Election 2018

[Eric the Green]

(11-12-2018, 06:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: From 2007 and earlier to 2011, the IS was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

But it was very weak back then. It only regained real influence after the civil war started in Syria. Some troops left on Syria-Iraq border could easily prevent that.

No, they were powerful enough to largely single-handedly carry out terror attacks that fomented and stoked the civil war in Iraq that the US caused with its invasion. What happened in 2014, 2+ years after the civil war in Syria started, and 3 years after the movement against Assad started, is that this group, now known as the Islamic State, grabbed territory in Syria as well as Iraq because of the chaos and the resulting inability of Assad to rule over the eastern parts of his country.

[Eric the Green]

It took me a while using the real clear politics site, and WaPo is no longer available to me, but I found out where the House Democratic and Republican pick-ups were so far.

Blue states, 18 pick-ups and 4 leading, minus 2 GOP pick-ups
Purple states, 12 pick-ups, minus 1 GOP pick-up
Red states, 6 pick-ups and 1 leading (Mia Love in Utah is trailing by .6, but Trump has already denounced her saying she had no love for him)

36 pick-ups, minus 3 GOP pick-ups = 33, plus Democrats leading now for 4 pickups = 37. Democrats should have 232 seats, Republicans 203 unless leads change hands. Brower pointed out that Maine's runoff, in a district in which a Republican is leading, might turn the seat Democratic, so that would be 233-202, and a pick-up of 38.

I designated Purple states as AZ CO MI PA, as well as the usual

Blue states MN, NM, VA, as well as the usual


Blue state Dem pick ups:
CA 4 + 1 leading
IL 2
MN 2 minus 2 GOP pick ups
NJ 3 + 1 leading
NM 1
NY 2 + 1 leading
VA 3
WA 1

Purple state Dem pick ups:
AZ 1
CO 1
FL 2
IA 2
MI 2
PA 4 minus 1 GOP pick up

Red state Dem pick ups:
GA 1
KS 1
OK 1
SC 1
TX 2
UT 1 leading

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-12-2018, 08:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 06:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: From 2007 and earlier to 2011, the IS was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

But it was very weak back then. It only regained real influence after the civil war started in Syria. Some troops left on Syria-Iraq border could easily prevent that.

No, they were powerful enough to largely single-handedly carry out terror attacks that fomented and stoked the civil war in Iraq that the US caused with its invasion. What happened in 2014, 2+ years after the civil war in Syria started, and 3 years after the movement against Assad started, is that this group, now known as the Islamic State, grabbed territory in Syria as well as Iraq because of the chaos and the resulting inability of Assad to rule over the eastern parts of his country.

And further back, Syria was one of the arbitrary colonial states that the major European powers gerrymandered to include as many as possible players within the boundary.  Short term, harder to rebel against.  Today, a lack of stability as various factions try to revert to their old allegiance.  

Currently, Russia is supporting a continued existence for the colonial state, while the various local stake holders try to latch on to their original allegiance with minimal hope of ruling all of Syria.  Those who are trying for modern western values have mostly left, and the West mostly cares about stopping attacks on the West.  Their concerns are not local concerns, and thus there is little loyalty.

[Eric the Green]

(11-13-2018, 10:03 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 08:42 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 06:04 AM)Bill the Piper Wrote:

(11-12-2018, 01:51 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: From 2007 and earlier to 2011, the IS was known as Al Qaeda in Iraq.

But it was very weak back then. It only regained real influence after the civil war started in Syria. Some troops left on Syria-Iraq border could easily prevent that.

No, they were powerful enough to largely single-handedly carry out terror attacks that fomented and stoked the civil war in Iraq that the US caused with its invasion. What happened in 2014, 2+ years after the civil war in Syria started, and 3 years after the movement against Assad started, is that this group, now known as the Islamic State, grabbed territory in Syria as well as Iraq because of the chaos and the resulting inability of Assad to rule over the eastern parts of his country.

And further back, Syria was one of the arbitrary colonial states that the major European powers gerrymandered to include as many as possible players within the boundary.  Short term, harder to rebel against.  Today, a lack of stability as various factions try to revert to their old allegiance.  

