Saturday Open Thread

BTD's Saturday college football thread is here.

I'll be at the jail most of the afternoon. I wonder if Anwar al-Awlaki will be captured or killed before I get back.

Here's an open thread, all topics welcome.

< English Translation of AQAP Statement on Cargo Bomb Plot | Saturday Night Open Thread: Don't Forget. To... >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    What happened in Wisconsin? (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:25:09 PM EST
    Certainly, some voters who went Dem in 2008 did vote but voted Repub.  But as feared, it was the lack of OFA GOTV for youth voters and African American voters, it seems, seeing the exit-poll analysis with comparisons to 2008 (much more at that link, including a great interactive map of Wisconsin's flip-flops through many elections:

    By any measure, the 2010 mid-term electorate that zigged bright red was a different mix of voters than the 2008 presidential electorate that zagged deep blue. About 3 million Wisconsites voted in 2008, and roughly 800,000 fewer voted this year.

    In Wisconsin, some key differences according to exit polls included:

    Conservatives made up 31% of 2008 voters but 37% of 2010 voters.

    People under 30 were 22% of 2008 voters but 15% of 2010 voters.

    Urban voters (people living in cities of 50,000 or more) made up 21% of the 2008 vote but only 17% of the 2010 vote.

    Suburbanites made up 48% of the 2008 vote but 52% of the 2010 vote.

    So the Wisconsin mid-term electorate in 2010 was relatively older, more conservative, and less urban than the '08 electorate.

    And most tellingly, the voters of 2008 broke for Obama here 56% to 42%. But those Obama voters made up only 48% of the 2010 electorate, a fall-off of eight percentage points. . . .

    And Feingold (and the Dem candidate for gov) lost by five percentage points.

    Democrats can't win if Democrats don't vote (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 05:57:09 AM EST
    - alan grayson

    So simple, even Republicans get it. There may be some swing voters in the mushy middle, but you can't win without your base.


    2008 Comparison Not Useful (none / 0) (#4)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:41:29 PM EST
    2006 is the comparable election.  But your meme of blaming lazy irresponsible youth and AA's, for the plight of America, that has been running for the last couple, of years would not hold up as well.  

    Well, when the 2006 comparison (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:49:56 PM EST
    comes, I'll count on you to post it.

    As for your adjectives, they do not describe the many young people and African Americans whom I know, and well, so you really may have to get out more.

    It does seem that your adjectives do apply to the Dem GOTV effort in Wisconsin, sadly.  


    Whatever You Say (none / 0) (#8)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:54:23 PM EST
    I think it is really unfair of you to lay blame for Feingold's loss on youth and AAs, or even imply it. Statistics can be used as a weapon, and it appears to me that you are using numbers in bad faith.

    It is really unfair (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:08:44 PM EST
    to not attribute the authorship to the author, who has been doing so much work with the exit poll data that could be so useful to those who are here to learn from the recent past so as to not repeat it . . . vs. those who are here just to repeat themselves.

    A tip:  Click on the link to find out the author.


    I think you might be the last person (5.00 / 12) (#20)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:44:59 PM EST
    who should lecture anyone on "bad faith," especially since, as usual, your accusations about someone's motives are not accompanied by anything that supports those accusations or counters the statistics cited.

    Which means that, as usual, you use an accusation of unfairness as a vehicle for a completely unprovoked attack.

    I guess it doesn't matter to you, or you can't be bothered to consider, that Cream City lives in Wisconsin and Russ Feingold is/was her Senator, and that trying to understand where things went wrong is important to her - and important to the big picture.  Knowing who voted and who didn't, who was energized to vote and who wasn't - these things matter.  And not because, as you accuse Cream City, anyone wants to cast aspersions against one demographic or another.

    I would venture to guess that it wasn't laziness that kept anyone home, it was a combination of disinterest, disappointment, discouragement, lack of enthusiasm, and a feeling that their voices were not heard over the last two years.  

    If they voted Republican instead of Democratic, that last point I made - feeling that the Dems didn't listen - may well have been one of the reasons.

    We know you don't care for Cream City - you don't care for anyone who calls you on your BS and isn't cowed by your playground bullying; I just wish you'd find another outlet for your not-well-disguised anger and bitterness - or grow up.


    Yeah (1.00 / 7) (#22)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    As if your drive by generalized opinion is worth something to me.

    Specifically it is bad faith to compare 2010 midterms with the 2008 general election.

    But it does fit into your meme as well. Latte sipping obots are undependable.

    But then again you did not even vote in the general, or voted R.


    I absolutely did vote in the (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:26:28 PM EST
    general election, and I do not vote Republican - something I have mentioned on too many occasions for you not to know that; which once again calls into question your own motives and agenda.

    For some reason, you seem to have declared that we cannot make any comparisons between 2008 and 2010, but you have still failed to explain why this is a forbidden activity.  It may have escaped your notice, but there was a lot of interest in whether Dems running in 2010 would benefit from the turnout of those who came out to support Obama in 2008; if you think there is nothing to be learned from looking at the breakdown of the 2010 vote, it is my opinion that you would be mistaken.

    My focus is on policy - I have no interest in what kind of caffeinated beverages people are drinking or whether support of a particular political figure can be deduced from their choice of beverage; maybe you can keep yourself busy looking in the archives to see when and where I took any group of voters to task, but I think I can save you some time by telling you that calling voters names - as in "bitter, clinging to their guns and religion" - is not my thing - arguing and advocating for better policy is.

