Yeah, it was pretty fantastic. Sherri Shephard was all, "I don't appreciate the way you're talking to [Barbara]. Nobody is attacking you. You don't have to talk to her like that." Whoopi then decided to take Ann to task for comments she had made about the dangers of single motherhood. Ann did her usual thing where she didn't actually answer any questions, just doubled-back and tried to turn things on the person asking the questions. Whoopi then accused Ann of not being able to "take it" even though she could dish it out. When they went to break, they said that they would be right back to continue the interview, however, when they returned, Ann was gone and they had moving onto the next segment. It was some good stuff, y'all.Mister Tee wrote:flipp525 wrote:Oh, and did anyone see Ann Coulter on The View? THAT was some good television.
No -- describe, please. I'd like to think someone would have the fortitude to question her the way she deserves, and I'd tust those women more than any milquetoast mainstream journalist.
2008 Election Results Discussion: President
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I didn't watch it, just saw something on CNN about it, but apparently she went after Barbara for reading excerpts from her book like she were reading Mein Kampf. Barbara apparently never attacked her, but the rest of the ensemble, including apparently, Elisabeth Hasselbeck (conservative herself), went after Coulter for the way she treated Barbara and, I guess, other topics.Mister Tee wrote:flipp525 wrote:Oh, and did anyone see Ann Coulter on The View? THAT was some good television.
No -- describe, please. I'd like to think someone would have the fortitude to question her the way she deserves, and I'd tust those women more than any milquetoast mainstream journalist.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
Living in an area of the state that went 55% for McCain and went in the low 60s for Bush, I can attest to the use of Hussein as a plot. There were several opinion pieces in our paper's opinion section on the matter and most of them wonder why the "liberal" media refuses to use his middle name, but they were always quick to jump on the W. bandwagon...
How often did we call Bill Clinton by his full name William Jefferson Clinton? or Ronald Wilson Reagan? or James Earl Carter Jr.? or even Herbert Clark Hoover? Almost never. Used in formal situations, but never in general conversation.
It's fairly blatant and I wish more people would call them out on it.
How often did we call Bill Clinton by his full name William Jefferson Clinton? or Ronald Wilson Reagan? or James Earl Carter Jr.? or even Herbert Clark Hoover? Almost never. Used in formal situations, but never in general conversation.
It's fairly blatant and I wish more people would call them out on it.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
You mean they expect him to start lighting black smoke and come and steal all of our children?flipp525 wrote:Is the constant inclusion of "Hussein" by Fox News and other conservative media outlets an attempt to make the President-elect sound like an Other?
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
Is the constant inclusion of "Hussein" by Fox News and other conservative media outlets an attempt to make the President-elect sound like an Other? It's so transparent and vapid. Makes the Republicans sound so irrelevant, just like their entire party at the moment.
Oh, and did anyone see Ann Coulter on The View? THAT was some good television.
Oh, and did anyone see Ann Coulter on The View? THAT was some good television.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Demography And Destiny
Population trends boosting the Democrats show no sign of slowing.
by Ronald Brownstein
Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009
To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.
Start by considering the electorate's six broadest demographic groups -- white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.
Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.
That's because Obama's best groups are much larger today than in 1992. From 1992 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans jumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. For Hispanics the share soared from 2 percent to 9 percent; for Asians and other minorities combined, from 2 percent to 5 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the vote cast by well-educated whites remained unchanged at 35 percent. The big losers were blue-collar whites -- those without college degrees -- whose share plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.
That's a threat to the GOP because those culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters. McCain won 58 percent of them, and Obama just 40 percent. Obama, by contrast, won 95 percent of African-Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of other minorities, 62 percent of Asians, and 47 percent of college-educated whites. Apply those results to the 1992 share of the vote for all six groups, and McCain beats Obama, 50.2 percent to 47.9 percent.
It's reasonable to assume that whenever Obama ran, he would have boosted black turnout. From 2004 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans increased by nearly one-fifth. If you increase the share of the vote cast by blacks in 1992 by that amount -- and offset their gains with equal reductions among college and noncollege whites -- the result tightens, but McCain still edges out Obama, 49.2 percent to 49.1 percent. The distance between these "fantasy baseball" results and Obama's 7-point real-world victory underscores the political impact of demographic change. The problem for Republicans is that the population trends boosting the Democrats show no sign of slowing.
