The 2022 Midterm Elections

[gehringer_2]

24 minutes ago, 1776 said:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The Biden administration on Tuesday said it will sell an additional 20 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve as part of a previous plan to tap the facility to calm oil prices boosted by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and as demand recovers from the pandemic.
________________

This is ridiculously stupid politics. We don’t have a shortage and pump prices are in decline. 

PR move purely. This is one of those things which is taking advantage of the Public's innumeracy. 20M barrels is about 1 DAY of supply. That's not nothing, but's really not much either.  It seems like a huge number, but only because people don't have any clue about the actual scale of many of the things they regularly talk about. If you can do something trivial and get credit for doing something "HUGE!" then why not?

[Motown Bombers]

 

[oblong]

that's odd to me b/c I assume Whitmer will win rather easily.  By that I mean a few points. Won't be an Engler/Feiger landslide but....

[ewsieg]

I got a mailer yesterday that said whoever wins the GOP primary for my state house seat will win the general election.  It then asked democrats to vote in the GOP primary for a non-extremist candidate.  While I appreciate that move, not sure if there is a non-extremist candidate.

[pfife]

The crop of MIGOP candidates for Governor seems very underwhelming.  

[ewsieg]

1 minute ago, pfife said:

The crop of MIGOP candidates for Governor is very underwhelming.  

Fixed that for you.

[gehringer_2]

31 minutes ago, oblong said:

that's odd to me b/c I assume Whitmer will win rather easily.  By that I mean a few points. Won't be an Engler/Feiger landslide but....

Cook is always skeptical about apparent Democratic strength. And he's been largely correct.

[Motown Bombers]

5 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

Cook is always skeptical about apparent Democratic strength. And he's been largely correct.

It's hard to gauge how inspired and motivated Democrats are going to be. They don't find voting to be a civic duty like Republicans do. If Detroiters turned out at a rate higher than 49%, Republicans would have a hard time winning statewide elections Michigan. 

A friend of mine state out 2016. He is the biggest anti-Trumper but would have voted for Hillary but assumed she was going to win and as he put it thought Michigan was a blue state. 

[pfife]

28 minutes ago, ewsieg said:

Fixed that for you.

Amazing.   LOL

I wrote it the way I did b/c frankly any Republican will be underwhelming to me but it just seemed like these aren't the top tier candidates you would expect to see.   I don't know if Craig would have been but he was at least getting some traction in the media.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, Motown Bombers said:

It's hard to gauge how inspired and motivated Democrats are going to be

yeah - I think election polling in the US is still largely missing the boat on the issue. The hardest question in US politics is not figuring out who supports whom, it's figuring out who is going to vote. I think the swings in voter participation are larger than the opinion swings in the electorate. For a long time we have had this model where there are dems, repubs and indies, and changing the minds of the indies swings the election. We all tend to talk in those terms all the time. But what I think may be more true is that you have dark red and pinks and you have deep blues and powder blues. And what really swings elections is not whether you flip any reds to blue or vice versa, but how many of the pinks and powder blues show up to vote. It's not a matter of changing minds, it's a matter of changing motivation. Understood that way the great success of the GOPs cultural fear politics makes sense.

Edited July 27, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Mr.TaterSalad]

Democrats have unique problems that Republican don't. These center around the voters that make up the Democratic Party versus those who makeup the Republican Party.

The MAGA movement and far right was able to successfully take over the Republican Party and the left/progressive movement has not done so for the Democratic Party. The MAGA movement and Tea Party before it took over the Republicans with some blowback politically but not as much as pundits thought. They won in landslide fashion in the 2010 midterms. They won again, albeit thanks to a flawed system, in 2016 when no one thought they could and pundits were laughing at their candidate and counting unhatched chickens with the Clinton campaign. They then successfully mitigated their losses in the House and held onto the Senate (even flipping a seat with Bill Nelson in Florida losing) when many pundits projected a total annihilation at the ballot box for them in 2018. 

After the financial crash and derivatives crisis of 2008-2009, that should have been the left's movement to take over. Occupy Wall Street and other progressive organizations should have been able to show the world the incestuous greed and guilt of Wall Street and Corporate America. Show how unfettered and unregulated capitalism wrecked people's lives and ruined them financially. Instead, the left was unable to gain any real traction and the Occupy movement faded, while the Tea Part succeeded.

