US midterm elections: a different take

10 posts / 0 new
Last post
machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
US midterm elections: a different take

From its standard 'sports contest' perspective, the MSM is reporting a big victory for the broad-shouldered bruisers with the 'R' on their blue jerseys:

The GOP gains [of a projected 65 House seats] would exceed those made during the Republican wave of 1994 when the party picked up 54 House seats. Not since 1938 has the party made such monumental inroads.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/03/republicans-capture-house-historic-wave-make-gains-senate/

'Monumental inroads' -- stirring words indeed! But both parties are conforming to certain predictable patterns. In the Democrats' case, consider the parallels between 1994 and 2010. In 1994, a successful Democratic effort to impose tax increases, and an unsuccessful effort to legislate a national health care plan, produced a Republican surge of 54 seats. In 2010, a to-date unfinished plan to impose tax increases, and a successful push for national care legislation, produced a 65-seat surge for Republicans. Seems like a sure-fire losing formula!

On the other hand, why did the Republicans have to retake the House twice? Speaker-elect John Boehner in 2010 sounds exactly like Speaker-elect Newt Gingrich in 1994:

"It's clear tonight who the winners really are, and that's the American people," Boehner said. "Across the country right now, we are witnessing a repudiation of Washington, a repudiation of big government and a repudiation of politicians who refuse to listen to the American people."

The problem with this sort of rhetoric is that Republicans can no more deliver on it, than President Obama could deliver on his campaign slogans of hope and change. The size, power and influence of the federal government was vastly increased under Republican Congresses, and under Republican president George W. Bush. 

And here we go again: the very day after the election, Ben Bernanke's Federal Reserve is expected to announce an enormous expansion of thin-air money printing to acquire federal government debt, which of course enables more federal spending. Bernanke was groomed for his position by spending nearly a year in the Bush White House at the Council of Economic Advisors, before being nominated to his Federal Reserve post in 2006. He is a Republican by party affiliation.

While individual Republicans such as Ron Paul will continue their uphill battle to audit the Fed, the Republican establishment has no intention of making a broader assault on the flagrantly unconstitutional situation of a private banking cartel owning a quasi-federal agency.

So, here is my alternative version of the election results:

On Nov. 1, 2010, the Depublicrat duopoly controlled 99.6% of Congressional seats. After the Nov. 2010 election, the Depublicrat duopoly is projected to control at least 99% of seats (excepting a handful of independents such as Bernie Sanders and Joseph Lieberman).

Net result: the duopoly [nowhere authorized in the constitution] maintains its 150-year hammerlock on power. 

Better luck next time!

machinehead's picture
machinehead
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Mar 18 2008
Posts: 1077
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

Let me add that the election results were greeted with a 25-dollar gold slam.

Message: we control the horizontal and the vertical. Do not adjust your ballot.

yobob1's picture
yobob1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 132
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

In a surprise upset two Democrats scored victories in Idaho.  Ben Dover won in the town of Cuprum after campaigning on a promise of "No dog left behind" for the hotly contested dog catcher position.  In the nearby town of Bear, Ima Looker took a commanding win over Big Bertha, scoring 18 votes for an 85% margin.  She will now serve as the town Madam a newly created position in a despearte bid for revenue.

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

The GOP has scored a surprising political victory at the local, state, and federal levels.  It actually is historic.  Much of this is due to the energy the Tea Party has injected into the Grand Old Party.  Now there is going to be a war between statism and liberty.  The Tea Party is not going away.  It is going to become bigger and tougher.  The gearing up for the 2012 election has already started.  Statism has been and will continue to be rejected by the majority of Americans.  I found Reid's speech about compromise and Obama's speech about whatever it was about today to be interesting.  I am not sure what they were talking about.  There is no compromise between tyranny and liberty - between wrong and right.  How do you compromise about robbing a bank or destroying peoples lives.  The Tea Party is the conscious of the GOP and it will keep the heat on politicians for the foreseeable future.  There will be no "say anything to get elected" and then go vote against the very people that elected you.  That is over.   Politicians who do that will be targeted in their next election and in all probability they will be removed and replaced with honest people who understand the difference between right and wrong.  Welcome to America.  The people have woke up.

