Originally Posted by Number Two

Pretty good general equation (although I'd say that large enough Dem gains would suggest 4T like the election of 1930)

Were the gains in 1930 big for the Dems? They'd probably be much bigger than the change in 2002, if they were what you suggest. It seems safe though to say now that there weren't any huge net gains.

If the House becomes more Republican as a net change, add 10 points. If it becomes more Democratic, subtract 10 points.

looks like it will be more republican... +10

Yep, adding that 10 points we can safely do.

If the Senate gains a Republican majority (51 or more), add 5 points.

If the Senate loses Democrats but maintains a Democratic plurality (difficult to do), subtract 3 points.

If the Senate has 50 Democrats, subtract 1 point.

Oooooooh...I didn't list what to do if the Senate has 50 but not 51 Republicans (which it looks like it may be). Would that be adding points but not as many as 5? Or what if we get a 49/49 split? I guess that would involve subtracting a few points because it shows a 3T-ish perfect division of America? (And the change, while not adding any new Republicans, would change 1 Democrat seat to an even more 3T-ish Independent seat.)

Add 1 point for each Independent who loses his seat, not due to retiring.

I can't think of any Independents who will be unseated now, except for Ventura's appointed Wellstone replacement, whom we all know is supposed to be temporary. Does anyone else know of any losses I can add a point for?

If a new Independent is actually elected to the Senate, the House or a governor's office, subtract 3 points. If MORE THAN ONE Independent wins a seat that was formerly occupied by either a Republican or a Democrat, than subtract three points for each of them.

No one I could think of, although we could subtract 3 points later if any of the Republicans in either the House or the Senate does a Jim Jeffords style move (or more or fewer points. Would becoming Democrat or Independent be more strongly 3T?)

For each incumbent Silent who is unseated by a Boomer, add 2 points.

Subtract 3 points for every Silent incumbent who manages to beat a Boomer challenge.

If an incumbent Boomer loses his seat to a SILENT...subtract 10 points.

The presence of the G.I. Generation reflects our place in the saeculum, and public presence of G.I.'s today denotes that we are earlier rather than later in the cycle. So if any G.I. wins a race, subtract 1 point for each of them.

looks like we'll subtract 1 for Lautenberg (do we subtract 10 more because he beat and took a seat from a Boomer? :-))

Beat a Boomer...took a seat from a Boomer...technically he did both. I know we can subtract 1 for him (or maybe we can try -1 point each for incumbents and -2 points each for new blood). I'm less sure about G.I.'s beating Boomers than Silents beating Boomers, since Silents are considered the perfect anti-4T generation. I also just realized that I don't have anything listed on what to do if a Silent beats a Boomer in a race where both are new. This would tell us how much to subtract for the victory of Libby Dole. I suppose it would be more impressive than if the Silent already had an advantage of incumbency going for her...but less impressive than if she actually unseated a Boomer running again...that would most likely make it -5 points.

If the Silents maintain their plurality, subtract 5 points.

Hmmmm...what if they're neck-to-neck with the Boomers? Would that be 0 points?

If the voter turnout rate for all 18-to-24-year-olds in America is at least 40%, add 10 points.

If the majority of 18-to-24-year-olds vote, add 20 points.

If over 60% of them vote, add 30 points.

Finally, if any news network cancels its election coverage tonight to show you poodles in bikinis and people who have learned to flatulate every note with their armpits, subtract 1,000 points.

:LOL: for the last one... conclusion: TOO SOON TO TELL

Yeah, I guess it's too soon to tell. And some of these races are going to drag on and on. Is the litigiousness something 3T? Can't say I get to subtract a thousand for the last one, though...not that I was disappointed by the absence of frivolity (you have to have expected what you didn't get for it to count as disappointment). OTOH I didn't see more flag-waving in the assemblies than I did in 2000, 1998 or 1996...in a 4T one would expect the "God bless America" spirit to be noticeably greater this time around.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I did a lot of work for a county commissioner challenger, too. He lost to a female incumbent (one of the few Dems to win) who promised to "celebrate our diversity" if elected.

Another thought on this. This Democrat who managed to win claimed a definite issue as hers. One complaint that's already around everywhere is that the Democrats did so badly because their party didn't stand for anything and didn't take a stance against Dubya's war. Too many of 'em ran on basically no issues. Could it be that those who take a definite position of something will win, and that the culture wars really provide something to believe in? Those spicy culture war issues are much more powerful than reticence. If a Democrat won't voice anti-PG2 concerns or do anything like that to set himself apart, the alternative is voting for a Democrat who's no different from a Republican, and that will defeat the whole purpose of being a Democrat, won't it?

