Sorry, this is my first comment to RM; I’m not american, but I’ve been trying to follow the campaign, using your blog among other sources. The only reason I’m posting this comment is that it really comes as a surprise at this time that Obama’s lead isn’t as big as I thought it would be, and also that Obama’s camp is so insecure. I mean, even your blog gives us a feeling that in the end it’s not about issues, not even about politics: it’s about organization. And it’s a bit sad and worrying to think that the only reason McCain is loosing this election is poor organization (and probably the fact that he’s been let down by the Party). Look, I’m european, I like Obama, more because of his attitude than because of his policies, and I think this is not a self-indulgent opinion, because attitude matters more than policy, attitude compromises you, attitude forces you and at the same time liberates you. But all this is taken away if we come to the conclusion that the effort was unnecessary, that the other guy was a mess, that the fight was fixed.

Lorenzo,

Happy to hear from a kindred spirit overseas. You are correct about everything you say.

I would add some qualification to that subject, however. Remember that our Democracy hasn’t exactly been running on all cylinders the last decade or so. Our last two elections were stolen from the majority of the people. Using a combination of staggering organization and dirty tricks, the Republicans have taken these elections from us.

You must also understand that there is still an undercurrent of racism and perocial nationalism in this country. Many people won’t vote for a black president, much less one with a foreign sounding name.

That said, given the turn out in early voting, things are looking up. Keep the faith my man. Obama will be our next president.

Hey Tinfoil. I hope you’re right, speaking as a concerned viewer from Britain. The whole thing has me so wound up I’m avoiding political news until tomorrow night/wed. morning. I have a great fondness for America, and I’ve been so saddened by the travesty that has been the last eight years. Fingers crossed. Btw, it’s “parochial”.

LOL! A word I rarely use. Don’t worry. It should be a lock. The only wild-card at this point is the voting machine companies. They have well-documented ties to the Republican party. Nobody knows exactly how many votes they can / will alter.

Easy TinMan, the supperstitious (parochial?) among us are uncomfortable with assumptions of ’success.’ Be not worried, however, I rapped wood with knuckles several times to ‘cover’ you.

DD,

Don’t get the wrong idea. I will be out canvasing for Obama this afternoon. I also know that the Obama campaign is not giving an inch. For once in my lifetime, we are the “organized” party. If we can turn out the vote, we should win handily.

McCain keeps dissing the polls. Of course he does. I’ll second that. I think the polls are off because of the well-worn concept of “likely voters”. I think that has gone out the window with this election. Many “unlikely” voters are likely to vote this year. And that demographic should swing Democratic.

What people dont seem to know or understand is that it is the democrats that have dont this to the country not the republicans. We have a republicans have the presidency but thats about it. the democrats are the ones who run congress and there for they are the one whom are driving the country into the toilet. NOT the republicans. democrats have a long history of raising taxes so you cant tell me that you honestly think that obama is not going to raise taxes.

guess Tim can only type and not red…oops! read.

The GOP has pretty much been in control of the Congress, Executive and Judical branchs, save for the Clinton Presidency, for about the last thirty years. To blame the Dems for the condition of this country now reflects an inability to reason.

An inability supported by parroting ‘tax and spend’ slogans propogated by the Right. ALL governments spend, none so much as the GOP. It’s just that they BORROW and spend. And whom is going to be fiscally responsible enough to pay the Right’s debts. Why, the Left, of course.

The Right survives on the backs of puppets like yourself.

