« Obama's challenge and McCain's last, small, chance | David Seaton's Blog | America the dangerous »
Obama's challenge and McCain's last, small, chance (2)
Most probably Barack Obama will be
the next president of the United States and if elected his major
problem may very well be to control the "left wing infantilism" of some
of his supporters who are going to confuse a virtual victory by default
with a sea change in American politics, however for the same reason the
presence of these supporters means that John McCain still has a real, if at this date almost infinitesimal, chance to pull off an upset.
Readers of my blog will be aware that rather than stupid or simply incompetent I consider Bush deeply insane. Within the framework of his insanity I consider him extremely successful. He has achieved all that the darker recesses of his personality could have ever desired.
Psychobabble alert: Although surely he professes love for all of the following, actions speak louder than words, and I believe that Bush's actions prove that he hates his father, hates his talented younger brother, hates his political party and hates his country too... he has nearly destroyed them all.If the Democrats win by the margins they are expected to win by it won't be because of any clear and ringing, Reagan-like, "good morning America", message they are sending, or a social-democratic epiphany in Middle America or any clear mandate to do anything but "change", which is something which can mean anything from "to make radically different" to "a handful of small coins".
Bush is said to love Jesus, and knowing that, if I were Jesus, I would watch my back.
The Democrats will win enormously, simply because their opponents have been destroyed by George W. Bush. They are living the famous quote of Woody Allen's, "eighty percent of success is just showing up".
The Democratic coalition, as it stands today, more than a cohesive party of interest groups, presents itself and has for the last 30 years or so as what the British army would call a troop of "odds and sods", a flag of convenience, little more than a grab bag of assorted and heterogeneous entitlements. A disparate collective whose principal agglutinate seems to be a certain vague hostility to white, Protestant men, whose last names end in consonants. Ronald Reagan played on this incoherence like a mighty Wagnaerian tenor with his jolly mixture of positive thinking, hand shaking xenophobia, sanctified selfishness and the "racism of low expectations": a mixture that still suits many Americans just fine.
However, Wagner, if played on the kazoo, would morph into a grotesque and comic caricature; and while not for one moment comparing Ronald Reagan's pablum to Wagner, George W. Bush's rendition of the Gipper's cheery arias has similarly deformed it. There is no reason to think that the great mass of Americans, those who have voted that message over and over again since 1981 don't like the message anymore... they just don't like failure and they don't like Bush. It would be dangerous to take winning, because the other team doesn't show up, as a mandate to do anything other then not look or sound like Bush.
If there is a real depression, then and only then will it be possible to talk to members of the American middle class about "income redistribution" or about "spreading the wealth around".
What is a real depression? Here is an example: my mother's father was running a steel mill in 1929... a year later he was selling shirts from door to door... When FDR died my grandfather cried like a baby. That is a depression.
If a Democratic dominated congress begins to move before America's middle class feels the fear my granddad felt in '29, then the Republicans will take congress back in 2010 with a vengance.
That in a nutshell is Barack Obama's major problem if, as it looks almost sure at this late date, he wins the election.
And a dawning realization that precisely that might be the dynamic of his administration may give just a glimmer of a hope for John McCain to recover the votes that gave Bush the presidency in 2000 and 2004. DS
PS. Here is a wonky article from Salon, that illustrates obliquely some of the points I've been making:
Bill Greener: Why Obama has to stay above 50 percent - Salonhttp://seaton-newslinks.blogspot.com/
Abstract: I think John McCain really does have a decent shot at winning, and that's not just because I'm a longtime Republican political operative. Despite what the polls seem to be saying, a closer look at the numbers shows that a Democratic victory is not a foregone conclusion. Why? Because if history is any guide, Barack Obama, as an African-American candidate for political office, needs to be polling consistently above 50 percent to win. And in crucial battleground states, he isn't.(...) There's an old rule in politics that an incumbent candidate is always in danger when he dips under 50 percent, even if he is leading his opponent in the polls. It's all about the undecideds. In a race with an incumbent candidate and a challenger, on Election Day the undecideds tend to break for the challenger, at rates as high as 4 to 1. If an incumbent is polling at, say, 47 to 45 percent with 8 percent undecided, there's a good chance he's going to wind up losing 49 to 51. As it's sometimes expressed, if you're an incumbent, what you see is what you get. The same pattern seems to be true for African-American candidates in much of the country. If you're a black candidate running against a white candidate, what you see is what you get. And it doesn't matter whether you're an incumbent or a challenger. If you're not polling above 50 percent, you should be worried. As of this writing, Barack Obama is not polling consistently above 50 percent in a number of electoral-vote-rich swing states, including Ohio and Florida. He should be worried. Read it all
Advertisement
Insane? GWB is a puppet, who mostly likes to have a good time. If not for 911 and the neocons behind the throne, he would have been a do-nothing president.
October 28, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Here's Larison's response to Greener:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2008/10/26/not-to-worry-2/
And why the hell do I have to log in twelve times in one morning?
