"Frankly, dear Democrats, we just might not give a damn"

[Iwillnevergiveup]

http://blog.buzzflash.com/carpenter/482

==snip==



I read this --"Experts see double-digit Dem losses" -- yesterday evening, and this morning I'm still scratching my head, asking, Would its realization make any difference of real consequence? Just as disconcerting is the compulsion to even ask the question; that, in itself, is a realization of worst fears.

On to the specifics, which begin with that "small"-- but expanding -- "universe of political analysts," writes the Politico, "who closely follow House races" and already envision something of a bloodbath in that chamber in 2010.

Casualties, forecast as "moderate to heavy," might even approach the unthinkable of just a few short months ago: a near-majority triumph for the GOP, an idealess lump of disarrayed stragglers which only the Democratic Party, in all its own competitive disarray, could possibly re-elevate.

Charlie Cook, keeper of the respected Cook Political Report, was one of the first handicappers to get the speculation rolling and tongues wagging, having written, in an urgent "update" less than two weeks ago, a rather jarring opening: "the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and congressional Democrats."

Charlie is not given to idle hyperbole, so heads went up when his assessment of an "eerie sense of déjà vu" came down: The odds of those moderate to heavy losses, he wrote -- more than 20 seats, that is, and neurotically reminiscent of Bill Clinton's first midterm elections -- are now equal to the odds of light ones.

[Iwillnevergiveup]

1. The sad reality is

the DINO's are just as obstructionist as the NO, NO, NO Rethugs.

:argh:

[grantcart]

2. Predicting Congressional losses a year before the election is as silly as it gets

Democratic successes will ride on one thing - economic performance.


Health reform will still and unlikely to have a real impact yet.


It will come down to jobs jobs jobs.


If the stimulus package continues to have an effect then in a year the job situation should be improving a year from now.


In any case off year elections always show some reduction by the party in the Whitehouse.


Unlikely that the Senate will change much.

[bertman]

4. It's more likely to come down to who controls the tabulation of the votes. Since our Democratic

Congresscritters and President ignore their responsibility to fix our crooked elections system, we will pay the price.

Mid-terms always generate low turnout and low voter interest making it much easier for the fascists to alter the totals than when there's a hugely popular candidate running.

[grantcart]

5. and you explain the fact that we control the Whitehouse, Senate and Congress

how?

[RaleighNCDUer]

11. By the fact that our unusually high turnout in the past two elections

overwhelmed their attempts to steal it.

They know that any electoral fraud must keep the final results within 3-4 points over the 'loser' which is just enough to be a satisfactory victory but not enough to get the doubters crying foul.

There was MORE substantiated fraud in 2006 than in 2004, but the other side underestimated our turnout so they lost anyway.

And can you really believe, after seeing the public reaction to McCain and Palin immediately after the election, that they really got the votes they were counted as getting? Again, they underestimated our turnout.

That is why there is so much effort going into creating dissatisfaction, at this early date, with Obama and his administration. They need to suppress our turnout through 'divide and conquer' in order to effectively steal 2010, pull an upset like in '94.

[grantcart]

12. The argument by those alleging widespread (meaning in hundreds of different)

voting locations for 2000 and 2004 were based

1) on the premise that there was 3-4 point gap between what the pollsters were projecting and the final results. In the 2008 elections the analysis of polls improved so that by using the same base polling data analysts were able to predict - almost exactly the final vote. Nate Silver basically called the election down to the tenth percentile 3 days before the election.

2) Your supposition that the margin of victory was too substantial and overcame a rigged counting mechanism also is not borne by fact. As it is an electoral college tabulation there are in fact 51 election contests. Some of these were thought to be absolutely deadlocked (or even slightly behind for the Democrats) and yet Obama won many of those states;

Indiana for example was won by Obama by 30,000 votes (out of 2.7 million) roughly the same amount that voted for Barr.

North Carolina was won by Obama by only 14,000 votes (out of 2.3 million) where Barr polled 25,000

The facts do not support a general allegation of widespread voter fraud during the 2008 election.