During the campaign period before the election there was a lot of hoop-la.  Now it is over and one of the more serious investigations will be into the activities of the Federal Reserve.  This did not come up much during the election as the sad truth is that the majority of Americans have no idea what the Fed is.  Most of the people I talk to (other than Tea Party people) actually think the Fed is a department of the government and takes its orders from congress and the president.  While there is some element of truth to this as the Fed does bend to political pressure at times, people on this site are well aware of the true nature of the Fed.  There will be a Fed audit.  Depending on the results of the audit, action will be taken.  Personally, I believe pretty much what others who frequent this site believe - that America should control its money supply and not some cartel lead by GS, JPM, Lazard, Rothschild and the others.  We will see how it goes.  I would not be surprised to see big changes coming in this area.  Action may have to wait until after the 2012 election and the GOP controls both houses of congress and the presidency.  I am not sure if the statists are up for serious action(s) related to the Fed.

 

goes211's picture
goes211
Status: Diamond Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 18 2008
Posts: 1114
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

I am generally not a big fan of "The National Review" but I thought this was article had an interesting take on the electorates reaction to Liberal Progressives like Obama.

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/251670

Day of the Democratic Dead

This election is a referendum not on Obama personally, but on Obama as liberal progressive.

For Delaware Democrat Chris Coons, it’s fitting that Election Day comes two days after Halloween, running as he is against that sometime dabbler in witchcraft, Christine O’Donnell. For hundreds of his partisan brothers and sisters, however, another holiday reference is more appropriate: Mexico’s Day of the Dead. Today, our neighbors to the south will begin celebrating the memories of their deceased family and friends. Tomorrow, our neighbors to the left will mourn the demise of hundreds of candidates whose careers will be consigned to the political graveyard, few of which will rise to take bodily form again.

...

Many will blame the economy for this situation, arguing that no party in the midst of the worst economic crisis in at least 30, and perhaps 80, years could have satisfied the electorate. There is truth to this, as the party in power always suffers at the polls during a significant recession.

But this explanation goes only so far. The anger, disappointment, and disgust that the voters will shower on the Obama administration and the Democratic congressional leadership is unusually deep. The electorate is reacting at a much more visceral level.

In my private election-prediction memo two years ago, I wrote the following words: “Democrats are split between progressives, who seek a radical and swift move to the economic left, and centrists, who want to re-regulate and ‘spread the wealth around’ but nowhere near the degree of the progressives.#…#Who will win these intra-party fights? We don’t know, and which faction wins and to what extent will largely determine both the health of our nation and the possibility of a quick Republican resurgence.”

We now know that the progressives, despite their dissatisfaction with many elements of President Obama’s agenda, largely won those fights. The result is that large segments of the American electorate feel that the administration and Democrats in Congress don’t understand and don’t care to understand their aspirations and fears. This sentiment is most keenly and strongly felt among conservative Republicans, but it is shared — for different reasons — by many nonconservatives. This sentiment is particularly strong among the white working class and among Catholics.

...

To understand the answers to these questions, we must understand that this election is only the latest battle in what I have called the Fifty Years’ War between progressives and conservatives for possession of America’s political soul. One can understand the president’s words and deeds only if we understand both what the war is about and how Democrats themselves differ about how to fight the war. So it is to that issue that I now turn.

 THE FIFTY YEARS’ WAR

At the political level, the Fifty Years’ War is about what defines American freedom. Is the promise of America that everyone enjoys the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness best kept when government is minimally involved, either through regulation or taxation, in individual decision making? Or is it best kept when government removes material and immaterial obstacles to some individuals’ ability to make the decisions they would prefer to make, even if removing those obstacles places obstacles in the paths of other Americans?

