Until Election Day. Should be an interesting one, needless to say. Various measures do not seem to be trending the Democrats' way, but there's still a long way to go.

I like reading Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, and even in here, the numbers are not trending the Democrats' way over the last few months.

http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystal...010090201/

Right now, his numbers see a takeover of the House, near takeover of the Senate, and gubernatorial gains for the Republicans. I guess the question now is what's the degree of takeover.

Thoughts, anyone? To me, some of the candidates (like Angle in Nevada) seem to be producing Biden-level quantities of gaffes that are preventing them from salting away a vulnerable Democratic opponent.

One thing that I wonder about is how so many new R faces could change the new Congress.

It seems likely that fewer than normal of the R candidates are from within the party apparatus. The guy from Utah and Miller of Alaska will be more conservative fiscally than their predecessors. Could be good for the budget.

If you still have unemployment over 9.4 on Election Day it could easily be a 40 seat Republican Majority in the House.

The Republican hopes for the Senate depend on Nevada, California and Washington.

(09-06-2010 02:31 PM)WMD Owl Wrote:  If you still have unemployment over 9.4 on Election Day it could easily be a 40 seat Republican Majority in the House.

The Republican hopes for the Senate depend on Nevada, California and Washington.

Small quibble - but if the DOW stays in the black for the year, esp if 11000 is within shouting distance - that may hold down the R numbers even if unemployment is above 9%.

Small majority for R's or D's, breaks 10 seats or under.

Just for me personally, the Dow staying in a trading range of 10K-11K does nothing to make me more favorable toward the Dems. Breaking over 11K or falling under 10K would have an effect.

Very interesting that a major daily in California has basically given a raspberry to both major party candidates for Senate - no endorsement for either of them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1F4PRK.DTL

I would love to see newspapers do this more often, when it is appropriate, rather than reflexively feel the need to endorse someone as the better of two bad choices.

(09-27-2010 10:42 AM)gsloth Wrote:  Very interesting that a major daily in California has basically given a raspberry to both major party candidates for Senate - no endorsement for either of them.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...1F4PRK.DTL

I would love to see newspapers do this more often, when it is appropriate, rather than reflexively feel the need to endorse someone as the better of two bad choices.

Actually, considering the Chronicle's inherent political bent, this is a major middle finger to Senator "Maam"......

from the post:

"It is a dismal choice between an ineffective advocate for causes we generally support (Ed: Boxer) and a potentially strong advocate for positions we oppose. (Ed: Fiorina) Neither merits our endorsement for the U.S. Senate."

In other words: the libtard we like is ineffective, and the repubtard is vewy vewy scawy for us Bay area "non-bitter clinger" elites.....

(09-29-2010 01:38 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  In other words: the libtard we like is ineffective, and the repubtard is vewy vewy scawy for us Bay area "non-bitter clinger" elites.....

Ugh, I find the "elite" term extremely overused, not to mention ignorant of reality. And I have no idea what the epithet "non-bitter clinger" is supposed to mean.

Here's how I feel about the whole thing: WHO CARES. The special interest groups, mostly corporations and their front groups, have more control over policy, spending, etc, in this country than any person voting in the mid-terms. The country is being sold out to the rich and personally I can't do a damn thing about it. There are almost no candidates who are actually free from these influences on either side.

I guess you might care from a sporting interest, but I don't.

(10-01-2010 08:02 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(09-29-2010 01:38 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  In other words: the libtard we like is ineffective, and the repubtard is vewy vewy scawy for us Bay area "non-bitter clinger" elites.....

Ugh, I find the "elite" term extremely overused, not to mention ignorant of reality. And I have no idea what the epithet "non-bitter clinger" is supposed to mean.

Might be overused.

Point 1: As for "ignorant of reality", well...... I suggest you spend a very extended time here in the Bay Area and observe the typical response to anything non-SF and non-NY.

My observation from a very long time in this area is that the term (while potentially overused), is pretty much spot on.


Point 2:

Quote:Thirty words White House hopeful Barack Obama said at a private California fund-raiser threatened Friday to torpedo any hopes he had of catching up to Hillary Clinton in the all-important Pennsylvania primary election 10 days from now.