But a unique problem that the Democratic Party has versus the Republicans is that a 1/3rd to a 1/4th of their voters don't really want to be Democrats and only vote Democratic out of the necessity to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Many progressives do not like identifying as Democrats because they see Democratic leaders identifying as capitalists and in-favor of a corporatized society, run by greedy capitalist actors. Many progressives and democratic socialists/social democrats in the United States fundamentally disagree with and reject a core tenant of the party, capitalism. So you're constantly having to fend off progressive primary challenges from that side of the party, deal with a party moving to the left faster than the rest of the country is, and overcome the challenge of motivating an anti-capitalist voters to vote for candidates they feel are flawed and/or downright terrible people. The American Left is a third party without a home and it presents constant challenges for the Democratic Party in convincing them to vote blue year after year. When someone as awful and dangerous as Trump is on the ballot for President, they'll show up. But when that same awful, dangerous person is running for City Council, School Board, County Commission, State Legislature, or Congress, they don't always feel the need to show up and vote or participate in GOTV efforts. Democrats, the left included, care more about the Presidency than down ballot races because we've been trained to care.

The other problem the Democratic Party faces that Republicans don't, as often, is the lazy voters within the party. As Motown Bombers has said time and again here, Democrats don't treat voting as a civic duty like Republicans do. We want a Barak Obama, Bill Clinton, or Gretchen Whitmer to come along and motivate and inspire us. When Dems don't feel inspired, they often don't vote. Republicans understand better the consequences than Democrats of what staying home an do. That's why even in "blue wave" election cycles, Republicans can still hold the Senate and mitigate their losses. 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Mr.TaterSalad

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

Many progressives do not like identifying as Democrats because they see Democratic leaders identifying as capitalists and in-favor of a corporatized society, run by greedy capitalist actors. Many progressives and democratic socialists/social democrats in the United States fundamentally disagree with and reject a core tenant of the party, capitalism.

this is an interesting way to put it. I would expand it some... 

Coming out of the early 20th cent you had the classic ideological conflict set up between Marxism and Capitalism, and early American and European progressives had a lot of sympathy with  communist/socialist revolutions. Probably right into the 50's and maybe the early 60's there was still a feeling on the left that you didn't have to fight capitalism directly because it was dying anyway. Even Kennedy talked about 'the long twilight struggle' against communism in a way that practically assumed the battle would be lost eventually. The fierceness of protecting those dominos was based on a lack of confidence that any domino that fell could ever be stood back up. But then came the 70s and the economic stagnation in the semi-nationalized Euro zone and the obvious and growing signs of collapse and rot inside the Communist world. By the 1990s, to the surprise of all of us that grew up under the pessimism of the post WWII era, it was Socialism/Marxism that was left on the ash-heap of history. Totalitarianism certain still stood in places, but any idea it was based on evangelism for a new economics instead of ordinary tyranny was long gone.

Now interestingly enough, in Europe, this didn't seem to create a crises in political/economic governance. England and Scandinavia moderated the worst socialist excesses that were dragging down their economies and Europe largely carried on with with understanding that capitalism was here to stay but that things like government social welfare, public investment, labor unions, regulation and public input to corporate boards had to be part of future.

The situation in the US was much different. We got the worst excesses of a less regulated triumphalist capitalism, a period of insufficient social investment, and argument over whether the government should even have  any role in social services. So that has left the American left in sort of in a quandary. You can't preach classic industrial socialism, it's too thoroughly discredited (not that Bernie didn't try!) but in the absence of some easy to define alternative like socialism, the US left doesn't seem to know how to articulate a vision or program to get to the better form of capitalism most of Europe has already started to figure out. Maybe as you say -  they are too radicalized to even want just that or I guess it's just too mundane/boring/lost in minutia. Elizabeth Warren has tried arguing for capitalism with reform, didn't get very far. If the left doesn't want that, whatever else it is they are selling or trying to sell on economics remains a mystery. Rhetoric about what you don't like (i.e. railing against corps and the rich) only goes so far on economics, you have to propose the vision of how to get to what you want. 

With no understandable, 'marketable', economic reform vision to sell, the US left has devolved mostly into throwing isolated economic ideas at the wall (tuition forgiveness), identity politics and its own sexual culture war, and not much of that charges up the electorate. I think if the dems do well in '22 they will have mostly revulsion to Trump and the GOP overreach on abortion to thank rather than that they found any magic of their own. Heaven knows that should be enough, but it still doesn't say much to recommend the Dems on a programmatic basis.

Edited July 27, 2022 by gehringer_2

[Mr.TaterSalad]

The core problem with the Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Democratic-Socialists of America (DSA) brand of socialism is they don't know what they want socialism to be. Therefore, they are running around using a term that can't be uniformly defined in a marketable, palatable manner for voters and a term that scares off 60% or more of the American electorate. I think if Bernie had stuck to promoting his big ideas like Medicare for All, Debt-Free College, Democratizing the workplace, etc. and not used the term socialism at all during the campaign, he would have fared better for himself.