Today non-Hispanic whites make up two-thirds of the U.S. population. But in 2008 they still cast 74 percent of the ballots in the presidential contest. African-Americans represent about the same share of the vote (13 percent) as they do of the population (12 percent). So do "other" minorities (3 percent and 2 percent).
Asians, meanwhile, are modestly underrepresented in the electorate (2 percent of voters; 4 percent of population). And Hispanics are severely underrepresented (just 9 percent of voters compared with 15 percent of population).
The Census Bureau projects that the white share of the overall population will decline to 60 percent by 2020 and 51 percent by 2040. The black population share will remain largely unchanged; Asian and "other minority" shares of the population will grow steadily (to nearly 11 percent combined by 2040); and the Hispanic presence will explode. By 2020, Hispanics are projected to constitute nearly one-fifth of the population; by 2040, more than one-fourth.
William Frey, a prominent Brookings Institution demographer, says that even as those numbers rise, the gap will steadily narrow between Hispanic representation in the population and in the electorate. "The biggest source of Hispanic population growth is not immigration, but from the children of recent immigrants. And, by definition, they are voting citizens once they turn 18," he says. Whites may still outvote their population numbers, Frey predicts, but as Hispanic participation increases, the white overrepresentation will diminish. That change promises an increasingly nonwhite electorate.
These trends point toward trouble for the GOP if it cannot attract more minorities, especially Hispanics, and reverse the recent Democratic inroads among well-educated whites.
The best way to illustrate that prospect is to pitch the thought experiment forward 12 years. Imagine that the major demographic groups voted as they did in 2008, but cast a share of the vote equal to their expected share of the population in 2020. (For argument's sake, let's divide whites among college and noncollege voters in the same proportions as today.) In that scenario, Obama beats McCain by nearly 14 points -- almost twice as much as in 2008. Demography will indeed be destiny if Republicans can't broaden their reach.
Population trends boosting the Democrats show no sign of slowing.
by Ronald Brownstein
Saturday, Jan. 10, 2009
To grasp how powerfully demographic change is reshaping the political landscape try this thought experiment about the 2008 election.
Start by considering the electorate's six broadest demographic groups -- white voters with at least a four-year college degree; white voters without a college degree; African-Americans; Hispanics; Asians; and other minorities.
Now posit that each of those groups voted for Barack Obama or John McCain in exactly the same proportions as it actually did. Then imagine that each group represented the share of the electorate that it did in 1992. If each of these groups voted as it did in 2008 but constituted the same share of the electorate as in 1992, McCain would have won. Comfortably.
That's because Obama's best groups are much larger today than in 1992. From 1992 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans jumped from 8 percent to 13 percent. For Hispanics the share soared from 2 percent to 9 percent; for Asians and other minorities combined, from 2 percent to 5 percent. Meanwhile, the percentage of the vote cast by well-educated whites remained unchanged at 35 percent. The big losers were blue-collar whites -- those without college degrees -- whose share plummeted from 53 percent in 1992 to just 39 percent now.
That's a threat to the GOP because those culturally conservative, working-class whites are today its most reliable voters. McCain won 58 percent of them, and Obama just 40 percent. Obama, by contrast, won 95 percent of African-Americans, 67 percent of Hispanics, 66 percent of other minorities, 62 percent of Asians, and 47 percent of college-educated whites. Apply those results to the 1992 share of the vote for all six groups, and McCain beats Obama, 50.2 percent to 47.9 percent.
It's reasonable to assume that whenever Obama ran, he would have boosted black turnout. From 2004 to 2008, the share of the vote cast by African-Americans increased by nearly one-fifth. If you increase the share of the vote cast by blacks in 1992 by that amount -- and offset their gains with equal reductions among college and noncollege whites -- the result tightens, but McCain still edges out Obama, 49.2 percent to 49.1 percent. The distance between these "fantasy baseball" results and Obama's 7-point real-world victory underscores the political impact of demographic change. The problem for Republicans is that the population trends boosting the Democrats show no sign of slowing.
Today non-Hispanic whites make up two-thirds of the U.S. population. But in 2008 they still cast 74 percent of the ballots in the presidential contest. African-Americans represent about the same share of the vote (13 percent) as they do of the population (12 percent). So do "other" minorities (3 percent and 2 percent).
