In 2003 Parker wrote:

[Zell] Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches: “These b*stards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient *ss, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and shot.”

Sorry no sympathy here; those who live by the sword, die by it.

Jesse Helms is not even alive anymore. Besides, after Cynthia MckInney was defeated the first time by cross cover Republican voters, the Democrats in Georgia went out of their way to put her back in office. Then the cross over Reupblicans had to vote her out a second time.

White Democrats act like the CBC is in a different political party than the party that they are end. Look at comments white progressives make about education, church membership, or personal actions, and it is obvious that white progressives always exclude blacks and Hispanics when discussing party politics.

On the flipside, who doesn't know Jesse Helms? What Republican hasn't praised him?

Thank you for proving my point. Republicans are tarred by Jesse Helms but no Democrat is ever tarred with Cynthia McKinney who are even more racist than Jesse Helms.

has it helped the Republicans in Mass. or Maryland to be moderate and avoid the soical conservatives? I think not. The Republicans are at a disadvantage is that whatever one Republican politician does, all of them get the blame. Yet, for Democrats, the CBC can be as looney as they want and white Democrats act like the CBC is in a different party. See the vote on the bailout package. The CBC voted against it but the Republicans get the plane for not delivering more votes. Maybe Speaker Pelosi and Senator Obama could have delivered the CBC and then the Republican nay votes would have been meaningless.

Since the Repulbicans are the party with the demographic disadvantage, kicking out anyone does not make much sense. Karl Rove thought he could pander to Hispanics without losing white voters and he was wrong.

more than anyone on the far left on this site (who know it's the only way they possibly can have their extreme views represented),

There is another way. We ( the left ) could let the Republicans take the Senate, House, Presidency and Supreme Court for a decade or so, they will f**k up the works so badly that Pol Pot could get elected.

Is Jack Murtha a Coward and a Traitor?

Sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

There is no graph for the Congressional funds yet but the prices tell the tale. Here is yesterday's average price for the three funds. Dem gains in each house of Congress are strongly predicted; Dem control of both houses of Congress is strongly predicted.

House

09/30/08 DH.gain08 0.817
09/30/08 DH.hold08 0.121
09/30/08 DH.lose08 0.082

Senate

09/30/08 DS.gain08 0.908
09/30/08 DS.hold08 0.023
09/30/08 DS.lose08 0.078

Congress (overall — who controls each house of Congress — the _last_ price of the day, closing price, is listed here because two of the four funds had no average price posted)

09/30/08 DH_DS08 0.935
09/30/08 DH_RS08 0.014
09/30/08 RH_DS08 0.061
09/30/08 RH_RS08 0.035

Having all views potentially represented would not necessarily result in more moderation (I have the solution to that — see below), but rather would make it more possible for all but the most fringist views to have representation. That is why so many “progressives” (the far left, sometimes extending to radicalism) are in favor of proportional representation. It's the only chance they possibly have to have their views represented to any significant extent in legislatures. Short of that they have to settle for the occasional Sanders or Kucinich or Lee or McKinney freak show in DC.

The way to encourage moderation, not necessarily a good thing in and of itself (I tire of sheepish liberals who want their liberalism to be unquestioned, which to often seems to define “moderation” — suppression of criticism of that liberalism) is to use the best way to vote for a single-person office, namely the approval vote. (The ideal would be to require voters to exercise the “best strategy,” voting for a specific number of candidates to have their ballot accepted, but I needn't delve this deeply here.) The approval vote is (normally) where you can vote for as many candidates as you like. It will encourage moderation insofar as it will select the candidate that appeals to the most people. “If nobody agrees on a first choice, but everybody agrees on the second choice, that person will win the approval vote and that person _should_ be elected.” You can see by the foregoing how (true) moderation would be encouraged by this.

Since electorial votes are awarded on a state wide (or Congressional District basis) there are many states where there will be no competative elections. My guess is that in at least 45 of the U.S. House Distircts in California there will not be a competative race for office. For most people in California, the iniatives will be the only meaningful election.

In Maryland there is probably one U.S. House Seat that is up for grabs. It is like that in many states, If Senator Obama's lead grows in Virginia, there will be no point in voting since where election is be a lock.

Will the model for the future Republican Party be the current Republican Party in Mass. or Maryland where the Republicans have zero say in policy but act as a rump party on which the DEmocrats define themselves. Why would anyone vote in the Republican Primary in most blue states. It just limits their say in who wins. In states like Maryland and Mass. the Rep;ublicans Party would probably be better off disbanding and having the former Republicans vote in the Democratic Primary to keep out the most liberals members.

Someone should add up the number of election districts where there is not once competitive race and figure out how many people are going to the polls for cast meaningless ballots.

I think this is not quite correct–because there is a competitive Presidential race, there are zero election districts without that as a competitive race.

But I think he means the other races on the ticket, and in that case, Superdestroyer brings up a good point. There will be plenty of races with only one candidate, some with nominal competition, and a few where a viably alternative candidate doesn't have a prayer of winning.

That's because, for many offices, elected officials get to set their own districts. Naturally, they set them up so they can't lose, or so their party can't lose. No one, other than the candidates who can't lose, benefit from this. And because you'd have one-party rule in those districts, that encourages more extreme candidates to compete in the primaries, where only the true believers of that party get to vote.

There should be an end to this process, which is called gerrymandering. I favor the Iowa model, which draws electoral districts in a non-partisan fashion.

We should only have competitive districts. Having no more safe seats would encourage moderation.

Someone should add up the number of election district where there is not once competative race and figure out how many people are going to the polls for cast meaningless ballots.