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

[ZiprHead]

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.

That's why the TEA Party never really separated from the Republicans.

 

[Derec]

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 it's the same as "X% chance of rain". You can't rerun a weather system N times any more than you can rerun an election so you really have to look at performance of a model over many political races. Since elections happen far less often than weather systems the accuracy of these models is uncertain at best.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

That's why the TEA Party never really separated from the Republicans.

Exactly.

The change in governance comes from change within the parties not by which party is in power. The Democrat party of the 1950s was far to the right of today's Republican party. They were the party of segregation and "conservative values". Our involvement in the Vietnam War in the early 1960s was LBJ and the Democrats in congress expanding and flexing our military prerogative.

 

[arkirk]

That's why the TEA Party never really separated from the Republicans.

Exactly.

The change in governance comes from change within the parties not by which party is in power. The Democrat party of the 1950s was far to the right of today's Republican party. They were the party of segregation and "conservative values". Our involvement in the Vietnam War in the early 1960s was LBJ and the Democrats in congress expanding and flexing our military prerogative.

Having lived through this, I have to agree you have it right. We also have Clinton's right pivot on welfare reform, NAFTA, etc. etc. etc. It is as if the Democrats are trying to win Republicans over by "out-republicaning" the republicans. Obama still has a way to go to catch up with Lyndon Johnson in the war hawk category. I am sure Hillary could give him a few clues. As long as the Democrats continue to abandon progressive values (in hopes of winning a few right wing voters) they will continue to languish in the mediocrity they have become.

 

[Horatio Parker]

Exactly.

The change in governance comes from change within the parties not by which party is in power. The Democrat party of the 1950s was far to the right of today's Republican party. They were the party of segregation and "conservative values". Our involvement in the Vietnam War in the early 1960s was LBJ and the Democrats in congress expanding and flexing our military prerogative.

Having lived through this, I have to agree you have it right. We also have Clinton's right pivot on welfare reform, NAFTA, etc. etc. etc. It is as if the Democrats are trying to win Republicans over by "out-republicaning" the republicans. Obama still has a way to go to catch up with Lyndon Johnson in the war hawk category. I am sure Hillary could give him a few clues. As long as the Democrats continue to abandon progressive values (in hopes of winning a few right wing voters) they will continue to languish in the mediocrity they have become.

When I was growing up, the Dems were considered the war mongers. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all Democrat wars. Now, war rhetoric seems to sooth terrorism fears. Consider Obama keeping Gates on, a surge of his own etc. Hillary's rather hawklike stance is more of the same, and she's vulnerable to hypocrisy from her Iraqi war vote if she softens.

 

[lpetrich]

The Democrat party of the 1950s was far to the right of today's Republican party. They were the party of segregation and "conservative values".

The Southern part of the Democratic Party, yes, the party in the ex-Confederate states. But the Northern part was much more like today's Democratic Party.

 

[lpetrich]

When I was growing up, the Dems were considered the war mongers. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all Democrat wars.

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

 

[skepticalbip]

When I was growing up, the Dems were considered the war mongers. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all Democrat wars.

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

And that is the result of reading revisionist history and believing one of the most masterful pieces of campaign propaganda in US history - the little girl picking flowers with a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion behind her. I suppose that this campaign ad was supposed to imply that if we didn't stop communist expansion in Vietnam then we would end up in a nuclear war with the USSR - so electing Goldwater would mean nuclear war.

In 1964 LBJ was quite busy increasing the US military presence in Vietnam (hardly a peacenik position). The Gulf Of Tonkin resolution was in August of 1964, three months before the election.
Goldwater was busy opposing our military involvement.

 

[maxparrish]

When I was growing up, the Dems were considered the war mongers. WWII, Korea, Vietnam, all Democrat wars.

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

You are only partially accurate. Prior to Pearl Harbor Republicans were isolationist, and very anti-war (my father, in his youth, being one of them). FDR had to hide his pro-war desires by running on a "no war" platform, while promoting the US mission as one of being merely an arsenal for democracy. After the war, the Soviet Empire and the Truman doctrine set a new direction in American foreign policy, and the cold war began.

