U.S. politics isolation tank

[midwestyankee]

Clinton's looks like the only one that didn't follow the general pattern of starting high and ending low.

'90s boom beats blowjob scandal, I guess.

Interestingly, Clinton's job approval ratings maintained an upward path throughout the run-up to the impeachment trial.

I preferred the graphs for each individual presidency as the X acis on the one showing all the presidents was compressed relative to the Y axis, which made all of the shifts in popularity seem greater than they were.

 

[WriterDom]

As far as electing republicans, Bill Clinton was excellent. That legacy lasted about 12 years. Up until 2006. Not that I blame him for Drag Queen Gore or *Yawn* Kerry losing. But forty years of House rule gone overnight?

This could even be worse. Dick Morris, who I admit is wrong about as often as right, talks about 80 and even 100 seats in play. I say right around the '94 level. 54 plus or minus 4. Senate is probably safe for now. Even though Morris giggles about it. How much you think Fox pays this guy? He's on every night.

 

[Marquis]

Think it was Marquis who said he had no job and no down payment and the bank was wanting to put him in a $300,000 dollar house. Or words to that effect. Before the shit hit the fan.

$420,000 condo, $300,000 loan.

Listed at $150,000 now, no takers.

 

[Netzach]

$420,000 condo, $300,000 loan.

Listed at $150,000 now, no takers.

And here we have it.

A lot of property is going rental, here, actually. I feel a smug sense of renter triumph.

I think there's going to be some kind of populist real estate revolution, actually. You can see it as suburbs get increasingly diverse and interesting and city centers get increasingly white and self-congratulatory and I moved here from Iowa and stole everyone's money selling derivative junk so I can be closer to Bed Bath and Beyond than you, ha.

Not wildly politcal, just a bit of observational sociology.

 

[midwestyankee]

And here we have it.

A lot of property is going rental, here, actually. I feel a smug sense of renter triumph.

I think there's going to be some kind of populist real estate revolution, actually. You can see it as suburbs get increasingly diverse and interesting and city centers get increasingly white and self-congratulatory and I moved here from Iowa and stole everyone's money selling derivative junk so I can be closer to Bed Bath and Beyond than you, ha.

Not wildly politcal, just a bit of observational sociology.

Except that there is a political angle here. Politics determines such things as urban and suburban zoning regulations. Out in the burbs, those regulations tend to very much favor the large house on a large lot and intentionally discourage dense development to make the town centers walkable. Many 'burbs around here don't even have a true town center; they just have a couple of bigass malls where everyone goes to buy their coffee and lawn seed.

As more and more people are forced into bankruptcy as the only rational way out of underwater mortgages and more and more banks have to swallow those loans, there will be some political pressure to fix things. Will be very interesting to see how the feds approach this. In the early '80s we had the savings and loan debacle. One of the results of that was the institution of the individual retirement accounts (IRA). These new savings vehicles helped save a zillion mom and pop banks (they're almost all part of B of A or Citi now, sadly, but that's another issue). I wonder what the savior move will be this time around.

 

[teknight]

And here we have it.

I think there's going to be some kind of populist real estate revolution, actually. You can see it as suburbs get increasingly diverse and interesting and city centers get increasingly white and self-congratulatory and I moved here from Iowa and stole everyone's money selling derivative junk so I can be closer to Bed Bath and Beyond than you, ha.

Not wildly politcal, just a bit of observational sociology.

Except that there is a political angle here. Politics determines such things as urban and suburban zoning regulations. Out in the burbs, those regulations tend to very much favor the large house on a large lot and intentionally discourage dense development to make the town centers walkable. Many 'burbs around here don't even have a true town center; they just have a couple of bigass malls where everyone goes to buy their coffee and lawn seed.

The political pressure has been coming from Washington since the 20s, actually. The gov't's felt that homeownership is a good thing, and enacted policies enabling this goal. And, hey, it worked for 80 years, so why knock it?
Fact is that homeownership is detrimental to lowering unemployment: I could get a job in another state, but I can't move my house, and can't afford to move.

This was in Time mag. within the last 6 weeks (maybe 8?)..

 

[midwestyankee]

The political pressure has been coming from Washington since the 20s, actually. The gov't's felt that homeownership is a good thing, and enacted policies enabling this goal. And, hey, it worked for 80 years, so why knock it?
Fact is that homeownership is detrimental to lowering unemployment: I could get a job in another state, but I can't move my house, and can't afford to move.

This was in Time mag. within the last 6 weeks (maybe 8?)..

Exactly. The income tax deduction for home mortgage interest is an insidious incentive: buy a house, save on your taxes. But, as you point out, home ownership has the downside that it ties you to a location. And when that location starts bleeding jobs and you want to move to a location that's creating jobs is exactly the time when you're least likely to be able to sell your house and move to greener pastures.

I suspect that enough people will feel this pain that they will put pressure on their legislators to be noticed. And then, when the banks have to eat the shit loans they wrote in the last decade, Washington will listen and then connect the dots. How crooked is the line connecting those dots will be a marvel to behold.

