent or Democratic for this election. But most simply stayed home. Ironically for a campaign that featured probably the last Vietnam veteran to run for president, 2.7 million fewer veterans voted. There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week. Americans aren't suddenly going to church less; something was missing from the campaign to draw out the more religiously observant.

In a sign Mr. Obama's victory may have been more personal than partisan or philosophical, Democrats picked up just 10 state senate seats (out of 1,971) and 94 state house seats (out of 5,411). By comparison, when Ronald Reagan beat Jimmy Carter in 1980, Republicans picked up 112 state senate seats (out of 1,981) and 190 state house seats (out of 5,501).

In the states this year, five chambers shifted from Republican to Democrats, while four shifted from either tied or Democratic control to Republican control. In the South, Mr. Obama had "reverse coattails." Republicans gained legislative seats across the region. In Tennessee both the house and senate now have GOP majorities for the first time since the Civil War.

Republicans staying home thus squares the circle that Ilya has noted--namely the apparent increase in turnout among young voters and minorities while the absence of a noticeable increase in turnout overall.

Observer:
Given that John McCain is basically a Democrat, it is not surprising that many Republicans stayed home. Not everyone can be convinced to vote only because of how bad the other side is.
11.14.2008 10:45am
PatHMV (mail) (www):
Rove, of course, is the primary architect of the political strategy that focuses primarily on turning out the base, so his analysis comes as little surprise. He believes, I think, that there aren't that many people who are really in the middle, politically, so whoever fires up more of their own side to actually come out and vote for them will be the winner.

He's led 2 successful presidential campaigns with a man who, as much as I respect him, simply wasn't the greatest candidate in the world. So I can't say that Rove's not onto something.
11.14.2008 10:46am
Justin (mail):
PatHMV,

You must respect him for his governing skills, I assume?
11.14.2008 10:58am
jukeboxgrad (mail):
Low R turnout for McCain is not a surprise, because a lot of Rs don't like McCain. As observer said. And maybe R turnout would have been even worse if not for Palin. Because by all accounts she energized the base, right? Then again, it's possible that Palin enhanced D turnout, too.

pat:

He's led 2 successful presidential campaigns


I see your point, but it should be noted that the margin of victory was pretty small, both times. It could be that Rove's stategy is to shoot for 50.1%. And maybe that's a smart strategy only under certain conditions.
11.14.2008 11:00am
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
The Republican base will not get energized over moderates. The GOP should have learned that from Ford and GHW Bush. (Dole's problem was that his campaign never left REM sleep.) Not to mention all those post-1994 Congressional races - as Congressional Republicans got less conservative, their majority dwindled.
11.14.2008 11:00am
Angus:
Yes, the answer to getting utterly blown out by self-described moderates is to become more extremist. Brilliant.
11.14.2008 11:07am
Paul Hsieh (mail) (www):
There were many voters such as myself who voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004, but not 2008, because we finally got fed up with a GOP that was more interested in promoting the "social conservative" agenda of the Religious Right, rather than promoting limited government, individual rights, and free market capitalism.

If the Republicans stick with this strategy, they'll continue to alienate numerous independent voters and they'll continue to lose elections.

My OpEd on this topic just appeared in the Denver Post:

"How The GOP Lost My Vote"
http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_10976789
11.14.2008 11:13am
Spitzer:
Unfortunately, even if the missing 4.1 million Republican voters turned out, and assuming all of them voted for the GOP ticket, the Republicans still would have lost the national election by roughly 4.4 million votes. Yes, the base was depressed, and the turnout showed that to be the case, but millions of swing voters switched tickets this time around, and millions more solid Dem voters were enticed to show up.

Truth is, this wasn't the Republicans' year, no matter who was on the ticket. Maybe one candidate or another could have increased the Republicans' numbers, but I have also heard that Hillary would have done even better than Obama, so the "wrong candidate" game doesn't really pan out. Events simple conspired against the party this time around: (1) the economy tanked in the most visible and notorious way I have ever seen 7 weeks before the election; (2) there is a general exhaustion among Republicans after 8 years of hard-fought governance; (3) conservatives were dispirited by the center-left policies of the Bush Administration and the corruption and blatant vote-buying by Republicans in Congress (and the Spirit of '94 has largely crumbled); (4) the Democrats, and especially those on the left, were equally energized; (5) 8 years of the Bush Administration's fumbles, and the nasty partisanship (in both parties, in the media, and in the blogs) that constantly faced the Bush Administration attrited general support for the GOP.

I think that the country will be worse off with an Obama Administration, but there is a (small) silver lining for the GOP. I am not one who thinks that the Obama Administration will fumble so badly so quickly that the GOP comes roaring back in '10 (or '12, for that matter), despite GOP hopes (and media fears) that this will happen. Truth is, unless events intervene, we're probably looking at 8 years of Democratic control of the White House, and I don't see the GOP retaking either of the chambers until '12 or '14.

No, the silver lining for the GOP is based on the history of the Tory party under John Major: Major, like Bush (maybe like both of them) presided over the crumbling of the Tory party, at least in part caused by his administration's incompetence (not to mention its centrist policies that alienated the party faithful) and a widespread popular disgust with perceived corruption among the Tories. However, unlike Bush I and McCain, Major won a razor-thin election in 1992 - one he should have lost, and would have, but for Labor's fumbles. While this spared the UK 5 years of Red Labor governance, that last Major term almost completely destroyed the Tory party, and the party was left in such bad shape that, after losing an epic landslide in 1997, it has spent that past 11 years in the deepest, tickest wilderness that the Tories have faced since the mid-1800s. That last Major term was a complete disaster - the Tory party split into warring factions, corruption allegations (and proofs) created widespread disgust for the party (to such an extent that those who, in ordinary times, would be inclined to vote Tory still experience a deep, visceral hatred of the party), and a complete loss of the party's reputation for economic competence.

It would have been bad if Labor had won in 1992, but it turned out much worse that Major won.

That's the silver lining I see. If we are honest with ourselves, a McCain Administration bore the hallmarks of a disastrous presidency - the Dems holding Congress with big margins, an inheritance of economic crisis and ongoing world wars, and a president unloved by his party whose proven instincts are to attack his own party rather than the opposition. I wish McCain had won for the country's short-term sake, but frankly, his loss makes it possible that the GOP will recover its good reputation and unity over the next 4-8 years (perhaps most strongly at the state level) while the Dems slowly are forced to take ownership of a lot of real problems (although, being a politically-smart party, I presume the Dems will wave the bloody flag and do their best to assign blame to the GOP for all of the ills facing the country over the next decade) such that '12 and '16 may be competitive elections rather than blowouts.

