Generational Dynamics
Fourth Turning Forum Archive


Popular links:
Generational Dynamics Web Site
Generational Dynamics Forum
Fourth Turning Archive home page
New Fourth Turning Forum

Thread: 2012 Elections - Page 12







Post#276 at 11-03-2010 04:40 AM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
11-03-2010, 04:40 AM #276
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Dude, this is like stage 5.

Welcome to the 4T... better late than never?
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#277 at 11-03-2010 05:04 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-03-2010, 05:04 AM #277
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
Dude, this is like stage 5.

Welcome to the 4T... better late than never?
How do 2006 and 2008 fit in? The illusion of reversibility of the trend?

Whatever, what happened last night is quite possibly the penultimate stage of the hostile takeover of American democracy. Four Democratic Senators and the President of the United States would be enough to establish the Republican (Fascist) Party in absolute power.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#278 at 11-03-2010 06:37 AM by independent [at Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here joined Apr 2008 #posts 1,286]
---
11-03-2010, 06:37 AM #278
Join Date
Apr 2008
Location
Jacksonville - still trying to decide if its Florida or Georgia here
Posts
1,286

Quote Originally Posted by pbrower2a View Post
How do 2006 and 2008 fit in? The illusion of reversibility of the trend?
Yeah, the illusion that a cohort of "centrist" Democrats backed by big corporate money were changing direction rather than locking in Bush's "gains."

The revolution started 9 years ago - without a fight.
Last edited by independent; 11-03-2010 at 06:39 AM.
'82 iNTp
"Sometimes it is said that man cannot be trusted with the government of himself. Can he, then, be trusted with the government of others? Or have we found angels in the form of kings to govern him? Let history answer this question." -Jefferson







Post#279 at 11-03-2010 08:28 AM by AnneZob [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 287]
---
11-03-2010, 08:28 AM #279
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
287

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
The king will have much more favorable demographics behind him in *1012.*
All of those younger members of the newer tribes will be back in the voting booth.

Speaking of analogies, as one who is part Cherokee, I've never liked General Custer very much. But in some ways tonight's results are a bit like the outcome of the Battle of the Little Bighorn. A unique set of circumstances has temporarally put the "bluebellies" into an unwinnable hole vis a vis the "redskins."

But, just as the westward movement was irresisable, so too is the tide of time. The new generational coalition is growing in numbers every year while the older one shrinks.
In a few years the GOP will have to re-brand itself again. And next time the packaging will have to be more millie friendly. To put it another way, the Republicans have a future, but movement conservatism does not--at least not until the next 3T comes somewhere around 2065. Tonight the movement C's will reach a high water mark that will not be reachable again for at least a half a century.
I wouldn't bet on better demographics and more enthusiastic young voters helping in 2012. The GOP, having many state legislatures is now going to go on the greatest gerrymandering exercise ever to be seen in America. I'm betting the two effects are going to cancel each other out in 2012.

A more general note about Obama's fate. It depends on whether he can change in the correct way. If Geithner goes soon, Obama has hope.

I'm willing to bet though that Obama will think that the lesson of all this is (1) he needs to be even more friendly towards business, and by this I mean big business and Wall St not small and medium businesses so I expect a loosening of the already laughable regulations on Wall St and him to get even more Wall St friendly advisors and (2) he needs to fight the GOP to the death...on healthcare reform to prove his liberal credentials and show he is tough. Basically he is going to cave in to the thing that everyone wants him to go hard on and then fight for the thing most voters don't like. (1) is based on when Christine Romer resigned there was a lot of talk from the WH about how they need to get a *gag* more "business-friendly" replacement.

So, Obama is in fact doomed.

I do think though that the GOP will win in 2012. Yes, the voters will reject austerity - not so much because of austerity itself but because the GOP will try to impose it on everyone while protecting Wall St and the elites. However, because of legislative gridlock they won't really be able to impose much of it between now and 2012. There is a difference in public perception between the consequences of an active action (passing new bills or repealing existing ones) and passive action (i.e. not getting anything done or gridlock or not passing something). Also the GOP tend to be a lot more ruthless than the Democrats and Obama. You can rest assure that the GOP will not hesitate to blame everything on the left at every chance they get - every legislative hiccup, every veto will be "left wing obstructionism". Don't expect any manners or gentlemanly behavior from the right. Oh and investigations into "corruption" in the WH 24/7. If you throw enough mud it will stick. Obama won't know what will hit him and he's not good at this sort of fighting. FDR probably would have loved it though. Dirty fighting was just his thing. Abe wouldn't have loved it but considering his actions in the Civil War he has the ruthlessness to not only take it but give back double. Washington led an armed insurgency against a much superior force. Nuff said.

As for Palin. I think the rejection of the more lunatic fringe of the Tea Party e.g. O'Donnell shows that no matter how angry voters are they are in fact not that crazy. Right now I'm betting on Chris Christie as the 2012 President.

