US Politics: The Day After The Political Earthquake

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

In my almost 12 years here I've learned that predicting results of an election that is 2 years down the road is, at best, the equivient of reading tea leaves.

[Jace, Extat]

In my almost 12 years here I've learned that predicting results of an election that is 2 years down the road is, at best, the equivient of reading tea leaves.

But what if they're leaves from a tea... PARTY!?!

Oh, I just crack myself up.

[jarl the climber]

Its very hard to say what mood the electorate will be in come 2016. I remember sitting in despiar after the 2004 election. Bush the younger had just won a 2nd term despite having dragged us into a war that both strategically stupid and justified by fraudulent evidence (though the extent of the deception campaign to built public support for the Iraq invasion was not yet completely known). His adminstration was also pushing numerous oderous and ill-advised policies, at least from my perspective (I'm not trying to start a debate about the Bush presidency. This is a descrption of how I felt). His party had just gained seats in both the House and Senate. It was at least as bad a day for liberals in this country as Nov 4, if not worse. Karl Rove was talking of a perminate majority and, while I knew better intellectually, in my gut I feared it was a real possiblity.

A mear two years latter the GOP suffered a crushing defeat, with both the house and senate changing hands as well as dramatic shifts on the state level. This country has proven over and over again that it can make dramatic shifts in a very short period of time. One could also point to the contrast between 2008 and 2010 to illustrate this point. Or, to go back in history, the difference between 1928 and 1932, where we went from liasse faire being the rule of the land to a government that implemented a number of socialist style policies with strong public support.

Given the historical record, 2014 is not necassarily a good guide to what 2016 will look like. Both those who are saddened by election results and those who are celebrating them need to soberly consider the historical record and realize that electroate is very capable of making sudden u-turns.

All things considered its been surprising the country hasn't tilted more towards the Left. The Great Depression created a tilt that lasted for several generations as you pointed out. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the Democrats played things wrong and have sort of blown their oppurtunity at least for the time being.

Personally, I think the great divide in American politics is generational. Most of the policies advanced by both parties cater towards older voters from the middle and upper classes. Disaffected voters and younger voters don't really have anyone to vote for. Because of his personal influence Obama has gotten some younger and minority voters to the polls but I can't say that hes done a great deal for them. His signature accomplishment, health care, is more of a concern for older, middle class voters. The main concern for youngsters is college costs, student loans and jobs.

One thing that almost seems paradoxical to me is that while the government is seen as a possible solution to many of our current problems there is a great deal of skepticism that the politicians will actually do the right thing and deliver on the things that they promise. One of the biggest problems is the role that money now plays in politics as well as the armies of consultants and operatives that both parties employ for the elections. Politics didn't work that way in the 30's. The current system engenders skepticism. Another thing that's very troubling is the national debt and funding SS and Medicare. A lot of folks feel like were heading into uncharted waters and that the these debts and obligations are going to hamstring the governments ability to act in the coming years.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

Personally, I think the great divide in American politics is generational. Most of the policies advanced by both parties cater towards older voters from the middle and upper classes. Disaffected voters and younger voters don't really have anyone to vote for. Because of his personal influence Obama has gotten some younger and minority voters to the polls but I can't say that hes done a great deal for them. His signature accomplishment, health care, is more of a concern for older, middle class voters. The main concern for youngsters is college costs, student loans and jobs.

It is just not the case that health care is more of a concern for older, middle class voters than it is for young and minority voters. Young and minority voters are more likely to be uninsured, and older voters are more likely to insured, especially if they're in the middle class.

As for college costs and loans, Obama has taken action on student loan forgiveness and expanding direct federal lending. For jobs, he and the Democratic Party rescued the American economy from probable depression through stimulus, a bailout of the auto industry, and long-term extension of unemployment benefits. The economy has grown and unemployment has fallen consistently under his administration.

[Larry of the Lawn]

It is just not the case that health care is more of a concern for older, middle class voters than it is for young and minority voters. Young and minority voters are more likely to be uninsured, and older voters are more likely to insured, especially if they're in the middle class.

As for college costs and loans, Obama has taken action on student loan forgiveness and expanding direct federal lending. For jobs, he and the Democratic Party rescued the American economy from probable depression through stimulus, a bailout of the auto industry, and long-term extension of unemployment benefits. The economy has grown and unemployment has fallen consistently under his administration.

The stuff with student loans has been a bandaid on a gunshot wound. Education costs are insane, all that's been done is to make the product slightly more affordable to the consumer. And as since the student loan system is incredibly profitable for colleges, and a net positive for the govt, I don't see this.changing in the near future.

[jarl the climber]

It is just not the case that health care is more of a concern for older, middle class voters than it is for young and minority voters. Young and minority voters are more likely to be uninsured, and older voters are more likely to insured, especially if they're in the middle class.

.

Older voters are more likely to actually need insurance and have legitimate concerns if they lose it. For younger people its more of a bill/tax.

As for college costs and loans, Obama has taken action on student loan forgiveness and expanding direct federal lending. For jobs, he and the Democratic Party rescued the American economy from probable depression through stimulus, a bailout of the auto industry, and long-term extension of unemployment benefits. The economy has grown and unemployment has fallen consistently under his administration.