 Conservatives have a tendency to agree with the first proposition, while progressives have a tendency to agree with the second. But for progressives there is a second, pragmatic question to answer: Should necessity — in the form of voter opinion and economic factors — significantly constrain the pursuit of justice? Progressives differ among themselves on this question, and it is this difference that forms the heart of the battle between the “moderates” and “liberals” within the Democratic party.

 Liberal progressives say necessity should have a minimal role in constraining the pursuit of progressive justice. If voters don’t agree with a progressive view of rights, recourse to the courts to overrule them is proper. Voters’ desire, and especially well-off voters’ desire, to keep taxes low and the economy growing ought not to be a significant factor in bringing medical care to poor people or saving the planet from greenhouse gasses.

 Moderate progressives take the contrary view. Justice can be secure only if it is secure in the hearts and minds of the people, they believe. They place more faith in, and pay more deference to, voters’ desires, not because they don’t believe in progressive aspirations, but because they believe those goals can best be achieved through incremental measures that receive broad popular support.

...

Drawing on Muttart’s insights and my own thinking, I believe there are seven salient values or tendencies that are common to working-class voters across the decades. Call them the Seven Habits of the Working Class. They are:

Hope for the future

Fear of the present

Pride in their lives

Anger at being disrespected

Belief in public order

Patriotism

Fear of rapid change

Let me address each of them in turn.

Hope for the future: One of the striking facts about America is how readily we believe that we can prosper through hard work and our own efforts. Polls show that Americans overwhelmingly believe this to be true. These polls also show there is a high correlation between the belief that one is in control of one’s life and the belief that one can prosper through one’s own efforts.

Working-class Americans share classic American beliefs very strongly. They value economic growth because they believe they personally benefit from it. Unlike Continental Europeans, working-class voters do not envy the rich. They believe that Bill Gates has earned his billions, and while they do not believe they can become billionaires, they believe their children can.

Fear of the present: Working-class voters may believe that they and their children can move upward, but they are as or more motivated by their fear of moving downward. They recognize that their relative lack of education means they are at more risk of being laid off in downturns. Their relative lack of earning power means they find it harder to save for retirement, afford medical care, or pay for their children’s education. Their relative lack of specialized skills means they are more vulnerable to competition from unskilled immigrants and more likely to remain unemployed if they lose their job. This gnawing fear that everything they have built is at risk of falling apart is a central feature of their political identity.


Pride in their lives:
Working-class voters are generally not a despondent group. Life is harder for them in many ways, but they take pride in who they are. They are not “bitter people, clinging to religion or guns”; they celebrate their lives and crave respect from the educated and wealthy classes. They flock to politicians who show genuine respect for their lives, and turn on those who display contempt or disdain.

Anger at being disrespected: This is the flip side of their pride. Working-class voters are very cognizant of their status in American life. They rarely occupy executive positions in their jobs and are consumers rather than producers of ideas. They feel keenly this relative lack of control over important features of their lives, and resent being ordered about as if they were merely pawns in someone else’s grand plan. They particularly dislike having their lives belittled as unsophisticated or inferior to the lives of educated or wealthy folk.

This anger can be expressed against big business, big government, or big anything. If working-class voters feel they are being treated as mere tools, they will react with anger whether the source of the treatment is an employer, a politician, or an academic.

Belief in public order: Working-class voters rely more on the public order to provide a structure in their lives than do upper-class voters. They can’t afford private security services or retreat to homes with large yards far from unruly elements. They live closer together and in closer contact with crime. Accordingly, they place a high premium on effective police and fire services and greatly respect policemen and firemen.

Patriotism: Working-class voters are highly patriotic. They love their country openly in ways that often seem odd and embarrassing to the educated class. They are likelier to express open support of and deference to the military (while simultaneously recognizing that “big military” is wasteful); their children volunteer for the military in much greater numbers than those of any other class. This is partly economic — learning a trade in the military is a better opportunity for them than for people who think they can graduate from college — but it is also genuinely patriotic.

