|
Side Effects
A Democrat won yesterday’s vote for a House seat in Mississippi’s 1st district with 54% to 46%. An 8 points winning margin in a district where in 2004 62% voted for Bush, 37% for Kerry. This was the third Republican seat that went to a Democrat in a recent by-election.
With the economy worsening, there is no reasonable way the Democrats and their presidential candidate can lose the November elections. Any poll that gives McCain a chance to win over Obama is likely flawed. In November, the GOP will get trashed.
Still, the House Republicans hope a new slogan for their policies product will help.
"The Change You Deserve"
The slogan was copied from a campaign for an antidepressant, Effexor. The slogan will not work because the product has not changed and people who have taken the medicine over the last years already noticed the side effects:
Headache, drowsiness, dizziness, nausea, weakness, dry mouth, constipation, loss of appetite, weight loss, blurred vision, tiredness, nervousness, trouble sleeping, sweating, or yawning may occur.
…
stomach/abdominal pain, chest pain, persistent cough, shortness of breath, bloody/black/tarry stools, vomit that looks like coffee grounds, easy bruising/bleeding, fast/irregular/pounding heartbeat, muscle weakness/cramps, yellowing eyes/skin, dark urine, seizures, unusual tiredness.
Fans on manliness, like Chris Matthews, have experienced a special one, "a painful or prolonged erection lasting 4 or more hours." As they did not see their doctor and never stopped to swallow the drug, as is reommended, they will now have to live with "permanent damage."
The U.S. people know it is high time to get rid of such medication. The race is thereby already over.
Still, the media will drive this on and make it look competitive because that is what sells their product.
But all international agents know this is over and now adjust their behavior accordingly. They rightly assume that U.S. policies will see significant change.
It will be interesting to follow that sea change especially in the Middle East but elsewhere too. That change itself will have some interesting side effects too.
The post below shows one of them.
You hope! I’m sure the folks on the Titanic thought they would all be rescued too.
Projecting a Democrat win in Mississippi into a national referendum to put the 1st elderly woman or angry young black man into the highest government post in the US,
would be like projecting local Landtag politics of Dusseldorf to the SDP Bundestag
in Berlin. No, it would be like projecting the Sarkozy Revolution next door to a
broad sweep landslide for the NDP in 2009. I mean, come on!
Today’s Democrat politic has moved away from its early years as a Trotskist leftist Stevensonian pro-labor organization. It’s now firmly a big-government pro-socialism
pro-union (not the ‘labor’ kind of unions, but ‘corporate/lobbyist’ unions) machine,
gunning for that $2T slice of America’s tax pie. That’s all Dem’s are. Mensheviks.
America is about to ‘revisit every possible negative’, every ‘terrible mistake’ and
every lingering, destructive conjured-up image the two political machines can gyn.
And if Obama wins at the end, (and there is no precedent for that since Carter beat
a lame ass ascended-via-resignation President Ford, as a favorite son of the South),
then how is he going to run a right-wing business economy on the verge of collapse?
?Raise income taxes by 20%? Because that’s his only hope of effecting any “change”.
Obama has none of ‘win’ going for him. The Republicans have made huge inroads in the
South, and parenthetically, Obama is a black man. Hillary has none of ‘win’ going for
her. She’s a neo-liberal white woman from a Republican suburb of Chicago, as ‘white’
as white can be, (west of the Appalachians). Privileged, arrogant, self-entitled and
Giuliani-esque, Hillary appeals to white professional women, a ~15% minority.
More important, as Gingrich established this match, back when he announced his own
presidency (to pimp his latest book), saying he’d ‘be afraid to run against Obama
or Clinton’, then laughed that great big Southern cracker belly laugh…Dem’s will
either raise the Republican Dead against a black man or a white woman, and you
can be absolutely sure, either Obama or Clinton will be running against a solid,
coordinated, spartan Repug regime of Bush.Con Welfare Patrons, grateful Defense
Contractors, Big Farmers, Big Oil, R/E’s desperate for bailout, bankers, brokers
and every misogynist, racist white cracker from south of the Mason-Dixon Line.
Like scrumming -v- Green Bay Packers on a -20ºF home game, in SB playoff season.