Dennis states:
“The GOP has pretty much been in control of the Congress, Executive and Judaical branches, save for the Clinton Presidency, for about the last thirty years”

AHH NO!
YR TOT DEM GOP
1978 435 158 277
1980 435 192 243
1982 435 167 268
1984 435 182 253
1986 435 177 258
1988 435 175 260
1990 435 167 267
1992 435 176 258
1994 435 233 201
1996 435 228 206
1998 435 223 211
2000 435 221 211
2004 435 223 208
2004 435 227 205
2006 435 202 233

OOPS I reversed the DEM and GOP SORRY for confusion
YEAR TOT GOP DEM
1978 435 158 277
1980 435 192 243
1982 435 167 268
1984 435 182 253
1986 435 177 258
1988 435 175 260
1990 435 167 267
1992 435 176 258
1994 435 233 201
1996 435 228 206
1998 435 223 211
2000 435 221 211
2002 435 223 208
2004 435 227 205
2006 435 202 233

DC,

Now THAT is weird, you’re posting commenting on MY post and yet YOUR post precedes mine. Or do my eyes fail me?

Anyway, I guess you’re citing the House make-up for those years. And while your numbers look correct, please check my caveat, ‘pretty much.’ At the times the Dems controlled the house, they had a GOP Prez and not enough votes to override a veto. In essence, a stalemate.

My point was counter to another post blaming the Dems for the problems of today. I wanted to indicate that could hardly be true since the ONLY time the Dems had control, times were ‘good.’

But I appreciate your diligence and alertness. I shall endeavor to be more precise in the future.

That’s right. Bush’s party controlled both houses until the 2006 election. Word is that the Dems would have had a super-majority if it weren’t for GOP dirty tricks (see Max Cleland for instance).

Lorenzo and Cjay79,
Thanks for keeping an eye on us. We can’t wait to be respected in the world once again. This election is a done deal for Obama. The mainstream media has an interest in making it look close so they have something to blather on about ad nauseum.

The reason Obama is better organized is because “we the people” want our country back! And we are willing to volunteer, organize and fight our hearts out for it. Yes, the right will try to steal votes where they can, but this race is not close enough for them to steal the whole election. Tomorrow we WILL elect a brilliant, thoughtful, articulate, capable, person as our new president!

I’ve just reread my comment and the thread; I don’t want to add nothing to the ongoing discussion, but I think my own comment is a bit confused, so I just wanted to clear it. Basically I just have 2 points:

1. I am surprised that “organization” has become the ground for the campaigning progress; because this seems to mean that the message is in fact subdued. This is in fact a question: are people “awakening” from an indecisiveness torpor thanks to the canvassing efforts and all that? Or is it simply that Obama’s show is more “shock and awe” than McCain’s and is able to turn the tides?

2. I thought about other possible Democrat options; I believe that Kerry would definietely loose, and I also believe that Hillary would put up a fight but instead of getting Obama’s crowd she would steal some of the GOP’s electoral base and voter turnout would plummet. It is in fact that perfect mix of Obama’s charisma plus organization that does the trick. But: this means we’re talking as if the USA is Republican “by default”, and only dares to vote Dem. when someone comes from unexpected places with a certain smile, a certain style, a couple of well placed soundbytes. This is what I am amazed at, and I wonder how will Dubya go down in History as. You people did give him the second term. Plus, after all that has happened in the last couple of years, there is still a good chance that a McCain & Palin ticket would win! I honestly do not understand if most people really do appreciate the Republican ideologial framework and attitude towards power, or if they’re simply afraid to vote Democrat. (Both?)
Thanks

Lorenzo,

I have a feeling your questions will draw significant response. I hope so.

I’d like to address the second of your questions, at least in part, because it is something I have strong feelings about.

I preface my remarks by calling up a recent post by TinMan directing us to a college professor named Altemeyer. Altemeyer has done considerable research on the issue of authoritorism, if such a word exists. He focuses NOT on the institutions of authority, but on those who respond positively to authority. I believe you’ll agree that the whole study of Western Civilization can be filtered through that symbiotic relationship with some interesting conclusions.

Altemeyer submits, with substance, that there is a body of citizenry which not only accepts authority, but embraces it. I’m not sure if he’s able, or willing, to contend what percentage of the population would be encompassed in that category, but it’s my feeling it would be a majority. I believe it’s an innate human characteristic to WANT to trust authority because it is an extension of the trust we placed in our parents. Where the problem(s) occur is that many, TOO many, give this trust blindly and then are averse to questioning it. Who, what, why, when and where citizens question authority is a whole other subject for discussion but for my own self, I was well within my 30s before it became a mantra. Before then I felt guilt if I questioned authority.

