Terminalcoffee discussion
Helping You To Know The News
>
The Official Midterm Election Thread
I'm done with this Election of Fear. Wake me up when this is over.
I did read an interesting article on how the anti-Obama platform could actually help the President in the long term (the thought being that a campaign needs an enemy, and once you've been voted in on that platform, the need to portray the President as an enemy passes, which makes some sense), so I did a little thinking and research, and did (unofficially) learn that mid-term elections that painted Reagan and Clinton, during their first terms, unfavorably, actually did boost each respective President's chances for re-election.
So maybe this is all much ado about nothing. Then again, isn't that politics as usual???
I did read an interesting article on how the anti-Obama platform could actually help the President in the long term (the thought being that a campaign needs an enemy, and once you've been voted in on that platform, the need to portray the President as an enemy passes, which makes some sense), so I did a little thinking and research, and did (unofficially) learn that mid-term elections that painted Reagan and Clinton, during their first terms, unfavorably, actually did boost each respective President's chances for re-election.
So maybe this is all much ado about nothing. Then again, isn't that politics as usual???
According to the political ads in Washington State, there is no good choice for Senate this year. Both Patty Murray and Dino Rossi are terrible, terrible people... :)
Jackie, when I was in Seattle last week, I had my fill of the Murray and Rossi ads. I grew to dislike both candidates immensely.
This election is shaping up to be a glorious clusterfuck, as the result of which the nation, at a time when it is attempting to reverse disastrous polices and their calamitous results, a time when it is falling behind other nations in more and more important areas, and confronting a plethora of pressing challenges will experience more stagnation, retreat from reality and further slippage internationally. The Age of Unreason.
This is an interesting one for Wisconsin. We have the mayor of Milwaukee and Milwaukee's county executive vying for governor. Neither has done a stellar job with Milwaukee, to put it nicely, but I seriously cannot name one thing the mayor has done other than break up a fight outside the state fair (getting his ass kicked in the process). Then you have Russ Feingold, who forgets he's from Wisconsin except for the two months before an election and seems genuinely surprised he might lose, and Ron Johnson, who has never held an office to my knowledge but knows how to sell/manufacture plastics.We're kind of fucked this year in Wisconsin.
I'm fascinated by the swing and what Gus said about it, though. Are these people who voted for Obama, mostly, last time, or are some people not as energized and some people more energized and likely to vote? I don't hear people scared as more as I hear people pissed. But it's an interesting issue, too...can people expect a massive turnaround in two years? In 2012 will this whole thing swing back to the Dem side? I have no idea.
Mod
Illinois is majorly fucked - $13 billion budget deficit which no amount of cuts/taxes can fix without uprisings in the streets. I'm not happy with any of my options (except maybe Toni Preckwinkle for Cook County Board President) but I'll be voting against the people who want to do away with the minimum wage and ban all abortions.
Mod
Well, you're right, LG, I'd rather live in Wisconsin than Illinois, as far as politics are concerned right now, especially. But I can't that emphasize many throughout the country seem to love Feingold but, then again, they don't have to deal with his "um...what state do I represent again, other than the state of Feingold?" habits, either. He's gonna lose, too, I bet. And I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Sure, the swing to the right has hurt him, but I think he would have been fine, like he always was before, this time around if he said something specific to Wisconsin more often. That whole "all politics are local" thing is biting him in the ass.
Democrats have several historical structural factors working against them: Republican turnout is generally better in midterm elections (young and minority voters traditionally have lower turnout); first-term presidents almost always face significant electoral losses in their first mid-terms; and electoral results historically track closely with unemployment figures.In large part the election prospects for Obama are similar to those of Reagan and Clinton, two other presidents who entered office during times of economic turmoil, and faced midterms while economic difficulties lingered. And likewise, Obama, also a well-liked figure whatever his approval numbers (which are far better than those two previous presidents’ at the same juncture) may suffer a disastrous midterm, and then become highly popular once the economy begins to improve.
What’s so worrisome and distinctive this go around is the severity of the country’s structural economic problems (among other things) and the genuine threat on a long-term basis if some basic, initial steps toward mitigating those problems cannot be achieved due to ferocious, and in some cases outright irrational and ideologically extreme Republican resistance. And if the last Republican caucus wasn’t bad enough, a substantial contingent of fully batshit new Republicans seems to be on the way.