    Do not ever misrepresent my voting history again: that is simply unacceptable and beneath contempt - and evidence that you are devoid of the ability to argue policy and politics - it's all about the personal attacks for you.

    Common thread with you: your most virulent and bitter attacks are all against...women.  Wonder what that means?


    I* also find it offensive when comments (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 11:48:31 AM EST
    are made regarding individuals' voting record, as individuals' votes are private, and comments that force some to find obliged to reveal how they voted are, IMO, highly inappropriate; that said, such comments are nothing other than ad hominem attacks in place of comments on the substance of what has been posted.  In addition, as for CC, she was reporting, I believe, on comparisons made by a third party.  

    I, myself, do think it's interesting that core groups of the Dem votership of 2008 did not vote this go-round, especially in light of the extensive e-mail and other GOTV mechanisms used in 2008 and still available.


    Semantics? (none / 0) (#51)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:35:35 PM EST
    You are correct, brodie - and it was (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anne on Mon Nov 01, 2010 at 04:24:10 PM EST
    the first time I bypassed that particular office; my finger hovered over the screen, but I just could not bring myself to do it.
    I can see where you might think my approach too high-minded, or just too high for the current candidate pool, but I just can't keep voting mediocre.

    And once again, it is dishonest and bad faith to compare 30 million youth voters in a general election to 9 million in a midterm and complain about people not voting.

    Those numbers fit into the trend lines of the last 20 years.

    And if your issues are strictly about policy, 99% of the comments you wrote during the primaries tell a completely different story.


    Choosing not to cast a vote in (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:59:54 PM EST
    a particular race is not the same as accusing someone of not voting in the general election - or voting Republican; I don't know how you missed it, because I mentioned it more than a couple of times, but in the elections of 2004, 2006 and 2008, I was a Democratic election judge in my precinct.  I am an informed, active and dedicated voter, and your comment was insulting - but you knew that.

    And nowhere - NOWHERE - will you find me ever declaring my intention to vote Republican, or reporting that that is how I voted, or advising anyone that that is how they should vote.  All I can conclude from your comment is that you made a deliberate effort to misrepresent me.  Again.

    I have no problem defending my decision not to vote for any candidate for president in 2008, and you know that, as well; the plain and simple truth is that you just like to make trouble, and derail conversations and discussions, because it seems to be the only way you are able to feel relevant.  Maybe you don't realize just how sad that is, or what it says about you, but trust me - there are a lot of us here who do.

    My issues are about policy, so it matters who is going to lead the Democrats on policy, and that is why I could not support Obama in the primaries, chose not to show my approval by supporting him in the 2008 general election and why I have been critical of him over the last two years: because regardless of his talk, his actions tell the real tale, and for me that was: this candidate - and now, this president - cannot and will not deliver on issues that matter to me.

    There are lessons to be learned from examining the demographics of every election; it would be better if you faced that than try to make this about something else - or provide a more cogent and numbers-supported argument that leaves the personal attacks out of the equation.

    I won't be holding my breath.


    Plus our hostess has frequently (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:44:34 PM EST
    stated using commenters older comments against them is not welcomed.

    By the same token (none / 0) (#23)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:54:02 PM EST
    shouldn't all of you defer to Squeaky's judgements on HRC since he is the one who lives in New York and HRC was his Senator.
    Can't have it both ways, Anne!

    Good point, except ... (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:17:29 PM EST
    ... I can't seem to find where Anne said Squeaky should "defer to CC" because she lives in Wisconsin, or even implied anything remotely like that.

    I do see where she said that understanding the reasons for Feingold's loss might be important to Anne, since she lives there and Feingold is her Senator, but that would be an entirely different point.


    "Might be important to ... (none / 0) (#25)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:18:21 PM EST
    ... CC"

    lol (1.00 / 3) (#26)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:18:31 PM EST
    Anne can have it anyway she wants to, as long as it slams Obama voters and supports Hillary, as if there was ever a difference between them.

    Maybe if you tried sticking ... (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:24:10 PM EST
    ... to what people are actually saying, rather than what you're trying to make them say, ...

    ... it would be clearer.


    The Youth and AAs (none / 0) (#28)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:31:51 PM EST
    are always the favorite culprits in this blog for whatever bad happens in our politics. Do you remember how many people lashed out at AAs in this blog when Proposition 8 passed in California in 2008?
    There is a sickening double standard in the posts of many commenters that exposes their sense of entitlement. If white working class voters do not vote for Democrats, it is because PBO and Democrats did not earn their votes. However, if AAs and young voters do not come out in numbers that enable their favored politician to come out on top, AAs and young voters need to be scolded. These people cannot even realize how silly it looks to call the President's base "Obots", cultists and other names and then expect the same people to participate in the elections with the same zest as they did in 2008.

    Seems So, IMO (none / 0) (#29)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:35:35 PM EST
    The (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    reason that said people didn't come out to vote is because what did they have to vote for? Simply voting against the GOP and yelling at people that "they have nowhere to go" does not help the situation.

    As I understand it, African Americans and young people are experiencing very high unemployment right now so why should they come out to vote?


    They Did (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:50:13 PM EST
    Stop distorting the facts. If you want to compare midterm elections to the general elections, be my guest, but it will not get you closer to any real understanding of what happened.

    Youth vote in the last three general elections has been rising steadily. Youth vote in the last several midterm elections has been about the same. AA voting has increased in several states.

