Login

Register

Member List

RSS Feed

Amanda | Contact

Auguste | Contact

Jesse | Contact

Pam | Contact

Next entry: Round-up post Previous entry: This Is The Election To End All Elections Until The Next Election (Liveblog!)

You can curb stomp us, but we will be out of the hospital and on Olbermann before you know it

Tim Wise’s angry, hopeful, realistic retort to what he calls the “white right” throwing a temper tantrum is something everyone who is despondent should read.  In it, he discusses the fear that is driving so much of the angry white freakout that resulted in the Tea Party—-what they like to call a “demographic winter”, but I like to call “the changing face of America”.  It’s the fact that white people are losing their majority, and white conservatives losing it even faster, baby by baby, death by death, liberal conversion by liberal conversion.  It’s a quiet, slow revolution, but it is real.  It is why Harris County became a battleground for voter suppression, because it was a formerly white majority area that his now what they call minority-majority, i.e. there is not dominant group.  But the changing face of America is also why the districts that intersect that area went blue, despite the widespread attempts to stop minority voters from voting.

But the changing face of America is more than about racial diversity, though that is part of it.  Wise also touches, in a particularly inspiring passage, on another aspect:

In forty years or so, maybe fewer, there won’t be any more white people around who actually remember that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, Opie-Taylor-Down-at-the-Fishing Hole cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them, and so therefore, we’ll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly, without hurting your precious feelings, or those of the so-called “greatest generation” — a bunch of miscreants who saved the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here, by doing nothing to lift a finger on behalf of the civil rights struggle.

I will say that “Leave It To Beaver” never really existed.  Insofar as the Fox News crowd “remembers” it, they remember it mostly as a fantasy they bought in to, a fantasy they reinforce to each other as their excuse for their stupid electoral choices.  And he’s right that this is just as much what is slipping away as the generation that dominated that world ages and dies off.  The children of those who believe this fantasy couldn’t inherit it in the same way that the older generations did.  Oh sure, some do.  I know many people my age who retreat into the nuclear family rural American white bread mentality.  But we are the generation who grew up eating the shit that this fantasy created.  We were the ones whose families were torn up by divorce.  We were the ones who discovered sexual liberation and aren’t really ever going back.  We grew up after abortion and the pill were legal.  Our reference point for the TV show that spooned out a ridiculous fantasy of idealistic white bread family life was “The Brady Bunch”, a show about a blended family.  And even then, most of us are way more ironic about it than previous generations were on average about their strange familial fantasies.  Even the white people of my generation are a harder sell than the ones of earlier generations.  We grew up in the age of irony.  We were taught in school that racism is bad.  Rock and roll has always been a part of our lives, even when we were babies. We don’t have a memory of time when segregation was considered acceptable public policy.  We’re the ones moving out of suburbs and back into the cities. And subsequently, we vote for the Democrats in much larger numbers.  And then the generation of white people behind mine is even more unmoored from this reactionary fantasy.  They grew up with communal values being emphasized over nuclear family individualism.  They grew up in a time when there were always gay characters on TV.  They grew up with a different cultural context.


Younger Americans are more diverse and more open-minded.  Americans are less religious than they used to be.  The majority of troops—-a group that tends to be more conservative on average than their peer group outside of the military—-say they have no problem working with gay soldiers. Americans marry later, have fewer children, and go to college more than they did in the past.  These realities show up in the numbers. Exit polls from last night’s election show that only the over-40 set voted majority Republican. The millenials overwhelmingly voted Democratic, even in an election when the more liberal ones were depressed and far more likely to stay home. People’s political affiliations don’t tend to change with age.

With that in mind, I’ll leave you with Tim Wise’s angry but hopeful words:

You thought you had secured your position permanently after the overthrow of reconstruction in the wake of the civil war, after the elimination of the New Deal, after the Reagan revolution, after the Republican electoral victory of 1994. And yet, they who refuse to die are still here…...

You, who could not survive the thought of minimal health care reform, or financial regulation, or a marginal tax rate equal to that which you paid just 10 years earlier, perhaps are under the illusion that everyone is as weak as you, as soft as you, as akin to petulant children as you are, as unable to cope with the smallest setback, the slightest challenge to the way you think your country should look and feel, and operate.

But, surprise…they are not.

And they know how to regroup, and plot, and plan, and they are planning even now – we are – your destruction.

And I do not mean by that your physical destruction. We don’t play those games. We’re not into the whole “Second Amendment remedies, militia, armed resistance” bullshit that your side fetishizes, cuz, see, we don’t have to be.

We just have to be patient.

 

------

Registration is now required! We're still in the process of getting it all squared away, so for the moment don't forget to Login or Register using the links in the upper left menu before starting to write your comment.

Posted by Amanda Marcotte on 10:44 AM • (194) Comments

Of course, “The Leave It To Beaver” era also had a 90% tax rate for the wealthy.  Funny how the 50’s fetishists never mention that little detail.

Comment #1: Blue Jean  on  11/03  at  11:25 AM

Something that concerns me… the white right assholes are setting up a power structure that benefits themselves as being at the top of the totem pole. But when they are knocked off, won’t that power structure still be in place? Won’t their replacements face the same temptation to benefit themselves and screw the rest of us?

Comment #2: David B.  on  11/03  at  11:30 AM

You’re assuming this is about who’s on top.  For a lot of voters, it’s actually more about kicking down than anything else—-they won’t be on top, but they’re sure as hell going to make sure that someone else doesn’t get a leg up at all.  It seems like a subtle distinction, but it’s all the difference.  There have been times in our history where the populace kicks up instead of down, and it’s usually because we feel unity in the population.  White people had no problem with a 90% marginal tax rate when segregation was in place.  It was only when they felt black people making middle class gains that they flipped out, for instance.  Should future generations not have racism as such a powerful factor, then you will see a completely different mentality.

Comment #3: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/03  at  11:35 AM

By the way, speaking of whitebread America:  when the 112th Congress is inaugurated, there will be no black senators.  None.

Comment #4: Loch Ness Monster  on  11/03  at  11:53 AM

...with the culture warriors voting against social security, against healthcare reform, against corporations facing penalties for polluting or discriminating, I get the feeling we’re going to have to be less patient than we would otherwise.  I still don’t understand the mentality that can drive a predominantly aging and comparatively vulnerable demographic to vote against the social safety net that might be all that stands between them and a slow death from heart disease or malnutrition in less than a decade.

Comment #5: preying mantis  on  11/03  at  11:53 AM

There won’t be any more white folks around who think the 1950s were the good old days, because there won’t be any more white folks around who actually remember them, and so therefore, we’ll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly

Bluntly, Tim Wise is completely full of shit.

First, a lot of people who are progressives are progressives precisely because they remember the 1950s and what it was like then.

Second: hello, nostalgia? People who weren’t born in a particular era or aren’t old enough to remember it do a damn fine job of cherry-picking what they like about the pretend Good Old Days, and have to be clocked upside the head by elders who were there and who can personally testify that, hello, it really WAS that bad.

Nobody today was alive in the Gilded Age, but that doesn’t stop libertarians from bullshitting about how the 1890s were a pristine era of freedom.

Old people who lionize the 1950s aren’t doing so because they have a unique memory of what it was like then. They’re simply repeating the “kids these days/back when I was your age/the world is going to hell in a handbasket” nonsense that every generation hacks up like a hairball when they reach a certain stage of life.

Comment #6: mythago  on  11/03  at  11:57 AM

Statistically, you’re wrong, mythago.  Most people stay with one party their whole lives.  As the stats show, the people he’s talking about are Republicans, but the generations behind them are Democrats. They win because they vote more/outnumber younger people. 

But that is less and less true every year.

The rest is rhetorical flourish, though I argue he’s right.  Older generations do, on average, have a different relationship to nostalgia, fantasy, and certainly whiteness.  That you can think of exceptions doesn’t change this.

Comment #7: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/03  at  12:01 PM

Also, as I noted in the piece, the nostalgia is for a fantasy.  Younger generations have different fantasies.

Comment #8: Amanda Marcotte  on  11/03  at  12:05 PM

I hope this result makes Obama and Dems wake up. After two years of being told about Obama’s 11th dimensional chess would save the day, I hope they realize something is not working well.

Comment #9: Renmiri  on  11/03  at  12:12 PM

Darn it, my comment disappeared, so I’ll try to remember the crux of what I said.

Anyway, these numbers are still depressing.  40 year old voted Republican 54% to 44%.  A forty year old born in 1970 is not in the “Leave it to Beaver” crowd, was born after the Civil Rights Amendment and came of age in a progressive time period.  These people aren’t anywhere close to dying off.  They’re only six years older than I am.  Now I’m really depressed.

Comment #10: Blitzgal  on  11/03  at  12:18 PM

“I still don’t understand the mentality that can drive a predominantly aging and comparatively vulnerable demographic to vote against the social safety net that might be all that stands between them and a slow death from heart disease or malnutrition in less than a decade.”

For one, there’s the ever present human trait of denial:  “That won’t happen to me because I’m smarter/unique/the-rules-don’t-apply-to-me.”

Second, most of them (or their philosophical overlords) are pushing ideas that keep the current stuff in place for themselves, but progressively reduce benefits for those coming after.  That way they get their cake, but deny it to everyone else.  That’s why I hear them floating bullshit like “Social Security benefits will stay the same for those currently 55 and older”, meaning that because I’m 50 right now, the screwing will start with me and people my age and get worse for those after.  See, win-win!

The key to success with these kinds of things is to appeal to the greed of those who will benefit while obscuring the pitfalls from those who have been designated to fall into them…

Comment #11: MikeEss  on  11/03  at  12:18 PM

I hope this result makes Obama and Dems wake up.

Forgive me, but you get points for unintentional humor.

Comment #12: Steve LaBonne  on  11/03  at  12:19 PM

My comment disappeared too, guess I took too long writing it.

I’ll just say one word:  redistricting.  What with Repubs taking a bunch of state legislatures (NC for the first time since 19th century??!!), expect to see districts redrawn to have Dem incumbents fighting each other in 2012.

Comment #13: Cicero  on  11/03  at  12:24 PM

Ugh, this CNN chart is filled with fail.  Income breakdowns: it starts to skew Republican at $50K annual income and above.  And when you look at the chart of race/income, you see that whites making LESS THAN $50K annually voted Republican!!  What?!

Comment #14: Blitzgal  on  11/03  at  12:27 PM

We keep hoping that the dems wake up. Each defeat that is handed to them they want to interpret as some reason to tack to the RIGHT, instead of tacking to the left.

Obama and the Dems believe they owe their ‘08 landslide to “independents” as most people construct the term: as a right-leaning swing voter, instead of what actually happened, which was a young, energized progressive base turning out in droves, a progressive base (too progressive to really call themselves Democrats because of a longstanding ennui associated with an ineffective, centrist leadership) that they turned right around on and began to smack-talk, then acted outraged that we weren’t as energized as we usually are. This time last year, the people who got Obama elected were more than ready for him to take off the kid gloves on health care reform, but he continued to appeal to some other construction of the term “independent.” The truth of the matter is that the independents that Obama administration THOUGHT elected them just stayed home on the night of ‘08 for the same reason that the people who DID elect him on that night stayed home last night.

When the Obama took office, he immediately began to discuss how he was going to work with the people that we rejected. When Boehner won, he immediate blustered how getting the most volatile, ineffective branch of the government handed to him is somehow a validation of an entire agenda that most people actually rejected: the personhood amendment in CO went down in FLAMES. Angle lost by more than a wing and a prayer—Reid handed her a pretty sound defeat that I have to chalk up to an energized and angered Latino vote that was being ignored by the pollsters (imagine that). O’Donnell lost so badly she might want to consider leaving the state. By every indication, Miller is going to get spanked by Murkowski. And the Dems aren’t going to do anything to shout back and discredit Boehner’s interpretation of the results, they’re going to bow their head and say “golly gosh, that angry orange man must be RIGHT, we’d better take another step further to the right if we want to stay in power.”

We have heard this refrain OVER and OVER again. Expecting the Dems to interpret the results of last night’s election accurately is the very definition of insanity.

Comment #15: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/03  at  12:28 PM

It is fantasy, because deep in their tiny, cold hearts they do actually remember what the 50’s were really like, they just choose to ignore the things that don’t fit into their world view. The fantasy of June Cleaver in her pearls and high heels is so much more fun. The reality (if you read Barbara Billingsley’s obituary last week) was that she was a divorcee with two boys of her own and that job allowed her to work during the day and be at home with them after school. That made her something of a pioneer for working mothers, which totally doesn’t fit the tea bagger fantasy.

And Democrats need not despair, it is about patience. What, other than demographic changes, saved Harry Reid? Sure, his opponent was a total lunatic but take a closer look at the demographics of the places where he beat her by sizable margins. Republicans in my home state (Michigan) are gloating today over big wins for governor and several house seats. I suspect they won’t be gloating in 2012 when whoever they run for president throws in the towel there earlier than John McCain did. Why? Because demonizing Muslims won’t play well in a state with over one million people of Middle Eastern descent.

Please remember that when they pass crazy stuff in the house (privatizing social security, making the Bush tax cuts permanent, sending women who get abortions to prison), it won’t pass the Senate. And the president can always veto crazy crap and they don’t have a big enough majority to override that.  “It gets better” is not only for gay teens, it is something we all need to remember.

Comment #16: serious bette  on  11/03  at  12:32 PM

And one more thing. NOW is the time to start organizing around progressive candidates for 2012. I hate to point to the tea baggers as any kind of role models, but they got the folks they wanted through the primaries and we can too. (Of course, not lunatics like their candidates) Time to get some more progressive Dem’s on the ballots and retire the folks who seem to stand around and wait for the next punch from the republicans instead of fighting back.

Comment #17: serious bette  on  11/03  at  12:38 PM

Of course, “The Leave It To Beaver” era also had a 90% tax rate for the wealthy.  Funny how the 50’s fetishists never mention that little detail.
Comment #1: Blue Jean on 11/03 at 10:25 AM

And union membership was around 33% of the workforce rather than the 12% or so that it is today.

But that doesn’t really matter because they aren’t actually 50s fetishists at all. They fetishize a time when Blacks and women knew their place, or at least when you could put them back in it if they forgot; when it was still socially acceptable to shit on Jews; and when the 1924 immigration act was still keeping undesirable immigrants (and their languages, foods, religions, etc) as far away as possible.