But this discussion is about the formation and interaction of political parties and your question, “..is the U.S. Republican by default.” And my answer would be a qualified, yes. I believe people are conservative by nature and their inclination is to ‘go along’ with things as long as they are not ‘too bad.’ The U.S. is merely an extension of Europe and if we look at European history, we can see repeated evidence of where the citizenry ‘accepted’ virtual slavery as an existence and were thankful for that. (Chapter and verse can be expressed about the role of the Church in THAT relationship and juxtaposing it with the current ‘popularity’ of Christianity in this country, but we’ll leave it for another time.)

Elsewhere I quoted Mill where he offers, and I support, the contention that ignorant people are conservative. It’s important here, of course, to point out the second, unsaid, position of Mill’s hypothesis and that is, ignorance does not equate to stupidity. I think in a political consideration, stupidity is unworthy of attention because I don’t think the stupid can be led to vote. (Boy, am I introducing fodder for further discussion all along the way.)

Ignorance is more a byproduct of laziness and or complacency. And if you wanted to find the embodiment of laziness, certainly complacency, you need look no farther than this country. No people have ever had it SO good with SO little accountability. (Yet another subject.) It would be remarkable if Americans did NOT become complacent. And when you consider the complexity of ‘managing’ a country the size, diversity and power of the U.S., it is a dizzying proposition and many can be excused if they resort to oversimplifications and/or stereotyping when it comes to addressing issues.

I have been a ‘student’ of this country for over fifty years and confess there are areas that are so Byzantine and mind-numbing, I am unable to lend them the attention they merit and require. This country’s, and now the world’s, economy for one and ‘parliamentary procedure’ for another. I am sympathetic to Congressmen who are tasked with reading, and understanding on each and every piece of proposed legislation. I daresay few, if any, are equal to the task.

Hard, then, to expect the teeming masses, myself included, to maintain our concomitant responsibility for understanding each and every issue the average session of congress, and election, presents. It would be remarkable if the general population were NOT ignorant/conservative.

But, that doesn’t grant them a get-out-of-jail free card. In their misbegotten trust, the general of the population looks to its ‘leaders’ for … leadership and defaults the decision making process to them. Rubber stamps, if you will. Well, if you accept the premise that power corrupts, as do I, then that rubber stamping merely reinforces an already predisposition towards an unguarded arrogance. More or less the circumstances prevalent in this country the past decade.

I am generally referred to as a liberal/progressive and I suppose I am. But I believe I am more in response to the prevailing sheep-like, bovine, actually, mentality demonstrated by the majority of the country. I am, by my own definition, part of an opposition party rather than part of a particular movement FOR anything. I believe I share more sympathy with the Independents, Greens and Libertarians than they recognize, because they, even though they don’t realize it, are in the same boat as I.

So yes, I contend, the Republican party IS the default party of the U.S. And for good reason. However, since nature abhors a vacuum, a small percentage of us struggle mightily to keep the scales of justice balanced.

Jeez, c’mon guys, give.

Lorenzo,

I disagree with Dennis on the percentage of authoritarian followers. Altemeyer puts this at about 30%. I’m thinking that this would acc.ount for the people in the country who still like Bush.

Kerry and Gore actually won by a small margin. I remain convinced of this unless someone can provide evidence to the contrary (fat chance).

Normally a good percentage of Democrats do not vote, or are disenfranc.hised. It is the fate of the poor and lower class working people (mostly Democrats) that they have to fight day-to-day to achieve the most basic Maslow’s needs. Often they feel so disenfranc.hised by society itself that they take a pessimistic view about voting. Republicans understand this and do their best to enhance this effect as it is common knowledge among political operatives that a good turnout benefits the Democrats.