Let Hillary have her day, see if baaksheesh will stick. If SuperD fails, and
Obama wins the nomination, we’ll all get our noses bloodied in November, in the
Second Civil War, only this time, opp sim, the Republicans are again the Union,
and they have all the guns, a battle-forged military ex-Posse Comitatus, and a
fully para-militarized police SWAT force, already launching sweeps of minorities.
A Democrat candidate has a snow-flake’s chance in Baghdad, but keep hope alive!
That, and $6M, will get you about as far as Wesley Snipes, in this Neo-Zi Gulag.
Posted by: Dennis Hostart | May 15 2008 3:06 utc | 7
Any poll that gives McCain a chance to win over Obama is likely flawed.
*Argument.*
McCain is going to slaughter Obama. > first two links.
Obama’s skin is black, in the US, he had to run as black, could not run as Biracial or Mongrel or whatever, he isn’t a golfer like Tiger Woods. He is running a post racial campaign, for two good reasons – image and vote count. (see below)
Yet, Obama, is, in essence, a second generation American or a recent immigrant, neither of his parents are from the Black community, besides school in the exotic, mixed Hawaii, he did not grow up in the US.
As a person (vs. a candidate), he might as well be Asian, Hispanic, Indonesian, etc. That is why he has done so well – Harvard Law Review President, no less. He is multicultural, cosmopolitan, savvy, etc. He is a ‘dem’ upper class – very like the *losers* Kerry, Gore – except for age, and the fact that he has no inherited wealth, both of which are in his favor. Absolutely perfect as darling of the smoked-salmon dems (oh, and the MSM as well), and to induce hysterical adoration from bloggers .. Nothing more egalitarian or anti-racist or forward looking than to support a black candidate. Obama is the white man’s black, and the higher socio-economic level group ‘black’, one of theirs.
Facing McC, Obama’s black handicap, a *minor* point.
In 2004, there were about 142 million registered voters, with 16 m. blacks = 11%. 125 m. ppl did vote, of which 14 m. blacks, 11%. Registered/voter turnout is the same for W and B (see link US census bureau) In fact, registered blacks are more assiduous voters than reg. whites, if taking into account educ. / economic level. Residual votes in the US are low, between at most .5 % here and there and .00x – they are higher amongst B but trend out when there is a B candidate.
Voter turnout (voters / eligible pop, i.e. new registrants and old ones who suddenly vote) increases similarly for both B and W, in case of a Democratic black candidate. New B dem. candidates raise participation; for incumbents, the effect vanishes! (or almost) There is no effect if cand. is Republican – see link paper.
How many more voters is hard to predict. (See paper, 2-3% overall, with highs of 7% for some groups, etc.) It is also very hard to judge how much ‘room’ there is for more voters: some reg. voters never vote, some won’t be able to, etc. If we add on 1% because it is a presidential election, another half for residual votes or other screw ups, maybe 4%? That brings participation up awfully high – 92% or thereabout. Even if almost all the ‘new’ B voters vote Obama, the bulk goes to McCain.
(sorry for length wanted to look it up)
Vital, the nitty gritty: Obama’s liberal handicap.
Black pols are perceived as more liberal, more ‘radical’, more progressive than W ones. This is a staple of Social Psych 101. It is most likely also true (this is mentioned in the paper, and there is a small literature on it.) Whether there is a gap, with perception being more polarized than reality, as is often the case, is likely, but can’t be measured accurately.
On a left-right, progressive-conservative (very vague) axis, the 3 ‘contenders’ should by default be roughly evenly spaced. On various issues, which the electorate capts by intuition and osmosis – Iraq, Iran, support for Israel, pro US hegemony – that’s the main point, Obama is to the left, Hill is in the middle, and McCain to the right. In a left branch contest (dem only) Obama wins over Hill, but to beat the rightmost candidate, the more centrist Hill can prevail, the more liberal Obama cannot.
Hill positioned herself correctly to beat a Republican. Even if her campaign has gone off the rails, badly.
