Democrats are in denial. Their party is actually in deep trouble.

[Berkut]

Democrats may be in trouble, but not of their own making. 

As a die hard Democrat, you could not have come up with a response that would more perfectly align with exactly the point the author is trying to make. It is like he wrote it himself.

I hate to have another go at this, but I'm not a die hard Democrat.  You can fart around all you want about this, but repeating it more times won't make it any more true.

I don't think going around about it is even interesting. You are a die hard Dem, and there really isn't even anything wrong with that. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head is curiosity on how the typical die hard Dem would react to it, and I figured denial of the denial would be the standard die hard response.

You, of course, were kind enough to fit the predicted behavior perfectly.

But again, you are right - there is no point in you denying at (again), because your denials don't move my evaluation an iota, and I am sure my arguing it doesn't change your denial a bit either.

But that doesn't mean that your opinion is not of interest - I do like to see how the die hards react to things like this.

The problem is with the electorate getting crazy, not anything unusually incompetent or nefarious that Democrats did.  I don't think going half-crazy to try to capture some of the indoctrinated crazies is the way to go.

Yeah, that is just a useless response. "The electorate is crazy, so we should not do anything at all" is a excuse to do nothing, not a tactical or strategic response to shifting political terrain. "The electorate" is not some external object that the Democrats have no control over or association with - they are, in fact, part of the electorate after all.

This is pure ostrich strategy.

[Valmy]

I think the Democratic strategy right now is to wait for demographic change.  They have neglected their ground game since 2010, which isn't good, but simply waiting for the boomers to die is a viable strategy.

Oh they have tried to push their ground game, their 50 state strategy and everything. It just has not worked very well. But failure is not the same thing as neglect. They have just not found an issue to mobilize paranoid people as well as the anti-Government stuff the Republicans have been trotting out there. Bernie Sanders and his anti-Corporate stuff is what they need to rally the crazies. Everybody wants a boogie man for all of their problems.

[Berkut]

I think the Democratic strategy right now is to wait for demographic change.  They have neglected their ground game since 2010, which isn't good, but simply waiting for the boomers to die is a viable strategy.

Oh they have tried to push their ground game, their 50 state strategy and everything. It just has not worked very well. But failure is not the same thing as neglect. They have just not found an issue to mobilize paranoid people as well as the anti-Government stuff the Republicans have been trotting out there. Bernie Sanders and his anti-Corporate stuff is what they need to rally the crazies. Everybody wants a boogie man for all of their problems.

The problem here is that it isn't working - there are apparently some non-old white people who are keeping the Republicans in power despite the supposed demographic changes that are dooming them in the long run.

The long run seems to be getting longer and longer all the time.

[The Minsky Moment]

His big point is that the GOP is doing well at the state government level because of ideological flexibility.  OK that may be true but so what?  I'm a Democrat but not because I have a thing for donkeys or because Nancy Pelosi's career is important me.  It's because I tend to agree more with their policy positions on average than I do with GOP ones.  If a Mitt Romney-type wants to moderate his social positions and support universal healthcare to get elected in Mass, good for him.  Yes it's a "Republican" victory, but so what?  I agree that from a party perspective, the Democrats would be advised to encourage more flexible ideological candidates in challenging states, but at the end of the day I don't really care who gets elected governor in Mississippi.

[jimmy olsen]

State governments matter on the national level because they do congressional redistricting.

[The Minsky Moment]

Which is why I would favor candidates of any party that favor non-partisan re-districting.

I get the issue but logical conclusion of that mental process is voting for whatever corrupt party hack in play just so that the "wrong" party isn't in command when the census comes around.

[DGuller]

I don't think going around about it is even interesting. You are a die hard Dem, and there really isn't even anything wrong with that. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head is curiosity on how the typical die hard Dem would react to it, and I figured denial of the denial would be the standard die hard response.

You, of course, were kind enough to fit the predicted behavior perfectly.

But again, you are right - there is no point in you denying at (again), because your denials don't move my evaluation an iota, and I am sure my arguing it doesn't change your denial a bit either.

But that doesn't mean that your opinion is not of interest - I do like to see how the die hards react to things like this.

I think what we have here is a difference in levels of thinking.  Someone who played poker a lot with deep understanding will understand what I'm talking about. 

