Senate Predictions

[Ananda]

That's interesting, however it only covers the Congress. Romney and McCain both outspent Obama and lost. In state races (as I mentioned with our governor) the trend has been that the least amount spent wins.

I'd be willing to bet that the bulk of the cases are incumbents who have much greater funding sources than challengers. Our government is wholly owned by special interests.

I posted an article about this after the 2012 elections. I'll see if I can dig it up.

The most interesting thing for me from this is your language usage. You used the word 'myth' here. I wouldn't usually remark about word usage given my remarkable ability to pick the wrong engrish word. However, you're a native speaker and this is no sloppy term usage, I think.

The fact that election results mostly go to the ones with more money is not a myth, but a fact. A myth is something like thor swinging his hammer around. The money/election thing is just fact.

What I am really curious about is if you decided to use that term yourself or if you are parroting sources who want this idea to permeate into the consciousness of the americans? If the latter, I can't say I blame you for parroting things that fit your worldview. We all do it at one time or another. I think what the most interesting part is, if when presented with it, we defend it or say, yes, that is bullshit.

The rationale behind 'money buys votes' is patronizing and undemocratic. Slickly packaged, expensively produced, and widely disseminated horseshit is still recognizable as horseshit to those with only a modicum of sense. And I take issue with the notion that the choice made when votes are cast is a fundamentally ignorant one. I think rather that collective judgments carry more weight than the opinions of any particular expert.

Yet the concern over election spending is supposedly used on behalf of a democratic rationale. But if the electorate cannot be trusted to separate the dross from reality, what reality can there be to a democracy in the first place.

I'm gratified that the trend is contra to this little piece of leftist hogwash.

Right, you nailed it, Nihilist. It is just like those advertising campaigns for products. Those never work at all. That multi billion euro/dollar/etc. industry is a joke. All those corporations spending huge, vast sums of money on marketing are just throwing their money away. We all know that, given the choice of product purple or product orange, we are equally likely to buy one of the other. Even when product purple has adverts 20 times a day telling us that product orange is made of toxic weasel nose. And, it is insulting, no... racist... to say that this advertising works in any way at all.

No philosophy is accurate on all things and Ayn Rand was just a writer.

[Zarathustra]

The Dems spent nearly the same amount as the Reps this time. Both parties spent nearly 2 billion. The small difference between the two doesn't correlate to the wide margin of victory for the Reps. It more accurately correlates to the President's unpopularity, along with his policies.

Myths are often exaggerated facts fashioned into a narrative/story, often with a villain and a hero, and used as an explanatory model of reality. I think "myth" is a very good description here of the idea that money is the boogiman in politics, and the explanation for why those evil Republicans won. It's an exaggeration of the facts, with a narrative crafted for emotional response, in order to explain the embarrassing defeat of the Dems, in a way that casts people like Koch brothers as the shadowy villains.

According to this site, Dems spent less than Reps in '06, when they won control of both Houses of Congress. In '08, Dems spent less than Reps, and won the White House. In 2010, Dems spent more than Reps, and lost the House of Representatives. In 2012, it was dead even, but Obama was easily reelected.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

The rationale behind 'money buys votes' is patronizing and undemocratic. Slickly packaged, expensively produced, and widely disseminated horseshit is still recognizable as horseshit to those with only a modicum of sense. And I take issue with the notion that the choice made when votes are cast is a fundamentally ignorant one. I think rather that collective judgments carry more weight than the opinions of any particular expert.

Yet the concern over election spending is supposedly used on behalf of a democratic rationale. But if the electorate cannot be trusted to separate the dross from reality, what reality can there be to a democracy in the first place.

I'm gratified that the trend is contra to this little piece of leftist hogwash.

Right, you nailed it, Nihilist. It is just like those advertising campaigns for products. Those never work at all. That multi billion euro/dollar/etc. industry is a joke. All those corporations spending huge, vast sums of money on marketing are just throwing their money away. We all know that, given the choice of product purple or product orange, we are equally likely to buy one of the other. Even when product purple has adverts 20 times a day telling us that product orange is made of toxic weasel nose. And, it is insulting, no... racist... to say that this advertising works in any way at all.

No philosophy is accurate on all things and Ayn Rand was just a writer.[/quote]

In the first place I'm neither a nihilist nor a fan of Ayn Rand -- I think she's full of shit in many respects, although I do take her critique of the absolutist forms of altruism seriously. "Ex nihilo" is a Latin phrase that means "from nothing" -- in context it indicates that the nature of an entity is produced by the will of its creator, rather than being the aspect of a transcendent nature. Even a peremptory investigation reveals that the phrase has nothing to do with nihilism -- the idea that life is meaningless.

