8-Feb-10 News - There are more self-identified independents

[John]

8-Feb-10 News - There are more self-identified independents

** 8-Feb-10 News - There are more self-identified independents
** http://www.generationaldynamics.com/cgi ... 08#e100208

Comments:
"Party affiliation decreases dramatically"
"Additional Links"

[ridgel]

"How would the political climate be different today if the bomb had detonated and the plane had crashed? "

I get the sense they'd have a hard time getting people fired up over another bombing. Airline revenues were down 13% last year. Lots of people are avoiding air travel either because of the poor service, or personal finance issues, or because it's easier than ever to do business without being face-to-face. We're already fighting two wars to keep the terrorists at bay. If that's not working, the only thing remaining is serious profiling - and that's an issue that divides on party lines as much as any other.

[Jack Edwards]

"How would the political climate be different today if the bomb had detonated and the plane had crashed? "

Here's how I see it:

On a scale of 1 to 10, the 911 attacks were somewhere around an 8 - extremely significant, but not affecting everyone in the US - definitely caused a nation wide change in attitude though a lot of it has worn off.

On the same scale, the underwear bomber's unsuccessful attempt registered around a 2. Something to pay attention to, but not really affecting most people's lives. The response was typical political posturing, pundits care more about it than the general populace. I don't fly internationally, so I see this as something that is significant - but not for me.

IF the attack had been successful and several hundred people would have died and IF it was definitely linked to terrorism (we may not have clearly understood why the plane exploded and who was the perpetrator) it would have registered about a 4 or 5. There may have been a larger public uprising about how the present administration is being soft on terrorism and security. I suspect the public angst would still die off in a few months.

"Would Scott Brown have still won in Massachusetts? Would the Republicans, Democrats and Tea Partiers be more or less popular today?"

I don't think it would have affected the Scott Brown election - or if it had, he would have won by even more than he did. The Democrats would be less popular, I'm not sure the Republicans would be more popular and as far as I can tell the Tea Partiers have more of an economic platform than a security platform. I think that if it had succeeded, that there would be even more interest in 3rd party alternatives as the parties in power haven't been effective. The incident would probably increase the anti-foreigner sentiment in the population, which could translate to more isolationism and anti immigration - aggravating partys that had nothing to do with the bombing (China & Mexico).

As for the whole rising independent discussion. I've been a life long Republican, but have over the past couple years become increasingly independent - I find myself only agreeing with about 50% of what most Republicans stand for and about 10% of what Democrats stand for. When people ask me what party I belong to now, I tell them "The Cynical Party". I had some hope for the Tea Partiers, but I'm beginning to think that that group is mostly composed of disenfranchised folk who really don't know what they want (still want all the goverment benefits but want to pay less taxes).

In order for an effective 3rd party movement to really work there needs to be an over riding issue - like economic collapse or war that will let people bond together over a single issue and ignore other issues that are less important than that.

For example, there are plenty of fiscal conservatives - but they don't all agree on abortion, gun rights, isolationism - so they can never reach a critical mass to truly address the issue. A huge financial catastrophe would put these other issues on the back burner. I heard an interesting interview on NPR relating to the Tea Party convention in Nashville, they asked some lady about Scott Brown and asked her how she felt about him being Pro-choice - she responded that she knew she couldn't get everything she wanted, but was glad to get someone who shared some of her views elected.

Of course, a huge catastophe could also make people risk averse and have them cling to what they already know (Democrats and Republicans). This stuff isn't easy. Thanks for all the articles John.

Regards

Jack

[xakzen]

"How would the political climate be different today if the bomb had detonated and the plane had crashed? "

Honestly with the current level of government disinformation, I believe if the bomber had been successful, the whole thing would have been swept under the carpet like flight 800 over Long Island was ten years ago. The level of contempt for the average person by this government has only increased as evidenced by the paradoxical pronouncement Friday that even though more jobs were lost the unemployment rate fell. These people in Washington & Wall Street honestly believe that they know better and are justified in their lies.

Yesterday I saw Alan Greenspan on TV continuing to spout the rubbish that the economy had turned the corner and the recession was over but we should except unemployment to stay high. In the same breath he hedged that things could be bad if the stock market continues to go down. In an economic boom like we have experienced were consumer spending was responsible for 70% of the 'growth' people like Greenspan know that the only way to re-inflate the bubble so that they can get their money out is to convince the average person to go back to spending like there is no tomorrow. I and many others believe that the Wall Street/Fed cabal is manipulating the stock market with our tax dollars to again convince consumers to spend. Some may even truly believe that this is for the good of the country, but the problem I see with this endeavor is there are no more lines of credit for which people can continue to spend even if they wanted to (and there are plenty that do want to). Greenspan also hedged on real estate prices having bottom while also expressing concern that if prices continued to fall 'he would be concerned.' He's whole demeanor said to me that he knows he's on a mission to affect consumer sentiment short term, but also knows that history will not be kind to him if he is unsuccessful and the depression persists which it most definitely will due to the lack of credit. Inherently the establishment knows this and that is why they continue to harp on the banks to led more money, but to who? Only those that know they will never re-pay are willing to borrow and even the most corrupt bankster knows not to make that loan.