Election Bets – Moon of Alabama

September 5, 2006

Election Bets

With the labor day weekend over, the U.S. election season officially began today.

In any normal election system a significant win for the opposition party should be secure, but I have my doubts about the outcome here.

Most Senate and House seats are save for the current occupant either through gerrymandering or overwhelming general political leaning of the local constituency. Only a few races will be really competitive. This concentrates the big money and the big fraud to very small spots of the country.

Karl Rove, the best campaign manager ever, will try every dirty trick in his books to keep the edge. Where those tricks do not work, he will invent new ones.

Even the NYT editors fear election fraud through manipulated electronic voting machines.

It’s hard to believe that nearly six years after the disasters of Florida in 2000, states still haven’t mastered the art of counting votes accurately. [..]

Against this, the Democrats do not shown the will ,l and thereby not the unity, to go for a decisive fight. Rove’s strategy to highlighting a "need to fight" by comparing the Iraq war to a fight against fashism, stalinism, slavery or whatever, is successful because the Democratic Party in general does not even show the will to fight for the power at home.

Conyers, as head of the House Judiciary Committee with supena power is THE nightmare for everyone in the White House, the Pentagon and the AEI. This nightmare gives motivation to the Republicans to win beyond any the Democrats might have.

Yes, there would be a bit more spoil and some K-Street money flowing to them. But then, it would be their task to clean up the mess in Iraq and the huge domestic consequences of the deflation of the housing bouble. Why strive for that job?

So my prediction for some two month form now, is the popular going massively to the Democratic party candidates. But the decisive votes in some curious races will somehow turn out to keep a Republican majority in the House as well as in the Senate.

What is Your take?

Posted by b on September 5, 2006 at 19:45 UTC | Permalink

Comments

Dear and far-too-clever Bernard,
I agree completely with your prediction.
Sigh….

Posted by: McGee | Sep 5 2006 20:01 utc | 1

alas I concur — quibble perhaps not overwhelmingly popular vote to dems, more like close vote.
It would be nice (for the numbers anyhow) if the Thugs would take a fall, but I have doubts. And even if the (spineless) dems rallied, I doubt that much would change.
Too bad there’s no draft.

Posted by: degustibus | Sep 5 2006 20:09 utc | 2

A lot of weirdness of recent elections in the USA is due to fear and racism. Both are driving forces behind the GOP election wins. Since we don’t like to admit to others our innate “bad” emotions, exit polls get skewed.
There is GOP vote manipulation. Still, if Americans had a reason to vote for Democrats, and if they voted overwhelmingly for them, there is nothing the GOP could do about it.

Posted by: Jim S | Sep 5 2006 20:20 utc | 3

I predict the dkos website will be abuzz w/ lots of posts that mean nothing…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 5 2006 20:32 utc | 4

@Uncle – that was a very easy prediction …

Posted by: b | Sep 5 2006 20:46 utc | 5

The smear campaign begins.
The Dems have to pay for theirs.
The Repugs get theirs free from the National ‘news’ (lol) Media.

Posted by: pb | Sep 5 2006 21:02 utc | 6

the dems pick up the house but not the senate, barely
no mandate against the war at all

Posted by: slothrop | Sep 5 2006 21:14 utc | 7

fool me once, shame on you…
(you are correct, b)

Posted by: beq | Sep 5 2006 21:24 utc | 8

Dems pick up both the House and Senate, but punt on investigations.