    The midterm elections resulted in increased racial and ethnic minority diversity in the U.S. Congress, including expanded African American representation in the House and the election of increased minority representation from both political parties. However, the new Congress will be without any African-Americans in the U.S. Senate.

    In several key states including Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas, African American voter turnout was higher than in 2006. "This increased mid-term election turnout, is a testimony to the power of consistent community based organizing and the dedication of tens-of- thousands of grassroots volunteers. Even in a mid-term election, when voter turnout typically falls approximately 40 percent, African-American voter turnout in a number of states increased significantly.



    Partially correct (none / 0) (#37)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 04:12:58 PM EST
    However please remember that some of the highest unemployment numbers in the country are in states like California and Nevada. Yet minority and youth votes swung the elections for Democrat candidates fairly decisively. AAs and young voters in Philadelphia almost tilted a very challenging election in Sestak's favor in Pennsylvania, Sestak could have won, had he done a little better in western and central PA.
    Answer honestly whether the attitudes that people like you, CC, Anne, etc display on this blog are conducive to getting the support of young or minority voters. If the votes of AAs and the young in Milwaukee and Madison or Atlanta are so important to the success of getting Democrats elected in Wisconsin or Georgia, do you think that CC and you provide the right reaching out tone to AAs and minorities?

    What the (none / 0) (#43)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:11:12 PM EST
    heck are you talking about? Tone? Is criticism of Obama's poor policy decisions to be taken off the table? That's what you seem to be inferring.

    Women didn't show up either. Are you concerned about that? Lots of Obama voters didn't show up. Why is that? Perhaps they are sick of the PPPUS crap?


    Yes (none / 0) (#49)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:31:39 PM EST
    I am concerned about some erosion of the women vote. That needs to be fixed.
    I however stand by everything I wrote. It is up to you to see whether anything is wrong with your tone towards the President or those who support him.

    WTH? (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:04:24 PM EST
    That is one of the most condescending statements I've ever seen.

    If you want to "fix" the women's vote so to speak you really need to look at Obama's policies. Women will vote for someone who has "their back" but Obama does not have women's backs it seems. You seem to just want everybody to baaa baaa show up and do what you want even though they get nothing in return for their vote.

    Obama lost the gay vote too. Are you going to lecture them about their "tone" too?


    LoL (1.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:24:53 PM EST
    Please stop your hypocrisy. You felt the need to defend Heath Shuler today. Why don't you look up his policy on LGBT issues before coming out to lecture on Obama's policies.

    All (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:27:28 PM EST
    I said about Heath Shuler was that his district would never allow him to privatize social security. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?

    Evidence (none / 0) (#84)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:02:07 PM EST
    You did insert "he may not be as bad as people might think" somewhere in your post. Where was the concern for LGBT issues as long as Shuler did not privatize social security (because people in his district would not allow it)?
    However, to bash Obama, you needed to bring up LGBT issues, isn't it? This is the very essence of hypocrisy!

    Did Shuler (2.00 / 0) (#86)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:10:15 PM EST
    promise to end DADT? Obama did and that is the difference don't you think? With Shuler you know what you are getting like it or not. With Obama he promises you things and then stabs you in the back. I would think that stabbing people in the back would be worse than telling them upfront what you thought.

    And how (1.00 / 0) (#85)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:08:31 PM EST
    is that a defense of Shuler? And frankly, Obama has the same view of LBGT people that Shuler probably does so what's the beef with that?

    Stop spreading misinformation (none / 0) (#87)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:52:55 PM EST
    It is idiotic to say that Heath Shuler and the President have the same views on LGBT issues.
    Only 17 Democrats voted "NO"  during voting of the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act, which added "sexual orientation" and "gender identity" to categories such as race, religion and national origin". Heath Shuler voted "NO".

    When President Obama was asked why he chose Reverend Wright's congregation over other AA churches in Chicago, he specifically mentioned that he did so because it was more progressive. I heard him emphasize that he liked the fact that Pastor Wright preached acceptance and tolerance of lesbians and gays.


    Interesting (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Yman on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:33:01 PM EST
    Wonder why he chose Rev. McClurkin to go on a campaign tour with him.

    H.R. 1913 Votes (none / 0) (#88)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:24:27 PM EST

    Shuler voted "NO".


    Okay. (none / 0) (#96)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 05:28:44 AM EST
    Then why the gay bashing tour with McClurkin? See once again Obama says one thing but then does something else. Heck, who knows? He might have even voted against that act because he wanted to be bi-partisan.

    You are entitled to your own opinion (none / 0) (#101)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 09:40:50 AM EST
    but not your own facts.
    (1) PBO did not endorse any of McClurkin views on LGBT issues. He specifically said that he strongly disagreed with McClurkin. So there was no "gay bashing tour".
    (2) One can however legitimately criticize his decision to engage with someone who has made abhorrent remarks on LGBT matters. However, reconciliation always involves engaging with people you disagree with. It is in this spirit that Mandela asked black South Africans to embrace the Springboks, it is in this spirit that HRC is trying to bring about a reconciliation between Israelis and Palestinians.
    (3) Donnie McClurkin had a troubled childhood. He was sexually abused as a child  link  . Even though I do not condone any of the outrageous and abhorrent things he has said on LGBT issues, it would not be entirely far fetched IMO to speculate that some of his phobias and demons in his mind have roots in his childhood experiences.



    No one said he "endorsed" ... (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Yman on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:51:12 AM EST
    ... MCClurkin's views on homosexuality.  What he did was tour SC with McClurkin because (in Obama's words), "a great many African Americans share Pastor McClurkin's beliefs.