Originally Posted by voltronx

Originally Posted by Number Two

Pretty good general equation (although I'd say that large enough Dem gains would suggest 4T like the election of 1930)

Were the gains in 1930 big for the Dems? They'd probably be much bigger than the change in 2002, if they were what you suggest. It seems safe though to say now that there weren't any huge net gains.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/De...ural_POAD.html
"In the 1930 election, Democrats picked up 49 House seats and 8 [out of 96] Senate seats." about a 10% gain for each house

If the House becomes more Republican as a net change, add 10 points. If it becomes more Democratic, subtract 10 points.

looks like it will be more republican... +10

Yep, adding that 10 points we can safely do.

actually i'm not even sure if we can do that any more; the dems had 208 reps before the election and could still have 208 after (more likely than not, it will be a <1% republican gain... for a gain of that magnitude I think we should add 5 points or so instead of 10)

And further... Census 2000 caused 7 seats to shift from Gore states to Bush seats so I would interpret anything less than a 7-seat loss as a gain for the Dems

If the Senate gains a Republican majority (51 or more), add 5 points.

If the Senate loses Democrats but maintains a Democratic plurality (difficult to do), subtract 3 points.

If the Senate has 50 Democrats, subtract 1 point.

Oooooooh...I didn't list what to do if the Senate has 50 but not 51 Republicans (which it looks like it may be). Would that be adding points but not as many as 5? Or what if we get a 49/49 split? I guess that would involve subtracting a few points because it shows a 3T-ish perfect division of America? (And the change, while not adding any new Republicans, would change 1 Democrat seat to an even more 3T-ish Independent seat.)

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2002/pag...ate/index.html Actually the Repubs have at least 51 Senate seats (my prediction at the moment is 52: they win LA but lose SD)

Add 1 point for each Independent who loses his seat, not due to retiring.

I can't think of any Independents who will be unseated now, except for Ventura's appointed Wellstone replacement, whom we all know is supposed to be temporary. Does anyone else know of any losses I can add a point for?

If a new Independent is actually elected to the Senate, the House or a governor's office, subtract 3 points. If MORE THAN ONE Independent wins a seat that was formerly occupied by either a Republican or a Democrat, than subtract three points for each of them.

No one I could think of, although we could subtract 3 points later if any of the Republicans in either the House or the Senate does a Jim Jeffords style move (or more or fewer points. Would becoming Democrat or Independent be more strongly 3T?)
[/quote]
I think both would be the same level of 3T_dom

For each incumbent Silent who is unseated by a Boomer, add 2 points.

Subtract 3 points for every Silent incumbent who manages to beat a Boomer challenge.

If an incumbent Boomer loses his seat to a SILENT...subtract 10 points.

The presence of the G.I. Generation reflects our place in the saeculum, and public presence of G.I.'s today denotes that we are earlier rather than later in the cycle. So if any G.I. wins a race, subtract 1 point for each of them.

looks like we'll subtract 1 for Lautenberg (do we subtract 10 more because he beat and took a seat from a Boomer? :-))

Beat a Boomer...took a seat from a Boomer...technically he did both. I know we can subtract 1 for him (or maybe we can try -1 point each for incumbents and -2 points each for new blood). I'm less sure about G.I.'s beating Boomers than Silents beating Boomers, since Silents are considered the perfect anti-4T generation. I also just realized that I don't have anything listed on what to do if a Silent beats a Boomer in a race where both are new. This would tell us how much to subtract for the victory of Libby Dole. I suppose it would be more impressive than if the Silent already had an advantage of incumbency going for her...but less impressive than if she actually unseated a Boomer running again...that would most likely make it -5 points.

Lautenberg WAS born in 1924 so he is at the very least a Silent cusper (though admittedly he is more GI in morals)...

If the Silents maintain their plurality, subtract 5 points.

Hmmmm...what if they're neck-to-neck with the Boomers? Would that be 0 points?

subtract 2 1/2 points?

If the voter turnout rate for all 18-to-24-year-olds in America is at least 40%, add 10 points.

If the majority of 18-to-24-year-olds vote, add 20 points.

If over 60% of them vote, add 30 points.

Finally, if any news network cancels its election coverage tonight to show you poodles in bikinis and people who have learned to flatulate every note with their armpits, subtract 1,000 points.

:LOL: for the last one... conclusion: TOO SOON TO TELL

Yeah, I guess it's too soon to tell. And some of these races are going to drag on and on. Is the litigiousness something 3T? Can't say I get to subtract a thousand for the last one, though...not that I was disappointed by the absence of frivolity (you have to have expected what you didn't get for it to count as disappointment). OTOH I didn't see more flag-waving in the assemblies than I did in 2000, 1998 or 1996...in a 4T one would expect the "God bless America" spirit to be noticeably greater this time around.

Well... the voter turnout was described as "more than 39 percent" - sounds pretty 3T to me

Originally Posted by AlexMnWi

Originally Posted by Vince Lamb '59

I agree that this is going to be the first national election since the 4T started. However, I don't yet see that 4T issues are being addressed in this election other than the looming war with Iraq. I suspect that it will look like 1930, when the previous 4T had started (in retrospect) but the social moment (the depression) hadn't begun in earnest and the economic issues that would drive the rest of the decade weren't yet a major issue (and the foreign policy issues were a decade away!) The country may have snapped into a new mood but the issues that will drive the next 17+ years haven't become salient enough to propel elections. 2004 should be a different story.

