No relevent Republican candidates in 2012 for President.

[adifferenceinsize]

I think most of the senior republicans are waiting till 2016 when they hope they are facing someone like Clinton. Who I'm still surprised has stayed on board and not looked for a way to 'bow out' with honor so she can run against the President. She's got to have been given some MAJOR promises for her to behave as well as she has.

Eh... Clinton knows she has a much better chance being a team player and building up some national credibility as a Secretary of State than trying to go after the presidency now. Frankly, if anyone vaguely centrist in their party tries to run a real campaign against Obama next year, it'd have to be because of some massive meltdown, and I still think Clinton has a better chance in a position where she gets to play to her strengths as a fighter rather than clean-up. If anything, I'm curious as to the layout of the White House's flow of communications, because the direction it's been taking in many areas seems an odd hedging between progressive and Clintonian tacks.

[Callie Del Noire]

Eh... Clinton knows she has a much better chance being a team player and building up some national credibility as a Secretary of State than trying to go after the presidency now. Frankly, if anyone vaguely centrist in their party tries to run a real campaign against Obama next year, it'd have to be because of some massive meltdown, and I still think Clinton has a better chance in a position where she gets to play to her strengths as a fighter rather than clean-up. If anything, I'm curious as to the layout of the White House's flow of communications, because the direction it's been taking in many areas seems an odd hedging between progressive and Clintonian tacks.

If there was ANYTHING remotely able to add '-gate' to the crisis name, she'd be out the door in a heartbeat in 'protest' over the 'corruption in the white house' in an effort to 'save the office' if there is a REMOTE chance she could do it and look good at the performing it.

As it is, I figure she's got more leverage with the party than the VP at this point. Problem is both of them will be OLD by then.

[OldSchoolGamer]

There haven't been relevant (useful people that actually know what is going on and have ideas and the will to carry them out) candidates for POTUS in at least 20 years.  At least, none that the media are permitted to discuss.  Assclowns and corporate front men are all we have left.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

[Vekseid]

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

I'm going to just quote this here so someone can point you to it in 2030.

I have no doubt that America will have to reinvent itself around 2016. Funny how nations do that when they are forced to. But it won't be the end of America any more than England has ended.

Actually I think there is a good chance that this century, too, will see the United States exiting it while remaining the world's greatest superpower.

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

[Oniya]

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

I'm sitting here, literally shaking, because I went off looking for a half-remembered quote.  Out of context, it would have been, at best, a 'bumper sticker' quote.  In context, it was more than I was expecting.  The quote derives from a 1976 movie called 'Network'.  The actual movie scene is incredibly powerful, but still has enough 'movie-ness' to be distracting, so I found this video with just the audio and typography.  You can look up the video clip if you want - I'd actually recommend it - but this sums up what needs to happen, and soon.

Mad As Hell! Kinetic Typography

[TheGlyphstone]

There haven't been relevant (useful people that actually know what is going on and have ideas and the will to carry them out) candidates for POTUS in at least 20 years.  At least, none that the media are permitted to discuss.  Assclowns and corporate front men are all we have left.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

American Elder Party: Why Vote For The Lesser Evil?

I'm going to just quote this here so someone can point you to it in 2030.

I have no doubt that America will have to reinvent itself around 2016. Funny how nations do that when they are forced to. But it won't be the end of America any more than England has ended.

Actually I think there is a good chance that this century, too, will see the United States exiting it while remaining the world's greatest superpower.

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

Hear, hear. The good old USA isn't going anywhere anytime soon.

[Callie Del Noire]

There haven't been relevant (useful people that actually know what is going on and have ideas and the will to carry them out) candidates for POTUS in at least 20 years.  At least, none that the media are permitted to discuss.  Assclowns and corporate front men are all we have left.

Folks, I hate to break it to you, but America is going down hard.  If you want to at least be able to tell your descendants that you tried diverting America from its collective stampede off the cliff, vote for a third party.  If you're past caring (I pretty much am) just dice randomly for a Demopublican (the two parties are the same behind the scenes, when the cameras aren't rolling).