By Korea there was not a big difference between the two parties, the Taft isolationist wing losing to the "moderate" Eisenhower. By Vietnam, the big difference was that Goldwater's position was that no war should be fought without the objective of total victory, and that "police actions" of indefinite containment, like that of Korea, were unacceptable. Johnson foolishly believed he could somehow "win" by defensive containment, without declaring war on North Vietnam and using all means at his disposal.

 

[untermensche]

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.

Humans tend to herd behavior.

Maybe there is no way to escape it.

But I won't say there isn't anything we can do about it.

If most Americans simply decided to depart from the herd and vote for some third party candidate the system might change.

It won't change by voting either Republican or Democrat.

If you do that you might as well say you love the current system as it exists.

 

[Horatio Parker]

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

You are only partially accurate. Prior to Pearl Harbor Republicans were isolationist, and very anti-war (my father, in his youth, being one of them). FDR had to hide his pro-war desires by running on a "no war" platform, while promoting the US mission as one of being merely an arsenal for democracy. After the war, the Soviet Empire and the Truman doctrine set a new direction in American foreign policy, and the cold war began.

By Korea there was not a big difference between the two parties, the Taft isolationist wing losing to the "moderate" Eisenhower. By Vietnam, the big difference was that Goldwater's position was that no war should be fought without the objective of total victory, and that "police actions" of indefinite containment, like that of Korea, were unacceptable. Johnson foolishly believed he could somehow "win" by defensive containment, without declaring war on North Vietnam and using all means at his disposal.

I have heard neocons argue that we would've been better off staying out of WWII.

 

[maxparrish]

You are only partially accurate. Prior to Pearl Harbor Republicans were isolationist, and very anti-war (my father, in his youth, being one of them). FDR had to hide his pro-war desires by running on a "no war" platform, while promoting the US mission as one of being merely an arsenal for democracy. After the war, the Soviet Empire and the Truman doctrine set a new direction in American foreign policy, and the cold war began.

By Korea there was not a big difference between the two parties, the Taft isolationist wing losing to the "moderate" Eisenhower. By Vietnam, the big difference was that Goldwater's position was that no war should be fought without the objective of total victory, and that "police actions" of indefinite containment, like that of Korea, were unacceptable. Johnson foolishly believed he could somehow "win" by defensive containment, without declaring war on North Vietnam and using all means at his disposal.

I have heard neocons argue that we would've been better off staying out of WWII.

I am not sure I have heard a neocon (a political identity arising in the 60s) argue that, but paleo-conservatives certainly have. Paleo-Conservatism are the descendants of the Taft isolationist and right wing populist wing of the Republican party. Neo-cons forefathers were disaffected liberals and further to the left internationalists. They rejected the left, became fiercely anti-communist, and believe isolationism would result in the suicide of the West.

 

[untermensche]

I am not sure I have heard a neocon (a political identity arising in the 60s) argue that, but paleo-conservatives certainly have. Paleo-Conservatism are the descendants of the Taft isolationist and right wing populist wing of the Republican party. Neo-cons forefathers were disaffected liberals and further to the left internationalists. They rejected the left, became fiercely anti-communist, and believe isolationism would result in the suicide of the West.

No disaffected liberals would support unprovoked invasions of millions based on imaginary and exaggerated threats.

They have moved quite a bit from their roots if this is true.

 

[maxparrish]

To put the thread back on track...an interesting bit of news in Colorado:

ARE THE DEMOCRATS GIVING UP ON COLORADO?
Colorado’s Senate race is trending Republican, as the most recent poll, by Fox News, shows Cory Gardner leading Mark Udall by six points. Udall has run a lackluster campaign dominated by a tired, over-the-top “war on women” theme, and this morning the Denver Post, not known as a bastion of Republicanism, endorsed Gardner.

Still, the race is competitive on paper. So why has Harry Reid’s Senate Majority PAC just cancelled $289,000 worth of broadcast ads?