Different players think at different levels, and better players think at higher levels, but on any given hand, players of vastly different levels will make the same decision.  If you're level 1, level 3, or level 5 player, you'll call, and if you're level 2 or level 4 player, you'll fold.  If you're a level 2 player, you're incapable of conceiving of thinking above level 2.  So if you see a level 5 player call, you'll assume that he's a level 1 player, and think that you're better than him.  Of course, this doesn't hold true for every hand, otherwise there would be no difference between level 1 and level 5 players, but this situation comes up often, and this is one reason why losing players can so easily get deluded about how their skills stack up.

So coming back to here, you see me reach the same conclusion that a die-hard Democrat would reach, and since you're one and only one level higher in the sophistication of thinking compared to die-hard partisans, you conclude that I am a die-hard partisan as well.  You cannot conceive of a situation where someone could be thinking on a level one higher than yourself, and that he would just happen to reach the same conclusion that someone one level lower than yourself would reach in this particular case. 

Am I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you?  Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment.  Will I be able to convince you of this fact?  No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.

[Ed Anger]

This is gonna get good.

[Eddie Teach]

This is gonna get good.

It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. 

[Ed Anger]

This is gonna get good.

It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. 

I don't remember DorseyKGB being that puffed up before.

[Berkut]

This is gonna get good.

It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. 

Oh, you can be sure that this is a pure fizzle. What possible response is there to the level of arrogance displayed above?

This is "I was on the car club in college, so I know all about professional racing" level of hilarity.

[Berkut]

I don't think going around about it is even interesting. You are a die hard Dem, and there really isn't even anything wrong with that. When I read this article, the first thing that popped into my head is curiosity on how the typical die hard Dem would react to it, and I figured denial of the denial would be the standard die hard response.

You, of course, were kind enough to fit the predicted behavior perfectly.

But again, you are right - there is no point in you denying at (again), because your denials don't move my evaluation an iota, and I am sure my arguing it doesn't change your denial a bit either.

But that doesn't mean that your opinion is not of interest - I do like to see how the die hards react to things like this.

I think what we have here is a difference in levels of thinking.  Someone who played poker a lot with deep understanding will understand what I'm talking about. 

Different players think at different levels, and better players think at higher levels, but on any given hand, players of vastly different levels will make the same decision.  If you're level 1, level 3, or level 5 player, you'll call, and if you're level 2 or level 4 player, you'll fold.  If you're a level 2 player, you're incapable of conceiving of thinking above level 2.  So if you see a level 5 player call, you'll assume that he's a level 1 player, and think that you're better than him.  Of course, this doesn't hold true for every hand, otherwise there would be no difference between level 1 and level 5 players, but this situation comes up often, and this is one reason why losing players can so easily get deluded about how their skills stack up.

So coming back to here, you see me reach the same conclusion that a die-hard Democrat would reach, and since you're one and only one level higher in the sophistication of thinking compared to die-hard partisans, you conclude that I am a die-hard partisan as well.  You cannot conceive of a situation where someone could be thinking on a level one higher than yourself, and that he would just happen to reach the same conclusion that someone one level lower than yourself would reach in this particular case. 

Am I claiming that I think about politics on a level one higher than you?  Yes, yes I do, not that it's that great of an accomplishment.  Will I be able to convince you of this fact?  No, I'm not under any delusion about that, not until you mature some more intellectually.

Just to save for posterity...

[DGuller]

This is gonna get good.

It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. 

Oh, you can be sure that this is a pure fizzle. What possible response is there to the level of arrogance displayed above?

This is "I was on the car club in college, so I know all about professional racing" level of hilarity.

Okay, I'm glad that over.  Once the tension dies down, let's get together so that I could learn some humility from you.

[Berkut]

This is gonna get good.

It has potential, yet so have many Guller/Berkut clashes in the past that fizzled out. 

Oh, you can be sure that this is a pure fizzle. What possible response is there to the level of arrogance displayed above?

This is "I was on the car club in college, so I know all about professional racing" level of hilarity.

Okay, I'm glad that over.  Once the tension dies down, let's get together so that I could learn some humility from you.

I make no claims to humility.

[The Minsky Moment]

So.
Is Berkut level 2 or level 4?