Comment #18: Babieca  on  11/03  at  12:41 PM

Socially things are skewing more liberal as times go on, but the same doesn’t seem to be true for class issues: I see many more libertarians who are younger, people who are younger like unions less, younger people also want taxes low, younger people don’t believe Social Security will last and so want to privatize it, ....
Blitzgal, the X generation seems to be a bit more conservative than the generations that came before or after it, so, hopefully, it’s an aberration.

Comment #19: JohnL  on  11/03  at  12:42 PM

Oh, I should note that one of the reasons older non-retired voters went Republican might be that they were especially hit hard by the recession—they weren’t more likely to lose their job, but they were much more likely to be without one for a long time.

Comment #20: JohnL  on  11/03  at  12:46 PM

The X generation is the most conservative, actually. I’m 39. My age cohort is *the* most Republican of any age, I think. This astonishes me, because Reagan was the great bête noire of my childhood. I spent most of my adolescence convinced that I was going to die in a nuclear war before I was 30.

If you look at states where we got blown out, it’s simple: progressives, especially young ones, stayed home. Simple as that. Republicans were fired up and turned out their base in droves.

Comment #21: Norsecats  on  11/03  at  12:48 PM

I’ve been reading “All Souls” with my students, which is a memoir of the Boston busing era by a resident of the white Irish housing projects.  They are just completely baffled by all the opposition to desegregation.  They grew up attending desegregated schools and just don’t get what the big deal is. (and yes, many schools are still segregated in the inner city in particular—but there aren’t a lot of all white schools anymore, especially in the suburbs). They are appalled when I tell them about Loving v. Virginia.  Many of them are in or are products of multi-racial unions. This will pass. And 50 years from now these kids will all be cranky old people, railing against some other form of progress over our current prejudices (that we are too blind to see at the moment).  I think that’s the way this works. That’s the way progress is made. Generationally.

Comment #22: kajey  on  11/03  at  12:49 PM

Reply to #1 BlueJean: The 50’s also had President Eisenhower farewell speech warning about the Military/Industral complex. Funny how they don’t remember THAT. Also: when conservetives start bleating about zomg the Second Amendment and Libs, I bring up Ray-Guns Mulford Act. It usually leaves them sputtering. Asshats.

Comment #23: pitbullgirl65  on  11/03  at  12:56 PM

Good news? The only truly crazy person who won last night was Rand Paul. Angle lost, O’Donnell lost, Miller lost, it looks like Buck will lose. The western states really pulled it out for us and kept it from being a total blowout. This also shows that racist ads against hispanics in western states does not work! In fact, it backfires.

I know we’ve all complained about the Senate a lot in the past two years, but I’m damn happy it’s there now.

I also never thought I’d be so happy to see Harry Reid.

Comment #24: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  01:18 PM

I think that a lot of nostalgic people are just really great at deluding themselves.  I once heard an old woman claim that sex was better in the 50s because you didn’t have to worry about STDs, especially herpes.  I pointed out that all STDs existed then except HIV, and she said it was ok that they existed but she just didn’t have to worry or care about them.  To her, worrying about herpes was actually worse than getting herpes.

So my guess is that plenty of people who are nostalgic for the Good Old Days don’t really care about racism, segregation, etc, because even though it existed, they didn’t have to pretend to care about it.  And this is especially true for those who were children at the time and didn’t have to worry about anything.  They don’t care if bad or good things are actually happening; they just want to go back to a time when it’s socially acceptable to just not give a fuck.

Comment #25: bananacat  on  11/03  at  01:18 PM

Uh, “running racist ads against hispanics does not work”.

Comment #26: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  01:19 PM

Ben D : unfortunately, Toomey is a truly crazy person, he just wasn’t in the Tea Party. But he’s going to make Santorum look like a reasonable individual.

Comment #27: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/03  at  01:24 PM

Exit polls from last night’s election show that only the over-40 set voted majority Republican.

That’s in large part because it’s a mid-term election, which usually equates to an old persons’ election. Boehner’s priority on behalf of the so-called deficit hawks who voted for Teabaggers is to stop Obama’s rollback on that eeevil gubmint Medicare funding. Most Boomers don’t give a damn about the long-term consequences of the deficit (or climate change) because they don’t expect that they’ll be around to deal with them.

Unfortunately, that attitude is also increasingly true of Gen Xers as we age, but we don’t share the Boomer taste for “confrontation for confrontation’s sake” that’s infected politics over the past half-century. For better and for worse, we’re also not nearly as obsessed with identity politics as the Boomers were. And of course we understand the story of the idyllic 1950s for what it really is—a bogus myth about a Golden Age that never was.

In any case, in Presidential years a much younger and more diverse group of voters show up, and most of them don’t want to be associated with the kind of insecure loser mentality that leads to open or even covert racism or misogyny or homophobia—for all the reasons you mention it’s just not cool. Even the MSM—heck, even Fox’s non-news programming—dumped the Father Knows Best whitebread image of America long ago.

Certainly there’s the possibility during hard economic times that a charismatic populist demagogue can come along and make bigotry cool, but the last thing that the GOP establishment wants is that kind of leadership—they’re very happy with the low-profile corporatist leadership already in place.

Comment #28: Gracchus.  on  11/03  at  01:25 PM

By the way, speaking of whitebread America:  when the 112th Congress is inaugurated, there will be no black senators.  None.

True.  But there will be more black representatives.  Two new ones will be Republican - Allen West of Florida and Tim Frazier of South Carolina, the latter being the first black Congressman elected from SC since Reconstruction.

Illinois could easily have had a black Senator elected, but the appointment of Roland Burris to Obama’s old seat was so corrupt that he couldn’t run for re-election.  And the President’s favored candidate for that seat was a white female, Lisa Madigan.  She’s the well-thought-of Attorney General of the state whose father essentially runs the State legislature as the Speaker of the House, but there were 4 or 5 other candidates in the primary and she passed.  Mark Kirk (R) won the seat with a margin of about 80,000 out of 3,000,000+ votes cast.

Comment #29: RonF  on  11/03  at  01:26 PM

Ben D : unfortunately, Toomey is a truly crazy person, he just wasn’t in the Tea Party. But he’s going to make Santorum look like a reasonable individual.

Yeah that race does have me upset because in any other year Sestak would have won.

What’s really weird is, given the Senate electoral map, Obama could get re-elected in 2012 and the Dems could re-take the House but lose the Senate!

Comment #30: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  01:26 PM

Oh - sorry - and Mark Kirk will be seated in the lame-duck session because he was elected not just to a regular term but to also complete the term of the seat that Pres. Obama left when he moved to the White House.  You actually had to mark your ballot twice.  The Republicans immediately gain a seat in the Senate.

Comment #31: RonF  on  11/03  at  01:27 PM

The only truly crazy person who won last night was Rand Paul

And Michelle Bachmann. DAMMIT.

Comment #32: Planet of the Blue Monkeys  on  11/03  at  01:36 PM

“Anyway, these numbers are still depressing.  40 year old voted Republican 54% to 44%.  A forty year old born in 1970 is not in the “Leave it to Beaver” crowd, was born after the Civil Rights Amendment and came of age in a progressive time period.  These people aren’t anywhere close to dying off.  They’re only six years older than I am.  Now I’m really depressed.”

The sexual and social revolutions of the 60s took until well into the 70s to get to the South—I was born in 1971 and people my age and a little older are pretty much still mentally products of the 50s-early 60s.

Their kids, however, are a different deal. Not saying they’re guaranteed to be progressives, but they are as a rule less hyper about race/not very religious/used to seeing women do what they want/not really concerned about gays.

Sadly, they are still too apolitical to make much difference. I was too, at their age. Politics seemed impenetrable and largely about things I didn’t understand/felt I couldn’t control.

The best possible outcome of this election would be these kids seeing some craziness from Tea Party/Republican types that disturbs them enough to shake them out of their apathy. Don’t know if that will happen.

Daily Kos is spinning the loss as “hey we got rid of some Blue Dogs” which did make me feel a little better. Blue Dog backstabbing is a major problem for any progressive Dem.

Comment #33: emjaybee  on  11/03  at  01:37 PM

And Michelle Bachmann. DAMMIT.

Yeah but this isn’t anything new. The House has always had crazy people and always will. That’s just how the House is.

Remember James Trafficant?

Comment #34: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  01:39 PM

Oh yeah:

Tancredo lost badly, too. That’s another silver lining.

Comment #35: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  01:40 PM

I’m sorry Mighty Ponygirl at 15 but I think that you are wrong. I don’t think that if the Democrats acted more progressively/liberally than the youth vote would have been more motivated to come out and vote than they would in other mid-terms. What would have helped the Democratic party was a better economy. We think that more liberal policies would have made a better economy, others don’t.

  Many of the races in this mid-term were very close even with all the crappy economy. Most of the flipping was because of structural reasons.

Comment #36: Lee  on  11/03  at  01:43 PM

Another lesson, one which people still haven’t learned even after Perot, Forbes, and Romney is that just because you’re a a multi-millionaire doesn’t mean money will get you elected. It can help more if you’re already a good candidate but it can’t make a bad candidate into a good one.

Comment #37: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  01:45 PM

catgirl, I think the idea in terms of STDs was that before herpes and AIDs they could be cured fairly easily most of the time (with antibiotics). When herpes first really came out, there was a big todo because it couldn’t be cured. The same is true of AIDs (and of course, AIDs is much more likely to kill you).
So before herpes and AIDs, if you got an STD you went to the doctor, were given a shot and that was usually it. Now, AIDs and herpes can be controlled but not cured and the older STDs are becoming resistant.

Comment #38: JohnL  on  11/03  at  01:53 PM

Huh, this is interesting, too:  CNN exit polls report that when asked who is to blame for the economy, the number one answer was Wall Street, then President Bush, then Obama.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/11/02/exit-polls-who-to-blame-for-economy/

Comment #39: Blitzgal  on  11/03  at  01:56 PM

When herpes first really came out, there was a big todo because it couldn’t be cured.

Are you telling me that herpes wasn’t around in the 50s?

Comment #40: bananacat  on  11/03  at  02:02 PM

What about syphilis?

Comment #41: slingshot  on  11/03  at  02:05 PM

I took an exit poll, and I kind of wish CNN had a full breakdown of all the questions rather than in little bites.

Comment #42: Bethynyc  on  11/03  at  02:07 PM

What about syphilis?

Couldn’t be cured until antibiotics, which were around in the 1950s.

So there was a grand total of thirty years where there was no deadly STD with birth control pills.

Comment #43: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  02:08 PM

Blitzgal: And that the ones who blamed Wall Street voted for the GOP by 11 percentage points. Dumb, dumb, dumb country.

Comment #44: norbizness  on  11/03  at  02:11 PM

White people had no problem with a 90% marginal tax rate when segregation was in place.

This is an extremely loose association.  As it falls within my margin of knowledge the argument really is that the wealthy white corporations were damn interested in getting that 90% tax rate lowered but in most cases they reinvested heavily in their own technology since a 90% tax rate is great for manufacturing, it forces it to reinvest heavily which kept them competitive and in most cases without the incentive they would have invested only slightly less anyways.  As the economy shifted to services and finance the 90% tax rate became burdensome since the only way to actually avoid that rate would be to give large wage increases unthinkable for the fact they’re greedy and logically for the fear of economic downturns.  Mostly greed though drove them to try and get it lowered.

Segregated regions that had de jure segregation had little serious power bases in national economics.  So arguably the idea that 90% tax rates go with segregation is questionable.  They more or less go together in the modern era of white conservatism because of the southern strategy that pulled dixiecrats who were strangely a mix between socialists like the Kingfish and pro-business libertarians.  With the aging white population so desperate to keep their majority the reality of racism becomes more evident.

As for this election:  It hurts but with republicans only holding the house it is going to put a crimp into a conservative takeover atleast through 2016 because if the economy recovers (which it will with time and most likely a 6% unemployment by 2012) the fact that that they only control the house and democrats had the power in the senate and presidency it should make for some banner effects for progressives.  A better economy would have kept the house in our favor, in 2012 if we lose the senate it will be by at most one seat and by 2016 if Obama wins a second term his follow-up candidate will most likely oust characters like Toomey. 

Swing voters decided a great deal in this election and a bad economy drove swing voters to the opposition because swing voters are absolutely the dumbest human beings with the power to affect change.  With a recovered economy in 2012 Obama will cruise to a victory.  If not, then welcome to more repressive stupidity from swing voters who don’t understand politics let alone understand economics.

Comment #45: Xeranar  on  11/03  at  02:12 PM

Xeranar—

You think we will have 6% unemployment in 2012? That only happens if (and I admit this may be a possibility) the corporations were hoarding their money and holding out on hiring so Republicans could take the House.

Comment #46: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  02:15 PM

“swing voters are absolutely the dumbest human beings”

...truer words.

Comment #47: alysia  on  11/03  at  02:16 PM

catgirl, to be fair, herpes was hardly known about or talked about in the 50s compared to syphilis and gonorrhea, which had only relatively recently been conquered with “modern” antibiotics, so if one were able to evade or otherwise not trigger the moral police of the time, it probably was a less fearful time to screw around until Griswold v. Connecticut allowed unmarried women to purchase contraceptives, including the Pill.

Comment #48: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/03  at  02:23 PM

If we’re tallying up the crazies who won last night, no list of crazies would be complete without Rep. Steve King of Iowa. Being from Iowa (different district), I hate to claim him, but he did win, and he is nuts.

Comment #49: mr_subjunctive  on  11/03  at  02:27 PM

I hope this result makes Obama and Dems wake up.

Oh, I’m sure they’re already learning the lesson that they have to be more bipartisan and craft policy so as not to upset Republicans…

Comment #50: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/03  at  02:29 PM

I hope this result makes Obama and Dems wake up. After two years of being told about Obama’s 11th dimensional chess would save the day, I hope they realize something is not working well. -  Renmiri

Unfortunately this won’t happen: Obama and the Dems will “wake up” and decide that the election results mean that “the electorate is too conservative for even the half-measures of progressive change we’ve been pushing” and they will further triangulate, do even less and look even worse come the next election.  That is, unless the GOP screws up so royally that inaction can be blamed on the GOP.

Comment #51: DAS  on  11/03  at  02:29 PM

Again, a lot of nutty Reps. isn’t anything new and isn’t particularly scary.

A lot of nutty Senators would be.