Here's what happened in E1930:

Senate before Election: 39D 56R 1I
Senate after Election: 47D 48R 1I
Net Change: +8 D, -8R, out of 32 seats up for election.
Republican Majority before election: 17
Republican Majority after election: 1

House before Election: 163D 267R, 1I, 4VACANT
House after Election: 216D, 218R, 1I
Net Change: +53D, -49R, out of 435 seats up for election
Republican Majority before election: 104
Republican Majority after election: 2

So, 1930 does seem like a major election to me...

Yep, it really does sound like a huge Democratic gain after all...especially with the change in the House. That was a radical move.

I plan to address some of the issues here, in the coming weeks. One thing sticks out -- like a sore thumb to Democrats -- is that the Boom take-over of the House, in 1994, was GOP driven, and the Boom take-over in the Senate was GOP driven, too. Governors may be another matter, though.

At any rate, I reposted my numbers here for disscussion purposes:

O' Death, O' Death, Where is thy sting?

http://www.startribune.com/stories/484/3415213.html


O' Grave, O' Grave, Where is thy Victory?

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/784365/posts



In Memory of the late DFL. HTH

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/fre...elections.html

(For educ. and discussion)



On the 2002 Midterm Elections...

by Michael C. Ruppert

[? Copyright, 2000, From The Wilderness Publications, www.fromthewilderness.com. All rights reserved. May be copied, distributed or posted on the Internet for non-profit purposes only.]

Nov. 7, 2002, 12:00 PST (FTW) -- There are a multitude of dangling questions about Tuesday's election results. Widespread anecdotal accounts of voting irregularities, disenfranchised voters and absolutely accurate and, in many cases, understated criticisms of abysmal leadership from Tom Daschle and the Democratic Party are not difficult to find. While pundits are trying to spin that the Republicans don't have a blank check, the fact is that they do and will now use every ounce of leverage they can squeeze onto it. I totally agree with James Carville -- a less than likeable, ruthless, crusty, hard-ball operative from the Clinton years -- who said last night, "The American people just don't have a clue as to what's coming."

As I write, the biggest transport ships operated by the Navy have already or are now setting sail for the Middle East, laden with main battle tanks and all the equipment necessary for invasion. At Ft. Hood, Texas elements of the III Armored Corps and the 1st Air Cavalry are quietly leaving in small detachments.

I have no doubt that the Homeland Security bill will be passed -- by any means necessary -- during the lame duck session of Congress which commences on Nov. 12. At that moment the government will enshrine a $37 billion bureaucracy that will have no other mission -- for the rest of its life -- than to find and destroy enemies of the state. For that reason alone -- a law of bureaucratic existence -- the list of enemies of the Homeland is compelled to forever grow as the definition of "enemies" is revised, and new evidence is found to justify their destruction. How else does a bureaucracy justify bigger budgets?

The Democratic Party is a shameful and laughable disgrace. In a world of hope the Green Party would seize this opportunity to enshrine and claim as its own all of the issues which the Democrats left unaddressed and laying in the dust of this election. I will not hold my breath.

The fear that exists in Washington must also be addressed. Sens. Leahy and Daschle got anthrax letters. Many, including this writer, believe that Paul Wellstone was murdered. Cynthia McKinney was removed in a well orchestrated conspiracy which will be addressed in my forthcoming book, "Across the Rubicon."

On Aug. 27 I published an essay titled "No Way Out" in which I wrote, "And most of the American people, with their bankrupt and corrupt economy, will welcome cheap oil, while it lasts, and they will engage in a multitude of psychological and sickening rationales that will, in the end, amount to nothing more than saying, 'I don't care how many women and children you kill. Just let me keep my standard of living.'" As the Empire embarks on the occupation of the Middle East, to control the largest reserves of oil remaining on a planet that is coming to grips with the fact that oil is finite and depleting, the American people are on the threshold of getting a taste of what real sacrifice means.

The military occupation of Iraq (and Saudi Arabia) may come fairly quickly and be hailed as successes. But the prices that will be paid in casualties, economic expense and global hostility will be bitter and permanent pills for this Empire and its people. Homeland Security will provide Caesar with the means to permanently suppress any restlessness at home.

There was one other great message from this election. On Wednesday morning I watched a crawl on the bottom of the CNN news screen. It said, "Proprietary software may make inspection of electronic voting systems impossible." It was the final and absolute coronation of corporate rights over democracy; of money over truth; and of man's self-destructive fears over the best parts of the human heart.

I note with irony the fact that much of the new software to resolve voting issues is either created by Microsoft and/or the companies that own and sell the voting machines, including one with investments from the Rothschild family. These are the same firms connected to the election debacle of 2000. Some even have Bush family connections. And here we see the final purpose of the 2000 Florida voting scandals: In order to prevent the same kind of hanging-chad confusion, we now have electronic machines so the problem won't occur again, and the results have been forever totally removed from public scrutiny.

And wasn't it convenient that Voters News Service decided at the last minute that there would be no exit polling this year. Exit polling was a reliable standard against which the numbers from the voting machines could be compared.

