Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

OTOH, if they manage to screw up the Senate this year, that could give them a chance to repeat their Man with No Name Come to Clean Up the Town act and sweep all before them in 2012.

Whoa, easy there. Screw up the Senate this year? That assumes that they were ever regarded to really have a chance at it doesn't it? I mean, even in the most starry eyed projections, the GOP only takes 50-51 seats, and that requires nearly every little thing to go right.

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/19/2332666/naacp-releases-report-accusing.html

Extra! Extra! Read all about it: just in time for the balloting, the president's pals at the NAACP issue a report on the "racism" of the Tea Party movement. One waits breathlessly for their report on anti-American commies and socialists and Alinskyites in the Obama administration. Years ago this sort of thing was roundly criticised by the MSM as "guilt by association," and "McCarthyism." Times change, I guess.

 

[Patman]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

It's not like the judge sat there thinking of things to do, someone had to bring a suit and raise the Constitutional issue - in this case, it was a group of Republicans. And civil rights issues are one thing never best left up to the populace or its primary representatives (the legislature). The entire point of civil rights are to protect minorities from the majority mob.

And the armed forces have been passing the buck on this one for 30 years at a minimum. How much more time do they need?

So... does ruling against DADT revert the rules to the previous rule? Why? Why not?

Civil rights have to be left to the legislatures otherwise nobody will have faith in them. The "rights" beyond those that are constitutionally (and likely through the amendments) enumerated are often not rights in and of themselves. One must tread carefully... this is how a "right to somebody to provide health care" and "right to broadband internet" become "rights"

 

[Old Pio]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

So... does ruling against DADT revert the rules to the previous rule? Why? Why not?

Civil rights have to be left to the legislatures otherwise nobody will have faith in them. The "rights" beyond those that are constitutionally (and likely through the amendments) enumerated are often not rights in and of themselves. One must tread carefully... this is how a "right to somebody to provide health care" and "right to broadband internet" become "rights"

Don't forget the "right not to be offended," as explained on the floor of the senate by that world idiot, Carole Mosley Braun.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Don't forget the "right not to be offended," as explained on the floor of the senate by that world idiot, Carole Mosley Braun.

Definitely. NPR execs just exercised their right not to be offended: link.

The guy can't be honest about how he feels? I call BS if the people who fired him say that the same thing doesn't cross their minds.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Whoa, easy there. Screw up the Senate this year? That assumes that they were ever regarded to really have a chance at it doesn't it? I mean, even in the most starry eyed projections, the GOP only takes 50-51 seats, and that requires nearly every little thing to go right.

538 had them as a 35% chance before the primary disasters. They dropped to about 25% but have since rebounded to about 33% because Dems are eroding in other places, too. But I take your larger point and agree that "screw up" is not fair. To not take the House would be an epic screw up. To not take the Senate would not be. I would say that to not pick up at least 7 seats in the Senate would count as a screw up. This is one of those midterms when the out party makes huge gains.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

And your response is no answer to the proposition that any criticism, no matter how trivial, brings the faithful out with their pitchforks and lighted torches. Evidently this dude is perfect, eh?

My "answer" was and is I am giving you credit that you weren't posing a real question. I know Obama Derangement Syndrome runs deep, but I don't believe you've got it, you were indulging yourself in electioneering rhetoric which is fine by me -- I do it sometimes when I'm bored just to watch our real resident crazies do the Linda Blair.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

538 had them as a 35% chance before the primary disasters. They dropped to about 25% but have since rebounded to about 33% because Dems are eroding in other places, too. But I take your larger point and agree that "screw up" is not fair. To not take the House would be an epic screw up. To not take the Senate would not be. I would say that to not pick up at least 7 seats in the Senate would count as a screw up. This is one of those midterms when the out party makes huge gains.