'12 or '16 being competitive: realistically, that is probably the best-case scenario for the GOP, and one that I doubt could have happened had McCain won.
11.14.2008 11:16am
Bart (mail):
Reagan and both Bushes won by first getting the GOP conservative bas out to the polls and adding from there.

Indeed, it appears Mr. Obama employed this strategy in this victory.

What will be interesting to see is whether Mr. Obama can continue to get the youth and minority vote out to the same degree in 2012 once the novelty of voting for a young African American has worn off.

On the other hand, the way forward for the GOP is clear. Get back to conservative first principles, recruit conservative candidates and get the base back to the polls.
11.14.2008 11:17am
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
At least in the second election, Rove was limited by the baggage of his client. Bush didn't do a good job of reminding the American people why we had a security interest in Iraq, and he pretty much destroyed any illusions that he's a spending conservative.

It seems that both of Dubya's races lacked sufficient attacks against the Dem candidates' policies. He tries too hard to be Mr. Nice Guy in political races. (And so did McCain, this time around.)
11.14.2008 11:17am
einhverfr (mail) (www):
Spitzer, you have to admit, having a "Maverick" who everyone previously called a "Republican in Name Only" on the ticket probably didn't help encourage Republicans to vote.
11.14.2008 11:25am
Hoosier:
jbg--
I see your point, but it should be noted that the margin of victory was pretty small, both times. It could be that Rove's stategy is to shoot for 50.1%.

But look at the candidate. Not tying to be Sarcastro here. But he led the campaigns of a Republican that I twice neglected to vote for. I am not, of course, the "base" for the GOP. But I lean fairly strongly toward GOP over Dem in election above the local level. Dr. Mrs. Hoosier is more conservative, and yet voted for Bush only once.

Rove must be a veritable Marcus Hanna to have squeaked out two national election victories with Bush as the candidate. Imagine what he could have done with Reagan.
11.14.2008 11:41am
Bama 1L:
It seems that both of Dubya's races lacked sufficient attacks against the Dem candidates' policies.

He won, so by what measure were his attacks insufficient?
11.14.2008 11:41am
A. Zarkov (mail):
Karl Rove and other Republican strategists are the architects of the ongoing demise of the GOP. They think their salvation lies in capturing the Hispanic vote-- something they will never do. They will never outbid the Democrats in providing goodies for Mexicans. As such they they keep advocating for more immigration and amnesty thereby increasing the future Hispanic vote which will put more Democrats in office. You have no better example than California which went from a toss up state to a solidly blue state as whites became a minority.

If the Republicans want to survive they need to halt immigration and promote deportation. Their salvation lies in reversing the demographic trend that's putting them out of business. But alas they are too stupid or too compromised by industrial interests (who want cheap labor) to do what they need to do. Instead they wallow in delusion like thinking Bush got 44% of the Hispanic vote in 2004. That was a polling error Karl. If McCain (with his amnesty bill) couldn't bring in the Hispanic vote for them which Republican can?
11.14.2008 11:41am
ForWhatItsWorth:
einhverfr: "...Spitzer, you have to admit, having a "Maverick" who everyone previously called a "Republican in Name Only" on the ticket probably didn't help encourage Republicans to vote...."

You can say that again. The only reasons I voted were, in fact, due to Palin's inclusion, ballot initiatives and the fact that I definitely didn't want the most anti-second amendment people on earth as POTUS and VP. McCain wasn't a draw for me, just a lesser of two evils.

The party should get back to its roots, really!
11.14.2008 11:42am
Hoosier:
If the Republicans want to survive they need to halt immigration and promote deportation. Their salvation lies in reversing the demographic trend that's putting them out of business. But alas they are too stupid or too compromised by industrial interests (who want cheap labor) to do what they need to do.

If that's only way to win, then I would prefer to lose. If economic opportunity for immigrants is now a Democratic issue, then I am just going to retreat into my research on Renaissance diplomacy, and to Hell with it all.
11.14.2008 11:46am
A Law Dawg:
Karl Rove and other Republican strategists are the architects of the ongoing demise of the GOP. They think their salvation lies in capturing the Hispanic vote-- something they will never do. They will never outbid the Democrats in providing goodies for Mexicans.


They may never outbid the Democrats in providing goodies for the poor, but Hispanics are more than just illegal immigrants. The Republican party would be greatly helped by not being the party of xenophobic racists.

At least that's how it is down here in Georgia. YMMV.
11.14.2008 11:48am
Loophole1998 (mail):
I would be curious to see the number of Kerry voters who switched to McCain versus the number of Bush voters who switched to Obama.

These statistics would shed some light on the relative worth of playing for the independents as opposed to playing for the base.
11.14.2008 11:50am
Oren:

Not to mention all those post-1994 Congressional races - as Congressional Republicans got less conservative, their majority dwindled.

What nonsense. Santorum got ejected despite comparing gays to bestiality.
11.14.2008 11:54am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"If economic opportunity for immigrants is now a Democratic issue,..."

How about economic opportunity for Americans? How does bringing in hordes of cheap H1-B labor help American tech workers? How does bringing in cheap unskilled labor help unskilled American workers. It lowers their wages-- is that what you want? Why does the US owe economic opportunity to foreigners?
11.14.2008 11:55am
theobromophile (www):
Regarding the Hispanic vote - or rather, illegal immigrants in general - what conservatives need to do is to communicate, especially to those not living in border states, the huge problems that will inevitably result (and have already resulted from) illegal immigration. Problematically, conservatives have couched their policies in dry, cold terms, which, although correct, has allowed the Democrats to paint us as heartless jerks.

I will say this: it's fantastically ironic that the pro-union party is also the pro-illegal immigration party. One artificially raises wages by excluding labour from the market, and the other depresses them by bringing in people who are not bound by even minimum wage or worker's rights laws.
11.14.2008 12:05pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"The Republican party would be greatly helped by not being the party of xenophobic racists."

Thus Republicans should support amnesty and unlimited immigration both legal and illegal. Thus Republicans need to accelerate a demographic shift that will remake American society into something more resembling Central America. If you want to live in a Third World country why not move to one? If you doubt me, travel around southern California, especially San Diego and LA.

BTW virtually no country in the world supports unlimited immigration. Call up the Japanese Embassy and ask how you can move to Japan and become a citizen with full rights instead of a temporary worker.

By your definition virtually the whole world is racist. But in any case, you fail to show why my analysis is incorrect. What data to the contrary do you have. I guess none, and that's why you choose insults over analysis.
11.14.2008 12:05pm
Tatil:

How does bringing in hordes of cheap H1-B labor help American tech workers?

First, in some fields, it is next to impossible to fill positions if the companies restrict themselves to just American born people.