Obama was ‘selected’ – admired, encouraged, imbued with progressive forward movement – because he could beat all other Dems in a dem only contest.
vorlath, vote
electoral vote
paper was published in journal
census
see also hist. turn out graph
Posted by: Tangerine | May 15 2008 16:57 utc | 12
It’s weird, isn’t it, how we have these residual loyalties for anyone who claims to be of our ‘clan’? Even now amerikans of leftist bent have to fight hard to submerge any sign of favoritism for ‘their team’ the godawful lying cheating dems any candidate of which wouldn’t give his own dying grandmother the heat off of his/her shit especially if it cost a vote or worse a point in the ‘most preferred’ poll.
It is this residual loyalty which pseudo leftist political combines (Labour, Labor, Social Dem, or Dem depending where in the world you live) have been trading on for years. At one time they would occasionally enact some particularly enlightened piece of legislation sort of the way you’d throw a dog a bone, but now they have learned they really don’t need to do that because after all where are the citizens gonna go? To the right who telegraph their punches before steam rolling the citizens?
Well some might, but the disgustingly craven types who ‘lead’ the pseudo-left parties now know that sufficient voters are always gonna dine out on hope when there’s nothing else in the larder, so they get by on a promise.
No more bones for the old dogs. Hell why bother it’s not electorally necessary, it crowds up the legislative timetable cause getting something through which helps the peons is always contentious amongst the sleek suited, plump, combed over pols and that means some vital piece of anti-terrorist pro-torture law doesn’t get passed and that may leave a lever for the masses to try and control us, and worst of all ‘giving the dog a bone’ always hits some rich fellow in the pocket and closes the door to contributions from him and probably any of his cronies for a while. (So good talking about the rich. When using pronouns one really doesn’t have to use the slash ie him/her, he/she, white/unwhite, young/old even cause the rich players are just about always old bitter white men angry at the rest of us who enjoyed our lives while they made money and now they realise their futility they want revenge. Too simplistic? Not really. Sorry sad but true)
Anyway digression, before that we were talking about how it is the dems who offer nothing other than more of the same with the faint hope it won’t be so, can seriously expect to win the CBS/NBC/FOX/CNN co production “amerikan prez ’08” (“You know Duanette, it’s a crying shame that Clay Aiken isn’t running this year. That’s a nice white boy.” . . .”What No. . .surely not”. “I knew it!” “I knew there was something wrong with that boy.” “he’s a liberal you say.” “Oh my lord. I voted for him in the second season.” “Shush! please don’t tell rev Willard.”)
The pseudo leftist dems will very probably win. If that seems fantastic because a/ They aren’t leftist enough to deserve it or b/ they are too scary for the voters ie black, Muslim sounding middle name OR female, old and adultery enabling, then you just haven’t been paying attention.
This is the new trade-off. Since the pseudo-lefties don’t throw legislative bones anymore, what’s their point of difference? This is especially important in the brand which is perceived to be number 2, it must have a point of difference from the brand leader if is to be successful. The new point of difference is the “sock puppet theory” put together by DNC back-room sharpies since the Kerry fiasco. Kerry had no point of difference from the shrub and he failed.
Now the dems aren’t in the business of offering any real difference in administration policies so this is the next best thing. Voters can feel a bit liberated left of centre but definitely not liberal, when they vote for a black man or a woman, and here’s the kicker. The amerikan population has been carefully sifted until they have found the two most perfect candidates. That is a youngish black man and an oldish white woman who behave exactly as middle aged white man would! Absolute genius.
Too perfect some would say since the voters can’t get a cigarette paper between them but that is part of the beauty of this whole scheme. By election day Obama will have attacked and disowned far more outspoken african amerikans than any white pols would have, and Clintonette will have threatened to nuke more unwhite people than any male pol could have, however penisly challenged he may be.
By election day every voter in amerika will know they can safely vote for either the dyke or the nigger, sorry the bro or the ho, safe in the knowledge that whichever one is the candidate, the politics of middle-aged white men will continue. This is genius the political equivalent of the blow up doll. All the fun of doing something slightly outrageous with none of the consequences.
I’m predicting a dem prez win and a lot more hungry poor people inside and outside of amerika.