Currently, Russia is supporting a continued existence for the colonial state, while the various local stake holders try to latch on to their original allegiance with minimal hope of ruling all of Syria.  Those who are trying for modern western values have mostly left, and the West mostly cares about stopping attacks on the West.  Their concerns are not local concerns, and thus there is little loyalty.

Right, except that remember those who were trying for modern western values (at least to a large extent, though still Sunni Islamic) were the great majority in Syria, about 3/4 of the country iirc. Those represented by Assad were a smaller Shia minority. Any other groups were a very small minority; those were the main two.

[GeekyCynic]

I was studying the generational breakdown of the new Congress and while some elections are still undecided at this point, it appears Millennials may just barely now have more House members than the Silent while Boomers still hold a small but shrinking edge over Xers. It is very likely after 2020 that Xers will finally have a plurality in the House (60 years after their first birth year). In the Senate, depending on how the Florida race goes, the Silent will have 10/11 members, Boomers 59/60, and Xers 30. Do you think Millennials will rise to power as slowly as Xers have?

[Eric the Green]

(11-15-2018, 01:52 PM)GeekyCynic Wrote: I was studying the generational breakdown of the new Congress and while some elections are still undecided at this point, it appears Millennials may just barely now have more House members than the Silent while Boomers still hold a small but shrinking edge over Xers. It is very likely after 2020 that Xers will finally have a plurality in the House (60 years after their first birth year). In the Senate, depending on how the Florida race goes, the Silent will have 10/11 members, Boomers 59/60, and Xers 30. Do you think Millennials will rise to power as slowly as Xers have?

Does it really matter which generation is in power? Why?

[pbrower2a]

(11-15-2018, 01:52 PM)GeekyCynic Wrote: I was studying the generational breakdown of the new Congress and while some elections are still undecided at this point, it appears Millennials may just barely now have more House members than the Silent while Boomers still hold a small but shrinking edge over Xers. It is very likely after 2020 that Xers will finally have a plurality in the House (60 years after their first birth year). In the Senate, depending on how the Florida race goes, the Silent will have 10/11 members, Boomers 59/60, and Xers 30. Do you think Millennials will rise to power as slowly as Xers have?

The GI and Silent generations have had the longest lifespans in American history, which is reflected in the extreme ages at which both have lasted or can reasonably be expected to last in public life. Think of Robert Byrd, Strom Thurmond, Frank Lautenberg, and Daniel Inouye in the Senate. The last member of the GI Generation in the House was around to age 92, losing a primary challenge in 2016.

GI adults found a trick to longevity: remaining physically and mentally active as long as possible. The Silent have done much the same. As Boomers fully enter old age (and they are now largely a generation of old people by any earlier standard, people born in 1953 passing age 65 this year) they will do the same. Possibly the lightest smokers ever as a generation since the Gilded and perhaps before the Millennial Generation, Boomers will be in high public office for a very long time. X? Ask me in about 20 years if I am still around. I turn 63 next month, so don't count on my ability to judge or discuss that. If Generation X continues that trend, then the GI pattern of behavior of the elderly will be clearly an indelible part of American culture, and political careers will tend to start late or develop more slowly.Slower development might mean that people develop more local ties and concerns, and later careers mean that people would develop more ties to economic interests to which they are vocationally attached. That may not be all to the good.

The youngest member of the Senate will be Generation X this time. No Millennial has yet reached the Senate, but I would not be surprised about one or two reaching the Upper Chamber of Congress in 2022, 2024 at the latest.  Old people competent at holding high office and willing and constitutionally  allowed to do so will do so. That will slow promising young politicians who get to learn the ropes of politics a bit longer in city councils and state legislatures before achieving prominence.

Don't forget that Silent Nancy Pelosi supplants Paul Ryan as Speaker of the House -- constitutionally third in line for the Presidency and among the most powerful five persons in American politics in normal times. When the President is politically crippled (and Trump could be due to his scandals), she is among the top three, and one cannot always predict which of the top three.