Posted by: m | Sep 5 2006 21:47 utc | 9

Jim S @3
A lot of weirdness of recent elections in the USA is due to fear and racism. Both are driving forces behind the GOP election wins.
I fully agree. And while fear gets by far the most attention, there are signs that Rove & Co. cannot count on finding as much in that well as before.
Also read somewhere that almost twice as many Republican House seats have become competitive in the last few months.
And vote-fixing may not work quite as well as in the past for whomever is doing it (Dem or Repub) because both sides are going to be more vigilant.
Do’nt know enough detail to make a bet but the Dems might just get enough of the swing vote to stumble into victory.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 5 2006 21:57 utc | 10

An interesting Senate race is in progress in Vermont.
Bernie Sanders, a long time independent house representative is vying for Jim Jefford’s (the guy that jumped ship from the rthug’s to independent in Bush’s first term) vacated seat.
A Billionaire ex IDX owner, Rich Tarrant is the rethug’s opponent to Bernie. He has been flooding the media in VT with his college basketball skills (St. Mikes) and slick glossy expensive mail adds while his tax and real home is Florida and all Vermonters know it. He has completely missed the boat for the VT heart and is so far behind in the pols that it’s embarrassing, especially for a highly successful ex CEO.
Bernie is singularly a very powerful congress critter. He is the only independent and comes from a socialist background and could probably be categorized as predominately Progressive. He sees through and excoriates the corporate-political control of so much of our world today. He’s weak (imo) on the war issue but then again none’s perfect.
From where the data points today Bernie has the Senate seat by a long shot.
So far as I know there is no diabolical Diabold scheme for Vermont. But my gut sense says, “look out Bernie”. Rich’s arrogance and hubris in light of his lack popular support is compellingly upsetting. I think he knows something I don’t. I remember Paul Wellstone and I wish all well, even each individual duped and ensnared in the thralls of almost absolute power.

Posted by: Juannie | Sep 5 2006 22:41 utc | 11

In the dirty trick bag, don’t forget another 9-11, Pearl Harbor, Kristallnacht.
Geez, you can’t turn on the radio around here without hearing another Nazi/Commie/Fascist reference. Welcome to World War Whatever.

Posted by: catlady | Sep 5 2006 23:06 utc | 12

My worthless best guess…
Dems not only do not gain either the House or the Senate, they pick up very few seats overall, in what will be reported as a major victory for the president.
By what combination of means this is achieved I won’t even begin to try to figure out, and neither will the press.

Posted by: mats | Sep 5 2006 23:32 utc | 13

Even if the Democrats manage to pick up both houses, there are enough Democrats who consistently vote like Republicans that it won’t matter. That said, the next two months will be high season for white girls to vanish and for celebs to run amok.

Posted by: biklett | Sep 6 2006 0:33 utc | 14

Do Democrats have any reason to fight (and so to beat) Republicans on the great issue of the day–our various wars, and the treasure we spend to fight them? Do Democrats protest, with conviction, the prominence of the Pentagon and its claim on the nation’s treasury? Do they campaign to reduce the war machine and build a healthy nation? Until they do, complaints, from one side or another, about one or another war, only drown out the harmony uniting them in solemn matrimony. They (or is it we?) support this machine: any voter can see this, and rare is the one who complains.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 6 2006 1:04 utc | 15

@BAMA:
“only drown out the harmony uniting them in solemn matrimony.”
Well maybe, but I doubt it.
Leave the poetry to me.
Plase write in prose.
We shall see in November.

Posted by: Ratbert | Sep 6 2006 1:16 utc | 16

What’s the “it” that you doubt, Ratbert? And what shall we see in November? That the winners might differ from the losers? Concerning the point raised? Really?

Posted by: alabama | Sep 6 2006 1:37 utc | 17

On this, I am afraid I have to agree with alabama.
I am voting against incumbents wherever possible, for whatever good it will do.
Judging by the polling numbers for all members of Congress, this may be the year of the third party. Assuming any got onto the ballot.