To achieve our best results as a people the country needs two functioning major political parties. At the moment, the Republican Party, overtaken by politics previously marginalized at the fringe (the Birchers, for instance, earlier purged from mainstream conservatism) is mired in a mixture of peculiar pre-enlightenment nostalgia, anti-science convictions, magical economics, nativism, nationalism and all manner of historical mythology, and downright hostility. This is a brand of conservatism entirely out of synch with, and retrograde in comparison with the conservative politics of other modern, industrialized democratic nations (and previous mainstream Republicanism), and its outsized influence here continues to severely limit American progress, and our ability to adapt to a changing world.
Politically at least, it’s relatively sane here in California at the moment. But I’m sick with worry about the rest of you guys.
Boxer is very good. And Moonbeam Brown is better than getting a stick in the eye, which is what you get with Meg Whitman.
first-term presidents almost always face significant electoral losses in their first mid-terms;This is really interesting, Ken. What about second term?
I think a reasonable question is one of patience; in what period of time can an administration be expected to impact structures and scenarios in a meaningful way? Of course it depends on the structures and scenarios, I guess, but I don't know who in goddamn hell expected everything to turn into roses and sunshine in twenty months. Maybe this is connected to rhetoric, too. Will there be any benefits, though, if the Republicans win the house/senate, you think?
RandomAnthony wrote: "first-term presidents almost always face significant electoral losses in their first mid-terms;This is really interesting, Ken. What about second term?
I think a reasonable question is one of p..."
Well, there’s only one instance since the Thirties when a first-term president didn’t get creamed electorally in his first midterm election: 2002, when George Bush and the incumbent Republicans were inoculated with 9-11 teflon.
Two term presidents usually don’t fare too well in their final mid-terms either, the result usually attributed to voter fatigue with the long-serving executive. But it’s not the political given the first midterm result is, and seldom as severe. Clinton’s final mid-term was an exception, as Democrats’ performance bucked the trend, though in part that is attributable to Republican overreaching in BlowJob-Gate. Dubya, and Reagan before him did badly in their final midterms.
Generally though, whatever virtues the American electorate may have, patience is not among them, nor any long-term, cohesive approach to voting. At this juncture though, given the disastrous nature of the country’s recent straits, and the clarity with which one can ascertain exactly who was holding power during that collapse, the amnesia, or inclination to vote in protest of immediate circumstances, or whatever reason for the refusal to allow for a reasonable amount of time for policies to come to fruition now, is astonishing.
The hope is, that perhaps before all is said and done the current wave of almost unprecedented craziness, irrationality and downright weirdness will scare some voters straight.
Lobstergirl wrote: "Poor Lisa Murkowski in Alaska is trying to teach voters how to spell her name. As a write-in candidate, she has to be spelled correctly or the vote doesn't count. It didn't help that one of her o..."I thought election officials had said that intent would count, as long as they were sure they knew who the person intended.
I'm so sorry, Misha! I really hate the ads this time, they seem worse than usual.
I think the ads are worse because of the Supreme Court decision, too. The corporate money is being poured into ads.
Mod
Oh, I musta missed that.
Mod
Here in California we’re still wrestling with Devil Sheep ad withdrawal.
I saw an ad today on tv that had the headline, "More taxes. Less jobs."Maybe a little more money poured into grammar education would, uh, help, too....
Lobstergirl wrote: "I don't notice any discernible difference in quality of ads. They're terrible every election year."Not quality - there are just many more of them, since corporations can now dump lots of money into them.
yes, corporations can now spend as much money as unions...
I'm so tired of those ads where people are outraged that soda is being taxed. And raisins, my God, not raisins!:::sigh:::
I like raisins smothered in chocolate. Did you know that Raisinettes are Roger Ebert's movie candy of choice? :)Yes, I'm easily distracted today...
Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "I'm so tired of those ads where people are outraged that soda is being taxed. And raisins, my God, not raisins!:::sigh:::"
We had a huge uproar here over a soda tax. It was ridiculous. All of the convenience stores and chain stores got together to protest it. It was the difference between firing firemen and policemen or not, and it still ended up being cut in half as compromise.
Same here, Misha. I don't see pop or candy in the same category as bread or vegetables or milk. I have no outrage about being taxed to support the state health plan this way.
I like almonds covered in dark chocolate.
For all those still concerned about not being able to visit Delaware after next week, there may still be hope.http://gawker.com/5674353/i-had-a-one...
Either she loses all support or she gets major sympathy votes. Haven't seen this on major news outlets yet.