...The Millennial generation has been slow to reach high office (now, I assume, exclusively the House of Representatives) not so much out of apathy as because the elder politicians have been slow to lose power. Eighty-something pols have typically been rare in high public office, but not now -- and they block the thirty-something pols.

[Eric the Green]

(11-13-2018, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It took me a while using the real clear politics site, and WaPo is no longer available to me, but I found out where the House Democratic and Republican pick-ups were so far.

Blue states, 21 pick-ups and 2 leading, minus 2 GOP pick-ups
Purple states, 12 pick-ups, minus 1 GOP pick-up
Red states, 6 pick-ups and 1 leading (Mia Love in Utah is trailing by .4, but Trump has already denounced her saying she had no love for him)

39 pick-ups, minus 3 GOP pick-ups = 36, plus Democrats leading now for 2 pickups = 38. Democrats should have 233 seats, Republicans 202 unless leads change hands.

I designated Purple states as AZ CO MI PA, as well as the usual

Blue states MN, NM, VA, as well as the usual


Blue state Dem pick ups:
CA 5 + 1 leading
IL 2
ME 1
MN 2 minus 2 GOP pick ups
NJ 4
NM 1
NY 2 + 1 leading
VA 3
WA 1

Purple state Dem pick ups:
AZ 1
CO 1
FL 2
IA 2
MI 2
PA 4 minus 1 GOP pick up

Red state Dem pick ups:
GA 1
KS 1
OK 1
SC 1
TX 2
UT 1 ? Rep. leading

This quote is edited from my last post. California votes still coming in. Lots of late mail ballots dropped off at polling places on election day, plus conditional and provisional voters. It's like 2016, when more and more votes came in that raised Hillary's lead for days after the election. Another seat was called for Democrats today, CA 45- Katie Porter (Elizabeth Warren protege), and a lead changed from Rep to Dem in another, CA 39. That lead is increasing, and the contest will be called soon, if it hasn't been already. NJ 3 was called for a progressive Democrat today (Kim). Other states with uncalled races are holding steady, probably pending recounts. That includes Democratic leads in New York 22 and Utah 4. Small Republican leads remain in GA 7, and TX 23.

The Dem lead in NY has increased, but ballots are still being counter in Utah 4 and now Republican Mia Love is leading.

I see what happened in Maine now; they had ranked choice voting! Democrat won it.

From Daily Kos:

As promised, and allowed by the courts, Maine's secretary of state tabulated ranked-choice ballots in Maine today, and there is a clear winner: Democratic challenger Jared Golden.

The assistant Maine House Majority Leader just got a big promotion by the state's voters, defeating Republican Rep. Bruce Poliquin in Maine's 2nd district. Golden got just over the 50 percent threshold, at 50.53 percent of votes to Poliquin's 49.47 percent. And this is nice:

The result would be a historic one: As it stands, Golden, a 36-year-old Democrat from Lewiston, is the first person to defeat an incumbent in the largely rural 2nd District's modern-era configuration as it stands after it went hard in 2016 for President Donald Trump, a Republican.
That should really make Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME), up in 2020, sweat.

Golden won by 2,905 votes in the end. He's the 26th Democrat to defeat a Republican incumbent. Now there are just seven House races still undetermined.

[Eric the Green]

This article does seem to confirm Bob's perception of the information age in conflict with the industrial age, much as two saecula ago the conflict was between the industrial age and the agricultural age-- and involving many of the same states on the progressive and regressive side. Today the red industrial age side is blocking the progress brought by the blue information age side, whereas before the previous civil war the gray agricultural age side was blocking the progress brought by the blue industrial age side.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenu...ovr6VXM5WU

Excerpts from the article:

The sharp political divide that surfaced in 2016 between the densest, most productive and future-oriented portions of the economy and the rest of it—between what Jim Tankersley of the New York Times has called “high-output” and “low-output” America—remains a revealing, disconcerting fact of modern economic and political life.



As of the midterms, there are now two divides. One divide will continue to play out in the next two years in the House; with a Democratic majority that factually represents 60 percent of the economy, with its most productive districts and industries containing high shares of workers with college degrees. In this chamber a modest urban and suburban majority should be able to prevail in narrow votes articulating key agenda points relevant to high-output America.