Asians, meanwhile, are modestly underrepresented in the electorate (2 percent of voters; 4 percent of population). And Hispanics are severely underrepresented (just 9 percent of voters compared with 15 percent of population).
The Census Bureau projects that the white share of the overall population will decline to 60 percent by 2020 and 51 percent by 2040. The black population share will remain largely unchanged; Asian and "other minority" shares of the population will grow steadily (to nearly 11 percent combined by 2040); and the Hispanic presence will explode. By 2020, Hispanics are projected to constitute nearly one-fifth of the population; by 2040, more than one-fourth.
William Frey, a prominent Brookings Institution demographer, says that even as those numbers rise, the gap will steadily narrow between Hispanic representation in the population and in the electorate. "The biggest source of Hispanic population growth is not immigration, but from the children of recent immigrants. And, by definition, they are voting citizens once they turn 18," he says. Whites may still outvote their population numbers, Frey predicts, but as Hispanic participation increases, the white overrepresentation will diminish. That change promises an increasingly nonwhite electorate.
These trends point toward trouble for the GOP if it cannot attract more minorities, especially Hispanics, and reverse the recent Democratic inroads among well-educated whites.
The best way to illustrate that prospect is to pitch the thought experiment forward 12 years. Imagine that the major demographic groups voted as they did in 2008, but cast a share of the vote equal to their expected share of the population in 2020. (For argument's sake, let's divide whites among college and noncollege voters in the same proportions as today.) In that scenario, Obama beats McCain by nearly 14 points -- almost twice as much as in 2008. Demography will indeed be destiny if Republicans can't broaden their reach.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
I'm sure no one but me even cares about this anymore, but...
Vote totals continue to be added/certified, and, as I'd suspected, Obama's margin of victory has grown since the original election night 4-5%. Specifically: he now has a lead of 9.5 million votes, and a 52.9% share of the national total with McCain 7.2% behind at 45.7% (Nader, Barr and "others" split the remaining 1.4%). This is a whole lot closer to Bush I's 7.7% spead than it appeared a few weeks ago, and confirms the impressive size of Obama's mandate.
Oh, and McCain carried the states of the Confederacy by 2.5 million -- down from the 5.5 million margin Bush had in '04, but still indicating where the GOP remains strong. We're very much seeing the McKinley coalition resurrected, only with the parties reversed.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1228684472
Vote totals continue to be added/certified, and, as I'd suspected, Obama's margin of victory has grown since the original election night 4-5%. Specifically: he now has a lead of 9.5 million votes, and a 52.9% share of the national total with McCain 7.2% behind at 45.7% (Nader, Barr and "others" split the remaining 1.4%). This is a whole lot closer to Bush I's 7.7% spead than it appeared a few weeks ago, and confirms the impressive size of Obama's mandate.
Oh, and McCain carried the states of the Confederacy by 2.5 million -- down from the 5.5 million margin Bush had in '04, but still indicating where the GOP remains strong. We're very much seeing the McKinley coalition resurrected, only with the parties reversed.
Edited By Mister Tee on 1228684472
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
The thing with Missouri is the same thing with Minnesota. While the margin in MN was much narrower, Missouri also has a lot of paper ballot usage, a lot of absentee and provisional ballots to count. As I read somewhere, the only reason most orgs don't call states is because their contacts in the various offices have more outstanding ballots to count than the margin of victory. Also, the current total is within recount range, which often favors the dems.
NBC called a lot of states early and ended up being right. But, the thing is the exit polls, which were markedly clear in most of the other races around the country showed Obama winning Missouri, which may have another thing to do with other news orgs not calling the race.
NBC called a lot of states early and ended up being right. But, the thing is the exit polls, which were markedly clear in most of the other races around the country showed Obama winning Missouri, which may have another thing to do with other news orgs not calling the race.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
To return to the ostensible thread topic: Nate Silver has a post today wondering why MO has been called by virtually no one except NBC. Nate's run of the numbers tells him it's way beyond unlikely Obama could rally to take it, despite how close it is. People are suggesting MO is so in love with its Look at me, I'm a bellwether! status that it's reluctant to let go.