2012 may well be the last Presidential election America ever holds.  I'm not going to make that a formal prediction--I think 2016 is even money though, and I'd bet about four to one against there being a 2020 election.

No, we're not. IF we get our collective heads out of our ass. Third parties aren't the way to fix problems. Taking BACK our parties from corporate interests is. As well as the special interests. It's a litmus test to become president now. You have to pass this special interests test, and this one, and that one, and those two..

Not the way it should be.

The media is too concerned with either pulling down a candidate over any perceived flaw or mistake in the past or rebuilding 'Camelot' in their view. Too many candidates who COULD be a good president for WON'T RUN.

Not because they are bad people,  but because they are HUMAN. They made mistakes, they misspeak, they have FLAWS. Rule of thumb: EVERYONE IS HUMAN, we all have feet of clay.

Consider this.  Nixon was a noxious man who couldn't deal with rivals or the media, BUT he was quite possibly the best foreign policy president of the 2nd half of the last century. He did more build peace with China and the USSR than anyone else could have done (or could have done).

Abraham Lincoln would have been marginalize (tall gawky man) and how many other good men who were president wouldn't have made the 'MEDIA' cut?

The media role is to INFORM. Not DECIDE.

[Jude]

I often hear people blame interest groups, corporations, corrupt politicians, and the media for the problems that our country is facing.  When people aren't pointing the finger in that direction they have it squarely fixed on the half of the political spectrum that are in disagreement with.  Such a small percentage of people are left over after that, some who don't think our problems are actually that bad and others who blame us for the troubles that are plaguing us.  I think I've come to settle somewhere between there.

We live in a country where ignorance is practically a way of life (not that I'm making the claim that it's better or worse anywhere else).  I'm increasingly beginning to think that we are a nation of morons.

- People are against decreasing our spending in damn near every category and against tax increases (http://people-press.org/report/702/) but apparently really think the government should do something about our debt (http://people-press.org/report/683/).  Basically they want the problem fixed but the only ways in want it fixed are the ones that don't actually require them to contribute to the solution.

- Americans know basic trends that all forms of media constantly spoon-feed to us, but when it comes to knowledge of political fact that contains any nuance whatsoever, we're apparently retarded (http://people-press.org/report/677/).  My favorite item here is how people are obsessed with inflation being a problem, but only 14% of them knew that the inflation rate was 1%.  And that super unpopular TARP program?  Only 16% know that the vast majority of it has been repayed!

- America's belief in the position of the scientific consensus on climate change, especially human caused climate change, has been getting worse, not better (http://people-press.org/report/669/).

- More people currently say they don't know what religion our president is than those who say he's a Christian (despite all of the times he's admitted he was a Christian and the Jeremiah Wright controversy drawing attention to his place of worship).  Also, 18% of us think he's a Muslim (http://people-press.org/report/645/).

- 28% of us know that the Chief Justice is John Roberts and only 34% knew that the Bailout was under Bush (http://people-press.org/report/635/).

Basically, we're a nation composed primarily of morons.  Plus, we're a Democratic Republic.  I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that those two taken in concert are why we're having problems.

[Revolverman]

Jude, by that logic, 98.8 of Germans in 1936 were full card carrying members of the Nazi party. Most of this "Ignorance" doesn't come from the fact people are stupid, but that the Media nowadays is so bought and payed for by power brokers, and would rather waste everyone time with Celebrities then crap that matters.

[Callie Del Noire]

Jude, by that logic, 98.8 of Germans in 1936 were full card carrying members of the Nazi party. Most of this "Ignorance" doesn't come from the fact people are stupid, but that the Media nowadays is so bought and payed for by power brokers, and would rather waste everyone time with Celebrities then crap that matters.