In the second place people are not lemmings at the mercy of advertising. It is impossible to sell bad or useless products ad infinitum merely via the use of advertising. People are conscious of marketing, and consciously eschew it in many cases especially when the underlying products are perceived as horseshit. Just ask the Gillette corporation with their 5 bladed $5 disposable razors, that inspired the rebirth of traditional wet shaving in the US using $.10 razorblades. At some point a razor is just a fucking razor, no matter how many bells and whistles you supposedly put on it. Or consider PBR (if you've heard of it), the beer that markets itself via not marketing itself.

Nope, I'm not saying that people aren't influenced by the things they see and read, but the things they see and read don't turn them into automatons incapable of judgment. Most people are able to make their own autonomous value judgments about the things they are told. While these value judgments may be of varying quality, considered collectively they are fairly reliable for the most part. At least in terms of the question being asked. So no, your analogy fails.

If you don't believe that, you really can't believe in democracy -- you can only believe in a heavy handed paternalism that wants to tend the average citizen like a sheep.

[Ananda]

So no, your analogy fails.

It is not an analogy. It is the same practices with a different product.

If you don't believe that, you really can't believe in ...

That sentence can just end there.

If you don't agree with me and my personal point of view, then you can't believe in *thing universally considered desirable* and think all people are bad.

Also, guys, quit being extremists... there is a reason so much money is put into marketing products, whether those be product purple or candidate purple. It is because..... it works! Your own statistics say it has worked 91% of the time. Who cares which side did what. As far as I'm concerned, both american main parties are corrupt. I don't really think one is much better than the other.

Also, pointing out the outliers and presenting them as proof of the 'myth' is just silly. Of course marketing campaigns sometimes fail. But, they mostly do not fail, hence why so much money is spent doing them.

Thanks for the thing about ex nihilo. I just wrote nihilist as a tongue and cheek thing, though. Almost wrote about cutting of johnsons, but then thought that might not be enough of a mainstream reference.

And, yeah, we agree that Ayn Rand and her objectivism that is a huge part of the libertarian thing and the main libertarian presidential candidate is named after is often just crap.

[Zarathustra]

The myth accusation is still accurate because whatever role money plays, it's not the deciding factor. Even if you can prove a correlation, that's not causation. Perhaps the most popular candidate simply attracts the most donations, so that money is a measure of popularity, not a creator of it.

The only thing money can do is get a message out there. It can't change a single person's mind.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

So no, your analogy fails.

It is not an analogy. It is the same practices with a different product.

If you don't believe that, you really can't believe in ...

That sentence can just end there.

If you don't agree with me and my personal point of view, then you can't believe in *thing universally considered desirable* and think all people are bad.

Also, guys, quit being extremists... there is a reason so much money is put into marketing products, whether those be product purple or candidate purple. It is because..... it works! Your own statistics say it has worked 91% of the time. Who cares which side did what. As far as I'm concerned, both american main parties are corrupt. I don't really think one is much better than the other.

Also, pointing out the outliers and presenting them as proof of the 'myth' is just silly. Of course marketing campaigns sometimes fail. But, they mostly do not fail, hence why so much money is spent doing them.

Thanks for the thing about ex nihilo. I just wrote nihilist as a tongue and cheek thing, though. Almost wrote about cutting of johnsons, but then thought that might not be enough of a mainstream reference.

And, yeah, we agree that Ayn Rand and her objectivism that is a huge part of the libertarian thing and the main libertarian presidential candidate is named after is often just crap.

Ananda, I'll spell it out for you. Yes, you are attempting to use an analogy. The analogy is not apt because the marketing of products and services for profit is not analogous to a political campaign. And you are also trying to say that the product itself does not matter, that only advertising matters. That idea is self evidently horseshit even if it lends credence to your preferred position on money in politics.

And yes, if you don't believe that demos is capable of forming a valid judgment regardless of the influence of others, you cannot espouse a democratic ethos. You can only say "well, I and the rest of the elite must guide demos with my superior insights because he cannot be trusted." That might even be a valid assertion, but it is pretty far from the noble ideals the left is supposed to espouse.

[aliantha]

Doc, I would direct you to a seminal book called "The Selling of the President". Advertising does, in fact, work just as well (in general) for selling candidates as it does for selling soap. Campaign operatives spend a great deal of time and effort packaging their respective candidates.