    BTW - He wasn't "engaging" McClurkin when he went on tour with him.  The campaign tour had nothing to do with "reconciliation".  He chose McClurkin because he was popular and because he needed votes (aka "pandering").  Kinda like taking David Duke on a tour of Louisiana.


    You (none / 0) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:01:31 AM EST
    are showing it's just another example between the difference between what Obama SAYS and what he DOES. He says that he has said this and that but then he does something totally opposite.

    Remember warrant-less wiretapping? He SAID he would vote against it but then then when the time came he voted FOR it. Obama SAID he would overturn DADT but then when it's time for action he fights against that in court.

    I realize that people like you will continually make excuses for him. To you it doesn't matter what he does only what he says even though he doesn't back up his words with actions.


    In your fantasy world (none / 0) (#106)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 11:18:38 AM EST
    everything is done with a wave of the wand. In my real world things do not happen that way. In my real world even parents adjust or delay promises they have made to their children and vice versa, spouses to each other, work and social friends to one another.
    Obama has repeatedly said that DADT will end during his Presidency. Why not wait till his Presidency is over before informing us that he did not keep his promise? There is a good possibility that DADT repeal will be taken up during the lame duck session.
    If you go back to Obama's writings and interviews (long before he became a President), you will find that he has always favored moving our country forward towards a more perfect union through actions of community organizing and the legislature instead of solely doing it through the judiciary.
    I am still finding it amazing that you felt the need to say that Heath Shuler is not so bad in a thread where people were discussing who would be good candidate for the minority leader position. If you think that there is no difference between Shuler and Obama on the basis of their legislative philosophies, that is your prerogative. I will sadly shake my head and move on. I have already spent a lot of time replying to your posts, I do not want to continue doing that any more.

    No (none / 0) (#112)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    you're the one that lives in a fantasy world. Do tell why Obama felt he had to fight out DADT in the courts? There was no reason for that other than like McClurkin he was afraid black evangelicals might get mad at him? He could have just let the Log Cabin Republicans fight it through the court system and let it be. There was no reason for him to mess with all this other than he really doesn't want it repealed despite what he SAYS.

    Now the Marine General has come out against DADT. Do you think Obama will use that as an excuse? DADT is NOT going to be repealed during the lame duck session. That is a fantasy.

    As far as Heath Shuler goes, my point was that he was against privatizing social security. You have shown no evidence to the contrary. Frankly, Shuler has the same stance as Obama apparently on DADT so why are you whining about Obama and I said I didn't think that Shuler should be minority leader. Obama commissioned the cat food commission to instate cuts to social security. That would be to the right of Shuler on that issue as far as I know.

    Do you want to know why people vote for Republicans when they only might agree with 20% of the time? It's because of people like Obama who you might agree with on 100% of the issues but you know that he is so wimpy he will continuously cave and in the end you get nothing.


    So You're Saying People Will Vote (none / 0) (#113)
    by daring grace on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 01:29:46 PM EST
    for Republicans knowing that 80% of the things you can count on them to deliver you the voter will categorically disagree with?

    Wow, interesting surmise...wildly depressing if true. Almost more depressing than the idea that people voting for Rs actually agree with them.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#114)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 01:49:16 PM EST
    people will vote "strong and wrong" versus weak and right every time.

    I guess they are "hoping" that they don't deliver on that 80% but I guess they also look at it like getting 20% is better than nothing.


    Anyone voting "strong and wrong" (none / 0) (#115)
    by jondee on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 01:58:46 PM EST
    probably isn't even aware (in any detail to speak of) of what that 80% consists of, and, chances are, hasn't thought much about the implications of the other 20%, either..

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:11:44 PM EST
    you are ignoring the emotional part of voting that many people have. People are attracted to strength in a president rightly or wrongly. It is what it is.

    Why do you suggest it's a problem (none / 0) (#108)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 11:54:45 AM EST
    to see a politician as good on some issues and bad on others?

    You sound (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:07:38 PM EST
    just like the Bushbots who were always yelling "you hate 'merica" when anyone criticized his POLICY.

    Perhaps you are the one who should be worried since it seems that Obama is headed towards being a one-termer since no one seems that interested in reelecting him right now.


    Um (5.00 / 8) (#7)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:54:00 PM EST
    I think that's you're meme, since you repeat it over, and over, and over, and over (and over) again.  You secretly find the groups you've mentioned lazy, otherwise it wouldn't occur to you.

    Most people would be banned here for the way you harass people.  You must be really important to Talkleft, important enough that they don't mind ruining the entire dscourse of their board and losing really contributive commenters to keep you here.

    I shake my head.


    Banned? (none / 0) (#9)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:56:30 PM EST
    You should talk.

    ok, lets stop the personal attacks (none / 0) (#14)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:14:59 PM EST
    Squeaky and Cream City disagree on just about everything. They are both valuable commenters here. They can disagree with each other but not personally attack each other. And they can't blog-clog threads with their personal disputes.

    So everyone, please discuss the topic, not the person who posts it.


    And as for the LGBT vote nationwide (none / 0) (#5)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 01:46:28 PM EST
    . . . more exit poll analysis (apologies if I missed this in other threads, as this already may have been posted with so much pre-election commentary here re this group of voters): more exit poll analysis finds 19% of voters for the GOP in 2008, 31% in 2010.

    I'm not sure how reliable that is (none / 0) (#17)
    by andgarden on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:23:18 PM EST
    I would expect a a drop off in participation, but not a real shift to the Republicans.