[bertman]

26. Grantcart, the only places that we know the votes were substantially honest are the states

that have vote receipts that are issued when the voter casts the ballot. Wherever there are electronically computed votes with no paper trail we have relied upon the system to ensure that the tallies are accurate. So, how could you say they are inaccurate except based on exit polls--which conveniently were inaccurate for Kerry-Bush in '04.

I find it hard to imagine that anyone, especially a Democrat, would find it acceptable that companies that are owned and controlled by hard-core right-wingers are the companies who manufacture the machines that count our votes--without any paper trail. These same companies are the ones who monitor and calibrate the machines. There have been numerous documented incidents where the voting machines were inexplicably re-calibrated by a company representative just hours or days before a critical election. I have no desire to base my democracy's future on FAITH in a right-winger and his/her ethics.

One reason the facts do not support that widespread voter fraud in '08 is because the Obama machine put pollwatchers at every polling place, making it much more difficult to produce a fake result. I don't want to have to rely upon pollwatchers, who may or may not be on the scene, to ensure the integrity of voting.

It's a very simple and accurate method to use hand-marked ballots and have bi-partisan counting.

[bertman]

24. Thank you, RaleighNCDUer. I agree.

[Demeter]

9. If Elections Ride on Economics, Democrats Are Doomed

The only hope is to offset economics with Universal Single Payer or equivalent, and getting out of both Iraq and Afghanistan, STAT.

[Grinchie]

19. Don't expect people to work just to support two wars

Finacial Bailouts of Wall street. Continued, unrestricted influx of GMO into our food supply, An economic policy that prays at the altar of the Federal Reserve, and a foreign policy that is just as stupid as Hillary was on the Campaign trail.

Bring on the jobs, but it's doubtful that people will fall for the same fraud all over again. This disgusting face of Corporate America is heading for a fall, and no amount of cheerleading or apology is going to "Reassure" and already cynical public Grantcart.

The Democrats are killing themselves by dining at the DLC tabl;e and feasting like pigs in front of the American Public.

Whats the difference between the two parties? Nothing!

[WestSeattle2]

25. Exactly. n/t

[DJ13]

3. Since there seems to be no significant difference between the party's

on issues of most importance to many Democrats, like health care reform, regulating our corrupt banking system and stock markets, war, etc., why should we care if the party loses votes next year?

If they offer the exact same product only in a different color theres no point.

[pokercat999]

6. Bingo, I have probably voted for the last time .......with

a ballot. The next time I vote may be with my feet.

[Grinchie]

20. Exactly. They have blown it so bad that they have lost the Progressives

Unlike others, I have distinct lines in the sand that this DLC Cabal has crossed, which has proven that they don't deserve a smidgeon of support. They have shown that they care nothing for the left, and care all for the power of big money interests.

It's pretty funny actually. Bill Clinton courted the Big Corporations and he was able to put on a good show, while he set the stage for selling out of American Labor, Industrial Jobs, and real economic production. At the end of his term, the Corporation were on a roll, and they took it to the next, more highly corrupted level, playing ball with the Bush Administration more blatantly than ever. They feasted like a pack of wild dogs on the remains of the middle class, and brought the average citizen to the boiling point due to their largesses.

Now, the DLC wing of the Democratic Party stealthed it's way back in and expects to return to the good old day's of Corporate cronyism and good times, but it's too late for that, and the DLC doesn't realize it yet.

The true damage of the DLC Clinton administration has bloomed, and it has produced a Flower that stinks of rotting flesh. This will destroy the DLC, and all the Blue Fucking Dog's that are trailing after them for a few scraps.

[Joanne98]

7. Charlie Cook is a troll. We only lose if we stay home.

[salguine]

18. If you define "winning" as merely keeping Democrats in office, regardless of whether they

do anything of value or worth, then why not stay home?

[Enthusiast]

31. Good point, salquine. nt

[TankLV]

23. And since obama & our spineless dems has abandoned ME, I will ALSO stay home...

Why should I support a group that INSISTS on MARGINALIZING me, and RIDICULING me, as "fringe left wing"...

well - they can suck on my ABSENCE in the next election if things don't change DRAMATICALLY...

