Mid-term elections: Not looking so good for the Dems

[maxparrish]

Two weeks ago I would have said that it was increasingly likely that the GOP would not capture the Senate, especially after the Kansas debacle. Recent polling is picking up a significant shift that suggests they have a better than even chance of doing so. States that were once thought to go Democratic are now in play. Unexpectedly the GOP leads in Colorado, and it seems they are more likely to take Arkansas and Louisiana, and perhaps Iowa. Georgia and Kentucky still lean GOP, and Kansas has recently flipped to Roberts in the lead. Only North Carolina seems out of reach.

I'd say the GOP will get 50-52 seats. They will likely take formerly Democratic seats in South Dakota, Montana, West Virginia, Arkansas, Louisiana and Alaska. They will likely take Kansas, and one more, either Colorado or Iowa (both starting to trend GOP). It is unlikely they can take N.C. or N.H. Complicating the numbers is the fact that there is increasing speculation that Manchin might "jump" parties (Dem to Rep) if the Senate is split and the offer is right.

The huge, very well organized, and massively funded ground game of the Democrats in Colorado may save that seat in spite of the polls, (and the 50 million dollar wealth advantage of the Dem's may determine other races as well). Still, the trends are increasingly GOP.

 

[untermensche]

The retarded people are the people who think Hillary Clinton represents some movement from Obama. But that is not the midterms.

There are definitely the rabid Republican voters.

But if the Democrats represented anything but a different flavor of corporate control they might attract some rabid voters themselves.

i don't disagree with anything you said but i also think it's utterly ridiculous to say "oh well they're both heavily influenced by corporate considerations, therefor Ds and Rs are exactly the same" - it's that sort of stupid and ignorant thinking that leads to things like a 2 term bush presidency.

What about 2 terms of Obama?

It is under Obama that the occupy movements were violently attacked.

It is under Obama that the NSA is spying on everybody.

It is under Obama that we are running a drone assassination program.

It is under Obama that we have not had one day not at war.

He caved to the insurance corporations and didn't even try to push a public option.

He caved to the banks and bailed them out and left home owners in the cold.

We can't survive by simply moving from Republicans to Democrats.

We need something else.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

i don't disagree with anything you said but i also think it's utterly ridiculous to say "oh well they're both heavily influenced by corporate considerations, therefor Ds and Rs are exactly the same" - it's that sort of stupid and ignorant thinking that leads to things like a 2 term bush presidency.

What about 2 terms of Obama?

It is under Obama that the occupy movements were violently attacked.

That was local police.

It is under Obama that the NSA is spying on everybody.

That occurred under W and Obama and Snowden should receive some fucking medal for exposing it.

It is under Obama that we are running a drone assassination program.

Expanded the drone program started under W. I remember the day the CIA lost its shit when the W Admin desperate for points let out that a drone killed a guy in Syria. At that point, it wasn't known drones could be armed.

It is under Obama that we have not had one day not at war.

Okay, seriously?! While Obama and the CIA have been involved in extracurricular activities, 10,000 Americans died or were maimed injured under W with the Afghan and Iraqi occupations that were run like shit. The Obama admin has tried to lessen influence at times.

He caved to the insurance corporations and didn't even try to push a public option.

Yeah.

He caved to the banks and bailed them out and left home owners in the cold.

Not true. While the Obama Admin didn't charge anyone, the big banks were "saved" via TARP.

We can't survive by simply moving from Republicans to Democrats.

We can't survive under the Republicans. While the Democrats are beholden to corporate interests, some Republicans bluffed at it and others actually tried to destroy the US economy to destroy Obama. They are fucked in the head!

 

[untermensche]

What about 2 terms of Obama?

It is under Obama that the occupy movements were violently attacked.

That was local police.

How many were charged with federal crimes?

It is under Obama that the NSA is spying on everybody.

That occurred under W and Obama and Snowden should receive some fucking medal for exposing it.

Snowden had to run to Russia to avoid being thrown in jail by the Obama administration.

It is under Obama that we are running a drone assassination program.

Expanded the drone program started under W. I remember the day the CIA lost its shit when the W Admin desperate for points let out that a drone killed a guy in Syria. At that point, it wasn't known drones could be armed.

So expanding a bad program is a good thing?