Even if one assumes that higher salaries would fill those positions, at that high cost American companies would not be able to compete with foreign ones, who would be paying even less to their employees, some of whom would be graduates American universities, but would be refused employment without H-1 visas. Under those circumstances, US companies would start moving their R&D centers overseas in addition to the manufacturing plants. Congratulations, you just killed Silicon Valley...
11.14.2008 12:10pm
Light Hearted (mail):
A Zarkov asks the economic puzzler: "Why does the US owe economic opportunity to foreigners?"

Because it benefits every employer who voluntarily chooses to hire them? That's just a guess. It might instead be because of the extra demand they represent as consumers, the additional vibrancy they offer as entrepreneurs.

So I'm not sure exactly why...but I suspect that it's because the US economy is not a fixed asset pie.
11.14.2008 12:13pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Regarding the Hispanic vote - or rather, illegal immigrants in general - ..."

The problem isn't simply illegal immigration, it's immigration. We are adding a million more people per year. That puts a strain on resources, water, energy, food... Surely you can't believe that the optimum population for the US isn't finite. If it's finite, then how finite? When do we have enough?

The US had virtually no immigration from 1925 to 1965. During that time we became the world's industrial powerhouse. We survived a depression, won a major war and had tremendous prosperity during the 1950s and 1960s. Clearly the US doesn't not need continuous and massive immigration to survive. If somehow we should find that immigration is really necessary then we can always turn it on again.
11.14.2008 12:16pm
theobromophile (www):
Tatil,

You're not seriously stating that the Mexicans who come into this country illegally are going to start working in Silicon Valley as anything but custodians, are you? We could all wish it were the case that illegal immigrants would match their legal counterparts in education, drive, contributions to this country, and assimilation, but such is not the case. The statistics are frightening.

Let's be honest: if it were the conservatives who advocated for importing a perpetual underclass, whose labour was used to give more money to big corporations, and who, by virtue of their illegality, are not protected by the FLSA, there would be outrage. Apparently, we've moved back to the 19th century, wherein companies can exploit their workers to their hearts' content, secure in the knowledge that their employees are too far outside the mainstream of society, and too in need of their jobs, to complain.
11.14.2008 12:19pm
Adam J:
"2.7 million fewer veterans voted"- How many of them died? Alot of veterans are getting quite old &there's not a whole lotta new ones.
11.14.2008 12:21pm
JB:
Get back to conservative first principles, recruit conservative candidates and get the base back to the polls.

Great, except that the Republican coalition for the last 30 years has been based on not defining Conservative first principles. How else could neocons, theocons, and fiscal conservatives exist in one party that also appeals to independents? Each saw their own ideology reflected in the rorschach test that was the party. The problem is, those three groups have achieved all they can working together, and their goals are too different now.
11.14.2008 12:22pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"First, in some fields, it is next to impossible to fill positions if the companies restrict themselves to just American born people."

Which fields. Do you have a job for a tech worker you can't fill? Tell me about it, I'll get you somebody.

"Even if one assumes that higher salaries would fill those positions,..."

Salaries are flat to declining for tech workers. How is that possible if we have a shortage? We don't have a shortage; we have a surplus. Even the industry lobbyits have given up on this excuse-- you're out of date.

"Congratulations, you just killed Silicon Valley..."


Currently half the engineers in Silicon Valley are foreigners. Do you want that to be 100%? If you think cheap labor is the be all and end all, then we should import slaves. That's the ultimate in cheap labor.
11.14.2008 12:23pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
zarkov:

Why does the US owe economic opportunity to foreigners?


I wonder if the original Americans ever thought about addressing that question to Christopher Columbus in 1492.

virtually no country in the world supports unlimited immigration … By your definition virtually the whole world is racist


The idea of American exceptionalism comes in handy except when it's more convenient to be unexceptional.
11.14.2008 12:25pm
JB:
"Why does the US owe economic opportunity to foreigners?"


So they'll come here and devote their energies to making the USA richer.

Really, I thought this was obvious. The country with the more hard-working, smart people wins. Now, this militates against an expansion of the welfare state that would make foreigners become Americans for the handouts rather than the opportunity, but as long as people are risking lives and livelihoods for the chance to actually be paid for their hard work here (as opposed to being poor no matter how hard they work in their home country), immigration will make the USA better off.
11.14.2008 12:27pm
Sarcastro (www):
Big tents are clearly for losers. I know I only vote for people who completely agree with me!

Not to mention the character of extremists is always second to none!

We've tried smarties, we've tried dummies. Isn't it time for a zealot in the Whitehouse?

Dangermouse08!
11.14.2008 12:29pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"So I'm not sure exactly why...but I suspect that it's because the US economy is not a fixed asset pie."

But resources are.

How does it benefit the US to import the unskilled underclass from other countries? If we only imported the best and the brightest from other countries you would be right. But we don't. We import people who make more demands on social services. Just do the arithmetic. Unskilled workers, large families low salaries. Just the cost of educating the children exceeds the parents salaries. Then there is medical costs, crime costs etc.
11.14.2008 12:30pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
jukeboxgrad:

"I wonder if the original Americans ever thought about addressing that question to Christopher Columbus in 1492."


Obviously they should have. But they didn't and they were losers. Why should learn from their mistakes.
11.14.2008 12:33pm
Hoosier:
jbg--So after the election we agree with each other? Or just on this stuff?

"First, in some fields, it is next to impossible to fill positions if the companies restrict themselves to just American born people."

Which fields. Do you have a job for a tech worker you can't fill? Tell me about it, I'll get you somebody.


My alma mater is opening up a major nano-tech research facility. The university is estimating that it will have to bring in technicians from East and South Asia to make up for the shortfall in domestic recruiting. Add to that the 90% of math PhD's, and 85% of physics PhD, granted in this country to foreigners, and I think I can sense a trend.

My eldest son is determined to be a scientist. So there;s one. Where are the rest of the research scientist of the next generation going to come from, when our brightest math and science students are encouraged to go into medicine or engineering? (HINT: The answer rhymes with "Nindia.")
11.14.2008 12:33pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"So they'll come here and devote their energies to making the USA richer."

Do you think that the large immigration from Mexico to California makes California richer? All evidence points in the other direction. Why does CA have such a big budget deficit? Hint-- social service expenses. CA spends $51 million a year providing kidney dialysis just to illegal immigrants. Do you think the US should provide expensive organ transplants to illegal aliens? We do. And its very expensive.
11.14.2008 12:38pm
Hoosier:
On the matter of unskilled labor, our problem may be growing smaller by the day. The most common employer of illegal Mexican immigrants is construction. There isn't much of that going on these days. I can't imagine that many people are calling home to the village in Durango telling all the cousins about the high-paying construction jobs to be had if they can sneak north of the border.
11.14.2008 12:38pm
Hoosier:
Do you think the US should provide expensive organ transplants to illegal aliens? We do. And its very expensive.