As for all the talk about how this is Stage 1 of the corporate takeover of government etc. etc. Guys, it's a bit late to worry about it now. That ship has sailed, they are waving good-bye from international waters. And the Democrats are just as guilty of that as the GOP (see the Clinton era for example - Rubin, Summers, etc. are all Democrats), see the kid glove handling of Wall St over the last couple of years by a Democrat President and Democrat Congress. They are already in charge. The scary thing it is not even just corruption and bribery. The people in Washington DC and the bureaucracy have basically bought hook line and sinker the ideology that the elite and Wall St are too important, too precious to treat roughly, that they are special people touched by the divine, "talent" who if they go elsewhere would bring the country down because how would the country do without them? It's too late to worry about a takeover *happening*, it's already *happened* and it's taken over Washington's beliefs as well as its wallet.

With both sides taken over by this thinking, the side that will win is the side in which the grassroot supporters realize that their leaders have betrayed them and are playing them for fools and revolt against their own leaders first. The first step is not about beating the other person, the first step is about beating yourself. Then you go and beat the crap out of the other person. This is where the right has an advantage over the left. The Tea Party was founded on the realization of "Hey, our own party leaders are screwing with us." They are going to get rolled by the GOP while in power. However I think this will eventually just make them more cynical and prepared for round 2 of the civil war. However the Democrat supporters haven't even reached the point of being able to admit that their party leaders (including their beloved Obama) have effectively sold them out. Where's the massive grassroots pressure on Obama to fire Geithner? Where are the Democrat members losing primaries because they are too close to Wall St? Actually a lot of the Democrat members considered too close to Wall St did just get thrown out, but it wasn't because of some sudden epiphany from the left. It was because the rest of the country had a sudden epiphany.

Anyway my bet is 2012 - GOP wins everything (gridlock will help them by preventing them from actually implementing austerity but because of gridlock the situation in the country will get worse and people will blame the Democrats esp. Obama with much help from GOP dirty tricks). Chris Christie becomes President in 2012 on an austerity agenda. 2014 and 2016 Dems win back (austerity hits, people get extremely pissed off with seeing Wall St living it up while they starve). This will likely be very brutal win, another wave election with serious losses on the side of the GOP. All out GOP civil war possibly with a break-up and I think this will actually strengthen the right for 2020 and later. There may be a right-wing group attempting to assassinate the head of Goldman Sachs eventually leading to an armed revolt.

The Dems could do this too, but as I said, they are still in deep deep denial about their own role in all this mess. They are unwilling to hold their own party accountable. I also think some of this denial is self-serving. It is about doing what is necessary to obtain power in the short-term, not taking any risks. There is the usual thing brought about how if they lose power, the other side will bring about a dicatorship (see this thread) or something similar. However what this is really about is doing something about it requires a civil war like the GOP is undergoing (though they are in a truce now). A civil war brings the risk of losing power, if just for an election cycle. It brings risks like having kooky candidates that are unelectable while getting rid of certain election wins. Why take the risk of losing power? I detect a certain smugness from Democrats about the GOP's civil war. However sometimes, it is necessary to take risks to secure long-term power.

We have a very strange situation here where we have a Democrat party so obsessed with short-term power that they are unwilling to take risks. However at the same time they don't have the ruthlessness to really attack the right or even fend off their dirty tricks. And we have a right that is utterly ruthless - not just in attacking the Democrats but in attacking themselves. However at the same time they are willing to risk losing short-term power for the interests of long-term power.
Last edited by AnneZob; 11-03-2010 at 08:33 AM.







Post#280 at 11-03-2010 10:44 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
11-03-2010, 10:44 PM #280
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by AnneZob View Post
I wouldn't bet on better demographics and more enthusiastic young voters helping in 2012. The GOP, having many state legislatures is now going to go on the greatest gerrymandering exercise ever to be seen in America. I'm betting the two effects are going to cancel each other out in 2012.

A more general note about Obama's fate. It depends on whether he can change in the correct way. If Geithner goes soon, Obama has hope.

I'm willing to bet though that Obama will think that the lesson of all this is (1) he needs to be even more friendly towards business, and by this I mean big business and Wall St not small and medium businesses so I expect a loosening of the already laughable regulations on Wall St and him to get even more Wall St friendly advisors and (2) he needs to fight the GOP to the death...on healthcare reform to prove his liberal credentials and show he is tough. Basically he is going to cave in to the thing that everyone wants him to go hard on and then fight for the thing most voters don't like. (1) is based on when Christine Romer resigned there was a lot of talk from the WH about how they need to get a *gag* more "business-friendly" replacement.

So, Obama is in fact doomed.

I do think though that the GOP will win in 2012. Yes, the voters will reject austerity - not so much because of austerity itself but because the GOP will try to impose it on everyone while protecting Wall St and the elites. However, because of legislative gridlock they won't really be able to impose much of it between now and 2012. There is a difference in public perception between the consequences of an active action (passing new bills or repealing existing ones) and passive action (i.e. not getting anything done or gridlock or not passing something). Also the GOP tend to be a lot more ruthless than the Democrats and Obama. You can rest assure that the GOP will not hesitate to blame everything on the left at every chance they get - every legislative hiccup, every veto will be "left wing obstructionism". Don't expect any manners or gentlemanly behavior from the right. Oh and investigations into "corruption" in the WH 24/7. If you throw enough mud it will stick. Obama won't know what will hit him and he's not good at this sort of fighting. FDR probably would have loved it though. Dirty fighting was just his thing. Abe wouldn't have loved it but considering his actions in the Civil War he has the ruthlessness to not only take it but give back double. Washington led an armed insurgency against a much superior force. Nuff said.