 

[JMohegan]

But isn't laissez-faire quintessentially American? Small gov't, self determination, don't tread me, don't tell me what to do, I know better, it's my right, pursuit of happiness -and all that ethos?

Not saying it's right, but, for all the above, it can't die.

Those slogans have been used to seduce the masses since the time of the Revolution.

But the powerful only want to be left alone when it suits them. They are more than happy to expand the role of government, as long as they perceive profit in the expansion.

And so our history is packed with tariffs, eminent domain laws, and all manner of corporate bailouts and bolsterings - including conscription of the populace, to kill & be killed defending the interests of big business.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Those slogans have been used to seduce the masses since the time of the Revolution.

But the powerful only want to be left alone when it suits them. They are more than happy to expand the role of government, as long as they perceive profit in the expansion.

And so our history is packed with tariffs, eminent domain laws, and all manner of corporate bailouts and bolsterings - including conscription of the populace, to kill & be killed defending the interests of big business.

It's also how Southern soldiers were rallied to defend a slave economy, when only 10 percent of Confederate soliders owned slaves. The rich have always been good at getting the poor and middle class to act against their own political and economic interests.

 

[WriterDom]

The Empire Strikes Back

I predict Republicans in the senate will take Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and West Virginia. California isn't out of the question either. But I think Boxer will edge her out.

If it were held today anyway.

 

[JMohegan]

re: The Empire Strikes Back

I predict Republicans in the senate will take Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and West Virginia. California isn't out of the question either. But I think Boxer will edge her out.

If it were held today anyway.

Well, well. At least we agree on the rightwinger = Dark Side thing.

 

[rosco rathbone]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550243700895762.html?mod=ITP_review_0

 

[rosco rathbone]

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/10/18/tea-parties-and-fairness/

I don't know if I've ever a greater desire to tar and feather another human being than I had the first time I saw the famous "Santelli Rant".

It's enough to make you see where Isaiah and Jeremiah were coming from.

 

[intothewoods]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550243700895762.html?mod=ITP_review_0

Yeah, the whole take America back vibe makes me suspicious. Take America back from whom exactly? I swear there is a jew-burning party hiding there and I have to yell, look, over there, Muslims! to get away.

Ohhh, I kid. Er, sort of.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

Interesting (and head-shaking read):

Tea Party has origins in cold-war paranoia of the 1950s.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703673604575550243700895762.html?mod=ITP_review_0

"The rank-and-file tea partiers think that liberals turned America upside down in the 1960s and 1970s, and they want to reverse many of those changes. They are patriotic and religious, and they want to see those values woven into their children's education. Above all, they want to live in a country in which hard work and personal responsibility pay off and laziness, cheating and irresponsibility bring people to ruin. Give them liberty, sure, but more than that: Give them karma."

I don't know any liberals who would disagree with the bolded part. It's how the baggers define "laziness, cheating and irresponsibility," as well as the gleeful, puritanical "ruin" bit that sets them apart.

May they get sick and be bankrupted by the health care system they seem to be so in love with. That would be karma.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Yeah, the whole take America back vibe makes me suspicious. Take America back from whom exactly? I swear there is a jew-burning party hiding there and I have to yell, look, over there, Muslims! to get away.

Ohhh, I kid. Er, sort of.

Having grown up in the sticks surrounded by militiamen, I know what to look for. Always watch out for people who use the singular. "The Jew". "Your Jew".

"Your Jew, now, he's a clever son of a bitch..."

 

[midwestyankee]

Having grown up in the sticks surrounded by militiamen, I know what to look for. Always watch out for people who use the singular. "The Jew". "Your Jew".

"Your Jew, now, he's a clever son of a bitch..."

Maybe your Jew is clever, Rosco, but mine is singularly dull.

I found a very good analysis of the TP folk a few days ago. Will look for it and link it here later. As I recall, the essence is that they suffer greatly from fear of change.

 

[midwestyankee]

"The rank-and-file tea partiers think that liberals turned America upside down in the 1960s and 1970s, and they want to reverse many of those changes. They are patriotic and religious, and they want to see those values woven into their children's education. Above all, they want to live in a country in which hard work and personal responsibility pay off and laziness, cheating and irresponsibility bring people to ruin. Give them liberty, sure, but more than that: Give them karma."

I don't know any liberals who would disagree with the bolded part. It's how the baggers define "laziness, cheating and irresponsibility," as well as the gleeful, puritanical "ruin" bit that sets them apart.

May they get sick and be bankrupted by the health care system they seem to be so in love with. That would be karma.

Ah, but given the demographics, many of the group are covered under Medicare. Of course that's not a government program.

 

[WriterDom]

Maybe your Jew is clever, Rosco, but mine is singularly dull.

I found a very good analysis of the TP folk a few days ago. Will look for it and link it here later. As I recall, the essence is that they suffer greatly from fear of change.

