"The Republicans are just better than the Democrats at convincing people to vote against their own interests. I have no clue how, but good for them."

No, bad for them! But here's how they do it (it's a combination of methods):

The first method is to deny that they're asking people to vote against their own best interests. For example, "right to work law" sounds a lot better than "union-preventing law". Programs that help poor people not be poor are derided as "handouts" and "welfare", but billion-dollar no-bid contracts to giant corporations aren't. It's particularly interesting to see long-term government employees (aka politicians) rant against "socialized medicine" even though their health care has been taxpayer-funded forever.

The second method is to refer to a past that never was but avoid what really went on. "Small town values", for example. (And just what the heck is a "hockey mom", anyway?) The other guys are derided as having been "tax and spend" even though the past 8 years have been "borrow and waste" at a level unmatched in our history.

The third and most effective method is to build a coalition of single-issue voters who won't vote for the other candidate because of (X) where (X) is whatever issue you want it to be.

For this to work, a large group of divisive issues is needed. More important, those issues must never be resolved, because if they were, the single-issue voters would be lost.

Take gun rights, for example. The clear solution to the issue is to rewrite the Second Amendment in such a way that the rights of law-abiding citizens are uniformly protected, and the use of guns by criminals is severly punished. Uniform laws for the entire nation that go after the bad guys, close loopholes and protect citizens' rights, and end the countless different interpretations and court rulings.

Such a solution could be done, but you'll never hear the GOP call for it, even from a "maverick". Because if it was done, and it solved the problem, the gun-rights vote would be lost.

Same method applies to any divisive issue.

No sir, I don't like it!

But that's how it's done. And it has worked 5 out of the past 7 times.

"Politicians are like baby diapers - they should be changed often, and for the same reason"

How *should* those fellows behave? There used to be pretty clear rules:

1) Do well in school

2) Get good job, work hard, make and save money

3) Marry nice girl, buy house, have kids

(optional): Serve in military

Those who didn't go to college had often done all three by age 21. The college grads were 4-5 years behind at most.

But the good jobs that a recent high school grad (or even college grad) can get are pretty few and far between. Saving money when you don't make enough to even support yourself changes the game bigtime. A lot of women today don't want to get married or have kids until they're 30 or 35 and have their education done and career going, so the get married/have kids thing is seriously delayed. Those couples that do form are often saddled with huge student loans and low-benefit jobs.

One of the biggest economic changes of the past couple of decades is that the cost of essentials like housing, energy, education and healthcare have grown much faster than wages but the cost of luxuries like a really good computer have dropped. So most folks can have a smokin' computer and internet connection, but not a house. And being a provider becomes a Herculean task unless you're in certain professions.

So the old roles don't work anymore but no new ones have been forthcoming. The media are of little help either; most TV dramas are about single/divorced people while most sitcoms are trying to channel The Honeymooners. How often do you see a young, intelligent, hardworking guy who gets the girl, the job and the respect?

The behavior that gets rewarded is what you get more of. Look at what behavior gets rewarded today.

The "bruised/thwarted entitlement" comes from the American self-image.

For a couple of centuries, the USA has defined itself as the land of opportunity, success and bootstrap-pullers, where anybody could do anything if they wanted it enough. The Land of Plenty, with unlimited room and resources.

Where the pioneers settled the Great Plains, the USA won all wars we got into, where the leading edge of Science and Technology made its home (when it wasn't going to the moon or building the tallest/biggest/greatest of everything).

And where each generation built on the success of the previous ones, so that if grade-school-educated Grandpop lived in a row house, high-school educated Dad lived in a duplex and college-educated Son lives in a single home. Etc.

IOW, the country with the best of everything, including the highest standard of living in all categories.

Americans have been surrounded by those iconic images far longer than any of us have been alive. But the stark reality of the past couple of decades is somewhat different. And the trend isn't good either.

That's the source.