Posted by: gylangirl | Sep 6 2006 1:51 utc | 18

I don’t play games with the predictin’ business. I leave that to professionals like Mama Marisol.
Yah, cher, she’s back in Nawlins, workin’ that crystal ball her gramma’s gramma handed down through the women of her gypsy clan. Oooh, the predictin’ business is just a poppin’ these days, what with folks havin’ no solid idea about what the hell might happen next.
She still owes me favors, so she still takes my calls. That will change some day, but right now Mama Marisol predicts Daily Kos will ramp up sumpin’ turrible these next seventy-some days, whippin’ up a horse race in every political contest right around the country, calculatin’ the odds an’ calling in the money an’ floggin’ the liars and lame ducks left and right, faster an faster until the whole things explodes in a fantastic orgasmic election day full of the usual votin’ and cheatin’ an lyin’ an grandstandin’ an skullduggery an right around sundown one party will win and one will lose an’ the horses will stand there pantin’ and foamin’ from their every pore. What a show!
And the race will be run, and the people will be spent. And the Dem horses and the GOP horses will go to their stable in Washington, still owned lock, stock and barrel by the same corporate donors.
An’ the voters and donors and workers and writers and bloggers and soccer moms will go home and discover they get the same government, same programs, same shit, different day. No matter which horse won.
Because it’s an Ownership Society. Not a democracy.
Mama Marisol says the only winners in a horse race are them that own the horses.
Not the rubes who bet their future on ’em.

Posted by: Antifa | Sep 6 2006 2:00 utc | 19

@BAMA, Ggrl, Antifa:
It’s a free country and you got three votes.

Posted by: Ratbert | Sep 6 2006 2:09 utc | 20

the only election i am willing to bet on right now is the mexican election, and i bet that calderon is declared the winner comme bush in 2000. the real question is if there will be another revolution in mexico. could lopez obrador be a 21st century zapata?

Posted by: conchita | Sep 6 2006 2:18 utc | 21

I don’t bet on Mexican elections.
I’ll say it for the wetbacks down there though: at least they’ve got some fire and spirit going for them.

Posted by: Old Gringo | Sep 6 2006 2:26 utc | 22

As opposed to here, Old Gringo, where resignation seems to be the tune …

Posted by: SteinL | Sep 6 2006 3:26 utc | 23

This is a congressional election – meaning many individual races and not a national race. The majority of the seats are gerrymandered and not competitive. However, the Democrats are competing in most of them this time. In several races with Republican incumbents the Democrats have strong challengers who are not part of the DC establishment – they beat the DC backed candidate in the primary. What they lack are financial resources and party machinery backing but have strong grassroots volunteers. They could be the surprise. Most of the DC establishment candidates running against Republican incumbents will run the usual losing campaigns. It will be close – all the Dems need to do are win 15 more – which is not a big number. However in the next 60 days each Dem will face an avalanche of negativity. Can they survive that? We’ll have to see.

Posted by: ab initio | Sep 6 2006 3:35 utc | 24

probably not going out on a limb too much here by predicting that domestic & foreign policy will be little different in 2007 than it was in 2006. while the intel networks & lobby groups may have to update some of their files, the peoples most affected by the united state’s war of terrorism won’t notice a damn bit of difference. though, on a positive note, it’s hard to imagine a more worthless congress than the present one. but then, it may be too late to have only limited opposition.

