Election Day
Nov. 2nd, 2010 02:14 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dexfarkin"You know what the worst thing about this election is?"
"What's that?"
"Someone is going to win."
It is the 2010 general election in the United States, and the polling is about as clear as the waters around a BP oil rig of just what will happen. As is my normal habit, I will be prognosticating on the results. Since it's been asked why I don't write much about the Canadian elections, I'll take this point to explain; Canadian elections are boring. Don't get me wrong; I think the Canadian method and approach is far more democratic and representative of the electorate in general than the US. However, because of that, you get a much smaller and less vitriolic election process, and a lot less of the 'marginal yet rich enough to make it a race' candidates. Canadian shifts can be pronounced and rapid, but it's more the exception. In short, two weeks before a Canadian election, there's maybe thirty seats still holding any kind of dynamic shift possible, and the outcome is largely decided.
Also, American elections don’t effect me significantly, which makes it a lot easier to enjoy as a spectator.
First of all, the Citizens United decision is wrecking exactly the type of havoc I expected, and this is only the first, tentative outreach of it. The scope of the carnage is just being realized, but it is companies in the energy, banking and health care sectors who are pouring the most money into the cycle that can currently be tracked, which makes sense considering that repealing financial reform, health care reform, and restrictions on oil and clean air initiatives stand to deliver billions of dollars in profit for these companies.
Remember what I said before? Corporations exist to make money. They have no other ethical priority greater than the accumulation of wealth. To treat them as 'people' with unlimited and unrestricted free speech, they will not arrive at a position based on what is best for their neighbours, the country or any other factor. If it adds wealth, regardless of the other costs, a corporation is ethically bound to pursue that goal.
In response, unions and left-leaning groups are pouring in money as well, further distorting the landscape. Same basic principle; a union's first priority is the overall health and success of their membership. So when you have a Tea Party candidate who would love nothing better than to eliminate a couple million unionized government positions, it is in their self interest to sandbag the guy into oblivion.
I've been laughed at or at the very least written off as being hyperbolic, but this Congressional election is going to be the most expensive in history, and it's only the start. For the last six years, it looked like the internet was harnessing small money donations effectively, which is the key to populist funding of elections. You can't buy a candidate with $20, but a candidate needs to engage their base for the $20 times five thousand people that becomes central to his ability. It forces politicians to appeal to a broader spectrum. Citizen's United changes that. Congressman A finds an offer; vote my way on energy policy, and I'll front $4M in ads from Concerned Citizens For America for you, Congressman. Engaging a few interests becomes far more profitable than engaging thousands of voters.
The NRA for years has very successfully fought against stricter gun control, despite the fact that the polls shows a majority of Americans favour it, by way of confronting politicians and being clear that a vote for gun control would bring in the NRA and their resources to support the opposing candidate in the next election, regardless of their affiliation. Now imagine instead of a group calling themselves, oh, 'Americans for Sustained Growth' which was directly bankrolled by the top three American oil companies. Now, you have a group secretly backed by companies with over $550B in revenues in 2009, which directly profits in seeing any and all regulations or restrictions on oil exploration, extraction, and refining blocked or removed. New emission standards proposed? What's the potential cost over five years to those companies? Cut that number (in the billions) in half and dump the rest into the ASG to use to threaten to run ads against any one who votes for it.
That is the real danger, from both sides of the political spectrum. If electoral finance reform isn't on the top of the agenda, come 2012, you'll see the real professional moneyed interests involved, and there isn't a candidate alive that can out raise them.
That being said, in my cheery 'death of American democracy' way, this is an interesting election. Neither side has offered a plan to deal with long term structural unemployment (in fact, the Republicans haven't even mentioned it) that goes past 'the market will deal with it'. That fact alone shows that this is going to be an ugly couple of years. The US economy will rebound, but the job market will not. Barring major structural and legal changes, I would be amazed to see the unemployment rate in the US drop below 8% anytime in the next five years or so. The lack of will to separate the job market from the stock market is staggering, and proves that American law makers seem to grasp as little about a corporatist market as the American public does. The widespread abuse and possible wholesale fraud of the American housing market has destroyed the bedrock pool of equity for the American middle class, and there simply isn't the political will to rebuild it. When it is more profitable to foreclose on a home than restructure a loan, the game is over. Combined with the structural unemployment, the US is headed for a huge urban infrastructure decay.
So, regardless of who wins, the economy is not going to be good in 2012.
The polling suggests the Democrats are going to lose 50-70 seats in the house and at least 6-8 seats in the Senate. Even worse, after gains over the last six years, they will lose up to 14 state assemblies and governorships, in the critical redistricting period. Which means the GOP will have the whip hand in cutting apart Democratic strongholds and diluting them into conservative leaning districts.