As for Palin. I think the rejection of the more lunatic fringe of the Tea Party e.g. O'Donnell shows that no matter how angry voters are they are in fact not that crazy. Right now I'm betting on Chris Christie as the 2012 President.

As for all the talk about how this is Stage 1 of the corporate takeover of government etc. etc. Guys, it's a bit late to worry about it now. That ship has sailed, they are waving good-bye from international waters. And the Democrats are just as guilty of that as the GOP (see the Clinton era for example - Rubin, Summers, etc. are all Democrats), see the kid glove handling of Wall St over the last couple of years by a Democrat President and Democrat Congress. They are already in charge. The scary thing it is not even just corruption and bribery. The people in Washington DC and the bureaucracy have basically bought hook line and sinker the ideology that the elite and Wall St are too important, too precious to treat roughly, that they are special people touched by the divine, "talent" who if they go elsewhere would bring the country down because how would the country do without them? It's too late to worry about a takeover *happening*, it's already *happened* and it's taken over Washington's beliefs as well as its wallet.

With both sides taken over by this thinking, the side that will win is the side in which the grassroot supporters realize that their leaders have betrayed them and are playing them for fools and revolt against their own leaders first. The first step is not about beating the other person, the first step is about beating yourself. Then you go and beat the crap out of the other person. This is where the right has an advantage over the left. The Tea Party was founded on the realization of "Hey, our own party leaders are screwing with us." They are going to get rolled by the GOP while in power. However I think this will eventually just make them more cynical and prepared for round 2 of the civil war. However the Democrat supporters haven't even reached the point of being able to admit that their party leaders (including their beloved Obama) have effectively sold them out. Where's the massive grassroots pressure on Obama to fire Geithner? Where are the Democrat members losing primaries because they are too close to Wall St? Actually a lot of the Democrat members considered too close to Wall St did just get thrown out, but it wasn't because of some sudden epiphany from the left. It was because the rest of the country had a sudden epiphany.

Anyway my bet is 2012 - GOP wins everything (gridlock will help them by preventing them from actually implementing austerity but because of gridlock the situation in the country will get worse and people will blame the Democrats esp. Obama with much help from GOP dirty tricks). Chris Christie becomes President in 2012 on an austerity agenda. 2014 and 2016 Dems win back (austerity hits, people get extremely pissed off with seeing Wall St living it up while they starve). This will likely be very brutal win, another wave election with serious losses on the side of the GOP. All out GOP civil war possibly with a break-up and I think this will actually strengthen the right for 2020 and later. There may be a right-wing group attempting to assassinate the head of Goldman Sachs eventually leading to an armed revolt.

The Dems could do this too, but as I said, they are still in deep deep denial about their own role in all this mess. They are unwilling to hold their own party accountable. I also think some of this denial is self-serving. It is about doing what is necessary to obtain power in the short-term, not taking any risks. There is the usual thing brought about how if they lose power, the other side will bring about a dicatorship (see this thread) or something similar. However what this is really about is doing something about it requires a civil war like the GOP is undergoing (though they are in a truce now). A civil war brings the risk of losing power, if just for an election cycle. It brings risks like having kooky candidates that are unelectable while getting rid of certain election wins. Why take the risk of losing power? I detect a certain smugness from Democrats about the GOP's civil war. However sometimes, it is necessary to take risks to secure long-term power.

We have a very strange situation here where we have a Democrat party so obsessed with short-term power that they are unwilling to take risks. However at the same time they don't have the ruthlessness to really attack the right or even fend off their dirty tricks. And we have a right that is utterly ruthless - not just in attacking the Democrats but in attacking themselves. However at the same time they are willing to risk losing short-term power for the interests of long-term power.
Thank you for the response.
Grerrymandering is going to be a real issue.
And your overall scenerio is plausible.

To elaborate a bit on my prior post I will say that as of right now I expect the GOP in the house the "f" up big time over the next two years.
And I'm not just talking about things like shutting down the Federal government but also about Congresscritters being caught at 3Tish behavior.
The culture wars might be dying down.
But the corporate lobbyists can fund a lot of parties and critters representing 711,494 souls can think that they're untouchable.
In short, they'll be a lot of buyers remorse in 2012 from some voters who voted for the "R" this year.

Beyond this I won't hazard a guess as of now.
Except to say that the fact that many rightists know that America's demographics are against them and that their time to bring about their vision of utopia is short is something to be concerned about.
And I'll leave it at that.
Last edited by herbal tee; 11-03-2010 at 10:48 PM.







Post#281 at 11-04-2010 12:18 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-04-2010, 12:18 PM #281
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

To be re-elected, President Obama will have to win decisively. I predict that the GOP will be more ruthless than it was in 2000, and GOP-dominated State legislatures to find many ways in which to keep people from voting. I expect elected GOP officials to obey the orders of their bosses even to the extent of electoral fraud. After all, they will have much to lose if they either fail to do the fraud, and much to lose if they get caught. They will want a Republican President and especially a Republican Attorney-General who will ratify any electoral fraud as the will of the People instead of only the Money.

This could be especially true in such states in which the GOP has a shaky hold on power -- Pennsylvania, Ohio, Virginia, Michigan, and Florida. President Obama will absolutely have to win at least two of those (he will win Colorado and Nevada), and he will have to be up by a margin that precludes fraud in any of those states if he is to win those states.