A good example of this is a couple years ago, the news (all of the big networks) spent the better part of two days going on Paris Hilton's DUI trial, while down in Venezuela everyone's favorite up and coming dictator was trying to rewrite the constitution to something more his liking and his people were being sicced on the students (and others) who were protesting it.

I had to see it on BBC America.

[Jude]

Your Nazi argument is extremely poorly formed given that the Nazis did not achieve power by Democratic means.  They came to prominence through anti-Democratic, tyrannical methods such as the Burning of the Reichtag.  Hitler had been trying to seize control since the Beer Hall Putsch at that point.  And even if that wasn't the case, ignorance back then was much more excusable, today we have free, unfiltered sources of information like the internet.

As far as the celebrity bit goes, they air that crap because people like it.  The media is a business and they pander to what gets them attention.  Do you truly believe this stuff about Charlie Sheen is some governmental conspiracy to distract attention away from what the people should be looking at?  That kind of conspiratorial thinking is also part of the problem.  There's news all over the place about Sheen because it sells.

EDIT:  In addition, there are many areas where people are properly educated and it still does no good.  Assessments of the public understanding of science in America always end up extremely depressing because people here are damn near experts at choosing to believe what they want to.  Disagreement with evolution definitely isn't a media issue, the fact that 4 in 10 Americans are strict creationists that believe God created humanity in the last 10,000 years (and fuck the fossil evidence) is a really great example of that fact.

[Vekseid]

We live in a country where ignorance is practically a way of life (not that I'm making the claim that it's better or worse anywhere else).  I'm increasingly beginning to think that we are a nation of morons.

- People are against decreasing our spending in damn near every category and against tax increases (http://people-press.org/report/702/) but apparently really think the government should do something about our debt (http://people-press.org/report/683/).  Basically they want the problem fixed but the only ways in want it fixed are the ones that don't actually require them to contribute to the solution.

- Americans know basic trends that all forms of media constantly spoon-feed to us, but when it comes to knowledge of political fact that contains any nuance whatsoever, we're apparently retarded (http://people-press.org/report/677/).  My favorite item here is how people are obsessed with inflation being a problem, but only 14% of them knew that the inflation rate was 1%.  And that super unpopular TARP program?  Only 16% know that the vast majority of it has been repayed!

- America's belief in the position of the scientific consensus on climate change, especially human caused climate change, has been getting worse, not better (http://people-press.org/report/669/).

- More people currently say they don't know what religion our president is than those who say he's a Christian (despite all of the times he's admitted he was a Christian and the Jeremiah Wright controversy drawing attention to his place of worship).  Also, 18% of us think he's a Muslim (http://people-press.org/report/645/).

- 28% of us know that the Chief Justice is John Roberts and only 34% knew that the Bailout was under Bush (http://people-press.org/report/635/).

Basically, we're a nation composed primarily of morons.  Plus, we're a Democratic Republic.  I'm gonna take a wild guess and say that those two taken in concert are why we're having problems.

Those are all examples of ignorance. Not one of them is an example of idiocy.

Misinformation has a solution.

[Jude]

Misinformation is when you're fed information to the contrary.  51% of the country not being able to identify Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House is not a consequence of misinformation.  That's laziness, self-involvement, and not taking civic responsibilities seriously.  Idiocy may not be the proper term for it, but I disagree that you can call our electorate competent or informed.  And making excuses for them is simply making the situation worse.  We need to stop populism and start accepting some of the responsibility for the way our Democratic Republic is being managed.  We put those people in power when we voted, clearly the people do not know best and I find the attitude of "if only the people's will was done everything would be fine" to be supremely naive.

EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, it's a bad habit of mine; I need to proofread my stuff much more before clicking the post button.