Comment #52: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  02:30 PM

Oops—I see the ever wise Phoenician in a time of Romans has beat me to the punch with a far more succinct comment along the same lines.

Comment #53: DAS  on  11/03  at  02:30 PM

Yeah, I was a bit off. Herpes was around, but for whatever reason it was never seen as a big deal until the late 1970s when there was a big scare. Also, I’ve always heard that it was the 60’s and 70’s that were the best time for sex—after all the Pill didn’t come out until the 60’s and sex was defintely frowned on in polite society in the 50’s (in the usual hypocritical, patriarchical way).

Comment #54: JohnL  on  11/03  at  02:31 PM

Norbizness: Yeah, I don’t get that disconnect.  I also can’t believe that ANYONE still buys this “fiscal responsibility” bullshit from Republicans, who haven’t shown that trait in forty years.

Comment #55: Blitzgal  on  11/03  at  02:36 PM

@catgirl

All STD’s were a direct result of the 60’s sexual revolution and God punishing those dirty people having sex outside of marriage.

Comment #56: R. P. M.  on  11/03  at  02:36 PM

mr_subjunctive: I am from King’s district. It is pretty embarrassing. I am also just devistated about the judges. I thought even the Sioux City area was coming around on gay marriage. At least the dems kept the Iowa Senate?

Comment #57: alysia  on  11/03  at  02:38 PM

Yeah, I was a bit off. Herpes was around, but for whatever reason it was never seen as a big deal until the late 1970s when there was a big scare.

And this was exactly my point.  Herpes was around but people just didn’t worry about it or care about it.  And this person I talked to said that was a great thing.  She didn’t care about her actual risk of herpes as long as she felt like she could just ignore it.  I guess it’s the “ignorance is bliss” thing, which kinda falls apart when you wake up with sores on your most sensitive body parts.

Comment #58: bananacat  on  11/03  at  02:38 PM

All STD’s were a direct result of the 60’s sexual revolution and God punishing those dirty people having sex outside of marriage.

I know you were being sarcastic, but this reminds me of an interesting story.  I was at a museum a few years ago (I think part of the Smithsonian), and there was an exhibit about American life several centuries ago.  One of the artifacts was a syringe that was used to inject mercury into the urethra to treat syphilis before antibiotics were invented.

Comment #59: bananacat  on  11/03  at  02:43 PM

I think some of the commentators on this board demonstrate why Democrats do not run on their achievements. If they did, many of their alleged base will either challenge those achievments as half-measures or say will you achieved a, b, c, d, and e but did nothing about f, g, h, i, j, and k.

  The 111th Congress was one of the most productive in history in terms of the amount of legislation passed and what was accomplished. It was the first Congress to pass a HCR law that applies to EVERYBODY in America after a century of trying. This is a big deal. We might have wished for Medicare for All or even the public option but thats not how the Amrican polticial system works. Legislation is rarely perfect the first time around and requires latter twinking. Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid were similar held not to be enough when first passed. The fact that a Congress managed to actually pass something that applies to everybody after a century shows how strong the opponents of universal healthcare are and what they can do to block legislation.

    Instead, the Democratic Party was met with calls of not good enough or you should have done climate change instead. The same goes for the other accomplishments of the 111th.

Comment #60: Lee  on  11/03  at  02:53 PM

Lee—forming an electoral coalition with Democrats is like herding cats. Its just something we have to deal with.

I am somewhat concerned with the narrative about how so many blue dogs lost so therefore being a blue dog causes one to lose when in fact, blue dogs lost because they were in more Republican districts which is why they were blue dogs. We can either choose to have a broad coalition that includes blue dogs, or a narrow but more liberal coalition which will have a very difficult time garnering a majority. I am really afraid that rural areas will be one party rule by crazy-ass republicans once more.

Comment #61: alysia  on  11/03  at  03:04 PM

Hey - that headline - is it a reference to the Dicks “Pigs Run Wild?”  Cool.  “Yeah they can kill us, but we’ll back in a couple of days.”

Comment #62: elpathos  on  11/03  at  03:08 PM

So I’m just curious what people think—what, if anything, should Obama try to do in the next two years (really six or eight months since 2012 starts soon!) that would be both good policy and divide the GOP caucus?

Comment #63: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  03:11 PM

I do agree with you Ponygirl, I want some truly progressive candidates to vote for.  Dems should not take the Repubs policies; they should learn from the Repubs strategy.  The strategy is to be more ideological so you fire up your base and get them to go out and vote in larger numbers than your opponents.  And the strategy works for them.  Maybe the Dems could just try it, just once, and see what happens, huh?  Hell, Obama was the most progressive sounding democratic presidential candidate I can remember (I’m talking about the campaign, not what was delivered later), and look at all the people who came out to vote for him who’d never voted before! 

This Democratic strategy of trying to be republican-lite is just plain stupid. You won’t win over repubs, they’ll vote for the actual republican. All you do is turn off the democratic base.

I mean, my senate choices: Charlie Melancon, a “pro-life, pro-gun Democrat” (his own words, ugh) vs David Vitter (double ugh!).  Of course, now we’ve still got Vitter.  Tell me, who was Melancon supposed to actually appeal to?  Not progressives and not conservatives.  All Charlie could get is the people who hated Vitter enough to come out and vote against him.  I’d love to be able to vote FOR someone, instead of just AGAINST people.

Comment #64: CalliopeJane  on  11/03  at  03:16 PM

So I’m just curious what people think—what, if anything, should Obama try to do in the next two years (really six or eight months since 2012 starts soon!) that would be both good policy and divide the GOP caucus?

Lump Obamacare in with Medicare and teh like.  Make it so if they oppose one, the other suffers.

Comment #65: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/03  at  03:19 PM

Repealing the ACA (I hate the right wing term “Obamacare”) just isn’t going to happen, anyway. They can pass it in the House and it will go to the Senate to die a quick death.

I was thinking something like immigration reform. Dick Armey, for example, which is behind a lot of the teabagger astroturfing dollars favors immigration reform while the idiot Republican base does not. I think that would divide them the most while holding almost all Democrats together since a lot of the blue dogs are gone.

Comment #66: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  03:23 PM

Lee:

Aye, there’s the rub. The important thing to realize is that there is plenty to praise. This doesn’t get them off the hook for being criticized (the health care plan still needs a ton of work), but the fact that they got anything done at all despite the constant right-wing dead-agenting is impressive enough. The fact that they got as much as they did is outright miraculous.

I do think they’re open to criticism for their efforts at failed bipartisanship though—it should have been clear early on that the GOP wasn’t going to play nice and was in fact going to get extremely nasty very quickly, and that compromise was pointless. But they’re even more open for criticism for running from what they did accomplish—you would think it would occur to them to, you know, try to push back against the media pressure…

Comment #67: BrianX  on  11/03  at  03:24 PM

Add Johnson in WI to the list of far-wingnut extremists who won.  His positions are so absurd that his whole campaign was about, “Just elect me to the Senate, then I’ll tell you what I’ll do.”  He literally wouldn’t take a position that wasn’t boilerplate anti-somethingism.  And when asked for specifics, he refused, because he wasn’t a Senator yet.  And this worked.  Voters in Wisconsin must have all been hit in the head with a hammer or something, to make them think Johnson was an acceptable candidate.

Comment #68: libdevil  on  11/03  at  03:25 PM

And just looking more at those CNN numbers….WTF is up with a third of LGBs voting Republican?????

Comment #69: CalliopeJane  on  11/03  at  03:26 PM

alysia:

I don’t have particularly reliable sources, but according to commenters at another blog (Joe.My.God.):

-The Varnum decision was unanimous, and four of the judges involved are still on the court no matter what happens to the spots of the three judges who were recalled.
-Replacement of the recalled judges is the responsibility of the current Governor (Culver), not the incoming one (Branstad), though some Republicans have of course been calling for Culver to do whatever Branstad wants. So who replaces these judges is kind of contingent on whether or not Culver has a spine. Not odds I’d be inclined to take, but there’s that sliver of hope.
-Gay marriage stands regardless; the decision is the decision, and the only way it could be undone is by a different court case (which could happen if someone were to say that they were materially harmed by the Varnum decision, though this seems unlikely to get very far) or constitutional amendment.
-Constitutional amendment won’t happen as long as the Democrats hold the state Senate.
-The state Senate results either have an exact tie or have the Democrats ahead by 2.
-The vote was still 46-47% / 53-54%: unprecedented for a judge recall vote, but isn’t that bad if you look at it as an indication of how the public might vote on a constitutional amendment, were it to come to that. Especially if the amendment were to come during a Presidential election year, when turnout tends to be higher from younger voters.
-Though it’s possible that some of that 46-47% comes from people who never heard about the recall effort, who wouldn’t have voted to retain if they’d known.

I’m not happy about it, but it could have been worse. I mean, if I were opposed to gay marriage, yesterday’s results would have pleased me, but the closeness of the vote would make me anxious to get something more permanent on the books very, very quickly.

Comment #70: mr_subjunctive  on  11/03  at  03:28 PM

Repealing the ACA (I hate the right wing term “Obamacare”) just isn’t going to happen, anyway

No, but funding it is another matter.

Comment #71: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/03  at  03:28 PM

One of the artifacts was a syringe that was used to inject mercury into the urethra to treat syphilis before antibiotics were invented.

The Museum of Sex in NYC has one of the WWII STD kits which included a similar device to inject some chemical (soap?) into the same spot for the same reason.

Comment #72: boring old dude  on  11/03  at  03:28 PM

therefore, we’ll be able to teach about them accurately and honestly,

This bullshit made me laugh through tears.

Fucking creationism gets taught in schools.  Mrs. Dick “I’ll fucking shoot you in the face” Cheney writes articles for the most popular history books in the country.  The schools are so seriously fucked up there is absolutely no fucking way anyone should count on them educating our citizenry.  Not accurately and honestly.  Not when their parents are screaming that Beck warned them about the evil lie-brul edumacation on the only real, fair, and true news station in the country.

Teach them accurately and honestly.  what a laugh.

Not like schools cover much past WWII anyway.  The 60s and Viet Nam are just too controversial to teach, so they slow down and never get to the end of the books.

——
You can see the herpes scare in “The Big Chill” where one of the Chillsters says she never fears her husband cheating on her b/c he’s so afraid of herpes.  Just a couple years later that line was a clunker b/c AIDS was out in full public view.

Comment #73: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/03  at  03:29 PM

Oh, and immigration reform is doubly important because Democrats did well in the Southwest considering the electoral climate this year while getting wiped out in the rust belt. Obama’s path to re-election may have to run through the southwest and Florida by necessity and bypass the rustbelt, which means latinos are going to be very important.

Comment #74: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  03:30 PM

Xeranar, even if the economy does recover, I don’t think it’s possible to achieve the kind of growth that will take us from almost 10% unemployment to 6%. There’s a lot of economic analysis floating about and my memory for stats is not great, but the kind of economic growth that’s necessary to achieve that is not going to happen. Something like 5% growth, I think, just to keep up with the job losses, forget new job creation. Now that any kind of economic stimulus is out of the question, and given all the other impediments to growth still in play, where is that kind of growth going to come from? Maybe I should stop reading Reich and Krugman, but they sure sound convincing to me when they say recovery isn’t on the way.

As for the election itself, I can’t get over the feeling that it’s truly meaningless. The House might pass a few nutty laws that won’t go anywhere. It won’t impede the progressive agenda, because there’s no such thing in this administration. The things I hoped for (complete withdrawal of troops, closing Gitmo, ending DADT, large-scale investment in infrastructure/rail/green energy, etc.) aren’t going to happen now. But let’s be honest, they weren’t going to happen anyway. If anything, this election really demonstrates to me only two things 1) the fickleness and stupidity of the “independent” voters and 2) the meaninglessness of our political process. Every two years, there’s a lot of screaming, the “independent” voters pull a complete about-face, half the old white dudes get kicked out to be replaced with a bunch of other old white dudes (and maybe a few ladies and POC thrown in for local flavor) and then the whole thing just keeps chugging along, corporatist as ever, no matter who actually wins.

What, me, bitter?

Comment #75: elena  on  11/03  at  03:32 PM

Karl Rove and US Chamber spent millions getting Mark Kirk elected.  I couldn’t even watch local TV b/c there would be 6 commercials in a row from Rove and the US Chamber.

yeah, Citizens United didn’t affect the elections at all…Fucking Roberts Court.

Comment #76: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/03  at  03:35 PM

And just looking more at those CNN numbers….WTF is up with a third of LGBs voting Republican?????

Considering that the Log Cabin Republicans have been far more effective in getting DADT overturned, and that California’s elected GOP leadership opted not to appeal the Prop 8 overturn, and that Obama and “Gay Inc.” have basically been pissing on the GLBT activists who strongly supported them in 2008 (and 2006, 2004, 2002, ...), I’m not at all surprised to see some LGBs moving to the other side.

The DNC needs to stop taking the GLBT vote or its money for granted and actually try to deliver something rather than keep inviting d-bags like Rick Warren to the White House.

Comment #77: boring old dude  on  11/03  at  03:39 PM

That, and the fucking GreeKarl Rove and US Chamber spent millions getting Mark Kirk elected.

That, and the fucking Green Party got 3% of the vote. What, was a Alexi some kind of right wing blue dog? When will some people realize we don’t have a Parliamentary system or proportional representation?

Comment #78: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  03:40 PM

Huh, this is interesting, too:  CNN exit polls report that when asked who is to blame for the economy, the number one answer was Wall Street, then President Bush, then Obama.

Leaving me to wonder how things would be different if Obama had sicced DOJ on the banksters, reinstated Glass-Steagal and given Bushco’s financial regulation gurus a proper smackdown.  And if we had eggs, we could have ham and eggs, if we had some ham.

Comment #79: Sour Kraut  on  11/03  at  03:41 PM

@mr_subjunctive—I know marriage rights are safe in the state. Judges are appointed by some long bi-paritsan process, the constitution is really hard to amend, we still have 4 good judges, and in order for a homophobe to sue about the gay marriage law, they would have to establish that they have standing—that they were somehow harmed by gay marriage.

To me it is disappointing for two reasons 1) while gay marriage may be legal, a majority of Iowan voters have basically used this election to proudly proclaim their bigotry and express that they will not make life good for their gay neighbors and 2) christian hate groups now have a precedence of intimidating judges that don’t support their christianist policies.