As opposed to letting people die? Yes.
The problem shouldn't be solved at the hospitals, schools, or prisons, but at the border. Once they are here, we can't deny them treatment.
11.14.2008 12:41pm
Lighten up Kansas:
Let's reduce the surplus population because Charles Malthus was so right about that one... And let's reduce innovation and invention - two of the things that helped advanced technology directly relating to food, water, medicine, shelter, resource management.

Hmmmm. This is why I hear people make fun of those who would have us relive some 1950's utopian American dream that was never truly there. The more people that you help survive in this world = the greater chance that even just one of the millions saved might contribute a clever new way of doing something old. That's always worth it.

You call them illegal because they sneak over here and some AMERICAN is paying them to work here. Who is the real lawbreaker and who truly should be the focus of punishment?

If you stop employers from paying illegals, then the problem begins to dry up. You Republicans never had the balls to go after those business owners, and so you just look like hypocrites at every turn, yelling at the brown people who have the audacity to sneak over here, work, and earn a living for less than other people.

You bark about border fences and make 'em wear pink prison outfits and the revolving door of deportation, but rarely find the time to punish more than one Kosher meatpacker or cheap contractor per year... You complain about the drain on resources when it costs far less to throw a meatpacker in jail vs imprisoning 100 illegals to have them come back 3 months later.
11.14.2008 12:42pm
Sarcastro (www):
Service based labor doesn't count as a resource, since it only creates wealth for losers who won't get their hands dirty.

[//resembles above remark.]
11.14.2008 12:45pm
wfjag:

Big tents are clearly for losers. I know I only vote for people who completely agree with me!

Obviously, and we need a leader we all agree with. Only one person fills that bill. Further, let's do away with these divisive elections. They cause partisanship. A monarchy is more stable. I hereby nominate VC as the Official Site for

Sarcastro for Philosopher King

-- Suggested slogan: "A good laugh is better than good government."
11.14.2008 12:46pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Hoosier:

You need to read the publications from Norm Matloff, professor of computer science at UC Davis. He covers everything you bring up. He's a liberal Democrat. He believes in bringing in the best and the brightest. That's not the issue. It's a diversion from the real issue.

You got a job opening send me the position, I will get you someone. BTW I assume it's ok if he's over 45.

You are falling for some industry/university trickery. Define a job position with a highly specialized set of skills. So focused that virtually no one qualifies. Then complain you can't find people. If we have a shortage then how come employers are so picky? And picky they are, just ask any tech person looking for work.
11.14.2008 12:46pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"You call them illegal because they sneak over here and some AMERICAN is paying them to work here."

I don't know who the "you" is, but on the matter of the term "illegal," I have this to say. Anyone who crosses the border to work must either work "off the books" and commit tax fraud, or use a bogus social security number and commit identify theft. Both are felonies. Some illegals try to use a taxpayer ID in lieu of a social security number, but that's a felony too. Read the IRS regs. Look at the form one must sign to use a taxpayer ID.

The idea of using the threat of draconian punishments against employers is a another piece of trickery. We know full well nothing like that would ever be enforced.
11.14.2008 12:59pm
MarkField (mail):

Do you think that the large immigration from Mexico to California makes California richer?


Yes.
11.14.2008 1:02pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Hoosier:

"As opposed to letting people die? Yes."


I'm not talking about immediate emergency medical treatment for trauma or for highly infectious diseases. Organs are in limited supply. If you give an illegal alien an organ then someone else doesn't get it. Why not give Americans priority? Long-term treatments like kidney dialysis is an expense that Americans should not have to bear. Either deport them, or send a bill to the Mexican government. If it won't pay then attach their American assets.

Why do you think that the US needs to be a milch cow for the world?
11.14.2008 1:05pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
MarkField:

"yes"

Take a tour of LA and San Diego before you say that.
11.14.2008 1:07pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

So after the election we agree with each other? Or just on this stuff?


I always agree with you, except when you're wrong.
11.14.2008 1:11pm
Tatil:

You're not seriously stating that the Mexicans who come into this country illegally are going to start working in Silicon Valley as anything but custodians, are you?

I responded to the question about how high tech workers working in the US under H-1B visa schemes help the US. The illegal immigrants in your question are by definition are not among the recipients of H-1B visas.
11.14.2008 1:11pm
Cheaper Trolls, Ltd:
... I am just going to retreat into my research on Renaissance diplomacy, and to Hell with it all.


Hoosier,

“Research on Renaissance diplomacy”?

Is that an elliptical reference to the rumors that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State?

(I'm not trying to threadjack here—Not that there's anything wrong with threadjacking. Naturally, Cheaper Trolls encourages its employees to always consider strategic threadjacking. But we're all paid professionals here, and I'm digressing badly.)

Anyhow, doesn't removing Senator Clinton to Foggy Bottom strike you as a rather renaissance-flavored move by Mr Obama or Mr Emanuel?

 

 

©2008 Cheaper Trolls™
11.14.2008 1:19pm
Tatil:

Salaries are flat to declining for tech workers. How is that possible if we have a shortage? We don't have a shortage; we have a surplus. Even the industry lobbyits have given up on this excuse-- you're out of date.

You are mistaken. The salaries have an upper limit not because of too many engineers in the US, but the availability of engineers in foreign countries who earn much less. They may not be as experienced or as well trained, but their salaries are much lower. Even if we do not allow one more foreign engineer in the US from now on, the salaries will not go up. We will only end up moving our high tech clusters overseas.

Besides, if it is good for everybody if money and finished goods are traded freely across borders, how can it be bad to trade highly trained labor as well? Free trade is either good, or it is bad. You cannot have half and half.
11.14.2008 1:26pm
Hoosier:
Hoosier,

"Research on Renaissance diplomacy"?

Is that an elliptical reference to the rumors that Hillary Clinton is being considered for Secretary of State?


Yes.

Although one might also say "Byzantine diplomacy." Or "Pants-suit diplomacy." We diplomatic historians really don't care. Since we're all unemployed, and thus drunk most of time. (I am stoned right now.)

Anyhow, doesn't removing Senator Clinton to Foggy Bottom strike you as a rather renaissance-flavored move by Mr Obama or Mr Emanuel?

yes. Even more so if they have her poisoned. Or sent to a convent. (As if they'd have her!)

jukeboxgrad
hoosier:

So after the election we agree with each other? Or just on this stuff?

I always agree with you, except when you're wrong.