The thing about marketing is that it's an arcane science that nobody fully understands. If it always worked, then every book published by a major publisher would be a bestseller, every candidate who outspends his opponent would be in office, and everybody with a better idea could just throw advertising dollars at the market and take over. Some advertising works better than other advertising. But in general, advertising can only provide the product, whatever it might be, with name recognition. The more familiar the name, the more likely the customer is (eventually) to buy it. That's what's really at work when incumbents win re-election -- their name is usually the most familiar of the options on the ballot. Unless somebody with a lot of money has blanketed the market with promotional material about another candidate, that is. Which is why money in politics is such a huge issue.

[Ananda]

So no, your analogy fails.

It is not an analogy. It is the same practices with a different product.

If you don't believe that, you really can't believe in ...

That sentence can just end there.

If you don't agree with me and my personal point of view, then you can't believe in *thing universally considered desirable* and think all people are bad.

Also, guys, quit being extremists... there is a reason so much money is put into marketing products, whether those be product purple or candidate purple. It is because..... it works! Your own statistics say it has worked 91% of the time. Who cares which side did what. As far as I'm concerned, both american main parties are corrupt. I don't really think one is much better than the other.

Also, pointing out the outliers and presenting them as proof of the 'myth' is just silly. Of course marketing campaigns sometimes fail. But, they mostly do not fail, hence why so much money is spent doing them.

Thanks for the thing about ex nihilo. I just wrote nihilist as a tongue and cheek thing, though. Almost wrote about cutting of johnsons, but then thought that might not be enough of a mainstream reference.

And, yeah, we agree that Ayn Rand and her objectivism that is a huge part of the libertarian thing and the main libertarian presidential candidate is named after is often just crap.

Ananda, I'll spell it out for you. Yes, you are attempting to use an analogy. The analogy is not apt because the marketing of products and services for profit is not analogous to a political campaign. And you are also trying to say that the product itself does not matter, that only advertising matters. That idea is self evidently horseshit even if it lends credence to your preferred position on money in politics.

And yes, if you don't believe that demos is capable of forming a valid judgment regardless of the influence of others, you cannot espouse a democratic ethos. You can only say "well, I and the rest of the elite must guide demos with my superior insights because he cannot be trusted." That might even be a valid assertion, but it is pretty far from the noble ideals the left is supposed to espouse.

Thank you, Nihilo, for spelling it out for me. I still stick to saying that marketing is marketing and that a candidate is, for practical purposes, a product. There is a reason they do market research, focused groups and so when they are marketing/selling a candidate.

Let's take a figure you all love to hate. Obama.

He had a brilliant marketing strategy. Those posters with HOPE, CHANGE and so with an iconic picture. Brilliant advertising! He had a logo, a slogan and the brand had its colour pallet. It was great sales, great branding, great slogans.

Anyway, candidates are products and marketed. They seem to know a lot more about that than you do hence why they spend vast amounts of money on it. Just like they do with a product.

You can point to losing candidates just like you can point to losing products. Zune, for example, was a losing candidate. They spent a fortune on that product and people didn't want it. They made sales, of course, but they ended cancelling the product line because it could not get any market share. The other candidates were just more appealing despite how much they spent marketing.

This failure of a product is not a sign that marketing does not work (the other candidates marketing worked better and maybe was a better candidate). It indicates that spending a lot on marketing is not a guarantee and that is all. Sometimes your candidate loses no matter how much you spend on it.

Also ,sorry Nihil, you repeating that unless I accept what you say as accurate, that I am rejecting something seen as good and saying people are bad still doesn't make it true. Of course people make decisions based on other factors! Just like with all products! There are things like product loyalty (party affiliation), apathy, the need to 'be different' and so. The market share these people are buying is the undecided consumer.

And, Nihil, my dear, people rarely make any value judgement 'regardless of the influence of others'. We are a social, tribal creature. We tend to go with the pack. We are influenced from the day we are born. We are influenced every day of our lives by others. This absolutism does you no service.

Finally, don't forget the pesky fact that...
www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp ... ure-wrong/

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

Doc, I would direct you to a seminal book called "The Selling of the President". Advertising does, in fact, work just as well (in general) for selling candidates as it does for selling soap. Campaign operatives spend a great deal of time and effort packaging their respective candidates.