Comment #80: alysia  on  11/03  at  03:44 PM

CalliopeJane at #69, I assume that has something to do with the Log Cabin Republicans taking DADT to court, successfully, and the current administration opposing their efforts. Throw in the fairly strong pro-
GLBTQ positions of some republican leaders in California. And the general disappointment of the GLBTQ community with this administration; right now it seems like the democratic leadership only saw the community as a “GayTM” and had no intention of following up on promises. Put all that together and the shift makes perfect sense.

I sure hope the democratic leadership is paying attention to these exit polls. Because if they don’t even attempt to deliver an immigration reform, after making promises to do so and sweeping the Latin@ vote, there will be the same sort of movement there as well.

By moving to the middle in hopes of getting the republican vote, the democratic party has blurred all policy differences with the other side. So if all that’s holding any group of voters to you is one issue, if you don’t deliver on that issue, they’ll be gone. Keep being cowardly on DADT/marriage equality, immigration reform, and reproductive rights, and there goes a big chunk of your support.

Yep, still bitter.

Comment #81: elena  on  11/03  at  03:54 PM

Ben D : unfortunately, Toomey is a truly crazy person, he just wasn’t in the Tea Party. But he’s going to make Santorum look like a reasonable individual.

Toomey isn’t as bad as Angle or Buck would have been, but he’s still very much adored by the Teabaggers. Tamron Hall on MSNBC just stated that 3 out of 5 teabagger candidates won Senate races - I assume she’s referring to Paul, Toomey, and Rubio.

Rubio won by a fucking landslide - he got more votes than Crist and Meek combined. I don’t think Meek would have won even if Crist hadn’t run Independent, nor do I necessarily think Crist would have won if Meek had dropped out.

I remember most people, myself included, assumed that Crist was a shoe-in once he announced he would be running as an Independent, and that there was no way a full-blown nutter like Rubio would be able to win that race.

DOH!

Comment #82: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  03:59 PM

Eh, the dems don’t get it, whatever.

66% of Americans didn’t know they had received a tax cut from this president.

Seriously, what do you do with that?

Dumbass America.  You know, it’s time to start blaming the people.  Fact it, they is dumb shits.

Comment #83: JennyLI  on  11/03  at  04:00 PM

right now it seems like the democratic leadership only saw the community as a “GayTM” and had no intention of following up on promises. Put all that together and the shift makes perfect sense.

This is consistent with the possibility that Obama thought that all of his new voters were just “swing independents” who wanted to pursue the middle of two paths, rather than people who believed he was going to pursue a “bold agenda”—which to a degree he tried—but also that he was goon to use that activist energy, which he either resented or didn’t know that he had because he thought everyone was an independent swing vote.

Comment #84: Tyro  on  11/03  at  04:06 PM

Sour Kraut, they would have been no different.  It amazes me that lefities actually believe that the American people actually give a flyin shit about the justice department and the misdeeds of the bush adminstration or the bankers.  Poor bastards. 

The only thing that could have changed this was early on when he gave the repukes everything they wanted and made more than half the stimulis ineffective tax cuts.

IF that money ahd gone to directly hiring people, then we’d have a different outcome today.

The R’s played him, and he asked for more.  Now, I do blame Obama for that.  That’s what you call a book smart dumbass who should never be left alone near a 3-card monte dealer.

BUT, the Amerian people are dumb.

There is no excuse for what happened yesterday after 8 years of right wing economic policy and suffering to go back to that same policy.  Paul Ryan wants to end SS and MEdicare.  Rand paul wants seniors to pay a 2,000 dollar deductable.

Now, the old fucks who voted for this, are they going to pay a 2,000 deductable?  Hell NO!  And they know it won’t be for them.  They’re old and greedy.  But it’s the younger people, people my age, generation X - this is on us.  We voted to get fucked in the ass, and I hope we like it. 

Thank God, I have a business and some real chance of not needing medicare or SS.  I just hope the ones who voted for this get it good straight from Paul Ryan and enjoy their old age living on the street, in pain.

Because mf’er you better believe they ain’t raising my taxes down the road to take care of them.

Comment #85: JennyLI  on  11/03  at  04:06 PM

AnglScarlett—you are so right. American’s have a tendency to blame the failings of our government on some sort of conspiratorial cabal of tricky elites, but never ever look in the mirror. The fact is that is hard to make change and govern in a democracy when so many of the people are so very uninformed. Many of the failures of the elected officials to implement optimal policies is a reflection of an anxious, ignorant public that has no idea how government works and can’t connect policy outcomes to their daily lives.

Comment #86: alysia  on  11/03  at  04:09 PM

I agree with you completely Amanda, the Republicans are doomed in the long run.  In fact, the American population as a whole is already much more liberal then most people think it is, something that’s disguised by the huge amount of voter suppression that goes on in this country.  Richard Seymour made this point on his blog:

“The 2010 mid-term elections have thus taken place not only without the participation of the majority of voters, but with the pronounced exclusion of millions of working class Americans and particularly African Americans. Don’t believe me? Let’s look at the exit poll results. You can see that there’s a strong Democratic bias among voters with incomes under $50k, but they only represent 37% of the total vote, while making up just over 55% of the population. Those earning $100,000 or more make up more than a quarter of the vote (26%) and have a strong Republican bias, yet they represent less than 16% of the population. Breaking it down even further, 7% of the electorate is composed of those on $200,000 or more - again, strongly Republican - which is more than double their representation as a whole. In fact, I’m over-representing the higher income earners and under-representing lower income earners because I’m relying on figures for households rather than individuals. The percentage of individuals on $50k or less is 75%. Those on $100k or more make up just over 6% of the population. So, the turnout is enormously skewed in favour of the wealthy.”

Comment #87: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  04:18 PM

Despite the tremendous overanalysis that’s taking place today about why last night went the way it did, I still believe the simplest answer is the most accurate…

It’s the economy, stupid.

Regardless of which party is actually most responsible for the horrific 9.6% unemployment rate we currently have, voters will always blame poor present economic conditions on the party presently in power. Had the U3 been reduced to 7% or less by now, the GOP would not have fared so well. Had it been reduced below 6% by now, it’s likely the Democrats would have actually gained seats.

The stimulus bill DID work, but because it wasn’t nearly as big as people like Paul Krugman argued it should have been, it didn’t do what it was promised to do. It managed to slow the job hemorrhage down quite a bit, but it didn’t reverse the tide. We can logically say that we would have been much, much, much worse off had ARRA never been passed. However, Democrats including President Obama claimed that it would do something that it ultimately was not able to do - prevent unemployment from topping 8%.

Democrats lost last night not because they were overly aggressive in pushing through progressive legislation, but because they weren’t nearly aggressive enough.

Yes, filibuster and blah, blah, blah, but unless the Democrats can figure out how to wield an electoral mandate with more authority, they’ll continue to get spanked by Republicans. The Democrats still have a Senate Majority heading into the 112th Congress, and this is their chance to drastically change the rules for the filibuster, because they only need 51 votes to make the rule change when the new Congress first convenes in January. If they don’t act to make it more difficult for a minority group of obstructionists to filibuster everything to death, they’ll watch history repeat itself, and they’ll continue to hit brick walls from filibustering assholes in the GOP.

I’m not feeling terribly hopeful today.

Comment #88: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  04:18 PM

@85

Republicans didn’t trick Obama on the stimulus, he made it very clear that he didn’t believe in government creating jobs and that he wanted the private sector to lead in reducing unemployment.  That’s because Obama is, and always has been, a center right politician with a very, very slick marketing campaign.

Also, there’s a lot of popular anger out there against bankers.  I’m not sure why you think there isn’t.

Comment #89: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  04:22 PM

Murrow, the Republicans may take the Senate in 2012 because of the map (so many Democrats up for election due to the ‘06 wave). Doing away with the filibuster would be very very stupid.

Our Senate majority gives us the power to block things but not pass them right now. We need the filibuster to stop the GOP.

Comment #90: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  04:22 PM

@90

The filibuster should be opposed because it’s one of the more undemocratic measures in an already extremely undemocratic system.  Favoring when you’re out of power and opposing it when you’re not is extremely hypocritical.

Comment #91: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  04:26 PM

We might have wished for Medicare for All or even the public option but thats not how the Amrican polticial system works

Excuse me, but are you from the past?

The traditional “American political system” was shitcanned 12 years ago when a lame-duck congress impeached a president for dipping his wick. The fact that the idiots in the Democratic party have still yet to cop to this fact is part and parcel of why they just got their asses handed to them.

Comment #92: Sarcastro  on  11/03  at  04:28 PM

While we’re being bashed with the Conventional Wisdom@ (which never is), it’s time to clear our heads with another enlightening episode of “What Digby said,”

“Only 47% of the members of the Democratic “Blue Dog Coalition” won re-election. 95% of the members of the “Progressive Caucus” won re-election.”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/hangover.html

Comment #93: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  04:35 PM

The “angry white people” who voted these scumbags in were the same ones who voted for Obama and gave Dems the House and Senate just two years ago. Much as I want to believe Wise, what I see to have changed all that—in such a short time, among people who should know better—is massive control of what Americans see and hear. And it’s only going to get worse with the Rs in place.

In forty years or whatever, what I’m afraid of people not remembering is a time when unionization was considered a reasonable context for employment, when the 4th amendment was enforced, when one of the things kids were expected to know upon HS graduation was what their rights were as citizens, when government watchdog agencies mostly did their jobs instead of enabling—as a matter of policy—the worst behavior of whatever they were supposed to be monitoring. They won’t remember when America was a land of opportunity for anyone besides crooks and nepotes. When people could tell the difference between actual patriotism (i.e., what we, the Left do) and waving the flag whenever those in power told you to.  When helping boiler-room operations to con elderly people into poverty wasn’t considered a reasonable thing for our government to do. Etc.

Wise has this much right: I’m an angry, white, middle-aged, middle-class woman, and goddamn right I want my country back. And, as he says, there’s a strong chance it won’t happen. He’s just wrong about what that country is.

_________
Way’ OT:

. . . that Leave it to Beaver, Father Knows Best, . . . cornpone bullshit that you hold so near and dear to your heart.

About those shows: In the late 80s, there was an extremely short-lived TV show, Baby Boom, based on the movie. Of the 7 or so episodes aired, I saw one, from which I remember only one scene: the main character, JC, who has been obligated to accept guardianship of an orphaned baby, goes to bed, convinced of the inadequacy of her mothering skills. Barbara Billingsley and Jane Wyman (who divorced Ronald Reagan—oh, if only the entire country had followed her lead) appeared in a dream sequence, bearing a plate of cookies and (if I recall correctly) a glass of milk. JC says “Why can’t I be a great mother, like you two were in Leave It to Beaver and Father Knows Best?”

And Jane Wyman says “Dear, we were actresses. That was just television.”

Barbara Billingsley says “My, yes. I used to come home every day from the set to my own children, wondering why I wasn’t as good a mother as the one I played on television.”

Billingley died last week, and—this cameo (and maybe her hysterical bit in the movie Airplane) being what I best remember about her—I was truly saddened to hear of it.

Comment #94: Molly, NYC  on  11/03  at  04:37 PM

“Paging Dr. Dean, paging Dr. Dean.”

Comment #95: PWI  on  11/03  at  04:40 PM

I’ll be happy to abolish the filibuster when one of our major parties is no longer fucking crazy (should take about a decade). Until then, I want to keep it.

Comment #96: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  04:43 PM

Also as a resident living relic, I’m here to tell you that the 1950s Happy Days, were never that.

Sure the economy was booming, after decades of Democratic majorities, of course. And rich people paid their due in taxes.

But even my Greatest Generation father calls them The Dark Ages: sure, white men could get jobs that supported a whole family (even high school grads), but throw in McCarthy, Mad Men ideas about the “place” of women, and the Jim Crow south (was shocked to my very soul as a 10 year old by my first glimpse of Colored and White Only drinking fountains and restrooms, no less the 5 o’clock news of students protesting for Civil Rights who were attacked by the police with dogs and firehoses.)

Sure, nobody “worried” about STDs even into the ‘70s: condoms weren’t even widely used, but the ‘80s brought us up to speed with a thud.

So I doubt anybody worried much about herpes in the 1950s: but inconsistent birth control, lack of legal abortion and punitive views about single mothers, meant women got to worry their pretty heads plenty about getting pregnant.

With an out-of-wedlock child as life-long, in one manner or another, as an STD.

Comment #97: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  04:49 PM

right now it seems like the democratic leadership only saw the community as a “GayTM” and had no intention of following up on promises.

True indeed. But maybe I feel less sucker-punched by it because I never expected much from Obama, which is why he was not my pick in the Democratic presidential primaries.  I certainly backed him once he was the nominee, but I (being lesbian) was for Hillary primarily because I thought she was much more sincere and courageous about LGBT rights. I mean, Obama started off with Rick Warren at his inauguration, for pete’s sake! 

However, none of that means that I think any of the Republicans have my best interests MORE at heart!  Really, like I said above at #64, I haven’t voted FOR someone in years, all I ever do is vote AGAINST the unthinkably-heinous.

Comment #98: CalliopeJane  on  11/03  at  04:49 PM

Oh, and yes indeed, good job for the Log Cabin Republicans on DADT!  However, the LCR are not the candidates, and would NEVER be accepted by the right as their candidates.

Comment #99: CalliopeJane  on  11/03  at  04:50 PM

Oh - sorry - and Mark Kirk will be seated in the lame-duck session because he was elected not just to a regular term but to also complete the term of the seat that Pres. Obama left when he moved to the White House.  You actually had to mark your ballot twice.  The Republicans immediately gain a seat in the Senate.

That’s actually the case in several of last night’s races…

Chris Coons and Joe Manchin will also be sworn in this month, as they are also filling vacated seats. Kirsten Gillibrand and Michael Bennet (assuming he wins) are already in the Senate, but they also won Special Election races last night. Should Ken Buck actually pull off the victory in Colorado, he’ll be taking Bennet’s seat once the vote is certified - he won’t have to wait until January to take the seat should he be certified as the winner before then.

Mark Kirk and Michael Bennet (or Ken Buck) will serve full six year terms before their next elections in 2016.

Scott Brown, Kirsten Gillibrand, and Joe Manchin will all have to run again for full terms in 2012.

Chris Coons will have to run again for a full term in 2014.

These six seats were held by Obama, Biden, Clinton, Salazar, Kennedy, and Byrd. Four became part of the Obama Administration, and two died in office.