However, the other divide—the one in the Senate now exacerbated by the Republicans’ net gain of between one and three seats—looms much more consequentially. With new GOP gains in the chamber, 21, mostly rural, low-output—ranging from Arkansas to Wyoming—now host two Republican senators and are poised to serve as an even more reactionary veto on the projects and priorities of the high-output America. These 21 states will easily be able to outvote the 19 states with two Democratic senators, even though the Republican 21-state caucus represents just 30.3 percent of the nation’s output....



The midterms have in fact ratcheted up an economic, as well as social, stalemate in the nation. Even more now, a rurally oriented Senate majority representing “traditional” agricultural, energy, and production economies stands ready to block efforts to address the needs of an urban and suburban “knowledge” economy. That latter economy is more oriented to future-learning digital services, and thus depends on solutions to major issues like R&D funding, worker reskilling for a digital age, immigration, health care, income inequality, and international cooperation. In that sense, what journalist Ron Brownstein calls the “prosperity paradox” remains as true as ever. Even as economic growth is concentrating in thriving urban and suburban communities, Republicans rooted in non-urban places remote from those future-leaning ecosystems continue to wield disproportionate power in Washington.

That’s a problem, as Brownstein wrote last week: The two parties even more this fall represent “what America has been and what it is becoming”—and they are at a standoff. Going forward, the question is whether a nation that fails to support the needs of its core, high-value economy can truly thrive.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-17-2018, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This article does seem to confirm Bob's perception of the information age in conflict with the industrial age, much as two saecula ago the conflict was between the industrial age and the agricultural age-- and involving many of the same states on the progressive and regressive side. Today the red industrial age side is blocking the progress brought by the blue information age side, whereas before the previous civil war the gray agricultural age side was blocking the progress brought by the blue industrial age side.

I am also seeing the S&H Turnings very heavily in play. Unravellings are supposed to be a time of selfishness and greed. A crisis period is most for unity, taking action, and transforming values. The former manifested as Reaganomics, small government, limited spending, providing minimal services. The latter has not yet manifested, but the blues have tried to advocate it.

Make America great again? Just like the 40s through 80s? The time of tax and spend liberalism? Can one be great while caring only for one's self?

[pbrower2a]

(11-18-2018, 02:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-17-2018, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This article does seem to confirm Bob's perception of the information age in conflict with the industrial age, much as two saecula ago the conflict was between the industrial age and the agricultural age-- and involving many of the same states on the progressive and regressive side. Today the red industrial age side is blocking the progress brought by the blue information age side, whereas before the previous civil war the gray agricultural age side was blocking the progress brought by the blue industrial age side.

I am also seeing the S&H Turnings very heavily in play.  Unravellings are supposed to be a time of selfishness and greed.  A crisis period is most for unity, taking action, and transforming values.  The former manifested as Reaganomics, small government, limited spending, providing minimal services.  The latter has not yet manifested, but the blues have tried to advocate it.  

Make America great again?  Just like the 40s through 80s?  The time of tax and spend liberalism?  Can one be great while caring only for one's self?

Technological and artistic achievements will color any age in the cycle. Such an introduced technology as the automobile, phonograph,  television, or the Pill will shape how the Crisis expresses itself. The higher speeds and (by necessity) paved roads allowed people to go farther and faster than in "the surrey with the fringe on the top" and allow to do more hanky-panky in privacy. (The automobile had not made its way to Oklahoma in 1907, but it would soon). Recorded music offered the music being listened to live elsewhere or recently, perhaps disseminating the popular music of the time into places where it might not otherwise be heard. Okay, the recording art around 1940 was better suited for some musical instruments than others -- brasses instead of strings, which ensured that Big Band music would not be played by string orchestras. Television offered much the same material that people saw in a movie theater (cartoons, newsreels, and travelogues), on stage (most of the early TV stars had done vaudeville before the movies did vaudeville in), or perhaps even in church (sermons). Any generation would have found some use for the Pill.

