American Mid-Term Elections

George Victor wrote:

Thanks, Sven.

The viewers hereabouts need to read that...the bit about it being "highly unlikely that anyone left of Obama would have even a remote chance of being elected president in a general election."

Yeah, file that bit of wisdom under the "No shirt, Sherlock" category.  Moderates like Kucinich are treated like space aliens thereabouts for their radical views.  We can always hope for massive flooding (it could happen - ask the majority of yanquis who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible) to wash the US clean. 

That or race riots.

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Moderates like Kucinich are treated like space aliens thereabouts for their radical views. 

al-Qa'bong wrote:

 
We can always hope for massive flooding (it could happen - ask the majority of yanquis who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible) to wash the US clean. 
That or race riots.

josh wrote:

And what, pray tell, makes Obama, in any sense, left?  Another instance where perception and reality do not meet.

All the right of me republicans at work say so?

I think he was saying "LEFT of him" not "HE IS LEFT". Myself, I think he's a more a shotgun blast aimed center mass.

(I like your assessment of US political attitudes by the way, good post.)

It depends on what you mean by "left."  If you're talking about someone who's more "socially liberal" than Obama, you could be right.  But if you're talking about someone who's an economic populist, unlike the corporate, passionless, detached, politically inept, technocrat in the white house, you'd be wrong.

As for the midterms, there's no question, based on the generic polls, that Democrats will suffer losses in the house anywhere between 40 and 60 seats.  But the thing I'm seeing is that they're not doing as badly as one would expect from those polls in the individual races.  They're still leading, or close behind, in many seats thought to be lost.  So, the opportunity remains for them to minimize their losses.

Bec.De.Corbin wrote:

josh wrote:

And what, pray tell, makes Obama, in any sense, left?  Another instance where perception and reality do not meet.

All the right of me republicans at work say so?

I think he was saying "LEFT of him" not "HE IS LEFT". Myself, I think he's a more a shotgun blast aimed center mass.

 

(I like your assessment of US political attitudes by the way, good post.)

And BDC, I really like the way that an American's statement about sentiment at his workplace, "all the right of me Republicans at work say so," cuts through the tired attempts hereabouts to paint a picture of pent up left-wing insurrection in the American workplace, waiting to be released at a word from a Democratic African-American president out of Harvard endowed with powers that lift him above constitutional limitations.

Thank you. 

Sven will not release his own thoughts about developments except to rub in the fact (from his own Libertarian, i've got it made in the shade position), that the Democrats are gonzo.  That "news" is available from the NY Times.

And how obsessing on the Democrats' discomfort is going to help the poor bastards down there with not-a-life chances, I'm sure I don't know.  Maybe it starts in childhood, pulling wings off flies?

Sven]</p> <p>[quote=josh wrote:

It depends on what you mean by "left."  If you're talking about someone who's more "socially liberal" than Obama, you could be right.  But if you're talking about someone who's an economic populist, unlike the corporate, passionless, detached, politically inept, technocrat in the white house, you'd be wrong. 

Your observation certainly makes a noteworthy distinction (i.e., social versus economic).  But, even if a leftwing economic populist ran for the presidency (and social issues were irrelevant), Americans are simply not nearly as left-leaning as, say, most Europeans are -- even on purely economic issues.

As I've said here many times before, those who occupy the middle of the political spectrum in the US (i.e., the independents) are the ones who dictate who has power here (only about 20% of the population self-identifies as being progressive or "liberal").  And, if you look at the issues that are driving those independents into the arms of the Republicans right now, the issues are almost exclusively economic in nature and the concerns are principally about the ballooning amount of debt (particularly as it relates to long-term entitlement programs and public-employee pension obligations) and jobs.

An economic populist wouldn't stand a chance.

______________________________________________________

Sven, I have to disagree with you on that.  The Democrats have been so inept and bought off by corporate interests that they can not and will not be the left economic populists that they need to be.

