Saturday, April 10, 2010

Democrats Pay How Much For War? - 2

Not so long ago Dredd Blog had occasion to wonder just how much the democrats would have to pay for the wars they have not attempted to halt.

That post was not concerned with the dollar amounts they willingly and without question paid the warmongers, the pig banks, and others drooling while lusting greedily after the public trough.

No, that post was concerned with the democrats finding themselves on the wrong end of the angry American voters, because the issue was stated as:
I mean in the upcoming elections, since they have shown, up until this point, that they will pay any amount for war, but very little for domestic needs.

The people have polled against the wars for years now, to no avail. The people overwhelmingly voted the neoCon republican hawks out, to give the democrats a chance to do what the people want.

Nevertheless, the wars continue, now having lasted longer than WW I and WW II combined.
(How Much Will Democrats Pay For War?). The discourse in that post was downstream from a Dredd Blog reminder to the democrats about what had been rejected in the two elections that had given them control of the House, Senate, and the White House:
In the first article the critical issue of the campaign was mentioned, which was the fact that it was a rejection election. The people rejected something.

That subject is all important to understanding what went down, so in the article we answered the question by saying that it was the Bush II status quo mentality and politics that was rejected.

The Bush II regime's despotic ideology does not sit well with Americans, and in fact it does not sit well with humane people across the globe. Not surprisingly then, it was soundly rejected.

Understanding and remembering that factor is equally important to understanding what will go down in various circumstances during the first term of the Obama Administration.
(What Was Rejected In The Election). It seems that the cows have come home, if we take note of the usually extremely accurate 538 dot com musings:
And what if, for example, the Rasmussen case comes into being? Rasmussen has the Democrats losing the generic ballot by 9 points (and has had similar numbers for awhile). A 9-point loss in the House popular vote would translate into a projected 65-seat loss for Democrats. Or, if we adjust the Rasmussen poll to account for the fact that the Democrats' performance in the popular vote tends to lag the generic ballot, it works out to a 12.4 - point loss in the popular vote, which implies a loss of 79 seats!

The point is not necessarily that these are the most likely scenarios -- we certainly ought not to formulate a judgment based on Rasmussen polls alone, as the jury is still out on whether the substantial house effect they've displayed this cycle is a feature or a bug. But these sorts of scenarios are frankly on the table. If Democrats were to lose 50, 60, 70 or even more House seats, it would not totally shock me. Nor would it shock me if they merely lost 15, or 20. But their downside case could be very far down.
(Generic Poll Points to 50+ Loss For Democrats). I cite to 538 because they were perfectly accurate in the last election.

As I said in Yes They Can!, it would be totally insane, and a clear indicator that this nation has gone over the edge, but that also can happen.


  1. It's a problem that the way the MSM frames everything, opposition to the Dems from the left is only marginally reported, if at all. You can bet it will appear that the Dems lost because everyone's a Teabagger now.

    This is not a reason to vote for Dems, however. I expect the Dems own polling would tell them the real reason, and they MAY take that to heart or not, but we have to try to unite to the left of Dems, which, in my book is only 'leftwing' compared to Rush Limbaugh.

    A truly left perspective is never heard in Am. pol., as evidenced by teabaggers' ability to call Obama a socialist when the truth is socialists can't stand him. So politically dumb people (most Americans) can be scared into the rightwing camp.

  2. After only two years of Democratic buffonery, the nation HAS clearly gone over the edge (love that photo by the way - what a trio of criminal swine!). Voting Republicans or whatever opposing swine there is to vote for into office WILL be rational, in that voters will rightfully take the attitide "in for a penny, in for a pound." As in, if we're going to get neo-con conservative Republican policy decisions anyway, we might as well vote in authentic neo-con conservative Republican politicians and let the chips fall where they may. Since the empire's going over the edge anyway, like the memorable scene in "Thelma and Louise," it might be better to just step on the gas and go flying off into oblivion with some genuine gusto. It'll be the first genuine thing we've done in at least 50 years.

  3. I have come to entertain the notion that it is not only individuals who can fall victim to the Stockholm Syndrome.

    After all, in that case a group of people were infected with the dementia from only one episode.

    National governments can make their populace sick, including the sickness of the Stockholm Syndrome.

    Traditionally we, meaning the voters, have been the cure.

    But since government has also become the pharmacist, we can't seem to get the medication we need to shove down their lying throats, nor can we seem to get the medicine we need to immunize ourselves.

    Lets keep trying ...

  4. Unfortunately, I don't know who's really trying anymore, or that the few who are, are doing any good. The Obama supporters are all smug thinking they're really accomplished something, when in fact, the status quo has been almost entirely preserved. The true left are REALLY pissed off now, as they realize they've been sold a bill of goods by the one guy who might have actually made a difference and at a crucial turning point in American history for a whole laundry list of issues.

    The few actual conservative Republicans out there must be considering switching parties, as the Democrats have largely usurped their entire agenda, while the radical right - god love 'em - looks increasingly like a circus act meant to merely to divert attention from the wholesale theft of what remains of the American democracy.

    I dunno, the patient looks terminal at this point to me and is only being kept alive by extraordinary life extending measures. I think it might be best for all if we pull the plug on the bastard before the HMO sends us the bill for all the shit they're not gonna cover.

  5. It is almost a full time job to keep up with who does the good votes and who doesn't. I mean in the congress.

    There seems to be no pay for it either. In the old days we voted out the bad guys and voted in the good guys.

    There don't seem to be enough good guys anymore. They are too hard to find and vote for.