If you gave them change they could believe in, they wouldn't fear it. You know, like positive results? All you have now is excuses and the latest "blame it on" talking points from the administration. Good thing you picked the latest one up, fear. What's left after the Chamber of Commerce? Emotions of fear and anger? I only see one card left with two weeks to go and that's racism.

All Obama has left is to drum out enough votes as to not lose 100 seats in the House. Running around acting like the Tea Party is in the White House, and controlling the Senate and House isn't going to win the independents back. Who are probably asking themselves who can possibly screw things up worse than the democrats? And before you go on a George W. Bush rant just remember democrats have controlled 2/3 of Washington for the past five years and they did what with the oversight? Probe inside the anuses of baseball players for steroids? Investigate oil companies for evil profits? At least we haven't had to bail them out yet.

Democrats have dug "shovel ready" graves for themselves. That's your hope and change.

 

[DeepGreenEyes]

If you gave them change they could believe in, they wouldn't fear it. You know, like positive results? All you have now is excuses and the latest "blame it on" talking points from the administration. Good thing you picked the latest one up, fear. What's left after the Chamber of Commerce? Emotions of fear and anger? I only see one card left with two weeks to go and that's racism.

All Obama has left is to drum out enough votes as to not lose 100 seats in the House. Running around acting like the Tea Party is in the White House, and controlling the Senate and House isn't going to win the independents back. Who are probably asking themselves who can possibly screw things up worse than the democrats? And before you go on a George W. Bush rant just remember democrats have controlled 2/3 of Washington for the past five years and they did what with the oversight? Probe inside the anuses of baseball players for steroids? Investigate oil companies for evil profits? At least we haven't had to bail them out yet.

Democrats have dug "shovel ready" graves for themselves. That's your hope and change.

I don't disagree that the D's could have done more: but would the teabaggers really want the positive results that "more" would have meant? A public option, for instance? No friggin' way. The health reform we got was similar to what Nixon proposed.

The GOP will have a big majority in the house. And the tea party will have a great deal of sway. So there'll be very little room for compromise with the White House; the GOP supporters have said they won't stomach it. I want to see if they embrace gridlock, and how the country feels about that after two years of stonewalling.

Perhaps they'll hope to run out the clock and elect a Republican in 2012. Two points on that score: will this far right bunch be influential enough to get one of their own nominated, say, Sarah Palin? Someone with godawful negatives who will have to defend privatizing Social Security and nuking the Department of Education? Additionally, young people, who elected Obama, are sitting 2010 out; they won't sit out 2012.

And actually, yes, unquestionably W did screw the whole damn country with such lustful abandon that the first two years of Obama's administration have been combating a forest fire. Wars! Debt! Financial meltdown! International relations in the toilet! Oh, to have inherited a balanced budget and relative stability, as W did in 2000.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Lately I've had a kind of relaxed and fatalistic attitude. The kind you get on the plane when the flight attendants can't stand without holding onto something and are telling you how to brace for impact, and you've made your peace with god.

Nothing is going to change in this country until we hit the ground hard. Maybe it has already happened, in 2008, and we just haven't gotten all Dust Bowl yet.

 

[WriterDom]

I've never been one for 2012 arguments though my liberal friends have been eager for one since November of 2008. Let's take one election at a time.

And remember Clinton had a divided government and things went pretty well, outside of the whole "impeachment" thing. I don't see Obama being quite as flexible even if he wins a second term as Clinton was to compromise, but we'll see.

And as far as Sarah Palin goes, well, the vast majority of people who "knew" what as going to happen in 2008 predicted Rudy Vs Hillary and of course they were wrong so we know until we get into the process. And I don't think Obama is a lock for 2012 when you have that rumor mill of republican propaganda, NBC News, hinting that 100 seats might be in play.

 

[rosco rathbone]

Admirably cautious, Writer Dom.

I'm laying my cock on the table, just for fun.

Palin gets the nomination and loses the election to Obama.

 

[JamesSD]

I predict Republicans in the senate will take Arkansas, Indiana, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Colorado, Illinois, Nevada, Washington, and West Virginia. California isn't out of the question either. But I think Boxer will edge her out.

If it were held today anyway.

California pretty much IS out of the question. Fiornia is a weak candidate, and there really is no anti-Boxer movement. Her approval rating is above 50%, she's getting close to 50% in most polls, and prop 19 will drive young voter turnout. Washington's latest polls show the Democrats holding it as well. I've never considered either state to really be "in play", as both are just too Blue these days.

CO, IL, NV, and WV are the interesting ones. I view all four as true toss-ups. I could easily see a 2-2 split, or even 4-0 or 0-4 once the dust settles. My most likely scenario is 53-47 in favor of the Democrats, but 52 or 51 fall well within the realm of possibility. The Democrats lucked out that the seats up this year weren't terrible for them, plus O'Donnell in DE moved a toss-up state into a Safe Democrat win.