The 50-state strategy is an absolute necessity.
Last edited by pbrower2a; 11-04-2010 at 12:21 PM.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#282 at 11-05-2010 10:58 AM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
11-05-2010, 10:58 AM #282
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Redistricting

This article from ABCnews is about the redistricting advantage the Repubs will have for the next decade. Red states like Texas and Florida will gain new seats and Blue states from the northeast will be losing them....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/repub...ry?id=12049040







Post#283 at 11-05-2010 10:59 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
11-05-2010, 10:59 AM #283
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

Gerrymandering will of course make absolutely no difference to Obama's chances of reelection. Nor will it make any difference in the Senatorial elections. It may make it more difficult for the Democrats to retake the House. That's all.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903







Post#284 at 11-05-2010 12:40 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
11-05-2010, 12:40 PM #284
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

The Hispanic vote was important in this election.

Unlike the youth vote (under 30); the Hispanic voter y did not stay home, but rather voted at nearly the levels they did in 2008. Apparently they saved Harry Reid's butt and were key in other key races -
http://blogs.chron.com/txpotomac/201...atinos_ma.html


In the 2012 election, there will be an estimated 1.5 million more additional Hispanic voters - this is from increased registration as well as from population growth and makes these voters the fastest growing segment of both registered and likely voters -
http://www.thehispanicinstitute.net/

The Repugs had three candidates in highly-visible races that won. Rubio in Fl got about 60% of the Cuban vote, but very telling, he did not break 40% on the non-Cuban Hispanic vote. Republican Brian Sandoval won the governor's race in Nevada but with only 33% of the Hispanic vote compared to his 62% support from non-Hispanic Whites. In New Mexico, voters elected the nation's first Latina governor, Republican Susana Martinez, and while exit polling is not available to show the extent of Hispanic support, it probable was substantial given the unprecedented opportunity for Hispanics.

Outside of these three individual races, the Repugs inability to gain traction with Hispanics was very obvious with Dems getting 64% to 34%.

Under a variety of different scenarios on voter turn out by age and previousl voting patters, an electorial model -
http//
- suggest that to win the Presidency in 2012, a candidate has to win between 44 to 48% of the Hispanic vote.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#285 at 11-05-2010 01:14 PM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
11-05-2010, 01:14 PM #285
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Quote Originally Posted by Brian Rush View Post
Gerrymandering will of course make absolutely no difference to Obama's chances of reelection. Nor will it make any difference in the Senatorial elections. It may make it more difficult for the Democrats to retake the House. That's all.
The Dems in the Senate will be defending 21 seats, many in the Red states, the Repubs only 10. Nothing to do with gerrymandering of course but it will be a serious challenge to the Dems in '12. As for Obama, the economy will be an issue if it doesnt get markedly better. If it does he'll be in good position for a win, but I doubt he'll have alot of coattails.







Post#286 at 11-05-2010 01:33 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
11-05-2010, 01:33 PM #286
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

youth vote stayed home, but not unusual

As has been reported the under 30 y.o. voter stayed home in 2010 compared to 2008 while the pissed-off gezzers came out -



While this segment overwhelmingly voted Dems in both elections, in 2008, there were 23 million of them voitng but in 2010 only 9 million cast ballots. If voitng patterns (Dem vs. Repug) had held the same, the difference of 14 million would have swamped whatever the Repugs could muster in pissed off t-baggger and old geezers - we would have a very different electon result than what we got.

What is less reported, but just as critical, is that the turnout of these 9 million young voters was just 1 million less than the 10 million that came out in 2006. At 23% of registered youth voters, 2006 was the highest turnout of youth voters to date in a mid-term; like in 2010, the youth voter typically turns out at 20% for mid-terms. This would inidicate that the lack of turnout by youth voters in 2010 was not unusual and likely provides no indication that young voters will not turn out again in record numbers in 2012.

If voting patterns (Dems vs Repugs) hold in 2012, the Dems should have a blow-out success in 2012. Why? Because of the relative increased size of this cohort in 2012.

While the Hispanic voter has the greatest percent increase, with youth voters being second; on a absolute number basis the youth vote increase is more substantial. Further, that is based only on relative sub-population growth; any thing like the increase in voter registration seen with this sub-group for 2008 being repeated in 2012 would likely make this the most important cohort of all voters. Why?

Well, because while the 65+ cohort may increase somewhat for 2012, the cohort of 50+ has peaked either in this electon or in the previous 2008 election.

Among other things (jobs, jobs, jobs), I don't think kicking kids in their 20s off their parents' health insurance, particularly in this economy, is good politics.

Next, let's examine the urban, suburban and rural trends.

In the long-run, demographics rule.
Last edited by playwrite; 11-05-2010 at 01:38 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#287 at 11-05-2010 01:44 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
11-05-2010, 01:44 PM #287
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Weave View Post
The Dems in the Senate will be defending 21 seats, many in the Red states, the Repubs only 10. Nothing to do with gerrymandering of course but it will be a serious challenge to the Dems in '12. As for Obama, the economy will be an issue if it doesnt get markedly better. If it does he'll be in good position for a win, but I doubt he'll have alot of coattails.
You would need to look at the 2008 election map for those 31 seats and determine the precent of youth and Hispanic voters combined in each State. Any state where that it is significant (and it's hard to find where it is not), demographics would say the Dems there are good-to-go and the Repugs are toast.