As a bit of an afterword (I read what I wrote and am reflecting on it somewhat), I know there are governmental and corporate entities that are making things worse.  The people aren't solely to blame.  I just object to a lot assumptions regularly made about the American People.  We don't necessarily know what's best and in a lot of instances our opinions (as a whole) are not necessarily lock-step with reality.  I fear there's a great deal of anti-intellectualism and baseless mistrust of authorities (in the expert sense, such as scientists or doctors) that compounds our problems.  We, as a nation on average, are often guilty of sloppy thinking (utilization of confirmation bias, ignoring history, et cetera).  I think this is a large part of why we're in trouble.

[Vekseid]

Misinformation is when you're fed information to the contrary.  51% of the country not being able to identify Nancy Pelosi as the Speaker of the House is not a consequence of misinformation.  That's laziness, self-involvement, and not taking civic responsibilities seriously.  Idiocy may not be the proper term for it, but I disagree that you can call our electorate competent or informed.  And making excuses for them is simply making the situation worse.  We need to stop populism and start accepting some of the responsibility for the way our Democratic Republic is being managed.  We put those people in power when we voted, clearly the people do not know best and I find the attitude of "if only the people's will was done everything would be fine" to be supremely naive.

EDIT: Sorry for all the editing, it's a bad habit of mine; I need to proofread my stuff much more before clicking the post button.

As a bit of an afterword (I read what I wrote and am reflecting on it somewhat), I know there are governmental and corporate entities that are making things worse.  The people aren't solely to blame.  I just object to a lot assumptions regularly made about the American People.  We don't necessarily know what's best and in a lot of instances our opinions (as a whole) are not necessarily lock-step with reality.  I fear there's a great deal of anti-intellectualism and baseless mistrust of authorities (in the expert sense, such as scientists or doctors) that compounds our problems.  We, as a nation on average, are often guilty of sloppy thinking (utilization of confirmation bias, ignoring history, et cetera).  I think this is a large part of why we're in trouble.

Alluding to Barack Obama being muslim, not born in this country, etc. certainly is misinforming. And that's hardly the extent of what Fox has been caught misinforming about.

Traditional news outlets in general also have comparatively underinformed audiences compared to e.g. the Daily Show. The media does have a role in this.

[Jude]

Traditional news outlets in general also have comparatively underinformed audiences compared to e.g. the Daily Show. The media does have a role in this.

That's a correlative statement that you're drawing a causative conclusion from.  Post hoc ergo propter hoc.  Here's some data I found on the subject too:  http://pewresearch.org/pubs/993/who-knows-news-what-you-read-or-view-matters-but-not-your-politics

There's a whole lot of traditional media above the Daily Show on the list.  Though I will admit that the averages are messed up due to the inclusion of things like "the National Inquirer."  The number of questions is also depressingly small; there are 3 of them and only 2 actually pertain to local politics.

One potential factor that skews the results is differences in Demographics.  A more educated person will naturally be more informed and affluent, which results in increased scores for several reasons:  an education person has a better baseline of knowledge with which to educate themselves, more money and time with which to do it, and more tools of critical thinking to filter and analyze the news, thus reach a better conclusion.  If you compare the percentage of people who got all 3 right minus the percentage of education, both the Daily Show and Colbert Report (as well as many other non-traditional news sources) have either negative or very small results.  In other words, there's not sufficient evidence to show that they're doing a very good job of informing their audience.

Of course, knowing and admitting the limitations of that study, I'd be happy to analyze any data you bring forward on the subject.  From this alone however, your claim seems dubious.

[Revolverman]

Your Nazi argument is extremely poorly formed given that the Nazis did not achieve power by Democratic means.  They came to prominence through anti-Democratic, tyrannical methods such as the Burning of the Reichtag. 

That took place AFTER they had been elected.

[Jude]

That took place AFTER they had been elected.

Hitler was never elected.  He was appointed chancellor by the very person who defeated him in the Presidential election years before.  It took a lot of dirty maneuvering through exploitation of business interests and political allegiances for the Nazis to seize power, and it wasn't at all Democratic.  Furthermore, his first attempt at seizing power in the Beer Hall Putsch occurred before he even tried to run for office.