Talking about how the loss of jobs over 25 years has sapped the hope of small-town Pennsylvania residents, Obama said at the Sunday fund-raiser, "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama: God, guns are only refuge of bitter Pennsylvanians

btw, I will give you *one* guess as to the city in which this statement was made and the people to whom this statement was made. Hint: it kind of is related to my Point 1.

Point 3: I won't make a comment on your implied characterization of my comment (and potentially me) as "ignorant".

But it is far better than the explicit characterization of the same that I get for being a native Texan in this area. Which, suprisingly, circles back to Point 1..... (funny how that keeps happening, eh?)

(10-01-2010 08:02 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  The special interest groups, mostly corporations and their front groups, have more control over policy, spending, etc, in this country than any person voting in the mid-terms. The country is being sold out to the rich and personally I can't do a damn thing about it. There are almost no candidates who are actually free from these influences on either side.

Both sides pander to special interest groups, just mostly different ones with some overlap. Both sides sell out to well-moneyed groups. It is the American way. I would rather see rich people trying to influence lawmakers than lawmakers becoming and remaining rich people. No society ever has eradicated the influence of wealth on power - not Cuba, not Russia, not Yemen, not the Mayans or the Zulu.

(10-01-2010 08:02 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  Ugh, I find the "elite" term extremely overused, not to mention ignorant of reality.

And I find it not overused at all, but to be spot-on correct.

Perhaps that's because I've had the misfortune to spend more time around those "elites" than you have. If that's not the case, then I have no explanation. You are usually a pretty reasonable poster, and I find most of the rest of your post to be, like the use of the term "elites," spot-on correct.

(10-01-2010 10:50 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-01-2010 08:02 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  The special interest groups, mostly corporations and their front groups, have more control over policy, spending, etc, in this country than any person voting in the mid-terms. The country is being sold out to the rich and personally I can't do a damn thing about it. There are almost no candidates who are actually free from these influences on either side.

Both sides pander to special interest groups, just mostly different ones with some overlap. Both sides sell out to well-moneyed groups. It is the American way. I would rather see rich people trying to influence lawmakers than lawmakers becoming and remaining rich people. No society ever has eradicated the influence of wealth on power - not Cuba, not Russia, not Yemen, not the Mayans or the Zulu.

About all you can do is separate wealth and power to the greatest extent. Our society has progressed along that road for several centuries, and that was in large measure what drove the renaissance and the American and French revolutions, among other things.

Unfortunately, we recently seem to be headed back the other way. I suppose like many other things, the pendulum is just swinging back. But whether it's Shrub and the patRIOT act or Obama and Obamacare, there is a definite trend toward concentrating ever more money AND power in the federal government, and that is not a good idea.

(10-01-2010 10:10 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2010 08:02 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(09-29-2010 01:38 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  In other words: the libtard we like is ineffective, and the repubtard is vewy vewy scawy for us Bay area "non-bitter clinger" elites.....

Ugh, I find the "elite" term extremely overused, not to mention ignorant of reality. And I have no idea what the epithet "non-bitter clinger" is supposed to mean.

Might be overused.

Point 1: As for "ignorant of reality", well...... I suggest you spend a very extended time here in the Bay Area and observe the typical response to anything non-SF and non-NY.

My observation from a very long time in this area is that the term (while potentially overused), is pretty much spot on.

I suppose labels of any kind are annoying, but I find this one grates me the same way "liberal" used as a slur does. If "elite" includes liberal-leaning academics as a rule, I find it at least odd. I'm one, and I'm not rubbing elbows with anyone other than a few beer distributors at Valhalla. Yup, that's my path to power.

(10-01-2010 10:10 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Point 2:

Quote:Thirty words White House hopeful Barack Obama said at a private California fund-raiser threatened Friday to torpedo any hopes he had of catching up to Hillary Clinton in the all-important Pennsylvania primary election 10 days from now.

Talking about how the loss of jobs over 25 years has sapped the hope of small-town Pennsylvania residents, Obama said at the Sunday fund-raiser, "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama: God, guns are only refuge of bitter Pennsylvanians

btw, I will give you *one* guess as to the city in which this statement was made and the people to whom this statement was made. Hint: it kind of is related to my Point 1.

I don't know, I find some truth in what he says even if it is an overly broad characterization. Read the book "Whats the matter with Kansas?" sometime, same idea.