But technologies and cultural achievements do not themselves force the movement of the saecular cycle. They allow reflections. Had television existed in the 1930s as something other than a laboratory curiosity, then  Americans would have gotten news, cartoons, serials, and advertising before they got something cheaply produced or available cheaply -- like a feature film from two years earlier. There might be one network, probably analogous to the Armed Forces Television, and people would get what the government wanted them to get. Much would be didactic (drive safely, how to get more farm output and protect against erosion, advice on cooking, canning, and cleaning... nothing to shake things up).

The conflict is not of technology between the Industrial Age and the Information Age. Both use the same technologies. What differs is content that differs due to differences in core beliefs. The now-reactionary elites associated with the Industrial Era have no desire to suppress the technology of information; it wants to control that information to enforce its ways.

[Bob Butler 54]

(11-18-2018, 10:41 PM)pbrower2a Wrote: Technological and artistic achievements will color any age in the cycle. Such an introduced technology as the automobile, phonograph,  television, or the Pill will shape how the Crisis expresses itself. The higher speeds and (by necessity) paved roads allowed people to go farther and faster than in "the surrey with the fringe on the top" and allow to do more hanky-panky in privacy. (The automobile had not made its way to Oklahoma in 1907, but it would soon). Recorded music offered the music being listened to live elsewhere or recently, perhaps disseminating the popular music of the time into places where it might not otherwise be heard. Okay, the recording art around 1940 was better suited for some musical instruments than others -- brasses instead of strings, which ensured that Big Band music would not be played by string orchestras. Television offered much the same material that people saw in a movie theater (cartoons, newsreels, and travelogues), on stage (most of the early TV stars had done vaudeville before the movies did vaudeville in), or perhaps even in church (sermons). Any generation would have found some use for the Pill.

But technologies and cultural achievements do not themselves force the movement of the saecular cycle. They allow reflections. Had television existed in the 1930s as something other than a laboratory curiosity, then  Americans would have gotten news, cartoons, serials, and advertising before they got something cheaply produced or available cheaply -- like a feature film from two years earlier. There might be one network, probably analogous to the Armed Forces Television, and people would get what the government wanted them to get. Much would be didactic (drive safely, how to get more farm output and protect against erosion, advice on cooking, canning, and cleaning... nothing to shake things up).  

The conflict is not of technology between the Industrial Age and the Information Age. Both use the same technologies. What differs is content that differs due to differences in core beliefs. The now-reactionary elites associated with the Industrial Era have no desire to suppress the technology of information; it wants to control that information to enforce its ways.

It is hard associating productivity with one particular age boundary.  You can go back to the tractor and it's lightening of farm labor required and the associated migration to the cities and factories of the Gilded Age.  The productivity question has been with us for a long while.  It is just that we have to keep adjusting working hours to how much work to be done.  The New Deal got it pretty much right in its time, but the numbers have not changed since.  The technology has.

I do see changing technology as driving the cycles.  If nothing else, new elites have new wealth and a need to weaken the old elites to optimize their own profits.  The civilizations that win are aligned with the people who have the wealth.  The new elites make promises to the People in exchange for power.  The new structure has political power adapting to the source of wealth.

Once upon a time, the Robber Barons were a progressive force, removing political power from the hereditary landowners, the nobility, freeing slaves, giving power to the legislative branches, away from the kings.  With the submergence of the nobility around the US Civil War and the world wars, they became the dominant and conservative force.  They have long since reached the point where they have rigged the system to favor them, where they own the imbalance of wealth.  

Democracy favors the workers, however.  It is a matter of the workers waking up.  We are going to need every dollar to create a sustainable future.  We will no longer be able to afford absurd wealth vanishing to the hands of a few.

[pbrower2a]

(11-18-2018, 11:58 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: It is hard associating productivity with one particular age boundary.  You can go back to the tractor and it's lightening of farm labor required and the associated migration to the cities and factories of the Gilded Age.  The productivity question has been with us for a long while.  It is just that we have to keep adjusting working hours to how much work to be done.  The New Deal got it pretty much right in its time, but the numbers have not changed since.  The technology has.