The thing about marketing is that it's an arcane science that nobody fully understands. If it always worked, then every book published by a major publisher would be a bestseller, every candidate who outspends his opponent would be in office, and everybody with a better idea could just throw advertising dollars at the market and take over. Some advertising works better than other advertising. But in general, advertising can only provide the product, whatever it might be, with name recognition. The more familiar the name, the more likely the customer is (eventually) to buy it. That's what's really at work when incumbents win re-election -- their name is usually the most familiar of the options on the ballot. Unless somebody with a lot of money has blanketed the market with promotional material about another candidate, that is. Which is why money in politics is such a huge issue.

If you actually believe that the people are rubes with Pavlovian responses to the advertising suggestion they encounter, how can you recommend a government of, by, and for the people?

Here's how it works, and it isn't that complicated: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I don't care what you're selling, if it's horseshit, it will be seen through sooner or later, and you will pay the price.

[Ananda]

If you actually believe that the people are rubes with Pavlovian responses to the advertising suggestion they encounter, how can you recommend a government of, by, and for the people?

Here's how it works, and it isn't that complicated: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I don't care what you're selling, if it's horseshit, it will be seen through sooner or later, and you will pay the price.

I just said that, Nihil. No one but you is on an absolutism thing. Sometimes you're selling a Zune.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

If you actually believe that the people are rubes with Pavlovian responses to the advertising suggestion they encounter, how can you recommend a government of, by, and for the people?

Here's how it works, and it isn't that complicated: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I don't care what you're selling, if it's horseshit, it will be seen through sooner or later, and you will pay the price.

I just said that, Nihil. No one but you is on an absolutism thing. Sometimes you're selling a Zune.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and my last post was not addressed to you. There is nothing absolutist about the proposition that people can form valid judgments regardless of the apparent influence of others -- yes influence occurs, but that does not mean that the judgments each individual makes are inherently suspect. If I present a compelling argument that appeals to others, and they are won over by it, then that does not make their judgment about my ideas invalid. And that is what you are really suggesting: that advertising leads to invalid or suspect individual judgments, and therefore we must protect the individual from these excessively influential ideas. But who can be trusted to do that? I can think of no angelic coterie that I would entrust with such a task, even supposing that I wanted it done.

And yep. If you reject the validity of individual judgments within a marketplace of competing ideas, you are rejecting the very possibility of a democratic form of government.

[Ananda]

If you actually believe that the people are rubes with Pavlovian responses to the advertising suggestion they encounter, how can you recommend a government of, by, and for the people?

Here's how it works, and it isn't that complicated: you can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time. I don't care what you're selling, if it's horseshit, it will be seen through sooner or later, and you will pay the price.

I just said that, Nihil. No one but you is on an absolutism thing. Sometimes you're selling a Zune.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and my last post was not addressed to you.

Jaha... my apologies. It's late, I saw a name with an A. Too vain to get glasses here.

And yep. If you reject the validity of individual judgments within a marketplace of competing ideas, you are rejecting the very possibility of a democratic form of government.

Really? Then we better cancel democracy. We are sold influence all of the time. Look no further than this thread.

Myth

Leftist hogwash

And yet, there is a chart that shows 91% of the time, the one with the most money wins...

When someone says something that is shown as statistics as a a myth, they are selling a perception. This perception will not be bought by all, but those inclined to want to think that might start parroting that line. They repeat it to others, furthering the marketing of the idea that this is a myth despite the statistics.

When someone does call it leftist hogwash (what *is* hogwash!??! doesn't sound nice!) despite the statistics, they are selling a point of view. Those inclined to agree with that point of view will likely agree because they want to agree because it fits their biases. They will perpetuate this idea.

The thing about repeating things is that, even if they are not true, they work into the mind. It is a classic marketing strategy and used, obviously, in politics as well as product selling.

It is my opinion that people act on emotion more than anything else. And this is even if they feel they are very rational. marketing mostly is designed to appeal to our emotions, needs, wants. It is rarely aimed solely at our rational thought.

Have you ever learned about neural linguistic programming and manipulation? Marketing is like that- aimed at bypassing the rational decision making process. And, we are very good at marketing.

Don't even get into the socialisation process and how your social structure influences the frame for all your thought.

Besides, isn't this all a straw man to deflect from the chart?

you don't believe in any democracy if you don't agree with me...

Finally, what is your new picture? I like it and it looks familiar, but I cannot place it. I knew the last two I saw, but not this one.

[Obi-Wan Nihilo]

I just said that, Nihil. No one but you is on an absolutism thing. Sometimes you're selling a Zune.

I have no idea what you are talking about, and my last post was not addressed to you.