    Well (none / 0) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:51:35 PM EST
    maybe they're ticked off at Obama's defense of DADT when the log cabin republicans are fighting to have it repealed? It maybe be that there were a lot of people who had a knee jerk reaction to Obama and perhaps gay people responded no differently than people who were mad about HCR etc or the economy.

    Yes, it is limited, but (none / 0) (#52)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:36:42 PM EST
    quite a sizeable change even for limited data.  I do hope that we see more on this to know.

    To focus back on constructive (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:01:07 PM EST
    discussion, I hope that others here who can contribute constructively will tell me that they also see that this means that Wisconsin can be won back to blue in 2012 -- and beyond, in non-presidential-election years -- with a return to a good GOTV effort again?

    Keeping in mind that in 2012, a Senate seat may open up in Wisconsin again. . . .


    Yes (none / 0) (#13)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:14:35 PM EST
    the focus should be now on turning Wisconsin blue once again. If Sen Kohl retires, I will be delighted if Sen. Feingold decides to run again.
    All of us have to work and strategize together to turn Wisconsin blue once more in 2012.
    As bad the results turned out in 2010, I am very optimistic about 2012. Let us all work together to retain the Presidency, Senate and win back the House and Governorships in 2012. If we work unitedly, nothing can prevent us from achieving this goal.

    That is my hope (none / 0) (#55)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:42:11 PM EST
    All of us have to work and strategize together to turn Wisconsin blue once more in 2012.

    as it has been for years, trying to counter the myth about Wisconsin progressivism -- and seeing this coming again in Wisconsin, with the Dems led so poorly here.

    It can be turned around, but now the Dems here are so devastated -- the Gov gone, a Senator gone, a lot of House Dems gone, loss of both houses in the state legislature -- that it is going to take a lot of work and a lot of support from elsewhere.

    Or, of course, Wisconsin could continue to be written off as a "lost cause" (unquote the White House), which is a viable strategy vs. without the dead 50-state strategy -- but only if resources are ramped up elsewhere to compensate.


    We cannot afford Wisconsin (none / 0) (#79)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:41:25 PM EST
    to be a lost cause. We have to work together to prevent it.

    Then we can discuss more data (none / 0) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:26:48 PM EST
    on Wisconsin's vote and what to do about it.  I'm still awaiting data on the percentage of the youth vote in the state that turned out this week (as well as the AA vote).  

    I have found more sources (jsonline, Politico) on the Wisconsin youth vote, anyway, in the last midterm elections and back to 2004 (more could be found, of course, but by anyone who really wanted to look rather than leap to attack).  

    Note that the sources almost always define it as aged 18-29, but with some minor variations, i.e., 18-28.

    2004 -- 63% turned out, second-highest in U.S.
    2006 -- 40% turned out, second-highest in U.S.
    2008 -- 57.5% turned out, seventh-highest in U.S.
    2010 -- not found as yet*

    *But again per sources linked above, from the start (so anyone who wanted to click on it could have seen this, at least, before attacking and distracting the discussion!), 18-29s were 17% of all Wisconsin voters in 2006 and 15% in 2010.  And the overall turnout in Wisconsin was as high as forecast for this week, about as high as in 2006 (i.e., among the highest in the U.S.).


    It would be interesting (none / 0) (#109)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 12:03:39 PM EST
    and possibly helpful to know whether there was a difference in voting in 2010 among youth employed & unemployed and those with an immediate family member employed/unemployed.

    Yes, that's one many questions (none / 0) (#117)
    by Cream City on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 02:26:36 PM EST
    I have and hope to see in further analysis of the data.  Not that I'm in the mood to keep posting it here and get beat up for it and worse -- but you know where to find it now, from link from the start, as do others who care about winning back Wisconsin more than winning their widdle popularity contests here.

    I'm told that the analyses, like the beatings here, will continue.  That's at least for a while, as long as the editors let the reporter keep working hard  at working through a lot more, if time allows (with more job cuts coming at the paper, sadly -- already at half the staff it had just a few years ago). So I also do not seem him, also unfairly maligned here, as lazy or irresponsible.  Not that I was the one to use those adjectives in the first place at this place. . . .

    See ya.


    Please don't let that deter (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:29:01 PM EST

    CC (none / 0) (#118)
    by Politalkix on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 03:44:50 PM EST
    I will hope that you will post the data here. It is important to win back Wisconsin. I really feel that all of us who believe in progressive causes will need to engage constructively, given some of the dangers that we are faing. There is a lot at stake in Wisconsin and elsewhere in the country at this time, we have to keep fighting in a united way.

    Ditto (none / 0) (#119)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 04:28:28 PM EST
    and I would be surprised to find that the patterns in Wisconsin are not repeated elsewhere in the nation.  

    OK Teach (none / 0) (#16)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:22:00 PM EST
    If you care about youth voting -- as a manifestation of democracy and a bellwether of future participation -- you should take some comfort in the fact that young adults voted at roughly the same rate as usual in a midterm election. You should reject exaggerations about the size of the decline, especially after four consecutive federal elections in which youth turnout rose....

     ....Participation rises and falls from one election to the next. Members of the same generation vote very differently depending on their state, their race, class, and gender, and their politics. As a whole group, today's young people are not sharply different from their predecessors.....

    In virtually every state, young adults were the most Democratic age group.



    squeaky stop calling (none / 0) (#18)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:27:35 PM EST
    Cream City "teach." It's demeaning

    I also think (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 12:04:38 PM EST
    opening a comment by:

    "If you care about youth voting..."
    highly offensive and wholly contradicted by CC's posts.