Comment #100: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  04:53 PM

No, but funding it is another matter. - Phoenician in a time of Romans

Which is exactly part of the concern many people have (including myself) with the health care reform act:  there is a mandate to purchase health insurance, but who says subsidies will exist for everyone who needs them.  If I, Hashem forbid, don’t get tenure, that means I’ll likely be working two part time jobs to make ends meet, I won’t have enough money for health insurance but there is no way there will be enough money to subsidize my health insurance because on paper I will have enough money (e.g. I’ll probably make about $50K/year which is enough money ... unless you live in the NYC area, for example).

All the GOP needs to do is make sure subsidies for health insurance are not funded.  This will be politically popular because it will be “the GOP saving money by cutting gummint hand-outs”.  On the other hand, people will feel the pinch of having to purchase health insurance (and what in the health insurance bill does anything to keep prices down once health insurance becomes mandated and hence has an infinitely inelastic demand curve?) ... and blame the Democrats for making them purchase health insurance.  Even those people who don’t blame the Democrats for what the GOP will have done, will still be leery about future progressive reforms because of how these things inevitably play out ... and thus will be less likely to support Democrats.

If health reform were handled right, it would have been a winning issue for the Democrats.  But since nobody knows how health care reform will actually benefit them and everyone fears the worst as to how it will hurt them, it has become a loosing issue for Democrats.

Meanwhile people will vote for the GOP even if they know that the GOP will make things worse, e.g., by reducing health care subsidies.  Why?  Because they see how progressive reform will (when all the sausage making is done) end up actually hurting them, so they look unfavorably on progressive reform and thus want to “balance” the Democrats with Republicans to “keep things from going too far”.

Comment #101: DAS  on  11/03  at  04:58 PM

Another lesson, one which people still haven’t learned even after Perot, Forbes, and Romney is that just because you’re a a multi-millionaire doesn’t mean money will get you elected.

Eugene Robinson made an observation last night that I agree with… there really aren’t many Republicans who seem like they could pose a real threat to Obama in 2012, but if the economy is still in the toilet with 9% unemployment and Romney can actually win the GOP nomination, he is the one guy who could possibly defeat Obama, because he has tons of centrist appeal. Progressives may recognize that the guy is a phony POS with silly libertarian beliefs, but to the low information mushy middle voter, he actually appears to be a sane Republican when compared to someone like Sarah Palin.

Robinson’s observation has some validity - Romney vs. Obama with a shitty economy could conceivably give the White House back to the Repukes in 2012.  That said, I don’t think Romney will be able to win the 2012 Republican nomination because they teabaggers don’t really care for him, so it’s probably a moot point.

2012 looks favorable for Obama right now not so much because Obama’s next two years look like they are going to be awesome, but because I can’t see the GOP and the Teabaggers coalescing around a nationally viable candidate.

2012 is very likely going to be a repeat of 1996, just as last night was pretty much a repeat of 1994 (it was actually a little worse than 1994 in terms of House seats lost).

Comment #102: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  05:09 PM

Sour Kraut, they would have been no different.

I know—mine is a fantasy list, I admit.  If O actually did those things, the GOP and the Beltway Villagers would have shrieked about his anti-business agenda, his class warfare and partisan witch-hunting.  Oh, wait…

The simple fact is it’s not in our corporate media’s interest—financial or otherwise—to keep the public informed.  Add in a general American anti-intellectualism and it doesn’t leave much hope.

Comment #103: Sour Kraut  on  11/03  at  05:14 PM

But judybrowni, bluedogs are from conservative districts while the progressive caucus is from liberal districts. You have causality ass backwards. Blue dogs didn’t lose because they were blue dogs, blue dogs became blue dogs because they lived in congressional districts that were hard for Democrats to win, whereas as teh progressive caucus is able to be as liberal as they want because they are from districts that would vote for democrats no matter what.

Don’t get me wrong, I love the progressive caucus and think that the media narrative about the Center Right Nation that we will be hearing for the next two years. I also think that Obama would be better served by really publicizing and making clear and simple his policy ideas, and if there are blue dogs in legitimately liberal districts, they should be primaried out. But pretending that someone like Herseth-Sandlin lost because she isn’t liberal enough simply isn’t true, as much as I wish it were so. She is elected by moderate republicans and moderate republicans in South Dakota decided she was too far to the left.

Comment #104: alysia  on  11/03  at  05:24 PM

judybrowni @ 93, CNN analyzes that as a warning to Democrats not to move left:

It will be difficult for Obama to steer too far to the left, however, after conservative Blue Dog Democrats took a beating in the election for not sticking to the center on the economy and health care, among other issues. No fewer than 23 of 46 incumbent Blue Dogs were defeated at the polls, sending an unmistakable message to the surviving conservative Democrats who are facing voters in 2012 that they better be careful about casting liberal votes on key legislation.

from http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/11/03/obama.what.now/index.html?hpt=C1

Sigh.

Comment #105: snowmentality  on  11/03  at  05:26 PM

Murrow—

Too bad the economy can’t be a repeat of the ‘90s, too.

Comment #106: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  05:34 PM

BrianX, Alysia, one of things thats angered me about reactions to the 111th Congress is that I’ve seen a lot of armchair politicking from liberals and progressives about what Obama, Reid, and Pelosi should have done. We all have our preferences and desires but we also don’t have to deal with the Blue Dogs and Lieberman, whose really in a class of his own. Nor do we have to deal with the healthcare industry, the pharmaceutical companies, and the GOP.

  So I hear things like Obama should have tried or that Reid is milquetoast and I have a tendency to roll my eyes. Its never actually specificed what Obama should have tried. The closest I’ve got to answer is that single-payer is so good, once the CBO crunches the numbers than all oppositional would melt away. Nor do they ever explain how Reid should have dealt with prima donna Blue Dog Democrats. Considering the context of American politics plus the history of attempts at universal healthcare, its amazing that anything passes.

  I agree that the ACA is imperfect, very much so and that in its current form, it gives the Republicans a lot of chances to mess with it via the subsidies but I don’t know if anything better could pass either. Universal healthcare needed a starting point and this was it. I also agree that the bipartisan fetish went on entirely too long. It should have been trashed after the Stimulus.

Comment #107: Lee  on  11/03  at  05:41 PM

@106

Stagnant income for most workers and illusory growth backed by a huge asset bubble in the stock market?  I guess its better than the stagnant income for most workers, the illusory growth backed by a huge asset bubble in the housing market AND the high unemployment we got this past decade but I think we can aim a little higher.

Comment #108: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  05:43 PM

judybrowni, I have a textbook of Dermatology and Syphilology that is an enormous work and was published in 1948.  It has color plates and B&W;photos, and reminds one of why it was called “The great imposter”:

Syphilis has gained the nickname ‘the great imitator’ or ‘the great imposter’ because almost all of the signs and symptoms of syphilis are identical to other infections and diseases.

I also possess an Abnormal Psychology textbook from the 50s, and it stated in one table that about 1/3rd of cases of insanity were from ‘tertiary paresis’.

These facts were used mainly to persuade women to save themselves for marriage, and for the men to wear rubbers when enjoying themselves outside of the sacred bonds of said institution.

Comment #109: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/03  at  05:43 PM

I also want to third AnglScarlett’s criticism of the American people in general. Only a minority of people actually voted in the mid-terms and most of those that voted had no idea in the slightest what was going on. Other democracies are filled with citizens of Athenian virtue but most of them do make at least better attempts to learn what was going on or at least don’t suffer from such fatal anti-intellectualism that they challenge the results of scientists or other experts when they talk about climate change or anything else. Americans love to challenge experts to show their independence. Its incredibly foolish.

Comment #110: Lee  on  11/03  at  05:45 PM

Murrow, the Republicans may take the Senate in 2012 because of the map (so many Democrats up for election due to the ‘06 wave). Doing away with the filibuster would be very very stupid.

I’m not arguing in favor of eliminating the filibuster altogether, I’m arguing for a rule change that will make it more difficult to use than it has been for the past 35 years.

The GOP set an all-time record in the 111th Congress for use of the filibuster. The reason they were able to do that is because the filibuster rules were amended in 1975 to make filibustering a simple procedural move which didn’t require actual filibustering.

Rest assured, as difficult as the GOP made it for the Senate to pass anything when the Democrats had 59 or 60 seats over the past two years, they’ll make it even more difficult over the next two years with the Democrats only holding 52 or 53 seats. They won’t let a damn thing get passed by the Senate Democrats, but they’ll continue to hide behind their position as the Senate minority party to attack the Senate Democrats’ ineffectiveness.

I think they need to revert to the filibuster rules that were in place prior to 1975, which would force the minority party to have to actually conduct embarrassing floor filibusters showing their obstructionism to the American public.

Could that conceivably harm Democrats down the road the next time the GOP takes a Senate majority? Sure, but recent history tells me that the current rules have worked far more to the GOP’s advantage than they have to the Democrats’ advantage.

I want filibustering to be limited to truly principled arguments against majority overreach, not minority jackassery designed to do nothing more than make the majority look weak and ineffective.

If the teabaggers truly think progressive legislation enjoying majority support in the Senate needs to be blocked, they should have to stand at the podium and talk non-stop for 20+ hours about why they think the proposed legislation is so bad.

The Senate minority party should not have as much power as it currently does, and there’s nothing to suggest that the Framers desired the flagrant overuse of the filibuster that we saw in the 111th Congress. As a matter of fact, the Framers had no official position on the filibuster at all, as it is not even mentioned in the U.S. Constitution.

Comment #111: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  05:47 PM

@91 - post 90 wasn’t being hypocritical at all.  It was pointing out that we shouldn’t favor killing the filibuster now when we’ll probably want it in 2 years.  That was an argument for retaining it both when we have control (now) and when Republicans have control.

Now, I disagree, both from a philosophical viewpoint (it’s anti-democratic) and a practical viewpoint.  I don’t believe we should preserve the filibuster now for the Republicans benefit, because I don’t believe for an instant that the Republicans would retain it for our benefit should they take the majority in the Senate.  They will get rid of it the first chance they get.  So why should we allow them to continue to abuse it as they’ve done for the last 2 years?  In the vain hope that they’ll reciprocate?  They won’t.  They’re evil, power-mad bastards.

Comment #112: libdevil  on  11/03  at  05:47 PM

Stagnant income for most workers and illusory growth backed by a huge asset bubble in the stock market?

Real median income rose from 1994-2000. The budget was balanced and the national debt was actually going down.

As to the bubble, that bubble actually left us with a lot of useful things. Think of all the tech corporations (even some .coms) that took off in the period 1990-2001 that are still around. I bet you can name 10 off the top of your head. Not to mention all that bandwidth capacity made high speed internet affordable to the middle class for the first time.

Now what did the housing bubble get us? Half-finished McMansions and empty condos. Bubbles aren’t all bad if they’re based on innovation and new technology (there was once a bubble in railroads and automobiles, for example). When they’re based on nothing but smoke and mirrors then yes, it’s bad.

Comment #113: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  05:49 PM

@107

As this election showed pretty demonstrably, Blue Dogs are more dependent on the party than the average democrat because they come from more conservative districts.  If Obama had pushed to get rid of the filibuster (or even just passed the healthcare bill via reconciliation if you want to be more cautious) and leaned hard on the Blue Dogs in the House he could have gotten at least a strong public option.  If he hadn’t embraced the TARP bailout and made it his own and had instead focused on cleaning up the financial sector, then voters wouldn’t be blaming him for bailing out the bankers.  And if he’d pushed for a stronger stimulus and hadn’t so fetishisticly focussed on private sector lead job growth then unemployment wouldn’t be so devastating right now.  But Obama didn’t do any of those things because, like I said before, he’s a center right politician beholden to corporate, financial interests.

And now it looks like he’s going to move even more to the right and focus on deficit reduction (i.e. cutting Medicare and Social Security, just what he told David Brooks he wanted to do back in 2008)

Comment #114: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  05:50 PM

@112

Point taken.

@114

Median income hit a wall around ‘97 and the only reason it was increasing up until then is because people were working more and more hours.  The only reason there was enough demand to support that much employment is because of the 90s asset bubble.  The economy was extremely dysfunctional in the 1990s (and has been for a long time).

Comment #115: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  05:56 PM

If TARP hadn’t been passed we wouldn’t have an economy right now. Yeah, it would make us feel real good and pure to get back at “the banksters” until we go to get $20 out of the ATM and find out our checking account has been wiped out. But I guess if your goal is to bring about the Green/Anarchist/Bolshevik/Anarcho-Capitalist Revolution that would be a feature and not a bug.

Comment #116: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  05:59 PM

@116

The assumption that forking over huge amounts of money to the same financial elite who had (with full knowledge) gotten us into the crisis was the only way to restore liquidity to the system betrays an astonishing lack of imagination.

Comment #117: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  06:02 PM

All the GOP needs to do is make sure subsidies for health insurance are not funded.

Does Obama and the Democrats have the power to bundle this sort of thing with funding for things like Medicare and the like?  Can they make the Republicans vote up or down for all health spending - including that which the teabaggers love?

Comment #118: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/03  at  06:03 PM

You know who FDR appointed as the first Chairman of the SEC?

Joe Kennedy. Who, in case you don’t know, was not just the father of JFK but a massive Wall St. crook. Sometimes you have to hire a hacker for computer security.

Comment #119: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  06:03 PM

You know who FDR appointed as the first Chairman of the SEC?

Hitler!  That’s who!

Wait, wrong straight line.

Comment #120: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/03  at  06:03 PM

You know who FDR appointed as the first Chairman of the SEC?

Hitler!  That’s who!

Joseph Kennedy wasn’t Hitler, but he was a bit of a Hitler-sympathizer. As was Prescott Bush.

Comment #121: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  06:08 PM

I worry that this piece makes the mistake of conflating change on the cultural front with change on the economic front.

The conservatives have been losing the Culture War, and it is likely that that will continue.  But they’ve been winning the Class War, and I don’t see that changing either.

Comment #122: Punditus Maximus  on  11/03  at  06:09 PM

@119

FDR did a lot of stupid things Ben D.  (Unlike Obama, though, he managed to get some meaningful financial regulations passed)  That doesn’t make TARP less of a stupid program that the Democrats never should have gone along with.  And that’s not even counting the free money we are continuing to fork over to the banks.