This sentiment is particularly strong among recent immigrants. One way to show your devotion to your new country is to revere its symbols and institutions, and for the working class the military is perhaps the most accessible institution of all. Hispanics in particular enlist in the military, and it is no surprise that Republican presidential candidates who are strongly supportive of the military, like Reagan and George W. Bush, have fared best among Hispanic voters in the last 45 years.

Fear of rapid change: Working-class voters recognize that they are less equipped to handle sudden changes; consequently, they value stability highly. They fear sudden recessions and distrust sudden changes in government programs. Ronald Reagan, the conservative who has best understood the working class, put his finger on it in a prescient 1964 National Review article on why Goldwater lost: “Human nature resists change and goes over backward to avoid radical change.” Upper-class educated people may embrace risk and change, but working-class voters do not.

Now consider these values in the light of the primary features of liberal progressivism. Liberal progressives inherently crave rapid, transformational change; working-class voters abhor it. This was as true in the 1960s (the Great Society) and the early Clinton years as it is today. The impatience that characterizes liberal progressivism often leads to the impression that its apostles feel contempt and disdain for those who disagree; working-class voters sense this and react against it. Liberal progressivism requires high tax rates, not only on the rich but also on the middle and working classes (overseas, this is accomplished via the VAT); working-class voters know this will choke off economic growth and increase the financial stress in their lives. Liberal progressivism typically displays less concern with public order and the institutions that provide public order; working-class voters opposed this in the 1960s and 1980s when it appeared that crime was rampant, and they remain sensitive to it to this day.

....

Today’s conservatives have a rendezvous with destiny. The peculiar political challenge of our time — repairing our nation’s finances and avoiding national bankruptcy — requires us to reform our welfare state. This forces us to confront the tensions outlined above, and to do so in a way that reassures rather than frightens the vast American middle that has turned to us now in response to the last two years. If we seize this opportunity and act with principle and prudence, we truly can say we have met our challenge. In so doing, we truly will have “preserved for our children this, the last best hope for man on earth.”

V's picture
V
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Dec 14 2009
Posts: 849
Re: US midterm elections: a different take
dshields wrote:

The GOP has scored a surprising political victory at the local, state, and federal levels.  It actually is historic.  Much of this is due to the energy the Tea Party has injected into the Grand Old Party.  Now there is going to be a war between statism and liberty.  The Tea Party is not going away.  It is going to become bigger and tougher.  The gearing up for the 2012 election has already started.  Statism has been and will continue to be rejected by the majority of Americans.  I found Reid's speech about compromise and Obama's speech about whatever it was about today to be interesting.  I am not sure what they were talking about.  There is no compromise between tyranny and liberty - between wrong and right.  How do you compromise about robbing a bank or destroying peoples lives.  The Tea Party is the conscious of the GOP and it will keep the heat on politicians for the foreseeable future.  There will be no "say anything to get elected" and then go vote against the very people that elected you.  That is over.   Politicians who do that will be targeted in their next election and in all probability they will be removed and replaced with honest people who understand the difference between right and wrong.  Welcome to America.  The people have woke up.

During the campaign period before the election there was a lot of hoop-la.  Now it is over and one of the more serious investigations will be into the activities of the Federal Reserve.  This did not come up much during the election as the sad truth is that the majority of Americans have no idea what the Fed is.  Most of the people I talk to (other than Tea Party people) actually think the Fed is a department of the government and takes its orders from congress and the president.  While there is some element of truth to this as the Fed does bend to political pressure at times, people on this site are well aware of the true nature of the Fed.  There will be a Fed audit.  Depending on the results of the audit, action will be taken.  Personally, I believe pretty much what others who frequent this site believe - that America should control its money supply and not some cartel lead by GS, JPM, Lazard, Rothschild and the others.  We will see how it goes.  I would not be surprised to see big changes coming in this area.  Action may have to wait until after the 2012 election and the GOP controls both houses of congress and the presidency.  I am not sure if the statists are up for serious action(s) related to the Fed.

 

Apparently the Kabuki Theatre was a big hit in Peoria, so I guess we will see it run on Broadway now. I guess now we will control our own money supply and take it away from the Republicans at GS, JPM, CITI, etc. I am sure the dastardly Dems who run those institutions have been duly chastised and will slink off the scene with their collective tails between their legs. 