Some will take issue with me and say, "Mike, how can you blame the American people and say that the voting machines are rigged at the same time?" Easy, I answer. Today there was nobody in the streets. There was no public outcry. There was no revolt or outrage. All that has happened is that one more time a people has avoided responsibility and retreated in the hope that some other half- measured, half-willed, half-hearted, childish tactic will produce results in a world that no longer exists ... and probably hasn't for a long, long time.

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110602_elections.html

I have no doubt that the Homeland Security bill will be passed -- by any means necessary -- during the lame duck session of Congress which commences on Nov. 12.

I have my doubts about that. I have read somewhere that if Trent Lott controls the lame duck session (which could happen if Talent replaces Carnahan immediately -- something that could happen since it was a special election), he will push for a continuing resolution to fund the government until February or March. He wants to defer all decisions until the new Congress convenes.

Let's not overlook -- before we get too worked up over the elections, this bit of wisdom from the good folks at Movementarian.com:

With remarkable unanimity, winners in Tuesday’s congressional and gubernatorial elections used their victory speeches to send a clear, unambiguous message to the voters who elected them: campaign promises are meant to be broken.

“To all those voters who supported me because I promised to increase government services while cutting taxes, let me say this: suckers!!!” said winning congressional candidate Jim Cooper (D-NE) in a Omaha hotel ballroom packed with supporters.

Here is the view of a Southern pastor:



http://toogoodreports.com/column/gen...n/20021107.htm

(For educ. and discussion)



Republicans In Charge: Now What?

By
Chuck Baldwin


Toogood Reports [Thursday, November 7, 2002; 12:01 a.m. EST]
URL: http://ToogoodReports.com/

Now that the Republican Party has obtained control of both houses of Congress, they find themselves in control of the entire federal government. Therefore, they can no longer blame obstructionist Democrats for any failure to accomplish their agenda. Voters have given Republicans carte blanche to run the country. So, what can we expect from these omnipotent Republicans during the next two years?

? Expect moderate tax cuts, but don't expect any significant reduction in the growth of the federal government. President Bush has already proven himself to be a dexterous big-spender rivaled only by Democrats LBJ and FDR. Therefore, look for more and larger deficit spending.

? Expect more NAFTA-style trade agreements and additional accommodations for illegal aliens. Bush will now doubtless achieve his dream of granting full amnesty to illegal aliens from Mexico. Immigration, legal and illegal, is going to skyrocket.

? Corporate welfare will proliferate at unprecedented levels. The farm subsidy bill just recently passed is only the tip of the iceberg of what we can now expect. CEO's of all stripes will come to Washington with their hands out, and they won't go home empty.

? President Bush's judicial nominees will sail through the Senate. Don't expect a wave of constitutionalists to take the bench, however. Most of Bush's picks will reflect his own moderate views. Some will be more conservative; most won't be. You won't be able to tell much difference in the end.

? Bush could get at least one Supreme Court pick. In all likelihood, that choice would be Alberto Gonzalez. For one thing, Gonzalez is a Hispanic, and Bush is salivating over the opportunity to be the president who puts the first such person on the nation's highest bench. However, conservatives who believe Bush is going to straighten out the court on the life issue should know that Gonzalez is anything but pro-life. He is the man who wrote the Texas Supreme Court decision allowing a minor girl to have an abortion without her parents' permission. He even went so far as to help sink fellow justice Priscilla Owen's opportunity to be confirmed by the Senate to the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of appeals by ridiculing her position requiring parental notification for underage girls seeking abortion as "an unconscionable act of judicial activism." This was all the excuse Democrats needed to reject her. In other words, a Bush court will do nothing to overturn Roe v. Wade.

? Bush's unconstitutional faith-based initiatives, whereby churches and religious organizations will be bribed into submitting to Caesar, will quickly become law.

? A partial-birth abortion bill could become law. Bush is not excited about it, but if it came to his desk he would sign it

? Bush's desire to increase socialized medicine in America is now on fast track. Expect Republicans to quickly implement his prescription drug plan.

? A preemptive, first strike attack against Iraq is now almost certain.

? In the name of "law and order" expect this government to increasingly usurp and destroy constitutional protections of personal freedom. Using the USA Patriot Act and the newly established Department of Homeland Security, federal police agencies are going to become an even greater leviathan probing ever deeper into our lives. Using terrorism like they use drugs, as an excuse to destroy our liberties, a Republican-led FBI, ATF, and HSF (Homeland Security Force) will more resemble Germany's SS.

? America's involvement with international organizations will continue to proliferate. Bush is re-creating NATO into an international police force. Furthermore, Bush has violated both his campaign pledge and the Republican platform by continuing Bill Clinton's policy of ordering American troops to wear UN uniforms and to serve under UN commanders.

With Republicans now in complete control of the federal government, Bush will have no opposition. Grassroots conservatives and Christian leaders have already given him unquestioned support. Now armed with unrestricted power, Bush will begin his march to the sea as described above. You don't believe it? Write me back in two years and tell me what you think.

Monoghan said:

It's quite possible that the Dems may be coming to the conclusion that they'd have won if they'd only been more liberal.

That's what they thought in 1980,

Jimmy Carter?

