False prophets, soothsayers, and real political developments

Discussion in 'Political Science' started by Phil, Dec 22, 2016.

  1. Phil

    Phil Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2012
    Messages:
    2,219
    Likes Received:
    134
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Gender:
    Male
    In the Old Testament there are real prophets, called by God to deliver a specific message to a specific audience.
    There are the "sons of the prophets" presumably trained at the school Samuel founded, essentially the first rabbis.
    Then there are the court prophets. A few are mentioned by name. These are hired by the kings to give them good news (false encouragement) about the future.

    For some reason the Democratic Party has court prophets and they can be divided into 3 categories.
    Poll takers, who obviously messed up completely this year.
    Campaign managers, who also have a lot of weaknesses.
    And the ones we have to put up with: pundits and reporters.

    Unfortunately these soothsayers appear everywhere, especially MSNBC. That could be called the Democratic Channel except that it's more socialist than most Democrats.
    In any case they interview people whose jobs depend on appeasing the community. When they have little choice but to admit that Republicans control both houses of Congress, more than half the states and have stifled their best hope to advance the socialist and perverts agenda they try to console the faithful with what they call hopeful news:
    The average viewer of Fox News is 65.
    First of all, that statement is false.
    It may not be false in the sense of the truth is 29 or even 61, but it is false.
    To qualify as a viewer of any tv show you need to be documented as watching for at least 15 consecutive minutes.
    Most viewers of Fox or any other news network don't just turn it on and watch. You turn it on, read the crawl of news at the bottom, barely noticing the topic the host is blabbing about, then leave when the items at the bottom start repeating. Those people come in all ages and-while they may not linger often enough to change political parties, they can't help but pick up something.
    There's also another group of Fox viewers MSNBC will never reach: boys 14-39.
    I call them boys because they're there to look at the women. For most of them it takes less than 15 minutes to masturbate. Then they return to video games or MTV. These men are not deep thinkers, but any political ideology they get will be pro-Republican.
    Even among the best shows the network offers there's no need to watch for the whole hour.
    You may love Bill O'Reilly's Talking Points, but that's no reason to watch Bernie Goldberg, stare at the guy with the still shoulders or pretend that Dennis Miller is funny.
    The ones who watch whole episodes are naturally old. They grew up before the remote control was invented. They stopped watching network shows when freaks took over. They gave up PBS when they found out it too was working for the Democrats. Fox and TVLAND or something like it is all they've got.

    The other thing they miss is that while the majority of Fox viewers will die within 30 years a whole generation of Democrats is going first.
    Let's go back to the beginning for this.

    After the Civil War Democrats won only 4 Presidential elections in 68 years. 3 were very close. The exception was 1912, when the Republicans split in half and the 43% Democrats usually got was enough for a huge win in the Electoral College. They won states they could never reach 50% in back in that era or our era.
    In order to win those elections the Democrats used their influence in the former Confederate States and a handful of cities, focusing most of their efforts on the biggest swing state: New York.
    Then came the biggest gift they could get: 3 years into the Great Depression the GOP renominated Herbert Hoover.
    FDR literally saved people from starving then was about to win World War II when he died at the start of his fourth term.
    In those years he converted some people to the Democratic Party and the young who turned 21 became Democrats because they were convinced they wouldn't have made it to 21 without them.
    Harry Truman had a different approach and that too found new young Democrats.
    By 1952 an overwhelming percentage of new voters (born 1911-1930) were Democrats. That greatest generation is a loyal bunch and they remained Democrats for life. They got Kennedy over the top, pushed Carter through and even voted for Clinton against Republicans their own age. In 2008, old and feeble, they completed the legacy by making Obama President. Those still able to make a checkmark and many recently deceased cast their final votes for Hillary this year.
    I suspect almost every American knows a Hillary voter who has died since the election. I know one.
    That generation has been doing a slow fade and with it any Democratic hopes for some districts for decades to come. The last of them will be gone before the bulk of these Fox viewers.

    Democrats love to note that Dwight D. Eisenhower was not really a Republican.
    That's true enough, but he ran on the GOP ticket and with his election new voters leaned that way.
    Voters born 1931-39 have not been able to swing many elections, but their loyalty is also strong and many are still alive, voting actively for the GOP. They reached their peak of course in the 1980s as those before them shrank to comparable numbers. These however are family people and their conservative values followed to the next generation.
    That 65-year-old average means 50-year-olds watch Fox News then talk about it with their 80-year-old parents.
    That's not one but 2 solid voting blocks not soon to disappear.

    JFK of course inspired the young, especially those who thought they could bed him or the first lady. His energy re-invigorated the FDR people (his age) and brought in some new voters. Lyndon Johnson and Hubert Humphrey however could not inspire people to choose the party with any enthusiasm.
    At best we can say they take a small plurality of voters born 1940-50.
    Then came the skepticism of the 1970s and the apathy ever since.
    Those voters decide elections, not the loyalists we just discussed.
    In 1980 people over 30 were still looking for direction in their political lives. Ronald Reagan was both the short and long-term solution for them
    Of course he won the young, the Eisenhower people, and those still not then-or even now-partisan. Bush couldn't keep the bandwagon folks, but with Reagan and the aftermath voters born 1950-70 are more likely to lean right than left. The GOP has to earn their votes in every election cycle, but locals have little to fear in any given election.
    Democrats will continue to delude themselves in believing that Bill Clinton brought new young people to their party, but the fact is, all he got was the mass of people content to be dependent on the government for life.
    Of course he dominated the votes of young people against 3 old men. Obama did the same and that's the way Democrats win. Still there is no reason to think that voters born 1970-82 are loyal Democrats like those from 1910-30 or that they will have the same plurality as those 1940-50. Those voters are reachable by any passionate candidate at any level anywhere.
    George W. Bush didn't win a generation either and it appears the enthusiasm Obama won from the young won't carry over to a dried up old hag. Should that really surprise anybody?
     

Share This Page