October 28, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
David, why the double post? You never returned on the last one for discussion, so why bother to post it again?
October 28, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary,
It's because of the hour difference between the USA and Spain. I post just before going to bed, which is the afternoon there, the post is pushed off by others in about 15 minutes. I often repost when I get up over here, which is wee small over there... It stay up longer because it's not prime time. I'm still experimenting with this. I take blogging very seriously and I'm trying to figure out strategies and find my niche.
October 28, 2008 9:16 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ok. Well, may I make a suggestion? For those of us following you, it's very easy to get back to the other thread even after it has fallen off the recent reader lists. Two posts, I find frustrating because it splits the conversation.
My second suggestion with regards to TPM is to make use of this post, which stillidealistic does daily:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/stillidealistic/2008/10/montues-2nd-chance-clearinghou-3.php
to draw attention to posts that have fallen off the list. I put it in there just now.
October 28, 2008 9:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great!!! Thanks a lot.
I prefer to post in the morning here (dawn there) because I'm around and can answer all (my) day long.
What do you prefer?
October 28, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Whichever you prefer. In my experience, threads develop better conversation when the original poster is present in the comments though, so mornings might work better for you.
October 28, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I can re-comment.
"Really didn't want to continue after you deeply disrespect the success of one side by utterly discounting the other.
This is the "Great-Idiot" theory, I guess. I would argue, rather, that Bush is nothing seminal, but an emptiness that allowed conservative "ideas" free rein. This exposed them as flawed, oxymoronic platitudes.
You might have more of a point if the depressing results of kids in the governmental candy store were the whole story. That hypothesis would predict low voter turnout. Not exactly what we are seeing, eh?"
October 28, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
I find the arguments that Seaton is proving here to be reminiscent of Antony Flew's Theology and Falsification. Specifically, this bit:
Also, and not to beat a dead horse, but Seaton's arguments will have more merit if he ever admits he was wrong about the so-called "Whitey tape".
October 28, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ben,
I will admit it and apologize if it hasn't turned up by election day. If I were a Republican and had the thing I would release it this Friday.
October 28, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fair enough, and if I'm ever in Spain, I expect you to buy me a Sangria, or whatever they drink over there. ;)
October 28, 2008 1:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is something interesting for contrarians:
October 28, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is juicier:
He should have been embarrassed starting a long, long time ago.
October 28, 2008 11:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
The newspaper business is in big trouble. Anybody over 50 who knows it since a kid is in pain right now. I don't know it you follow Doonesbury, but there is a thread there about it. The papers are going broke and the owners are not above making deals
Certainly as far as Obama is concerned the fix is on.
I find this dead weird. They have all the tax information about some poor slob who asks the candidate a question in public and we haven't heard anything yet from the people Obama went to Columbia or worked with later, old girl friends... nothing. Weird.
October 28, 2008 12:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, for the record, some of us under 50 also think it would be very bad for the country if papers ceased to exist. It would leave a void I don't think would be filled by online or broadcast news.
But they need to evolve. A hell of a lot faster than they've been doing. Very few people subscribe to papers my age because we can get online and read 20 newspapers. For free. Randomly, this is what turns up if you google "journalism industry":
http://www.10000words.net/2008/01/what-journalism-industry-can-learn-from.html
Strange way to make the point, but an important one nonetheless.
As far as Obama's biography. Let me ask you something. Do you know who John McCain's ex girlfriends are? Hillary Clinton's best friends? Joe Biden's? Sarah Palin's? Seriously. It's an honest question. Do you?
October 28, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually we know a lot about most of these people because they have long been in the public eye, they have held office and actually done many thing in public before they were ever thought of as presidential. We know a lot about Sarah Palin also because there has been a lot of money spent recently by the media digging into her past. As to McCain we know about his first wife, his failed marriage, his fighter pilot pranks and of course he has been in the Senate for many years and has run for president before. About Obama we know very little that isn't mostly image and gestures. I am irritated by how much people take on faith.
October 28, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well David, only juicy news makes stories. Finding an old friend who sings your praises isn't exactly headline news. I have seen a few stories on Obama's friends, most notably the friend who went by the pseud "Ray" in his book.
But tell me. Who are Sarah Palin's ex-boyfriends? I haven't heard anything about them, and can't seem to turn up anything on a search. Or Hillary Clinton's best friends? Surely she's been in the spotlight for almost two decades, but I sure can't find it, at least not very easily. But you specifically mentioned friends and ex-girlfriends. Seems to me we know quite a bit about the families of each candidate.
It also seems to me that the media has spent quite some time examining the lives of Obama's mother, his father, his grandmother in Hawaii and in Africa, his grandfather, his wife, his pastor. I mean, I can understanding saying there are more things you'd like to know, but to say we know essentially nothing is rather disingenuous.
October 28, 2008 1:46 PM | Reply | Permalink