Posted by: b real | Sep 6 2006 3:53 utc | 25

One political class, dressed up as team R and team D. All their campaign expenses are paid by wealthy donors from the investor and corporate sectors.
Politicians work for who pays their bills.
That’s who rules Washington. There is no opposition party, no matter who is in power at any given moment. Opposition would require questioning this endless circle of pork fed to pigs at the trough.
The voting American is 99% irrelevant to this pork process. Votes are media-managed to land in the R or the D column on Election Day — what does it matter whether R or D wins? — either way the same corporate agenda is what is going to be enacted.
Votes are discouraged, gerrymandered, stolen, tossed out, hidden, and simply changed to the other column wherever needed. No verifiable paper trail or auditing method exists for discovering the actual will of the people.
The American government is a closed loop — corporate cash buys laws and regulations favorable to corporations and investors. In exchange for campaign cash, Congress ups the Pentagon budget. The Pentagon ups their annual output of lucrative, scarcely supervised contracts, by the tens of tens of billions. Part of those billions goes back to Congress in the form of campaign contributions, so they will up the Pentagon budget even more, so it can put out more contracts, which provide the campaign cash that gets politicians elected, who up the Pentagon budget — around and around it goes.
They don’t even try to account for it, anymore. What’s a trillion missing greenbacks between good old boys?
Wars are ordered up just to keep this parasitic feeding off the taxpayer going. They call it the American economy, but it isn’t. It’s the economy of the elite 5%, and the further 10% or so who serve the elites.
The media in this country serve the elite 5% and the 10% who serve them. Everybody else is slowly being reduced to renters and day laborers, especially through the gutting of public education.
In the direction we’re headed, it’s only a matter of time until voting is restricted to property owners only. Until voting is restricted to men. White men. Christian men. Who happen to employ at least 500 secondary Americans.
All of whom can buy whatever they need, down at the company store.
It’s all legal, once Congress writes it into law.

Posted by: Antifa | Sep 6 2006 4:02 utc | 26

If I’ve learned one little thing in the last sixty years, it’s this: elected officials make democracy safe for their owners. Sometimes they fail: the Civil War was a failure of this kind. A rare event. Owners have refined their style since then. For example, they’ve broadened their membership to include anyone who contributes to a large pension fund, like Calpers and TIAA-CREF. Owners take owning very seriously. It’s by far the most important thing in their lives–more important than food, or sex or death. For them, owning a work of art is far more important than looking at it.

Posted by: alabama | Sep 6 2006 4:39 utc | 27

The Unstoppable Force will not be diverted by the Imponderous Object, and I agree, it’s a sad thing.
Have you considered taking up gardening?

Posted by: Antifa | Sep 6 2006 4:48 utc | 28

One prognostication I’m going to make is that we will NOT see another 9/11-Pearl Harbor type of event to secure the results for the GOP. Despite the fact that the first 9/11 happened on Bush’s watch, he has been sold as the national (in)security poster boy. Any orchestrated “terror event” will scare the people all right, but it will result in blowback against the GOP in ways that Hurricane Katrina never could have (viz. “I thought I gave up my liberties so you’d make us safe from these kinds of things!”). I think this year’s “October Surprise” does not include any US buildings on paper, but we can expect to see more folk rounded up “in the planning stages”.
Hurricanes are still a wild card, though. Sadly, it would almost be worthwhile to see how they would spin the loss of another non-negotiable US city to the forces of “Naturofascism”

Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 6 2006 4:50 utc | 29

(Oops)
Antifa,
The Unstoppable Force will not be diverted by the Imponderous Object, and I agree, it’s a sad thing.
Have you considered taking up gardening?
🙂

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape | Sep 6 2006 4:51 utc | 30

From my far-right wing link above…
“the reality is we haven’t sustained a terrorist attack anywhere in five years. That’s the real Bush security record.”
Nor again have we been attacked by legions of zombies. I think Karl needs to get this message out.
He might want to downplay hurricanes, though.

Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 6 2006 4:54 utc | 31

Monolycus,
A summary of today’s speechification implies the same take:

President Bush reminded Americans that the United States is a nation at war on the same day his administration proclaimed significant progress in the war on terror but said the enemy has adjusted to U.S. defenses and that “America is safer but we are not yet safe.”

Just dangerous enough, but not too dangerous. Sort of a soft-porn masochism fantasy wrapper. Comforting, exciting, all the good stuff.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape | Sep 6 2006 5:05 utc | 32

“I’ll say it for the wetbacks down there though: at least they’ve got some fire and spirit going for them.”
Posted by: Old Gringo | Sep 5, 2006 10:26:46 PM | 22
Better to drown ourselves in our tears because our leaders betrayed us.