You didn't really respond to my point about the internet and I still don't feel like I have a good grasp on why you thought a Nazi comparison was telling.

[Noelle]

Information is more available to the average American than it ever has been. It is literally at your fingertips at any given moment with the advent of Smartphones. To blame the media for not spoon-feeding you what you need to know is kind of pathetic at this point -- there is a wealth of knowledge out there and it's nobody's fault but the peoples' fault if they are under-utilizing it.

[OldSchoolGamer]

I'm going to just quote this here so someone can point you to it in 2030.

I have no doubt that America will have to reinvent itself around 2016. Funny how nations do that when they are forced to. But it won't be the end of America any more than England has ended.

Actually I think there is a good chance that this century, too, will see the United States exiting it while remaining the world's greatest superpower.

Regardless, if you want to change things, do something. The future is not driven by cowards.

Depends on how far you stretch the definition of "re-invention."  Because we're not talking about making a techno-trance version of the Star-Spangled Banner or coming out with red, white and blue flavors of Cheez-Wiz or building new asteroid belts of suburbia.  We're talking the sort of "re-invention" the Roman Empire underwent when some "fire sale" real estate deals were made with Visigoths and Vandals and the capital moved to Constantinople. 

[Jude]

The future isn't set in stone.  The US could very well go down; it all depends on what policies we enact and how we decided to shape our culture.  With our current set of values, we are definitely looking at decline.  A society with rampant anti-intellectualism and love for the past will certainly not be what leads us into the future.

[Vekseid]

Depends on how far you stretch the definition of "re-invention."  Because we're not talking about making a techno-trance version of the Star-Spangled Banner or coming out with red, white and blue flavors of Cheez-Wiz or building new asteroid belts of suburbia.  We're talking the sort of "re-invention" the Roman Empire underwent when some "fire sale" real estate deals were made with Visigoths and Vandals and the capital moved to Constantinople.

Our country's military is not made up of foreigners who were denied citizenship.

What this country needs is a Second Bill of Rights.

[Revolverman]

Hitler was never elected.  He was appointed chancellor by the very person who defeated him in the Presidential election years before.  It took a lot of dirty maneuvering through exploitation of business interests and political allegiances for the Nazis to seize power, and it wasn't at all Democratic.  Furthermore, his first attempt at seizing power in the Beer Hall Putsch occurred before he even tried to run for office.

You didn't really respond to my point about the internet and I still don't feel like I have a good grasp on why you thought a Nazi comparison was telling.

First, while you are correct Hitler's first attempt at power was an attempted Putsch, saying he was never elected is a flat falsehood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932) It wasn't until 1933 that Hitler got most of his powers thanks to the panic caused by the Reichstag fire.

I make the comparison because just because we have a free source of information (The internet), the vast majority of Americans, don't use it for finding multiple sources and viewpoints. In Germany, they could get the BBC Radio service, Radio France, and many other forms of media that were not controlled by the Nazis, but they didn't, for many of the same reasons why Americans don't. Too Busy, Don't know it exists, Don't know how to find it, Don't trust it (for Nationalistic, or political reasons), or feel like they already know whats going on.

I use the point because to show that if you control enough media to make it hard, or a hassle to find other viewpoints, you can end up with a very misinformed population.

Are you seriously going to condemn a man for not seeking out other forms of media because hes too worried about keeping food on the table, and warm roof over his head?

[Jude]

First, while you are correct Hitler's first attempt at power was an attempted Putsch, saying he was never elected is a flat falsehood. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_July_1932, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_federal_election,_November_1932) It wasn't until 1933 that Hitler got most of his powers thanks to the panic caused by the Reichstag fire.

Source:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_Party#Federal_election_results

In March 1932 Hitler ran for President against the incumbent President Paul von Hindenburg, polling 30.1% in the first round and 36.8% in the second against Hindenburg's 49 and 53%.