Personally, the polling has been so bizarre this year that I'm not willing to take any of it at face value. The GOP has to win big, or fall victim to talking up their own message too highly. If they only win 30 seats, the narrative will be the refuting of their opposition by ordinary Americans, which they have to avoid at all costs. By appropriating the Tea Party's faux-populist message, they've done an admirable job convincing voters that their pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda is actually beneficial to the middle and lower class.
Hear me out. I've been following American politics a long time; face pressed up against the glass, watching the fury and blessing everyday that I'm a Canadian. There's a lot of noise right now, not dissimilar to the progressives following Obama's win in 2008, which doesn't necessarily translate into action. Every election prediction involves navigating the smoke and mirrors surrounding the process and trying to reconcile the numbers with the forces that are driving them. The US is extremely confusing on the ground right now, so the numbers just won't add up. I'm left with a gut feeling, and it's this.
The GOP is going to spank the Democrats in the House. It's not because the country is rising up against a Marxist wave or any of that bitheringly and astonishing stupid shit that has been whipped up around the election says. And it's not because Americans are against debt, because they supported it in record numbers between 2002 and 2006. It's because unemployment is up, the economy is bad, and the Democrats are in charge. It's Obama's House and midterm voters will make him pay. But in Congress, I see the loss of seats in the 50-55 numbers at most. Just too much of the wave is noise for me to believe it all translates at the ballot box (mind you, if I'm wrong, the Democrats could lose 70+ seats easily).
As for the Senate, I think the Democrats will actually eel out with 52-53 seats and majority control. Nutbars like Toomey and Paul should win their elections, but I see Illinois, Nevada and Washington all closing out Democrat in the end. West Virginia and Colorado will turn out to be illusions of a race, with Manchin and Buck respectively winning with single digit margins. In the state races, I'd give the GOP 6 pickups. The key is that I think the Democrats are going to lose key states Ohio and Oregon, and that's extremely bad for 2012.
Oddly enough, even with the major losses, Congress will end up looking a lot like 2006. If it’s a realignment in America, it will be 2012 that is the key.
"What's that?"
"Someone is going to win."
It is the 2010 general election in the United States, and the polling is about as clear as the waters around a BP oil rig of just what will happen. As is my normal habit, I will be prognosticating on the results. Since it's been asked why I don't write much about the Canadian elections, I'll take this point to explain; Canadian elections are boring. Don't get me wrong; I think the Canadian method and approach is far more democratic and representative of the electorate in general than the US. However, because of that, you get a much smaller and less vitriolic election process, and a lot less of the 'marginal yet rich enough to make it a race' candidates. Canadian shifts can be pronounced and rapid, but it's more the exception. In short, two weeks before a Canadian election, there's maybe thirty seats still holding any kind of dynamic shift possible, and the outcome is largely decided.
Also, American elections don’t effect me significantly, which makes it a lot easier to enjoy as a spectator.
First of all, the Citizens United decision is wrecking exactly the type of havoc I expected, and this is only the first, tentative outreach of it. The scope of the carnage is just being realized, but it is companies in the energy, banking and health care sectors who are pouring the most money into the cycle that can currently be tracked, which makes sense considering that repealing financial reform, health care reform, and restrictions on oil and clean air initiatives stand to deliver billions of dollars in profit for these companies.
Remember what I said before? Corporations exist to make money. They have no other ethical priority greater than the accumulation of wealth. To treat them as 'people' with unlimited and unrestricted free speech, they will not arrive at a position based on what is best for their neighbours, the country or any other factor. If it adds wealth, regardless of the other costs, a corporation is ethically bound to pursue that goal.
In response, unions and left-leaning groups are pouring in money as well, further distorting the landscape. Same basic principle; a union's first priority is the overall health and success of their membership. So when you have a Tea Party candidate who would love nothing better than to eliminate a couple million unionized government positions, it is in their self interest to sandbag the guy into oblivion.
I've been laughed at or at the very least written off as being hyperbolic, but this Congressional election is going to be the most expensive in history, and it's only the start. For the last six years, it looked like the internet was harnessing small money donations effectively, which is the key to populist funding of elections. You can't buy a candidate with $20, but a candidate needs to engage their base for the $20 times five thousand people that becomes central to his ability. It forces politicians to appeal to a broader spectrum. Citizen's United changes that. Congressman A finds an offer; vote my way on energy policy, and I'll front $4M in ads from Concerned Citizens For America for you, Congressman. Engaging a few interests becomes far more profitable than engaging thousands of voters.