Posted by: pb | Sep 6 2006 5:29 utc | 33

Monolycus I tend to agree w/your #29 however, they will walk a fine fear line all the way to the finish…
Explosive device found at Hoover Dam
Explosive device found at Hoover Dam
KVBC-TV
An explosive found at Hoover Dam created a rough patch for many travelers over the weekend. A bomb squad was called in Sunday afternoon to inspect a blasting cap found at the Dam.
A blasting cap is a small device used to set off a larger explosive. After realizing the device could not be associated with construction crews labeled it suspicious.
The bomb squad removed the small explosive but still searched the area to make sure there weren’t any more laying around. Officials don’t know how the blasting cap ended up at the Dam.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 6 2006 6:45 utc | 34

I’ll say it for the wetbacks down there though: at least they’ve got some fire and spirit going for them.
Posted by: Old Gringo | Sep 5, 2006 10:26:46 PM | 22
Let’s see … if that euphemism works the way I thought it did, it would not refer to people who are, um, down there, would it? But then maybe expedited repatriation changes things? On the other hand … oh, it’s all so confusing, but it must make sense, it just must.

Posted by: Jassalasca Jape | Sep 6 2006 6:54 utc | 35

Israeli panel: Giuliani is ‘best’ presidential candidate for Israel

Former New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani is the “best” candidate in the 2008 race for Israel, a panel of eight Israeli experts assembled by Haaretz has determined.
Giuliani is followed by former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich, Arizona Senator John McCain and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Ranking bottom of the list is Illinois Senator Barack Obama.

The midterms are anybodies guess, dem or thug, we lose, –see biklett #14– as for da big one see above.

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 6 2006 7:09 utc | 36

@Unca (re: blasting caps and sealing wax and other childish things):
That was what I was getting at when I said we could see more folk rounded up in the “planning stages”. Apocalyptic talk and intrigues go on the GOP plus column; Actually having people die goes into the GOP minus column.
It’s a very delicate dance they maintain, always keeping the end of life-as-we-know-it a moment away and no closer. The dance floor will get pretty crowded with Homeland Security agents and CIA/FBI all vying to doesi-do for their moment in the spotlight, but at the end of the dance, I doubt there will be many real “terrorists” or even dead people on our dance cards.

Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 6 2006 7:22 utc | 37

I’ll say it for the wetbacks down there though: at least they’ve got some fire and spirit going for them.
is’nt wetback a derogatory term ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 6 2006 11:57 utc | 38

“Conyers, as head of the House Judiciary Committee with supena power is THE nightmare for everyone in the White House, the Pentagon and the AEI. This nightmare gives motivation to the Republicans to win beyond any the Democrats might have.”
If I were Mr. Conyers, I’d be very careful about the airplanes I fly in over the next couple of months.

Posted by: Joe F | Sep 6 2006 12:33 utc | 39

Since we don’t like to admit to others our innate “bad” emotions, exit polls get skewed.
The shy republican eh?
uscountvotes debunked it thouroghly over a year ago:

Using Edison/Mitofsky’s data tables we demonstrate that the “reluctant Bush responder” hypothesis is implausible because it is inconsistent with the combination of high response rates and high discrepancy rates among the precincts with the highest percentage for Bush.

Posted by: A swedish kind of death | Sep 6 2006 13:09 utc | 40

Scam #63:
That’s an amazing panel: Israel Ashkenazi men from Georgetown University. They reflect the ideological makeup of their home country – the GU political science department.

Posted by: citizen k | Sep 6 2006 13:27 utc | 41

We the Sheeple

A majority of GOP voters, meanwhile, favor all types of searches, with the exception of random mail searches—but even on this least popular anti-terror measure, a narrow plurality of Republicans backs the measure.