(10-01-2010 10:10 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Point 3: I won't make a comment on your implied characterization of my comment (and potentially me) as "ignorant".

But it is far better than the explicit characterization of the same that I get for being a native Texan in this area. Which, suprisingly, circles back to Point 1..... (funny how that keeps happening, eh?)

I have no idea who you are so I apologize if I called you ignorant (I suppose I did). I was drawing the conclusion from a term I rarely hear used by those conducting a reasoned debate.

For the record, Emmie, you're not whom I have in mind when I refer to the "elite." And perhaps that explains the difference.

Not meant to slight you in any way, and I hope you don't take it that way. You seem to be basically a normal person with some ideas that I agree with and some that I disagree with. I can't think of anything you've ever said as implying that you thought you were better than anyone else. The "elites" to which I refer believe that they are. That's the differnce.

(10-01-2010 01:18 PM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(10-01-2010 10:10 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  

(10-01-2010 08:02 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  

(09-29-2010 01:38 PM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  In other words: the libtard we like is ineffective, and the repubtard is vewy vewy scawy for us Bay area "non-bitter clinger" elites.....

Ugh, I find the "elite" term extremely overused, not to mention ignorant of reality. And I have no idea what the epithet "non-bitter clinger" is supposed to mean.

Might be overused.

Point 1: As for "ignorant of reality", well...... I suggest you spend a very extended time here in the Bay Area and observe the typical response to anything non-SF and non-NY.

My observation from a very long time in this area is that the term (while potentially overused), is pretty much spot on.

I suppose labels of any kind are annoying, but I find this one grates me the same way "liberal" used as a slur does. If "elite" includes liberal-leaning academics as a rule, I find it at least odd. I'm one, and I'm not rubbing elbows with anyone other than a few beer distributors at Valhalla. Yup, that's my path to power.

(10-01-2010 10:10 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Point 2:

Quote:Thirty words White House hopeful Barack Obama said at a private California fund-raiser threatened Friday to torpedo any hopes he had of catching up to Hillary Clinton in the all-important Pennsylvania primary election 10 days from now.

Talking about how the loss of jobs over 25 years has sapped the hope of small-town Pennsylvania residents, Obama said at the Sunday fund-raiser, "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama: God, guns are only refuge of bitter Pennsylvanians

btw, I will give you *one* guess as to the city in which this statement was made and the people to whom this statement was made. Hint: it kind of is related to my Point 1.

I don't know, I find some truth in what he says even if it is an overly broad characterization. Read the book "Whats the matter with Kansas?" sometime, same idea.

(10-01-2010 10:10 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Point 3: I won't make a comment on your implied characterization of my comment (and potentially me) as "ignorant".

But it is far better than the explicit characterization of the same that I get for being a native Texan in this area. Which, suprisingly, circles back to Point 1..... (funny how that keeps happening, eh?)

I have no idea who you are so I apologize if I called you ignorant (I suppose I did). I was drawing the conclusion from a term I rarely hear used by those conducting a reasoned debate.

Emmie:

Elites can be used to characterize (and is spot on for) application to people regardless of party affilitation or political leanings.

It is "not" a general term to cover academic liberals (or progressives, whichever term you choose). I know many academic lib-progress. that I would in no way characterize as elite, and I know as many conservative business CEO types whom I most definitely would characterize as such.

I most definitely characterize the general attitude of the Bay Area as one of the few places that has a severe issue with a superiority complex -- I really won't go further into this.

As for your views on "Kansas country" -- you are free to believe however much you want. I find Obama's statement to exhibit nearly as much implied ignorance as he cries out about...... Funny how that happens.

As for "reading a book" about Kansas, sorry, won't do it. In the course of my career(s) I have had the opportunity to spend a *lot* of time in deep, deep "bum**** egypt" country (as many would refer to it, or perhaps the more genteel but as offending but more snide "fly over country"), and I think after my years in the oilfield services industry that those people are a far cry from the vapid generalization given. So Emmie, with all due respect, I'll use my very long experiences with the deep BFEians (and potentially being raised as one in the very BFE-esque far West Texas) as opposed to a visiting constitutional law lecturer and street organizer's characterizations of them.