So pretty much just on this is what you're sayin'.
11.14.2008 1:28pm
Hoosier:
(To respond to the hijacking: I hope that HRC is not the SecState, though I fear that this is why she and Obama are meeting. Richard Holbrooke would be a much better Sec. Until two days ago, I was predicting his appointment. So I'll also lose money if it's Clinton.)
11.14.2008 1:31pm
MarkField (mail):

Take a tour of LA and San Diego before you say that.


I live in LA.
11.14.2008 1:36pm
Light Hearted (mail):
A Zarkov: "I don't know who the "you" is, but on the matter of the term "illegal," I have this to say. Anyone who crosses the border to work must either work "off the books" and commit tax fraud, or use a bogus social security number and commit identify theft. Both are felonies. Some illegals try to use a taxpayer ID in lieu of a social security number, but that's a felony too. Read the IRS regs. Look at the form one must sign to use a taxpayer ID."

A Zarkov has proven his point. If you pass enough laws, virtually anything you do to peacefully feed your family eventually becomes a felony.
11.14.2008 1:53pm
Angus:
Currently half the engineers in Silicon Valley are foreigners. Do you want that to be 100%?
When they take their oath of citizenship, they cease to be foreigners. Voila! Problem solved!
11.14.2008 2:11pm
A Law Dawg:
"The Republican party would be greatly helped by not being the party of xenophobic racists."

Thus Republicans should support amnesty and unlimited immigration both legal and illegal. Thus Republicans need to accelerate a demographic shift that will remake American society into something more resembling Central America. If you want to live in a Third World country why not move to one? If you doubt me, travel around southern California, especially San Diego and LA.
[ . . . ]
By your definition virtually the whole world is racist. But in any case, you fail to show why my analysis is incorrect. What data to the contrary do you have. I guess none, and that's why you choose insults over analysis.


Wow. Not only did you miss the entire point of my post, in which I distinguish between Hispanics and immigrants, you exemplified it.

The Republican party is doomed until it 1) recognizes that most people of non-white races would much rather be Huxtables than gang members and 2) Catholics are Christians too.
11.14.2008 2:18pm
Andy Freeman (mail):
> Add to that the 90% of math PhD's, and 85% of physics PhD, granted in this country to foreigners, and I think I can sense a trend.

That's a choice that US universities have made. The ones that rely on govt funding can be asked to make a different choice.

More to the point, it's irrelevant. The US could allow far more skilled immigration while cutting total legal imigration sigificantly.
11.14.2008 2:28pm
JB:
If we only imported the best and the brightest from other countries you would be right. But we don't. We import people who make more demands on social services. Just do the arithmetic. Unskilled workers, large families low salaries. Just the cost of educating the children exceeds the parents salaries. Then there is medical costs, crime costs etc.

Where to begin? We import people who work hard. Their large families are composed of children who, with the education that does in fact cost less than they make, go on to be every kind of professional making twice what their parents made and more. Maybe I'm getting a rosier view of things living in New York, but I know a shocking number of 2nd-generation immigrants who are as smart or smarter than me, and making more than me. (For that matter, for a long time my grandparents, immigrants all, made barely more than it cost to educate my parents)

Your arguments are the same ones that were made, and disproved, every generation from the 1850s to the present. They seem attractive, but they are rooted in the deepest economic ignorance.
11.14.2008 2:37pm
Smokey:
Cheaper Trolls, Ltd:
Anyhow, doesn't removing Senator Clinton to Foggy Bottom strike you as a rather renaissance-flavored move by Mr Obama or Mr Emanuel?
Exactly. She can't win, 0 will take credit for any success. She can only lose.

Sort of like when Jack Kemp was appointed to run HUD. It's a no-win situation.

Hillary would be nuts to trade her current job for a position as Obama's flunky.
11.14.2008 2:48pm
David Warner:
Who let the Russkie into the country anyway? And who appointed him director of this thread?
11.14.2008 2:59pm
Adam B. (www):
If the GOP wants to be a regional Southern party, go right ahead. If they want to regain a foothold in the Northeast, Pacific or Mountain West states, the party needs to change.
11.14.2008 3:07pm
einhverfr (mail) (www):

Take a tour of LA and San Diego before you say that.


Take a tour of Napa Valley before you say that :-)
11.14.2008 3:21pm
DiverDan (mail):

There were many voters such as myself who voted Republican in 1996, 2000, and 2004, but not 2008, because we finally got fed up with a GOP that was more interested in promoting the "social conservative" agenda of the Religious Right, rather than promoting limited government, individual rights, and free market capitalism.


While I did go out and vote for McCain this year, I can appreciate, and to some extent share, that feeling. The Republicans lost big for several reasons, not least of which was the oh so numerous failings of Bush. But the Republicans lost a large part of what might have been a winnable middle by completely abandoning their principals. "Big government" was never a negative for Obama for the very simple reason that the Republican party stopped supporting any restraint on the growth of government. Candidates like Ted Stevens blew any chance the Republicans had of trying to sell "Clean Government". And on fiscal responsibility, the mountain of earmarks and pork approved by the Republicans when they controlled both houses (not to mention Bush's Medicare Drug benefits) demonstrated that the GOP had ceased to be the party of responsible spending. All they had was "Family Values" and "Stop Abortion" to sell to the religious right, and frankly, neither I nor a large number of libertarian-republicans give a damn about those issues. The best thing that could happen to the Republican Party is if Roe v. Wade were overturned and that issue left to the states; I think that the religious right would find there is a great big middle that simply won't support a total ban on abortion. Then the GOP would be forced to try and market its brand on issues that really matter to governing, like limited government, fiscal responsibility, economic freedom, and personal liberty. The GOP will NOT recover until it jetisons the religious right (where are they going to go - to the Democrats?) and tries to compete for the middle again on those core issues.
11.14.2008 3:27pm
Light Hearted (mail):
JB says: " I know a shocking number of 2nd-generation immigrants who are as smart or smarter than me, and making more than me."

He not only says it, he demonstrates it... :-)
11.14.2008 3:31pm
Hoosier:
Andy Freeman (mail):
> Add to that the 90% of math PhD's, and 85% of physics PhD, granted in this country to foreigners, and I think I can sense a trend.

That's a choice that US universities have made. The ones that rely on govt funding can be asked to make a different choice.


But it is not a choice. I mentioned the problem in that same post: American students will not go on for PhD's in the physical sciences or research mathematics. If we didn't import the grad students, and then offer them green cards upon completion, we couldn't staff our universities with enough professors to produce our engineers and lab techs. We'd have to give up on the idea that calculus is something an educated person might want to know.