Enjoy the dead cat bounce or the high tide mark while you can - 23 months, 25 days to go.
Last edited by playwrite; 11-05-2010 at 03:27 PM.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#288 at 11-05-2010 11:41 PM by Odin [at Moorhead, MN, USA joined Sep 2006 #posts 14,442]
---
11-05-2010, 11:41 PM #288
Join Date
Sep 2006
Location
Moorhead, MN, USA
Posts
14,442

2012 Senate outlook for Dems: Good.

Here's something to counter an MSM/Faux/Razz meme you might be hearing in the next few days or weeks that the Democrats have a "tough map" in 2012 in the Senate.


D SEATS (21)

Easy Holds (14)

Dianne Feinstein, CA - - also true if she decides to retire, but she won't
Daniel Akaka, HI - - also true if he decides to retire
Ben Cardin, MD
Bob Menendez, NJ - - there will be the usual MSM-fueled angst about Tom Kean or some such
Jeff Bingaman, NM
Kirsten Gillibrand, NY
Bob Casey, Jr., PA
Sheldon Whitehouse, RI
Amy Klobuchar, MN
Maria Cantwell, WA
Joe Manchin, WV
Herb Kohl, WI - - if he decides to retire, which I doubt, the probable recruit will be Feingold
Bernie Sanders, VT (I)
Lieberman-Held Seat, CT (Lieberman is toast in the primary process or will lose if running as a R)

Slightly Harder, but Still Likely Holds (4)

Tom Carper, DE - - I actually wish he'd retire; we'd get a better Dem in the seat
Bill Nelson, FL - - he's an institution and will be running in a year when there's excellent turnout
Debbie Stabenow, MI - - tough state for Dems right now but she's better liked than most
Claire McCaskill, MO - - bizarre state, but she's a good campaigner and seems to connect there

Vulnerable Seats (5)

Jon Tester, MT - - and honestly, not really that vulnerable; only on here because it's MT
Ben Nelson, NE - - he'll lose and no one will care
Kent Conrad, ND - - only subject to takeover if he decides to retire; otherwise he'll win
Sherrod Brown, OH - - with African-Americans voting again in 2012 I think he'll be fine
Jim Webb, VA - - also helped by presumed large African-American turnout


R SEATS (10)

High-Probability D Pickups (3)

Scott Brown, MA - - people will try to say this isn't in the bag for Dems, but it is
Olympia Snowe, ME - - she'll get teabagged and the D will win
John Ensign, NV - - may be indicted or resign first; I like Rep. Berkley to win this

Lower-Probability D Pickups (2)

Jon Kyl, AZ - - only if he gets teabagged and/or there's a terrific D with Latino outreach who runs
Richard Lugar, IN - - maybe if he gets teabagged or retires; otherwise, forget it


Likely R Holds (5)

Roger Wicker, MS
Bob Corker, TN - - may get teabagged, but Dems can't win there
Kay Bailey Hutchison, TX
Orrin Hatch, UT - - see Corker
John Barrasso, WY
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.

-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism







Post#289 at 11-06-2010 06:05 AM by Alioth68 [at Minnesota joined Apr 2010 #posts 693]
---
11-06-2010, 06:05 AM #289
Join Date
Apr 2010
Location
Minnesota
Posts
693

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
Grerrymandering is going to be a real issue.
It's funny how "gerrymandering" used to be a dirty word (as if there was actually something wrong with districts that resemble serpentine salamanders in shape rather than more solid geographic entities! who knew?)--but now I've even seen or heard the word used by various MSM commentaries as the normal term for the redistricting process. And by Republicans glad that "their" governors and state legislators will have more opportunity to "gerrymander" than the Democrats. The actual act of "gerrymandering"--a specific kind of redistricting designed to concentrate one party's voters into just a few districts while spreading the favored party's voters into as many districts as they can while still holding (smaller) majorities in them, often requiring rather "creative" geographic notions of what constitutes a representative district (like snaking a mile-wide territory over the course of an interstate highway to cover two distinct and far-apart urban areas)--is shameful, and indeed was considered shameful politics back when the term was coined in 1812.

They say nowadays we have the kind of mapping and data-mining precision to allow districts to literally be drawn around individual houses and to bisect neighborhoods in zig-zags, to the goal of enhancing partisan advantages. It will be interesting just how far this will be taken, just how serpentine or even spiderweb-like some of the new districts will look (not even sure they have to hold contiguous territory, but even if they did that's nothing a yard-wide strip along the center of a road that extends to a house here or there while skipping others can't do), and if it will be taken to far enough extremes that some type of reform of this process will eventually occur.
Last edited by Alioth68; 11-06-2010 at 06:09 AM.







Post#290 at 11-06-2010 04:03 PM by playwrite [at NYC joined Jul 2005 #posts 10,443]
---
11-06-2010, 04:03 PM #290
Join Date
Jul 2005
Location
NYC
Posts
10,443

Quote Originally Posted by Odin View Post
Thanks for posting that.