And, if you are a Valhalla-liking gal (apologies in advance if the term "gal" is too neanderthal, as I know that many here in Bay Area cringe when I use what is actually, in many areas of the country a very positive term), I am absolutely positive that even though you are a self-described "academic liberal", you do not (and probably won't ever) get close to the "elite" line in my simple, backwards, redneck point of view......

(10-02-2010 10:39 AM)tanq_tonic Wrote:  Emmie:

Elites can be used to characterize (and is spot on for) application to people regardless of party affilitation or political leanings.

It is "not" a general term to cover academic liberals (or progressives, whichever term you choose). I know many academic lib-progress. that I would in no way characterize as elite, and I know as many conservative business CEO types whom I most definitely would characterize as such.

I most definitely characterize the general attitude of the Bay Area as one of the few places that has a severe issue with a superiority complex -- I really won't go further into this.

As for your views on "Kansas country" -- you are free to believe however much you want. I find Obama's statement to exhibit nearly as much implied ignorance as he cries out about...... Funny how that happens.

As for "reading a book" about Kansas, sorry, won't do it. In the course of my career(s) I have had the opportunity to spend a *lot* of time in deep, deep "bum**** egypt" country (as many would refer to it, or perhaps the more genteel but as offending but more snide "fly over country"), and I think after my years in the oilfield services industry that those people are a far cry from the vapid generalization given. So Emmie, with all due respect, I'll use my very long experiences with the deep BFEians (and potentially being raised as one in the very BFE-esque far West Texas) as opposed to a visiting constitutional law lecturer and street organizer's characterizations of them.

And, if you are a Valhalla-liking gal (apologies in advance if the term "gal" is too neanderthal, as I know that many here in Bay Area cringe when I use what is actually, in many areas of the country a very positive term), I am absolutely positive that even though you are a self-described "academic liberal", you do not (and probably won't ever) get close to the "elite" line in my simple, backwards, redneck point of view......

Thanks for the clarification - it appears I had somewhat the wrong idea at least about how you all were using it. Good point in that it doesn't necessarily imply liberal-leaning as a rule (as the the phrase is 'liberal elite'). I honestly never hear about the conservative version, though (maybe I have just missed it - confirmation bias is a ****).

To explain why I feel this sensitivity - I do hear "academics" being bad-mouthed (usually as "out of touch" - wtf? I have to put food on the table on a tiny salary same as you), and this is equated with "anti-elite" feelings. I don't expect to be revered as a god for my PhD but it does indicate several things I'd like a modicum of respect for. Instead I have been told to my face that scientists, in particular, are godless heathens who lie and twist facts all in the almighty name of "funding"... which is so far from the truth especially in the fields far from controversy, that it can only speak to a complete lack of understanding of how science is conducted and who scientists typically are, or even the economic reality that your earning potential as an academic scientist tops out far below the earning potential for a smart, hard-working individual in the business world (if I were all about the money to the point of abandoning ethics, I wouldn't be a grad student, dears). I realize I'm not arguing against a position any of you have taken. Sometimes a girl just needs to vent.

As to Kansas - I'm from there, and spent my whole life on the lower-middle class side of things. My parents were straight-ticket republicans -- by no means deficient mentally -- and they are exactly the kind of people that book talks about. Perhaps that's why I found it interesting. I grew up there, but I couldn't understand the psychology of it without some broader perspective (one which is very sympathetic, by the way). A book is always one view of things - thus I found it complimentary to my own observations and not a substitute.

(And 'gal' is just fine as a term. My friends call me much worse things as terms of endearment. )

(10-04-2010 06:38 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I honestly never hear about the conservative version, though (maybe I have just missed it - confirmation bias is a ****).

They're usually not called the "conservative elite". They are usually called "the rich friends of (insert politician's name here)".

For some light viewing over the weekend, here is one political bloggers top campaign commercials for the primary season. Gotta say, there are some good ones (like it's time for a nerd, the Saturn ad, and Sestak's ad).

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/...10-pr.html

Less than 4 weeks now.

(10-04-2010 11:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(10-04-2010 06:38 AM)emmiesix Wrote:  I honestly never hear about the conservative version, though (maybe I have just missed it - confirmation bias is a ****).

They're usually not called the "conservative elite". They are usually called "the rich friends of (insert politician's name here)".

Or just "the rich".

No, wait, here's the funniest campaign ad this year. Unfortunately, it's from Canada.