It is under Obama that we have not had one day not at war.

Okay, seriously?! While Obama and the CIA have been involved in extracurricular activities, 10,000 Americans died or were maimed injured under W with the Afghan and Iraqi occupations that were run like shit. The Obama admin has tried to lessen influence at times.

What place is better now than it was six years ago?

We can't survive under the Republicans. While the Democrats are beholden to corporate interests, some Republicans bluffed at it and others actually tried to destroy the US economy to destroy Obama. They are fucked in the head!

The problem is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans. The problem is the oligarchy. If those with extreme wealth can't be removed their extreme influence has to be removed. That won't happen by supporting Democrats.

 

[prideandfall]

The problem is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans. The problem is the oligarchy. If those with extreme wealth can't be removed their extreme influence has to be removed. That won't happen by supporting Democrats.

and it even more won't happen by supporting republicans, and it definitely won't happen by supporting "3rd party" candidates that have zero chance of winning.
the corruption within the US political is systemic and inoperable, it would require a massive nation-wide social upheaval to change, and as appealing as that idea sounds it's absolutely never going to happen because entirely too many people (of all political leanings) support the current system - there's absolutely no zeit geist for that sort of change.

as sad as it is, the fact is that in the US your options are a democrat or a republican, period.
yes, the democrats are ineffectually and mostly incompetently trying to steer the car less in the direction of flying right off the cliff, and yes sometimes they monumentally fuck up and make it worse.
the republicans are trying to point the car at the cliff and floor the gas, screaming that "we're gonna jump it!" while pouring kerosene in the back seat where the poor people are and fumbling for a match.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

So all those undecideds say in '08 or '04 or '12 that couldn't just decide between the two main candidates? And I don't mean because they were both corporate shills, but because they seriously couldn't tell them apart.

i simply don't buy that there were undecideds in '04 or '12, so the question is fallacious to me.

I think this issue requires further study. If I find any free time, I will want to try to delve into this issue.

 

[untermensche]

The problem is bigger than the Democrats and Republicans. The problem is the oligarchy. If those with extreme wealth can't be removed their extreme influence has to be removed. That won't happen by supporting Democrats.

and it even more won't happen by supporting republicans, and it definitely won't happen by supporting "3rd party" candidates that have zero chance of winning.
the corruption within the US political is systemic and inoperable, it would require a massive nation-wide social upheaval to change, and as appealing as that idea sounds it's absolutely never going to happen because entirely too many people (of all political leanings) support the current system - there's absolutely no zeit geist for that sort of change.

as sad as it is, the fact is that in the US your options are a democrat or a republican, period.
yes, the democrats are ineffectually and mostly incompetently trying to steer the car less in the direction of flying right off the cliff, and yes sometimes they monumentally fuck up and make it worse.
the republicans are trying to point the car at the cliff and floor the gas, screaming that "we're gonna jump it!" while pouring kerosene in the back seat where the poor people are and fumbling for a match.

I take not supporting Republicans as a given.

It is only something a person working hard against their own interests would do.

But we have to take it one step further. We have to refuse to support Democrats too. That is the only way they will change.

Anything else but the status quo.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

To be fair, that crisis had solid roots dating back to 1971. It takes more than just a few years of mis-management to create a disaster of that scale.

I would agree with you that the rot in the Republican party dates from the Watergate disaster. Watergate certainly went a long way to tarnishing the reputations of the moderate and liberal Republicans. But the disaster of 2008 can only be placed at the doorstep of movement conservatism and its twin tenets of the free market and deregulation. I don't even think that we can fully blame the Reagan era Republicans. They seemed to have understood that all of the talk about social issues and the free market was only campaign issues to get elected to be able to fulfill the long time Republican goal of tax cuts for the wealthy and transferring as much of the wealth of the nation to the wealthy as possible. The real problem started in the mid and late 1990's when people like Newt Gingrich, the true believers in movement conservatism were elected. And of course, this reached a pinnacle of absurdity with the SCOTUS election of George W.Bush in December of 2000, that put true believers of movement conservatism in charge of all of the branches of government. People who didn't realize that all of the movement conservatism talk about the self-regulating free market, abortion, black crime running rampant, deregulation, flag burning, etc. were just campaign slogans to scare the rubes and they didn't constitute a reasonable way to govern the country.