Jim "Badgerilla" wrote: "I like almonds covered in dark chocolate."Me, too, Jim! I can't get those containers of them from Trader Joe's, because I eat ALL OF THEM in like three days.
And I don't know or care if they're taxed.
She was a cute ladybug, I'll give her that.
Misha wrote: "I'd like to think the major news outlets won't pick up something that's completely unverifiable..."I wouldn't put too much into that hope...
And Florida goes to Gore....no, wait!...now it's Bush!...well, actually, we don't really know anymore. Our bad.
I am interested in why the guy is remaining anonymous though. That raises some red flags.
Jackie "the Librarian" wrote: "Jim "Badgerilla" wrote: "I like almonds covered in dark chocolate."Me, too, Jim! I can't get those containers of them from Trader Joe's, because I eat ALL OF THEM in like three days.
And I don..."
I still pick them up at Trader Joes, they seem to be the best, but I do limit myself to only 4 or 5 a day.
Like this, Misha, but I got the ones that were just dark chocolate:
Misha wrote: "I was asking, in an inarticulate way, if Jim eats four or five containers each day. :)"Ha! Good question, Misha!
Jim?
No, just 4 or 5 nuts, but it did seem like a legit question.
I like the seasalt and chocolate covered almonds from TJ.
Here’s the thing about VNS (Voter News Service) and their 2000 Florida exit polling: they got it right. Gore won.The discrepancy occurred as the result of two factors. First, a significant number of voters thought they had voted for Gore, and told questioners for VNS that is how they voted. However, because of confusion over the infamous butterfly ballot, they had actually voted for Pat Buchanan, or in some cases George Bush. Had the Supreme Court not intervened, and the state been allowed to do a proper recount, those ballots still would have been thrown out.
In the second case, voters told VNS they had voted for Gore and in fact they had. However, because the ballot was confusing, not only did they mark Gore’s name, they also wrote it in to make their intent absolutely clear. Had SCOTUS not interfered, these votes, tens of thousands of which had been thrown out, WOULD HAVE BEEN COUNTED, since, under Florida election law, any ballot on which the voter intent is clear must be counted. Gore was selected on a preponderance of those ballots, and had the recount continued he would have won the state, which clearly was the intent of voters.
Gore winning the popular vote (too) was no fluke.
Had the recount been allowed to continue, it would have been under the supervision of a judge, who would have directed the over-votes to be included as they should have been from the beginning. Katherine Harris already had made a big enough dent of her own by hiring a dubious company to “cleanse” voter rolls of felons, resulting in a great deal of misidentification and confusion at polls, and the loss of the right to vote for many who were entitled to do so (almost all minorities).Republicans have a long history of asserting the prospect (with seldom any actual instances) of voter fraud in order to suppress turnout and also to intimidate voters at polling places.
Misha wrote: "Okay. You have better recall than I do for events that happened 10 years ago, or else are more motivated to google them. ;)I know asserting the prospect of voter fraud is SOP for the GOP machiner..."
Oh, my knowledge of Florida 2000 is fairly encyclopedic, though discussing it anew always has a tinge of masochism.
I don’t have any great familiarity with the facts in Ohio in 2004 (I recall there being suspicion), but indeed Kenneth Blackwell has always struck me as a real piece of…work.
Mod
If I thought that revenue was going to give poor people health insurance, maybe I wouldn't mind. But I have a hard time believing that's where it goes.
Ken wrote: "...Ohio in 2004..."Speaking of conspiracy theories, Ohio, and Bush...
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTI...
=D
If Blackwell wasn’t aware of irregularities, and even if there in fact weren’t any, he certainly did an excellent job of raising serious suspicion of chicanery by “locking down” the evidence before it could become evidence.The targeting of heavily Democratic districts, in particular poor, minority areas with voting misinformation is an old and beloved GOP dirty trick. In the Senate election in North Carolina in 1990, the NC Republican Party, on behalf of the Helms campaign, sent out 100,000 such targeted mailings containing warnings based on stated misinformation designed to intimidate voters into staying home.
The FEC gave them a slap on the wrist, but the damage was done (an outcome the GOP correctly anticipated).
Anytime the SBV are present, a strong, highly unpleasant odor will fill the air.
Mod
Mod
Mod
Now I am calling 5 registered Republicans to remind them to vote on Wednesday.
Mod
"If you want the treat, you gotta reject the trick."
(Halloween-themed campaigning for Joe Manchin in West Virginia.)
Mod
Kidding. Well, a little. Mid-term election conversation starts...now!