Comment #123: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  06:10 PM

Joseph Kennedy wasn’t Hitler, but he was a bit of a Hitler-sympathizer.

And just to re-iterate, a huge Wall St. crook. He’d make anyone you can name today look like a piker. But he was a very good SEC Chairman, most likely for exactly that reason.

Comment #124: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  06:11 PM

FDR did a lot of stupid things Ben D.

Appointing Joe Kennedy to the SEC wasn’t stupid, it was a smart move. He knew the game and knew where the bodies were buried.

Unlike Obama, though, he managed to get some meaningful financial regulations passed

Oh please. You would have been a Huey Long fan if this were the ‘30s. So would Matt Taibbi and Jane Hamsher.

Comment #125: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  06:13 PM

Also, it may be hard to believe but there are bankers and investors that do shady, crooked shit but want rules to stop it. They can’t on their own since their competitors would just do it anyway. Just to give one modern-day example: George Soros. An example from history is that the first child labor laws and work safety standards in Great Britain were proposed by the mill owners themselves in Parliament.

Comment #126: Ben D.  on  11/03  at  06:19 PM

@125

So Obama’s been forking billions over to financial capitalists so they can show him where the bodies are buried?  What?  I think you’re getting your apologetics confused Ben D.

Also, why are you people always harping on Jane Hamsher so much?  I’ve never understood the obsession.

Comment #127: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  06:21 PM

@126

That may be true for individuals, but as a class they’re going to push to get rid of any impediments to their ability to accumulate capital.  Capitalists in 19th century Britain only pushed for work place safety laws because worker mortality was so high it was beginning to put an upward pressure on wages and threaten their profits.

Obama is empowering financial capitalists.  FDR disempowered them (though he did so to protect the overall capitalist system).  The difference is night and day.

Comment #128: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  06:25 PM

Lee @ #110

Part of the problem is that our government is designed more stupidly than other countries which makes it really hard to become informed. In parliamentary systems they vote for parties rather than people so it is less likely to come down to who you think would be a great drinking buddy. Furthermore, the policies that effect people the most—roads, schools, police, etc—are all decided by state governments which get no media coverage and its extremely difficult to figure out who the fuck represents you in des moines or wherever and what they are all about. Divided powers makes it even harder to hold anyone accountable when you are mad. There are so many ways for legislation to fail or be crippled that it is hard to even figure out how to effect change.

I don’t think Americans are that much more ignorant than citizens of other countries; we just have a system that takes all the stupid of group think and multiplies ad infinitum.

Comment #129: alysia  on  11/03  at  06:25 PM

The old saw that Blue Dogs (and hence the rest of the Democrats) must govern “conservatively” to keep their seats and a majority doomed the Democrats.

Both Alan Grayson and his Blue Dog near neighbor in Congress were ousted. Why? It’s obvious:

“At nearly 10% unemployment, a foreclosure scandal of epic proportions, Wall Street run amock and a gusher of plutocrat money flowing into the political system, it’s almost impossible to believe that the Democrats didn’t lose the Senate as well as the House. It was not an ideological election—Blue Dogs and progressives alike lost their seats, in regions all over the country. It was a primal scream of a vote, against those who promised to make things better and failed to do it.”

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2010/11/hangover.html

At the beginning of 2008, there was 5% unemployment—in 2010 9.6% (or 17% including underemployment).

One in six Americans is unemployed or underployed, something like 13% of American homes were/are being foreclosed.

How’s that Blue Dog/incrementalist governance working out for ya, Mr. Obama?

Ah hell, just go and read all of Digby’s columns today: it will answer any and all questions raised.

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/

Comment #131: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  06:34 PM

Markos Moulitsas made a pretty salient observation about why the Democrats got their asses handed to them yesterday:

First thing’s first—stop bashing the base, or the professional left, or whatever liberal boogeymen pisses them off. Fact is, people who fall in [the] disaffected categories—the young, blacks, Latinos—don’t read blogs, or watch Keith Olbermann, or read Firedoglake. But they are losing their jobs and their homes, and they see Wall Street get all manners of bailouts without any of it trickling down to them. That has killed us. Make their lives better, or (since nothing will happen with Boehner in the House) at least fight to make their lives better.

Yup. The Democrats didn’t lose because they alienated the most politically-engaged progressive base. I know a ton of progressives who are thoroughly disgusted by the ineptitude of the Democrats, but almost all of them still voted anyway, and most voted straight Democratic tickets.

The Democrats lost because they failed to substantially improve the outlook for the least politically engaged groups who don’t give a shit about ideological disagreements between Jane Hamsher and Matt Yglesias, they want to know how they are going to pay the rent and put food on the table next month when their unemployment runs out. More than 45 Million voters from 2008 didn’t bother voting yesterday, and most of those who stayed home were either black or brown people, young people, or liberal people. This isn’t about winning talking point debates between academic political wonks who often don’t face the day-to-day real world problems that poor inner city POC face; this is about giving those whose future is genuinely very bleak a reason to believe that things are gonna get better.

2008 Electorate: 130 Million Voters
—————————————————————
White: 74%
Black: 13%
Latino: 9%
—————————————————————
18-29 year olds: 18%
65+ year olds: 16%
—————————————————————
Liberal: 22%
Moderate: 44%
Conservative: 34%


2010 Electorate: 82.5 Million Voters
—————————————————————
White: 78%
Black: 10%
Latino: 8%
—————————————————————
18-29 year olds: 11%
65+ year olds: 23%
—————————————————————
Liberal: 20%
Moderate: 39%
Conservative: 41%

More than one out of ten Americans in the labor force are no better off today than they were two years ago, because they still don’t have freaking jobs, and they don’t give a leaping shit about 24 hour cable news punditry.

JOBS, JOBS, JOBS.

It’s that simple.

Comment #132: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  06:50 PM

I agree with her that the overall unpopularity of democrats was because the economy more than anything else and to a lesser extent that there wasn’t enough “hope and change” fast enough. But to claim that the blue dogs lost because they are blue dogs is incorrect. They lost because blue dogs come from republican districts and are the most vulnerable democrats. This isn’t to suggest that we should run blue dogs for president or run blue dogs in actual conservative districts. But we can’t pretend that we just need to run more liberal candidates in the south and west and everything will be perfect. We have to choose between having some conservadems or just ignoring conservative areas completely and trying to win the house with just liberal districts.

Comment #133: alysia  on  11/03  at  06:51 PM

@ #132, seconded.

Comment #134: alysia  on  11/03  at  06:53 PM

As the living relic of the 1950s and ‘60s, I can’t agree that syphillis (or threat of same) was the main thrust of scaring women off sex.

It was widely known that syphillis and gonorhrea could both be eradicated with a shot of Penicillin: nope, it was more likely fear of pregnancy that kept the girls and women in line, before the Pill or legal abortion.

STDs weren’t the concern of any of the young women I knew: but pregnancy did get them kicked out of high school and into either a “home for unwed mothers” or teenage marriages. Single motherhood not considered an option in my lower middle-class neighborhood, or few others. at the time.

My babysitter in the ‘50s: well, we wouldn’t know if she’d contracted an STD, but it was obvious she’d contracted a pregnancy that forced her to marry at 16. And no shot of penicillin could cure that.

Most well-paid professions (even blue collar) which could support children weren’t open to women then, either. One of the reasons it was considered “selfish” for a woman to keep her out-of-wedlock child.

Married women also couldn’t completely plan on the number or timing of their children: which was an excuse widely used then to keep women out of the professions.

The availability of the birth control pill coincided with the opening of the professions to women, Second Wave Feminism, and the Sexual Revolution: women could finally plan when they’d have children, with surety.

Notice none of those three triggered by the wide availability of penicillin to cure syphillis after WWII.

Comment #135: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  06:58 PM

It will be difficult for Obama to steer too far to the left, however, after conservative Blue Dog Democrats took a beating in the election for not sticking to the center on the economy and health care, among other issues. No fewer than 23 of 46 incumbent Blue Dogs were defeated at the polls, sending an unmistakable message to the surviving conservative Democrats who are facing voters in 2012 that they better be careful about casting liberal votes on key legislation.

Nope, Obama won’t find it difficult at all.  That’s what he does…insist that we all bipartisan to the middle b/c that’s where the votes are.

The fact that the Blue Dogs LOST is irrelevant to him as to a Fox News “analyst”.

Unfortunately, when you’re faced with the DCCC or DSCC supporting Blue Dogs, the only way to get rid of them is to elect a Republican.  Then you know you’ll get someone new the next time.  Happens in Chicago, where currently I’m pissed b/c Rahm—whom I will never vote for willingly—is scaring all the other dems away from the Mayoral contest. 

I hate Rahm.  I may not vote at all.  I voted green last time rather than for him.  Only if a complete whackadoo is running against him will I hold my nose and save the city.

On a happier note, Bill “I’m homophobic, sexist, AND creationist” lost out b/c suburban women who generally vote Republican couldn’t bring themselves to vote for a man who thinks rape and incest victims should be forced to bear children born of rape and incest.  They probably also wanted to protect their children from creationist bullshit in schools.

Comment #136: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/03  at  07:13 PM

Here’s how widely known it was that Penicillin cured syphillis:

“Dr. Ehrlich’s Magic Bullet is a 1940 biographical film directed by William Dieterle and starring Edward G. Robinson, based on the true story of the German doctor and scientist Dr. Paul Ehrlich. The film was released by Warner Bros., with some controversy considering the subject of syphilis in a major studio release.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ehrlich’s_Magic_Bullet

Which was aired on the TV, like most films of the ‘30s and ‘40s, with some regularity.

However, Penicillin not widely available for curing syphillis or gonorrhea during war time (the supply was used for the more immediate needs of wounded troops).

My father told me of a shipmate forced to go through one of the earlier, more traumatic cures during WWII.

But by the 1950s and ‘60s, it was widely assumed that a shot of Penicillin would wipe out both the major STDs.

Comment #137: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  07:17 PM

I hate Rahm.  I may not vote at all.  I voted green last time rather than for him.  Only if a complete whackadoo is running against him will I hold my nose and save the city.

Unfortunately, it’s a pretty safe bet that if Rahm wins the Democratic Primary, he will be the next Mayor of Chicago.

The Democrats have had an absolute lock on the Chicago Mayor’s office for more than 80 years.

Comment #138: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  07:19 PM

Alan Grayson was a progressive who won his seat largely because his red district wanted change from Bush policies.

And lost his seat, in large part because the Democrats were ineffective in improving the economic climate.

Say what you will about red districts, they elected Democrats in 2006 and 2008: when those Democrats seemed to failed to deliver on the basic safety of jobs and homes, well….

Comment #139: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  07:20 PM

Murrow, 2008 voting was an anomoly - the Obama presidential election energised new voters.  Please post a comparison between 2006 and 2010.

Comment #140: Phoenician in a time of Romans  on  11/03  at  07:21 PM

I am going to agree with Murrow Fan and Alysia. The Democrats primarily lost big in the House and Senate because of the economy. If the economy was better than they would have done better. But I do not think that under most circumstances that the Democrats would have gained seats. The Democratic Party held so many Senate and House seats that are normally or at lean to the Republicans, that they were destined to lose at least around twenty-five to thirty-five seats in the House regardless of the economy. They might have done better in the Senate though, especially with the whack jobs that the Republican ran. Most of the Republican gains in the House were in seats that they previously held prior to 2006.

  Alysia at 129: I wouldn’t necessarily say that the American system is stupidly designed. It was a compromise from all the varying opinions of the Founders. The parliamentary system wasn’t really an option because it wasn’t really that developed then. It was still in the embryonic stages. The problem is that the Constitution is hard to amend and this makes it difficult to reform or eliminate the deficient parts of the American system.

    Nor do Parliamentary countries necessarily have people voting for the party. Some parliamentary countries have proportional representation where people literally vote for the party. Others have district based elections like we do and personalities still matter. I believe that some British people have complained about the presidentalization of British general elections, where the personal charisma of the party leaders matter more than they did in the past. The same goes for other parliamentary systems.

Comment #141: Lee  on  11/03  at  07:25 PM

Better link for Dr Erlich’s Magic Bullet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Ehrlich’s_Magic_Bullet

Comment #142: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  07:26 PM

If the Dems lost big because of the economy it’s because Americans have the memory of a squirrel on cocaine. If they can’t get it through their heads that the whole reason our economy is in the toilet is because of the Bush rightwing policies, then they deserve to be foreclosed on.

Comment #143: Mighty Ponygirl  on  11/03  at  07:28 PM

Re whether the Democrats could have won or at least saved more seats by being more Progressive:

  http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/10/the-fallacy-of-insufficient-extremism.html

  See also http://www.brendan-nyhan.com/blog/2010/07/the-political-version-of-green-lanternism.html

Murrow Fan, you might be interested in this on why going back to the old filibuster rules wouldn’t necessarily make it less attractive: http://plainblogaboutpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/10/question-day-answers-2a-live-filibuster.html

  I favor scrapping the filibuster regardless of what sort of moronic legislation gets through without it. Its better to make it easier to pass good legislation than to prevent the passage of bad legislation. The only veto should be the President’s pen and the Supreme Court potentially finding a law unconstitutional. Thats it.

Comment #144: Lee  on  11/03  at  07:32 PM

Mighty Ponygirl @ 143 - Yep!

Comment #145: Lady Vader  on  11/03  at  07:37 PM

I’m not sure where I stand on the filibuster, but Democrats should get rid of the hold (secret or otherwise). There’s absolutely no reason that one person should be able to stop a bill. It’s completely crazy that it’s still around.

Comment #146: JohnL  on  11/03  at  07:38 PM

judy i have lived my entire life except for college in south dakota and western iowa. I have been deeply involved in politics here since my early teens. I am not coming at this from an academic perspective but from real lived experience. I can’t speak to Grayson’s district, but I know that where I am there simply isn’t a progressive base. Republicans can be genuine nut jobs and still get elected. The only way a dem can win is to try to be more appealing to moderate republicans than the right wing whackjob. In 2006 and 2008, the democratic brand seemed more accpetable to the moderate republicans and this year the democratic brand was absolutely toxic to those moderate republican voters so blue dogs lost. Had they been more outspokenly liberal, they never would have won in the first place.

This does not mean obama should track right. The nation as a whole does have a lot of progressive potential voters that need to be energized and people nationally are often swayed more by a president seeming effective than by actual political ideolgies. Furthermore, at the national level Obama only needs to win over independent dumbasses and not independent dumbasses plus moderate republicans like the blue dogs do.

