What elections are you going to be focused on tonight, and why?
About The Author
BooMan
Martin Longman a contributing editor at the Washington Monthly. He is also the founder of Booman Tribune and Progress Pond. He has a degree in philosophy from Western Michigan University.
What elections am I going to be focused on tonight?
None.
Why?
If the fix isn’t in then they are not important enough to mean anything and if it is in there is nothing I can do about it except try to get people to realize what is really going on here.
So…why?
AG
What happens after everyone realizes what’s really going on, and the fix is still in? Only the fixers care about elections?
What would happen would doubtless be totally revolutionary.
How would that manifest?
Damned if I know.
Hopefully, peacefully and in an election.
If not?
Any which way it can.
Bet on it.
AG
My bet is that inertia beats underpants gnomes every time.
“Inertia.”
The very definition of what has come to pass here in TechNew-Speak America. An “inertia” imposed by the media by its obsessively finer and finer focus on smaller and smaller groups of people. As the cable and web worlds grew, they split interest groups of people away from other interest groups ever more successfully. The result? Less and less mass within each group. It makes no difference if it’s a split…through the use of branding…among people interested in a certain subset of music, politics, sports or any other human activity. Once the branding is done what happens is that there remains no more “group” identity. Not a large enough group to get anything done, anyway. Thus the subsets lose what inertially-dictated motion they had. Remember, “inertia” is a two-way-street, it also keeps a body going unless stopped/slowed by outside forces. (The mass of said body is integrally involved in the whole equation. Stopping and starting.) Thus the previously interested people gradually subside into ineffective little subsets of people who don’t care one way or another about other groups and don’t have enough mass to be able to do anything even if they did give a damn.
Inertial politics.
How often have you heard this idea whined and whinnied?
Precisely what the controllers want people to think. Then they go into the non-partisan back room and decide how to make even more profit off off the inertia-stymied ones.
So it goes here.
See my latest post, Events In Ukraine-A Small Corrective to the U.S. Media’s Non-Coverage for another look at the same system in action. Disinfo on an extremely high level from U.S. and allied media leading to a passive “I give up!!!” reaction from the disunited people. Followed as sure as night follows day by the following:
Outta one “warzone,” into another.
And the inertial dance continues.
From Wikipedia:
OH yes!!!
Repetitive spinning.
By a master of the game.
The spin game.
Get ’em all settled down and then spin the fuck out of them.
How long ago was it that the U.S. was brandishing a “pivot” (There’s a nice spin-branding word for you, eh?.) towards Asia? Hmmmm…seems like only a couple of weeks ago, right? That’s because it was only a couple of weeks ago, brethren and sistren. And then suddenly another spin/pivot. What do you do when you get dizzy? Why you sit down until it goes away, of course. You stop moving until inertia calms down the spinning sensation. While you are sitting down, that’s when the controller action really happens.
Bet on it.
AG
Arthur, you’re one to talk about spin. Right after the Crimean takeover you were supportive of Rand Paul’s published complaints (in Time Magazine, no less) about Obama’s failure to defend Ukraine from Russia’s aggression. You wrote darkly about the need to anticipate and prevent Putin’s plan to gain territory and influence in Eastern Europe. You hauled out maps; it was quite the presentation you made.
So, we see: when our President fails to take action, he’s wrong. When he takes action, he’s wrong. Not much integrity from you here, AG.
In 1814?
Maybe.
In 2014?
A shrug and a flip of the channel – Real Housewives of Atlanta is on, after all.
I was answering the question:
That presupposes a sudden lack of interest in “Real Housewives of Atlanta” and the rest of the mindfuck programs that are now being used to lull the sheeple to sleep. That is the “what’s really going on” to which people might someday awaken.
Of course that awakening would only happen if they were made so uncomfortable…so broke, so hungry, so frightened, so whatever else one can think of…that the scales dropped from their eyes and they suddenly saw how used they have been.
Could happen.
It wouldn’t be pretty, I’ll guarantee that.
Not pretty at all.
So it would go, though.
So it would go.
Up in the whirlwind.
And then down to business.
Let us pray.
AG
CA Congressional District 33 (retiring Rep. Henry Waxman’s seat). I’m hoping for a Marianne Williamson vs. Matt Miller general election for the charismatic progressive vs non-Wall reasonable “centrist” debate(s). I’m open to both though I don’t love everything about either. Just hoping it’s not a Greuel vs Lieu race.
Based on the LA Weekly rundown of this race you may get your wish. Not likely, but possible. On paper (which is all I have to go on), Lieu seems slightly better than either Greuel or Miller although can’t say I’d be knocking on doors for him.
I’ve never been impressed with Lieu through his different incarnations in public service. I think he goes wherever the wind takes him without many core convictions. Could be in good directions or it could be in bad ones, but I don’t feel entirely comfortable with him in that seat for the long haul. That said, it could be worse.
I’m bummed that no one running seems equal to the work put in by Waxman over the years (not that he was perfect).
Basically, I’m hoping my low expectations are exceeded.
That was my impression from a cursory look at the candidates. Two Clintonistas vs. a questionable liberal. Lieu still looks better except for one factor — he probably sees this House seat as a stepping stone to higher office.
Lieu has been saturating the cable airwaves last month with ads. So in a low turnout w many offices to vote for, he looks to be in the top two.