Pretty much how I see things with the one exception being Kay Bailey Hutchison. Much of that 1.5 million new Hispanic registered voters will be in TX and you got a huge under 30 cohort there that is coming into its own.
"The Devil enters the prompter's box and the play is ready to start" - R. Service

Its not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed so, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed. Its much more akin to printing money. - B.Bernanke


"Keep your filthy hands off my guns while I decide what you can & can't do with your uterus" - Sarah Silverman

If you meet a magic pony on the road, kill it. - Playwrite







Post#291 at 11-06-2010 04:52 PM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-06-2010, 04:52 PM #291
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by playwrite View Post
Thanks for posting that.

Pretty much how I see things with the one exception being Kay Bailey Hutchison. Much of that 1.5 million new Hispanic registered voters will be in TX and you got a huge under 30 cohort there that is coming into its own.
And -- she is an obvious candidate for a Tea Party assault by some nutty candidate.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#292 at 11-06-2010 05:38 PM by haymarket martyr [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 2,547]
---
11-06-2010, 05:38 PM #292
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
2,547

A point regarding gerrymandering. i live in Michigan and there are 110 state house districts. Let us suspend disbelief for a moment and pretend that you could actually draw a map to create 110 competitive districts. Just how would you fund those elections? Right now the Dems know they will win in at least 30 safe districts. The GOP knows the same. That leaves less than half as competitive or somewhat competitive. If you are in a safe district, the only thing you worry about is the primary. Lets say that an average winning candidate spends between 25k and 35k in a primary which is well contested. Then they cruise to the general spending less than 5K. That is a total outlay of between 30 and 40K to get elected to the Michigan House.

In a competitive district, you still have to spend that in the primary plus then at least 50 to 70k more in the general. A great deal of that comes from state party sources. There is not enough political money in the state to fund 110 competitive races at nearly 100k each. That comes to between 10 and 11 million dollars. Its simply not there no matter how much people want it there.

So instead we have gerrymandering which cuts the cost in half of that.

You get what you pay for.
There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.







Post#293 at 11-06-2010 08:01 PM by AnneZob [at joined Sep 2008 #posts 287]
---
11-06-2010, 08:01 PM #293
Join Date
Sep 2008
Posts
287

I disagree that Millies and minorities are going to have a massive impact on 2012.

One of the key reasons why their turnout was low in 2010 was because they were the hardest hit by unemployment. Yes it is ironic that the Tea Party is made up of people who are the least affected by the bad economy. I believe it was one of the things Charlie Cook pointed out in his predictions. When you are struggling to survive, voting is the least of your worries. Also if you are transient and moving from place to place (couch surfing, finding cheap rentals) voting is not so easy.

This also tallies with my observations of enthusiasm for the voting process in Japan. The young people were hardest hit by the Lost Decade(s) and their general reaction has been to keep their heads down and tune out. They have been pushing back but in passive-aggressive ways like avoiding taxes and paying into the National Pension scheme or Healthcare scheme. It helps with tax avoidance that many of them can only find low-paid temporary employment. Amongst those youngsters lucky enough to find secure employment, I think they tend to become even more conservative. They know they are in a precarious situation and so become even less of risk-takers. The worse thing about this sort of bad situation is it destroys the self-confidence of the unemployed people and even those who are employed. The general theme of long periods of unemployment is a large drop in self-confidence. This was also observed with the people who came of age in the initial years of the Great Depression.

Making the reasonable assumption that the economy will be worse or at least not much better in 2012, Millie and minority representation will probably also be depressed compared to 2008.

The exception to this is if a candidate comes out who really inspires them and makes them believe that change is coming. In Japan Koizumi was this one. The young people in Japan really turned out for Koizumi. Obama may be that one, however by 2012 it is likely his brand will be even more damaged than it is now. I doubt that Obama will be hugely inspirational to young people and minorities, at least not on the 2008 level, as he was in 2008. Two more years or very bad unemployment and even worse, seeing their idol back away on financial reform and give in to big business at every opportunity will do that. I wouldn't be surprised in Millies and minorities switch their loyalties to a left-wing outsider running against Obama and the main Democrats which will split the left-wing vote.

As for healthcare reform - I suspect it is less important amongst young people than it is for the older people who make up the Tea Party. Healthcare is something young people tend to worry too much about because they tend to be healthier, not have families etc. So I doubt that a fight over healthcare reform will really get the youngsters out in force. They may prefer not to have it rolled back but it won't be a massive reason for them to fight. For the older people in the Tea Party, despite all the talk about reducing government spending, the main reason they are opposed to healthcare reform, is because they think it will be a danger to *their* current government benefits. Yes, on this issue, they are hypocrites. As they are older people they worry a lot more about healthcare than the Millies do.
Last edited by AnneZob; 11-06-2010 at 09:15 PM.







Post#294 at 11-07-2010 10:02 AM by pbrower2a [at "Michigrim" joined May 2005 #posts 15,014]
---
11-07-2010, 10:02 AM #294
Join Date
May 2005
Location
"Michigrim"
Posts
15,014

Quote Originally Posted by AnneZob View Post
I disagree that Millies and minorities are going to have a massive impact on 2012.