Even there I'm not sure I totally agree with you. There seems to be this narrative that's beginning to build up in Democratic circles that this kind of thing happens all the time, and people really don't dislike Democrats policies, they're just confused, and this kind of election was always kind of a given. (Furthered of course by Republican idiots like Gingrich who talk about gaining 100 seats, they're not blameless here.)
This kind of thing most definitely doesn't happen all the time, and it certainly isn't ho hum, like people are making it out to be.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Even there I'm not sure I totally agree with you. There seems to be this narrative that's beginning to build up in Democratic circles that this kind of thing happens all the time, and people really don't dislike Democrats policies, they're just confused, and this kind of election was always kind of a given. (Furthered of course by Republican idiots like Gingrich who talk about gaining 100 seats, they're not blameless here.)
This kind of thing most definitely doesn't happen all the time, and it certainly isn't ho hum, like people are making it out to be.

I'm sure Dems are trying to soft-peddle it but I also don't think it's any more of a seismic shift in public attitudes than 2008 was. The incumbent gets blamed when times are tough. This will be bigger than usual because times are tougher than usual. I don't think people are confused -- they're voting for "Change!" again, because that's what we do when the status quo aint makin' it.

A split between the WH and Congress at least gives us a chance to enact the kind of austerity reforms they announced in the UK -- a trade of huge cuts in the public sector (they cut 20% across the board! Can you imagine doing that here? Can you imagine the howls from both sides?) for restoration of progressive taxation. That's the responsible way forward and each side left to itself will only enact the part that is ideologically acceptable to its base, so we need this for a while. This might be one of those rare occasions when the electorate stumbles unwittingly onto the right answer.

Here are Silver's predictions for the Senate and House. He predicts odds of a GOP House at 75% but GOP Senate has now dropped to 17% with DE and NY safely blue and PA nearly a tossup. He has WV as nearly a tossup as well and, well, in Nate I Trust, but that's seriously counter-intuitive to someone who lives within shooting range of them.

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Even there I'm not sure I totally agree with you. There seems to be this narrative that's beginning to build up in Democratic circles that this kind of thing happens all the time, and people really don't dislike Democrats policies, they're just confused, and this kind of election was always kind of a given. (Furthered of course by Republican idiots like Gingrich who talk about gaining 100 seats, they're not blameless here.)
This kind of thing most definitely doesn't happen all the time, and it certainly isn't ho hum, like people are making it out to be.

And what kind of thing is that?

The sitting President's party losing seats in a midterm election? That happens quite often. In fact, it's the rule more than the exception.

The majority party losing seats when the economy is in the tank? Again, that happens quite often.

The simple explanation is the most accurate one here. Steve Pearlstein nails the problem:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/19/AR2010101907521.html

It's one of the great fallacies in politics: Candidate Jones says X, Y and Z during the campaign. Candidate Jones wins the election. Ergo, the public agrees with X, Y and Z.

Certainly there are times when that may be true, but just as often it is not. After all, if that were always true, then voters should now be ecstatic that President Obama delivered on his campaign promise of health-care reform, while being mad as hell that nothing's been done about global warming.

So maybe that wasn't what voters were really thinking way back in 2008. Maybe voters were simply angry about the lousy economy and looking for a new team to take the country in a new direction. And maybe that's the story this year as well.

Now ask yourself: Do you think the results of the coming election would be tilting in favor of Democrats if the "individual mandate" had been omitted from health reform, if the consumer protection agency had been dropped from financial regulatory reform and if General Motors had been left to die. Somehow I doubt it.

The dirty little secret is that most Americans don't really know what they think about the issues that so animate the political conversation in Washington, and what they think they know about them is often wrong.

This is not anything new. Electoral politics is all about perception, not reality. Except that in the world of elections, perception is reality. But let's not pretend that there's some fundamental shift going on here. This is the same song all over again, it's just being covered by a slightly different band.

 

[WeWantMore]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

And what kind of thing is that?

The sitting President's party losing seats in a midterm election? That happens quite often. In fact, it's the rule more than the exception.

The majority party losing seats when the economy is in the tank? Again, that happens quite often.

Well yeah, no duh. 90% of the time I think the stat is. I'm not arguing that.

However, there's a difference between losing seats and losing 50+ seats in the House and 9 seats in the Senate. If that happens and people try to pass it off as ho hum, that's ridiculous.