1984,

Walter Mondale?

and 1988, too.

"This election isn't about ideology. It's about competence." Mike Dukakis' acceptance speech, Democratic National Convention, 1988.

You're mistaken.

As we move into the 4T, the Democrats who believe what you say they believe are correct.

As we moved to the end of the Awakening and into the Unraveling, many believed the Republicans had made a mistake in nominating such a hard-right candidate as Ronald Reagan. They made the mistake of thinking the Awakening was still going strong. You are making a similar error now.

Watch and see.

Originally Posted by Marc Lamb

I plan to address some of the issues here, in the coming weeks. One thing sticks out -- like a sore thumb to Democrats -- is that the Boom take-over of the House, in 1994, was GOP driven, and the Boom take-over in the Senate was GOP driven, too. Governors may be another matter, though.

At any rate, I reposted my numbers here for disscussion purposes:

Have you figured out the generational compositon for the Congress? How much gain did Boomers make?

Not yet. Click on the "Numbers" thread if you'd like to keep an eye on things.

Originally Posted by Mike Alexander '59

Have you figured out the generational compositon for the Congress? How much gain did Boomers make?

On the Generations and Turnings blog, Mike Weber did a analysis of the composition of the Senate.

First Boom Senate?
I need to check out Terrell and the Minnesota Senator . . . but . . .

It appears the Boomers have taken the Senate -- immediately.

If Johnson wins in South Dakota and/or if Terrell is a Boomer in Louisiana or Landrieu wins on Dec. 7th, then Boomers have taken the Senate. If the Minnesota Independent is a Boomer, then Boomers will take the Senate when Talent is sworn in today or tomorrow.

6 G.I.s
45 Silents
45 Boomers
2 Xers
2 Undecided (S.D., Louisiana)

And, of course, Pryor of Arkansas (D) and Sununu of New Hampshire (R) are the first two Gen X U.S. Senators. Both born into politics.

Boomers will likely hold the Senate until at least 2018, probably 2020, maybe 2022 or 2024, when Xers will take the Senate.

I think both the candiaties in SD senate race and Louisiana run off are Boomers, the Number of Boomers in the Senate goes up to 47, a pularity however not a majority.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

Dear Mr. Lamb, was your career as a political rent-boy successful? Did your Democrat client make it through the night? Do advise.

Here's the full story on my client, if you'd like to check it out:


Dynasty derailed

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

Monoghan said:

It's quite possible that the Dems may be coming to the conclusion that they'd have won if they'd only been more liberal.

That's what they thought in 1980,

Jimmy Carter?

Depends on what you mean. Carter was a liberal, yes, but not quite the same kind of liberal that dominates the left side of politics today. He was a G.I. by birty, a Silent by temperament (as far as I can perceive), and I really do think his defeat at the hands of Reagan caught him by surprise, and much of the party too.

1984,

Walter Mondale?

Yes. Up until 1984, the Dems were still telling themselves that Reagan's popularity had to be some kind of trick, or misunderstanding, or freak of events. Walter Mondale was the last gasp of the old arrangements, offering basically a variation on the New Deal for every problem, and promising massive defense cuts and tax increases to pay for it all.

Whether he really expected to win, I don't know. I'm sure the bulk of the Dem political operatives expected him to lose, though maybe not by the huge margin that he did.

and 1988, too.

"This election isn't about ideology. It's about competence." Mike Dukakis' acceptance speech, Democratic National Convention, 1988.

He said it, but he didn't mean it, or rather, the Party didn't mean it. Dukakis was the Silent's shot at the presidency (if you don't count Carter), and though he tried to make it a competency issue, his candidacy became the focus of countless liberal interest groups desperate to halt the GOP's presidential control.

He also ran on the same old promise to cut defense spending to pay for social programs, which is why the picture of him riding around in the tank was so deadly effective. The Democrats were still telling themselves that the message would work if they could just pick the right messenger.

In the end, of course, it didn't matter, since Dukakis was running, in effect, not so much against Bush as against Reagan by proxy, and he was defeated largely before he started. His one chance would have been to embrace enough of Reagan's platform to denature the GOP's attacks against him, but if he had, he'd likely have lost his base.

You're mistaken.

No, I'm precisely accurate about the last several elections. Bill Clinton won in 1992 precisely by pretending to be a chastened moderate, while winking at the base and letting them think he was Dukakas and Mondale in disguise, and letting Perot drain off a little bit from Bush. Even so, he won with a minority of the popular vote. Had he tried to run the same way his immediate predecessors had run, he'd have lost in spite of Bush's ineptitude as a campaigner and the Perot effect.

As we move into the 4T, the Democrats who believe what you say they believe are correct.

As we moved to the end of the Awakening and into the Unraveling, many believed the Republicans had made a mistake in nominating such a hard-right candidate as Ronald Reagan. They made the mistake of thinking the Awakening was still going strong. You are making a similar error now.

Watch and see.

The 4T might revive liberal chances, but it ain't here yet. Besides, it is nowhere written in stone that the Left must dominate in the Fourth, that's your particular interpretation. It may be right, but it remains unproven.