One of the key reasons why their turnout was low in 2010 was because they were the hardest hit by unemployment. Yes it is ironic that the Tea Party is made up of people who are the least affected by the bad economy. I believe it was one of the things Charlie Cook pointed out in his predictions. When you are struggling to survive, voting is the least of your worries. Also if you are transient and moving from place to place (couch surfing, finding cheap rentals) voting is not so easy.

This also tallies with my observations of enthusiasm for the voting process in Japan. The young people were hardest hit by the Lost Decade(s) and their general reaction has been to keep their heads down and tune out. They have been pushing back but in passive-aggressive ways like avoiding taxes and paying into the National Pension scheme or Healthcare scheme. It helps with tax avoidance that many of them can only find low-paid temporary employment. Amongst those youngsters lucky enough to find secure employment, I think they tend to become even more conservative. They know they are in a precarious situation and so become even less of risk-takers. The worse thing about this sort of bad situation is it destroys the self-confidence of the unemployed people and even those who are employed. The general theme of long periods of unemployment is a large drop in self-confidence. This was also observed with the people who came of age in the initial years of the Great Depression.

Making the reasonable assumption that the economy will be worse or at least not much better in 2012, Millie and minority representation will probably also be depressed compared to 2008.

The exception to this is if a candidate comes out who really inspires them and makes them believe that change is coming. In Japan Koizumi was this one. The young people in Japan really turned out for Koizumi. Obama may be that one, however by 2012 it is likely his brand will be even more damaged than it is now. I doubt that Obama will be hugely inspirational to young people and minorities, at least not on the 2008 level, as he was in 2008. Two more years or very bad unemployment and even worse, seeing their idol back away on financial reform and give in to big business at every opportunity will do that. I wouldn't be surprised in Millies and minorities switch their loyalties to a left-wing outsider running against Obama and the main Democrats which will split the left-wing vote.

As for healthcare reform - I suspect it is less important amongst young people than it is for the older people who make up the Tea Party. Healthcare is something young people tend to worry too much about because they tend to be healthier, not have families etc. So I doubt that a fight over healthcare reform will really get the youngsters out in force. They may prefer not to have it rolled back but it won't be a massive reason for them to fight. For the older people in the Tea Party, despite all the talk about reducing government spending, the main reason they are opposed to healthcare reform, is because they think it will be a danger to *their* current government benefits. Yes, on this issue, they are hypocrites. As they are older people they worry a lot more about healthcare than the Millies do.
Here is my suggestion for an issue on which the Democrats can win in 2012:

POVERTY

I recognize that Barack Obama did not run as a populist in 2008; he wanted to be the calm, rational candidate of suburbia who took away the once-reliable suburban vote, or large parts of it, from the Republican Party which had long offered nothing but tax cuts. He dared not mention welfare, quite possibly because he did not want to scare white people afraid of "welfare queens" who happen to be black. (The dirty secrets: welfare recipients don't have it so great, and many are white). White Democrats like Bill Clinton could address poverty; Barack Obama dared not.

The current capitalist system is great at creating wealth when it isn't in a bubble economy; it has gotten incompetent at sharing its bounty. That changes, or America faces a very nasty crisis. Current Republicans seem to believe that they can create prosperity only for the super-rich by squeezing everyone else and then claiming that the benefits will somehow trickle down. In essence, Simon Legree is a closet Santa Claus according to this theory. It just hasn't worked, and it will never work so long as American elites can find clever new means of finding sybaritic excess.

To address poverty openly requires conscience, kindness, and caution, traits completely lacking among most of America's economic elite and its political retainers. But the rest of us? Conscience is often inconvenient, but it is necessary for long-term survival of the political system and the sustainability of business enterprises. Kindness is the difference between civility and a jungle. Caution is the recognition that things can go very badly, so that one fights wisely if at all and doesn't make enemies that one needs as friends.

We have not done badly at creating wealth since 1980 (except during the corrupt boom of the real-estate bubble of the Double-Zero Decade); we have done badly at sharing it. Before 1980, full-time work was a practical guarantee of avoiding poverty. Today the working poor demonstrate the failure of our economic system to connect reward to work. That changes, or our whole capitalist system fails.

POVERTY

This is one issue upon which the Hard Right cannot win unless the American people become a nation of swine.
The greatest evil is not now done in those sordid "dens of crime" (or) even in concentration camps and labour camps. In those we see its final result. But it is conceived and ordered... in clean, carpeted, warmed and well-lighted offices, by (those) who do not need to raise their voices. Hence, naturally enough, my symbol for Hell is something like the bureaucracy of a police state or the office of a thoroughly nasty business concern."


― C.S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters







Post#295 at 11-07-2010 02:23 PM by Rose1992 [at Syracuse joined Sep 2008 #posts 1,833]
---
11-07-2010, 02:23 PM #295
Join Date
Sep 2008
Location
Syracuse
Posts
1,833

Quote Originally Posted by AnneZob View Post
When you are struggling to survive, voting is the least of your worries. Also if you are transient and moving from place to place (couch surfing, finding cheap rentals) voting is not so easy.
Same thing even with being in college. I've heard of cases of voters moving to a different dorm and then finding themselves disenfranchised.