The NRA for years has very successfully fought against stricter gun control, despite the fact that the polls shows a majority of Americans favour it, by way of confronting politicians and being clear that a vote for gun control would bring in the NRA and their resources to support the opposing candidate in the next election, regardless of their affiliation. Now imagine instead of a group calling themselves, oh, 'Americans for Sustained Growth' which was directly bankrolled by the top three American oil companies. Now, you have a group secretly backed by companies with over $550B in revenues in 2009, which directly profits in seeing any and all regulations or restrictions on oil exploration, extraction, and refining blocked or removed. New emission standards proposed? What's the potential cost over five years to those companies? Cut that number (in the billions) in half and dump the rest into the ASG to use to threaten to run ads against any one who votes for it.
That is the real danger, from both sides of the political spectrum. If electoral finance reform isn't on the top of the agenda, come 2012, you'll see the real professional moneyed interests involved, and there isn't a candidate alive that can out raise them.
That being said, in my cheery 'death of American democracy' way, this is an interesting election. Neither side has offered a plan to deal with long term structural unemployment (in fact, the Republicans haven't even mentioned it) that goes past 'the market will deal with it'. That fact alone shows that this is going to be an ugly couple of years. The US economy will rebound, but the job market will not. Barring major structural and legal changes, I would be amazed to see the unemployment rate in the US drop below 8% anytime in the next five years or so. The lack of will to separate the job market from the stock market is staggering, and proves that American law makers seem to grasp as little about a corporatist market as the American public does. The widespread abuse and possible wholesale fraud of the American housing market has destroyed the bedrock pool of equity for the American middle class, and there simply isn't the political will to rebuild it. When it is more profitable to foreclose on a home than restructure a loan, the game is over. Combined with the structural unemployment, the US is headed for a huge urban infrastructure decay.
So, regardless of who wins, the economy is not going to be good in 2012.
The polling suggests the Democrats are going to lose 50-70 seats in the house and at least 6-8 seats in the Senate. Even worse, after gains over the last six years, they will lose up to 14 state assemblies and governorships, in the critical redistricting period. Which means the GOP will have the whip hand in cutting apart Democratic strongholds and diluting them into conservative leaning districts.
Personally, the polling has been so bizarre this year that I'm not willing to take any of it at face value. The GOP has to win big, or fall victim to talking up their own message too highly. If they only win 30 seats, the narrative will be the refuting of their opposition by ordinary Americans, which they have to avoid at all costs. By appropriating the Tea Party's faux-populist message, they've done an admirable job convincing voters that their pro-corporate, pro-wealthy agenda is actually beneficial to the middle and lower class.
Hear me out. I've been following American politics a long time; face pressed up against the glass, watching the fury and blessing everyday that I'm a Canadian. There's a lot of noise right now, not dissimilar to the progressives following Obama's win in 2008, which doesn't necessarily translate into action. Every election prediction involves navigating the smoke and mirrors surrounding the process and trying to reconcile the numbers with the forces that are driving them. The US is extremely confusing on the ground right now, so the numbers just won't add up. I'm left with a gut feeling, and it's this.
The GOP is going to spank the Democrats in the House. It's not because the country is rising up against a Marxist wave or any of that bitheringly and astonishing stupid shit that has been whipped up around the election says. And it's not because Americans are against debt, because they supported it in record numbers between 2002 and 2006. It's because unemployment is up, the economy is bad, and the Democrats are in charge. It's Obama's House and midterm voters will make him pay. But in Congress, I see the loss of seats in the 50-55 numbers at most. Just too much of the wave is noise for me to believe it all translates at the ballot box (mind you, if I'm wrong, the Democrats could lose 70+ seats easily).
As for the Senate, I think the Democrats will actually eel out with 52-53 seats and majority control. Nutbars like Toomey and Paul should win their elections, but I see Illinois, Nevada and Washington all closing out Democrat in the end. West Virginia and Colorado will turn out to be illusions of a race, with Manchin and Buck respectively winning with single digit margins. In the state races, I'd give the GOP 6 pickups. The key is that I think the Democrats are going to lose key states Ohio and Oregon, and that's extremely bad for 2012.
Oddly enough, even with the major losses, Congress will end up looking a lot like 2006. If it’s a realignment in America, it will be 2012 that is the key.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Erection Day
Date: 2010-11-02 06:51 pm (UTC)I think to save time and simplify the election process, ballots should be 20 dollar bills. You write on the 20 who you want to see govern you, and that's your vote. The more 20s you have the more votes you get to cast.
And lets be blunt... the Democrats controlled the House the Senate and the Presidency and couldn't pass a bill to give health care to 9/11 responders. Ineptitude like that doesn't win elections.
Re: Erection Day
Date: 2010-11-02 08:10 pm (UTC)