(Unless you simply define the 'Left' as the party of change, any change whatever, and the Right as the faction for no change. In that case, yes, the Left will dominate the Fourth automatically, since some change will come.)

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110602_elections.html

(For educ. and discussion)



On the 2002 Midterm Elections...

by Michael C. Ruppert


And wasn't it convenient that Voters News Service decided at the last minute that there would be no exit polling this year. Exit polling was a reliable standard against which the numbers from the voting machines could be compared.

Actually Occam's Razor suggests that it's because their models have broken down and they're getting false results too much to use them.

Originally Posted by HopefulCynic68

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/110602_elections.html

(For educ. and discussion)



On the 2002 Midterm Elections...

by Michael C. Ruppert


And wasn't it convenient that Voters News Service decided at the last minute that there would be no exit polling this year. Exit polling was a reliable standard against which the numbers from the voting machines could be compared.

Actually Occam's Razor suggests that it's because their models have broken down and they're getting false results too much to use them.

Actually, Occam's Razor suggests no such thing with clarity yet. And the only real gauge is Zogby's polls since none of the establishment polls have ever been accurate (presumably by design), at least not in the past 30 years. They always gave the Democrats too much support until 2000 when they suddenly gave Junior too much support (and their negative reporting shifted in emphasis from the Republicans to the Democrats in 2000 as well). The real question is: are Zogby's models out of date or is something else going on?

One thing we can say with a good deal of confidence is that something far more sinister went on in Florida in 2000 than simply what has been reported. Greg Palast has demonstrated how Jebbie (and Katherine) willfully and consciously disfranchised 94,000 voters, most of them black and Democrat, in violation of the law. (These poor souls were removed in a mere two or three weeks time before Jebbie's initial run in 1998, yet are STILL off the rolls today...but conveniently are scheduled to be returned to the rolls now that Jebbie's reelection is a done deal). So Gore would have gotten possibly 90% of the votes from this 94,000, but this still does not fully account for what happened.

Zogby's last poll released Election morning showed Gore winning Florida by 3-6 points. All the exit polling conducted on Election Day validated Zogby's accuracy. Both the Bush and Gore internal exit polling agreed that Gore won by 3 or 4 points, and Matt Drudge for one verified this on ABC Radio. And the separate VNS exit polling corroborated both the Bush and Gore internals (which already corroborated each other) in suggesting that Gore won Florida by about 4 points. Even Limabugh himself stated on the air that he was following the VNS totals and concluded at about 5 or 6 in the evening that it was all over since Gore was up by 4+ points.

So we have the Bush and Gore internals agreeing with each other, and agreeing in turn with the VNS exit polling, and all agreeing in turn with Zogby's last poll, that Gore won Florida by about 4 points. This is the data which campaign managers use in order to determine what to do with regard to concessions, etc. Naturally, this is the totality of the data Karl Rove had. All the data which Karl Rove had corroborated each other across the board in suggesting that his guy lost Florida by about 4 points. Rove could further estimate that this translated into 200,000 to 250,000 votes. In other words, Rove knew with a high degree of confidence that his guy lost Florida by 200,000+ votes.

In any campaign, the manager at this time, given this data, considers whether to concede now or stick it out and hope for the one-in-a-million chance at a miracle. So Rove could have advised Junior not to concede yet and the Bush camp naturally would have remained silent realizing that they have 200,000+ votes to make up in the actual count (i.e., they need some sort of miracle). BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

Both Rove and Junior IMMEDIATELY got on TV saying, "What are you talking about? We won! I know we did!." Oh, really? Where, Junior and Karl, do you find this indisputable victory in your data which universally corroborates your indisputable loss by 200,000+ votes? Obviously, you know something which campaign managers do not normally know and, whatever it is, it almost certainly is neither legitimate nor legal. When all your available data shows that you lost by about 4 points or 200,000+ votes, how exactly does one KNOW that they unquestionably won?

Note that according to four separate polls, which all corroborate each other, Junior lost Florida by about 250,000 votes. Palast's 94,000 disfranchised Floridians does not even account for half of this mysteriously erased margin. Obviously, there was far more going on in Florida than Jebbie's and Katherine's illegal disfranchisement of legal voters. And what could that possibly be?

I would say that Occam's Razor certainly points back to this proprietary voting software. Indeed we did at least hear about funny business related to this in Albuquerque in 2000 where a vote for straight Republican excluded a presidental vote. That could have been an honest mistake on the part of the programmer or it could have been something else. But the point is that the software is proprietary, not open source, and nobody can simply look at it to verify that it is clean. It does not even leave a paper trail in order to determine whether the software was rigged or in error. The only reason we knew about Albuquerque is because some campaign worker noticed an anomaly. And of course much of this software was used in Florida in 2000. In fact the whole nation is going to it with this last 2002 election.