Post#296 at 11-10-2010 05:52 PM by Weave [at joined Feb 2010 #posts 909]
---
11-10-2010, 05:52 PM #296
Join Date
Feb 2010
Posts
909

Possible new entrant for 2012

Mitch Daniels the popular Indiana Governor is considering a run for the Republican nomination.
http://dailycaller.com/2010/11/10/in...eing-2012-bid/







Post#297 at 11-10-2010 08:47 PM by wtrg8 [at NoVA joined Dec 2008 #posts 1,262]
---
11-10-2010, 08:47 PM #297
Join Date
Dec 2008
Location
NoVA
Posts
1,262

Quote Originally Posted by herbal tee View Post
Thank you for the response.
Grerrymandering is going to be a real issue.
And your overall scenerio is plausible.

To elaborate a bit on my prior post I will say that as of right now I expect the GOP in the house the "f" up big time over the next two years.
And I'm not just talking about things like shutting down the Federal government but also about Congresscritters being caught at 3Tish behavior.
The culture wars might be dying down.
But the corporate lobbyists can fund a lot of parties and critters representing 711,494 souls can think that they're untouchable.
In short, they'll be a lot of buyers remorse in 2012 from some voters who voted for the "R" this year.

Beyond this I won't hazard a guess as of now.
Except to say that the fact that many rightists know that America's demographics are against them and that their time to bring about their vision of utopia is short is something to be concerned about.
And I'll leave it at that.
Gerrymandering is a mute point. Both parties have done it for ages. GOP spent money on a whole-country State/Local elections to get a majority in the State Houses and Governorships. Here's a Dollar, go to 7-11 and buy another carton of milk.







Post#298 at 11-10-2010 11:50 PM by herbal tee [at joined Dec 2005 #posts 7,116]
---
11-10-2010, 11:50 PM #298
Join Date
Dec 2005
Posts
7,116

Quote Originally Posted by wtrg8 View Post
Gerrymandering is a mute point.
Many aspirants for district based political offices would disagree with you.


GOP spent money on a whole-country State/Local elections to get a majority in the State Houses and Governorships.
Doesn't surprise me too much. Their strategists have totally outclassed the Dem. advisors this election cycle.
Here's a Dollar, go to 7-11 and buy another carton of milk.
Would you like it raw?

Seriously, raw milk sales are legal in South Carolina.
Last edited by herbal tee; 11-10-2010 at 11:54 PM.







Post#299 at 11-11-2010 12:05 AM by Roadbldr '59 [at Vancouver, Washington joined Jul 2001 #posts 8,275]
---
11-11-2010, 12:05 AM #299
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
Vancouver, Washington
Posts
8,275

Quote Originally Posted by independent View Post
Yeah, the illusion that a cohort of "centrist" Democrats backed by big corporate money were changing direction rather than locking in Bush's "gains."

The revolution started 9 years ago - without a fight.
"So THIS is how democracy dies... to thunderous applause!!!"
"Better hurry. There's a storm coming. His storm!!!" :-O -Abigail Freemantle, "The Stand" by Stephen King







Post#300 at 11-11-2010 12:16 AM by Brian Rush [at California joined Jul 2001 #posts 12,392]
---
11-11-2010, 12:16 AM #300
Join Date
Jul 2001
Location
California
Posts
12,392

It's not at all clear to me how redistricting can give one party an advantage over the other.

In any area, you have a certain number of Republican voters and a certain number of Democratic voters. Let's say that the Republicans have carte blanch to draw the lines of a two-district region any way they want. Let's further suppose that this region's registered voters are 45% Republican or Republican-leaning independent, 45% Democratic or Democratic-leaning independent, and 10% true independent (swing voters).

The line could be drawn so as to give Republicans a big advantage in one district, but if they do that, then they also give Democrats the same big advantage in the other. (Since no voters are going to simply disappear with a wave of a redistricting pen, they just get shuffled around.) On the other hand, they could be drawn so as to make both districts competitive, but then that gives the Republicans no particular advantage in either one.

In states with more than two districts in which Republicans hold an overall slight majority, redistricting could set up a slight Republican advantage in all district, but if that's done by the same token all districts are in play and in a Democratic wave year they could all switch to the Ds. Or they could do it so as to create a number of Republican safe seats, but if that's done then they also create a (smaller) number of Democratic safe seats. That prevents the wave effect but cedes any real chance to take the safe D seats.

In states with an overwhelming Republican overall advantage, such as Utah, redistricting doesn't make a whole lot of difference anyway.

There's only so much you can do by redrawing the electoral map.

About Millennial voters: young voters have always voted poorly in a mid-term election and this year the left was disaffected. You can't draw any general demographic conclusions from that, and it's completely unfounded to decide they stayed home because they were poor and worried about jobs. The way Millennials' minds work, that's more likely to make them vote than not.

One thing to remember that many people who otherwise notice this demographic in favor of Democrats don't seem to grok, is that this is not an age phenomenon but a generational one. Millennials will not stay young forever, and so "the youth votes Democratic" will change over time to "people in their 20s and 30s vote Democratic" and later still to "middle-aged people vote Democratic" and ultimately to "old farts vote Democratic." As Millies move up the age ladder, their party preference is unlikely to change, but they will vote more often, as older people always do.
"And what rough beast, its hour come round at last, slouches toward Bethlehem to be born?"

My blog: https://brianrushwriter.wordpress.com/

The Order Master (volume one of Refuge), a science fantasy. Amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00GZZWEAS
Smashwords link: https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/382903
-----------------------------------------