For me, the Meidner Plan in Sweden from the 1970's is the direction I'd like to see a "socialist" left go. We need to be promoting workplace democracy where workers get a say and decision making power of their own pay, benefits, time off, etc. But it needs to go beyond that too, workers who are employed at a company above a certain size/market share should get to vote for their CEO and Executive Board at large. CEO's, CFO's, COO's, CMO's, etc. should be chartered in a corporate constitution that governs and structures the basic tenants of the company and corporate elections where workers, NOT shareholders, get to vote and decide who leads their company and what direction it will take. Workers should also get a vote and say in major corporate decisions like company mergers and acquisitions, and new product line or service role outs, and more. No, a waiter or waitress at Applebees won't be deciding how many packages of frozen shrimp or napkins need to be ordered this week, nor will they vote on who gets promoted to Store Manager. But if the parent company of Applebees needs a new CEO or if the company decides it wants to merge with Chilis, Red Robin, or Olive Garden's parent company, workers would get a voice in that conversation.

The article below give a decent review of Sweden's attempt at socialism with the Meidner Plan and I think the American left could learn a good deal from it.

https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2017/11/16/a-plan-to-win-the-socialism-sweden-nearly-achieved/#:~:text=The Meidner Plan was the,been in power for decades.

[gehringer_2]

4 minutes ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

The core problem with the Bernie Sanders, AOC, Rashida Tlaib, Democratic-Socialists of America (DSA) brand of socialism is they don't know what they want socialism to be. Therefore, they are running around using a term that can't be uniformly defined in a marketable, palatable manner for voters and a term that scares off 60% or more of the American electorate. I think if Bernie had stuck to promoting his big ideas like Medicare for All, Debt-Free College, Democratizing the workplace, etc. and not used the term socialism at all during the campaign, he would have fared better for himself.

yup

[Motown Bombers]

I wonder if progressives would blame Sanders the way they do Biden if Sanders became president when Medicare for All and debt free college is DOA and never had a chance in hell of passing?

[pfife]

 

 

[romad1]

The commercials about Tudor Dixon being bankrolled by anti-trump billionaires includes references to Trump administration cabinet member Betsy Devos.  So, that's fun.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

5 hours ago, pfife said:

 

 

I don't believe the gap will be that wide in the end, but Oz is an exceptionally terrible candidate to run against a guy with the broad, working-class appeal of Fetterman.

[Mr.TaterSalad]

NO WAY these midterm polls, funded by a John Bolton-supported Super PAC, can be correct . . . right?

 

[mtutiger]

7 hours ago, Mr.TaterSalad said:

I don't believe the gap will be that wide in the end, but Oz is an exceptionally terrible candidate to run against a guy with the broad, working-class appeal of Fetterman.

With the usual caveats about outliers and that this may be one, the vote share, with Shapiro at 50% and Fett at 47% in particular, has to be concerning for the Republican candidates. Because that means, at least at this juncture, simple consolidation of the GOP vote isn't enough, persuasion of a few of those currently leaning Shapiro/Fett will be necessary. And neither GOP candidate (Mastriano or Oz) seem well suited to that. Oz in particular has massive Name ID and is polarizing.

That is what separates this poll in my mind from some of the others. The margin that the candidates are drawing, and being close to 50%, is important 

Edited July 29, 2022 by mtutiger

[chasfh]

And then there’s this, which seems much better than Republicans could have hoped for.

 

[romad1]

If we are doing early polls that give us hope

Not Sarah Palin would be good.

[Motown Bombers]

31 minutes ago, chasfh said:

And then there’s this, which seems much better than Republicans could have hoped for.

 

Been seeing this a lot. The people who didn't care about the Supreme Court in 2016 now care in 2022 when it is affecting them and blaming Democrats, instead of Republicans, for not doing something as if Biden can just overturn a Supreme Court decision. 

[chasfh]

7 minutes ago, Motown Bombers said:

Been seeing this a lot. The people who didn't care about the Supreme Court in 2016 now care in 2022 when it is affecting them and blaming Democrats, instead of Republicans, for not doing something as if Biden can just overturn a Supreme Court decision. 

This, or it could be they’re just throwing up their hands and deciding it’s not going to make a difference anyway, which is exactly what Republicans would have liked to see.

It’s maddening, yeah, but also points to the disparate structural difference between the two voting bases. Republican voters are all in lockstep on the same narrow set of issues; Democratic voters are not in touch with each other on their wide-ranging set of issues.

[gehringer_2]

2 hours ago, chasfh said:

This, or it could be they’re just throwing up their hands and deciding it’s not going to make a difference anyway, which is exactly what Republicans would have liked to see.

It’s maddening, yeah, but also points to the disparate structural difference between the two voting bases. Republican voters are all in lockstep on the same narrow set of issues; Democratic voters are not in touch with each other on their wide-ranging set of issues.

well, TBH, I don't think this kind of polling means squat. It's a lot easier to poll people on what they think than what they will actually do because 1) you are usually asking them before they have actually thought about what they are going to do. 2) there is always a lot of space between what people say they are going to do and what they end up doing. 

It's why polling for turnout has never been much use either.

Edited July 29, 2022 by gehringer_2