I can argue with you on this point by point but the larger context of the post you quoted was an attempt to discern why the Democrats haven't had a wave of support like Roosevelt had with the New Deal. I for one don't share your enthusiasm about all the administrations accomplishments, judging by the election results neither do a lot of the voters.

[Altherion]

All things considered its been surprising the country hasn't tilted more towards the Left. The Great Depression created a tilt that lasted for several generations as you pointed out. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the Democrats played things wrong and have sort of blown their oppurtunity at least for the time being.

I do not think it is at all surprising. During the Great Depression, FDR & Co. genuinely redistributed a non-trivial amount of wealth from the rich to the poor and middle class. Their policies would have been called downright socialist today. Even leaving aside the huge number of government programs, consider the top tax rates. In 1931, this rate was 25% on income over $100K (around $1.5M in 2014 dollars). In 1932, the rate on income over $100K went up to 56% (more than double!) and new brackets were created with the highest one being income over $1M taxed at 63%. In 1936, the $100K rate went up to 62% and there was a new category (over $5M) taxed at 79%. Note that all of this is well before WWII (during the latter, the rates climbed over 90%).

Unlike their counterparts from the 1930s, 21st century Democrats are no less beholden to the rich than 21st century Republicans. They might be socially leftist, but economically, they merely play the role of Good Cop serving exactly the same masters as the Republicans (who play Bad Cop). Neither party does anything whatsoever to redistributed the wealth from the rich to everyone else (quite the opposite, considering the bailouts and aftermath thereof). The Democrats play at being champions of the poor (and thus also minorities who are disproportionally poor), but given that nobody is willing to take anything from the rich to pay for the programs of the Democrats, the latter amount to either redistribution of wealth from the middle class to the poor, shuffling of wealth within the middle class and the poor with the winners of the day being paid for by everyone else or yet another addition to the national debt. It's not clear who will eventually pay for the latter, but barring major changes in government, it probably won't be the rich.

The Democrats got the presidency as well as sizable majorities in both houses of Congress in 2008 because they fooled a lot of people into thinking that the day of the above-mentioned major changes had come. They quickly made it perfectly clear that this was not the case (i.e. nothing meaningful would be done about the rich in general or Wall Street in particular) and thus were crushed in 2010 (note the contrast to the 1934 elections in which they gained seats in both houses and the Senate gains were nearly as substantial as those in 1932). Their control of the presidency has lasted longer, but I suspect mostly because the alternative could (without irony!) be labeled an Avatar of the One Percent.

[Shryke]

Personally, I think the great divide in American politics is generational. Most of the policies advanced by both parties cater towards older voters from the middle and upper classes. Disaffected voters and younger voters don't really have anyone to vote for. Because of his personal influence Obama has gotten some younger and minority voters to the polls but I can't say that hes done a great deal for them. His signature accomplishment, health care, is more of a concern for older, middle class voters. The main concern for youngsters is college costs, student loans and jobs.

No, young people care alot about health care too. The whole thing where your parents can keep you on their health plan later in the ACA helped ALOT of young people who couldn't find employment in this economy.

[Guy Kilmore]

All things considered its been surprising the country hasn't tilted more towards the Left. The Great Depression created a tilt that lasted for several generations as you pointed out. The only conclusion that I can come to is that the Democrats played things wrong and have sort of blown their oppurtunity at least for the time being.

Personally, I think the great divide in American politics is generational. Most of the policies advanced by both parties cater towards older voters from the middle and upper classes. Disaffected voters and younger voters don't really have anyone to vote for. Because of his personal influence Obama has gotten some younger and minority voters to the polls but I can't say that hes done a great deal for them. His signature accomplishment, health care, is more of a concern for older, middle class voters. The main concern for youngsters is college costs, student loans and jobs.

One thing that almost seems paradoxical to me is that while the government is seen as a possible solution to many of our current problems there is a great deal of skepticism that the politicians will actually do the right thing and deliver on the things that they promise. One of the biggest problems is the role that money now plays in politics as well as the armies of consultants and operatives that both parties employ for the elections. Politics didn't work that way in the 30's. The current system engenders skepticism. Another thing that's very troubling is the national debt and funding SS and Medicare. A lot of folks feel like were heading into uncharted waters and that the these debts and obligations are going to hamstring the governments ability to act in the coming years.

I agree with this statement by in large. I really feel that, at least in politics, I am being held hostage by old people.

[Shryke]

That's basically alot of what seems to be happening. Here's an interesting, if slightly long, read on the subject:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/11/the_disunited_states_of_america_why_demographics_republican_obstructionism.single.html

As we entered the 2000s then, we had several trends coming together at once. The overall voting population was getting younger and browner, and these new voters were more Democratic; older voters, however, were still whiter and becoming more Republican. And young people continued to vote in presidential elections and largely ignore the midterms, while the older generation was consistent, voting in almost every election.