Marianne Williamson, my choice, leads in fundraising but as an Indy she will have to have good grass roots GOTV organizing to compete.
Wendy Gruel is like Lieu a Dem Establishment candidate, and has fair name recognition.
Would be a shame if we got the mushy centrist Matt Miller finishing in the top two to fill a Waxman seat that should go to the best liberal.
Marianne would be a breath of fresh air in Congress and could get good pub for liberal causes.
If you don’t read atrios regularly, you might want do a search at his site re: Matt Miller. Things atrios has linked make him look pretty awful.
I haven’t read Atrios’ piece, but I’m sure his take on policy wouldn’t surprise me. The reason I’m somewhat ok with Miller, is that I actually think he’s a thoughtful, intelligent, well-meaning person (as far as I can tell from years of listening to him on the radio) and could/would be open to persuasion and coalitions that push him in a more liberal direction. And I don’t think he’s full-on DLC/Third Way.
I could be way wrong, however.
My hesitation(s) about Williamson have been 1) I don’t think she should have set out to primary Waxman (he hadn’t yet decided to retire) — I think that showed poor judgment, 2) I’d like someone in the spot who planned to stay for 20-30 years to build seniority and that’s doubtful in her case, and 3) I fear that her “guru” like background might not make her as adept at consensus/compromise.
In her favor: 1) I’m with her on almost every policy issue for which she’s described her positions, and 2) i think she’d take advantage of what little bully pulpit the seat has fairly well.
https://www.google.com/search?q=eschatonblog+matt+miller&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=
org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&channel=sb
A few quotes is some pretty thin research, but if he still thinks Bush didn’t willfully deceive the American public, that would be pretty damning.
That said, my own research has me most concerned with: 1) his views on Social Security suck (but not atrocious) and 2) his policy preferences for Israel are way out of line with what I feel is morally and politically correct.
I just think Wendy Greuel ran a dirty campaign for Mayor and Lieu has always rubbed me the wrong way.
Well, we’ll find out soon enough who gets a shot at the brass ring…
atrocious”
Can’t imagine what that actually means.
….pretty thin research…”
So, what the candidate hizownself said about his own positions is irrelevant. OK then, good to know!
But as I suspected, she didn’t finish strong enough, and so we’ll get Dem Ted Lieu vs the Gooper.
Illinois Passes Landmark Progressive Voting Reform
By Scott Keyeson June 2, 2014 at 10:52 am
The fifth largest state in the nation passed one of the most impactful progressive voting reforms last week, a move that will likely result in hundreds of thousands of new voters.
On Friday, both Illinois legislative chambers approved HB 105, a bill that allows state residents to register to vote on Election Day. The Land of Lincoln had previously cut off voter registration three days before Election Day.
The bill passed by wide margins; 39-17 in the Senate and 64-41 in the House. It now goes to Gov. Pat Quinn’s (D) desk, who is expected to sign the legislation.
Election Day registration is, in many ways, the anti-voter ID. Voter ID laws, which have been en vogue among conservatives recently, could disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of voters (though different studies have reached different conclusions regarding how many voters will be disenfranchised by voter ID, even conservative estimates suggest that 2 to 3 percent of registered voters will be impacted). Election Day registration, on the other hand, tends to boost turnout between 7 to 14 percentage points, according to scientific studies. These gains come predominantly from the very groups that voter ID tends to discriminate against: minorities, young voters, and low-income Americans.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/06/02/3443622/illinois-election-day-registration/
that’s awesome, I didn’t hear anything about that
Less than excited about lazy assholes who decide to register at the last minute, usually because they saw a cool commercial.
The more people vote, the more progressive politicians and policies win. This has been almost unfailingly the result in the U.S.
Why do you think the moneyed class and their servants are so desperate to (selectively) take away voting rights?
here in California the biggest question is whether turnout will set a record low. The only race I care about is my congressman, Mike Honda (CA-17), but because of the fucked up top 2 rule the primary won’t decide anything and odds are he’ll be facing DINO Ro Khanna again in November.
The new “top 2” June election for California Constitutional/Congressional/Legislative elections is pairing with the toxic Republican Party brand here to create some interesting/troubling trends. The troubling trend is that the moneyed right wingers are picking Districts like CD 17, where there’s no chance in hell that a Republican can win, and piling their money behind a Democrat in name only. In some cases, prominent R’s have changed their Party registration to D’s right before their big run. They haven’t changed any of their nasty policy positions, just their party label. Then, with hundreds of millions of oligarch/corporate/developer/tech $, they proceed to try to bamboozle the voters. If they’re successful, even if we keep the Dem Caucus Legislative supermajorities necessary to pass a Decent State budget, it’ll be less useful because a few of the D’s will really be R’s.
It doesn’t appear that we’ll have a problem keeping decent politicians in the Statewide offices, although Michelle Rhee’s horrible group is trying to take out the Superintendent of Education so they can privatize California’s public schools. But a number of fairly liberal Legislative and Congressional seats are at risk of going corporate Dem.
Iowa – I’m fascinated by the idea that a castrating female who wouldn’t mind shooting you in the face could be a welcome addition to our national legislature.
What kind of state would think such a thing?
None. I will read the results in the morning.
. . . for reasons previously detailed (at some length!) here.
Oh, well. The better outcome never seemed especially likely.