Technology as enhancements of productivity can force change in economic relationships. The tractor? The Big One was the mechanical reaper that could replace the toil of several men. That was still horse-drawn. Farmers before a certain time typically had large families just to do the farm work. After McCormick's reaper they could do farming without so many of their own kids. Children got consigned to farm labor later, so they got more schooling, that itself contributing to greater productivity. More young men found their way into industrial labor.

More productivity means more stuff -- and it also means that what stuff is produced becomes less precious. So does the labor that produces such stuff. Treat Marx as an anathema if you wish, but a capitalist order keeps requiring new technologies to prevent the rot that comes from stasis. Capitalism always seems to need one more miracle to defeat the inevitable reduction of the rate of return on capital. 

Quote:I do see changing technology as driving the cycles.  If nothing else, new elites have new wealth and a need to weaken the old elites to optimize their own profits.  The civilizations that win are aligned with the people who have the wealth.  The new elites make promises to the People in exchange for power.  The new structure has political power adapting to the source of wealth.

That is where democracy comes in. Capitalism without democracy implies the further debasement of workers. Government accountable to the People serves as a check, if imperfect, upon the cruelty and greed of economic elites. Where capitalism exists without democracy, elites take everything possible for themselves, and life gets miserable, verging on the desperate and precarious even in good times. Shake the political system with a crop failure or with military catastrophes, and a proletarian revolution is possible. If the elites decide to repress the revolution they turn to fascism that only intensifies the inequality and suffering... and probably makes a military disaster more likely. 

Although the American economic elite (consisting of capitalists, heirs, executives, executives, political operatives, and successful mobsters) are not uniformly cruel, corrupt, and rapacious, seeing the role of all other people solely as people whose destiny it is to make people already filthy rich even more filthy rich, enough are that something must rein them in.

I am not convinced that people are better because they are in a 'new' form of wealth-creation than in an 'old' one.  

Quote:Once upon a time, the Robber Barons were a progressive force, removing political power from the hereditary landowners, the nobility, freeing slaves, giving power to the legislative branches, away from the kings.  With the submergence of the nobility around the US Civil War and the world wars, they became the dominant and conservative force.  They have long since reached the point where they have rigged the system to favor them, where they own the imbalance of wealth.  

Those who have class privilege rarely recognize its injustice.

Quote:Democracy favors the workers, however.  It is a matter of the workers waking up.  We are going to need every dollar to create a sustainable future.  We will no longer be able to afford absurd wealth vanishing to the hands of a few.

...especially when the elites demand wealth and power with neither responsibility nor accountability.

[David Horn]

(11-18-2018, 02:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-17-2018, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This article does seem to confirm Bob's perception of the information age in conflict with the industrial age, much as two saecula ago the conflict was between the industrial age and the agricultural age-- and involving many of the same states on the progressive and regressive side. Today the red industrial age side is blocking the progress brought by the blue information age side, whereas before the previous civil war the gray agricultural age side was blocking the progress brought by the blue industrial age side.

I am also seeing the S&H Turnings very heavily in play.  Unravellings are supposed to be a time of selfishness and greed.  A crisis period is most for unity, taking action, and transforming values.  The former manifested as Reaganomics, small government, limited spending, providing minimal services.  The latter has not yet manifested, but the blues have tried to advocate it.  

Make America great again?  Just like the 40s through 80s?  The time of tax and spend liberalism?  Can one be great while caring only for one's self?

This is the crux of the problem.  The GOP, least supportive of expansive services and higher pay, is now the preferred party of the very people most hurt by the current economy.  If that continues, a stalemated 4T has to result.  So either Trump is a Svengali, and able to sell his supporters on slow-motion suicide, or the spell breaks and a huge backlash occurs.  For the second option to emerge, the economy has decay or crash.  The stock market seems to be getting wobbly, but the stock market isn't the economy.  What do Trump supporters see in the economy that make them happy?  Jobs are crappy.  Pay isn't improving.  So, what's up?