    Sorry, Not Intentional (none / 0) (#19)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    It was auto-fill, this time.... did not catch it in time..

    How could that happen? (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 04:02:39 PM EST
    That's fascinating, as we see so many oddities in writing today, with so many wrong words -- this is something discussed a lot on teaching blogs by others who are mystified by how this happens.  There has been discussion of auto-fill, but it's still unclear, so please edify as to it makes this happen.  When I see auto-fill, I have to start typing a word for the rest of a wrong word to appear.  Is there another form of auto-fill that suggests words without one or more letters typed?  Or what word did you start to type?  I'll be glad to post the explanation on those other blogs for other teachers, too, for us to figure out how to show students (since they don't seem to want to simply disable auto-fill) how to avoid such errors.

    "Teach" is not demeaning (none / 0) (#78)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:41:05 PM EST
    in all cases -- I enjoy it when used in good faith.  

    In the MD governor's race, there (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 08:01:13 PM EST
    were three or four debates between the incumbent Democrat - Martin O'Malley - and the Republican challenger - former governor Bob Ehrlich.  

    The first debate is the only one I saw, and almost from the beginning, Ehrlich kept calling O'Malley "guv."  It struck an off-key note for me, but I let it go until he did it again.  And again.  And again.  And as the debate heated up, the collegial and folksy "guv" from the beginning of the debate became a snide and disrespectful way to refer to the current governor - and people noticed.  And not in a good way.

    I thought it might just be me, but commentators, the Baltimore Sun - all mentioned it.  People I work with who saw it remarked on it.  And not in a good way.

    It was a bad move, all the way around.

    So, I get where being called "Teach" might be altogether unremarkable, even friendly; but it's clear to me that how it is said, under what circumstance it's said, and by whom it is said, make all the difference.

    Maybe it's just me, but "Teach" coming from whom it did, under the circumstances it did, didn't strike me as collegial and friendly, but as intended to provoke, "auto-fill" notwithstanding.

    Just sayin'.


    Oh, it's not just you (none / 0) (#93)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:11:49 PM EST
    and I still await edification as to the functions of auto-fill, so often used as yet another excuse these days -- when "my dog ate the homework" doesn't work anymore, with electronic term papers.

    Maybe the dog made auto-fill not work?


    U.S. vs. Wisconsin (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 03:56:28 PM EST
    i.e., your data vs. the Wisconsin data, is not useful for comparison -- and for constructive discussion of how to change results in 2012.

    See comparative data, for many elections now (and in many previous threads) on youth voter turnout in other states vs. in Wisconsin.  


    2008 Comparison to 2012 (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 04:17:53 PM EST
    2006 comparison to 2010. Not sure why you are insisting on comparing mid terms to general elections.

    Do you have a source for your (none / 0) (#41)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    contention one should never compare who voted in midterm to who voted in Presidential election year?

    Well (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:11:01 PM EST
    If you are going to make assertions about dropping numbers of demographic groups and you compare a pool of 9-10 million voters in midterm elections to a pool of 30million voters in general elections that is dishonest.

    Where were assertions made (none / 0) (#59)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:45:06 PM EST
    by me about national trends?  

    To be clear, where were assertions made (none / 0) (#60)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:46:28 PM EST
    by me about national trends re the youth vote and the AA vote?  Please point to such assertions by me, as if I did so based on Wisconsin data, I certainly ought to correct that.  Thanks.

    Still waiting for example of honesty (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:13:13 PM EST
    in saying that I made assertions about national trends re the youth vote and the AA vote?  Please point to such assertions by me, as if I did so based on Wisconsin data, I certainly ought to correct that.  Thanks, again.

    I thought BTD (none / 0) (#44)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:13:55 PM EST
    drove home the point every day that one should not compare a midterm with a Presidential year election. Midterms are supposed to bring out the base while Presidential year elections bring out the base + a lot of extra people.
    BTD's assertion was an article of truth in this blog till people decided to question it to get an opportunity to bash the President some more.

    "Midterms... (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:24:00 PM EST
    ...are supposed to bring out the base."

    Yes, exactly. And that's precisely why this election was so instructive: it failed to bring out the base. It's a reality that requires serious attention before 2012. But, hey, if people want to stay in denial and spout the silliness that we can't compare who showed up in 2010 vs. 2008, well, good luck with that GOTV strategy for the next election.


    Who are the people who form the base? (none / 0) (#54)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:41:55 PM EST
    Please let us know in very clear terms.

    Spare me (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:49:27 PM EST
    Are women and African-Amerians NOT considered part of the Democratic base anymore???

    Geographical distinctions (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:44:10 PM EST
    are my point.  Time differences are another point.  Please reply to the difficulties of extrapolating about one state from generalities about all states.

    Squeaky and Cream City (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 02:16:41 PM EST
    You are both valuable commenters here. Stop the petty name-calling, insults, accusations and adjectives you use for each other. Disagree on the topic, leave the personal jabs out of it. Thank you.

    We've (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:30:45 PM EST
    discussed lots of policy here. We do it almost everyday. What has Obama done for the middle class in this country? Not much.

    You want to make everything personal and apparently any criticism of Obama's policy you see as some sort of personal attack. I do think that Obama's personality is not suited to the times we are in right now. Being conciliatory with the people who wrecked the country is not my idea of the right thing. I was amazed on facebook the other day how his supporters rabidly turned on him though after the election. Surprising to say the least.