Further, the Republican party has been so successful at se.lling fear, that many people who want to vote Democrat are made afraid to do so by the hyperbolic rhetoric. Often they don’t attempt to dig into their feelings or investigate the reliability of the source.

Also, since Reagan, the right has built up their pre-framed terminology (tax relief, death tax, free mar.ket, entitlements, etc..). If Democrats use the same terminology, their argument is handicapped from the start. This framing has become so successful that (amazingly) it appears to drive people to vote against their own interests. Thus Joe the Plumber rails against taxes he will never have to pay, and tax cuts that would benefit him). Democrats need to work to re-frame these arguments more to their liking.

Most people in America are apolitical. They don’t really want to spe.nd much of their time (like us nerds do) analyzing policy. They are easily led around by the nose using fear and greed, but 8 years of the Bush administration has caused many of them to re-evaluate. This can only be a good thing.

Thanks DD and TFH, great answers and topics for discussion. Let me just say I wouldn’t want my comment to be seen as any kind of criticism to the USA, nor do I see Europe as a “better” example of politics, God knows europeans have nothing to brag about. The questions of ignorance, fear and conservatism are alive and just as well, no matter which country you talk about. My comment was just a contribution from someone who “sees from afar”; and the thing is, in spite of the general issue of how europeans mistrust America these days (America, not americans), we still do feel fascinated by that same America. It’s just that sometimes it seems inconsistent; you all “love America”, but I’ve seen a candidate speaking of “redistributing the wealth” as if it was akin to satanic rituals. And I wonder why does everyone there love America but when it comes to americans it’s “every man for himself”? I am not blatantly defending Obama, it’s just that the campaign itself surprises me. But hey, it’ll all be over soon.

Lorenzo,

I sure didn’t see your remarks as disparaging and even so, it’s your right. ‘America’ and what she does impacts everyone, worldwide, some far more than others. I believe Europeans have a special interest to ensure that this country remain healthy and ’sane.’ Just as long as your remarks reflect some reflection.

You mention ‘distribute the wealth’ like it’s a bad thing. I’m guessing, then, that that’s a catch phrase like ‘tax and spend’ or ‘big government’ that has no real basis. Probably it’s lifted from Marx or Engle and ANYTHING those two have said has been propagandized by the Right to serve their needs.

Elsewhere TinFoilHat pointed out how the Rich have ‘redistributed’ the wealth over the past 50 years. That revelation seems to pass unnoticed. Why is that?

Right now, a slim minority of folks in this country, I daresay in all countries, control a majority of the wealth. And given that this condition is allowed to exist, one would have to conclude that it’s ‘okay’ with the general populace.

But I think you’ll agree that if 1% controlled 99% of the wealth, we’d have a major revolution on our hands. The question becomes, then, when does greed cross the ‘threshold,’ or more pointedly, when do the bovines realize their true role in society and rebel? History would seem to indicate that that moment, if it comes at all, is far too late to be done constructively.

Why SHOULD the rich have more? They certainly did not, some commentors positions notwithstanding, ‘earn’ it. A reading of the lives of Morgans, Rockefellers and Kennedys reveals that most came from deceit and treachery.

Okay, if redistribute the wealth is so bad, how about balance the books? I think that more accurately describes the situation.

Just as you watch us, some of us watch you. Unfortunately we often have to search hard to find out what’s going on, ‘over there.’ Most reports cited in this country focus on problems. I believe France, Germany and England all have national ‘characters’ but Spain and Italy seem to keep a lower profile, at least in the media. That’s probably good.

America has long been a melting pot, as commonly referenced in history books. Most references treat this as a positive phenomenon and for the most part, I agree. However, the initial infusion is not without pain and turmoil. So it is in Europe as more open States allow freer and freer migration of peoples. In the long run, the process will be beneficial, but in the short term, chaotic, at best.

If one is ill-prepared, it’s a bit of a shock to see a black Londoner speaking fondly of the ‘Queen Mum.’ I sincerely hope the Queen Mum speaks as fondly of her.