Within a generation, the US would be overrun with Nazis riding on dinosaurs. Again.

Do you want that, Andy? Do you?
11.14.2008 3:40pm
road warrior99 (mail):
I think the lack of Republican turnout is directly linked to the bashing of Bush done by the illuminati. True or not their words were effective.
11.14.2008 3:43pm
road warrior99 (mail):
I think the lack of Republican turnout is directly linked to the bashing of Bush done by the illuminati. True or not their words were effective.
11.14.2008 3:43pm
Perseus (mail):
If economic opportunity for immigrants is now a Democratic issue, then I am just going to retreat into my research on Renaissance diplomacy, and to Hell with it all.

Renaissance diplomacy is very fascinating, so that sounds good to me.

Take a tour of LA and San Diego before you say that.
I live in LA.


I live in California and its governance now resembles that of a socialistic banana republic.
11.14.2008 4:09pm
J. F. Thomas (mail):
ill not go on for PhD's in the physical sciences or research mathematics.

And why do you think that is? The answer is because you can make a lot more money (or at least you could until a few months ago) being a mortgage broker or a Wall Street banker. We don't value technical skill in this society, at least in the way that this society most prominently puts a value on things--by paying well.

It is just ludicrously dishonest to claim that Microsoft and other tech companies can't find enough workers and have to import them or out-source their jobs (simultaneously depressing salaries) while at the same time the management of those same companies decries the lack of emphasis placed on technical education in this country. Gee, if Bill Gates paid people better (like maybe as much as first year associates get paid at some of the bigger law firms in this country), more people would be interested in programming computers and we would have as many PhD candidates in computers and math as in law school and MBAs.
11.14.2008 4:12pm
MarkField (mail):

I live in California and its governance now resembles that of a socialistic banana republic.


And that's with a Republican governator. Just think what we could do with a Democrat!
11.14.2008 4:13pm
Hoosier:
Every American should be required to take a tour of Gary, IN. (If nothing else, such a requirement would cull the herd.)

Perseus
Thanks for the vote of approval; I get some odd looks from people in the neighborhood when I explain what I'm doing. But Dr. Mrs. Hoosier and I decided not to raise the Hoosieroffspring in a faculty ghetto. So my bad.

For my part, I don't mean to imply that Mycenaean diplomacy is not itself a rich and fascinating subject. But it does not allow me to tell people that I am researching the Schmalkaldic War. (I am not actually doing that either. But it's within the relevant time period. And I just love saying "Schmalkaldic War.")
11.14.2008 4:17pm
Hoosier:
J. F. Thomas

It isn't just the money. But that's certainly a large part of the story. I could get into the connection between elite university price tags and the lack of home-grown scientists, but it would make me sad. And I don't like things that make me sad.

But the other factor is simply a cultural phobia against higher mathematics. Daniel Boorstin had insightful things to say about the reasons that American higher education is so heavily devoted to "practical" subjects. But I don't see the major divide as being between those who do graduate work in applied mathematics and those who go into theoretical math. Americans are just afraid of math, or don't like math; probably a lot of both.

I don't know what you do about that. But it will be tough to solve, since we are odd in the US in that such a large percentage of our undergraduate students are female. Since women can't do math or science, we are really screwed.

What?
11.14.2008 4:25pm
Rich B. (mail):

"2.7 million fewer veterans voted"- How many of them died? Alot of veterans are getting quite old &there's not a whole lotta new ones.


Brilliant point, and completely ignored by people arguing whether Mexicans are "good" or "bad."

Between 9/2004 and 9/2008 there are 1.4 million fewer living veterans. (24.8 million in 2004; 23.4 million in 2008). So that's half of the missing votes right there.

The Veteran's Department predicts 21.8 million in 2012 and 20.1 million in 2016 as the rest of the WWII and Korea cohort passes on, so the Republican coalition better either find some other demographic group to add, or else start a new round of mass conscription.
11.14.2008 4:25pm
lawnchair reactionary:

"you have to admit, having a "Maverick" who everyone previously called a "Republican in Name Only" on the ticket probably didn't help encourage Republicans to vote...."


Tell that to the Republicans in suburban Philadelphia, or nearly any other major metro area. McCain had the best chance to connect with these voters, he blew it. I think that the 4.1 Republicans who sat out because they didn't connect with McCain pales in comparison to Republicans who actually voted for Obama and Republicans who initially connected with McCain but slowly were alienated by the direction his campaign took
11.14.2008 4:28pm
Perseus (mail):
And that's with a Republican governator.

Schwarzenegger is a Republican?
11.14.2008 4:33pm
MarkField (mail):

Schwarzenegger is a Republican?


Well, he is fiscally irresponsible.... These days, that seems like a prime qualification.

I guess he's a Republican like Lieberman's a Democrat.
11.14.2008 4:37pm
Hoosier:
lawnchair reactionary

well, that sounds about right for the most part. It is hard to see how a more conservative candidate would have fared all that much better. The Bush Administration and the financial meltdown probably created sufficient condition for a Democratic win, as long as Obama played on defense. Which he did.

The GOP has no future if: (A) Hispanics become nearly as much of a one-party bloc as blacks; or (B) if they can't win in northern suburbs.

We have only one choice. I have Ike on ice in my laboratory. I'm going to have to thaw him out.
11.14.2008 4:39pm
A Law Dawg:
Schwarzenegger is a Republican?

Well, he is fiscally irresponsible....



So much for the Austrian School.
11.14.2008 4:42pm
Hoosier:
So much for the Austrian School.

(((*rimshot*)))
11.14.2008 4:44pm
PubliusFL:
DiverDan: "The GOP will NOT recover until it jetisons the religious right (where are they going to go - to the Democrats?)"

I'll tell you where they'll go: home. As in not voting at all. No one plays the "lesser of two evils is still evil" game better than the religious right. The Republican Party is a coalition, and no one wing can win elections on its own. Overtly attempting to "jettison" the religious right won't get the GOP anywhere. Some kind of compromise or common understanding has to be reached. What you said about Roe v. Wade is a good example of the possible basis of such a compromise. "The federal government should have nothing to do with abortion, Roe v. Wade should be overturned and the issue should be left to the states." That's the kind of national platform plank you might be able to get both social conservatives and libertarians to back. There'd be some bitter primary battles in many states for state office, but they should be able to work together in Congress.
11.14.2008 5:00pm
EIDE_Interface (mail):
I agree with Hoosier, America dislikes math from a cultural standpoint. It gets even worse the girls, they are actively discouraged from learning math at all. The whole 'nerd image' and social cliques in school makes it all the more toxic. We live in a toxic culture and unless we fix it FAST, America is headed down the toilet.
11.14.2008 5:03pm
jukeboxgrad (mail):
hoosier:

So pretty much just on this is what you're sayin'.