[Eric the Green]

(11-18-2018, 02:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-17-2018, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This article does seem to confirm Bob's perception of the information age in conflict with the industrial age, much as two saecula ago the conflict was between the industrial age and the agricultural age-- and involving many of the same states on the progressive and regressive side. Today the red industrial age side is blocking the progress brought by the blue information age side, whereas before the previous civil war the gray agricultural age side was blocking the progress brought by the blue industrial age side.

I am also seeing the S&H Turnings very heavily in play.  Unravellings are supposed to be a time of selfishness and greed.  A crisis period is most for unity, taking action, and transforming values.  The former manifested as Reaganomics, small government, limited spending, providing minimal services.  The latter has not yet manifested, but the blues have tried to advocate it.  

Make America great again?  Just like the 40s through 80s?  The time of tax and spend liberalism?  Can one be great while caring only for one's self?

Again you say 4Ts are time of unity, in spite of watching the video of what FDR said about those who hated him. You watched it, I take it? The Nazis would not have existed without our own financial meltdown in the USA, and our own merciless defeat of the Germans in WWI and its flawed peace treaty. A civil war is not unity; nor were the colonists united in opposition to King George. There is not unity in a 4T; just a congealing of opposing sides. Values are mostly transformed in 2Ts; that's the time I remember in which people changing their values was an everyday occurrence. Today? People are digging in; no transformation. so it was in the past. Today's 4T is the "Reaganomics, small government, limited spending, providing minimal services" side which re-gathered its strength (but existed in the previous 3T also) during the Second Turning in the mid-60s, in opposite to the other older social-oriented "tax and spend liberalism" combined with the newer green-peace values, the latter of which originated in the recent 2T and the former in the former one. Both sides are manifesting; they are battling it out.

[Eric the Green]

(11-19-2018, 03:55 PM)David Horn Wrote:

(11-18-2018, 02:49 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote:

(11-17-2018, 06:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: This article does seem to confirm Bob's perception of the information age in conflict with the industrial age, much as two saecula ago the conflict was between the industrial age and the agricultural age-- and involving many of the same states on the progressive and regressive side. Today the red industrial age side is blocking the progress brought by the blue information age side, whereas before the previous civil war the gray agricultural age side was blocking the progress brought by the blue industrial age side.

I am also seeing the S&H Turnings very heavily in play.  Unravellings are supposed to be a time of selfishness and greed.  A crisis period is most for unity, taking action, and transforming values.  The former manifested as Reaganomics, small government, limited spending, providing minimal services.  The latter has not yet manifested, but the blues have tried to advocate it.  

Make America great again?  Just like the 40s through 80s?  The time of tax and spend liberalism?  Can one be great while caring only for one's self?

This is the crux of the problem.  The GOP, least supportive of expansive services and higher pay, is now the preferred party of the very people most hurt by the current economy.  If that continues, a stalemated 4T has to result.  So either Trump is a Svengali, and able to sell his supporters on slow-motion suicide, or the spell breaks and a huge backlash occurs.  For the second option to emerge, the economy has decay or crash.  The stock market seems to be getting wobbly, but the stock market isn't the economy.  What do Trump supporters see in the economy that make them happy?  Jobs are crappy.  Pay isn't improving.  So, what's up?

Successful deception, and appeals to traditional values irrelevant to their personal interests, is what's up. It's been going on for decades, but Trump was the great demagogue who got them to follow him. The Democrats need to put forward a more inspiring candidate who can counter-act the Demagogue. McAuliffe and Landrieu are the best 2 choices, with Sherrod Brown as a possibility, and Sanders and Biden as current old favorites who might succeed but I wouldn't bet on them to. If the Democrats nominate a loser like Hillary Clinton, Harris, Booker, Gillibrand or even Elizabeth Warren, then the decision is postponed further, and Trump is left in office to self-destruct. If Trump self-destructs before 2020, then Pence can be more easily beaten, as he is not a talented demagogue who can deceive and get as many of the economically-disaffected traditionalists behind him.

[Eric the Green]

(11-16-2018, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2018, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It took me a while using the real clear politics site, and WaPo is no longer available to me, but I found out where the House Democratic and Republican pick-ups were so far.