And the party may be better off without blue dogs; I have no idea. But rest assured that Kristi Noem is not a one term place holder for a real liberal to come along.

Comment #147: alysia  on  11/03  at  07:38 PM

Had the Democrats followed through on “progressive” policies that resulted in jobs, whatever they called themselves, the moderate Republicans might have voted for them.

Comment #148: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  07:41 PM

Lee at 141

I said parlaimentary, but I was thinking proportional representation. The anglophone countries are the only countries to have the first-past-the-post voting system, and the founding fathers adopted it largely because that was what they knew.

I also didn’t mean to slight the founding fathers—I knew that they came up with the best system possible considering all the competing demands. But I do wish that we could recognize that our government system was the result of gritty political compromise and not the most perfectist government created by the gods.

Comment #149: alysia  on  11/03  at  07:45 PM

The Democrats have had an absolute lock on the Chicago Mayor’s office for more than 80 years.

There’s more than one Democratic party in Chicago/Illinois.  There’s Daley’s faction, Mike Madigan’s Faction, the Black Coalition, the Hispanic Bloc, and poor Blago on his own.  I wanted Tom Dart to run.  Now it looks like Rahm’s only competition will be Carol Mosely Braun!!!!, whom he should trounce since she was mostly a crook and a fool when she was a senator. 

It’s actually amazing that Quinn appears to have won.  No one likes him, the economy sucks, and Illinois traditionally gets rid of incumbents by electing the opposing party (it’s the only way since the main party willl continue to run incumbents).  Brady really freaked out people when they heard of his position on social issues.

We have our whackaloons, but the state overall is pro-choice.  Antichoice Republicans have a very hard time winning statewide office.

Comment #150: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/03  at  07:46 PM

judybrowni at 148: There is no real progressive policy that would have resulted in tons of immediate jobs. What most of us progressives proposed to do was more about preventing future abuses and easing the harm that people are experiencing than creating jobs. Massive infrastructure spending would have created jobs but regulations would have made shovel ready projects hard to come by.

  See: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/02/focus-hocus-pocus/

Comment #151: Lee  on  11/03  at  07:49 PM

Had the Democrats created jobs, they would not have lost as many seats. But healthcare reform and cap and trade and immigration reform and dadt and the long list of legislation that blue dogs made difficult to impossible would not have created jobs. I don’t know about other blue dogs, but I know herseth-sandlin in SD voted for the stimulus. Granted, a bigger stimulus may have saved her ass had it worked, but I am not sure that the smallness of the stimulus can be blamed on blue dogs.

Lee is also right that dems would have likely lost a certain amount of seats because of regression towards the mean. Since blue dogs were the luckiest to have one, they would be the most likely to lose.

Comment #152: alysia  on  11/03  at  07:52 PM

Alysia at 149: Proportional representation allows for a wider range of political parties and for more diverse views to get seats in the legislative body but it has serious disadvantages. In a country with a lot of whack jobs, it gives the whack jobs an easier route to power. See Israel. Even if whack jobs don’t get an easy route to power, it does allow them to have enough seats to have to be continually bribed for votes. See how the Ultra-Orthodox get funding in Israel. Even without these problems, some proportional voting countries are prone to dysfunction and gridlock because of massive disagreements and lack of consensus. See Italy and Greece.

  So while France, the Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Denmark, Spain, and other countries function well with proportional represenation; other countries don’t. Somehow, I imagine that America would be the latter.

  I do agree that too many Americans fetishize the American government system too much.

Comment #153: Lee  on  11/03  at  08:09 PM

”Oh please. You would have been a Huey Long fan if this were the ‘30s. So would Matt Taibbi and Jane Hamsher.”

What’s with the dissing of the Kingfish?
If I was around in 32 I probably would have voted for Browder, that does nothing refute my opinion that FDR was better then Obama

Comment #154: jefft452  on  11/03  at  08:12 PM

jefft452: We can either keep writing very ideal laws that never pass or we can actually write laws that are capable of passing. I prefer the later, you prefer the former. Kucinich has written some very lovely pieces of legislation. None have passed.

Comment #155: Lee  on  11/03  at  08:16 PM

If the Dems lost big because of the economy it’s because Americans have the memory of a squirrel on cocaine.

When it comes to politics, most Americans do have the memory of a squirrel on cocaine. Those of us commenting and writing in the political blogosphere make up a pretty tiny segment of the electorate as a whole - most average Americans are less politically engaged than those who frequent progressive sites like this or even the wingnut political sites on the right.

Whatever the problems of America are TODAY, they are perceived to be the responsibility of whichever party is currently in control of the federal government.

On top of the fact that midterms are virtually ALWAYS won by the party out of the White House, I don’t think there’s ever been a federal election in which unemployment is worse than it had been two years prior in which the majority party doesn’t get “shellacked” as President Obama described it today.

In November 2008, the Bureau of Labor Statistics U-3 unemployment rate (the “official” unemployment rate most frequently cited) was 6.5%.

In November 2010, the U-3 is 9.6%.

Taking those figures into consideration, there is simply no way that the party in power wasn’t going to get crushed in the elections this year. I am hopeful that things could eventually turn the corner and conditions improve, but we’re a long way from that.

The sad truth is, most Americans are economically worse off today than they were in November 2008. Whose fault it is that the current economic climate is so shitty doesn’t really matter to most low-info voters (which would be most voters) - all they know is that their financial fears are greater today than they were two years ago, and the Democrats were running the federal government during that time.

Yesterday was not an enthusiastic endorsement of the Tea Klux Klan (which doesn’t have an actual platform other than hatred of everybody who isn’t white, straight, male, and Christian), it was the collective expression of massive disappointment over the status quo.

Comment #156: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  08:27 PM

@155

Good laws don’t pass because the Democratic leadership doesn’t push for them even when they are extremely popular with voters (see the public option).

Comment #157: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  08:30 PM

judybrowni, I was referring to the late 40s, and the point was even if a shot of penicillin was avaliable by the early 50s, sexual morality was such at that time that the 1954 graduating class of Notre Dame High, a Catholic High School in San Jose, CA,  got married because it was the only way they felt they could ‘legitimately’ experience sex without sinning, according to Mother Avenger.

Comment #158: Dark Avenger Guardian Chow Mein  on  11/03  at  08:32 PM

[Obama] now owns an economy that 9 out of 10 people are unhappy with. Is it any wonder that they took their ire out on the Democrats?

With the “real unemployment” figures around 17 percent, it means almost no one in the country isn’t being adversely affected by the economy—or knows someone who is. And they were not going to be mollified by health care reform that doesn’t kick in until 2014 and financial reform that isn’t slowing down foreclosures or making borrowing money easier for small businesses.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/arianna-huffington/in-2009-the-white-house-u_b_778080.html

“When it comes to helping Wall Street and corporate America, the Federal Reserve spares no expense.

It expanded its authority and bailed out securities and insurance firms. It tethered the main interest rate to zero. It more than doubled its balance sheet to $2.3 trillion by purchasing mortgage-linked securities and U.S. government debt. To arrest the free-falling economy and jolt it back to life, the nation’s central bank has engaged in an unprecedented campaign to ensure banks have cash and corporations access to credit.

That part of the Fed’s plan has worked. The economy is progressing through a slow, though not entirely visible, recovery. Employers are gradually adding workers to their payrolls. Industrial production is rising, as is personal consumption. The economy is slowly growing.

The problem is that the Fed’s actions have served to help just a small, but powerful, constituency: Wall Street, and the firms that do the most business on it…

Meanwhile, families are being devastated by historic unemployment and record home foreclosure rates. Households and small businesses can’t get credit. A quarter of homeowners with a mortgage owe more on that debt than the home is worth. Borrowers are declaring bankruptcy in near-record numbers…

But money is flowing overseas…
“[F]ar too many of the large corporations I survey that are committing to fixed investment report that the most effective way to deploy cheap money raised in the current bond markets or in the form of loans from banks, beyond buying in stock or expanding dividends, is to invest it abroad where taxes are lower and governments are more eager to please,” Dallas Fed president Fisher said Oct. 19. “This would not be of concern if foreign direct investment in the U.S. were offsetting this impulse. This year, however, net direct investment in the U.S. has been running at a pace that would exceed minus $200 billion, meaning outflows of foreign direct investment are exceeding inflows by a healthy margin.

“[I]f it were to prove out that the reduction of long-term rates engendered by Fed policy had been used to unwittingly underwrite investment and job creation abroad, then the potential political costs relative to the benefit of further accommodation will have increased,” he added.

In other words, the Fed’s next round of asset purchases may not help American families. Rather, it may benefit the citizens of other nations.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/03/federal-reserve-qe2_n_778392.html?page=5

Comment #159: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  08:33 PM

Can I stand up in defense of the “leave it to beaver” world that I grew up in?

Sure, we had racist assholes in the 50’s & 60’s, so many that we had to send the army down south just to escort 8 year old black girls to school

On the other hand … we SENT paratroopers with fixed bayonets to escort 8 year old black girls to school

Ike didn’t have to have a beer summit to apologize for criticizing a cop for arresting a black guy for breaking into his own house

The Civil Rights movement was successful because of the New Deal, not in spite of it

AuH2O ran against civil right and medicare and got his ass handed to him by those same “greatest generation” types described as “— a bunch of miscreants who saved the world from fascism only to return home and oppose the ending of it here”

When Reagan came along, guys my dads age knew him a nut job while the collage kids loved him

Comment #160: jefft452  on  11/03  at  08:39 PM

We have our whackaloons, but the state overall is pro-choice.  Antichoice Republicans have a very hard time winning statewide office.

Illinois is such a strange state because when you take out the Chicago metropolitan area, it is actually pretty conservative. That said, something like 85% of the entire state population is in the Chicago MSA, which is why it is overall a pretty consistently blue state.

But down here in my neck of the woods, across the river from St. Louis, Illinois has a shitload of teabagger types. Going south from the STL Metro East towards Carbondale and Metropolis it gets even more teabaggerish.

Comment #161: DTGslu2K  on  11/03  at  08:39 PM

” We can either keep writing very ideal laws that never pass or we can actually write laws that are capable of passing”

Aye, there is the rub

The biggest difference between FDR and Obama is fear of loosing

FDR pushed a lot of legislation that failed, that he knew would fail
He pushed it anyway…

… and lost…

… and 20 yrs later LBJ won some those fights what FDR lost

Comment #162: jefft452  on  11/03  at  08:54 PM

The Post-Election Game Plan: Cut Social Security, Soak the Middle-Class, and Keep Taxes Low For the Rich
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/the-post-election-game-pl_b_777748.html

The Deficit Commission set up by who? Why our Democratic President, that’s who!

Small wonder we lost the House!

Maybe, just maybe, the President and Democratic Congress enacting a jobs bill wouldn’t have been immediately effective—however, they did little to stimulate the economy that affects their base, with, apparently, more planned for damage to come.

Some of the base stayed home, as well as other segments of the Democratic base, discouraged from the idea that their Democratic politicians would be bothered to fight for them and basic security in their lives.

Who could have predicted a 12% drop in gay support for House Dems from 2008 to 2010?

2006 House races: 75%
2008 House races: 80%
2010 House races: 68%

31% voted Republican, up 4% from the last election—perhaps because in the battle to repeal DADT the Log Cabin Republicans were on the side of the angels?

http://gay.americablog.com/2010/11/12-drop-in-gay-support-for-house-dems.html#disqus_thread

Comment #163: judybrowni  on  11/03  at  09:03 PM

” We can either keep writing very ideal laws that never pass or we can actually write laws that are capable of passing”

PS

The cat food commission’s recommendations are “capable of passing”
More so now then before

Personally, I don’t think that that’s a good thing

But why listen to me?

I’m such a wild eyed radical that if im stuck with NAFTA I would prefer that poppy signed it, and the Democrats stood up for workers

If im stuck with the Republican health care alternative of 94 I would prefer that Gingrich passed it over a Democratic Presidents veto

If im stuck with the gutting of SSI, I really don’t want to see a Democratic President smiling as he signs the bill

Comment #164: jefft452  on  11/03  at  09:08 PM

jefft452, FDR frequently compromised on laws. He did not include national health insurance in the original Social Security Act so the AMA would hold it hostage in committee. He wrote it in away that excluded African-Americans to prevent Southern Congresscriters from filibustering it.

  FDR also had ten more Democratic Senators to spare and a Republican minority that wasn’t going to abuse the filibuster. He had a greater margin of era. You keep saying Obama could push but you don’t exactly say what Obama could do to push Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, and the other Blue Dogs. Prey tell.

Comment #165: Lee  on  11/03  at  09:56 PM

PS, liberals have been fighting for universal healthcare since 1912 when TR proposed and lost every battle before the ACA passed. Considering the history, do you really think that a more liberal piece of legislation could pass?

Comment #166: Lee  on  11/03  at  09:57 PM

Lee, FDR passed a whole slew of laws which would then get repeatedly struck down by the Supreme Court. Over and over again. Meanwhile he ran into major opposition because the whole idea of using the government to put people to work was anathema to many congressmen. He would try to get something through, and if it worked great, if not, he would try something else. If that something else then got struck down by the Supreme Court, he moved on to the next thing. And then he threatened to pack the Supreme Court with enough of his own appointees to get those laws through.

Comment #167: Tyro  on  11/03  at  10:03 PM

Tyro, FDR’s court packing plan failed. His attempt to primary reluctant Democratic politicians, especially from the South, also back fired on him eventually. Plus his lack of a plan frustrated many liberals not actually in politics at the time just like Obama’s strategy is frustrating to liberals now. Plus, he had much better margins, especially in the Senate, and Republicans who accepted that they lost and acted as loyal opposition rather than whack jobs.

Comment #168: Lee  on  11/03  at  10:21 PM

Lee, everything you pointed out backs up jeff452’s point rather than contradicts it: FDR would try anything and everything, and if it didn’t work, he’d try something else. So, yeah, lots of those laws got struck down. And then he just tried other laws. The court packing scheme failed, but it sent a message to the Supreme Court, “if you keep fucking with us, maybe next time you won’t be so lucky,” and the SC eventually became more compliant on these matters. He tried primarying reluctant politicians, and it didn’t work, but he gave it a whirl rather than twiddling his thumbs. As he said in his own words, “Do Something. If it works, do more of it. If it doesn’t, do something else.”