No, I'm sure there are lots of other times, too. First of all, there are lots of times that I don't speak up. So there's a good chance I'm agreeing with you then, right? And then there are the times I speak and you think I'm disagreeing with you, but it's really just that you're misunderstanding me because you're stoned (or at least more stoned than me).
11.14.2008 6:34pm
Blar (mail) (www):
Obama's success was shared by the rest of the Democratic party - it's just that the rest of the party had a two-year head start. In 2006, Democrats picked up over 300 state legislative seats, 31 members in the House of Representatives, and 6 Senators. This year they added another 104 state legislative seats, 20+ Representatives, and 6+ Senators. The Democratic party has made huge gains over the last four years in state and federal governments - Andrew Gelman even has some data suggesting that downticket Democrats outperformed Obama.
11.14.2008 6:39pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
Light Hearted:

"A Zarkov has proven his point. If you pass enough laws, virtually anything you do to peacefully feed your family eventually becomes a felony."

Is it your position that tax evasion and identity theft should be legal? I don't understand your response. Tell me which superfluous should be rescinded. Perhaps you think we should exempt aliens from US laws altogether.
11.14.2008 7:20pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"I agree with Hoosier, America dislikes math from a cultural standpoint. It gets even worse the girls, they are actively discouraged from learning math at all."

How many mathematicians does America need? Many of the ones we have are either unemployed or underemployed. A few years ago I meet a young lady working at one of the book exhibits at the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association. I asked her why she was working for a publisher hocking math books instead of doing mathematics. "Can't find a job."

I could write you many pages of what's wrong with the mathematics profession in the US. One of them is an obsessive devotion to abstract algebra rather than analysis. Then we have an attitude problem on the part of the professors with the field of Applied Mathematics. Richard Courant warned us that excessive specialization would eventually kill mathematics. I'm afraid he was right.
11.14.2008 7:30pm
Ilya Somin:
As I noted in my last post on the subject, the decline in the percentage of voters who are Republicans is about equal in magnitude to the decline in the percentage of Americans who identify as Republicans. Also, there was no great increase in youth turnout. Voters 18-29 were 17% of the electorate in 2004 and a statistically indistinguishable 18% this year.
11.14.2008 8:05pm
Hoosier:
How many mathematicians does America need?

I don't know. I never learned to count very high.
11.14.2008 8:17pm
Hoosier:
And then there are the times I speak and you think I'm disagreeing with you, but it's really just that you're misunderstanding me because you're stoned (or at least more stoned than me).

Uhhhhhh. Mmmm whuh??

Anyone got anything to eat?
11.14.2008 8:19pm
Mike Farmer (mail) (www):
The Republican Party is at a critical point. If it doesn't reform completely and shake off special interests in order to create inclusion, the turnout will be even lower next election. The party can use an infusion of libertarian spirit, revolution and belly-fire.
11.14.2008 9:08pm
theobromophile (www):
My eldest son is determined to be a scientist. So there;s one. Where are the rest of the research scientist of the next generation going to come from, when our brightest math and science students are encouraged to go into medicine or engineering? (HINT: The answer rhymes with "Nindia.")

Well, there's another former R&D engineer sitting in front of her computer right now, reading the Volokh Conspiracy, with a shiny new JD on her wall. Maybe that makes her unpatriotic or something. ;)
11.14.2008 9:34pm
David Warner:
theobromophile,

"Well, there's another former R&D engineer sitting in front of her computer right now, reading the Volokh Conspiracy, with a shiny new JD on her wall. Maybe that makes her unpatriotic or something. ;)"

No, just symptomatic of a serious structural flaw in our society not dissimilar to medieval scholasticism.
11.14.2008 10:01pm
David Warner:
The GOP needs to do two things:

(1) Run Rove out of town on a very long rail.

(2) Treat non-whites like non-idiots.
11.14.2008 10:02pm
hearsay (mail):
Obama won because he got many voters to agree with his underdog position 'they said it couldn't be done' (prove that you all aren't xenophobic a-holes, the other guys are). Meanwhile, 'you, like all my underdogs, get your very first wish.' McCain played his hand like there was a 'new Republican majority' and the loss reflects that that is a fantasy. I don't think Republicans need to jettison the religious right, but it needs to reach beyond it in some direction. McCain, if he is comfortable with Bloomberg, would have been better served by reaching out for a guy who last spring cut the NYC budget anticipating problems on Wall Street. The ticket could've acted with greater fluency and agility to the financial crisis. To respect the right, Bloomberg would've have promised originalist judges.
11.14.2008 10:39pm
Hoosier:
theobromophile

No way I'm buying that: Girls can't do math.

David Warner

No, just symptomatic of a serious structural flaw in our society not dissimilar to medieval scholasticism.


WTF, matey?
11.15.2008 12:06am
theobromophile (www):
Hoosier, are you trying to be Secretary of the Treasury, or do you have your eyes on the presidency of an Ivy League school?

:p ppptttt
11.15.2008 1:43am
zforce (mail):
I have to agree with the Pro-H1B folks in this thread. Let the labor market move as it pleases. There is no shortage of tech jobs in the US. I am currently on the Australian equivalent of an H1B1 and I certainly enjoy the ability to be able to work abroad when desired (and still have standing job offers in the US). I would assume most Americans would enjoy to have the same freedom. If we start cramping down on H1B visas, we can expect the rest of the world to start the same game. It's not a fun one, and no one wins (especially not individuals that wish to go abroad).

Seriously.. stop being so arrogant. There are skilled people outside of America. Denying H1-B's will just drive talent and money to other countries.
11.15.2008 2:01am
Syd Henderson (mail):

Hoosier:
theobromophile

No way I'm buying that: Girls can't do math.



I was a mathematician for many years.

The most brilliant mathematician I met was Howard Eves. (Best known as a mathematical historian, but a fine mathematician in his own right.)
#2 was Marilyn Breen,
#3 was Mary Ellen Rudin.
And many of my top ten were women.
As well as half the successful graduate students.
And my dissertation advisor.
One of the most influential mathematicians, and perhaps the most brilliant of the 20th century was Emma Noether.

Considering how women are forced away from the mathematical profession because "Girls can't do math," they do just fine. The guys just don't want to adimit it.
11.15.2008 3:32am
Microsoft SDE:
J. F. Thomas,

I happen to work at Microsoft. I started immediately after I finished my undergraduate degree a little over a ago. My base salary plus bonus as determined during my last review is around $98,000. The total value of the stock awards I have received is around $55,000 vested over a five year period. This does not include other benefits such as the near 100% health coverage we receive. I don't know how much first year associates get paid but I think Microsoft compensates its engineers rather well.
11.15.2008 3:58am
Microsoft SDE:
I meant to say: I started immediately after I finished my undergraduate degree a little over a year ago.
11.15.2008 4:05am
David Warner:
Hoosier,

"WTF, matey?"