If this is America waking up I need a scrip for Prozac.

\As Ralph Nader said "The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is how quickly their knees hit the floor in front of the corporations".

" Good night and good luck"

V

darbikrash's picture
darbikrash
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Aug 25 2009
Posts: 573
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

...and sometimes only a song will do...

 

When the moment's right
Only moments rise
For the lesser blessed
It's all promises
When the dawners rise
From their comas rise
For a lesser blessed
It seems honest here
Celebrate give love and praise
Celebrate
For our lesser days.....

bmcreider's picture
bmcreider
Status: Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 23 2010
Posts: 14
Re: US midterm elections: a different take
V wrote:

If this is America waking up I need a scrip for Prozac.

\As Ralph Nader said "The only difference between Republicans and Democrats is how quickly their knees hit the floor in front of the corporations".

" Good night and good luck"

V

 

I agree...and I hate to join on this bandwagon against the tea party - after all, I was very much a fan when its core personality was Ron Paul - but this is all just empty rhetoric. Where was all this anger and outrage, where were the Fox News pundits, where were the "Washington outsiders" whenever TARP was signed into law by Bush? When the Patriot Act was signed? When we have still not found any WMDs? Etc...etc...

Where today is any tea party candidate or supporter with any air time saying anything about the Fed and the raping of the money in our wallets?

This is just empty rhetoric, as was said in the OP. I know people want hope and change, just like 2008, and "this time it's different" but, let's be serious here, when the main agenda on the table is repealing a piece meal solution to health care and extending tax cuts with 14 trillion in debt, how is that really helping anyone but lobbying customers?

Sure, what else are you gonna do, right?

dshields's picture
dshields
Status: Platinum Member (Offline)
Joined: Oct 24 2009
Posts: 599
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

After we got done with the tea party name calling...  And, remember I have never been to a tea party so I suppose I am not a tea party person but i know people who are.

goes211 does bring up some interesting points.  I think people in America over the last maybe 20 years got lazy and busy at the same time.  Everyone has to work harder and more hours just to keep the standard of living they have been enjoying.  The entire work situation has heated up with serior management wanting higher productivity, tighter schedules, less people, less labor costs (people, benefits, etc.).  We got lazy because we were fed twisted truths and lies by most of the media.  While this was going on politicians from the Dem party were saying pretty much anything to get elected and they were elected.  There was this odd view that both the political parties were the same and it did not really make much difference who got elected and besides we are to busy to do any real research because we have to go to work and chase kids around and you name it.  Then 2008 rolled around and Obama got elected and the Dems controlled both houses of congress and WHAM - things went out of control in a big way real fast.

Now, the path Bush had us on was not so great.  Wars against terror and then for some reason Iraq, deforestation, some deficit spending, some expansion of government, a fairly active anti-terror program - things people could get by with and not get upset enough about to cause them to change their lives.  The war business was probably the most upsetting to the majority but Bush was clever and did not do anything that would cause the war to negatively impact the lives of the majority of Americans.  So, while they might object to the Iraq war on moral grounds (no WMDs) it was not crimping their style besides they have to go to work and chase the kids around and then work some more.  Kind of blissfully ignorant in a way.  911 shocked the crap out of people but Bush went after the perps as the majority expected him to so it was ok.  Besides, have to go to work and chase the kids around.