No, I was talking about the economy and not the internal rot of one particular party. It could be done in 8 years, but only if the underlying problems are exacerbated by the mis-management, and it is those underlying problems I was referring to. It almost collapsed in 1979 but Volcker saved our ass. I don't know what you mean by Republicans seemingly favoring free market and deregulation. It is common for people to stay Republicans favor that when talking to libertarians, but it is also common to point out how their actions NEVER match their rhetoric when talking to Republicans.

 

[prideandfall]

I take not supporting Republicans as a given.

It is only something a person working hard against their own interests would do.

But we have to take it one step further. We have to refuse to support Democrats too. That is the only way they will change.

Anything else but the status quo.

and thus we come full circle, in a manner of speaking, as this is precisely why i don't vote.

 

[untermensche]

I take not supporting Republicans as a given.

It is only something a person working hard against their own interests would do.

But we have to take it one step further. We have to refuse to support Democrats too. That is the only way they will change.

Anything else but the status quo.

and thus we come full circle, in a manner of speaking, as this is precisely why i don't vote.

The better solution is to vote for the best third party candidates you can find.

Every person that votes either Republican or Democrat votes to maintain the status quo.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Reading this back-and-forth, I'm reminded of Chomsky who said the parties are two wings of the business party.

And, to add to untermensches list of questionable Obama decisions, his "grand bargain" to cut SS.

 

[doubtingt]

i find the entire idea of independents or 'undecided' voters to be a smoke screen and to be a completely ludicrous and implausible notion, excepting (continuing from the example above) that the R/D split is really close that year and the 3rd group just happens to nudge one or the other over the finish line, but they only matter in extremely tight races and the pendulum can go either way on that.
i do not buy into the idea of there being people who have to wait and think about whether or vote for an R or a D - i can buy it being like a D/I split or an R/L split on a person to person basis, but only in relatively tiny numbers.

I don't see why you find "undecideds" so implausible. I think part of the problem is that you are imagining the exact same group of people remaining fully "undecided" for election after election. That isn't how it works. Who is undecided is not stable over elections, but each election some people that were undecided last time are not while people that were decided have become undecided, and yet others have never even thought about elections and are just deciding/voting for the first time.
This latter group are first time voters who have never voted either party. In 2008, 11% of voters were first time voters. Most of these are young people whom research shows lack any kind of coherent political viewpoint and are highly ignorant of the history and current realities of either party. It is not only plausible but highly probable that many first time young voters would be swayed by the superficial aspects of a given election and/or personalities of individual candidates, given that they have nothing else really to base their decision on other than conformity to their parents/community. Many of them will vote on a single issue that grabs their attention, so which issue dominates the discourse in that cycle will determine which party they vote for. In addition, as some of these voters mature and become more knowledgeable, some will realize that one party is more aligned to their core values, so they will "swing" during that election from the party they voted for last time to their new party that they may remain loyal to for the rest of their life.

But beyond first time voters, there are people who change what party they vote for midstream as they become disillusioned about the party they were supporting. Their past votes may have been based in lots of ignorance and there shift may not be based in much better understanding. They are not really switching parites because they were never with either party and may still not be in any deeper principled way. At some point when they shift which party they vote for they become undecided and are open to influence by whatever the narrative and issues are at that moment. We have a several people on this board who voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004 and/or for Obama in 2008. There are a number of younger people I know who are like this. To you and I it may seem absurd that anyone was ignorant enough in 2000 not realize that a Bush presidency would be exactly like it turned out to be. It what you get with a Republican president and what we'd get if a Republican is elected in 2016. But clearly millions of Americans did not realize this, and millions who think W Bush was terrible and voted against him in 2004 or against McCain in 2008 will not realize in 2016 that a vote for a Republican is a vote for most of the same things, thus will vote for a Republican.

 

[prideandfall]

and thus we come full circle, in a manner of speaking, as this is precisely why i don't vote.

The better solution is to vote for the best third party candidates you can find.

Every person that votes either Republican or Democrat votes to maintain the status quo.

i like how you so casually and easily dismiss Rs and Ds as 'not the solution to any of our problems' and yet so glibly pronounce "oh well just vote for the 'best' 3rd part candidate you can find" as if there is any difference between established political bodies and 'independent' political groups.
i don't know whether that's an adorable level of naivete or an offensive amount of condescension.