Blue states, 22 pick-ups and 1 leading, minus 2 GOP pick-ups
Purple states, 12 pick-ups, minus 1 GOP pick-up
Red states, 6 pick-ups, Utah 4 undecided with Republican incumbent leading

40 pick-ups, minus 3 GOP pick-ups = 37, plus Democrats leading now for 1 pickups = 38. Democrats should have 233 seats, Republicans 202 unless leads change hands.

I designated Purple states as AZ CO MI PA, as well as the usual

Blue states MN, NM, VA, as well as the usual


Blue state Dem pick ups:
CA 6
IL 2
ME 1
MN 2 minus 2 GOP pick ups
NJ 4
NM 1
NY 2 + 1 leading
VA 3
WA 1

Purple state Dem pick ups:
AZ 1
CO 1
FL 2
IA 2
MI 2
PA 4 minus 1 GOP pick up

Red state Dem pick ups:
GA 1
KS 1
OK 1
SC 1
TX 2
UT 1 ? Rep. leading

This quote is edited from my last posts. 

Nelson has conceded to Scott for the Florida senate seat. A runoff in MS is scheduled soon, but it's likely Republican. So that's 53-47.

California vote tabulation is done and the final count is +6 Democratic. Mia Love is ahead in Utah by just over 400 votes, with still only 96+% reporting precincts. The New York 22 race is still not called but the Democrat is ahead by 1886. The Texas 23 race is called for the Republican incumbent. GA 7 is still stuck at +900 votes Republican.

[Marypoza]

(11-19-2018, 05:52 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-16-2018, 12:38 AM)Eric the Green Wrote:

(11-13-2018, 07:02 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: It took me a while using the real clear politics site, and WaPo is no longer available to me, but I found out where the House Democratic and Republican pick-ups were so far.

Blue states, 22 pick-ups and 1 leading, minus 2 GOP pick-ups
Purple states, 12 pick-ups, minus 1 GOP pick-up
Red states, 6 pick-ups, Utah 4 undecided with Republican incumbent leading

40 pick-ups, minus 3 GOP pick-ups = 37, plus Democrats leading now for 1 pickups = 38. Democrats should have 233 seats, Republicans 202 unless leads change hands.

I designated Purple states as AZ CO MI PA, as well as the usual

Blue states MN, NM, VA, as well as the usual


Blue state Dem pick ups:
CA 6
IL 2
ME 1
MN 2 minus 2 GOP pick ups
NJ 4
NM 1
NY 2 + 1 leading
VA 3
WA 1

Purple state Dem pick ups:
AZ 1
CO 1
FL 2
IA 2
MI 2
PA 4 minus 1 GOP pick up

Red state Dem pick ups:
GA 1
KS 1
OK 1
SC 1
TX 2
UT 1 ? Rep. leading

This quote is edited from my last posts. 

Nelson has conceded to Scott for the Florida senate seat. A runoff in MS is scheduled soon, but it's likely Republican. So that's 53-47.

California vote tabulation is done and the final count is +6 Democratic. Mia Love is ahead in Utah by just over 400 votes, with still only 96+% reporting precincts. The New York 22 race is still not called but the Democrat is ahead by 1886. The Texas 23 race is called for the Republican incumbent. GA 7 is still stuck at +900 votes Republican.

-- & this was after they counted those ballots Snipes & DWS hid? They did count those ballots, right?

[Eric the Green]

(11-20-2018, 12:47 AM)Marypoza Wrote: -- & this was after they counted those ballots Snipes & DWS hid? They did count those ballots, right?

I'm not good at acronymns and nick names. I don't know what "Snipes & DWS refers to"

But what I do know, is that they did a machine recount and then a hand recount in the senate race, and apparently did it right this time. It's just the voters that got it wrong. I was surprised and disappointed in Florida. And I thought there were enough Parkland-type kids and Puerto Ricans there to get the state to go blue. It's hard to get a southern state on the right track. Virginia has DC Metro, but the rest of it is pretty sorry territory.

[pbrower2a]

DWS -- (Representative) Debbie Wasserman Schultz.