Then the WHAM hit.  The WHAM was an active campaign to turn America inside out and punish those that work the hardest and reward those that do not.  Socialism on a very serious scale.  People knew Obama was left but I heard a number of people say during the campaign that he was pandering to the left wing base and once he was elected he would turn back toward the center.  Guess what ?  That did not happen - he veered even further to the left after he was elected.  In addition, congress had become loaded with left wing types and the stage was set for a very serious turn to the left and that is exactly what happened.  The turn was so severe that it shocked the majority out of blissful ignorance and a huge wake up call occurred.  The truth was revealed that the two political parties were not the same and that America had gone off the rails in a very big way.  The wake up call was so big that normal people, just regular people you would meet at work, school, the gym, just anywhere, were so upset by what they saw the government doing that it resulted in them actually changing their lives.  They started researching and listening and watching.  The more they did the more upset they became.  This was the beginning of the tea party.  Just regular people who woke up one day and discovered that a bunch of people who had no business being in the government had seized control of it and were formulating and passing bills that clearly were not normal and in fact would have very serious negative impact of their lives.  The stuff they were talking about was so far out there that something had to done or America would cease to exist and some strange socialist country would emerge until the out of control spending and taxation resulted in total financial collapse and their lives would actually be destroyed.

WHAM !!!  The call to action was everywhere.  A true grass roots revolt by normal people.  It is a really big deal.  I am 52 years old and I have never seen anything like it in my lifetime.  If you think the midterm election was something you just wait until 2012.  Obama will go for sure and so will the Senate.  Obama would have been removed this election if he had been up for election.  The Senate would have turned over also if enough seats were up for election.  It is not going to go away as people now understand the destructive nature of the dem party and what they actually want to do.  People have realized the parties are not same at all.  People want a normal government.  I am always surprised when the tea party and the repub party are refereed to as "right wing".  It is not so called right wing, it is normal.  Normal is good.  Normal is what people want and normal is what they are going to have.  Then they can go back to working hard and chasing their kids around and not have to worry about having everything they have worked for being taken away from them and redistributed through various schemes by statists.  It is not going to happen.  It is not going to be allowed.

If the Dems continue their march to the left now they will be stopped by the normal people, the repubs in the house, and their nationalize, tax and spend statism thing will be splashed on TV and the truth will be known.  Then normal people will go to the polls in 2012 and the dem party will basically cease to exist for some time after that.  However, fear not, normal people will take control of that party and it will come back with a reasonable platform and once again be competitive at some point in the future.  Just like the repub party had to ditch the religious right the dem party will have to ditch the far left statists.

 

yobob1's picture
yobob1
Status: Silver Member (Offline)
Joined: Apr 20 2009
Posts: 132
Re: US midterm elections: a different take

The "WHAM!!!" really is the simple fact that the plight of the average American's wallet was severely wounded.  Should the economy recover appreciably such that in reality and not "statistically" the average American sees a significant improvement in his personal "wallet", the Democraps may survive.  I give that scenario a very low probability.  The outrage over what happened to their wallets is what really took out the Republicans in 2008.  Yes there was outrage over the "bailouts" (later extended and "improved" by the Democraps) but that was more spill-over of the personal effect of the bursting housing bubble than anything else.

Obviously Obama's agenda was entirely wrong for the times, especially in consideration of the still cratering economy.  Employment is only statistically improving because of the folks at the far end of the bread line falling off into a black hole never to be heard from again.  There is no end in sight of the foreclosures and sales are lagging the accumulation of bank owned properties even with the banks slowing their possession rate to improve the appearance of their balance sheets. The new construction market for both commercial/retail and residential is essentially dead for at least a decade - we have already built way too much and there is an abundance of rentals in most markets.  Construction has been the true driver of every post war recession "recovery" (recovery is a euphemism for an expansion of credit by the J6P's of the planet)  The only "bright" spot on the planet is some of Asia and that brightness is only fueled by the same msitakes that have driven the West to bankruptcy.

The bottom line is the entire planet needs a Chapter 11 reorganization or in some cases a Chapter 7 liquidation plan.  It won't happen in any such easily discernible action by anyone, but will in time occur one default (personal, business and sovereign) at a time until sufficient bad debt is absorbed and all assets are repriced to true market values which will allow most of the global overcapacity to be utilized in a true economic manner. Until all of that happens, the global economy will not truly recover.  You might call this natural economic law as opposed to some dumb assed economic theory of how things work. The problem is that we are faced with undoing 100 years of screw-ups and very unfavorable demographics to do it with.

Have a nice day!  Smile

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Login or Register to post comments