Have they given up the State?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/are-the-democrats-giving-up-on-colorado.php

 

[maxparrish]

http://hotair.com/archives/2014/10/...dner-over-mark-udall-in-colorado-senate-race/

Denver Post endorses Republican Cory Gardner over Mark Udall in Colorado Senate race

Udall’s spent months and many millions in trying to frame Gardner as some sort of anti-woman crank. The endorsement of the state’s biggest paper shatters that frame; it’s a benediction of legitimacy, especially given public perceptions that newspapers lean left. If the Post is willing to choose the Republican challenger over a Democratic incumbent, that must be one mighty mainstream, credible Republican.

And it’s not just the endorsement itself that’s noteworthy, it’s the rationale. Is this Waterloo in the “war on women”?

Udall is a fine man with good intentions, and on some issues our views are closer to his than to Gardner’s. But he is not perceived as a leader in Washington and, with rare exceptions such as wind energy and intelligence gathering, he is not at the center of the issues that count — as his Democratic colleague, Sen. Michael Bennet, always seems to be.

Rather than run on his record, Udall’s campaign has devoted a shocking amount of energy and money trying to convince voters that Gardner seeks to outlaw birth control despite the congressman’s call for over-the-counter sales of contraceptives. Udall is trying to frighten voters rather than inspire them with a hopeful vision. His obnoxious one-issue campaign is an insult to those he seeks to convince…

If Gardner had been a cultural warrior throughout his career, we would hesitate to support him, because we strongly disagree with him on same-sex marriage and abortion rights. But in fact he has emphasized economic and energy issues (and was, for example, an early supporter among Republicans of renewable energy).

Interesting...

 

[maxparrish]

And while Democrats have built a fund raising lead with (for many months) Obama's 20K a plate VIP dinners...there is finally some more good news for the GOP...

Iowa Republican Jodi Ernst raised $6 million for her U.S. Senate campaign over the last three months, more than doubling her Democratic rival's, Rep. Bruce Braley (D-IA), $3 million take.

More than 85 percent of Ernst's donations were under $200 and she received at least one from all 99 Iowa counties. Ernst now has more than $3 million cash on hand to spend through November 4th.

Braley once led in this race by as much as 6 points, but as Iowans have learned more about both Ernst and Braley, they've come to like Ernst more and Braley less. According to the latest Townhall Poll Tracker, Ernst now leads Braley 44 percent to 43 percent. ...

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/conncarroll/2014/10/10/ernst-crushes-braley-in-n1903405

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

To put the thread back on track...an interesting bit of news in Colorado:

ARE THE DEMOCRATS GIVING UP ON COLORADO?
Colorado’s Senate race is trending Republican, as the most recent poll, by Fox News, shows Cory Gardner leading Mark Udall by six points. Udall has run a lackluster campaign dominated by a tired, over-the-top “war on women” theme, and this morning the Denver Post, not known as a bastion of Republicanism, endorsed Gardner.

Still, the race is competitive on paper. So why has Harry Reid’s Senate Majority PAC just cancelled $289,000 worth of broadcast ads?

Have they given up the State?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/are-the-democrats-giving-up-on-colorado.php

Fox News polling in this latest round has been quite out of range with all of the other recent polls by everyone else. Udall will win reelection in Colorado.

 

[maxparrish]

To put the thread back on track...an interesting bit of news in Colorado:

Have they given up the State?

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/10/are-the-democrats-giving-up-on-colorado.php

Fox News polling in this latest round has been quite out of range with all of the other recent polls by everyone else. Udall will win reelection in Colorado.

I refrain from certainty about any of the "leaning" or "toss-up" states, but it is kinda odd that Harry would cancel the ads. That said, Colorado has moved from leans Democratic to 'who knows'. Why? Mainly because while polls suggest a small lead for the GOP, Colorado is unique in its consistent under polling of Democratic votes, at least for the last two elections, and with all mail voting (and a strong ground game) less engaged voters (Democrats) don't need to come to the polls (and late shifts matter less because people cannot change their minds if they have already mailed it in).