Posted by: beq | Sep 6 2006 15:31 utc | 42

According to my twisted paranoid self, the Fall elections are the PR event which will consecrate the gradual Coup d’Etat of the Wall Street money men that has been going on since late 2005. Iraq requires de-escalation, which requires some grudging understanding with Iran (which explains perhaps why consigliere Baker has been travelling through Mesopotamia and why Khatami is now set to visit Monticello and express his admiration for Thomas Jefferson). Now, the objectives of Wall Street money men are immutable: fully valued share prices at home (currently undervalued between 40-70% according to capitalized profits models), a world safe for globalism abroad (US full-spectrum-dominance having foundered, a return to multi-lateral corporatist globalism is called for), and a US-Dollar strong enough to make foreign acquisitions cheap for Dollar-based investors (gee Maw… that’s those same Wall Street money men!). All this requires… some “bipartisanship” (i.e. cover by that Democrat Party). Ergo my bet is the same as slothrop’s: Dems “win” the House (barely) but not the Senate.

Posted by: Guthman Bey | Sep 6 2006 18:54 utc | 43

And what does it say about this site if the slur “wetback” can be posted freely with no reaction ?
If its welcome to use the derogatory slur “wetback” here, are other derogatory racial slurs OK too ?

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 6 2006 20:48 utc | 44

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 6 2006 20:54 utc | 45

like “gringo”?

Posted by: catlady | Sep 6 2006 21:02 utc | 46

And what does it say about this site if the slur “wetback” can be posted freely with no reaction ?
More to the point, what does it say about the person whom wrote it…

Posted by: Uncle $cam | Sep 6 2006 21:30 utc | 47

I figured he wasn’t too bright as, to be a so-called “wetback” they would have to be here not there. No?

Posted by: beq | Sep 6 2006 21:55 utc | 48

how about santorum? i’d bet he’s reelected, in which case duncan black may as well shoot himself in the head.

Posted by: slothrop | Sep 7 2006 2:25 utc | 49

@jony
“And what does it say about this site if the slur “wetback” can be posted freely with no reaction ?”
It means that I thought it was a troll designed specifically to derail a discussion by pressing meaningless emotional hot-buttons and therefore the only productive response to it would be to ignore it and continue on-topic. I ignore posts for two reasons: I have nothing to say in response or I think the poster is an idiot. If I respond to something at all, no matter how harshly, it means I feel it is worthwhile to make a comment. I don’t stop and editorialize every time I step in a pile of something unpleasant on my way to elsewhere… I pause long enough to scrape my shoe and continue where I was going.
And for your second question, the only one here who gets to decide what is appropriate and not appropriate is Bernhard. If someone wants to use less than persuasive slurs to try to get their points across, and Bernhard decides he’s cool with that, then I will take a “sticks and stones” approach to it and recommend others do likewise. We are all of us free to drop by or not drop by here as our sensibilities dictate.

Posted by: Monolycus | Sep 7 2006 4:44 utc | 50

i chose not to respond to the wetback comment because to me it was transparently intended to provoke and it just wasn’t worth going there. how about, old gringo, i don’t believe you are a troll, what was the purpose of the remark? was it perhaps to raise a mirror to some of us and some recent behaviour?

Posted by: conchita | Sep 7 2006 5:03 utc | 51

Thanks all for your comments on the “wetback” issue.
And I just hope it was not a waste of our time to respond to it.

Posted by: jony_b_cool | Sep 7 2006 8:50 utc | 52

Ah yes, election time for the ‘just war’ (and nothing but the war) parties.
Time then to give a bit of thought to the peace dividend at this time of maximum war on climate, yes?
How ’bout pushing some of that military moolah over to tackle the threat that really matters?

Posted by: Dismal Science | Sep 8 2006 16:43 utc | 53

Is this important? Is it being discussed somewhere on MOA?
From SCOOP:
Pre-Certification Swearing in by Hastert Terminates All State Legal Authority Over Elections – The People’s House is now the Speaker’s House.
link

Posted by: Noirette | Sep 9 2006 14:49 utc | 54

Back to Main