But there are signs of hope:

I was talking the other day with a Democratic candidate for the Iowa legislature whose district would be a more conservative western suburb of Des Moines. He is getting a good response at the doors of voters, even Republicans, when he talks to them about the maldistribution of wealth in this country.

Sven, remember the recent poll that said that forty percent of those Americans polled thought that the health care "reform" should have gone FARTHER.

Remember the recent poll (which I can not find now), which indicated that when those Americans were polled, a large percentage of them preferred the more equitable distribution of wealth (like in Sweden) as an ideal system, under which they would like to live.

Is the American "working class" storming the barricades? No. But these are signs of hope for the possibility of a renewed US Left.

George Victor wrote:

 

Top Companies Aid Chamber of Commerce in Policy Fights
By ERIC LIPTON, MIKE McINTIRE and DON VAN NATTA Jr.
The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, now a leading force against Obama administration policies, has received sizable donations from top corporations including Dow Chemical and Goldman Sachs.

 

And that was largely made possible, only a few weeks ago,  by a Supreme Court to the right of Vlad the Impaler.

 

Choi does not understand that the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporate funding will ensure the demise of the only political faction in the U.S. that is trying to work on his behalf.  You'd think that someone in his position would be more politically conscious of what is happening around him on the RIGHT.

But unlike Choi, do you understand what it is like to be told that you are not good enough to serve country because of what you are? I understand exactly why he no longer trust the double speak of the Obama administration. The most important thing a person have, imo, is their dignity and Choi is only doing what any self respecting person would do by expressing his total dismay at the Obama administration.

josh wrote:

As for the midterms, there's no question, based on the generic polls, that Democrats will suffer losses in the house anywhere between 40 and 60 seats.  But the thing I'm seeing is that they're not doing as badly as one would expect from those polls in the individual races.  They're still leading, or close behind, in many seats thought to be lost.  So, the opportunity remains for them to minimize their losses.

I agree ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/24/opinion/24greenberg.html?ref=global

 [in 1998] ...Republicans doubled down on their misguided strategy - highlighting the impeachment and the ensuing scandal with a late advertising blitz.

And the result?

Democrats surprised everyone: no net losses in the Senate and a net gain of five seats in the House - the best showing for the incumbent president's party in a midterm election since 1934. Newt Gingrich resigned.

Fascist America, Is This Election the Next Turn?

http://www.alternet.org/story/148588/fascist_america:_is_this_election_t...

"According to Paxton, there are 3 quick questions that let you know you've crossed that fail-safe line beyond which an emerging fascist regime has too much power to be stopped..."

Republican Congressional Candidate Says Violent Overthrow of Government is 'On the Table'

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/texassouthwest/stories/...

"Republican congressional candidate Stephen Broden stunned his party Thursday, saying he would not rule out violent overthrow of the government if elections did not produce a change in leadership...In a rambling exchange during a TV interview, Broden, a South Dallas pastor, said a violent uprising 'is not the first option but it is 'on the table'.."

Sven wrote:

More evidence that it is the independent voter who decides who has power in America: [url=http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44092.html][color=blue][u]Poli... The polls are generally indicating a decisive shift by independents from supporting the Dems to supporting the Repubs -- which, to me, belies the claim that independents are angry because Obama failed to govern enough to the Left.

If many independents are switching their support, and Obama has not governed sufficiently as a left/populist, how does it follow that more would have switched had he done so?  After all, as you say, independents went for Obama in '08, when he promised, among other things, to raise taxes on the wealthy and have a public option.  The former has yet to come to pass, and he abandoned the latter.  If they voted for him when he was promising an agenda further to the left than how he has governed, how would governing more to the left have cause more to switch?  The answer:  "it's the economy, stupid."  As to that:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/10/25/opinion/25krugman.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

The World Liberal Opportunists Made - by Chris Hedges

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_world_liberal_opportunists_made_...

"The legitimate rage being experienced by disenfranchised workers towards the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted and did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years is not misplaced. The liberal class is guilty."