Jaha... my apologies. It's late, I saw a name with an A. Too vain to get glasses here.

And yep. If you reject the validity of individual judgments within a marketplace of competing ideas, you are rejecting the very possibility of a democratic form of government.

Really? Then we better cancel democracy. We are sold influence all of the time. Look no further than this thread.

Myth

Leftist hogwash

And yet, there is a chart that shows 91% of the time, the one with the most money wins...

When someone says something that is shown as statistics as a a myth, they are selling a perception. This perception will not be bought by all, but those inclined to want to think that might start parroting that line. They repeat it to others, furthering the marketing of the idea that this is a myth despite the statistics.

When someone does call it leftist hogwash (what *is* hogwash!??! doesn't sound nice!) despite the statistics, they are selling a point of view. Those inclined to agree with that point of view will likely agree because they want to agree because it fits their biases. They will perpetuate this idea.

The thing about repeating things is that, even if they are not true, they work into the mind. It is a classic marketing strategy and used, obviously, in politics as well as product selling.

It is my opinion that people act on emotion more than anything else. And this is even if they feel they are very rational. marketing mostly is designed to appeal to our emotions, needs, wants. It is rarely aimed solely at our rational thought.

Have you ever learned about neural linguistic programming and manipulation? Marketing is like that- aimed at bypassing the rational decision making process. And, we are very good at marketing.

Don't even get into the socialisation process and how your social structure influences the frame for all your thought.

Besides, isn't this all a straw man to deflect from the chart?

you don't believe in any democracy if you don't agree with me...

Finally, what is your new picture? I like it and it looks familiar, but I cannot place it. I knew the last two I saw, but not this one.

All action derives from emotion. Study the words emotion and motivation themselves. To move. “I am moved.” Emotions give an impulse to that leads in motion. Reason alone cannot provide the impetus to act, the significance behind events, the meaning that underlies our values and motives. What reason can do is be used to segregate the dross from the things that matter, to interpret events according to their true significance, and to suggest strategies for the achievement of goals.

The mere fact that we are all ruled by inner motives and emotional impulses does not mean that our judgments are invalid. They remain valid, whether or not they are mistaken. You have the right to believe that your misguided opinion is correct, and you are entitled to your mistaken judgment. Whether you were influenced by your sunny Scandinavian socialist environment – no doubt you have been – is irrelevant. Your judgment is still your judgment, and it must be respected as such. Were we to vote on something collectively – supposing we were members of a common democratic polity – your vote would count as much as mine.

Where we run into trouble is when we begin to want to use that political process to silence those we disagree with – to say, you can’t speak too loudly or too broadly because you are convincing too many people to agree with you, and I don’t like your opinion nor think it wise. Once you’ve decided to limit the exchange of political ideas in the name of preserving your idea of virtue, you’ve trumped the popular will and thus democracy. It really doesn’t matter how you dress that up – whether as a good thing that leads to a good outcome or as simply the self-evident wisdom of the elect – it is still totalitarian and undemocratic.

[Zarathustra]

The brand had it color palette, alright. He didn't get elected due to marketing. He got elected because it was more important to Dems to elect the First Black President than the fact that he had no experience.

[Cail]

Well here's some interesting ideas....

6 bills the GOP should pass

So Republicans have taken back the Senate and in January will control both houses of Congress. That brings them to the question posed by a famous political book: You won — Now what?

The problem for Republicans is that because they do not have a veto-proof majority, they can pass bills but can't get them past President Obama. It doesn't mean that they're doomed to futility. They can pass three kinds of bills: those Obama will want to sign; those he won't want to sign but will have to; and those he'll veto, but where a veto is unpopular. With that in mind, I have six suggestions for the new GOP-controlled Congress:

1 End the federally imposed 21-year-old drinking age. The limit was dreamed up in the 1980s as a bit of political posturing by then-secretary of Transportation Elizabeth Dole. It has been a disaster. College drinking hasn't been reduced; it has just moved out of bars and into dorm rooms, fraternities/sororities and house parties. The result has been a boom in alcohol problems on campus. While drunken driving has declined, it was declining before the age was raised and has declined just as fast in Canada, where the drinking age is 18 or 19 depending on the province.

As John McCardell, vice chancellor of the University of the South in Sewanee, Tenn., writes, "If you infantilize someone, do not be surprised when infantile behavior — like binge drinking — results." Easing pressure on states to raise their own drinking ages is consistent with GOP ideals. Obama hasn't been hot on lowering the drinking age, but it's hard to imagine him vetoing this.