    Jamie Galbraith has a pretty great (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by Anne on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:49:47 PM EST
    post up at naked capitalism; here's an excerpt:

    The original sin of Obama's presidency was to assign economic policy to a closed circle of bank-friendly economists and Bush carryovers. Larry Summers. Timothy Geithner. Ben Bernanke. These men had no personal commitment to the goal of an early recovery, no stake in the Democratic Party, no interest in the larger success of Barack Obama. Their primary goal, instead, was and remains to protect their own past decisions and their own professional futures.


    But one cannot defend the actions of Team Obama on taking office. Law, policy and politics all pointed in one direction: turn the systemically dangerous banks over to Sheila Bair and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Insure the depositors, replace the management, fire the lobbyists, audit the books, prosecute the frauds, and restructure and downsize the institutions. The financial system would have been cleaned up. And the big bankers would have been beaten as a political force.

    Team Obama did none of these things. Instead they announced "stress tests," plainly designed so as to obscure the banks' true condition. They pressured the Federal Accounting Standards Board to permit the banks to ignore the market value of their toxic assets. Management stayed in place. They prosecuted no one. The Fed cut the cost of funds to zero. The President justified all this by repeating, many times, that the goal of policy was "to get credit flowing again."

    The banks threw a party. Reported profits soared, as did bonuses. With free funds, the banks could make money with no risk, by lending back to the Treasury. They could boom the stock market. They could make a mint on proprietary trading. Their losses on mortgages were concealed -- until the fact came out that they'd so neglected basic mortgage paperwork, as to be unable to foreclose in many cases, without the help of forged documents and perjured affidavits.


    To counter calls for more action, Team Obama produced sunny forecasts. Their program was right-sized, because anyway unemployment would peak at 8 percent in 2009. So Larry Summers said. In making that forecast, the Obama White House took responsibility for the entire excess of joblessness above eight percent. They made it impossible to blame the ongoing disaster on George W. Bush. If this wasn't rank incompetence, it was sabotage.

    This is why, in a crisis, you need new people. You must be able to attack past administrations, and override old decisions, without directly crossing those who made them.

    President Obama didn't see this. Or perhaps, he didn't want to see it. His presidential campaign was, after all, from the beginning financed from Wall Street. He chose his team, knowing exactly who they were. And this tells us what we need to know, about who he really is.

    Okay, so, Obama chose these guys; is this a reflection of what Obama believes, or is this just Obama thinking these are the smartest guys in the room so, naturally, they would have to come up with all the right answers?

    Bigger question: is Obama happy with these answers?  Guess we'll know soon enough, but I'm not confident we'll be seeing much of a pivot from the course we're on: I think this is who Obama is.

    Yves Smith (none / 0) (#90)
    by NYShooter on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:41:36 PM EST
    Is one of the brightest lights reporting on economic issues today. Not only is she an eminently qualified expert but she has a way of writing on complicated issues that even us average "Joe's" can easily understand and don't feel we're being talked down to.

    As to the point of the article you refer to , I think its just another example of President Obama not being prepared for the job he has. If you're totally inexperienced (disinterested, I would say) what better way to mask your unprepared ness than surrounding yourself with marquee names such as Summers, Geithner, et al?

    There was a time in the not too distant past when we actually had regulators willing to do the job they were trained to do. And the very first thing they did when they discovered a failed institution was to replace the management  that was responsible for that failure. You don't need to be an expert on economics, or management, to understand that; its just common sense. Unfortunately, we seem to be stuck with a Leader whose primary goal is to "not rock the boat," when the desperate times we find ourselves in scream out for drastic action.


    Steiglitz is just as eminent (none / 0) (#111)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 12:22:06 PM EST
    if not more so, and his counsel was ignored, as he has fundamental disagreement with the actions taken and the assumptions behind those actions.

    There is a very informative piece by George Soros at the NY Review of Books on the economy, why the choices made were harmful and the problems of the choices we now have going forward:

    I'm having trouble linking today, but you can google New York Review of Books   Soros and     The Real Danger to the Economy


    It's the bush carryovers... (none / 0) (#91)
    by desertswine on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    that really galled... me at least.

    To use his own analogy (none / 0) (#98)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 06:02:16 AM EST
    Obama is the one still letting them drive the car, not the voters.

    Summers (none / 0) (#99)
    by Rojas on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:49:30 AM EST
    In 1993 Summers was appointed Undersecretary for International Affairs and later in the United States Department of the Treasury under the Clinton Administration. In 1995, he was promoted to Deputy Secretary of the Treasury under his long-time political mentor Robert Rubin. In 1999, he succeeded Rubin as Secretary of the Treasury.

    Good point (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by ruffian on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 10:31:17 AM EST
    Bush-Clinton carryovers is correct. It is the Clinton appointments that made them seem reasonable to Dems. In e same way, are we ever going to see a Dem Sec of Defense again? In a big way Dems have turned over the credibility in defense and economics to Republicans. A party resurgence will require taking those keys away.

    Geithner (none / 0) (#100)
    by Rojas on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 08:53:13 AM EST
    Geithner worked for Kissinger Associates in Washington for three years and then joined the International Affairs division of the U.S. Treasury Department in 1988. He went on to serve as an attaché at the Embassy of the United States in Tokyo. He was deputy assistant secretary for international monetary and financial policy (1995-1996), senior deputy assistant secretary for international affairs (1996-1997), assistant secretary for international affairs (1997-1998).[6]

    He was Under Secretary of the Treasury for International Affairs (1998-2001) under Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Lawrence Summers.[6] Summers was his mentor,[11][12] but other sources call him a Rubin protégé.