Quote:

"The legitimate rage being experienced by disenfranchised workers towards the college-educated liberal elite, who abetted and did nothing to halt the corporate assault on the poor and the working class of the last 30 years is not misplaced. The liberal class is guilty."
 
 
Somehow, the sources for this idea (Hedges) and people who just mindlessly repeat it (NDPP) conveniently forget that from the mid-90s takeover of Congress until the end of the Bush regime (2008) it was Republicans who fashioned the U.S. (world) economy. The "liberal class" is guilty of an obvious selfishness, the neo-con, oil-fed, racist class is guilty of deceit and naughtiness for playing games with such a dumb, politically immature crowd.
I'll stick to Joe Bageant's "dumb as a bag of hair" explanation for the whole shootin' match.
In his latest feedblitz piece, he notes how the demise of American working-class opportunity really began thirty years ago with Reagan:
Algorithms and Red Wine
Life is lived anecdotally, not algorithmically. And anecdotal evidence is not allowed in the new digital corpocracy. As one poster on Democratic Underground put it, "Anecdotal now has this enforced meaning such that no one is supposed to believe what they experience, what they see, hear, taste, smell, etc.

Good piece GV. One shudders indeed.

I just saw the polling for Grayson.  He looks like toast.  Fuck.

Sven wrote:

jrootham wrote:

I just saw the polling for Grayson.  He looks like toast.

Yeah, the polling numbers look to be unchanged from a month ago (Grayson still down by 7%).

Yeah, and you still refuse to take a position yourself, Sven.  What a wuss.  Small wonder the Land of the Free isn't.

Yeah, exactly the situation as it is explained to your average citizen out there and undoubtedly why they are so motivated to bring about change, all other intervening factors considered, of course.

Joe Bageant would not argue with that...although he always wants to add the factor of a dumbed-down populace, for some reason.

Just heard President Carter on the CBC today.

I always liked him compared with everything else the US threw up but he really seems to have reached critical understandings.

He spoke of Iran when asked what to do if Iran had the bomb. He said their capacity if they did get the bomb would be very limited and if he were president he would be considering his intelligence as to whether he thought the country was suicidal before doing anything. He calls for full diplomatic relations with Iran or at least full communication and does not support the pressuring of that country as the US has been doing.

He was asked about the mid-east. There he said that the key  issue is that Israel and Egypt have lived up to the agreement with no violations but the problem today is that Israel had committed to leave the occupied areas and that occupation is the obstacle to any progress. Israels repeated violations of that agreement have distressed him through the years. He did not couch or qualify this in any way. This is the problem. Period.

Afghanistan he says was a US failure since if the country had been supported with aid earlier it would have been fine. He does not see the current war turning out well for anyone. He points out that he never used war on other countries during his presidency (I'd have to check this).

I did not hear the whole interview but that is some of what I got out of it.

The Week in Editorial Cartoons

al-Qa'bong wrote:

Quote:

He points out that he never used war on other countries during his presidency (I'd have to check this).

 You could start by googling "zbigniew brzezinski afghanistan."

while you are at it, also google "Soviet army 85,000 Afghanistan Christmas day 1979"

Back to the subject: I have been an optimist, but Obama headed for bigger losses than initially seen. Let's hope he can still steer the ship somehow, or chaos.

Sven wrote:

If you go back to the link in the OP, look at the "Battle for the House" chart just below the map of the USA.  The trend has been unmistakable throughout the month of October: The independent voters have been breaking hard for the GOP.

It's over for Dem control of the House.  The only remaining question is: How big will the GOP majority be?

Yes its the independent voters are the ones who are flip flopping after only two years... this erratic voting behavior is killing us down here. It looks like two years of grid locked congress; that is not good.

Real Clear Politics is Republican oriented.  FiveThiryEight is the gold standard for looking at polling and making projections.  Centrist Democrat in attitude with a ferocious attention to the facts.  

He is also projecting 232 Republican House members, which is 53 seat swing, I think.   However, he is also asserting that this election has a high degree of uncertainty.

Closing for length, please continue here.