For instance, look at the seats Republicans under Reagan lost in the House in 82- 27. Or the seats Bush lost in 90-8. I think if similar numbers happen and the Republicans try to claim it's a huge victory, that's ridiculous.
But the point is, the numbers look set to go well above those numbers.

Edit: The post WWII average for lost House seats is 16. You don't think a loss of 50+, or 3 times the average, is out of the ordinary?

 

[blockski]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Edit: The post WWII average for lost House seats is 16. You don't think a loss of 50+, or 3 times the average, is out of the ordinary?

Define 'ordinary.' Given the state of the economy (since Presidential approval ratings strongly influence midterm elections, and Presidential approval strongly follows the economy, regardless of policy) it seems right in line.

Don't get me wrong, I think there are signficant changes and rumblings afoot, but we're talking about changes at the margin - just like we always are.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

But let's not pretend that there's some fundamental shift going on here. This is the same song all over again, it's just being covered by a slightly different band.

"Each party steals so many articles of faith from the other, and the candidates spend so much time making each other's speeches, that by the time election day is past there is nothing much to do save turn the sitting rascals out and let a new gang in." -- Menken

 

[Kepler]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Define 'ordinary.'

Average midterm seat loss for presidents under 50% is 36. Obama is at 46%.

Dem losses tend to have been higher because they've had more to lose -- they have controlled the House for much of the last century, hence regression hits them harder. Clinton lost 53 in '94, Eisenhower lost 47 in '58 during a recession, Johnson lost 47 in '66 as Vietnam went toxic, Ford lost 43 in '74 during the oil shock and after Watergate, Truman lost 55 in '46 during the end-of-war recession. Of the large losses, only Clinton's and Johnson's were not significantly due to recession.

50 would honestly be fairly expected given we are coming off the second-worst US recession and the worst unemployment since the Great Depression.

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Civil rights have to be left to the legislatures otherwise nobody will have faith in them. "

Sarah Palin type stupidity right here. As the Constitution doesn't define marriage, I suppose we should have waited until the 2000's for some legislatures to come around on interracial marriage then?

What an idiot.

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Definitely. NPR execs just exercised their right not to be offended: link.

The guy can't be honest about how he feels? I call BS if the people who fired him say that the same thing doesn't cross their minds.

I know NPR has gradually become more partisan over the years, but I have to say I was very surprised by this, as Williams is hardly a conservative voice on most issues. Too bad to see one of the, at one time, less partisan news outlets go downhill so much.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Ah, good - I was hoping Rover was going to be around for all this, "It's not the Democrat's fault, the bad economy is beyond their control," discussion. From there, it's only a very slight leap to good economies (1990s) also being due to factors beyond governmental control...

(reminder: I believe that governments get both unfairly blamed and unfairly rewarded for the performance of the economy)

 

[Rover]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Ah, good - I was hoping Rover was going to be around for all this, "It's not the Democrat's fault, the bad economy is beyond their control," discussion. From there, it's only a very slight leap to good economies (1990s) also being due to factors beyond governmental control...

(reminder: I believe that governments get both unfairly blamed and unfairly rewarded for the performance of the economy)

Ummmm....I was commenting on Patman's dumb quote that civil rights should be left up to state legislatures or they don't have legitimacy. Do you have a question for me?

 

[Bob Gray]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Ah, good - I was hoping Rover was going to be around for all this, "It's not the Democrat's fault, the bad economy is beyond their control," discussion. From there, it's only a very slight leap to good economies (1990s) also being due to factors beyond governmental control...

(reminder: I believe that governments get both unfairly blamed and unfairly rewarded for the performance of the economy)

Expecting consistency from Rover? I wish you good luck, you'll need it.

 

[LynahFan]

Re: Obama XVI: Muslin curtains in the White House!!!

Ummmm....I was commenting on Patman's dumb quote that civil rights should be left up to state legislatures or they don't have legitimacy. Do you have a question for me?

You just answered it - your head didn't explode yet, so that's good. Was a little concerned for your well-being, that's all.