It is not the least bit inconceivable that we saw rigged proprietary voting software nationwide in this 2002 election. Certainly the Colorado Senate race defies rational explanation. Zogby had Strickland over Allard by 5-7 points and the last available exit polling from VNS, from mid-afternoon, validated Zogby's polling by showing Strickland up by 5-7 points. Yet, the final count, much of it the product of this mysterious, paperless, unverifiable proprietary software, miraculously showed that Allard somehow beat Strickland by 5-7 points! Simply amazing! This is the most obvious example from Tuesday but I have not finished analyzing the data and I am sure that there are others.

So, Americans, consider the possibility that your choices on Tuesday were actually predetermined and that your actual votes were irrelevant for any purpose other than fulfilling a quota. Consider that an actual one-seat Democratic pickup in the Senate was potentially converted into a Republican rout. It is the easiest thing in the world to do a blackbag job on such proprietary software and it can be programmed to actually delete the incriminating lines of code once they have served their purpose. Unless, Americans demand an immediate return to paper and pencil balloting by 2004, we cannot in any way be certain that any future election is legitimate because, again, this software, apart from being proprietary, leaves no paper trail. If it did anything "funny," you have no way of knowing. But I do not see any such demand for an immediate return to paper and pencil balloting. So if such fraudulence is now widespread in this country and the people do not raise an eyebrow, then this nation truly is finished and there is really no point in hanging around here any longer looking for a "regime change" and GC at regeneracy. Let's just find someplace else to live, preferably with mandated-by-law paper-and pencil balloting. Canada and Japan are two examples. There ought to be others.

I invite anybody to consider the implications of fraud connected to this paperless, unverifiable proprietary voting software. Unless there is an IMMEDIATE and universal demand for a return to strictly paper and pencil balloting by 2004, then there really is no point in sitting around here strategizing about GCs and regeneracies this 4T. All we are doing is blowing hot air. Because all anybody powerful needs to rig our elections from here on out is simply a will to do so, and no more. And let's face it, the will is there. Just take a look at all this Iraq BS.

Do I hear a loud call for an immediate return to paper and pencil balloting? No? Then, let's just get the hell out of here and let the Kool-Aid drinkers revel in the country they have created while the rest of us seek a country which is not run like a banana republic.

Hi!

H.C.:

Sorry for misdirecting that last to Monoghan.

My point was that Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were not at all leftists for Democrats. Almost any Democrat will be a "leftist" measured by Republican standards. The Democratic Party did not run left-wing candidates in any of those elections (or in '92, '96, or 2000), nor did they campaign on a progressive agenda. There may have been a few voices claiming that this was the problem, but certainly it wasn't the consensus of the party, nor did that sentiment give rise to the DLC-led Democratic victory in the '90s. Quite the opposite.

A secondary point is that the meaning of "left" and "right" change with the times, the Turnings, and the prevailing issues. The only consistency is the one defined by Thomas Jefferson in his correspondence with John Adams: the left is always the party of the many, the right, that of the few. When politics moves right, privileges expand and rights decline. When politics moves left, rights are increasingly protected and privileges curtailed. The exact policy mechanism for these achievements varies widely, however.

In that sense, while it is not and never can be "proven" in a depth acceptable to hard science that a Fourth Turning is always leftist, that has always been so to this date. Even a so-called "right-wing" Crisis regime such as that of Mussolini or Hitler acted as a leveling agent, boosting the fortunes of the many and curtailing the power of the few (other than the "very few," as you might say), and was "right-wing" only in the sense of racism, which no longer constitutes a significant part of the American right.

The DLC formula served the Democrats reasonably well in the Unraveling. As the country moved rightward politically, it did so unevenly; support for deregulation and corporate governance was not coupled with support for the religious right's moral agenda. The DLC formula, therefore, was: move right on economic and foreign-policy issues, hold the line on social issues.

As we move into the 4T (regardless of whether or not you're willing to recognize it yet), social issues go onto the back-burner, and Democrats can't win on those any more. (Republicans, of course, never could.) That leaves the DLC formula bereft of its main argument, and it is reduced to a me-too proclamation. Why elect Republicans lite when you can go for the genuine article?

But as the country moves to the left politically, which it has been doing since 1994 when the rightward swing peaked, concern has arisen that corporate governance has gone too far. It's ruining people's life savings. It's driving up unemployment and widening income gaps. It's getting us into unnecessary wars. It's promoting foreign policies that make us hated and empower venomous organizations such as al-Qaeda with recruits they shouldn't get. These are the issues of the day, but there is no one to give them voice. Certainly the Democrats haven't done so, and that is why they lost this election. But note that the Republicans didn't win very much; this is hardly an electoral mandate for GOP policies, so much as a fully-justified expression of disgust and contempt for the spineless Democrats that stand for nothing.

Now, perhaps they will begin to stand for something. And then we will see a real election in this country between real alternatives.

Since I live in a small rural area our polling place is a large room in the local Baptist church. When you walk in you see friends, neighbors and familiar faces everywhere.

Our ballots are the old tried and true hard paper sheets with places to put an ink mark inside an oval to the left of the candidate or proposition for which you want to vote. It is a bit time consuming to use this method, but most of us are fairly relaxed about it. We usually take the time to visit outside in the parking lot and catch up on local gossip.