 

[prideandfall]

i find the entire idea of independents or 'undecided' voters to be a smoke screen and to be a completely ludicrous and implausible notion, excepting (continuing from the example above) that the R/D split is really close that year and the 3rd group just happens to nudge one or the other over the finish line, but they only matter in extremely tight races and the pendulum can go either way on that.
i do not buy into the idea of there being people who have to wait and think about whether or vote for an R or a D - i can buy it being like a D/I split or an R/L split on a person to person basis, but only in relatively tiny numbers.

I don't see why you find "undecideds" so implausible. I think part of the problem is that you are imagining the exact same group of people remaining fully "undecided" for election after election. That isn't how it works. Who is undecided is not stable over elections, but each election some people that were undecided last time are not while people that were decided have become undecided, and yet others have never even thought about elections and are just deciding/voting for the first time.
This latter group are first time voters who have never voted either party. In 2008, 11% of voters were first time voters. Most of these are young people whom research shows lack any kind of coherent political viewpoint and are highly ignorant of the history and current realities of either party. It is not only plausible but highly probable that many first time young voters would be swayed by the superficial aspects of a given election and/or personalities of individual candidates, given that they have nothing else really to base their decision on other than conformity to their parents/community. Many of them will vote on a single issue that grabs their attention, so which issue dominates the discourse in that cycle will determine which party they vote for. In addition, as some of these voters mature and become more knowledgeable, some will realize that one party is more aligned to their core values, so they will "swing" during that election from the party they voted for last time to their new party that they may remain loyal to for the rest of their life.

But beyond first time voters, there are people who change what party they vote for midstream as they become disillusioned about the party they were supporting. Their past votes may have been based in lots of ignorance and there shift may not be based in much better understanding. They are not really switching parites because they were never with either party and may still not be in any deeper principled way. At some point when they shift which party they vote for they become undecided and are open to influence by whatever the narrative and issues are at that moment. We have a several people on this board who voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004 and/or for Obama in 2008. There are a number of younger people I know who are like this. To you and I it may seem absurd that anyone was ignorant enough in 2000 not realize that a Bush presidency would be exactly like it turned out to be. It what you get with a Republican president and what we'd get if a Republican is elected in 2016. But clearly millions of Americans did not realize this, and millions who think W Bush was terrible and voted against him in 2004 or against McCain in 2008 will not realize in 2016 that a vote for a Republican is a vote for most of the same things, thus will vote for a Republican.

yeah i find this entire notion to be utterly ludicrous if taken at face value for what you're trying to imply, or simply supporting what i said if you read into it at all - that's "undecided" isn't about who you're voting for, just about whether or not you bother voting for them.

 

[doubtingt]

I don't see why you find "undecideds" so implausible. I think part of the problem is that you are imagining the exact same group of people remaining fully "undecided" for election after election. That isn't how it works. Who is undecided is not stable over elections, but each election some people that were undecided last time are not while people that were decided have become undecided, and yet others have never even thought about elections and are just deciding/voting for the first time.
This latter group are first time voters who have never voted either party. In 2008, 11% of voters were first time voters. Most of these are young people whom research shows lack any kind of coherent political viewpoint and are highly ignorant of the history and current realities of either party. It is not only plausible but highly probable that many first time young voters would be swayed by the superficial aspects of a given election and/or personalities of individual candidates, given that they have nothing else really to base their decision on other than conformity to their parents/community. Many of them will vote on a single issue that grabs their attention, so which issue dominates the discourse in that cycle will determine which party they vote for. In addition, as some of these voters mature and become more knowledgeable, some will realize that one party is more aligned to their core values, so they will "swing" during that election from the party they voted for last time to their new party that they may remain loyal to for the rest of their life.