So no, Hitler was never elected.  I have no idea why you thought the link you provided showed that he was.

I make the comparison because just because we have a free source of information (The internet), the vast majority of Americans, don't use it for finding multiple sources and viewpoints. In Germany, they could get the BBC Radio service, Radio France, and many other forms of media that were not controlled by the Nazis, but they didn't, for many of the same reasons why Americans don't. Too Busy, Don't know it exists, Don't know how to find it, Don't trust it (for Nationalistic, or political reasons), or feel like they already know whats going on.

People in America consistently choose sources that validate their point of view.  Republicans watch Fox News because it gives them ammo to fuel their world view.  Obviously they're being misinformed, but they're choosing to misinform themselves.  When they hear information that conflicts with their point of view, instead of changing their mind, what do you think they do?  According to many studies, they often reject the source (http://www.springerlink.com/content/064786861r21m257/?p=3da72999788a46bea1d812a8a07e8c8d&pi=0) and instead believe even firmer in that fact which is now disputed by the very same news outlet that presented it in the first place.  How is the media supposed to educate a public that processes information in such a way?

People's media consumption habits can be summed up in a very simple maxim:  avoid cognitive dissonance.

I use the point because to show that if you control enough media to make it hard, or a hassle to find other viewpoints, you can end up with a very misinformed population.

Sure, if "you" control the media "you" can make a lot of people who behave like the average American does accept a lot of things (note that the you would have to be a singular shadowy entity that controls a ridiculous amount of the information in the world, and is thus very improbable).  Those things may not necessarily be things that run contrary to their political principles however; people are much more willing to accept any "fact" that tells them what they want to hear.

This also doesn't necessarily mean that the media is solely to blame even if there is a central entity spinning things (which I don't believe there is -- that's conspiratorial at best, it's not enough to throw the word "corporate" in there as proof).  Through the proper exercise of critical thinking a lot of fiction can be discerned from fact.  People are still responsible for what they choose to believe to some extent.

Furthermore, a lot of what Americans are ignorant of isn't misinformation.  If you don't know who the Secretary of State of is, it's because because you don't consider that information important or educate yourself on it.  Look up statistics on how many people can find Afghanistan on a map if you want to see how truly ignorant our populace is, and you can't blame an alleged corporate media conspiracy for that (actually I'm sure you can find a way to even if I'm right -- and that's my point, in the name of avoiding the discomfort of seeing cracks in their views people are capable of some truly amazing mental gymnastics).

Are you seriously going to condemn a man for not seeking out other forms of media because hes too worried about keeping food on the table, and warm roof over his head?

No, but I take issue with your characterization of American life as that.  The facts simply don't bear out that characterization:  http://www.bls.gov/news.release/atus.nr0.htm

The average male in 2009 had 5.8 leisure hours a day as opposed to the average female 5.1.  That does not sound like someone who is so busy with work and so absorbed in making ends meet that they can't inform themselves.  Obviously there are some people who are that way, maybe even a sizable portion (10% - 20%), but that doesn't account for the number of people who are fundamentally ignorant about the political process.  Remember, that those surveys given by media consumption represent the scores of people who actually bother to tune in to any source of news.  The results are even more dire in those who are totally uninterested in it.

[Sure]

The Nazis were elected and given a plurality in the Reichstag (though the elections probably wouldn't qualify today as free or fair, nor were they completely rigged), Hitler was appointed as Chancellor (an office under the President who could have dismissed him) as a political maneuver to avoid having to ally with the socialists/communists. He became dictator after the President died by passing the Enabling Act using his thugs to make sure his enemies didn't show up, by cutting a deal with several parties, and then surrounding the Reichstag with his chanting supporters (Brownshirts) threatening violence if it wasn't passed.

So, yes, the Germans did vote for the Nazis and did support them and without said support there would have been no Hitler. He was never elected, however.

The average male in 2009 had 5.8 leisure hours a day as opposed to the average female 5.1.