So most likely Gardner will have to lead by 3 or more points to pull it off. Iowa, on the other hand, is more likely to go GOP. Arkansas and Louisiana will very likely go GOP.

 

[lpetrich]

That's childish Republican demagoguery. Republican politicians supported these wars at least as enthusiastically as Democratic ones. In fact, in 1964, LBJ ran as a peacenik, insinuating that Barry Goldwater was a reckless warmonger. But when he became President, he became just like Barry Goldwater in warmongering.

And that is the result of reading revisionist history and believing one of the most masterful pieces of campaign propaganda in US history - the little girl picking flowers with a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion behind her. I suppose that this campaign ad was supposed to imply that if we didn't stop communist expansion in Vietnam then we would end up in a nuclear war with the USSR - so electing Goldwater would mean nuclear war.

Watch  Daisy (advertisement) some time. It wasn't exactly saying "The Commies are coming! The Commies are coming! The Commies are coming!".

The Wikipedia article has a copy of the ad video, and also

In the 1964 election, Republican Barry Goldwater campaigned on a right-wing message of cutting social programs and pursuing aggressive military action. Goldwater's campaign suggested a willingness to use nuclear weapons in situations when others would find that unacceptable, something which Johnson sought to capitalize on. For example, Johnson used Goldwater's speeches to imply that he would willingly wage a nuclear war, quoting Goldwater: "by one impulse act you could press a button and wipe out 300 million people before sun down." In turn, Goldwater defended himself by accusing Johnson of making the accusation indirectly, and contending that the media blew the issue out of proportion. While Johnson wished to de-escalate the Vietnam War, Goldwater was a supporter and even suggested the use of nuclear weapons if necessary. The attack ad was designed to capitalize on these comments.

So LBJ was indeed calling BG a warmonger.

 

[skepticalbip]

And that is the result of reading revisionist history and believing one of the most masterful pieces of campaign propaganda in US history - the little girl picking flowers with a mushroom cloud from a nuclear explosion behind her. I suppose that this campaign ad was supposed to imply that if we didn't stop communist expansion in Vietnam then we would end up in a nuclear war with the USSR - so electing Goldwater would mean nuclear war.

Watch  Daisy (advertisement) some time. It wasn't exactly saying "The Commies are coming! The Commies are coming! The Commies are coming!".

I didn't say that it said it. I said it implied it. That is the power in the technique of propaganda. To give the listener an understanding that wasn't stated. Today it is called plausible deniability (do it but have a way of making it impossible to prove). The unstated message the viewer was to get was "elect Goldwater and we will have a nuclear war with the USSR." - maybe you need to have a better understanding of the nuclear Holocaust paranoia prevalent at the time to understand the message that the public got from that ad.

The Wikipedia article has a copy of the ad video, and also

In the 1964 election, Republican Barry Goldwater campaigned on a right-wing message of cutting social programs and pursuing aggressive military action. Goldwater's campaign suggested a willingness to use nuclear weapons in situations when others would find that unacceptable, something which Johnson sought to capitalize on. For example, Johnson used Goldwater's speeches to imply that he would willingly wage a nuclear war, quoting Goldwater: "by one impulse act you could press a button and wipe out 300 million people before sun down." In turn, Goldwater defended himself by accusing Johnson of making the accusation indirectly, and contending that the media blew the issue out of proportion. While Johnson wished to de-escalate the Vietnam War, Goldwater was a supporter and even suggested the use of nuclear weapons if necessary. The attack ad was designed to capitalize on these comments.

So LBJ was indeed calling BG a warmonger.

If you would bother to go back and read some of the actual history of the time, you would find that LBJ was escalating our involvement before the election (example the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution) but would not ask for a declaration of war. He wasn't running as a "peacenik". Goldwater resisted sending troops. His stand was that if we are going to sacrifice American lives in a war then it should be a declared war and the intent should be to win in as short a time as possible to spare as many American lives as possible. That if there is no commitment then US should not be involved militarily.