    Relaxing Saturday for me (none / 0) (#1)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:58:00 PM EST
    First in a while.

    Curled up on the patio with Stephen Sondheim's new book of  his lyrics of shows up to 1981, along with brief histories of the shows, notes, critiques and commentary. If you are interested in lyric writing for whatever reason, you will love this book. I've heard it described as a master course in theater writing, and really some of the lessons can be applied in any kind of writing.

    Musical theater, of course (none / 0) (#2)
    by ruffian on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    He is the first to say he is no playwright.

    Forcible Arrest Warrant (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:18:39 PM EST
    BEIRUT, Lebanon -- A Yemeni judge on Saturday ordered the "forcible arrest" of Anwar al-Awlaki, the American-born cleric who is believed to play an important role in the regional branch of Al Qaeda.

    Mr. Awlaki, who is thought to be hiding among fellow tribesmen in Yemen's remote Shabwa Province, failed to appear Tuesday at a trial where he was accused of killing a foreigner. It is rare for a Yemeni judge to order the arrest of a defendant so soon after his failure to appear.

    Yemen has been under increased American pressure to act decisively against Al Qaeda....

    ...On Tuesday, Mr. Awlaki was charged in absentia as a co-defendant at the trial of another man, Hisham Assem, who is accused of killing a Frenchman at an oil compound in September. Mr. Assem has denied those charges. Prosecutors have said Mr. Assem was in contact with Mr. Awlaki.


    Forcible arrest? Hmmmm does that mean dead or alive?

    Log Cabin Republicans ask SCOTUS (none / 0) (#46)
    by MO Blue on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:23:32 PM EST
    to block DADT enforcement.

    The Log Cabin Republicans, which is fighting Don't Ask, Don't Tell in the court system, today asked the Supreme Court to block an appeals court's decision to allow the military to enforce the policy.TPM

    Napolitano pushing new version of (none / 0) (#53)
    by shoephone on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 05:41:41 PM EST
    the TIPS program? "If you see something, say something." First I've heard of it, but it sounds like TIPS.

    Shirley Verrett has died. (none / 0) (#72)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 06:47:42 PM EST

    bizarre prosecutorial request in Des Moines (none / 0) (#73)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:13:40 PM EST
    Defense attorneys out there: have you ever heard of anything like this?

    Polk County prosecutors have requested that a Grinnell grandmother and a Des Moines man be sentenced to a permanent ban from the Federal Building in Des Moines for their persistent anti-war protests.

    Civil rights advocates are sounding alarms, saying the request, if granted, smacks of a blatant First Amendment violation, which guarantees free speech and the right to petition government.

    "It's highly unusual and it's certainly something that deserves tremendous scrutiny to whether or not it's appropriate," said Ben Stone, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Iowa. "It seems difficult to comprehend the justification for this."

    Christine Gaunt, 54, has for the past eight months frequently staged "die-ins" where she outlines her body in chalk dust and pretends to be dead in the Des Moines offices of Senators Charles Grassley and Tom Harkin.

    In many cases federal protection service officials gently scooped her limp body into a wheelchair and escorted her from the building, often times giving her a $100 citation, she said.

    But, in August, she and Des Moines resident Elton Davis were arrested on trespassing charges after months of their non-violent protests.

    Arrests of anti-war protesters at the Federal Building are common.  What's unusual is that Polk County prosecutors on Thursday asked Iowa District Judge Odell McGhee to sentence the duo to a permanent Federal Building ban.

    McGhee chose to continue the sentencing hearing to Nov. 12.

    I admire Sen. Harkins' response. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oculus on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:20:59 PM EST
    Grassley must have called law enforcement.

    or potentially (none / 0) (#75)
    by desmoinesdem on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:25:01 PM EST
    Representative Leonard Boswell (IA-03). Those two have protested in his office before too. But it was a protest in Grassley's office that led to the August arrest.

    See (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:39:38 PM EST

    [Youth and AAs] are always the favorite culprits in this blog for whatever bad happens in our politics. Do you remember how many people lashed out at AAs in this blog when Proposition 8 passed in California in 2008?
    There is a sickening double standard in the posts of many commenters that exposes their sense of entitlement. If white working class voters do not vote for Democrats, it is because PBO and Democrats did not earn their votes. However, if AAs and young voters do not come out in numbers that enable their favored politician to come out on top, AAs and young voters need to be scolded. . . .

    I will not repeat the banned words used.  I do not use them.  

    I said Youth and AAs (none / 0) (#80)
    by Politalkix on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:43:38 PM EST
    Why did you leave out the "Youth" and "Young" and just highlight AAs?

    Because "youth" did not relate (none / 0) (#92)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 10:08:08 PM EST
    to my question about your statement.

    You do know, I hope (none / 0) (#81)
    by Cream City on Sat Nov 06, 2010 at 07:44:32 PM EST
    how much of the population of Wisconsin is in the city of Milwaukee?  These percentages are not at all useful without that info, too.  Amazingly, there are far more people per acre and even per block in Milwaukee than in many acres of the state that do not have blocks, streets, or as many people as there are trees, cows. . . .

    As for the maverick argument, see my earlier comments.

    this thread is closing (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Nov 07, 2010 at 11:16:55 PM EST
    and one more reminder, please comment and disagree politely or I'm going to resort to timeouts.