I am starting to wonder if the state officials are plotting to somehow give the state to Obama, in order to maintain that notorious bellwether status.
Maybe they'll suddenly come out next week and say they discovered thousands unaccounted Democratic ballots in the trunk of a car.
(Obviously I am joking)
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
To return to the ostensible thread topic: Nate Silver has a post today wondering why MO has been called by virtually no one except NBC. Nate's run of the numbers tells him it's way beyond unlikely Obama could rally to take it, despite how close it is. People are suggesting MO is so in love with its Look at me, I'm a bellwether! status that it's reluctant to let go.
Here's a preview of a Sixty Minutes interview with Barack and Michelle Obama. They come across as an incredibly adorable couple.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4605988n
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4605988n
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, which is probably the “authority” on the subject, has made the following statement:
“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voters intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidates opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
My take on this:
These statements are instructive, because they tell us that while it would be wrong to support a candidate because he or she is pro-choice, it is acceptable to support a candidate despite being pro-choice, as long as your conscience tells you that the candidate's views on other moral issues are just as important. The bishops tell us that to support a pro-life candidate only for that stance, if that candidate fails to address other critical moral issues, would also be wrong.
So, in other words the “single issue” approach to voting that revolves around “choice” or “life” is not valid.
Nobody has a right to be a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church. If the Church is to have any validity, it has to take a stand on important moral issues and stand by their positions. The Church has been consistent and clear about abortion, even though they must know the majority of Catholics in the U.S. and Europe disagree with their position.
But I think these bishops and priests who have made the recent statements about denying the sacraments to people who voted for pro choice candidates are wrong to single out abortion. There are times when a truly moral person of any religion (or no religion) who thinks abortion is wrong can vote for a pro choice against a pro life candidate with a clear conscience. One situation is when the pro life candidate represents a political party and philosophy that has used fake evidence to justify a war that has needlessly cost tens of thousand of lives, supports policies that threaten grave consequences to our environment, supports economic and tax policies that hurt the interests of the vast majority of people in favor of the wealthy few, supports policies that allow for the lengthy detention and torture of hundreds of people without bringing charges against them nor allowing them to present a defense, etc.
I am, of course, speaking about a purely hypothetical situation :;):
Edited By kaytodd on 1226773676
“A Catholic cannot vote for a candidate who takes a position in favor of an intrinsic evil, such as abortion or racism, if the voters intent is to support that position. In such cases a Catholic would be guilty of formal cooperation in grave evil. At the same time, a voter should not use a candidates opposition to an intrinsic evil to justify indifference or inattentiveness to other important moral issues involving human life and dignity.”
Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States
United States Conference of Catholic Bishops
http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf
My take on this:
These statements are instructive, because they tell us that while it would be wrong to support a candidate because he or she is pro-choice, it is acceptable to support a candidate despite being pro-choice, as long as your conscience tells you that the candidate's views on other moral issues are just as important. The bishops tell us that to support a pro-life candidate only for that stance, if that candidate fails to address other critical moral issues, would also be wrong.
So, in other words the “single issue” approach to voting that revolves around “choice” or “life” is not valid.
Nobody has a right to be a member in good standing of the Roman Catholic Church. If the Church is to have any validity, it has to take a stand on important moral issues and stand by their positions. The Church has been consistent and clear about abortion, even though they must know the majority of Catholics in the U.S. and Europe disagree with their position.
But I think these bishops and priests who have made the recent statements about denying the sacraments to people who voted for pro choice candidates are wrong to single out abortion. There are times when a truly moral person of any religion (or no religion) who thinks abortion is wrong can vote for a pro choice against a pro life candidate with a clear conscience. One situation is when the pro life candidate represents a political party and philosophy that has used fake evidence to justify a war that has needlessly cost tens of thousand of lives, supports policies that threaten grave consequences to our environment, supports economic and tax policies that hurt the interests of the vast majority of people in favor of the wealthy few, supports policies that allow for the lengthy detention and torture of hundreds of people without bringing charges against them nor allowing them to present a defense, etc.
I am, of course, speaking about a purely hypothetical situation :;):
Edited By kaytodd on 1226773676
The great thing in the world is not so much where we stand, as in what direction we are moving. It's faith in something and enthusiasm for something that makes a life worth living. Oliver Wendell Holmes