This day I painstakingly marked my ballot, double checked it for omissions or errors, then slipped it back into its cadboard cover and walked it over to a gentleman standing next to a large black box, (the official vote scanner). The technique for recording my votes is to push the ballot, the top of which is sticking out of the cardboard folder, into a slot in the front of the big black box.

As chance would have it, when I pushed the ballot into the slot nothing happened. The machine was supposed to pull the ballot out of the cardboard sleeve. But this time it did't. The gentleman standing there who's job it was to monitor the proceedings said,"Push harder. Somtimes it doesn't work.

So I pushed harder. Nothing. I poked it in. I jambed it in. Nothing.

"OK," he said. " Let me try something else." At which point he kicked the box two good licks, then began rocking the machine violently back and forth on its legs. "Now try it."Sure enough it sucked my ballot into its interior like a pasta noodle.

My immediate thought was, I wonder how accurately the black box now was recording the votes after such violent treatment. When I expressed my concern to the monitor about the integrity of said machine his answer was, "Oh, don't worry about it. It happens all the time."

As I turned to walk out of the voting room I whispered to myself, "At least we don't have to vote in Florida".

This experience does isolate a problem though. Even though there were about ten voting booths in that room and we marked paper ballots with a pen, all of the ballots ended up being fed into a cantankerous and neurotic electronic scanner and tabulator. How many kicks does it take to win an election?

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

A secondary point is that the meaning of "left" and "right" change with the times, the Turnings, and the prevailing issues. The only consistency is the one defined by Thomas Jefferson in his correspondence with John Adams: the left is always the party of the many, the right, that of the few. When politics moves right, privileges expand and rights decline. When politics moves left, rights are increasingly protected and privileges curtailed. The exact policy mechanism for these achievements varies widely, however.

In that sense, while it is not and never can be "proven" in a depth acceptable to hard science that a Fourth Turning is always leftist, that has always been so to this date. Even a so-called "right-wing" Crisis regime such as that of Mussolini or Hitler acted as a leveling agent, boosting the fortunes of the many and curtailing the power of the few (other than the "very few," as you might say), and was "right-wing" only in the sense of racism, which no longer constitutes a significant part of the American right.

Nah, in "that sense", it's all about fear, not notions of what is "right" or "left".

Otherwise, how does one explain FDR's perplexing dilemma of 1937/38?: His Socialist remedy, to the evils of "free market", called the New Deal lies in shambles, with the economy and unemployment rates plummeting to Hooveresque levels, he thus turns his attention to the next "fear, itself": War.

Historians would later argue much as whether he, at least, meant well. Otherwise, the tombs of "dead men walking" added up, and up, and up. Each "dead man walking", of course, heartily claimed their "right" to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" as they were drafted, and shipped out to the front en masse.

Meanwhile, fear ruled the day. :wink:

[quote="Stonewall Patton"][quote="HopefulCynic68"]

Originally Posted by Stonewall Patton

Do I hear a loud call for an immediate return to paper and pencil balloting? No? Then, let's just get the hell out of here and let the Kool-Aid drinkers revel in the country they have created while the rest of us seek a country which is not run like a banana republic.

Yes, as I've said before, I think we should be using paper ballots, ideally with fill-in-the-circle markings, counted by living human beings.

Originally Posted by Brian Rush

H.C.:

Sorry for misdirecting that last to Monoghan.

My point was that Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis were not at all leftists for Democrats. Almost any Democrat will be a "leftist" measured by Republican standards.

So? A Democrat is also going to be more or less a leftist by national standards, just as a GOPer is going to be more or less a rightist. By national standards, not just GOP standards, Carter was left, Mondale was more left, and Dukakis was out of touch with reality.

A secondary point is that the meaning of "left" and "right" change with the times, the Turnings, and the prevailing issues. The only consistency is the one defined by Thomas Jefferson in his correspondence with John Adams: the left is always the party of the many, the right, that of the few. When politics moves right, privileges expand and rights decline. When politics moves left, rights are increasingly protected and privileges curtailed. The exact policy mechanism for these achievements varies widely, however.

This last definition of Left and Right is utter nonsense.

The DLC formula served the Democrats reasonably well in the Unraveling. As the country moved rightward politically, it did so unevenly; support for deregulation and corporate governance was not coupled with support for the religious right's moral agenda. The DLC formula, therefore, was: move right on economic and foreign-policy issues, hold the line on social issues.

As we move into the 4T (regardless of whether or not you're willing to recognize it yet), social issues go onto the back-burner, and Democrats can't win on those any more. (Republicans, of course, never could.)

I hate to break it to you, Brian, but it was the social issues, along with defense and taxes, that hurt the Dems in the 80s. The public was always more or less with them on the economics. Even the tax issue was driven in part by the perception that the money was being spent in foolish attempts to implement the Left's social agenda.

Folks, speaking of E2002 fallout...

This is JUST A RUMOR at this point. However, the rumor mill has it that rather than oust McAuliffe, the DNC may bring in John Podesta to back him up.

IF (repeat IF) so, the odd outcome of E2002 would be to strengthen the hold of Bill Clinton on the Democratic Party leadership.