ClintonCorp One doubled amerika’s prison population, the vast majority from the so-called ‘war on drugs’ instituted by one RM Nixon, but it was cigar Bill who saw the potential of the war on drugs as a way of re-enslaving african-amerikans. The irony is of course that even though all these black people got imprisoned drugs are cheaper and more plentiful than ever before. A real “win-win”. And that is just the obvious stuff. The war on drugs made the inner-city poor areas their war zone. Houses which couldn’t be given away, but were close to workplaces of the middle class! There’s gotta be a dollar to be made there. So white developers used the cash made from selling drugs to buy up all the houses cheap and sold them to the middle classes once the poor had been driven out. Now the poor have to commute for 2 or 3 hours each way to get to their minimum wage jobs. Good one Bill. Next time Hil has to lend herself 5 million from the Clinton war chest try and count how many poor people’s houses were sold from under them to earn that $5 mil. It is plenty since ClintonCorp were probably only getting a few percentage points off the top. Small towns in the south and west whose white population were a/tired of looking at unwhite blacks and Hispanics or b/ worried that they may get outnumbered and voted out, had un-whites all rounded up in drug swoops and sold to other small towns with lotsa whitefellas and no work. Build a prison get the guv-mint to pay to keep the unwhites in prison and employ the cracker guards and it’s perfect, or will be if you can make the slaves work for $15 a month as well.
So the only question is what ideal can the new dem prez pervert to give bucks to his backers? Well much of the impetus for the war on drugs scam came from unwitting community leaders in poor areas, demanding that the problems of drugs on the street be confronted. A ju jitsu throw by washington had the solutions demanded by the communities implemented in a such a way the communities were destroyed. Expect more of that same trickery and nastiness. I would say that the increasing problems amerika faces from the return of soldiers and mercenaries who have spent the last few years raping and killing Iraqis while being made to feel in absolute terror for their own lives, will be the issue which a new dem prez perverts.
The acquittal of those asshole coppers who murdered the bridegroom and best man is a good indication of how the escalation of the politicians’ war with the voters will be managed.
The returning murderers will be hired into an increasingly militaristic law enforcement industry where their sociopathy can be “channeled”.
The ideal perverted will be “bringing our boys home”. Within a couple of years whole neigbourhoods in big cities of amerika will be getting the Fallujah or Sadr City treatment. Just as it took National Guardsmen with day jobs as prison guards to get amerikan detention centres in Iraq like Abu Ghraib up and running, the soldiers who have been working in Iraq’s amerikan controlled gulags will be given jobs by the Prisons of Amerika Corp or whatever to hold the humans rounded up in the neighborhood swoops. These new holding centres will be very different from existing jails. Like the Iraqi model all “detainees” will be presumed guilty, there will be no access to counsel and trials will be the exception rather than the rule. Detainees will have to prove that they are citizens entitled to any remaining protections and if they can’t as many will not be, they will be deported to the holding facilities ‘offshore’ a la deputy John Howard’s groundbreaking Nauru experiment.
You don’t believe it? Picture this. An ‘unwhite” kid has been picked up off the street in some major amerikan metropolis. He has been searched stripped of all worldly possessions, given a orange jump suit and left to fester for a few months. Then suddenly without warning he is dragged before a ‘tribunal’ of hand-picked nasties and asked to prove his amerikan citizenship. He has no lawyer or access to one no means of communicating with the outside world and little in the way of knowledge and skills needed to win an argument with a process that has been designed to defeat him.
Pretty soon he is shipped off to some god-forsaken spot managed by a corporation whose income depends upon the maximum number of inmates being held as cheaply as possible. Declared stateless, he or she cannot be accepted by any other nation because he/she has no means of being accepted, so the kid is effectively imprisoned for life for being in the wrong place at the wrong time. Admit it; deep down although many white amerikans may feel a little uncomfortable with the process, that’s only if they let themselves think about it. They also deep down believe that “something must be done” about unwhite amerikans. This is something and amerikans are becoming very used to not thinking about a process if the processes’ outcome is deemed ‘worthwhile’.
I’d reckon that scenario could pretty much play out now without any further ‘enhancements’ to the patriot Act or similar laws.
People who vote dem in 08 in the hope of something better are in all likelihood going to end up wracked with despair at their complicity in the next major step towards complete corporate fascism.
Posted by: Debs is dead | May 15 2008 22:21 utc | 13
|