2 Decriminalize marijuana at the federal level. Many states have legalized marijuana, but it remains illegal under federal law. That's bound to change sooner or later — and the GOP might as well get ahead of it. Would Obama veto it? Doubtful.

3 Repeal the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This awful law passed in the Clinton era is a giveaway to the entertainment industry. It places major burdens on Internet and computer users and electronic innovators. In fact, we should reform copyright law in general: A 28-year term was good enough when America was new; double that would be fair enough now as opposed to the nearly perpetual duration copyrights enjoy today. Shorter copyrights would encourage Hollywood and the music industry to produce new material, instead of endlessly recycling old stuff.

Bonus for Republicans: The entertainment industries hate them, so this would be a species of payback. Would Obama veto this, protecting fat-cat industry types who were his own big contributors? Probably, but it wouldn't look good.

4 Make birth-control pills available over the counter. Cory Gardner made this a part of his winning platform in Colorado's Senate race. Let women choose. If Obama vetoed this, Republicans could accuse him of waging "war on women."

5 End public-sector employee unions. Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker eliminated dues-withholding for public employee unions in his state. The unions were so angry that they organized a recall campaign against him. They lost. They then tried to recall a Wisconsin Supreme Court justice who upheld his action. They lost. They then tried to beat Walker in last week's election. They lost again.

President Franklin Roosevelt opposed public employee unions because he thought that people whose salaries came from the taxpayers shouldn't have the right to collectively bargain against citizens whose taxes were being collected by force, and that collective bargaining by public employees was a conflict of interest. He was right. Obama would veto this, but his veto would be highly unpopular and set up an issue for 2016.

6 Institute a "revolving door" surtax on those who make more in post-government employment. Leave a Treasury job making $150,000 a year to take one in private industry paying $750,000, and you'll pay 50% surtax on the $600,000 difference. Most of the increased pay is based on knowledge and connections you got while on Uncle Sam's dime, so why shouldn't Uncle Sam get a share? An Obama veto would be unpopular.

These are my suggestions, and they look like easy point-scorers for the GOP Congress, with the added advantage that they're the right thing to do. Plus, passing them, and watching the reaction, would be fun. At this point, I think we all deserve a little fun.

[SerScot]

Ananda,

For the record. I do not "hate" President Obama. I disagree with many of the policies of his administration.

I like those bills.

[Zarathustra]

Those all look like good suggestions, Cail. The drinking age issue could be used to argue that our troops are old enough to die for their country, but not old enough to get some adult relief and recreation, thus placating the conservatives who might oppose it.

The birth control issue is very important. It's not just about securing the women's vote. The idea that a woman has to go through a "gatekeeper" who gets to poke and prod her insides in order to get basic birth control is just barbaric. No woman should have to put up with mandatory cervical exams just to get the pill. Let's get the government out of our wives' vaginas, please. Republicans should absolutely fight for this.

Of course I'm for decriminalization of pot. As the article says, public opinion has already moved this way, with a majority of Americans for the first time supporting decriminalization. Reps should get ahead of that and own the issue, one for which Obama has been a big fat hypocrite. It won't make them popular with the far right, but so what? It will help set up a Rand Paul presidency.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I also like all 6 of those suggestions. Realistically, though, a Republican Congress would gladly approve numbers 1, 3, and 5, they will balk at 2 and 4 because the evangelical wing will vociferously disapprove, and they won't even touch 6 because many of them are looking forward to pay raises when they leave Congress and transform their political career into a more lucrative consulting/lobbying career.

[Vraith]

I also like all 6 of those suggestions. Realistically, though, a Republican Congress would gladly approve numbers 1, 3, and 5, they will balk at 2 and 4 because the evangelical wing will vociferously disapprove, and they won't even touch 6 because many of them are looking forward to pay raises when they leave Congress and transform their political career into a more lucrative consulting/lobbying career.

Yea, they won't touch 6 at all...though I don't think most dem/lib poli's would either. The VOTERS of both alignments might approve, but not the politicians.
The rest...some conservatives [the fiscal ones] and most Libertarians would at least consider them, I think. But I don't think the Republican party would.

Heh...on the first, I don't know how possible it is. There seems to be a trend to RAISE the tobacco age to 21 [a number of cities...it might pass in NJ...CO defeated it, but it's expected to come up again]. I'm not sure if people will look at booze as more like pot, gaining favor or more like tobacco, losing it.

[Cail]

#1 isn't about raising the age, it's about eliminating the federal restriction and the withholding of highway funds.