Let's see - GIVE MORE MONEY to THE VERY ONES WHO CAUSED THIS MESS, and AVOIDING to DEMAND that ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE BE FIRED...

INCREASING the ILLEGAL bush* WARS OF CHOICE BASED ON LIES...

KEEPING bush* UNCONSTITUTIONAL revocations of Habius Corpus, Spying, and not least - TORTURE in place...

and - the kicker - REFUSING TO INVESTIGATE, let alone ARREST the previous WAR CRIMINALS for their WAR CRIMES that have been PROVED COUNTLESS TIMES already - BY THEMSELVES!!!

yeah - he painted a few rooms and planted a victory garden - laaa dee fucking daa...

[jannyk]

29. And if there is no Strong Public Health Care Option passed by then...

...that's exactly what I will do Joanne.

I'm 57 and have been a left leaning Liberal/Socialist all my life (it came from my Dad). For the past 8 years I have fought tooth and nail, contributed money I couldn't afford, called, written & faxed every Congress/Senate Critter, marched and protested. All I had then was HOPE! Hope that as soon as the Dems regained power things would change for the better. I did not expect to have to keep on fighting so hard for social justice when my side was in control.

Daily, I receive half a dozen pleas for me to contribute, petition and join 'Obama Health Insurance Reform' rallies. But my bum is staying firmly in my chair, my money in my pocket until I hear the words 'I will veto a bill that does not guarantee a Strong Public Option'. Until Obama pisses or gets off the pot, why the hell should I?

I am really so disgusted with the majority of the Dems, that I don't think I want to be identified as a Democrat anymore - I told DiFi's office the same last week when I called.

[Doctor_J]

8. Here is the problem

1. the teabaggers are not going to vote Dem anyway

2. They are driving away the Dem base in droves.

Who's going to vote Dem?

[Grinchie]

21. The only way I'd vote is for Kucinich. Obama can go retire with Hillary in China or Honduras...

[GreenPartyVoter]

10. Well I am not too scared of Repub controlled Congress if the one we have now

is going to act like they already are one. :shrug:

[emulatorloo]

13. Well I scared to death of a Republican congress, so why punish me?

I remember what it was like, it was not that long ago.

Republicans will destroy the USA.

==

I think it is worth noting this healthcare thing isn't over yet. Bernie Sanders and others seem confident the Dems are going to go it alone and get the public option.

[GreenPartyVoter]

14. I hope Bernie is right, I really do.

[emulatorloo]

15. me too -- and I keep calling and writing my reps n/t

[GreenPartyVoter]

16. Good plan! I went after all of the Senators, plus my state Reps.

[Grinchie]

22. Open your eyes.. The USA has been destroyed by Corporate control.

We aren't punishing you. We are just not going to support the illusion of Democracy.

[salguine]

28. It's not Republicans who will destroy the USA—it's corporations. And the two parties handle

them a bit differently—the Republicans actively aid and abet them, while the Democrats merely refuse to get in their way.

As far as real reform goes, I'll believe it when I see it. I'd like to think it's coming, but I'm too old and have seen too much to put much faith in it.

[jannyk]

30. Exactly! Apart from having an eloquent speaker in the WH,

I'm really not seeing too many radical changes.

[Prophet 451]

17. Entirely possible

And it will be mostly the Dem's fault for acting like spineless jellyfish.

[katkat]

27. why vote for Obama

He's done a few good things for the environment in the U.S. See Utah, etc.

That's it, as far as I can tell. So if he's running against a typical Repug, I'll vote for him in 2012, but I won't lift a finger or give a dime to help. My money will go to Democrats with spines in the Congressional races.

Has anyone ever done such an about face after getting into office as Obama? The only comparison I can think of is Chester Arthur, who went from being shady to trying to be the best President he could be. So I still have some confidence, tempered by cynicism, that people like (we now pause for this ad) Admiral Joe Sestak, who's running to take out Specter, will actually hold to the principles they claim.

Overall, however, as far as the Presidency is concerned, I think Obama has damaged this country substantially by destroying the credibility of any politician in the foreseeable future who promises what he promised and then has spectacularly failed to even try to implement.