But beyond first time voters, there are people who change what party they vote for midstream as they become disillusioned about the party they were supporting. Their past votes may have been based in lots of ignorance and there shift may not be based in much better understanding. They are not really switching parites because they were never with either party and may still not be in any deeper principled way. At some point when they shift which party they vote for they become undecided and are open to influence by whatever the narrative and issues are at that moment. We have a several people on this board who voted for Bush in 2000, but not in 2004 and/or for Obama in 2008. There are a number of younger people I know who are like this. To you and I it may seem absurd that anyone was ignorant enough in 2000 not realize that a Bush presidency would be exactly like it turned out to be. It what you get with a Republican president and what we'd get if a Republican is elected in 2016. But clearly millions of Americans did not realize this, and millions who think W Bush was terrible and voted against him in 2004 or against McCain in 2008 will not realize in 2016 that a vote for a Republican is a vote for most of the same things, thus will vote for a Republican.

yeah i find this entire notion to be utterly ludicrous if taken at face value for what you're trying to imply, or simply supporting what i said if you read into it at all - that's "undecided" isn't about who you're voting for, just about whether or not you bother voting for them.

Okay, but your opinion has no basis in evidence-based understanding of human psychology in general or political psychology in particular. What is ludicrous about the idea that many first time voters are undecided about who and which party appeals to whatever vague, unexamined, incoherent, and historically disconected goals and ideas they have? What is ludicrous is to think that all first time voters are not only decided but have decided based upon such deep stable principles that there first voting decision will be for the same party as all their future ones (this is the absurd reality required for your claim that no significant numbers of undecided voters exist.

 

[prideandfall]

Okay, but your opinion has no basis in evidence-based understanding of human psychology in general or political psychology in particular.

yes it does, on both counts.
if you think a person in this country honestly not being able to figure out which person they're going to vote for is more plausible than a person knowing who they'd vote for if they bothered voting but not knowing whether or not they're going to bother voting, well then we're at an impasse because i would say that sounds like a total lack on your part of understanding human psychology in general or political psychology in particular.

What is ludicrous about the idea that many first time voters are undecided about who and which party appeals to whatever vague, unexamined, incoherent, and historically disconected goals and ideas they have?

given the rather significant cultural and social divide between the two parties in the last 40 years and bi-polar disorder not impacting over 60% of the population of this country, i'm going to go with "just about everything."

What is ludicrous is to think that all first time voters are not only decided but have decided based upon such deep stable principles that there first voting decision will be for the same party as all their future ones (this is the absurd reality required for your claim that no significant numbers of undecided voters exist.

i'm not saying the decision is based on well reasoned moral principles or or that their opinions can't change over time, i'm just saying that on any given election people already know who they're going to vote for, if they vote at all, and campaigns and debates and ads and all the dog-and-pony showmanship that goes on in politics in this country is about getting people to decide to bother to go vote at all, not about trying to actually change anybody's mind as to who they're going to vote for.

 

[Sarpedon]

Can I ask a dumb question?

Say an analysis gives party X 70% chance of winning, while party Y has a 30% chance. Party Y ends up winning.

How can you tell whether the analysis was wrong or just that Party Y got lucky?

 

[prideandfall]

Can I ask a dumb question?

Say an analysis gives party X 70% chance of winning, while party Y has a 30% chance. Party Y ends up winning.

How can you tell whether the analysis was wrong or just that Party Y got lucky?

i think that's the real interesting thing about politics and such in this country - it's a lot of supposition and guesswork based on polling, which has always struck me as being a rather dubious way to form any kind of conclusion on what's actually going to happen.

and i totally cop to my views being supposition - it's a model i've constructed that makes the most sense to me, and while i have actively looked for it i have never found any scientific study or research to really say one way or the other if i'm right and elections are about whether people bother to vote at all, or if this whole "undecided" voter thing is a legit claim.

 

[untermensche]

The better solution is to vote for the best third party candidates you can find.

Every person that votes either Republican or Democrat votes to maintain the status quo.

i like how you so casually and easily dismiss Rs and Ds as 'not the solution to any of our problems' and yet so glibly pronounce "oh well just vote for the 'best' 3rd part candidate you can find" as if there is any difference between established political bodies and 'independent' political groups.
i don't know whether that's an adorable level of naivete or an offensive amount of condescension.

Nothing will change is people keep voting for Republicans or Democrats.

Your plan is for nothing to change.

 

[lpetrich]

untermensche, what is your opinion of  Duverger's law?

Sociologist Maurice Duverger proposes that the number of parties is a result of the voting system, that first past the post produces two-party systems.