Comment #169: Tyro  on  11/03  at  10:37 PM

” don’t exactly say what Obama could do to push Nelson, Lieberman, Lincoln, and the other Blue Dogs. Prey tell”

Tyro answered better then me
But here goes….

No, nothing he could do would move Lieberman (I’m from CT)
He was going to shit in the punch bowl no matter what, its what he does

So when we had 58 D’s + Sanders + Lieberman we didn’t need to have Obama send Emmanuel to the Senate to tell the leadership that holy joe had his full support
He was never going to be with us anyway so we should have shot an Admiral pour encourager les autres

He could have not appointed the cat food commission, or at least not packed it with anti Social Security Dems and rabidly anti Social Security Repubs

HAMP was all Obama, no need for 60 votes to screw that up

AGAIN, you say he would have lost the vote if, say, he publicly came out for cram down, or repealing the Bush tax cuts for the rich fresh off a big victory and high poll numbers

AGAIN, I say so?  We didn’t get cram down and now Bush’s tax policy is carved in stone, losing those fights would mean that we would have the same policy as we now, but a lot more middle class voters would think that “Obama is on my side”

If your strategy is to quit before you get fired, well you will never be fired, but you will still be out of a job

Comment #170: jefft452  on  11/03  at  10:50 PM

@ 168

Describe what Obama’s plan is, in your mind.  I’m curious.

Comment #171: clever screen name  on  11/03  at  11:01 PM

”… and lost every battle before the ACA passed.”

Yeah, that weenie LBJ just got us Medicare, since its not universal its worthless, right?

Our wise current leaders gave us a tax on medical benefits for working people, a ban on pre existing conditions that relies on future Republican Presidents and Judges to enforce, and it’s still not universal

You say I’m making the perfect the enemy of the good, I think that I’m making the “meh, it’s
Ok, I guess” the enemy of “what a crap sandwich, It took you a year and a half do do this????”

Comment #172: jefft452  on  11/04  at  12:05 AM

Jeff, are you under the impression that the worst unemployment since the Great Depression is “good”?

Because it is not.

Comment #173: Punditus Maximus  on  11/04  at  12:55 AM

”Jeff, are you under the impression that the worst unemployment since the Great Depression is “good”?”

Huh? Where did I say that???

Comment #174: jefft452  on  11/04  at  01:05 AM

Lee, that Krugman article:  I do not think it means what you think it means:

What’s crucial to remember here is that economic policy is about actually doing things, not about saying “Message: I care.” A bigger stimulus — and, importantly, one that wouldn’t fade out just in time for the midterms — would have mattered. “Focus”, not so much.

Krugman has always been in favor of a bigger stimulus; I see nothing in this article that speaks about a lack of “shovel ready” projects, or the impossibility of a larger stimulus having an immediate effect.

Also, that first Nyhan article?  Pretty incoherent if the best example he can give of a topic that “polled well” for Bush was Social Security “Privatization”.  That’s really equivalent to DADT, or keeping Bush tax cuts for the middle class, but not the richest 1%, in terms of general popularity?

Caren:  Quinn did one thing to earn my respect: Get a bond passed to fund the state budget instead of slashing jobs/programs even further.  He gets it, and we’ll be much better off for it.

Re:  Emmanuel:  I thought Guttierrez or Jackson, Jr. were running?  I completely agree with you, as did my cabdriver tonight (For real!  I swear!)

Comment #175: NY Expat  on  11/04  at  02:18 AM

jefft452, did you read what I wrote. Every attempt at passing a universal healthcare bill, as in applies to everybody, fell flat on its face before ACA passed. There is every indication that a more liberal ACA bill would have similarly fell flat and we would have no HCR and no HCR for the foreseeable future regardless of how bad it is. Even if the entire healthcare system broke down, there will still be tens of millions of Americans opposed to universal healthcare and enough Congress people to oppose it.

  The healthcare legislation that passed, Medicare, Medicaid, and S-CHIP, only apply to specific groups and specific groups that the insurance companies were not interested in or would look very bad politically to oppose like children. The bills that were intended to apply to everybody did not pass. They didn’t even get out of committee.

    FWIW, here is how thing what the spin against Medicare for All would look like from the Republicans and the healthcare industry. They would argue that Medicare should not be for all, that it is reward for seniors for all their hard work over the decades and something that belongs only to them. I think this would have been successful.

Comment #176: Lee  on  11/04  at  07:26 AM

Ben D., if the filibuster was *ever* successfully used to stop egregiously awful Republican schemes, I would consider it useful.  But it isn’t, and as proof I offer Roberts and Ailto.

It is useless to Democrats, since we always have enough idiots who vote with the Republicans.  It is only useful to Republicans.

It’s also a dead awful thing as a matter of principle.

Get rid of it NOW or watch the Republicans run the country FOREVER.  Well, or until you get rid of it.

Comment #177: neroden  on  11/04  at  09:57 AM

alysia, I’m afraid you’re wrong.  Blue Dogs lost not just because they were in “conservative” districts, whatever that means, but because they were unprincipled hacks and sellouts and they made it obvious.

People like Bart Stupak, for all I detest him, might be a perfect fit for a “conservative” district.  The Blue Dogs, with a few exceptions, are not like that; they are not reflecting the biases of their voters, they’re just being stupid asses.

Comment #178: neroden  on  11/04  at  10:05 AM

“jefft452, did you read what I wrote. Every attempt at passing a universal healthcare bill, as in applies to everybody, fell flat on its face before ACA passed. There is every indication that a more liberal ACA bill would have similarly fell flat and we would have no HCR and no HCR for the foreseeable future regardless of how bad it is. Even if the entire healthcare system broke down, there will still be tens of millions of Americans opposed to universal healthcare and enough Congress people to oppose it.”

This flies in the face of the fact that it was eventually passed through the Senate under budget reconciliation. You really don’t think we could have gotten 50 senators on board for a generous public option? As far as I could tell, Obama didn’t try. Once it became clear he wasn’t going to get sixty votes, he should have pivoted from the strategy of ‘most liberal healthcare plan I can get 50 senators behind.’

Comment #179: witless chum  on  11/04  at  11:03 AM

Maybe Blue Dogs lost because even they were too liberal for their districts.  Maybe they lost because they were too conservative for the liberal voters in their districts. I think the much more likely explanation is the one in Salon - they voted against the extension of unemployment benefits and now they are out. The voters are always on board with cutting the budget, in theory, but they never want the program they are relying on to be cut.

Comment #180: elena  on  11/04  at  11:32 AM

neroden—a conservative district is one that is majority Republican so that any Democrat has to prove to moderate Republicans that they are not scary socialist abortion monsters. I assume that you think Stupak is a great fit because he was socially liberal but anti-choice, but that is based on a sort of urban mythos about what drives simple rural folk. Most conservative areas would still be conservative withouth the abortion issues: its more of a get out of morality free card for greedy bastards. I have never denied that blue dogs were sellouts, and I honestly don’t know whether the dems are better off or worse off without them, but honest to god liberals would not win this area.

Elena—I did not read the salon article, but I am highly skeptical of that argument. As much as I wish the poor and unemployed would ban together to represent their interests, they do not. This was a midterm election. Poor people very rarily vote in midterms. The electorate is even more dominated by middle to upper middle class white people than in presidential years. All of the commercials I saw were about increasing the deficit and giving YOUR money away to the undeserving and putting the long oppressed rich at risk of a tax increase. And the problem of reaching out to poor voters is way way way deeper than a few votes and campaign ads. It is something political scientists, voter turnout groups, and idealist politicians have been grappling with forever.

Comment #181: alysia  on  11/04  at  01:49 PM

<blockquoe>Illinois is such a strange state because when you take out the Chicago metropolitan area, it is actually pretty conservative. That said, something like 85% of the entire state population is in the Chicago MSA, which is why it is overall a pretty consistently blue state.</blockquote>

Yep.  That’s why you hear mutterings from Downstate about splitting off from Chicago or that Chicago’s opinion shouldn’t matter (especially since Chicago has so many brown and black people, ya know)

Problem is, if you toss out the Chicago MSA and collar counties, you end up with a much smaller state, and I’m willing to bet it’s more like a typical red state that needs more tax money than it sends.

It’s like when you look at a map of red states and blue states and the country looks red.  No one lives in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado and other giant swaths of red land.  When you get a bunch of people together, things turn blue.

Comment #182: Caren-Sun-blocking Creator of Animorphic Pancakes  on  11/04  at  02:31 PM

No one lives in Wyoming, Montana, Idaho, Colorado and other giant swaths of red land.

To be fair, Colorado is a heck of a lot more blue than the other three states you listed - both of their U.S. Senators are Democrats, and the Democratic gubernatorial candidate (Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper) beat Tom Tancredo and Dan Maes in a landslide on Tuesday. That said, the liberalism of Colorado is mostly limited to the Denver-Boulder area in the state.

The truth is, most of the land area of this country is red, and pretty much always has been more conservative. The blue exists in a bunch of highly populated dots throughout the country representing younger and more diverse urban areas. Missouri is quite red overall, but both Kansas City and St. Louis are quite blue, and Columbia leans a little more blue because of the 20,000 Mizzou students who live there.

Missouri’s 17 term blue dog U.S. Congressman, Ike Skelton, got bounced Tuesday and I’m not aware of too many progressives who are very upset about it.

Comment #183: DTGslu2K  on  11/04  at  05:03 PM

According to Nate Silver, when the two house seats in the Dakotas switched yesterday, the dems lost half of the land area they controlled in the house of representatives.

Comment #184: alysia  on  11/04  at  05:06 PM

Ben D., if the filibuster was *ever* successfully used to stop egregiously awful Republican schemes, I would consider it useful.  But it isn’t, and as proof I offer Roberts and Ailto.

Add the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001” (aka USA PATRIOT Act) to that list…

For all of screeching from wingnuts about HCR being “rushed” through Congress without anybody reading it, PATRIOT was put together, passed, and signed into law less than 50 days after 9/11, and it was a massive 2,000 page bill that basically nobody bothered reading when they voted for it.

To be fair, at the time it was passed it would have been extremely risky and perhaps even electorally suicidal in some cases to try to block it, but that said, if ever there was a bill that should have been filibustered by the Democrats, the Patriot Act is it.

I agree with your point 100%... the filibuster has never been overused by the Democrats in the same obstructionist manner in which it has been used by Republicans. It benefits Republicans far more than it has benefitted Democrats in my lifetime.

And no, the filibuster is not what prevented Bush from privatizing Social Security, because no legislation even made it onto the floor for debate. Bush’s proposal quickly became so unpopular that even many Republicans opposed it and it was DOA long before a filibuster would have been needed to stop it.

Comment #185: DTGslu2K  on  11/04  at  05:19 PM

One other point on the filibuster. I often hear people claim that the filibuster exists to prevent the tyranny of the majority leading us down the wrong path.

Bullshit. The United States Senate itself exists to prevent the tyranny of the majority from leading us down the wrong path.

Don’t believe me?

The votes of Sen. Mike Enzi and Sen. John Barasso are equal to the votes of Sen. Dianne Feinstein and Sen. Barbara Boxer.

Enzi and Barasso represent the 544,000 Wyoming citizens, whereas Feinstein and Boxer represent nearly 37,000,0000 Californians.

In any piece of legislation considered by the Senate, the votes of two men who represent a relatively tiny group of people have as much weight as the votes of two women who represent a group of people that is more than 70 times larger.

544,000 Wyoming citizens have as much clout in the U.S. Senate as 37,000,000 Californians.

Under the present filibuster rules, 41 U.S. Senators who represent the 21 least populous states can effectively kill legislation even if all 59 other U.S. Senators approve of it. The 21 least populaous states in this country represent barely 11% of the entire U.S. population. As it currently stands, legislators who represent 11% of American citizens can overrule legislators who represent nearly 90% of American citizens.

Tell me that’s not completely fucked up.

If we did away with the filibuster altogether, the minority would still have tremendous power in the United States Senate, as the 25 least populous states represent just over 16% of the U.S. population. Even without the filibuster, 50 U.S. Senators who represent 50 Million Americans have as much clout as the 50 U.S. Senators who represent the other 257 Million Americans.

That is more than enough to “prevent the tyranny of the majority” in our legislature. The filibuster gives the minority entirely too much power to obstruct the will of the majority.

Comment #186: DTGslu2K  on  11/04  at  05:55 PM

”jefft452, did you read what I wrote.”

Yeah
Medicare isnt universal
Neither is ACA

This is what I find so aggravating -  to defend this administrations record vs FDR or LBJ, you tell me that SS used to exclude agricultural workers and that Medicare was a weak half measure

I tell you that even b4 they were improved, SS or Medicare helped far more people then ACA will, and gave them vastly more help

Also too they were good strong foundations that could easily be expanded and improved

ACA is weak to start and its about to get watered down further

Comment #187: jefft452  on  11/04  at  07:02 PM

You know, I hope the “enthusiasm gap” narrative sticks. I think it’s true, and if the Democrats pay attention to it, they’ll start governing better.

Comment #188: snowmentality  on  11/04  at  09:42 PM

I think the whole post was a little ‘pie-in-the-sky.’ Racism isnt just with white people nor is sexism. For example many people who are immigrants come from countries where they have their own racisms against a group of people and in many cases also come from highly misogynistic countries. Typically these countries dont tend to be too open torwards homosexuals as well and tend to be very religious. They simply take all of it with them (though of course many assimilate). It doesnt just stop when the elderly, who remember the 50’s and want it back, die off. Then theres also the fact that in America we have backlash movements, in particluar those run by the xristian extremists and conservatives. I also dont think my generation is THAT open-minded. I think that tends to be a bit of an exaggeration or is simply something that people note erroneously simply because gen y is still in their 20’s and twenty-somethings tend to be more diversified and varied. Simply wait till they all have kids, move into the suburbs and start voting Republican. I think we need better strategies at addressing racism, homophobia and sexism. Simply thinking the old farts are going away soon and everything will be all fixed sounds a little too peachy to me.

Comment #189: Bean Slap  on  11/04  at  11:00 PM

Damn you and your rightness, Bean Slap.

Comment #190: alysia  on  11/05  at  12:05 AM

@Everyone: do you think that only Democrats know that SS started small?  Republicans do, too, and that’s why HCR repeal is the very first thing on their agenda.

Comment #191: Punditus Maximus  on  11/05  at  05:15 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.