Hey MRM
 

Please explain to me what "eludes" me. Is there something that I don't see? I am slow I need detail.

I think you focus too much on minutia, bogging down on detail rather than seeing the larger picture. When you see an issue, whether it is the base causes of WWII or the factionalization of the Democratic Party, you focus too much on the trees to see the entire forest. If you loosen up your mind a bit and determine what are tactical - short term - issues as opposed to the strategic, you grasp a better picture of what is really going on and your analysis will be better and more complete.

As an example, on the Democratic Party issue, I think the analysis doesn't start with Hillary becoming a beer swillin' whiskey drinkin' VFW barstool sitter (you think she ever took a shot of whiskey before the Indiana Primary campaign) and collecting the poor white vote and the old people vote. Those are valid observations but to get a real understanding of the situation you have to start with where the two candidates came from, the forces that shaped their appearances on the national stage, and why poor whites are gravitating to Clinton while the brie and white wine drinkers (who are Clinton's natural constituancy) are going for Obama.

The tactical analysis is that they represent two oposing ideologies of the Democratic Party (the poor whites vs. the Eastern Liberal Establishment) but I think the strategic analysis is that this conflict is the result of lines of cleavage between the supporters of each candidate, not a true ideological split. And that the split was manufactured by the campaigns, not that the candidates rose to prominence because of this underlying ideological divide.

Let me explain. As you pointed out, the Democratic race has broken down into the competition between the well educated liberal elites supporting Change and Obama versus the blue collar underclass Democrats who look toward Big Government for protection. The tactical analysis is that this conflict caused the rise of the two candidates. I think that if you look at the larger picture, the strategic analysis is that the two candidates [I]caused [I] this split. In other words, Clinton and Obama were trolling for the same votes in the Democratic Party, meaning anyone liberal enough to vote Democratic and who oposed the war in Iraq. Over time lines of cleavage, such as race, inclome and age formed where people on one side of the line of cleavage went for one candidate and the people on the other side went to the other candidate, based solely on which horse they thought would pay off for people on their side of the line of cleavage, rather than any true difference between the candidates. There has to be a loser for every winner, so that's why the people are dividing along lines of cleavage and buying a ticket on their candidate.

That's a rough outline of my general criticism. I'm sure we'll flush it out more as we discuss.

I look at it from the other side of the looking glass. I see it as, the result of that cleavage is an ideological split. The core values might remain the same, but it has come down to which candidate is perceived to be able to deliver on your end of the spectrum of those values. There is a cleavage in that range of core values, that amounts to an ideological split

I am only talking about the Democratic Party and not the whole body politic at all. Within the Party there is an ideological split. Of course there are core values that define you as a Dem, that is a given. I try and define what that clevage is. I go from the general to the specific to see what parts make the whole and then I reconstruct the whole thing with a nice index of parts.

I'm 55. I don't know if I'm going to live long enough to help you with this.

All this talk about cleavage...no pics?

Hillary is right Obama can never carry the big White Blue Collar post industrial states. He has not been able to penetrate that market. They will stay home or vote for McCain who is more in line with what they believe than an "Elitist" Obama.

Those White Blue Collar guys don't want to hear "Yes we can" they want to hear about putting food in their lunch bucket. They want the practical, meat and potatoes. They don't want a Twinkie with its sugar high values.

For once you are absolutely right I do have an ego the size of all outdoors. I am proud of it too. So there...


However it is Mother that keeps on bringing me down to earth. She really doesn't think much of me at all.

Tabs, that's a good example of what I mean. I was commenting more on the thought process that leads to your conclusion, not so much what your actual conclusion was. One is big picture, the other concentrates on the details. You are by nature a detail man. I wouldn't know a detail if it jumped up and bit me. I am a big picture guy.

I can dig that!

forgive me Jim.

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1210285814.jpg