Your link says that men spend 10.3 hours a day working (job+domestic chores) while women spend 10.1 (job+domestic chores) so I'm not sure how that matches up... Perhaps there's a contradiction in the source data?[/offtopic]

More relevant, your link shows: The average American spends 2.82 hours watching TV.

QFR:

Comparing Fox to its 24-hour news channel competitors, for the month of May 2010 the channel drew an average daily prime time audience of 1.8 million versus 747 000 for MSNBC and 595 000 for CNN.

And if we're Rome and we're on our way to falling, we are not past the beginning of the end of the Republic. We'd need a Sulla analogue first. Besides, people understate the chaos that lead to the Republic's fall and the Empire's rise. If anything it was worse than what Germany had during the Great Depression.

On a note more related to this thread:
Some of my more liberal friends have talked rather excitedly about the Republican Party disbanding or fading to irrelevance. Thinking about it, I could see that, though I could also see their recovery. However, my friends' big mistake is to presume that means that a lot of their policies said friends disagree with will go away. Parties are effectively coalitions of smaller interests and relatively few of those interests are directly in the parties. For example, pro-life sentiment won't go away if the Republican party goes away tomorrow and pro-life people will still be elected on account of that.

The Republicans are still relatively disciplined but they've failed to appeal to large segments of their current base's children. They presume, as they age, they will become Republicans just as their parents did. This will only happen if the Republicans can do for them what they did for their parents and, at the moment, they're failing to, preferring to please their current base. This has been true for a while and we're beginning to see the stultification it's caused. The lack of focus, the lack of candidates, and the shrinking percentage of people who are registered Republicans compared to registered Democrats.

At least, that's my opinion.

[Vekseid]

On a note more related to this thread:
Some of my more liberal friends have talked rather excitedly about the Republican Party disbanding or fading to irrelevance. Thinking about it, I could see that, though I could also see their recovery. However, my friends' big mistake is to presume that means that a lot of their policies said friends disagree with will go away. Parties are effectively coalitions of smaller interests and relatively few of those interests are directly in the parties. For example, pro-life sentiment won't go away if the Republican party goes away tomorrow and pro-life people will still be elected on account of that.

The Republicans are still relatively disciplined but they've failed to appeal to large segments of their current base's children. They presume, as they age, they will become Republicans just as their parents did. This will only happen if the Republicans can do for them what they did for their parents and, at the moment, they're failing to, preferring to please their current base. This has been true for a while and we're beginning to see the stultification it's caused. The lack of focus, the lack of candidates, and the shrinking percentage of people who are registered Republicans compared to registered Democrats.

At least, that's my opinion.

Well there are four 'wings' of the Republican party
- The Religious Right, whose power is continually fading (and whose extremism is driving the rise of atheism in the United States)
- The Racists, who are largely already gone, but still have some noticeable impact. I suspect they'll die with Rush Limbaugh.
- The Libertarians, who are rising in power but are currently marginalized.
- The Corporatists, who also represent a significant chunk of the Democratic party.

Embedded within that, is where the intellectual and social talent in this country is going.

When Rupert Murdoch croaks, will his heirs be anywhere remotely as insightful and cunning as he is? Keep in mind, he's made good bets, but never the best bets - he bet on Yahoo, not Google, MySpace, not Facebook, etc. The man knows where the world is going but even he gets caught off guard.

When Rush Limbaugh croaks, who replaces him? Glenn Beck is already on a downward swing. Even Sean Hannity is, as is Fox, in general. Sarah Palin has polarized the country but she's a narcissist with relatively little personal competence - she's no replacement for Rush. My thread about Al Jazeera isn't some isolated phenomenon - most networks and personalities that provide honest, up-front insight (or at least do a better job of it than Fox and CNN) are on the upswing. Rachel Maddow, the Economist, etc.

As a general rule, throughout history, conservatives win battles and lose wars. I don't expect the future to be any different in that regard.