Rule by lawyers and professors of law, mostly. Feel free to free associate from there, or from the original thought, for that matter.
11.15.2008 7:11am
David Warner:
Hoosier,

"The most brilliant mathematician I met was Howard Eves. (Best known as a mathematical historian, but a fine mathematician in his own right.)
#2 was Marilyn Breen,
#3 was Mary Ellen Rudin."

Girls are better than you. And me. Did you miss the diktat memo?

from the good folks at Overcorrectors Anonymous
11.15.2008 7:14am
Hoosier:
theobromophile
Hoosier, are you trying to be Secretary of the Treasury, or do you have your eyes on the presidency of an Ivy League school?

I'm just thinking that the presidency of Harvard pays better than current job. So I want to show 'em that I'm qualified.

David Warner

Girls are better than you. And me.

Are they also better at not being good at math?
11.15.2008 7:26am
A. Zarkov (mail):
"One of the most influential mathematicians, and perhaps the most brilliant of the 20th century was Emma Noether."

While Noether was certainly a fabulous mathematician, she's not in the same league as Von Neumann, Hilbert, Godel, Hardy,and Kolmogorov, to name a few. Today there are many fine women mathematicians, but really high mathematical ability does seem to be a male province.

We can see this from the Project Talent database, one of the largest and most comprehensive studies ever done. Andrew Gelman has given us plots of raw data so we can see the full distribution of scores uncontaminated by any smoothing. The mathematical component clearly shows that boys are over represented at the high end. Of course this data does not absolutely prove that high mathematical ability is sex linked, but this and other data certainly point that way. Note how non-Gaussian the distribution of scores is. It's possible that if we repeated this study today we would get significantly different results, where there was no male-female disparity, but I doubt it. Note also girls have the advantage on the verbal scoring. I guess in today's world the only acceptable result is something that shows either no difference or girls being superior in every way. But that's just not the way the world works. There are so many ways that people and groups of people can differ, that absolute equality would be the surprising result.
11.15.2008 7:38am
Alan K. Henderson (mail) (www):
It seems that both of Dubya's races lacked sufficient attacks against the Dem candidates' policies.
He won, so by what measure were his attacks insufficient?
He won barely. He would have won more readily the first time if the networks hadn't called Florida while the polls were open.

So what's wrong with that? Two squeaker victories in a row = a party that's not entering the learning curve. (And one of them was against John Freakin Kerry - how lame is it to not beat a tax-and-spend inane drone by a comfortable margin?) The first step on the learning curve is, of course, to not act like Massachusetts' other Senator when it comes to spending.

The pocketbook issues are the ones that register with voters the most. Paul Hsieh overestimates the prominence of social conservative issues, (The War has been the dominant issue), but he's right that the GOP has been lax on promoting "limited government, individual rights, and free market capitalism." I've already harped on the budget issues (which have direct bearing on the limited government issues). Bush signed the McCain-Feingold censorship law, Sarbanes-Oxley, and the hyper-interventionist approach to addressing the financial crisis, all contributions to individual non-freedom.

One more thing: citizens don't like to vote for wusses. The GOP Congress' great acts of wussification were the surrender on spending issues and the ceding of control over the non-SCOTUS judicial nomination process to the Democrats. Republicans are fed up with all the Nerf backbones in the party. We want hope and change.
11.15.2008 10:15am
Aleks:
Re: There were also 4.1 million fewer voters who attend religious services more than once a week.


Is this a misstatement? More than once a week? How many churches even have services on days other than Sunday (or Saturday)? Yes, the RC has weekday masses, but I can't think of any others that have services on weekdays, other than things like choir practice, bible study and the odd fellowship event. And by the more exhaustive studies I have sen, about 45 million Americans are reliable weekly attendees. I'd be surprised in ten perecnt that number attended weekday services regularly where they do exist. More likely Rove was referring to people who attend weekly.
11.15.2008 6:42pm
Jmaie (mail):
Why does CA have such a big budget deficit?

Gray Davis increased state payrolls by 45% in one terms, plus oversaw a large increase in other spending.

Scwarzenegger was never able to reverse the process.
11.15.2008 7:45pm
Jmaie (mail):
*one term*
11.15.2008 7:46pm
John S. (mail):
Take a tour of LA and San Diego before you say that.

You pick a very odd case study. San Diego had 5.9% growth in median income between 2000 and 2006. 5th highest median income in the US in 2006. Violent crime went down 12.4% from 2002 to 2006, and it has the lowest crime rate in the US for a city with a population over 250,000. All this occurred with increasing immigration.

The numbers do not support your conclusion that immigration is making things worse in any tangible measure; the only downward trend would be if you don't like living with people of other cultures.
11.15.2008 10:19pm
A. Zarkov (mail):
"Violent crime went down 12.4% from 2002 to 2006, ..."

You are cherry picking time intervals an old, but transparent trick. Why don't you use 1965 as the base year because that's when the immigration laws changed?

Another example is Bronx New York. When the largely lower middle class European Jewish population got replaced by Puerto Ricans, the crime rate soared. I personally witnessed the change. The same buildings got trashed when the ethnicity of the tenets changed. There is no avoiding the obvious. Who made the South Bronx into a hellhole? And that hellhole spread to the rest of the borough with the exception of a small corner of the north western Bronx.

"The numbers do not support your conclusion that immigration is making things worse in any tangible measure;"

You must be joking. Hispanics have three times the crime rate of non-Hispanic whites. Go look at the Department of Justice Statistics National Victimization Surveys-- Table 42. But be sure to use data after 2003. Before that whites and Hispanics were lumped together.

No amount of wishful thinking is going to change reality.
11.16.2008 3:23am
Mark A.R. Kleiman (mail) (www):
I agree with "A. Zarkov" about deportation. Can't we send him back to Russia?

As to Puerto Ricans, they're not immigrants; they're citizens.
11.16.2008 1:23pm
Sammy Finkelman (mail):
The Bronx was destroyed, by and large, not by people who moved there from other countries but by people who moved from other parts of New York City. The problem ariswss here. People become criminals by growing up in certain neighborhoods in the United States and attending public schools. Just thinmk of New Orleans which before 2005 had very little inmgration from anywhere and had the highest murder rate of any city in the country.

By and large immigration was one thing that held back crime.

I live in an area that must be about 90% foreign born and it's nothing.
11.16.2008 7:47pm