It’s a simple dynamic that leaves us with vastly divergent electorates. In midterm elections, it doesn’t matter that Democrats run the table with young people, single women, and minorities—they’re outvoted by the older, whiter voters who actually turn out. And while we had a fleeting moment where Republican dominance with white voters was decisive in presidential elections—the 2004 contest—it’s no longer the case. Democrats are so strong with the so-called coalition of the ascendant that they can win with fewer whites than ever before: just 39 percent in the last presidential election. To put it in a sound bite, Democrats don’t have enough white voters to consistently hold the Senate or win the House, and Republicans don’t have enough minorities to win the presidency

The interesting thing is what the writer here notes, which is how this divide and how it manifests itself in presidential vs mid-term elections is contributing heavily to the US becoming ungovernable.

[awesome possum]

I believe we have a new candidate for most batshit insane member of congress.

Gordon “Dr. Chaps” Klingenschmitt, a radical anti-gay Religious Right activist who brags of having once tried to rid of woman of the “foul spirit of lesbianism” through an exorcism and who openly proclaims that “American law needs to reflect God’s law” and that our foreign policy must be based on the Bible, won election to the Colorado House of Representatives last night.

Klingenschmitt, who wrote a book about how President Obama is possessed by demons andonce performed an exorcism of Obama, ran an utterly embarrassing campaign yet nonetheless managed to defeat his Democratic opponent by nearly 40 points.

Klingenschmitt believes “only people who are going to heaven are entitled to equal treatment by the government.” He’s said “teaching kids about gay marriage is mental rape.” He’s argued that the Affordable Care Act “causes cancer.” He’s described Islamic State militants as a sign of the Biblical End Times.

Klingenschmitt declared, “You know what, citizens, if you don’t have a gun, I’m telling you – as a Christian chaplain – sell your clothes and buy a gun. It’s time.”

It was a small conservative district, he only needed 17,000 votes to win, but holy shit. You sometimes forget that the rabid far right nut cartoonish stereotypes exist for a reason. These cartoon characters actually exist and get elected to fucking Congress.

[MerenthaClone]

Uh, AP? He got elected to the state House of Reps. He's not in Congress.

[awesome possum]

Well that's my derp. Totally misread that.

[Sci-2]

Dark Money Helped Win the Senate

"Political operatives say this year was just a dress rehearsal for 2016, when there will be even more money, much of it secret, all benefiting the interests of the richest and best connected Americans. Given big money’s influence on Tuesday, the chances for limiting it are more distant than ever."

[Ramsay Gimp]

It's starting.

http://news.yahoo.com/obama-authorizes-1-500-more-troops-iraq-200513874--politics.html

Obama is send 1500 more troops to Iraq. They aren't going in a combat role but it's inevitable that they and more will be in a combat role.

Remember I predicted that this would happen after the Mid-term elections were over.

It never ends...

[TrackerNeil]

Someone at National Review is talking about a legal way for the GOP to use their state legislatures across the country to change the way states dole out their electoral college votes so that Dems can't win the White House.

This was being kicked around in 2011 as well, and nobody did it. I can't say for sure why not, but I have a theory. I think it's a situation in which the interests of national-level Republicans conflict with those of the state-level. If, say, Pennsylvania reallocated its electoral votes by congressional district, Democrats would start working a lot harder to win those districts. Does any Republican really want Democrats mining heavily for votes in his/her district? I certainly wouldn't, in that place. So these crooked little schemes are titillating, but I'm not sure they're an easy sell to state legislatures.

[Shryke]

This was being kicked around in 2011 as well, and nobody did it. I can't say for sure why not, but I have a theory. I think it's a situation in which the interests of national-level Republicans conflict with those of the state-level. If, say, Pennsylvania reallocated its electoral votes by congressional district, Democrats would start working a lot harder to win those districts. Does any Republican really want Democrats mining heavily for votes in his/her district? I certainly wouldn't, in that place. So these crooked little schemes are titillating, but I'm not sure they're an easy sell to state legislatures.

I think it's too blatant to work. Voter ID laws manage the same kind of thing but with the veneer of fixing a problem. Changes like this are just outright election rigging and would be treated as such.

Even the Jim Crow types pretend they were literacy tests after all.

[Commodore]

GOP should definitely do that.

The Dems would if the situations were reversed, they play for keeps.

Sending troops to Iraq a few days after the election is about as cynical as it gets.

No wait, a mass executive amnesty after the election is worse.

[ThinkerX]

https://www.facebook.com/ForAmerica?hc_location=timeline

Sort of a 'zero content article', but the comments are interesting: seems that a growing number of conservative voters want 'Obama-care' 'fixed' rather than repealed. About a quarter of the comments are in favor of such. If this is a national trend and Obama holds tough, the republicans will not be able to repeal the ACA after 2016 even if they do win the Oval Office - unless they want to tick off a bunch of conservative voters.

[The Marquis de Leech]

I think it's too blatant to work. Voter ID laws manage the same kind of thing but with the veneer of fixing a problem. Changes like this are just outright election rigging and would be treated as such.

Even the Jim Crow types pretend they were literacy tests after all.

The other thing is that the scheme only works if applied in Blue states where Republicans control the Governor and the state legislature. Republicans may split up Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Florida, and Ohio - but Republicans like to think they can win those states anyway. The Republicans are still not in a position to crack California or New York.